Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20020508ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 8~ 2002 323 W. HALLAM - FINAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING ........................................ 1 629 W. SMUGGLER - FINAL REVIEW & VARIANCES -PFI .............................................................. 2 320 W. MAIN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT - PH & VARIANCES ................. 10 216 E. HALLAM - WORKSESSION NO MINUTES ............................................................................. 16 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 8~ 2002 Vice-Chairpson, Gilbert Sanchez called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners present: Jeffrey Halferty, Rally Dupps, Paul D'Amato and Teresa Melville. Neill Hirst and Melanie Roschko were excused. Staffpresent: Historic Preservation Plafiner, Amy Guthrie Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland Suzannah Reid was seated at 6:45 p.m. Michael Hoffman was seated at 5:10 then left for the BOCC meeting and returned at 6:45 p.m. MOTION: Rally moved to approve the minutes of March 27, 2002; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Rally moved to continue the conceptual development and public hearing for 334 ~ Hallam until May 22, 2002; second by Paul. All in favor, motion carried. 323 W. HALLAM - FINAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING Amy relayed that one concern is the decorative crown molding on the addition and it seems to mimic the original building. Possibly look at a different treatment for the gable ends then the square cut shingles that match the historic house. Peter Rispoli, owner was sworn in. Peter said he can take out the cedar shakes from the gable ends and he will work with Amy on the siding selection. Peter relayed to the board that he enjoyed the process and thanked the HPC for volunteering their time. Peter said he is looking forward to making this project happen, HPC staff turned issues around quickly and could not have been more helpful in getting him through the process. The current guidelines are very clear. Jeffrey said the crown molding that needs restudied is on the north elevation. Vice-chair, Gilbert Sanchez opened and closed the public hearing. ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ ' MAY 8, 2~ Michael relayed that the site itself works extremely well. Paul and Teresa relayed that the process on this house worked very smoothly. Jeffrey said that the applicant came in with an unassuming addition to the historic resource and the board appreciates the effort put forth by the owner. Gilbert said with the recommendations made by staff this project will be exemplary. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve Resolution #17, 2002, grantingfinal approval and conditions for 323 W. Hallam Street, Lots D & E, Block 43, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; second by Michael. Motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Michael, Paul, Teresa, Jeffrey, Gilbert Rally recused himself on the vote. 629 W. SMUGGLER- FINAL REVIEW & VARIANCES -PH Michael recused himself. Amy informed the board that city council approved conceptual and the only condition was that the applicant needed to deal with the variances with regard to the garage at their final review. The City Attorney advised staff that the review should be conducted under the terms of the new ordinance which says that final is only about materials and by approving conceptual we are tied and committed to the shape and mass and form of the addition. The new ordinance is more permissive to applicants and when adopted we need to allow applicants to take advantage of it. Steven St. Clair presented a materials book to staff and the HPC for review. Amy informed the board the following: 1. The applicant intends to remove the aluminum siding on the historic house and the representation is to replace it with hardy plank. If the original siding is underneath every effort needs to be made to restore it. If it is to be replace it should be replaced with in-kind. The HPC 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFT needs to decide whether hardy plank is an in-kind replacement or cedar beveled siding. 2. Is there enough of a distinction between the new and old construction. We did at conceptual discuss haying a wider exposure of the siding on the addition than is going to be on the historic house and everyone seemed to be comfortable with that. We need to determine that the overall detailing is sufficiently different. 3. There is a proposal to use vinyl windows in the new construction and typically we see either wood windows which we absolutely require on the historic house or clad which is often used on the addition. We need to discuss whether vinyl is an appropriate material. 4. The bigger issues that need dealt with are variances that related to the construction of the garage along the alley. The board had discussions about wanting to maintain a garage on the alley in the same side street orientation that exists now. The board determined that the garage should be free standing from the original house. Variances required: HPC has the ability to grant setback variances purely for the reason that it is the most compatible arrangement with the historic house. It maintains an existing condition that staff feels that is appropriate to grant. The second is the residential design standard that exists which discourages having garages face the street when they could face an alley. Amy relayed that it is appropriate on this case because it maintains an existing condition. It is typical on historic houses to have a garage right on the rear property line along the alley. The third is a FAR bonus that is needed because usually when you have a garage it is exempted from floor area calculations but not if it doesn't come off the alley when yOu could do that. The FAR bonus standards must apply. The first standard says the project must meet all applicable design guidelines. Regarding criteria A, because council granted conceptual we need to feel that all of the criteria related to the basic mass and bulking are met and it is up to the HPC to determine if the final details are met through our discussions tonight. Criterion C has been met due to the restoration work that is being done on the historic house. Criterion G has been met because there is another historic outbuilding on the site that will be preserved as a small shed. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ ~ MAY 8; 2002 Before granting an FAR bonus the HPC needs to determine and evaluate whether it is the minimum variance required to achieve a good project. 1. Make the garage smaller. 2. Look into the idea of taking advantage of below grade space. There is also a height variance needed. HPC is reviewing this variance in lieu of the Board of Adjustment. The garage building is 3'6" over the height limit for an accessory building. Overall this is not a variance that couldn't be avoided. There is nothing special about this site or some unique feature about this site. The plate height could also be lowered. Steven St. Clair was sworn in. Dave Myler, attorney Dave Myler said they will remove the aluminum siding and preserve what is there if they can. The issues to be discussed are the hardy plank siding that has durability and lasts longer than wood. The other issues are vinyl windows and the garage door design. Amy said the design standards say for all residential buildings they need to look like single stall doors. Steven St. Clair said they will change the design to show a division in the center. Dave Myler said the width of the boards and the different £ascia treatments, generally they feel that is a design issue that has been resolved. Two basic variance issues are at play here, one is the floor area itself and the other is height. Material discussion: Dave Myler said if the board has strong feelings about not using the hardy plank they are prepared to use the cedar. Steven St. Clair said the outbuilding is on the survey but not on the architectural drawings but will remain on the site. Steven clarified that the doors will be 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 8, 2002 exactly as drawn. Amy clarified that there are concerns about some of the newer materials have deterioration issues. Steven said he can get the specks on the WindoWs and they are of a higher grade. Gilbert polled the board and they have no issues with the setback. Dave Myler said he is looking at the FAR a little differently and not as a typical request for an FAR bonus. If the garage doors face the alley they do not need the bonus. The height limitation in the code does pose a practical difficulty and our desire to minimize the floor area in the addition to the principle structure. Allowing a variance on the garage is consistent with previous actions that have been taken by the HPC (examples were hung up). The applicants believe that the 3 ½ foot height variance in this case is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the structure. We believe that sub-grade living space is not reasonable. It is not desirable space and expensive for the applicant. Putting the apartment above the garage was at HPC's request. Frankly, reducing the size of the garage or using below grade for the apartment does not work for the applicant. Dave pointed out that the principle structure is about 18 feet and the garage is 15 feet. The principle structure is below the maximum allowed height on the site. Vice-chair, Gilbert Sanchez opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Jeffrey said the garage element is taller than what we like to see on the property. Allowing the site variance should in fact make the connection smaller, that is why we have the ability to give that type of variance. The plate height in the garage makes that two-story element just overwhelming for that elevation. The west elevation is troubling. It is difficult for the non-educated to understand where the new and old construction begins and a material change and dimensions could differentiate and make that 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, 'MAY 8; 2002 inflection successful. Jeffrey said he had no problem with the hardy plank and vinyl windows based on the applicant's presentation today. Regarding the FAR bonus, it would not be needed if they rotate the garage toward the alley. Rally said regarding the vinyl windows, we would need to see a sample. Rally does not support the hardy plank. One of the elements of old buildings is seeing the wood grain of siding and that would be missing if you did the house in hardy plank. It would make the house "too crisp" looking. Regarding the FAR bonus, b,d and f, are not complied with. The building materials do not properly define the old from the new. The shake shingle siding in the gable ends further adds to the complexity of being able to distinguish old from new. The garage height is too tall and shows visual competition between the historic house and the garage. Rally supports the orientation of the garage. The trim profiles of the windows seem similar if not identical to the historic windows and they should be restudied. Teresa dittoed the vinyl windows. She would support wood siding on the historic house because it adds so much to the historical veracity of it, rather than frying it make it into a reprodUCtion. Th~ garage facihg ~th street is acceptable but the height of the garage competes too much with the house and because it is a secondary building there should be a greater differentiation in the height. Paul said he could acc6pt the vinyl window if it was brought in to make sure the profiles and widths are suitable to the size that a wooden window would be. Paul had no problem with the hardy plank. Gilbert said the hardy plank on the historic building does not comply with the guidelines. The guidelines are very clear about that topic. In order for additional FAR to be granted all of the guidelines should be satisfied, especially on the historic house. Hardy plank on the addition is acceptable. The treatment of the gables that Rally mentioned does confuse the style of architecture. It would be better without the shingles. If that happens there would be enough distinctions between old and new. The vinyl windows in 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 8~ 2002 the addition are OK as long as they are a satisfactory quality. The garage door should like two garage doors and comply with the guidelines. The FAP, could be granted if it met the requirements for additional FAR. The height issues a difficult one. Gilbert said he appreciated the comments from the applicant as to why the variance should be granted. The requirements that we have to judge this by, he agrees with Amy's analysis and there are two items that do not meet the criteria. All of the discussions that we had before and during Conceptual related to the bulk and volume of the addition. We were always concerned about minimizing that bulk and volume of the addition. It might not be desirable to locate space in a basement or sub-grade space, in fact it is not unreasonable and that is the criteria that is stated (reasonable use). There are plenty of examples all over Aspen where lower grade space is used. He could not grant the height variance. Steven St. Clair, owner said they did a one-story connector and the HPC requested that they go back and redesign the living space above the garage as long as it was not connected to the house. At conceptual mass and form were approved, height and shape. Mass and shape, according to what we looked into, at final, are not up for debate. David Myler, said in terms of the criteria for the FAR bonus we disagree that b,d and fhave not been satisfied. We feel they were satisfied by virtue of the conceptual approval because they all relate to design issues. The siding size, differentiation and attempt to distinguish between the old and new was a design issues that we feel was approved at conceptual and binding. The detail in the eave of the garage is another design issues that were approved at conceptual. We disagree with staff's analysis as to the lack of any hardship or practical difficulty that are associated with this project. The practical difficulties are pretty obvious in this case and are incurred almost exclusively in our attempt to satisfy what we feel are very significant historic preservation issues in terms of minimizing the size of the addition to the principle structure. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 8, 2002 Steven St. Clair said when we were asked to detach the Portion of the house and raise the garage back up; obviously we would have never done that if we thought we were going to be here today talking about a variance. We wouldn't have raised it so we could come back to all of you so you could deny it. Rally said he understood that form and mass were conceptually approved and should we be talking about the height of the garage? Amy stated yes because the council's approval Specifically did not include any kind of variances or means by which the project was exceeding the dimensional requirements. That height of the garage is not contained in council's conceptual approval. Gilbert said in fact if the form were only 3.6" loWer it would comply and we would not be here discussion this topic. David Myler concurred that the variance was not in front of council. Conceptual approval complies that the structural was acceptable to them from a form and mass standpoint but it didn't constitute a 7~ariance and that is why we are here today, we find ourselves in a strange situation that we don't need a FAR bonus if we turn the garage, but we don't want to do that but we are prepared to do so. You have the authority and discretion to apply some degree of common sense and decide if there is a close issue on the bonus criteria but you really want to see the garage doors open on sixth Ave. you have the discretion to say the FAR is ok and move onto the height. Regarding the height there are different issues involved. We feel there are practical difficulties that are not the fault of the applicant that are incurred by strict application of these rules to our attempt to do a better job addressing historic preservation issues on the main structure, and that constitutes a hardship. MOTION: Rally moved that the application for review at 629 W. Smuggler be continued to a date certain and answer the following questions 1-5 on the memo presented in the packet; second by Teresa. Discussion: ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 8~ 2002 Jeffrey felt that some of the issues could be handled by staff and monitor. Issues #2 and #3 were eliminated. Amy said #1 addressed the gable end. Gilbert said it also addresses the siding issue. Steven St. Clair said he could accept wood siding. He wants to work through this and be done. David Myler said they object restudying the gable ends because it is not a material issue it is a design issue, which we think has been resolved. We are not going to agree to any of the items in 4 and 5. Amy asked the applicant if the board grants final approval with all of the normal conditions but wouldn't grant the variance that your intention is to redesign and break down the height of the garage and eliminate the need for those variances? Steven St. Clair said no. They do not want a motion that would not include the height variance. Rally withdrew his motion and Teresa withdrew her second. MOTION: Rally moved to recommend that resolution #18, for final application for 629 W. Smuggler be granted with the following conditions of approval, 1 -14 in the memo presented in the packet; SecOnd by Teresa. Motion denied 4-0. Paul abstained from voting. Yes vote: No vote: Teresa, Rally, Jeffrey, Gilbert A motion will be made to identify which of the review standards were not met and why. Amy said the findings could be focused around the five questions. Three of those the board found that were not met 1,4,5. MOTION; Rally moved to make a motion to establish the findings by the board regarding 629 W. Smuggler: 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY8, 200~ Guideline 10.4 The submitted proposal does not satisfy the guidelines in terms of providing proper distinction between old and new. 1. The hardy plank on the historic building does not meet the guidelines. 2. There is some question about the quality of the vinyl windows. 3. There is also concern about the architectural treatment of the gable ends, specifically the finished materials. 4. Trim around the windows. The guidelines for the FAR bonus are not met for a lot of reaSons discussed above concerning the material palate. The FAR bonus could be minimized by moving the bedroom over the garage to a basement under the new addition, or by otherwise decreasing the FAR of the new addition to some degree. Regarding the FAR bonus all review standards must be met. The proposed submittal does not satisfy the height variance because it does not satisfy all three of the criteria in section 26.314.040. Motion second by Teresa. Motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: No vote: Teresa, Rally, Jeffrey, Gilbert 320 W. MAIN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT - PIt & VARIANCES Suzannah Reid and Michael Hoffman were seated at 6:45 p.m. Amy relayed that the property is in the office zone district. In the office zone district the FAR is different depending on whether you have a house or a commercial property. This particular lot is 9,000 square feet. There are two large historic buildings on the lot that are associated with each other and we haven't had an example before where that kind of property was in for a lot split. The property is considered mixed use because there is a residence, apartment, and an office in the building. The entire property is calculated as commercial FAR which is .75 to one. The property is allowed 6,750 square feet today but the HPC would have to approve anything that is being built. The lot split would be divided equally in half with one remaining a residence and the other building mixed use. There are FAR issues due to the residential/mixed use which could be resolved one of two ways, either 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, M~y 8, 2002 make it commercial which makes the FAR perfectly fine but that is not what they want. The owners intend to live in the house. They could also request an FAR bonus only to legalize the existing structure, no new addition but legalize what is there today. In order to give the bonus the project has to meet all of the design review standards. Regarding the Elisha house there is some deterioration particularly in one comer that has drainage issues and the woodwork that has been exposed to weathering. Staff's position is in order to grant the variance HPC needs to make a requirement that the building be stabilized and repaired so that there is no more deterioration. Parking: The house needs two parking spaces at 81/2 feet wide by 18 feet long. If those are not provided a parking variance would have to occur. There is also a setback variance being requested for a bay window that will occur in June. The lot line could be jogged but that is not something we typical like to have. Because these two buildings are tied together staff would have difficulty approving a fence being constructed between them. Visually we do not want to see the two buildings separated. Amy said whether they have a lot split or not there is space for future development and HPC would have to approve the plans. If we had the transfer development rights up and going this would be a good project to apply that too. Building something here is going to be controversial and under heavy review. Caroline McDonald and Robert Starodoj were sworn in. Robert Starodoj said if they divide the lot the way they would like it the division line would be right down the sidewalk. The owner would have no problem saying there will not be a fence. An easement could be drawn up for both parties to use the sidewalk and in that way no fence could be built. Parking: 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAy 8, 2002 At one point the building was considered for cOndominiumization and the parking was waived for the number of offices they had and people were parking on the street. There is more parking as a residence then What was there before which was an office building which housed twelve offices. Robert asked what the Parking requirements are? Amy said the house needs two spaces and the carriage house needs 1.26 spaces for the existing commercial and 1 space for the apartment. We just need to know what can be provided in order for HPC to legalize the situation. Caroline explained the parking situation. The board said we need clear dimensions of the existing spaces but that can be addressed in the motion. Mr. Starodoj asked about the attic space and if it was turned into storage would the HPC grant the bonus to either of the houses on the lot? Suzannah said FAR is calculated by the zoning officer regardless of the use of the space. By designating it storage might not necessarily free up other FAR. They are looking at habitable space whether yon are using it or not. Rally pointed out that he is doing a project that had a plate height one foot above the floor and you can only stand under the bridge line but the entire upstairs counts as FAR. Amy pointed out that the entire parcel is landmarked. Teresa mentioned the two buildings and the desire of HPC to visually have the two connected and do we have anything in place that could bind that request. Amy said we have no control over color and if any alterations come in HPC would review them. Gilbert said one of'the criteria we judge historic properties by is setting, site and landscaping. Gilbert asked Amy what elements on this property are significant? Amy said the historic retaining wall in front of the property and plantings, lilac and roses. There is also an open line to the house that supports the 19th century context. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, MINUTES OF, ~MAY 8; 2002 Rally asked by granting the FAR bonus is that going to lock into place any further future development for the historic Elisha house? Amy said as long as it stays a residential use they will not ever be able to add onto it. If it turns to commercial use they end up having about 70 square feet gain of FAR. Teresa asked if we grant the bonus can we require repainting and replacing siding etc. Amy said that is one of the conditions of approval and there are deadlines for the completion of the repairs. Lisa Markalunas was sworn in. HPC has never approved a lot split that separates significant historic structures. HPC has separated land from structures and perhaps minor outbuildings but never approved lot splits that involved historic significant structures. Setting is important and this is one of Aspen's grand Victorians. The setting and carriage house are unique to Main Street. Any separation of those structures will have detrimental impacts on the historic nature of the property. At some point you will get a development proposal for 2,600 square feet. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Jeffrey said he is OK with the lot split and locking the primary building is a strong advantage. When and if the new development is allowed the concern is that we would have disjointed ancillary building and there may be confusion between the new and old construction to the carriage house at the rear of the lot. Gilbert said lots splits in the past have always accomplished the kinds of things that we have wanted to accomplish with historic preservation. This is a unique site and has a very special presence the way the carriage house relates to the building. The concern is how does one develop this property in the future, as it will be a very difficult review. It is unclear how this lot split enhances the property and historical qualities of either of the buildings on the site. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, 'MAy 8~ 2002 Rally agreed with Lisa and Gilbert. The only development opportunity is in front of the carriage house, which then obscures the carriage house and the view. Suzannah asked if any parking variances were waved originally and that disappeared when it changed use? Amy said she is not aware of any variances but that could be researched. Teresa said she could approve the variances; however her concern is the connection between the two buildings. Paul has no problem with the lot split but maybe there is some way that it could be deeded such that whoever took over the small carriage house would take interest and keep it a carriage house. Michael said his concern is the peculiar procedural process and in the memo it states that the FAR bonus is awarded as part of conceptual which is not relevant to this project since no expansion is planned now. Maybe this is an inappropriate time to bring the request. Amy said at conceptual it is the time to decide whether the bonus is proper or not. You cannot wait until final. Suzannah said this is not going through a major review process. Michael also said the restoration should be tied to the bonus. Amy said the attorney recommended that a financial assurance be submitted in order that the work is done. Suzannah pointed out that the space in front is open to development regardless of whether we grant the lot split or not. Often we grant a lot split not knowing what the potential development is. The message needs to be sent that if the lot split is granted the development on this lot will be highly scrutinized. What is going to meet the guidelines is taking advantage of TDR's or some other means of recouping the value of that property other than developing on the front party of that i0t. I c~'t imagine how We could see a proposal that would meet the guidelines. The applicant should go 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 8~ 2002 forward with that message. Splitting it off doesn't move it to a new neighborhood, essentially. Suzarmah also said if the criteria for a 10t ~plit has been met and the restorative efforts on the house do fulfill a development proposal, which is a benefit to the historic house, that is and worthy of the FAR bonus. Suzannah said a change in zoning would only give them 70 square feet. Amy said in the condition of approval it does say that the bonus is not to be allowed for any new construction. HPC has the ability to state that no fence can go through the property. Mr. Starodoj said we are trying to address the lot split and nothing more. You will still be faced with the development no matter what is decided. Caroline said the original paint on the house was an oil base and then latex was put over than and it is curling. Caroline presented photographs of the concerns of the comers and it is the latex pulling offthe wood. Amy clarified that presently the use can change from residential to commercial numerous times but once the lot split occurs and they are dealing with smaller lots a change in use can't occur as a signoffbecause they have an FAR problem. Amy said the potential FAR on the carriage house Would be around 2,500 to 2,600 square feet. Michael suggested that the motion enumerate the uniqueness of this structure and site. MOTION: Gilbert moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Historic Landmark Lot Split and Variances for 320 W.. Main Street into two 4,500 square foot lots, Block 44 Lots N,O and P, City and Townsite of Aspen with the following conditions 1 through 6 as stated in the resolution second by Rally. Gilbert moved to amend his motion as follows: 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, M~y 8~ 2002 7. The unique qualities of the site and existing historic buildings will require strict compliance with all design guidelines for future development of the parcels. The following items reflect the uniqueness of the parcels. 1. The historic relationship between the two structures. 2. The setting of the two structures and open space characteristic of the landscaping. 3. Site configuration: Terrain of landscape and historic retaining wall. 4. ~isibility of the carriage house. 5. Visibility of the eastern side of the main house. 6. The HPC has strong reservations about whether the maximum FAR area can be accommodated on the carriage house in an appropriate way. 7. Strict compliance with the guidelines may prevent full maximum use of the FAR. 8. No fence between the two parcels. Rally second the amended motion. Motion and amended motion carried 4- 2. Yes vote: Paul, Rally, Gilbert, Suzannah No vote: Teresa, Jeffrey Jeffrey said there is a huge architectural design problem at stake especially with the Main Street corridor. Michael recused himself from voting. 216 E. HALLAM -worksession no minutes MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 16