HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20010425ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
APRIL 25, 2{)01
515 W. GILLESPIE - CONCEPTUAL, HISTORIC LANDMARK, LOT SPLIT ................................. 1
735 W. BLEEKER ST. - FINAL REVIEW ................................................................................................. 5
640 N. THIRD ST. - HISTORIC LANDMARK, CONCEPTUAL, LOT SPLIT - PH .......................... 5
301 E. HOPKINS AVE. - RUSTIQUE - MINOR REVIEW .......................................................... ~ ......... 9
11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
APRIL 25~ 2001
Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Gilbert Sanchez, Lisa Markalunas, Rally Dupps,
and Jeffrey Halferty. Susan Dodington and Melanie Roschko were excused.
Staff present: Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie
Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathy Strickland
Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer
Gilbert moved to approve the minutes of January 24th and February
second by Rally. All in favor, motion carried 5-0.
515 W. Gillespie - Conceptual, Historic Landmark, Lot Split
Gilbert and Rally recused themselves.
Fred Jarman, planner said the applicant has requested an additional setback
for a garage on the rear portion of the property and proper notice has been
provided, Exhibit I. Fred also entered a letter into the record from Elyse
Elliot and Jeremy Bernstein, basically supporting the project except for the
variances requested for the garage, Exhibit II. The owners, Pamela and
Neill Beck are represented by Randall Bone.
Fred relayed that the applicant is also requesting a 500 FAR square foot
bonus. The essence of the project is to lift the two story residential structure
and relocate it to lot A. The applicant also wants to construct a single car
garage on the back of the property with alley access which kicks in the
variances of 4 feet east side and rear and 3'6'' west side. There is also a
request for a parking variance to allow for one onsite-parking bay instead of
two, which is required in the R 6 zone district. Lot A has 1,580 square feet
of FAR and Lot B will have 3;013 square feet of FAR. Presently Mr. Bone
is negotiating purchasing some land from the adjacent neighbor.
Amy said the intent is to go w/th smaller structures, which are more
compatible with the historic house.
Fred said HPC has purview over what is being built on the lots. The
proposal is to have two single-family homes on lot B through the
conditional use process, which is handled by the Planning & Zoning
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
APRIL 25~ 2001
Commission. There are minor modifications being made on the rear faCade
of the house.
The Chief Deputy Clerk swore in Randall Bone.
Randall said the lot split is being driven by the code and he made a deal
with the neighbor to acquire 400 square feet which allows them to move the
house over five feet which opens up fifteen feet between the tw° houses
which helps balance the streetscape. They have also decreased the total
FAR since the last proposal. The garage is where the variances are being
requested. They have designed around an historic apple tree, which is in the
back and tried not to disturb the roots. Randall said this project works out
well for the city and the neighborhood. The chimneys will be taken down
temporarily when they move the house.
Suzannah asked about the preservation of the south wall of the historic
house and it looks like more of that wall is gone. Randall said they have not
made significant changes to the house except for the light well, which was
moved back.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing.
Sworn in were: Mike Luciano, JeffFouts, Naomie Thulfelder, Carol Craig,
Jonas Weil, Warner Knurr, Charles Collins, Janice Collins
Jonas Weil said the board should put themselves in the shoes of the
neighbors of any property that they are looking at and wonder what is best
for the neighborhood as well as what is best for the owner or developer.
Jeff Fouts said the integrity of the neighborhood and those around the
property need to be considered. He looked at the drawings and cannot see
how this project is beneficial to the community.
Charles Collins said the grievous fault in the application is the splitting of
the lot. Charles showed maps and the increased density that will be created.
Three units create congestion and more traffic. Charles is opposed to the lot
split. They want to construct a garage and have one off-street parking space
and that means parking in the alley. During the Music Festival everyone
parks in the alley.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
APRIL 25~ 2001
Warner Knurr said the variances would change the character of the
neighborhood. As designed, when sold, this profit is at the neighbors
expense and he urges the board to not grant the variance.
Mike Luciano said the west end is one of Aspen's many treasures. The big
question is two homes or one home or a duplex or one or two homes. There
are very few locals that have an opportunity to buy in Aspen and this lot
split with a little home on it is inspiring that one day I may own a home in
the west end.
Janice Collins said the lot line has not been resolved yet. She requested that
any decision by the board be continued until after July 13th. At that time the
HPC will have a legal lot line description. The incentive on this building is
based on getting the variances. Janice also said she feel the stream is part of
the landscape and it is going to be moved.
Chairperson, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing.
Suzannah told the public that the allowable FAR without a lot split currently
is 4,093 square feet.
Amy informed the public that the determination of a single-family house or
a duplex on Lot B is the purview of the Planning & Zoning Commission. If
he gets denied at P&Z he will still be able to do a single-family house on
half the property.
Randall said the variances are generated by trying to preserve the 6,000
square foot lot, which gives us the ability to split the density up. We can
build a monster house here but HPC told us they wanted to see smaller units
broken up.
Comments:
Jeffrey relayed that lot splits help control density. Jeffrey went over the
AACP plan and how this project complies with it. The ditch relocation is
appropriate. Regarding the boundary dispute, the neighbors need to come to
some agreement. Jeffrey prefers the modest approach to the addition and
the FAR that is allowed on this site has been kept to a low minimum. The
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
APRIL 25, 2001
trees on the neighboring property are of concern. If the variances were a
foot on each side he would support those variances.
Jeffrey still has a concern about the dormer addition coming off the south
fagade. He is not sure the shed dormer is appropriate. He recommended
that a gable be studied. A detail of the new openings needs to be drawn out
for final, the way the historic materials are removed and the new windows
are placed in as well as the connection points between the historic clapboard
siding and the new metal siding that is proposed. On the south elevation
some of the south wall could be compromised but it is the logical position
for the addition to come off the south. The light wells are appropriate.
With the improvements on the historic resource he supports the proposal.
Lisa has conflicts with the small parts of the project because she cannot get
past the big issues. What is disturbing is the process. It is rare that we have
a group of people so adamantly against a project~ Lisa has major concerns
about lot splits in general and the sizes of houses that are allowed on these
lots. She said she would not object to an "alley house" on the property but
that is not desirable to the applicant. She recommends continuation until a
full board is present.
Randall said the proposal presented is in the worst-case scenario regarding
the lot line from a FAR standpoint.
Suzannah said the issue that has always bothered her is the jog of the lot
line, and her concern is the potential position of the house at the back of the
lot and not having a clear view between the two buildings, which is typical
of the pattern in town. She could be in favor of the project if setback
variances are in place that control the position of the rear building so it
visually looks like a lot split down the middle. With the lot line dispute
there is concern about the relationship of the garage to that back lot line and
the dispute needs resolved before we can grant that variances.
Randall said at the last meeting no one was concerned about the garage and
the trees are in the same place as before. Randall went over different
options that the HPC might accept in order to get direction.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
APRIL 25~ 2001
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue 515 W. Gillespie to May 23rs; second
by Lisa. All in favor, motion carried 3-0.
Yes vote: Jeffrey, Suzannah, Lisa
735 W. Bleeker St. - Final Review
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue 735 W. Bleeker to May 23rd; second
by Lisa. All in favor, motion carried 4-0.
Suzannah, Lisa, Jeffrey, Gilbert
640 N. Third St. - Historic Landmark, Conceptual, Lot Split - PH
Rally stepped down.
Affidavit of notice was entered into the record as Exhibit I.
Amy said the project was continued due to the concerns of the addition to
the historic house. Staffhas no concerns with the landmark designation, lot
split, variances being requested but staff continues to have concerns about
the character of the addition to the historic house and the portions of the
proposed building that are to be demolished. Previous direction was given
that portions of the rear area of the house ought be retained but they are still
absent from the project. In staff's opinion, there still has not been a true
restoration effort and new openings are punched into what is left of the
historic building. There are some other opportunities to improve the
character of the house that are not being taken advantage of. The most
significant concern is the lack of physical separation between the new and
old house. At the last meeting it was requested that the height of the
addition be reduced and they accomplished that by a barrel vault and
different roof shapes that are not compatible with the historic house and the
addition basically lands right on the historic house and staff feels that is
inappropriate. There is also concern about the square footage that is being
allocated to one half of the property and the idea of the lot split is to reduce
the pressure on the historic house and push as much mass as possible into a
new building and the reverse is happening here. The majority of the square
footage is going on the old house.
A new variance is being requested related to the ADU unit, which is to be
accommodated in an existing out building that they are relocating as part of
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
APRIL 25, 2001
thc project. Staff recommends continuation because of the serious concerns
of the character of the addition.
Chief Deputy Clerk swore in Charles Cathcart, Jim Daggs, Janver
Derrington
Janver said the lot is unique because it fronts on two streets, Lake Ave. and
Third Street. For that reason we do not have the opportunity to put a garage
on the alley. They were given the direction that Lake Avenue is the primary
streetscape.
Both streetscapes are being preserved and the carriage house that has been
there for 35 years will remain in its existing space. The main house will
have to move approximately 8 feet in order to make the lot split work.
They do not believe the siding is original. As the house stands now the two
sto~ element facing Lake Ave. which was a living room and entry will now
be the entry to the stairway. They put a one-story element between the
historic house. The house is below the FAR of the majority o£houses in the
West End and it is in scale with the neighboring house.
Janver also said they chose a barreled vault roof for the far end of the
addition that they are proposing for the second story of the living area
because it will provide sunlight access and a view to the mountains. The
barreled vault also maintains a descent plate height for the living area on the
second floor.
By way of reference, Janver said he did not want to new house to look like
the old house. They are suggesting more contemporary materials. By
putting a higher mass in the center of the property and letting the two ends
face the two streets they have maintained and respected the scale of the
adjacent historic house which is 5 feet lower than the current code allows.
They have asked for the 500 square foot bonus for the carriage house and
preserving the e×isting house even though it is not historic, it is semi-
historic and certainly a familiar presence on the streetscape. The existing
trees provide a screening between the neighbor's house. Jim Daggs, the
owner intends to live in one of the two houses.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
APRIL 25~ 2001
Clarifications and questions were discussed between the architect and
board.
Janver said Lot B will be 6,000 square feet and Lot A for the historic
building will be 5,707 square feet.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public heating.
Claude Salter, neighbor presented the board with a letter stating her
concerns, Exhibit IV.
1. Moving the existing house forward is not in line with the 15-foot
setback.
2. The proposed basement would distress their foundation.
3. Moving the garage closer to the property line impacts them as
neighbors.
4. The changes are detrimental to the value of their land.
5. The fence is to be placed back in its existing footprint, which is on
their property line. Claude recommends that the fence be brought
back to the property line.
Claude also said she looked at the plans and they are. acceptable.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing.
Janver explained to the board that they are at least ten feet away from the
neighbor's foundation and with the method of excavation they are using will
not distress their foundation.
Commissioner Comments:
Gilbert said he is still concerned about the amount of paving that is going to
be done adjacent to the building. Soft landscaping needs to be next to the
building and possibly move the patio out a little.
The site has strong physical characteristics and it sits up high that allows
you to do some of the things you are trying to do, one being the barrel vault.
There needs to be a little more effort on how the addition and the historic
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
APRIL 25~ 2001
building meet. Somehow the roof height needs to be brought down. The
roof addition that is on the east side of the chimney needs restudied and
possibly eliminated. A cricket rather than clearstory light would be a better
way to deal with the drainage. Gilbert said he could approve the garage and
ADU. He also had no problem moving the house closer to the street, which
would make it more visible.
Jeffrey also agreed with Gilbert and his main concern is how the new
addition meets the historic house. There needs to be some genuflecting from
the historic form. The clearstory window has impacts to the historic
structure. He also said he could accept the barrel vault form. In this
circumstance, to help with the complexity of the street the volumes are
suited.
Lisa commended the architect for preserving the 3rd St. and Lake Avenue
facades. The barrel vault is acceptable. She has some concerns about the
relocation and it might be better for the house to remain in its existing
location in order to not impact the historic structure to the south. HPC
needs to minimize the neighbors concerns. Lisa said she would not support
moving the house closer to Lake Ave and her major concern is the tower
feature, which might not be necessary.
Suzannah said the lot split on this parcel creates a nice pattern of houses
along the street. The barrel vault is appropriate and keeps the form to a
minimum. She also agrees with Gilbert's concern about the connection
between the barrel vault and the gable of the historic house, particular the
clearstory window. Closing off the triangle with a flat roof detracts from
the relationships of the two pieces that would give the sensation that they
are more separate then they are. She would like to see the slope of the
historic roof come down into the chimney form. The 500 square foot FAR
bonus reflects on a good restoration of the historic house and the windows
on the south affect that bonus.
Janver said he wanted to comment on the move of the carriage house three
feet to the south. They are doing that in order to a little bit of a planting
area and walkway by the carriage house and stay within the lot line. With
regard to moving the historic house we are required to move it in order to
achieve the lot split.
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
APRIL 25~ 2001
Janver said he would relinquish the clear story if they were allowed to put
the windows on the south wall of the house which is to be the living room.
He also said they would be glad to go to flagstone instead of a sidewalk.
MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue 640 N. Third Street review with
direction that was given today to May 23, 2001; second by Lisa. Motion
carried 4-0.
Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Lisa
Suzannah said it is clear about the connecting piece to the barrel vault and
the peak of the roof. It should be less of an impact on the historic house.
Maybe it could be a peaked roof that mimics the truss shape that connects
the two.
Gilbert also said the living room windows are going to be an issue.
301 E. Hopkins Ave. - Rustique - Minor Review
Amy said the proposal is to turn a couple of fixed windows into awning
windows and to add a new door on the courtyard side of the building. Staff
has no concerns with this proposal on a non-historic building.
Robert Ittner was sworn in.
Robert said,the design will not change the outside of the building.
Motion: Jeffrey moved to adopt Resolution #18, 2001finding that the
review standards for 301 E. Hopkins have been met; second by Gilbert.
All in favor, motion carried 4-0.
Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Lisa
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Gilbert. All in favor,
motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
APRIL 25~ 2001
Kathlcen J. Strickland, Chie£ Deputy Clerk
10