Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20020612ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 12, 2002 RESOLUTION # 18, 2002 ............................................................................................................................ 1 320 W. MAIN STREET - SETBACK VARIANCES - PH ........................................................................ 1 513 W. SMUGGLER - MAJOR (CONCEPTUAL) PUBLIC HEARING ............................................... 2 635 W. BLEEKER - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT. MAJOR (CONCEPTUAL) DEVELOPMENT- ON-SITE RELOCATION AND VARIANCES - PH ............................................... 3 216 E. HALLAM STREET - MAJOR (CONCEPTUAL) - VARIANCES AND ON-SITE RELOCATION, PUBLIC HEARING ......................................................................................................... 5 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 12, 2002 Chairperson, Susarmah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners present: Gilbert Sanchez, Rally Dupps, Paul D'Amato, Michael Hoffman, Melanie Roschko and Teresa MelVille. Jeffrey Halferty and Neill Hirst were excused. Michael Hoffman was seated at 6:30 p.m. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland Disclosures: Rally will step down on 635 W. Bleeker and 216 E. Hallam. Gilbert will step down on 216 E. Hallam. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney relayed that the HPC has a quorum and three members will have to abstain because they Were not atthe meeting and two of the three voting members would have to approve the resolution. RESOLUTION # 18, 2002 MOTION: Teresa moved to approve Resolution #18, 2002; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried 3-0. Yes vote: Teresa, Rally, Gilbert. 320 W. MAIN STREET - SETBACK VARIANCES 2 PH Affidavit of posting was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Amy relayed that the discussion is regarding the setback variance that is required for the Lot Split of the Elisha parcel. A three foot variance is needed on the east side of the Smith Elisha house in order to share a sidewalk and to protect the house from ever being moved. The only condition would be that no new sidewalk could be created' from Main Street to the carriage house. Sworn in: Caroline McDonald. She explained the sidewalk situation. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 12, 2002 MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve Resolution #21, 2002for a variance at 320 W. Main Street, Lots N, 0 and P, Block 44, City and Town site of Aspen, Colorado finding that the review criteria are met; aecond by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Yes vote: Paul, Melanie, Rally, Gilbert, Suzannah, Teresa 513 W. SMUGGLER - MAJOR (CONCEPTUAL) PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in: Harry Teague, Ryan Sturts and Drew Harman. Amy relayed that the graphics presented at the last meeting were very helpful and explained the project more clearly. The meeting was continued with the recommendation to restudy the aspects of the front fagade. The HPC also needs to discuss the front alignment. It is set five feet back from the Victorian that is going to be restored to the west. There was also some concern of the front windows. Harry Teague felt lining the buildings up in the front emphasizes the garage and gives more importance to the garage than it should. In this case stepping the garage back allows the historic property to read more as an independently and de-emphasizes the garage next door. If there were three other historic buildings he would agree with staff but the garage should not be emphasized. The lot is rectilinear. Drawings of the rebised fenestration of the front were submitted to the board. The entry and tower were the only revisions. Melanie had no problems with the house being set back. Gilbert also had no problem with the additional five-foot setback because it is consistent with the intent of the guidelines. The new window designs presented works. Suzannah said although the changes are subtle they do enhance the building and are very successful. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve Resolution #22, 2002; granting major development conceptual approval for 513 w. Smuggler, Lots E, F, and G, 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JuNE 12, 2002 Block 27, City and Town site of Aspen, Colo. with no conditions; second by Rally. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Gilbert, Rally, Melanie, Suzannah, Paul 635 W. BLEEKER - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, MAJOR (CONCEPTUAL) DEVELOPMENT- ON-SITE RELOCATION AND VARIANCES - PH Sworn in: Allison Bone. Affidavit of posting was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Amy relayed that the application is for a lot split and to subdivide 9,000 square foot property into two equal 4,500 square foot properties. The property contains a Victorian era house and a garage. The house has a small addition on the southeast comer but is intact. The garage was built later in the 1920's but is considered historic. They are proposing a few minor alterations to the historic house and demolition to a non-historic shed. The second phase is lifting the house and moving it ten feet forWard and digging a basement and adding skylights. They need a few variances in this project. Staff said there is an exemption of square footage for garages; it is not counted if you come off an alley. In this case, they cannot do that because the garage doesn't face the alley and we would not want the garage rotated. Staff is requesting that an exemption be given in the calculation of the floor area in this case. No large additions can be made to the original house. HPC will review the design of the new house at some point. There are a few concerns. A skylight is proposed for the west side as part of Phase II and staff feels that is not appropriate and does not meet the guidelines. Skylights need to be inconspicuous. The issue of moving the house forward has no justification. The house is on a comer sight and does not need moved to maintain its prominence. It is visible from two streets. Staff does support picking up the house and adding a basement. Regarding the on-site parking there is not enough space and some trees would have to be removed. The condition would be that in the furore ifa tree removal Permit is °btained the parking space would have to be installed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 12, 2002 Allison stated they would remove the skylight. She requested that the HPC acknowledge in some form and be flexible to accommodate the FAR on the other lot. They desire to put a two story on that lot: If that occurs she would have no problem not moving the house forward. Amy said the existing historic house sits back twenty feet or so from the property line and they do not want to hold back that far. They want to be able to come up to the front setback and accommodate their square footage. That was one of the reasons for the request to move the historic house forward. Melanie said she doesn't know how the HPC can give that kind of acceptance when we do not know what you are going to build. David Hoefer said we can't give any assurance but the HPC can make a statement that they will be open minded to the issue. Melanie inquired about Phase I and redoing the master bedroom then redoing it totally again. Allison said the house that they just moved from is 800 square feet and she and her husband do not desire to live in a huge house and for their needs al! they want to do is make a large bathroom and connect the master and put in a few windows. Gilbert said the HPC is approving the distribution of FAR. There will be 2,180 square feet on lot A and 2,400 square feet on lot B. Suzannah said the new proposed windows are all in the new construction. Amy said there is a window on the south of the house that is historic but the existing window is not historic and the proportions or the new window are OK. Amy also requested that the large lilacs be protected during the excavation of the basement. Allison said they would like to trim the lilacs up and put an arch because you cannot see the house from the road due to the height of the lilacsl Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt JUNE 12, 2002 Lexi Methvin was sworn in. She represented Alan Feld who is the neighbor where the new lot will be. His concern is the two evergreen trees, which create a natural barrier right now. They trees are 70 to 80 feet tall. With the new development Alan is concerned that the trees might be cur down. Amy relayed to Lexi that the owners would have to work with the City Parks department and it is difficult to acquire a tree removal permit. There is no official criteria as to what trees would be allowed to stay on the new lot. Allison said part of the concern of the FAR allocation to the new lot is that we would have to accommodate the trees in discussion and not dig inta the tnmk of the tree and address the drip line. We are concerned about transferring all of the FAR to that lot. Amy said if the plans for the new house come in and for whatever reason the maximum floor area can't be approved you could always do an amendment for the lot split and send that FAR back to the green house. It is not that you have to totally build it out. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Teresa, Paul and Gilbert agreed with staff's memo and support the proposal. Melanie suggested that a condition be added to the motion concerning the lilacs. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve Resolution #23, 2002 with the condition that most of the lilacs be preserved to the extent possible or as appropriate; motion second by Melanie. Motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Paul, Melanie, Teresa, Gilbert, Suzannah 216 E. HALLAM STREET - MAJOR (CONCEPTUAL) - VARIANCES AND ON-SITE RELOCATION, PUBLIC HEARING Michael was seated at 6:30 p.m. Gilbert recused himself. Affidavit of posting was entered into the record as Exhibit I. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt JUNE 12, 20~ ~ Sworn in: Camilla Auger, managing partner of the Frost property, Joseph Amato and Debra Amato, adjacent property owners at 222 E. Hallam; Charles Cunniffe, architect and Hal Dischler, attorney. Scott Lindeneau, architect, Stan Clausen, Clausen & Associates and Lisa Markalunas. Amy said there are two parcels, the barn in the back and the house in the front and an alley that runs between them. The applicant is asking to vacate the alley, which does not continue through the rest of the lot. The land would be split and they would not get any more floor area but they would be able to build on it. They are asking the City to allow them to drive down Sheeley boulevard which is a trail on the east side of the red brick to access the driveway in back which is much better than having a new curb cut. They will also go to the Planning & Zoning for a conditional use to ask to have two houses (duplex) on the front parcel. Staff feels the architecture is contemporary but draws all of its references from the historic building in terms of form and massing. The major issue is the restoration of the historic house. In the new design it removes one of the porches and that should not happen. Setback variances are being requested. They are asking to waive one parking space and the 500 square foot bonus on the front lot. There is also a request to move the house toward the west. The proposal for the barn is to rotate it and HPC would not allow that with a house. Camilla relayed that they are working with the Parks Dept. to accomplish either paving or concreting the trail and plant some climbing flowers and trellises against the school. Behind the Frost property and the School is a grassy area and the owner is willing to give it to the city as an open space gift. We will landscape that area. The barn and the house will be moved toward the bike trail. If it tums out that there were two historic porches we will comply. Scott Lindeneau said the materials are different in order to separate the old from new. There is a five-foot setback on the east and a ten-foot separation between the buildings. The connecting piece is a one story. The new house is kept farther back from the street in order to soften the front up. Scott feels the mass and scale of the neighborhood is kept intact. The addition is 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 12, 2002 a foot and a half taller then thc historic house and there is a request for a three-foot setback on the west. Start Clausen said the driveway also becomes a public pathway for the red brick gymnasium. The historical town site cut through the property and actually cut through the barn. A quiet title was done in order to have a correct survey. The entire area at one time was called Trueman lot 4. Michael asked staff about the 500 square foot bonus when we do not really know if this is a great preservation effort. Amy said she feels the applicants are meeting all of the design guidelines. This is not the first case in which some o£the aspects of the restoration have to have documentation. Those issues will have to be settled before pulling a building permit. The effort in bringing back the resources is justified. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Joseph Amato stated he has owned the house next door for 15 years. He and his wife are pleased that the renovation of the house is going to occur and he wanted it clear that he is not an obstructionist and ~opefully what he has to say might be helpful in the decision. The concern of the Amato's is the creation of mass. This is a single-family neighborhood. By allowing the extra duplex unit you are ruining the integrity of the neighborhood. Normally dnplex's sit behind the historic house. What you are allowing on this application is to have th6 historic structure with something next to it and then allowing the single family home in the back. You are creating a great deal of mass. When you receive the 500 square foot bonus it is for an exceptional project. Putting a duplex next to an historic house does not make the project exceptional it adds floor space and adds more people. By taking advantage of a public access and moving the historic house three feet to the west you then provide them the opportunity to put the duplex in. If you didn't allow that access they would have to put one unit in behind the other. Charles Cunniffe pointed out the contemplated setback variance that pushes the proposed house closer to the Amato house. The side yard setback is an impact to the Amato house and not necessary for this project to be 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUNE 12~ 20'02 ' successful. It seems unfortunate to the Amato's that the Parks Dept and HPC would give a relieve from having to provide their own driveway and then on top of that let me have a setback variance to make the house even wider. If there was more breathing room this might work, but as proposed it cuts offthe entire side of the Amato house. Charles also stated tha~ he is not sure that the trail should be used as a driveway. Lisa Markalunas asked why it is necessary to move the barn 180 degrees? Scott Lindeneau, said in order to get the square footage and pragmatic functions, they want to maximize the setback between the garage and barn. Lisa said the barn is one of the most significant stmcw~es in the entire city and she would hate to see the barn have too many openings and additions. Some of the glazing on the south fagade of the new structure should be reduced. Suzaunah requested that Amy go over the setback variances that would affect the adjacent property. Suzannah said it is only the combined setback that affects the Amato house. Amy said they are required to have a minimum of five feet on the east side away from the Amato property. On the front lot whether they do a single family or duplex they are only allowed 3,240 square feet but they are asking for the 500 square foot bonus on top of that. Doing the duplex will not give them more floor area. The rear lot is allowed 2,509 square feet. Stun Clausen said the 1920 map shows that all of the properties had out buildings in the back that were accessed by Francis Street and turned into a wagon road that looped back into Hallam. The barn at one time had a gasoline facility Qn the site that was accessed by Francis Street, which was behind the Red Brick School. There was never a drive on this property. Joseph Amato said if they couldn't get access through the alley they would have to create the driveway next to our house and they wouldn't get the mass. Comments: Melanie said the Amato's did not maximize their lot and were respectful of all of the guidelines at that time. The biggest issue is the multi-family use of this property and adding density to this property. The setbacks are also a concern and should be held to five feet. The mass is set back and ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, ,IUNE 12, 2002 distinguishable from the historic house and the historic house almost sits by itself. She also said she would prefer the barn left in its original position. Teresa relayed that pieces of Aspen that can be restored is great for our community. She is in favor of preserving the entry faqade. The setback of the duplex is a satisfactory way to accomplish the prominence of the historic house. Michael said he is in favor of the project. He has no problem with the re- orientation of the barn. There seems to be substantial opposition to the project and the neighbor has raised issues that are reasonable. He would also like to see in more detail how the applicant is making an exceptional preservation effort before supporting the 500 square foot bonus. Guidelines 16.4 and 16.5 are not met at this point. Also, the code section regarding setback variances are not met. Paul said he is in favor of the project and also in favor of the bonus because they are restoring the barn aspects and house. They are not getting any more square footage then are allowable. Suzannah said the new evidence should be used to restore the historic house. The addition to the main house complies with all 0fthe guidelines relative to additions whether it is a duplex or not. Moving the house to the west is a more appropriate way to go. MOTION: Teresa moved to approve Resolution (424, 2002 with the condition that all photographic evidence should be incorporated in the restoration of the house. Also condition (47 of the resolution should be removed. Motion second by Melanie. Motion carried 4-1. Yes vote: Teresa, Michael, Paul, Suzannah No vote: Melanie MOTION: Teresa moved to adjourn; second by Paul. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9