Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20140910 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 Chairperson, Jay Maytin called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Willis Pember, Patrick Sagal and Sallie Golden. John Whipple, Jim DeFrancia and Nora Berko were absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Patrick reminded the board that the intent of the historic preservation commission is to ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town and early ski resort and cultural center. The guidelines should be applied as intended when we look at different applications. MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of August 27, 2014; second by Sallie. All in favor, motion carried. 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second (continue the public hearing to October 22°d MOTION: Jay moved to continue the public hearing until October 22n1; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. 28 Smuggler Grove Road Sallie recused herself Debbie explained to the applicant that they need a 3-0 vote for approval. Sara said the biggest concern at the last hearing had to do with setbacks. There are new setbacks. The applicant has pushed as much mass as they can up against the ten foot utility easement at the back. They are providing 9 feet on the east and ten feet is required. For the new home the front yard setback is at 19' 2 1/2" and 25 feet is required. On the west five is being provided and ten required. In staff's opinion we find that the review criteria for granting setback variances are met. This is a site that is wider than deep and there is a 25 foot setback requirement for this zone district. When this area was annexed with it came some funky zoning and it is zoned R-15A which has a generous front yard setback. Having the rear addition is more in line with the design guidelines than having a side addition. The site plan is 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 appropriate and does deserve the setback variances that they are requesting. The side deck has been eliminated from the historic home and relocated to the rear of the addition. They no longer need a parking variance and can accommodate all their parking onsite. They far bonus has been reduced from 500 to 276 square feet. The width of the addition to the historic home has been reduced slightly. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Exhibit I — one letter and one e-mail. Letter from Tom Whitehead and John Redmond. John Rowland, Sara Upton and Brian Rubenstein represented the owners. John Rowland asked Sara when this house was designated. Sara said this is a designated landmark and was designated in 2008. This house is not in its current location. John said there is talk that this lot is 20% smaller than the neighbors lots and how can you develop this. Sara said FAR is based on the percentage of your lot size. It is proportionate. John said we have a smaller lot and are building a smaller building. Sara said each case is looked at separately. Sara Upton said it was brought up to move the house back to the setback line or encroach and request a variance. There is a utility easement that exists in the back of this lot and it is impossible to build back there. The houses are placed approximately 11 feet back from the property line. The Engineering Department would not grant a permit for these structures if we could not either micropile and stabilize the excavation or lay the soil back. The houses are placed to the rear as far as is physically practical. The Engineering Department also said we could not get a permit for any construction in a utility easement. There was comment by staff that the front porches of these two houses should align within reason. The historic house has a porch that is set at 6.7 feet deep and the new porch is within four inches of each other. The planter on the balcony is set back 16 feet from the front fagade of the house and is 39 feet back from the property line. The only place to see it is 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 from a neighbors second story window. There are 3 bedrooms in the historic home and four in the new home. The overall square footage that is above grade for these houses is 4,064. We feel our application is consistent in terms of the density that is being proposed onsite. John pointed out that they are surrounded on three sides with utility easements. Jay pointed out that because of the easement the footprint is smaller. Sara said the utility easement is not deducted from the lot area for determining floor area. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Lynn Carlson said she lives across the street at 63 Smuggler Road. I am very concerned about the setback. The current location of the home seems very close to our narrow street. They are proposing a 9' 10" setback which is basically on top of the road. David Lockren, resident at Snyder Park. We share a common property line with this particular lot. We have been there 14 years and have experienced over the years with the people that live there when they have a party we get to share every conversation and music that comes out of that house. The neighborhood is very dense. Putting two houses on a lot that now has one both of which will have outdoor decks and have moved back to the property line is a concern. I'm most concerned with the roof top deck and loud parties making it really difficult for those of us who live less than 50 feet away to enjoy the quiet of our neighborhood. Maybe you can eliminate the roof top deck or put restrictions on what can occur on the roof top deck. The roof top decks are right across from our bedrooms. I understand that they are well in their rights to build these two buildings and all the things that have been worked out to make them fit better into the neighborhood is appreciated but the density is going to become a problem especially with outside decks elevated off ground. Greg McPherson said he owns half the duplex at 21 Smuggler Grove which is right from the proposed development. I live in a 1,025 square foot house. I see very little to do with preservation and a lot of maximizing of this lot and within that I see destruction of our neighborhood where we have people 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 living there full time. I see in this project the same thing that is happening in the West End where no one lives there anymore and there is no sense of family and community. By allowing this will effect everyone living on this street. I would like to see it smaller. Marty Ames said she lives at 23 Smuggler Grove. Marty said she likes the house and wants to see it preserved. Marty said it has been the setbacks that are an issue. Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public hearing. Jay asked what is the amount of square footage above ground for each home? Sara Upton said 2,335 for the new home and 1,762 for the historic home. On the historic home you could not raise up the mass until you get back to the addition and that is 60 feet back from the property line already. The mass is as big as it can possibly get. John said we are proposing two small homes that are in character with this neighborhood and in character with Aspen. Jay said the option of one home would have a side addition because of the setback constraints. John said it is 9'10" setback to the historic structure, however from that front yard setback all the way back to two story addition it is about 40 feet with is significant and respective to the historic resource. With regard to noise and party decks that is a lot of speculation and our city noise ordinance policies would take care of that. I see a lot of my colleagues moving back into the West End. The West End did go through a period of time when it was quite and that is changing. This town would benefit seeing more houses like these. Sara said you can review the deck at final regarding the size and if it is appropriate but HPC cannot review the use of the deck. Willis said HOA's can address the use etc. It is not our charge. This street is small and funky. There are large homes on this street and the applicant 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 has done as best possible and has been here three times. They have nailed in securing the setbacks and are as compliant as they can be. Patrick thanked the applicant for the re-designing and thanked the neighbors for appearing at the meeting. The purpose and intent is to preserve Aspen's character as an historic mining town and early skiing resort and cultural center. The applicant is close on mass and scale but the flat roof garage is more massive than it should be. I looked at guidelines 11.5, 11.6 and 10.9 speaking to roof forms that should be gabled, hipped or shed. I would suggest strongly that the applicant slightly re-design it to a gabled or shed roof over the garage and I won't vote for the flat roof. I also have a concern about the four foot variance for the stairs going into the side setback. Willis said 80% of the new structure has roof forms that are identical to the historic. Willis pointed out that the flat roof is isolated and we need to address the entire composition. Willis asked Patrick to reconsider. Patrick said if the flat roof was in the back or behind where it isn't seen rather than out in front he would reconsider. Jay said 2/3rds of the flat roof is in the front of the building. If the roof was hipped you would then lose the planter. The flat roof is on the subservient side of the property from the historic resource. With a shed roof it would increase the mass. You have a hardship created by the utility easement. It is appropriate to bring the building forward because the mass coming forward is small, a one car garage. This part of town has no uniformity. At the last meeting it was clear that no one wanted cars parked on the street and the applicant has addressed that. It seems to me that the applicant has done everything to address the concerns that were,brought up at the last two meetings. The envelope has gotten smaller and the buildings have moved back. I am completely sympathetic as to what could happen. Jay said he would support the application. Sara said guideline 11.6 says flat roofs should only be used in areas where it is appropriate to the context. Flat roofs are allowed in certain situations and we have found that the flat roof here is appropriate. It is also important to point out how the land use measures height for roofs. Flat roofs are measured to the top. If you have any sloping roof you are measuring to a 1/3 point or %2 point of that slope. You would need to understand changing the 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 roof form and what that does to the mass and how it would make it possibly look bigger. Patrick said he finds that gabled roofs even if the top is higher than a flat roof the appearance of mass and scale is less. Jay said with the flat roof some of the neighbors views would be protected. If you put a gable on you are taking away more views of Aspen Mountain from across the street. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #26 for 28 Smuggler Grove Road, second by Jay. Roll call vote: Jay, yes; Willis, yes; Patrick, no. Motion failed 2-1. John Rowland requested a continuation. John said he wished this topic would have come up at one of the first hearings. At the first hearing we had a flat roof. MOTION: Jay moved to continue the public hearing on 28 Smuggler Grove Road until October 22nd, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. 206 Lake Avenue — Special Review for Mechanical Units in Street Facing Yard, Public Hearing Sallie was seated. Don Carpenter represented the owner. Debbie reviewed the affidavit of publication and that portion of the public notice has been property provided. Debbie said Don Carpenter did not bring his public notice to the meeting. Debbie asked that the original be submitted to staff within 24 hours. Don said the affidavit asks whether or not the notices were sent. The notice posting was posted onsite on the 25th of August. The mailing occurred and there is a picture of the notice and a copy of the noticing addresses. Don said he will provide the original the next day. Sara said this review is for mechanical equipment in the front yard. HPC saw this project about a year ago and is currently under construction. They are picking up the two story house, digging a basement and putting it back 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 where it originally was located. They are doing some minor changes to additions that were made to the house. The property is also listed on the National Register. The application tonight is technical in nature. The applicant has some sight constraints on the property. They have a Hallam Bluff review area where they cannot develop into. The lot is a triangular shape. They are trying to figure out where to put their air conditioning units. They are proposing to put them under the wrap around front porch in the front yard. This is a technical variance that needs to happen in order to have the mechanical placed under the front porch. Staff is recommending approval because you cannot see the units and they do not impact the historic resource. We are also recommending that the lattice work that is beneath the wrap around porch match the historic photograph that has been provided to the board in the packet. In the application it is wood lattice work with brick columns between and staff feels strongly that the brick columns should not be there because they are a little too fancy as to what was historically there. Jay opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Don said the three condensing units would be under the wrap around deck and below grade. The units would be accessed through the stairs of the carriage house side of the property Don asked for consideration as his design team would prefer the brick columns because it is a continuation of the brick wainscoting that is going back in place and to tie into what is existing. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #26 with the two conditions; the units are approved in the location as shown on exhibit A. Reconstruct the lattice work to match the photograph. The brick columns are not approved. Motion second by Sallie. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. 434 E. Cooper Ave. —Amendment to Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review and View plan Review, Public Hearing Jay said his wife has done business in the past with the applicant but not with this property. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 Debbie asked Jay if he could be fair and impartial. Jay said he can be fair and objection. Debbie said the affidavit is in order and the applicant can proceed. Sara said this is an amendment to the conceptual approval that was granted in 2012 by HPC. The entire project is up for review. The applicant has added a two story element closest to the Red Onion building. A chamfered corner has been introduced which staff is supportive of and is consistent with what is happening in the historic district. In 2012 staff recommended bringing the second floor closer to the street so that it would be more consistent with what is downtown. This development is similar to 204 S. Galena. The applicant has pulled the two story element to the street fagade but in the proposed location it will obscure the Red Onion as you are coming down Cooper Street. We appreciate that they added a two story element but in staff s opinion it is in the wrong location. The building was in the view plane with the previous approval. This development will not further infringe on the view plane. Sara said there is the two story volume with the poster shop in between and the Red Onion. Before it was a one story with a setback. Charles Cunniffe, architect Council upheld the approval from HPC. There is a cutout in the alley for a transformer that has to be open to the sky. There is also a provision for a second means of egress and elevator to the second floor and basement that was not showed in the previous scheme. The trash and recycling also have to conform with the guidelines. The stair elevator is on the south west corner. The Red Onion addition is significantly set back and is visible. You wouldn't be able to see the sign because of the trees etc. unless you get up close. There was public outcry to not have the corner obstructed and have it stepping back on the second floor. We are keeping the building low on the corner to protect the public space. The Guido and Paradise building are set back. The Independence building has a chamfered corner. The proposed chamfered corner interacts with the other existing buildings. On the materials we think it will be a redish sandstone approach. Sara has a concern that downtown will look a little too homogenized as this building is similar to the 204 S. Galena building. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 Sallie asked Charles to explain how this building is different from the Gap building. Charles said this building will be in stone and the retail storefronts would be different. The building also steps down four feet along the sidewalk on Galena. The building has a different movement than at 204 S. Galena. The materials will be completely different and we would possibly use a linear brick. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Jay identified the issues: Two story element possibly blocking the Red Onion sign The Wedding Cake design of the building itself Chamfered Corner Willis commented that the Gap building is a perfectly fine structure and it looks great and is well done. I concur with staff's comments about replicating the proposed building with a buffed stone version. The massing is a little "Pueblo" style. When walking down the mall your sights are blocked by the vegetation until you get right up to the building. I support the two story mass where it is proposed. Jay said when we approved this the setback second floor seemed very important to the public. It is inviting you into the mall and creating what I call the mouth of the river and it opens the mall up. The chamfered corner also opens the building up and helps people walk into the mall. The two story structure is helping to meet the center or middle of the block. This design is opening the view up to the Red Onion. Patrick said he likes the design. The "wedding cake design is appropriate because it does let more light in on the mall. The owner has done a great job to make the downtown as friendly to the public and fit the purpose and intent of our guidelines. Two stories to the street would not work. The open chamfered corner is appropriate. That corner is the center of life in Aspen. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 Sallie pointed out that she likes the Gap building and the owner did a great job. On this building it needs to be unique so we don't have similar buildings downtown. Willis pointed out that the mass and scale is the same as the Gap building. Charles said we are trying not to wonder to far from what was previously approved and at final we will handle the details. Mark Hunt, owner said the continuance is important to keep the conceptual moving forward. This design was done long ago and we understand the boards concerns. Sallie said it needs more a more contemporary take on the design. Jay said on the southeast corner it is appropriate to have the mass off the street. Patrick said he disagrees with Sallie and Willis. The majority of the people in Aspen want Aspen to remain an historic town. I would approve this design as presented. Mark Hunt said the Gap building would be a different building if there were three or four more feet on the top but the 28 foot height limit comes into play. Willis pointed out that the existing building represents a mark of diversity designed by Fritz Benedict with regard to historic development downtown with the wood framing. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 434 E. Cooper Avenue to January 28tH, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sallie. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned t 7:30 p.m. tikl athleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10