Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20150107ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2015 1 Vice-chair, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were John Whipple, Nora Berko, Sallie Golden and Jim DeFrancia. Patrick Sagal was seated at 5:50 p.m. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Disclosure: Nora will recuse herself on North Monarch. Sallie said she can be fair and impartial on 202 N. Mona rch. Sallie said she owned the property and sold it to the applicant. Sallie said she has no monetary interest in the project. MOTION: Nora moved to approve the minutes of Dec. 3 rd as amended, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: John moved to approve the minutes of Dec. 10th; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. 229 W. Smuggler/426 N. Second – Conceptual Major Development, On- Site Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing, Cont’d from Nov. 12th Amy said this is the third hearing. At the last meeting there were issues over the dormer proposed to the back side of Victorian and whether or not the Victorian should be relocated on the site or not and now and where the addition should be placed in order to gain some extra square footage. Before you tonight is a new version and staff is recommending approval. The Victorian is not being moved. It will be picked up for a proper basement. The addition is still located on the east side of the house and it has been redesigned. Instead of having a glass lean-to they have turned and reoriented the addition and tucked it in tight against the house. It is quieter and smaller and staff is satisfied with the placement. They have also dropped the two story garage to a one story garage on the alley. They do not need a side yard setback variance for the addition anymore. They are still proposing a dormer on the back of the Victorian. Staff feels it is a reasonable and traditional addition to the house. At final we ask a restudy of the light well at the front porch and we would also like a restudy of the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2015 2 staircase that is coming out the front side of the new addition. The new addition is only 300 square feet and the staircase is coming out three sides of it. It confuses which door is the front door. There are still some setback variances needed for the garage along the alley. It needs a side yard variance and a rear yard setback variance. One thing that might need changed in the resolution is when you have two detached structures on a site they are not subject to a combined side yard setback restriction. In order for the building to be considered detached they have to be separated by ten feet above and below grade. The proposed in the packet has the two units ten feet apart above grade but not below grade. Staff has suggested HPC grant a variance for that dimension. The applicant would also like to have the two basements touching each other after all for ease of construction. If they do that then we need to call this project a duplex. It will still look the same above grade. We would need the combined side yard setback variance reduction of 15 feet. They are supposed to have 30 feet and have 5 on one side and ten on the other so they are short 15 feet. A structural engineer report will be required and a bond posted. Overall we feel this will be a successful project and we recommend conceptual approval. John Schenk CCY architects Mitch Haas, Hass Land Planning Melissa Mabe, Ruggles, Mabe, Terrell Architecture Mitch said on the first two hearings we did not have staff support at all and we have come a long way. If we have a ten foot separation there is no combined yard setback variance. Because the basements abut each other we technically need the variance. While it sounds like a 15 foot reduction is a great deal it is really only for unit A where it is ten feet off the property line and where the garage sits which is 5 feet of the property line. The predominance of the combined setbacks is way more than 30 feet. Before we had the two basements wall 3 ½ feet apart but construction wise that would be difficult to back fill. We are still not requesting any FAR bonuses even though we are undertaking a great deal of restoration. The building is crooked so it needs a new foundation and then it was decided to do the basement and have more livable space. John Schenk, CCY architects ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2015 3 John thanks the HPC for having a special meeting. John presented a power point of the proposed project. The site plan includes the historical structure and Unit A resides at the back of the lot. We are proposing a single bay garage with the addition of Unit A. The intent is to restore the Victorian 1888 house and live in it. They intend to maintain the northwest yard and turn it into somewhat of a public garden. They also want a southern terrace. The new addition will be detached from the historic piece. The lot is 9,000 square foot lot but it is constrained to be built on the south edge. We had looked at a number of different version for this property. We have reduced the above grade program and reduced the size of the garage. The addition connects to the east side but is much smaller and minimizes the connection to the historic piece. The owner will take this building back to its historic look. We will remove the dormer on the west side and skylight on the southern face toward the alley. There is also dry rot along the baseboard of the building and the front steps are sloping to the side. We wil l rebuild the front porch and redo the decorative details. There is also a small dormer on Unit A and we shifted the southern dormer to the west. Willis asked about the parking. Mitch said today there is zero parking required and we are actually improving the condition with one in the garage. The other car will park on the street. Amy said she saw the changes as relatively small and she is comfortable moving forward but it is up to HPC to decide. John said at final the siding on the front portion should differentiate a little more from the historic resource. Sallie also agreed that it should be a modern take on the horizontal board. Vice-chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Variances Change to mass and scale Duplex connection RDS’s build to lot line ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2015 4 Willis said the conditions in the resolution ask for further study of the east addition staircase and the elimination of that entrance. The applicant has agreed to that condition. The changes to the massing are subtle and this is a great site plan and a huge improvement over what is there now. The restoration efforts are commendable. Applying zinc to the garage and the new residence is a little confusing but overall this project can go forward. Willis said he would accept the resolution and the amendment by Amy a 15 foot combined setback with the result being a duplex. John said this is a great site plan and project and I am in favor of the resolution. Sallie said she supports John and Willis’s comments. Nora said she is excited that the house is not being moved and supports the resolution. Sallie said the dormer separates the old Victorian from the new house. Jim agreed with Sallie and the applicant has done a terrific job. MOTION: Willis moved to adopt resolution #1 as written with the fourth bullet being changed to reflect Amy’s initial statement regarding the duplex and the combined 15 yard setback that kicks in resulting it being a duplex. A four foot reduction of the rear yard for the new unit and you are typically allowed an 18 inch architectural projection for that dormer. Amy said the dormer goes a little further into the setback. Amy recommended a statement be added to the resolution that a rear yard setback reduction of four feet above and below grade for the new unit and the projecting dormer is approved. An additional approximate one foot projection for the dormer is also approved. Motion second by Jim. Jim, yes; Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; John, Yes, Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-0. Election: Jim nominated Willis as chair, second by John. All in favor. Nora nominated Jim as Vice-chair, second by John. All in favor. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2015 5 Lot 2, 202 N. Monarch St. Subdivision – Conceptual Major Development and Residential Design Standards Variances, Public Hearing Nora recused herself. Bill Guth, owner said he has no issue with Sallie sitting on the board for his agenda item. Debbie Quinn said the affidavits of public notice and they are in order and notice was appropriately provide. Exhibit I. Amy said this is a 6,000 square foot lot that was once part of the larger property referred as the Blue Vic. The Blue Vic lot is zoned R-6 and these two lots are zoned mixed use. The applicant had the option of developing this as a commercial type site or residential and they went the residential route. They are proposing a duplex and the property is vacant. Staff has applied all the standards to the project and we find that they are met and recommend approval as designed. The RDS’s also apply and the one needing discussion is secondary mass. Whenever you build a new duplex you are supposed to have a primary mass and a secondary mass. To meet that standard the two units on the site can be hooked together but the linking piece is basically to be 10x10 and it is 20 x 10 in this proposal. Staff recommends approval because we feel this project still very much creates the primary/secondary detached feeling between the two units. They have broken down the mass in a way that is very successful. The fact that the link is wider we don’t feel anyone can tell. The overall is that there is air space between these two units. This is pushed as far away from the historic resource as possible and it relates more to the commercial development that is happening in the Jerome Professional Bldg. The scale is more of a modern form and it fits in perfect. Staff is recommending approval as designed. Joseph Speers, S2 architects Bill Guth, developer Joseph said from the beginning we wanted to push our development away from the Victorian as possible. The addition which is a garage and an ADU above is placed as far to the east as possible with a driveway separation. We tried to relate to the Jerome professional building and keep the mass as low as possible. We tried to do a mix of brick and darker brownish wood siding ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2015 6 to help blend into the red brick of the Hotel Jerome and the brownish light pink of the Blue Vic. We pushed a substantial mass to the back of the property and keep the front of the property very quaint and small. Willis asked about the size of the units. Joseph said Unit A is 4,600 gross square footage and Unit B is 1,683. Bill said we are requesting a variance for the link Because of the steep slopes of the site we have to do the garage a full story below the main level of this house. Joseph said you don’t get much credit for a garage that is in a subgrade space. The garages have to come off the alley. Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Patrick asked if the alley was vacated originally. Amy said there is an historic alley that runs between the new home that Tim Semerau did and Phil Hodgson next door and there was discussion where the garages should go. The historic alley did not get vacated but they were not permitted to use it. Instead the Blue Vic and this house has to come off the extension of the lower portion of the alley. Vice-chair Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis identified the issue RDS’s – secondary mass waiver Jim said he find the application straight forward and would support staff’s recommendation. Willis suggested a 3 dimensional mass for final. Sallie said this proposal is very sympathetic to the Blue Vic and the architecture is very comparable to the neighborhood. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2015 7 Willis said they should be commendable for picking the smallest development option. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #2, 2015 granting conceptual approval for the variance from secondary mass with the conditions recommended by staff; second by John. Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Sallie, yes; John, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes; Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk