Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20130220 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2013 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Sallie Golden Patrick Sagal and Jane Hills. Nora Berko and Jamie McLeod were absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 701 N. Third Street— Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variance— Public Hearing Debbie reviewed the public notice and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Amy said the property is landmarked and in the West End and is 5,000 square feet. There is an existing historic house on the lot that has had some alterations in the past. The proposal is to add on a little less than an 800 square foot addition for a second floor master bedroom toward the back of the house and that would take the property to the maximum floor area that is allowed for the site. There is also a requested setback variance. In the 1980's a wrap around porch was added and then infilled and windows were added. There were a lot of changes and some of the original character of the house has diminished. Skylights were also added. None of the alterations are proposed to be affected. This is a proposal to add a second floor on top of the existing construction. Staff is concerned about the space between the proposed second floor addition and the back of the historic house is planned to become a roof top deck. Normally this would be the area that HPC would like to see a connector or a separation or break between the new and old construction. Our recommendation is to restudy the deck area as it comes very close to the back of the historic resource. Staff recommends that the deck is minimized so that it doesn't come any closer than ten feet to the historic resource. The proposed addition sits into a setback requirement on the north property line and it is a ten foot requirement and they are proposing 4.2 feet. The applicant is requesting a 5.8 reduction in the rear yard for the master bedroom. Staff feels this should be restudied due to objections from neighbors and impacts to adjoining properties. You can only grant the variance because you feel it does something to benefit the historic resource, the neighborhood and achieve better preservation. This is a hard argument to make in this particular circumstance. Staff is recommending a restudy of the second floor addition. At final review level 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2013 there are a few things such as windows that could be discussed in order to improve the historic structure. Alan Richman, Planning Services Steve Whipple, owner Steve said we have tried to keep the integrity of what is there and not disturb it. This is a corner lot of Pearl Court and Third Street. Alan Richman said this is a curious situation and how you measure the setbacks on this property. One would think that the front would be on Third Street and the entry of the house is on Third Street. Third Street is the main thoroughfare in the area. Pearl Court is a side street and it is a narrow street. It has houses on both sides of it. The only entry from Pearl Court is through the garage. The dimensional standard was changed recently and the code now says you designate the longest block frontage which is Pearl Court as the front yard measuring point to measure setbacks. That provision makes no sense for this piece of property. It is a code error. In 2008 the code said you could choose which was the front and side yard and the Craig's chose 3rd Street as the front and the common property line which is the side yard has a five foot setback. The Whipples are 4.2 from the property line. They are virtually mirror images of each other. Today's code makes us ask for the 5.8 variance and in reality it is less than one foot. We are trying to make a balance as to where the square footage can go and we feel this addition is masked away from the front side and we feel the location is appropriate. Steve Whipple said the proposed addition is 789 square feet. The ten foot space between the old and new is not deck. I am not married to the deck I was trying to hide the chimney. The addition can be 29 feet high to the peak and we are four feet under. We are a little higher than the neighboring roof by 1.4 feet. Alan said they read the neighbors letters and understand and respect their comments. This is not in the historic district and our theme has been do not harm the historic resource. We understand some of the houses on Pearl Court are one and two stories. The zoning in the area allows for a height of 25 feet. While those houses today are small there is nothing stopping any of those owner from proposing to expand their homes. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2013 Steve said the Craig's have a solar collector that would be affected during the year. Jane said the applicant has done a good job looking at all the issues on Pearl Court and Third Street. The solar collector is a concern to the neighbor. Alan said on a corner property you actually have two fronts. Our property fronts on Pearl and Third and the Craig's fronts on Pearl and Gillespie. It is measured by the longest length of the property. Jay asked what the current FAR is on the property. Alan said the current is 2,170 and the allowable is 2,960 square feet. John Whipple said they are asking for 789.8 square feet which will bring us within two feet of the maximum. Sallie said they aren't tearing anything down to reach their maximum height. Patrick said there are two fireplaces on the deck but are not connected to the historic resource. Amy pointed that there is no indication that the property was moved to the site. Debbie asked for any additional photographs to be submitted as exhibits. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comment section of the agenda item. Jim Curtis, owner of 411 Pearl Court directly south of 701. I also have permission to speak for James and Hinley Peterson who live at 406 Pearl and David and Susie Pines who live at 401 Pearl Court. We are not opposed to some form of an addition. We would very much welcome Mr. Whipple as a neighbor. We feel the proposed addition does not fully comply with the HPC guidelines. It is a little bit too tall, bulky and massive. In Chapter 10 it states that the addition should be subordinate to the main building. We would like to see a slightly lighter and softer touch. I give the owners a huge amount of credit; from Third Street you do not see much of it. The Petersons said their height is 28 feet. We suggest story polls so we can truly see the impact of this and we would like to do a site visit with the Whipple's 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2013 and HPC. I would be glad to assist in any way possible with the story polls. Our objective is not to stop something, it is to make it better with the guidelines. Loyal Durand —resides diagonally across the street from the proposed addition. We are only concerned about the appearance of this from Third Street. Pearl Court is the standard walking route for people going to the music tent. With the proposed deck there is no clear separation between the two places. Clearly the addition overwhelms the existing house. With the deck railing it looks all like one structure. The height of the windows makes an obtrusion into Pearl Court and distractive to the historic structure. Guideline 10.9 states that the roof should be similar in structure and appearance and compatible with the existing roofs. Personally we would be happy to have someone living there permanently in the house. Michael Craig representing Carol Craig who lives at 707 N. Third. My Mother won an award for her house. She did a careful and quality project for the Town of Aspen and for the neighborhood. Everyone in the area could expand their house and that is allowed. All the new addition, at great expense, is sub-grade on my Mother's house. That addition is very low key and she set a standard. The supplemental solar heating was added. Any movement to the south of the setback is going to affect how many more feet of the solar panels will be blocked. We would like that variance stay at ten feet. Maybe there can be an addition that is something more in character with the neighborhood. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Issues: Ten foot connector and should there be activity on top of it. Setback variance Scale, massing and proportion of the addition. Jay said the front yard of this house is on Third Street and that should be preserved. The side yard which is on Pearl Court is still a prominent fagade and the applicant has to deal with that. On mass and scale on the Third Street side there isn't a lot of change. On the Pearl Court side there is quite a lot. The problem with this project is mass and scale and it is the lack of subordinance to the historic structure. A lot of the neighbors accomplished 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2013 this by building sub-grade. How do you put 800 feet on this lot. I'm not sure you put it all on top. I feel the project will gain approval eventually. I just don't think it is ready right now because of the mass and scale of the back part of the house. The railing makes it look like a story and a half and the chimney is an issue. A flat two story wall is very massive. You can change mass by changing the materials. I am for solar and green and in favor of continuation to see if we can resolve the issues. Sallie also said the railing takes away from the connector. The chimney needs restudied because it takes away from the historic resource. Mass and scale of the new addition is a concern. This could be a great project but there is something not clicking with the historic resource and the mass and scale. Maybe revisit the guidelines. The addition is lacking the delicacy to the historic resource. Willis said if it looks and feels like a connector then maybe it can be a connector. It is 25 feet to the ridge and is not as tall as it could be. The addition is not tall. There has been a lot of discussion about lightness, the windows and the lines. The applicant should reflect on the statements made by the neighbors. I appreciate the spirit of subordination. The connector is doing its job. An 8 foot variance would work and that could be a compromise. Jane said the railing is very deceptive. I feel the architecture needs some work. One of the hard things is that this is a corner property. I don't think this is a big house and the drawings are deceptive. This house is like a patch work quilt. I feel it is compatible with the neighborhood. I would like to see a compromise on the setback. It is difficult for this commission when there are no guidelines for corner properties. With a little more restudy this can be a sensational project. Patrick recommended continuance and look at sub-grade and study mass and scale. Possibly the fireplace could be moved and turned into gas. I also recommend site polls and the setback should be ten feet from the house all the way around. Ann said she is reiterating most of what the board stated. On the connector I feel strongly that there should be no activity on it. It weakens its function as a connector once the top of it becomes another living space. I would support a five foot variance rather than the 4.2 which would give a little relief with 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2013 the solar. I also feel the project should be restudied. Story polls are a great idea. Alan said the majority of the commission supports a five foot setback. Three members, Patrick, Jay and Sallie commented about mass and scale. It is not our direction to go sub-grade and pick the house up. If you pick it up you lose the addition entirely. Sallie said she is not in favor of sub-grade and is recommending that scale and mass be restudied. Alan said we can work with that but the applicant's plan did not include sub- grade. Ann said she would like to see a streetscape context of the block and also the vegetation plan. Steve Whipple said the addition is 8 feet above the roof. He is willing to work with the architecture. I am kinda locked in with the 25 foot height and I am at a 7 foot plate heights. Ann said she did not hear any objections to the height. We also had agreement on the five foot variance. Willis said the mass maybe ok but the scale not. It is tricky. The volume is perfectly fine. Possibly look at different dormers. Ann commented that the design needs to be a little more subordinate to the historic resource. MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 701 N. Third Street until April 10 to restudy mass and scale; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6