Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20130925 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 Chairperson, Jay Maytin called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were: Willis Pember, Jane Hills, Patrick Sagal, James DeFrancia and John Whipple. Absent were Sallie Golden and Nora Berko. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jane moved to approve the minutes of August 28th, second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Disclosure Jane said Edwards, Klein, Kote are our attorney's of record but I have not worked on 609 W. Bleeker. I can be fair and impartial. 609 W. Bleeker Street— Parking Variance, Public Hearing Debbie said the public notices are in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Amy said this is a 4,500 square foot lot and it is one lot that was approved in a lot split in 2000. It is the lot that does not maintain any historic structures. On this lot there is a main house and an accessory unit. When the project was approved employee mitigation was required on the site and the owner at the time decided to build the unit and they needed a setback variance for that unit because of the large tree. They went to the Board of Adjustment and as part of the review the owner offered that the ADU be mandatory occupancy which is not a normal situation. It was not required but it was an offer made by the developer at the time. The property has changed hands a couple of times. In reviewing the permit it came to our attention that the ADU was not being rented properly. There had been some expansions of the deck and a construction of a staircase that sits in the required on-site parking space for the unit. We have had several months of discussion with the owner of the property and they are in the process of altering the deed restriction and there will still be an accessory dwelling unit on the site but they are paying a cash- in-lieu fee to remove the mandatory occupancy restriction. They would like to remove the requirement that there be an on-site parking space for the 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25. 2013 ADU. There are three spaces on the site; two for the main house, one in the garage and one stacked behind it and the on-site space for the ADU is immediately against the west wall of the unit. There is confusing permit history on this property. It appears that the main door faced the back of the main house and you exited onto a deck and took a couple of steps down into the yard. During construction a door was added on the west side of the unit facing the parking space. It is my understanding that the building was CO'd that way and that there were two stair treads down into the parking space. At some point about five years ago the ADU was remodeled and I believe the owner was required to bring the exit up to a more current code and they constructed a bigger landing and steps making the parking space unusable. The owner's proposal is that HPC waive the requirement for an on-site parking space. Staff recommends that the parking space not be waived and require that those encroachments be removed. We feel that the parking should be put in place even though this owner doesn't have an immediate need to rent the unit full time but a future owner might. One of the criteria has to do with the design standards for ADU's. There are three criteria that would allow you to grant the parking waiver finding that the ADU is still an acceptable unit and meets the general intentions of the program. The other way that HPC may make a waiver is you could make a finding that somehow the parking waiver enhanced or mitigated an adverse impact to the historic significance to the property. Staff does not feel that is met as there is no historic resource on this particular site. Jody Edwards, attorney represented the owners Rachel and Mark Schwartz Jody said our application request is either for a waiver of the parking space or a variance to allow stacked parking behind the already stacked parking for the main house. Jody went through the history of the property and the building permits that were issued. — Exhibit II Jody said in 2001 there was a permit to build the ADU on the south side of the property next to the alley. The parking space is 18 feet long and 8.5 feet wide. Originally planned was a door on the north side of the ADU. Also in 2001 the door moved from the north to the east side of the ADU. The CO wasn't signed until 2005. In 2005 there was an application by a new owner for more work to be done. Lorraine Hernandez wanted to build a new deck under the tree and the new deck took away part of the northern half of the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25 2013 parking space. What used to be an 18 foot parking space is around 7 feet now. In 2011 my applicant filed an application for an interior remodel and changed the deck from wood to stone to get rid of the mold. There is a planter and air conditioner in the subject parking space which was discovered by Amy. All the permits were approved. We filed an application with the Community Development Department to remove the mandatory occupancy requirement on the ADU. In order for this to go through payment-in-lieu must be paid in the amount of$227,231.69. Jody said the Housing Authority doesn't like the mandatory occupancy because they are very difficult to enforce and they would rather have the cash. My clients are happy to say that they won't rent the ADU. We will file a modified deed restriction that gets rid of the mandatory occupancy. There are only a couple of ways to have the parking space there and one is to get rid of the landing. You could also get rid of the door and put a door on the north side and get rid of the steps, landing, planters and air conditioner. HPC approved the east door. It doesn't enhance the livability by cutting off the landing. It would be difficult to get out of the car with the landing. The alternatives are park on the street. The other option is to allow stacked parking for the ADU but the code doesn't allow stacked parking for the ADU parking space but it does allow HPC to grant a variance. We are asking you to approve a waiver for the parking space that will never be occupied by anyone but the owners or grant us a variance to have stacked parking. Mistakes were made by the city and prior owner. There are a few options. Waive the parking requirement or give a variance from the no stacking requirement. In the event the ADU is ever rented the ADU would have the right to the space adjacent the alley and not locked in. We request that the space be one foot shorter. The third option would be allow the variance and put a restriction on the ADU that says we can't rent it unless we re-establish the parking space. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Amy said if HPC will not waive the space they will probably have to move the door because I don't think the Building Department will accept the two treads out into the parking space. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 Jim said you are supposed to have three on-site parking space. We don't want to encourage parking on the street. The ADU is there and used and someone will probably have a vehicle that they will want to use. To me the issue is parking. There were errors on both parties and it seems putting it back where it is intended would further exacerbate it. The simplest solution is to grant a one foot variance and have stacked parking. Jane said she agrees with Jim. In going through the history log there is a statement that it is the applicant's responsibility to make sure codes are complied with. I feel we should grant the applicant the one foot variance. Willis said we know that this property will have a different owner in the future. The city encourages renting of the ADU to proper renters and that is diminished with the stacked parking situation. The deed restriction stays with any owner. I would encourage renting of this unit even though it is not a factor for the family living there now. John said there was a CO and a certificate of completion on the ADU. Some of the drawings are not professional and it is hard to determine what is there. I am in favor of the one foot variance. Patrick agreed with staff's recommendation. This also has to do with the extra square footage. I recommend that it be put back as a parking space so that in the future it could be rented as they would need a separate space. Jay said he is not in favor of the one foot variance because it creates problems. Maybe we should keep what we have and if it is rented it needs to be approved by the housing authority and then they would be required to put the space back and the front door back on the north side to make it work. Jody said he can draft a third covenant that in the event it is rented we have to re-establish a parking space. Debbie said what Jay is asking is not in the purview of the HPC. The application here is to grant a parking waiver. You either do the waiver by stacking the cars or put the parking space back where it is. There is also an appeal process the applicant can go through. MOTION: Patrick moved to deny the parking waiver; second by Willis. 4 - - - - ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION -- - - - - - MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 Roll call vote: Jim, no; Jane, no; Willis, yes; John, no; Patrick, yes; Jay, no. Motion failed 3-2. MOTION: Jim moved to eliminate the parking waiver as requested, second by Jay. Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Jane, yes; John, yes; Patrick, no; Jay, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-1. Jane said this is a great opportunity for us as HPC commissioners to continue to do a great job on behalf of our applicants going forward and to protect them and stay behind them. There are some holes in the system. 201 E. Hyman Ave. — Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, On- Site Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing. Debbie said there is a challenge to the public notice on 201 E. Hyman. Derek Skalko, architect said he personally followed all the requirements of the City of Aspen. The notices were mailed first class out of the Wells Fargo branch, Carbondale. Jim Skull P.O. Box 2051 Aspen was on the address list. Debbie asked if the names and addresses were determined from the tax records of Pitkin County. Derek said they were determined by the City GIS mapping information system. When you give them an address they provide the labeling system for you. The notice was sent out September 10th, 2013. Jim Skull, 210 Cooper I have been watching this as I knew it was coming along. I walked into the entry of city hall and looked at the agenda for tonight and saw that there was a public hearing on this property and realized I had not been noticed and I called three other owners and they had not received any notice either. We want to retain an attorney and we haven't done that. How do we proceed? Derek said the public notice is on the building as of 4:45 today. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 Debbie said the affidavit of notice does include a copy of the picture of the posted notice and the statement that it had been posted Sept. 10th Derek said he went beyond the requirements because we knew the building that sits to the south of the property and west of the property had concerns about what was to be done on the project. I held two open houses at the property for various entities. We had three individuals show up and walked them through the project. We did the public outreach in that manner. I cannot speak to what happened to any of the mailers. To say that they weren't received it would be just as easy for me to say perhaps they were thrown away when they saw where they came from. Debbie also said the affidavit does say that the neighborhood outreach was done. - - - - - - - Derek said he physically posted notices on the buildings to the west and south of the property. I did it two days prior to each open house. I was at the house for a two hour period of time and I had the drawings with me of the project. Three individuals did come and say hello. Debbie asked Mr. Skull if the post office box listed 2051 is the current one. Mr. Skull said it was his mail box and he checks his mail box every day. Debbie said we have a triple redundant process that includes the publication in the newspaper, posting on the property which occurred as of September 10th and the mailing which occurred as of September 10th. I do not know why this particular mailing wasn't received but there is sufficient notice I believe to satisfy the requirements of due process to continue with this public hearing tonight. You also can choose to continue. It is unfortunate for whatever reason that this person did not receive the notice but there are plenty of other ways that the notice could have been received. Derek pointed out that he checked the house every day since Sept. l Oth. The sign was torn down on the 12' but another one was put up within four hours. We have gone through all the legal requirements and we hope we can proceed. Jay said he feels the board can go forward. Jay asked Mr. Skull to stay and see what the project is because it is important to him. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25 2013 Amy said this is an 8,000 square foot lot that is landmarked designated. The Victorian era home is probably one of the oldest residents remaining in town. It has unique detailing especially with the wooden posts etc. across the front. The Herron family lived in this house. This house is relatively unaltered and there is an addition that was done in the 90's. Once that is removed the original fagade can be put back into place. The project is a single family home and the historic house will be lifted for a basement and put back in its original location. The entire square footage of the new addition is subgrade or linked through the house with a connecting piece which HPC requires. The connector is the appropriate length and appropriate distance back from the house. There is a gabled roof form that runs along the Limelite fagade of the property. It is a corner lot with a lot of open yard along the Aspen Street fagade. The outbuilding has an addition but it is not original and that addition will be removed and the outbuilding will be slid forward toward Aspen Street. HPC is being asked to approve the site plan, conceptual design for the new architecture and to approve the demolition of the 1990's era addition and the small addition on the out building. HPC is also asked to grant a FAR bonus of 500 square feet for a outstanding preservation effort. HPC is also asked to grant setback variances along the west property line. Those variances are to allow an existing bay window, new light well and the new location of the outbuilding. You are also asked to grant variances on the front side for the existing porch and to grant a setback variance on the south fagade for the outbuilding to remain in its existing alignment. There are a couple residential design variances that need discussed. One of the desig standards says that an amount of front fagade on all buildings should bl right up near the front setback line. This property isn't exactly meeting that requirement and I don't think you would want it to because it would require more of the new construction to come up towards Hyman and that isn't the goal of the HPC design guidelines. On Aspen Street there is a light well that requires a setback variance and a Residential design variance because it projects forward of the front most wall of the house and that typically isn't allowed. Staff is supportive of the project and the historic resource is going to stand on its own. The new construction is differentiated and physically separated. It is simple and doesn't compete with the historic building. There is no new addition made to the historic resource and the out building is being preserved. We feel the FAR bonus is also warranted. The only restudy for final is on the east fagade of the building where the connector hits the back of the historic resource and there is an eave line that cuts into the east facing fagade. There should be some way that it is notched out to provide some 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 relief. The light well at the center of the site violates the height limit because it is so large. Staff recommends approval of the project. Amy went over the changes for the resolution as suggested by the attorney. #3 refers to the new light well on the west side of the Victorian. #4 the applicant must study the east fagade of the Victorian related to the connector and the size of the central light well. Patrick asked how much FAR would be left. Amy said this project is using all the available floor area and the 500 square foot area bonus. Patrick pointed out that they are taking less square footage by making this a residential unit. John thanked Nora for the great newspaper article on the house. Amy said on a standard light well we do not measure height from the bottom but if you create a large area and it is more than 100 square feet in its footprint we measure height from the bottom. Scott Glass, architect Derek Skalko, architect Scott did a power point showing the elevations and where square footage is being added. We are trying to show off the historic resource. The new architecture will recede from the historic house. We strongly believe the large light well in the center allows the subgrade area to work. It is the central point where the lower level is built around. It helps with light requirements and lets south light into the space and it helps connect the subgrade square footage to the rest of the house. There is a shed on the alley and the new construction is tucked in on the south east side of the site as far back as we could go and there is a breezeway connector that connects the existing architecture to the new architecture. On Hyman there is a little courtyard that protects the master suite. Jane said the historic resource really does show off with this proposal. The only questions or concerns are the light wells. Scott said we are big advocates for the center light well and we can go to council for a variance. It would be a height variance around 8 feet. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25 2013 Scott said the light well that is in front of the existing doorway can be moved away from the door. On the third light well we might be able to get it back from the bay window. Scott said on the connector it is tucked under the eave and we left four to six inches. Staff is concerned about the roof touching and we can pull it back. Amy said her two concerns on the east facade are the light well and the eave intersection. Patrick asked about the door on the east and if steps could be put in if the light well was moved. Scott said the door is not functional right now. Right now we probably would prefer not to put steps in because the door isn't functional. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Jay went over the issues: Residential design standard variance on the west side light well. Setback variances for the shed on the south and west side. Setback variance for the bay window. Setback variance on the front porch on the north side. Light well on the east side. Design standard variance on the front because it is not on the setback line. Large light well in the center. Jim and Willis said the applicant has done a great job. Willis said he would support the height issue when they go to city council. John said he also likes the project. Patrick said he is glad that the applicant listened to everything that was said at the work session. Jay said using the garage as a bath house is a great use of it. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 Amy pointed out that the variance that would go forward to council is a hardship variance and it has to be site specific and your variance is somewhat self-created. Amy clarified the motion: #3 HPC hereby grants a waiver of the residential design standards related to build to line and the light well on the west side of the Victorian. #4 The applicant must re-study the east facade of the Victorian related to the connector and the small east light well. The applicant must restudy the size of the central light well for final review. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #30 as amended; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Jane, yes; Willis, yes; Patrick, yes; Jay, yes; John, yes. Comment for council: John, Jane and Willis said they would go to the council meeting and speak in behalf of the height variance. Debbie said you as a commission can take a vote saying you will support the variance request if it goes to council. That can be an informal motion but you would have to recuse yourself at the council meeting because this project is coming back for another public hearing. MOTION: John moved that the HPC supports the height variance request for the central lightwell; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Jane. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10