Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20151014ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Jim DeFrancia, Nora Berko, Sallie Golden, John Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood, Michael Brown and Bob Blaich arrived late. Absent was Patrick Sagal. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Adams, Senior Planner Sarah Rosenberg, Special Projects Planner Linda Manning, City Clerk MOTION: Mr. DeFrancia moved to approve the 9-23-15 minutes; seconded by Mr. Pember. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Whipple moved to approve the 9-30-2015 minutes; seconded by Mr. DeFrancia. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Whipple stated he was unable to attend the previous meeting on 827 E Dean Street but he would like it noted that representing the applicant is Rally Dupps not Riley. There was no public comment. There were no commissioner comments. There were no conflicts of interests. For project monitoring, Ms. Simon has one item for Ms. Berko to discuss after the meeting. Staff comments will be reported during the HPC design guidelines. Certificate of no negative effects. Ms. Simon issued one for the old Cantina space. They will remove the awnings and there will be some alterations to the courtyard and some other simple things including replacing the entry doors. They are all very minor. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015 2 Call up reports. Ms. Simon stated there are three that will need to head to Council including the Guido’s addition, the Bidwell building and the popcorn wagon. Old Business 827 E. Dean Street – Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Variances, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 26TH Sara Adams, senior planner, stated this is a continued public hearing. HPC heard this application in August and continued it for restudy. The Reviews include conceptual major development, set back variance and partial demolition. The applicant has eliminated the floor area bonus request. They are opening up a portion of front porch which frees up some floor area. Staff is supportive of that and it is a great change. There is some setback variance for roof overhang and light wells. Staff is supportive of those as well. The setback legalizes the existing condition of the landmark. Overall, Staff is supportive of the project. It is a great project and will be back for final review. Ms. Adams entered a letter into the record from Gary Wright. He is representing the Winterhaven condos and they are not supportive of the setbacks for the new building. Staff is not in agreement with Mr. Wright. He asserts it is not an assessory building so the setbacks would be different. Mitch Hass and Rally Dupps are representing the applicant. Mr. Haas stated they are proposing to do nothing other than remove some of the enclosed front porch to better see the original form of the front porch. They also removed the need for the floor area bonus. It is a detached 530 square foot of floor area cabin at the back of the property and no addition to the historic resource. It will keep a bigger separation of the resource and the cottage and makes the client more comfortable with keeping the remaining floor area below grade. It satisfies the standards for the set back var iance. The resolution allows demolition for a non-historic building but there will be some demo of the historic front porch. He went to glory hole park to look at the property and much of the property is blocked by a privacy fence. This cabin is quite hard to see because of the fence and angle. The extra light well increases the livability of the bedroom. There are two light wells in one room to increase the livability. The six extra inches of the roof overhang are to match the form. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015 3 Mr. Dupps said the homeowner has children and this will be a bunk room. If the room were to be divided into two it would be too small to meet code. The two light wells make it a livable space. Mr. Pember asked has the mass and shell envelope changed since last time. Mr. Dupps replied it has not. From the new illustrations they removed the flower boxes. Ms. Greenwood stated they are not applying for the floor area bonus. By removing that, do you not need it anymore? Mr. Dupps stated it comes out of the front porch opening. Ms. Greenwood said regarding the location of the front porch column it seems like it is in an odd spot, it should be moved back. Mr. Dupps replied it is in an odd spot and a structural engineer needs to look at it. The existing wall goes to it. They would be glad to push the column back. Mr. Brown asked if the new structure is also in the set back. Mr. Dupps replied no. Ms. Adams stated it is the roof overhang and they are exempt up to 18 inches. The east side meets the 18 inches. Mr. Brown asked if that is not part of the variations. Ms. Adams said no, it is exempt. Mr. Blaich joined the meeting. Ms. Berko asked what is the site coverage. Mr. Haas stated 38 percent. Existing is 34 and required is less than 50. Ms. Greenwood asked if Parks has taken a look. She is curious how they are building under a drip line of an evergreen. Mr. Dupps said they met with Parks. They had a building permit application to do just the main house. He met with Mr. Carlsen and they went through all the trees that would be mitigated. Three trees leaned up against the house and have zero mitigation and have been cut down. There are two more trees where they are not proposing to build under the drip line. Ms. Greenwood said there is another tree on the south east corner that does show a drip line. Mr. Dupps said that is being removed and will have to be mitigated. Mr. Brown asked if the fence will be continued across the property line in the rear yard near the park and Winterhaven. Mr. Dupps replied they have not got there yet. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015 4 Mr. Pember asked with the removal of the tree on the south side will it be more visible. Mr. Haas replied he does not think so. Mr. Pember opened the public comment. 1. Garry Wright, attorney for Winterhaven condo association, stated he has been in contact with Ms. Quinn as to whether this is an accessory building. She says the code means kitchen and bath not kitchen or bath. The design here has bath facilities. It is a bunk room that is an accessory use to the house. The city should make the applicant go through a variance use for a 10 foot setback. Mr. DeFrancia asked Ms. Quinn her view. She replied to look at page 40 of the packet to the minutes where the same argument was presented. Mr. Haas and Ms. Simon pointed out the city has typically pointed out the or as an and. She stated that we disagree with Mr. Wright. Mr. Haas stated they agree with Ms. Quinn. Deliberation by Commission. Mr. Pember stated this is really straight forward and there are no issues with mass and scale. He thinks it is respectful, different and of its own time. He is fine with the partial demolition and applauds the applicant for making a small effort for the restoration of the resource. They are not asking for a floor area bonus. We should ask them to move the column to the correct position on the front façade. We should go to the guidelines for the setback variances. In granting them we have to find it enhances the architectural character of the resource and he thinks he can find it allows a 10 foot separation. In regards to the light wells it is a beyond minimum ask. The code requires a minimum and they are asking for two. It is beyond what is absolutely necessary. I can accept that. It is a good application and we rarely see a detached development from the resource and we should appreciate that. Ms. Golden said as an incentive should we not give the light well for all that , since they are not asking for a bonus. I don’t think they are asking much in return. Mr. Whipple and Mr. DeFrancia agree. Ms. Golden stated it is helping them put the square footage underground. Mr. Brown said it is a bit confusing. In granting a variance, would we have to determine the variance of the second light well enhances the re source. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015 5 Mr. Whipple said there is some effort being made to justify the second lightwell. Ms. Greenwood replied why grant the variance when they can clearly work within the law. There is a solution to make it. Variances should be granted when there are extraordinary circumstances. I can’t see a reason to grant a variance when there is an obvious solution. Ms. Golden asked for a comment why staff is supportive. Ms. Adams replied it mitigates an adverse impact. The variance is an either or. They can find that criteria B is met. It is a somewhat constrained site plan. The architecture is compatible with the building. The light wells minimizes the above grade mass. There is no attachment to the landmark. It provides more breathing room to the landmark. The requested variation is similar and or mitigates an adverse impact. Mr. Whipple said if the square foot was allocated above grade you would see it. Mr. DeFrancia stated he is supportive of the Staff recommendation. It is a good application and addressed the key issues. Mr. Brown said the second light well removes floor area that could be added back to the historic structure. Ms. Greenwood noted that the minutes for this item the first time it came to HPC noted that she voted yes and she voted no. MOTION: Mr. DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #28, Series of 2015; seconded by Mr. Whipple. Roll call vote. Commissioners Blaich, yes; Whipple, yes; Golden, yes; Berko, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Pember, yes; Greenwood, yes. Motion carried. Draft revisions to HPC guidelines, Chapters 8-11 Ms. Simon stated this is the second meeting about the updates. The guidelines are 15 years old and need updated. They talked about the technical issues last time. Tonight is the design chapters, additions to new structures and sheds. What hasn’t been taken care of is the introduction, architecture descriptions and landscape issues. That will be the focus of the 10-28 meeting. There have been seven meetings with various architecture ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015 6 firms in last few days. There was a meeting open to the general public today that was well attended. The goals are to be more concise. They want better illustrations and more clarity. Staff met with Roland & Broughton, Pass, Cunniffe, Studio B and CCY where we went to their offices. Chapter 8 - secondary structures. This mostly pertains to Victorian structures. There are only 20 left in town and not really huge policy changes here. It is a priority to preserve them when we can. The feedback we received is people would like it to be clearer. The structure will need to be pulled completely onto the site. Commissioner comments Ms. Greenwood asked if they are generally getting torn down. Ms. Simon replied no but there have been times when they are and gave the example of the Connor Cabins. Mr. Whipple said some are on the Sandborn maps. Ms. Simon replied the map is gospel. We preserve if it has some value. Ms. Golden said since there are only 20 properties could you do an inventory. Ms. Simon said we don’t want to pre determine what should happen to them. Ms. Greenwood said she does not see an issue with the way it has been going. Chapter 9 – moving buildings and replacing foundations. Added 9.1 – caveat in bullet 2 – don’t assume you can move the building. If you have to demo more than 50 percent of the exterior of a building the board will think twice. It talks more specifically about the kinds of foundation that can be built. More information about light wells. They added information about how the building should be moved. It will be expected to keep the building on the property. The feedback from meetings. Be careful how to word requirement about destroying more than 50 percent of exterior materials. Asked to provide more specific examples of when a building cannot be moved. What are Parks requirements about moving buildings close to trees. 9.3 moving building that trigger other issues that are needed to bring a building up to code. Comments about street wells. Comment about suspending building at all and maybe should not allow it. Commissioner Comments. Mr. Brown asked what is the reason for not allowing floating light wells in yards. Ms. Simon replied it may not be out of place in modern properties ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015 7 but could be in Victorian. Ms. Greenwood asked if there should be different rules for Victorian and modern. Mr. Brown said there could be instances where it could be ok. He asked if there have been instances with moving building offsite where they came back in a bad condition. Ms. Simon replied yes. We are sensitive that when the building is onsite it is looked at every day. Mr. Brown said to place that burden on everyone rather than create harsh penalties because of one bad actor is harsh. Ms. Berko said she would rather see them not move. Floating light wells is a pandoras box. Mr. Pember asked when does something become a light well versus an underground court yard. Ms. Simon said they can define that a little better. Ms. Greenwood said suspending a building is not out of the realm of possibilities. Chapter 10 Adding on to historic building. Ms. Simon showed examples of bad additions. 10.3 always had the word subordinate. This adds deferential, modest and secondary. 10.4 threw out the idea that the addition would not be allowed to double the size of the historic resource. The extra amount would need to be detached, a TDR or not built. They are not trying to say you can’t build what you are allowed, but trying to redirect it. For a corner lot, 10.5, the addition must be one story or detached. 10.6 - distinguishing new from old. For form, materials and fenestration need to nail two of the three. The new guidelines for connectors says no deck . Feedback – negative feedback about no deck. Comments that if they are so strict about no more than doubling the size, those with bad projects will cling to them. Ought to have some exceptions like recognizing site specific constraints. More examples of how a larger addition could work, well designed connectors, no variances, one story additions. Proposal that the issue may not be the square footage but the foot print. Consider for corner lot if not so happy about big addition what if the new could be pushed back. Provide more pictures to illustrate new from old. Commissioner comments. Ms. Golden said for decks on connectors especially if you don’t see the deck it helps keep the addition away from the resource. That outdoor space relieves the tension. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015 8 Ms. Greenwood said proportionally they don’t work with standard Victorian roofline. For the 50 percent rule we are getting too many two story addition on small lots. The two story additions have to be dealt with. They overwhelm the Victorian. Ms. Berko agrees and they have been the most difficult thing. The size is a real problem. She stated she does not think we have a problem on Victorians for encouraging people anymore. Why do we need an FAR bonus anymore. She understands for a voluntary designation it is an incentive. Mr. Whipple said 10.4 in the west end are large lots and there is no one would do a one story addition. There will be some serious hot water there. There is no where to put the detachment and they would lose FAR. Ms. Berko and Ms. Greenwood disagree. Ms. Simon said the properties most hard hit would be a 3,000 square foot corner lot. Mr. Whipple said there needs to be some alternative compliance. Mr. Pember said connectors are a visibility issue. Hot tubs are ok if you can’t see them. Ms. Berko replied a connector is a connector not an outdoor room. 10.4 and 10.5 is an attempt to reduce scale. Mr. Whipple said corner lots should have their own chapter. Mr. DeFrancia said we are here more for historic character than historic preservation. Ms. Simon said it has been a few years since the board has given an award for an addition. We have not quite solved the problem. Sometimes the board struggles for justification to say no. Mr. Pember said in 10.6 there is something beautiful and succinct. But what is troubling, particular in the commercial core, is something that looks like it is from another period. Don’t be borrowing from history that is outside from our windows. Ms. Simon said we are not editing the chapters for Main Street and the Commercial Core. Ms. Berko said she appreciates hearing that feedback. We don’t have to say yes to everything. Being given those tools is helpful. Ms. Simon said they may change the format. There has been some discussion about what the guidelines are. They are guidelines not rules. When can we make exceptions and when can we stray. They are thinking about saying the residential design standards don’t apply to historic properties. Ms. Berko said it looks great and is very positive wording. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015 9 Mr. DeFrancia moved to adjourn at 7:15 p.m.; seconded by Mr. Brown. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning, City Clerk