Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20131113 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2013 Chairperson, Jay Maytin, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Willis Pember, Nora Berko and Jim DeFrancia. Absent were Jane Hills, John Whipple, Sallie Golden and Patrick Sagal. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Nora disclosed that Derek Skalko has worked with her on other projects but she has no financial involvement in the 201 E. Hyman project. Minutes: Jay made the motion to approve the minutes of Oct. 91'' and Oct. 23th; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. 549 Race Alley and Lots 4 and 6 of Fox Crossing Subdivision — Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variances, Parking Waiver and Floor Area Bonus, cont'd public hearing. Debbie said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Amy said we have two applicants. One is dealing with lot 5, the remodel of the Victorian house and another applicant is the owner of lots 4 and 6 where some buildings will be relocated. Lot 5 has the Victorian house and it is the original home site. It is probably the most authentic, unchanged miner's cottage in town. No one has lived in it for 50 years. It is very deteriorated. There is a potential purchaser who would like to pick the house up, move it about five feet from its current location and build a new foundation, new addition and restore the house. Staff is in support of the relocation request and the five foot north side yard setback variance that is requested for the addition. This part of town has much bigger side yard setbacks than other similar lots in town and we feel it is acceptable. Staff is also in support of a residential design standard variance that is needed. The house address is on Race Alley but the front door faces downhill of that and we wouldn't want the building to be modified to meet a standard that isn't necessarily appropriate for this site. One parking space will be in the garage and one uncovered space. HPC needs to discuss the specifics of the proposed addition and the FAR bonus. The project has a one story connector that 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2013 attaches to the back of the Victorian house. The connector in this project is actually longer than the minimum required. There is no deck proposed on top of it. The new construction is nicely separated from the old. The two story part meets the design guidelines. The only thing on the table for debate is that the applicant proposes to expand the kitchen which is in the miner's cottage on the side of the house. Staff recommends to continue the design review because that is resulting in approximately 25% of the perimeter wall of the Victorian to be removed or overtaken by new construction. This is a very unaltered building. Usually HPC is firm that a certain amount of new construction will be accepted but the historic resource is somewhat hands off. Staff cannot allow the kitchen expansion. It is a lot of damage for not a lot of gain from our perspective. There is a step in the house between the miner's cottage and the link so it doesn't completely appear that the flow between the units is substantially improved by punching out the wall of the Victorian. They are also requesting a 500 square foot bonus which is warranted considering the restoration work that is needed on this building. We understand that the applicant will have to put a lot of time and money in the restoration. Amy said HPC needs to discuss how they feel about the proposed expansion into the Victorian and then I'll do a presentation about the relocation concerns. There is an historic resource sitting on this lot and it needs to move next door. Jay said if for some reason this project doesn't get approved it might be appropriate to force the current owner to bring the building into a better state of repair. Jay asked about the FAR on the property. Amy said it is 2722 square feet and the applicant is asking to use 2022 of that plus a 500 square foot floor area bonus to build the proposed project. They want to take 750 of what is not used and turn it into 3 TDR's with city council. Charles Cunniffee & Associates Karen Woods, architect Charles said in the last couple of weeks we have done some background research. This project was approved in 2004 with a much more major addition to it than what we are proposing now. Where we are proposing the kitchen addition to the existing structure would actually be within the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2013 confines of what was once there before. For some reason that portion of the house was removed. The two doors that are boarded up are actually interior doors which now go to the outside because part of the house that was once there has disappeared. Where we are proposing to put the kitchen really isn't an addition it is more of a replacement of what was once there. In a way we are bringing it more intact historically to allow the kitchen to return in a form where part of the building once was which is essentially the bunk room and bathroom that were there. The primary reason for us needing to have the kitchen placement approved is for the proposed buyer. They cannot find a way to have the house function without the kitchen. It would be more of an historic context if we replace the wall that was removed rather than leaving the void in the house. Our current proposal is showing a kitchen element but we feel strongly that the kitchen element should return to the historic form of the building. The house is quite small and the ceilings are low. Karen stated the link now is mostly glass and we have changed some massing issues that were recommended at the last meeting. The secondary form is not repetitive of the historic form. Amy said the images that they are showing, the lean-to is not original to the house. It was stripped off sometime recently. We must have not considered it valuable otherwise it would have been stabilized. John Morton said he is excited about the project. The old house is only 700 square feet but enough space to move around and function as a family. We need the kitchen and if it wasn't there it would take away the functionality of the space. You run from the kitchen into a hall into a great room. We appreciate the historic nature of the project and this house has been sitting empty for 50 years. Many of the neighbors we have talked to thanked us for taking this project on. Hopefully we can find a solution. Amy said the proposal in the packet, the kitchen is still within the perimeter of the original building. We don't have any floor plans or elevations of the proposal tonight. Jay said we can approve what is in the packet or we can approve what they are presenting or we can continue the project. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2013 Nora said she is uncomfortable trying to resolve something when we haven't had staff input that this newly discovered old building is really part of what is on the record. Jim said staff is recommending continuation. Jim asked the applicant if they are willing to continue and restudy. Charles said they feel it is the right solution and they would like it approved. We would prefer that the board consider that the kitchen would project further out but since you do not have those elevations we aren't asking you to approve that tonight. We would like to be able to move forward. Amy said when you look at the drawings that is not the way an addition would have happened in the Victorian period. It is not the right shape and we obviously allowed it to be removed from the building considering it insignificant. What stands on the ground right now is the most historic resource. Willis asked about the square footage of the great room? Charles said it is 700 and without the kitchen around 500 square feet. Willis asked if the level change is necessary in the design. Charles said they could consider it shifting back. If you allow any effects to happen on an historic structure it should be at the least noticeable part or at the back. This occurs in the most inconspicuous part on the back north east corner. Jim said if the addition was original Charles would work in the confines of that addition. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. John Bush, neighbor who lives across the street. Jon said he met the original owner from 1888. She was elderly and in 1972 he met her Mrs. Moutch. The addition came off because the roof was caving in. The siding on the addition was deteriorating as the siding on the rest of the house which would indicate that it was put on pretty early, not to long after the house was built. My main concern is that it should be restored, put on as it was. It was quite low. When you came to the back, the north wall it was not very high and it attached to the roof. It should be authentic. It was very funky from the 4 - - -ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2013 beginning and probably not well built. I wouldn't oppose it and it would look like a lean-to addition from the mining era. Raife Bass said he has sold lots on Fox Crossing. The house is in rough condition and in needs of help. The Mortons are the first family to take on the project. Having someone who wants to be part of the community and restore the house is an asset to our community. Rick Neiley said he represents Fox Crossing LLC the current owner of the balance of the Fox Crossing project including this lot. The modification is in the most inconspicuous portion of the property and we have another development lot immediate to the north of this which is going to have a single family private residence on it which will block the view of this portion of the structure from any aspect of the public. The main view is from Fox Meadow Park. My client has owned this property for two years and this is a great opportunity and we urge you to approve it. Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public comments. Jay identified the issues: Bonus of 500 square feet North east corner of the historic house Jim said he appreciates the need to make the space more livable. The house has been a challenge and no one has taken it on. It is interesting that there is a lot that will block the views of that section which impacts what the public is looking at. At one time there was something there. I am inclined to be supportive of the project. Nora said it is a wonderful building and she is glad someone is interested in taking it on. I am not ready to-make any decision-until-I've seen that the applicant and staff have gotten together. If there was something there it should be restored. The bonus is also tied to that. I would recommend continuation. Willis applauded the effort to take on this house and it is a wonderful proposition to turn this into a family home. After the different discussions and the histories of the additions etc. I'm not sure what I am approving. If you are restoring it, it would be based on documentation and photographs. We also haven't seen any drawings. I feel it should be restudied and come 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2013 back with a solid proposal. It is restoration or it is not restoration. I believe certain additions can be captured and embellished. If you look at the connection you might not need a level change. The width of the link is almost the same width of the historic volume and maybe those could be aligned that the opening could be much larger. There are creative ways to engage that connective piece. Jay said a bonus is warranted for taking on this restoration. I.would offer the 500 square foot bonus for a restoration but this is not a restoration. I agree with the continuation because we need to see drawings etc. The bonus is not warranted if you are altering the historic context or walls or touching the connector to it. The bonus is not warranted if you are altering 20% of the historic fabric even though there was something there in the past. Inherently I have an issue with giving a bonus that you don't need. You don't need the square foot bonus to do your project. It seems like it is a finance tool and I am willing to work with the applicant on this because it is complicated but I don't see 500 square feet appropriate on this project as a bonus. I am in support of the project and a solution. Willis said he would support the FAR bonus because they are doing a good restoration. Jim echoed a continuance because it is not clear what it is we are approving. Nora said she would support part of the bonus. I need to see the project that I am voting for. Willis said he still doesn't understand why there has to be a level difference between the historic house and the connector. It could be opened up in ways that do not require the bump out that would respect modern living. It could be made to seem 30% larger just by how the articulation of the addition is attached to the back of the historic resource. If they are set on having it in the proposed location then maybe we can approve it. Jim commented that he has no issue with the steps. Jay said he doesn't feel there is enough support to pass this tonight. If we continue this it would be for a restudy of the connection between the proposed addition and the existing. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2013 Karen asked if the restudy is without any kitchen addition. The board said a kitchen addition could occur. Charles pointed out that there is always some level of disturbance to the historic structure must to make it work. We are only asking to touch the part that was disturbed. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 549 Race Alley until December 11'; second by Nord. All in favor, motion carried. Willis said in the restudy you should include options that don't disturb the wall in question. 201 E. Hyman — Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, On-Site Relocation and Variances, Pubic Hearing Debbie said there was a glitch in the notice and it has been re-noticed for this evening. Exhibit I. Amy said this is a corner lot zoned mixed use; however the applicant in this particular case is proposing a single family residence use which is a significantly lower square footage. It is an 8,000 square foot lot and it contains a very high quality and nicely designed Victorian era home that sits in the front corner of the lot. There is also an out building along the alley. The house is 1883 and has an important family history. The applicant is proposing to remove non-historic 1990's additions on the house and strip back to the original building. They propose to pick up the historic house, dig a basement and put it back down. They would also like to move the shed somewhat because it sits partially in the alley off the private property. They would like to pick it up and move it toward Aspen Street on the corner which is traditional in town. They would like to build an addition to the house which would be linked to the Victorian house through a connector which is a one story small linking hallway that leads to a two story addition that is right up against the Limelight. It is pushed as far away from the historic resource as possible and it has a very simple form with a gable roof. There are setback variances requested for the historic house just to allow it to stay in the same location as it is now. The applicant is requesting a variance on the Aspen Street side for a new light well and variances are requested for the out building on the alley to be right up to the alley which is 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2013 traditional. They are also requesting some Residential Design Standard variances. Technically the new construction should be closer up the street on Hyman Ave. which isn't what the HPC guidelines want so we suggested a variance be given for the build to line. The light well needs a variance on the Aspen Street side. There is also a FAR bonus request and staff finds that it meets all the criteria for the 500 square foot FAR bonus. The house and the out building are going to be restored back to their original shape. There is substantial open space on the property which give a good relationship to the historic structures. Staff recommends approval and the only areas for restudy are on the east side of the Victorian house. The attachment should be lighter and not remove any more of the historic fabric than necessary where the two points meet. A light well should be moved from in front of the door to one side or the other. The below grade living space has a large light well in the center of the site and it isn't visible from the street but . height is measured from the bottom of the light well and the applicant will be going to city council for a 5 foot variance. Derek Skalko, architect E-mails and correspondence — Exhibit II Derek said they have reached out to make sure everyone knows what is going on. The piece in question for the height variance is actually the stair tower. It is 20.9 inches in height. If we do not get the variance we will make the light well smaller. By doing the light well it make a greater amenable use of space in the lower level. There are no changes to this Victorian house and we are 22 feet back from the property line on Hyman Avenue. The new construction of this project is proposed to abut the Limelight Lodge. The shed will move forward toward S. Aspen Street. We are asking for a zero lot line variance. The shed currently sits two feet three inches off the property and we are actually putting the shed back onto the property. The addition canvases the Limelight Lodge. This proposal allows for a two stall garage. Jay asked about the above square footage of the new addition. Derek said the allowable square footage is 3200 approximately. The historical aspects are around 1,500. We are looking at around 1250 to 1400 when you talk about the garage, second floor massing and the first floor massing that are attributed to the connection element. We have moved the light well to the south so that there is no hanging door. By right with a mixed use we could go up to 16,000 square feet. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2013 Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Peter Jacobsen, board member of 210 Cooper. Peter thanked Amy for sending him all the pertinent information. We overall support the project but we have two concerns. The five foot variance where the garage is. Immediately across is the ramp for our parking garage which is under the building. It is tight and a dead end. We also have parking straight in toward the building and it is difficult to maneuver. On the new outbuilding it looks too high. Amy said they comply with the height limit. Peter said our only concern is the five foot setback. Valerie McDonald asked about the roofing material and if it is a non-glare and if the light well will be lit at night. Willis said the light well is lined with glass to lighten the underground space. Amy said a letter from Bob Leatherman, secretary of 2120 Cooper was entered into the records — Exhibit III. Bob expressed their concern about the variance for the out building along the alley and variances in general being requested for the project. Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public comments. Jay identified the issues: Variance on the garage. The variances on the Victorian structure is essentially housekeeping. The house has historically been there before there were setback requirements. The historic siting of this house is very important to the preservation of the house. Willis said the garage is in compliant with its five foot setback. Derek did a great job of explaining the existing condition in the alley. The proposal is bettering the alley condition. Regarding the height variance I am all for it. HPC can't approve it just by the virtue of the criteria which is hardship. This is a self-created hardship. It is clearly a conflict with good intentions 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2013 with the code and of being in odds with a good design. One of the criteria might be if it can be proved that the design is better by approving this height variance then it should be granted. You shouldn't have to go in front of council. That kind of language could be broadly stated and put in any design guideline. A design person's worse nightmare is to be foiled by design regulations that inhibit good design and this is the case where that might be happening. It has been explained well to us and Derek will do a good job Monday night. Nora also agreed with Willis. This design stepping down from the Limelight really highlights the historic house. Nora asked if the garage could be pulled back two feet. Jim also asked if the garage could be pulled back in response to the commentary about the alley. Willis said the garage is already taking two or three feet out of the alley right now. By placing it on the property line he is giving back two or three feet. Jay thanked the applicant for moving the light well. Jay also said he supports the light well height variance. Jay said the five foot variance on the garage is an improvement and the argument of accessibility with a vehicle doesn't stand because it wouldn't be appropriate to drive one tire onto this property in order to use the garage for 210 Cooper. Moving the garage to the corner is appropriate. At final we will talk about building materials and light pollution. Derek said the only way you could see into the interior light well is maybe from 2010 East Cooper's peak of their roof because they are about 11 feet taller than we are proposing for the project. You would have to come up to about 52 feet before seeing into it. On the roof we are proposing a paint locked metal, gunmetal gray which non-reflective. On the vegetation between the building there is ten feet two inches between the Limelight and the new proposed construction. In reality we are going to try the vegetation but we aren't sure it will work and we might have to do some kind of shrubbery. The garage is around two feet into the community property and we are actually pushing the new construction back five feet from the property line. It is 7 feet plus improvement for the situation. When we pull the garage back the overhang will not be over the property line. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2013 MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #34 for 201 E. Hyman Ave. adding #7 to recommend to City Council support for the height variance. Motion second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Roll call vote: Willis, yes; Nora, yes; Jim, yes; Jay, yes. 947 E. Cooper Ave. — Minor Development, continue the PH to Dec. 11" Debbie said the public notice has been received. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 947 E. Cooper to January 22nd at the applicant's request, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn, second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11