Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20150826 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal, Michael Brown, Jim DeFrancis and Sallie Golden. John Whipple was absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of August 12 th as amended by Michael Brown. Michael second the motion. All in favor, motion carried. 533 E. Main Street – Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Special Review and Viewplane Review, Public Hearing Debbie reviewed the Public Notice – Exhibit I Amy said the proposal involves an addition to the church and a reconfiguration of the front entry. The property is landmark designated and located in the historic district. Conceptual design: Amy said the applicant proposes a 3,000 square foot addition on the west side of the church plus a 3,700 square foot basement. HPC needs to consider the design guideline and the view planes. As the view plane crosses the property it is only ten feet off the ground at the front lot line along Main St. and only 14 feet high on the alley. That means all new construction should be under that height limit or HPC can allow it if you find that there is no new impact on the view plane. No negative visual impact created by the proposal. The proposed addition is 21 to 25 feet tall and is obviously through that view plane. City hall and the Conner cabins are through the view plane. In the early 1990’s the elevator addition was added and in the mid 1990’s the carriage house/garage employee housing structure was built. The new addition attempts to work around some of those conditions and staff is concerned that there is not an appropriate amount of space available for the pavilion where it is placed between the employee housing and church. There is crowding along the alley and not providing enough breathing room and obstructing some of the views of the side of the historic church. There was a chapel in the middle of the site and we suggested to the applicant that they relook the program and consider the possibilities of a detached structure in front of the employee housing building as a possible way to decrease impacts directly to the church and possibly allow for more flexibility and follow the history how the site has been developed over time and reduce some of the impacts. The review has involved other city departments. The Engineering Dept. has suggested that the curb cut on Main Street cannot continue. As far as we know there has been no permit for the curb cut. It has been there at least from the 60’s. There are also new CDOT regulations regarding access to HWY 82 and the City is considering the relocation of the bus stop that is in front of Locals Corner and moving it east. The applicant has an appeal process that they can pursue regarding the curb cut. Staff recommends continuation of the hearing after we discuss other issues tonight. The Building Dept. has been involved and part of the project involves a new staircase on the west side of the church to provide another egress. There is a staircase at the front of the building and an elevator at the front of the building and there is a proposal to add the new staircase on the west. There is a stair case at the alley end of the church and it is undersized and doesn’t meet the code. There is no immediate necessity to resolve this. It is an existing condition that is allowed to continue and the applicant is not required to add this enlarged staircase. There are other options that they can pursue. There is also a request to remodel the front of the church. Historically there was nothing there. In the 1960’s an entry was added and the entry today was from the 1990’s and it is a covering that was never there before. It covers the stained glass over the doors that you can’t see until you are right up to the door. The roof height could be raised so that you can see that part of the façade again. Staff’s preference is no porch roof and be able to see the front façade the way the building was designed originally. If there is a porch it should be minimal and not interfere with the architecture and we would like to see a restudy of the entry. The sidewalk needs improvements and the transformer and the health department has requirements regarding trash and recycling storage. The applicant also needs to address their transportation impacts. With regard to parking the property currently doesn’t have any that is available to the public. This new addition does trigger a new parking requirement. You are able through a special review to determine the number of parking spaces that are justified. Staff is suggesting that the applicant prepare a parking study to have a more factual analysis. There are two other churches that have done expansions and also did parking studies. Growth management: All new development requires some kind of affordable housing mitigation to address the impacts to new employees. Facilities like this can be called essential facilities and can be granted exceptions because there is a civic purpose and this is a community benefit. You would have to house 10.27 employees on the site or buy affordable housing credits to take care of the new impact. We don’t feel that is the number to be mitigated. They have provided employee housing voluntarily already on the site and they have a lot of volunteers etc. The housing authority recommended some level of mitigation and an audit later. The Housing Board recommended no mitigation. Staff feels something is necessary. One possibility would be to have the unit in the rectory have a mandatory occupancy. Mountain viewplane: There are view criteria that needs to be met in order to allow anything to project through the view plane or the applicant needs to honor the view plane. We have suggested that the structure be a detached structure in the middle of the site and that various things be shuffled around in order for you to make a finding. Staff recommends the following.  Study accommodating the new construction in a free standing building, approximately straddling Lots D and E. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 3  Study alternatives to the stair/elevator addition on the rear corner of the church.  Address removal of the Main Street curb cut.  Study the front entry into the church and restore the original condition or minimize impacts of any roof canopy and railings.  Work with Engineering and Transportation to resolve any deficiencies in the TIA.  Complete a formal parking study.  Provide an analysis of the number of employees that would be mitigated through a mandatory occupancy deed restriction of the existing ADU.  Reduce infringement into the view planes. Amy said on Christ Episcopal Church there was no parking requirement. For Cross Roads Church there was an agreement to use the Forest Service parking lot. The curb cut is coming from the municipal code and Engineering Dept. Curb cuts are not allowed on the state highway. There was a typo in the memo and it should be section 21.16.060, Engineering Standards of the municipal code. The standards are new and there is an expansion on the property proposed. Amy said the unit above the garage is a deed restricted affordable housing unit. Charles Cunniffe & Associates Marina Skyles Charles said we did go to housing and there was no need for us to mitigate housing any further than what we currently have done. St. Mary’s is largely volunteer and parishioners of the catholic faith. St. Mary’s has grown and has a loyal following and is an active parish. Most churches have a social hall associated with it and St. Mary’s does not. The church needs code upgrades and repairs and one is the exit stair which required us to add an exit stair to the building. The other stair serves the service part of t he church, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 4 priest and altar boys. It is not a public way. We are proposing to maintain the stained glass windows, replace the carpet and pews and there is mechanical and electrical needs that need upgraded. We intend to do a maintenance and beautification project to the church. The classes are overrun and have been held in the hallways. The bathrooms need enlarged in order to meet the code. The old restrooms will be converted to office space. In the front we will enlarge the area so people can be greeted. Digging under the church was a liability and far more expensive to do. The lawn space for the church is very important and is an historical aspect of the property. To fill that with construction we thought was inappropriate. We chose a campus model that is surrounded by a ring of buildings and the buildings are linked together. The lawn faces the court house and provides breathing room. The proposal is to use the underutilized portion of the property which is the alley and upgrade the service requirements and provide an exit stair. The stair enclosure would not intersect the eave of the building and just be a glass enclosure so you read the entire building through the enclosure. We have reduced the height of the addition by four feet. The height is 17 feet. The enclosure is brick on the back and it is more of a tent pavilion and it engages in the lawn and you read through the building to the back wall. It is slightly curved. The church does a lot of public events. The social hall would allow people to stay on the property after a wedding and just go down stairs for the reception. The structure is light and airy. The view plane is currently impacted by the Conner cabin townhomes which is higher than this building is. The apartment addition has a view plan variation that comes across the middle windows of the apartment addition so we are continuing that variation. We are proposing to lighten up the church entry and the current entry blocks the historic window in which we would like to expose. Marina said the original church was St. Stephens in the back and the steps emptied out into Main Street. Our intent is to lighten the structure in the front so that it relates to the pavilion. Charles said the committee said the historic church needs to be dominant. The pavilion is a building of today. The arches of the pavilion pick up the arches of the windows in the church. We lowered the roof to avoid shadows onto the church and we feel the pavilion is a humble structure. The alley has the trash, transformer and a service entrance. Charles presented a video that shows a better visualization of the proposal. (attached to the agenda packet) ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 5 Willis inquired about the lawn activities. Father John Hilton said the lawn is used every Sunday after the masses for coffee and donuts and the kids play out there and it is also used for picnics. The lawn is also used for parish special events. Gretchen said she is confused about the stair case at the second level which is a significant change to the historic building. Charles said because work is being done to the building the Building Dept. is requiring the exterior stair. Amy said for the next meeting we need in writing what the position of the Building Department is. Amy said she thought the stair was not required. Charles pointed out that there is no additional programming in this proposal that would require more parking. One of our hopes is if there is a wedding they will utilize the pavilion for the reception. There actually should be a reduction in parking. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. Ann O’Brien said she is supportive of the facility and the church needs it desperately. The architect and his team went to work and lowered the height and added the brick element on the back wall. Georgeann Waggaman asked the HPC to approve the plan. It is a good solution and it complements the existing buildings without competing with the historic church. It uses modern clean designs and materials to allow the historic structure to be the focal point. The design buffers the green courtyard with the historic lilacs against the street which allows for a zone of tranquility which is what churches are supposed to have. We want to keep the garage access the way it is because it would be ghastly expensive to turn it around. The use of open pavers with the grass growing through is a good design. The bus stop should not be moved in front of the church. Exhibit II Robert Donatelli said this church has done a lot of great things for people and I am proud of Father John and I support the proposals and physical ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 6 changes to the building and I oppose a bus stop in front of the church. It is important as the population of the church grows to have more square footage and we need the safety of another staircase in case of fire etc. Kim Baillargeon said she is a new member of St. Mary’s and she totally supports the design and the decision to go ahead and build this pavilion. I would like to see this because of my desire to bring in more young people into the church. Young people want things that are updated. You need to not only think of the past history but the future history of the church and congregation. Robyn Joiner said she is a convert and she is raising two children and moved to Aspen partially because of the school district. Being a part of St. Mary’s is very important especially because of the families. My children are out on the lawn playing and being able to have the pavilion on the side and have that area for greeting after mass is exactly what God intended us to be as a community. The children need a place to go after school. John Keleher entered a picture from parishioner Julie Debcker and her children. Exhibit III. Our children are the faces of the future of St. Mary’s. Currently St. Mary’s has several multiuse classrooms. A new social hall would provide a stable learning environment for all the children of the parish. The proposal of the social hall that overlooks the lawn allows fellowship with each other. The heart of our community is gathering people together after masses. John entered his letter into the record Exhibit IV. There are movers and shakers called developers and caretakers who are content to leave things as they are. The history of Aspen has both, Wheeler, Hyman etc. merchants and miners whose names are memorialized in the stained glass windows of our church. In 1892 the church was a small wooden building built in 1882. After World War II developers came again and if they didn’t come none of us would be here today and the valley would still be a ranching farming community and no skiing, music or institute. The growing of the church necessitated the construction of the existing church. In 1987 and over 15 years we completed four major projects. Our facilities have served us for many years; however, times are changing again. It is time to do a new building that would facilitate and further the education of our parishioners and host meetings and conferences. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 7 Carl Vill said he serves on the parish council and I have watched this plan develop and it is coming along quite well. The architect has done a good job and I like the campus effect and the placement of the building. When I look at the other places of worship they have all expanded. We have been standing still and we need to carry out our mission here and I support the application. Stowman L Stines II said he fully supports the pavilion building and the new egress that is proposed on the side of the building. We need the egress for emergencies. If there is a problem right now everyone would have to go down two sets of stairs. Paul Mctay said he met his wife at the parish and is very fond of the parish. I am a strong supporter of the project. I want my daughter to grow up in a thriving community and I am involved with the youth group. The pa vilion is a building but it is also a spiritual building that touches people ’s hearts as well. Julie & Dick Bulkeley said we live across the street from the church. The parishioners are wonderful people to interact with and I hope HPC approves the project. Andrew Calvetti said he is a part time resident for 15 years and the architect has done a great job on the project. The siting is excellent and I wouldn’t want to see it in the grassy area. Moving the bus stop would negatively affect St Mary’s and you would have to take out the trees. As far as parking goes there is plenty of space to park. Ellen Marshall said she came here in the late 60’s as a nurse and St. Mary’s has always been my church. I am not in favor of the proposed project. It looks like a modern building and there could be a plan B. I thought we were only renovating the church. If you build the pavilion it doesn’t mean people will come. I don’t think a building brings people to a church. People bring people to the church. Because there are weddings at the church it is speculative to assume that the reception would be in the pavilion. Tom Marshall said he has the same feelings as his wife. My concerns are basic. A glass box on this beautiful historic piece of property does not fi t in. Regarding the parking as we build more and more downtown and take away ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 8 open space parking becomes an issue. The cost of this project needs to be flushed out. Lisa Markalunas said she is a four generation Aspen native and born and raised and baptized in St. Mary’s Catholic church. We are here to assess the historic nature of the buildings which are very prominent in this community. The proposed pavilion is contrary to the historic guidelines. Additions should not obstruct architectural details of the historic building. It appears that only two or three of the six second story windows on the west façade would remain visible. The massing of the proposed structure almost reaches to the roof line of the second story of the church. The entire massing of the stair tower and pavilion need to be pulled back from the west façade of the historic church. Downstairs has always been St. Mary’s social hall. The ADA access is through the elevator tower which has been successful. During the week there is quite a bit of space available in the church. The removal of some of the best and historic lilacs in all of Aspen is a concern. The lilacs are an important feature of the grounds and the historic landscape. The detailing of the new entry is inappropriate. The contemporary glass and metal is inappropriate for an historic building. A petition was entered into the record and a letter Exhibit V with signatures from individuals in the church that express their concerns about the impacts on the historic church. Lisa said she would encourage the HPC to work with the applicant to find solutions that don’t harm the historic quality of the church and bodies. The stair tower massing needs to come back off the church and the overall size of the pavilion needs revisited. It is a single story and reads like a two story. Jim Markalunas – letter and photo of lilacs Exhibit VI Jim said he does support restoring the church and doing improvements to comply with fire codes etc. More consideration should be given to the design of the pavilion so that it does not interfere with the historic west facing windows and lower west wall of the church. I would suggest that the pavilion be shifted north and west to avoid potential problems of ice and show. I fully support the exit facility on the south corner. The lilacs along the alley should stay intact and they are the old fashioned lilacs. Everything can be accomplished and the architect just needs to do a few changes. Patrick Rawley commended the architect and his team for the design. The lower height of the building works well and does many things to preserve the feel of the historic church. A tent structure does speak to the church and what we are doing there. The glazing is also nice. The campus feel i s very ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 9 important and offers respite in a rather dense core and it is a very nice adjunct to the Veterans Park across the street. Parking is 100% sufficient as Mass is held on the weekend where parking isn’t at a premium. Affordable housing is not necessary. Most of the events are served by the volunteers. Marle Gardiner said we should have a spectacular tent. Putting the bus stop in front of St. Mary’s is a big liability issue. We need a community center and some place where people can be healed. The lilacs are historic and should be preserved. Amy said an e-mail was sent by Junee Kirk where she objects to the design of the project. Exhibit VII Amy said another letter came from Ann Obrien Exhibit VIII Julie Markalunas said she has two teenage sons that have benefited from all the programming of St. Mary’s. I do have concerns about the west elevation of the church and the impact that the pavilion has. I would rather see expanding the interior stairs and bringing that up to code than compromising the structure on the west. Susan Twig said it seems that people who oppose this don’t have children. We don’t want to stay in the past but go to the future. The social hall is one big room separated by panels in which you can hear each other talk. The architect has done a beautiful job respecting the histori c building and I am for the project. Urlinda Morehead said she is a teacher and has taught at St. Mary’s for 25 years. I am so excited about the proposal. There is a safety issue with the kids and this addition is much needed. Charles said we could take some of the lilacs and put them around the garden and in public view. Lilacs are easy to transplant. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comments. Willis said it is quite an honor to hear testimony from parishioners who believe in the institution of the church and its mission and feel that it is a project that is needed and warranted. Willis identified the issues: ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 10 GMQS Affordable housing Parking – staff has asked the applicant to come up with a parking review of the project Mountain View plane from the steps of the courthouse and well as Veteran’s Park Site planning Curb cut – not in HPC’s purview but the applicant has an appeal process Front entry Jim DeFrancia said he feels there is no need for the requirement of affordable housing. The church has functioned primarily with members of the congregation volunteering their time. With the lowering of the structure 4 feet I am not concerned about the view plane. The applicant should do an appeal on the curb cut. On the front entry it should be r e-worked so that you can see the window above it and restore it back to its original character. I am fine with the site plan and keeping the green space is one of the more important features which satisfies the public view and enhances the view across the street to the court house. The structure proposed is significantly different than the historic structure and with some fine tuning it can be mitigated. Bob said this is a very positive project and basically some details can be changed. Bob thanked the people for coming forward. I respect the history that this group has given us. Sallie thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. I am always in favor of expansion of any kind of spiritual experience in our town. I am in agreement with no affordable housing. The parking is not important to me if it gives more space around the historic resource. The historic use of this block is not a campus and the campus feel seems more suburban to me. The arches in the pavilion are “fighting” with the historic arches in the church. The project needs to be more in line with our guidelines. Michael said the presentation was well put together. I am sympathetic to a lower affordable housing number. Regarding the parking the times that you see a lot of use of the facility come at times when there are a lot of free parking spaces. The site plan is crowding out the historical resource and it might be a little too close to the church. I would like to see some alternatives presented. On the front entry I like the idea of going back to the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 11 original historic entry to expose the stained glass. On the mountain view plane it says we must find that the effect of the new building is minimal on the view plane. I understand that there is a lot of precedence for people violating the view plane. I don’t see how the view plane is minimal impacts. I would defer to council on the view plane. I see all the merits of the new pavilion. Bob said in a previous project he proposed story poles and we should do that with this project. Michael said the view planes are ten feet on the north side and 14 feet on the southern part of the lot. The proposal is 17 feet in height. Jim DeFrancia pointed out that the building behind it is higher. Michael said the Conner cabins are blocking a portion of the view plane. From the observation #2 point there is absolutely no obstruction. Willis said if the view planes don’t make the situation worse than what already exists then its moot. There should be no affordable housing requirements. As a general thought the church should get as much financial break in terms of the fees that they pay etc. so that they can look more broadly on the site plan. There have been a lot of additions that exist on the church and site. The affordable housing and garage are not historic and why not look at that as part of the composition. You get the crowded feeling because the pavilion is wedged between the historic west elevation and the garage which historically wasn’t there. The front entrance should be taken back to the original as best possible. Maybe something minimal can occur on the front. There also needs to be a parking study. Nora thanked the applicant and public for speaking. The space is needed. Blocking of the west side of the historic fabric is a concern and the elevator is an eye sore. I feel strongly about the view plane and they are there for a reason. We have very few of these sites left. We are getting into view plane increments of creep and that concerns me. The historic fabric of the church has to be protected and maybe the pavilion needs to be smaller. Gretchen said she is happy to see a lot of the public here and it has been interesting. This is a civic building and I would like to see the housing explored as an option because we need housing. I feel there is adequate ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 12 parking on that side of town. On the site plan there should be no more interruption on the west elevation. This building was never designed to have an addition on it including the elevator addition. I could not support any kind of attachment to the building. Once it is lost it is lost forever. I also like the front lawn. We are an Historic Preservation board and my first goal is to follow the guidelines and to preserve the building. Putting an addition on this building at 17 feet and obstructing 4 windows and two windows at the top does not speak to historic preservation. It would be great if you could look at the existing affordable housing in conjunction with the program. You also have the opportunity to put more space underground. Perhaps the pavilion goes in a north south direction. I feel the view planes could be accomplished and St. Mary’s could be preserved. Every project that we look at has a restoration component and this project has nothing. I would encourage you to go back to the original design of the front façade of the building. With snow melt and snow guards you could make for a safe entry. Patrick said he agrees with staff and all the comments made by th e commissioners. I would suggest studying a free standing building. St. Stephens is the historic site plan. The view plane needs to be at 14 feet and it doesn’t need to be a high building. The garage isn’t an historic building and it could be moved over. Possibly when you redo the design look at a pitched roof like the other buildings. If the curb cut is not allowed you won’t be able to bring in the food or bands etc. for special events. Bob said if the garage was taken out and the pavilion moved over that would solve some of the problems that are being voiced. I would urge you to take a look at moving the building over to that side. Jim DeFrancia asked Debbie to what degree are we constrained by the federal laws. Debbie said there is a federal law that might apply at some point. It is the religious land use and institutionalized persons act. It prohibits discrimination against religious uses in some fashion. MOTION: Jim moved to continue the conceptual development and public hearing on 533 E. Main Street to October 28th; second by Patrick. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 13 Roll call vote: Michael, yes; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 7-0. 827 Dean Street – Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Variations Jim and Sallie left. Debbie reviewed the public notice – Exhibit I Amy said this is a landmark property in the east end of town and it was landmarked voluntarily as a pre-Aspen Modern effort. The owners of the building wanted it protected and they were one of th e early creators of TDR’s. The property sold and the new owner would like to do an accessory building on the back of the site. There is an existing building built in the 1980’s and it is to be demolished and replaced. Nothing is proposed to happen on the exterior of the primary chalet at the front of the site. The primary building has been remodeled several times. The applicant is not planning on doing any restoration or removal of any of the changes that have happened. Harry Poshman built the building after WWII. There are two addition on either side of the front and one in the back. The applicant is requesting demolition of the guest building in the back and they are also proposing to do a small pool on the site. Staff is essentially in favor of t he project and in favor of the demolition. Variances have been discussed for the guest house on the east side and the rear. The variances are related to light wells. The applicant deleted the light wells on the east side. The variance is for two light wells serving one bedroom and you only have to have one. HPC needs to discuss whether to grant a setback variance to allow more light into the basement or that it isn’t really an historic preservation benefit so maybe you wouldn’t support the variance. The applicant has requested a 70 square foot bonus. Staff feels the bonus should be used as a tool for restoration and there is no restoration proposed here. 70 square feet isn’t a lot but maybe they could do a simple modification to the front of the house or they could reopen a porch enclosure in order to earn the bonus. Michael said staff is recommending that they do some kind of restoration to earn the bonus. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 14 Amy said the one story detached building in the back is a good decision and could be recognized as a bonus worthy effort. The applicant sold 4 TDR’s but they cannot land TDR’s. Michael said the light wells at the rear of the property are exposed to the park and possibly they could be enclosed by a fence. Mitch Hass, Hass Planning Riley Dupps, architect Mitch said this is a modest project and we are intentionally not touching the building. The client likes the house as it is. We are not asking to attach to the back of the building with any kind of connector. We are using all of the floor area in a detached structure with a basement. Leaving 430 square feet is the only incentive for someone later on to do a restoration. The addition is in the back where no one sees it. Riley said the owner loves the historic house as is including everythi ng in the inside. The historic house has two bedrooms and the owner has three children and the proposal is for an 11 foot tall building and 530 square feet on each level. There are three story buildings that tower over this building. The building will be detached. The 70 square feet is for the basement lightwells, a bunkroom in the back. There is a neighboring fence that is very close to the lightwells. The lightwells are six inches tall and we can plant shrubs around them. The owner does not want an y changes to the main house. The two additions on either side were added in the 70’s. There is stone that goes all the way across the front. We could propose to cut that back somewhat. We have no connector. We did not want to put the addition on the back of the house and add mass. Mitch said if you open the porch back up we don’t need a floor area bonus. The light well makes the space more livable. Gretchen said the height is 13 feet the same as the height in the back of the historic house. Michael said to get the house at some point back to the original they would need more than the 430 square feet. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 15 Amy said they could do a basement under the house and that would consume some square footage. TDR’s could also be sold. Riley said the kitchen will be enlarged into the bar area. Michael said if the enclosed porch was removed you would free up FAR. Riley said that is true but the home owner doesn’t want to touch the main house at all. He bought the house because of the chalet look it has. Nora asked staff if they thought the new cottage was too similar to the historic house. Amy said it has been toned down but that can be addressed at final. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public comment. Gary Wright, land use and real estate attorney representing the Winterhaven condominiums to the east. I am here to object to the setback in the rear. Exhibit II. In the code it says accessory buildings shall not be provided with a kitchen or bath facilities sufficient to render them suitable fo r permanent residential occupation. This proposal is for permanent occupation. There are three bathrooms. Why not enforce the ten foot rear yard setback. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mitch said accessory buildings often have bathrooms. If you don’t have a kitchen it is not suitable for permanent residence occupancy. Amy pointed out that it is not considered a dwelling unit and does not have all the facilities that someone would need to live in as a standalone building. It is clearly not a primary structure. Amy said Junee Kirk’s letter was included in the St. Mary’s exhibits and she doesn’t support the changes to this property. Exhibit VII from St. Mary’s Amy also received a letter form Lonnie White regretting seeing the property changed Exhibit IV. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 16 Willis identified the issues: 70 square foot bonus Setback variances 1.4 for the light wells in the bunkroom Mass and scale Amy said a curb is being provided around the light well. Staff feels the mass and scale of the new building is very sympathetic and it could have been a bigger building and it is consistent with the site as it is today. Michael said he would not support one square foot of bonus because there is nothing being done to fix the historic resource back to its original state and why should we give a bonus for not doing anything. Same thing with the setback variances. You could peal back to its original state the historical building and that would cure at least the eastern setback va riance. There is very little done to differentiate the materials in the window styles or to provide a building that is unique and a product of its own time. The building looks as if it was part of the original chalet which runs counter to our principles. Bob said he can see where the owner is coming from based on what Riley said with the Austrian Swiss style. You could satisfy the requirement with an abstraction by changing the fenestration and materials. Gretchen said the building is the exact height as the lower roof at 13 feet and it goes against our guidelines because it is confusing what was original and what is new. Swiss buildings have long deep overhangs. The building is almost half the size of what is existing in footprint. I don’t feel we are getting anything special to warrant the variances. Willis said staff recommended for final that the materials and window styles and details be addressed to differentiate old from new. Willis said he feels the mass and scale is OK. Amy said conceptual would be accepting the roof pitch, foot print and shape. Gretchen reiterated that it has the same height and roof pitch and same fascia detail. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 17 Willis said the building is subservient to the larger building which is in the guidelines. Riley said the historic building is 1730 square feet and this building is 530 square feet. Patrick said he is on the fence and there should be something done to get a bonus. Whether or not having a connector is sufficient I am on the fence. Patrick said the building utilizes the space well by putting it below ground. Willis pointed out that it is extremely rare that we see a detached building. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #25, 2015 as written, second by Gretchen. Roll call vote: Patrick, no; Gretchen, yes; Nora, no; Willis, yes; Bob, no; Michael, no. Motion fails. MOTION: Michael moved to continue 827 Dean Street to October 14 th; with a restudy as to how to eliminate the 70 square foot bonus or create some preservation of the historical resource; second by Bob. Gretchen said setback variances are critical to get anything new on the property away from the historic resource. Roll call vote: Willis, no; Michael, yes; Nora, yes; Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes; Bob, yes. Motion carried 5-1. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 a.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk