Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20021120ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 20~ 2002 334 W. HALLAM STREET - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW - CONTINUE Ptt TO JANUARY 8. 2003 1 216 E. HALLAM STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT - CONCEPTUAL - ON-SITE RELOCATION. PUBLIC HEAR/NG ......................................................................................................... 1 540 E. MAIN STREET - ZUPANCIS ....................................................................................................... 10 WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ........................................................................................................... 10 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 20, 2002 Chairperson, Rally Dupps called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Vice-chair Jeffrey Halferty, Michael Hoffman, Teresa Melville, Derek Skalko and Valerie Alexander. Neill Hirst was excused. Staffprcsent: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefcr Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve the minutes of October 9, 2002 as amended; second by Teresa. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote: Rally, Teresa, deffrey, Derek Disclosures: Rally will recuse himself on 334 W. Hallam and 216 E. Hallam. 334 W. HALLAM STREET ~ CONCEPTUAL ~VIEW _ CONTINUE PH TO JANUARY 8, 2003 MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue the conceptual review and public hearing on 334 W. Hallam until January 8, 2003, second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Teresa, Michael, Derek, Valerie 216 E. HALLAM STREET~ ~STO~C L~ND~RK LOT SPLIT, CONCEPTUAL - ON-SITE RELOCATION, PUBLIC HEARING Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer informed the applicant that two members will be stepping down so there will be a panel of four and three affirmative votes will be needed in order to get approval. Valerie discloSed that Bluegreen has a proposal pending with Clausen & Associates but she has not financial interest in this particular project. David Hoefer said that type of situation is very common in Aspen. David pointed out as long as it will not influence your vote you can participate. 1 ASPEN HISTOP~, C pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 20, 2002 David also stated that the affidavit °fp0sting has been entered into the record, Sworn in: Stan Clansen, Camilla Auger Amy said as a reminder there are two separate parcels that are related to each other at this property. The first fronts Hallam Street that has the historic Mona Frost house on it and the other is the barn parcel in the back. HPC has already granted the barn parcel approval to convert it into a single- family house. Tonight we are talking about the front lot. HPC had given approval for a duplex then altered it to be a single family home with a link to an addition. That project is not moving forward as planned. The proposal tonight is for an historic lot split with two simple fee properties. There would be no link between the structures. To the historic house there wOuld be a small addition, basically the garage. The rest of the square footage would go to the adjacent building. They are also requesting a 500 square foot bonus and setback variances. The variances will be dealt with at final. Staff supports the project and the restoration of the two buildings, which are in very poor shape. On the east and west gable ends of the historic house there are some small windows proposed to be added and those are not original. To make the project pristine those windows should not be included. There is also concern regarding the garage doors that face the Red Brick School and possibly they could be oriented toward the shared driveway. A plat wi'll have to be filed and this review will go to City Council with regard to the lot split and then come back to HPC for final. David relayed to the applicant that P&Z requested that the minutes from their meeting be provided to the commissioners and they have been handed out. Stan Clausen said each building now sits on its own lot. From the new code the non-historic structure must meet all the requirements of setbacks so there is a five-foot setback on each side and a full front yard setback. The existing spruce tree will be protected. The initial drawings did not use the entire 500 square foot bonus and had a slightly smaller garage. We have 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINuTEs OF, NOVEMBER 20, 2002 expanded the garage slightly about 2 ½ feet to the rear, which provides some additional storage space. There is a compatibility form between the new structure and historic house and the adjacent structure, which is the Amato house. Stun mentioned the proposed windows in the gable ends and the architect felt that they would be an amenity but if the commission feels strongly about thc windows they could forgo them. Amy also mentioned the orientation of the garage, which was approved with the original application. The issue of turning the garage to the rear affects the window well, which would have to be altered in some way. There maybe an issue of the turning radius. Camilla Auger relayed to the con,mission that the public trail next to the house is a wonderful amenity. The historic features of the fi'ont lot and back lot face the trail. The Parks Dept. requested a stairway fi'om the bike trail up and that will be done to make ir easier for people to get up and down the trail. Twelve Victorian trellises were placed against the Red Brick School wall with plantings of honeysuckle. The lot split makes it far more likely that the property would be lived in by local residences. That would invigorate the west end area. A model was presented indicating the massing of the structures. Questions and clarifications. Teresa inquired about moving historic houses. Amy said the issue is when a building is picked up do you pick up the original floor or not. Sometimes Bill Bailey, house mover recommends cutting the studs away fi'om the floor for structural reasons. HPC has concerns of the impacts of doing that. Camilla said we would be disappointed if we had to do that and we do not intend to remove the floor. Vice-chair, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Hal Dischler, attorney represented Joseph Amato. Mr. Amato is concerned about the massing and density effects of this project. The affordability questions has been discussed previously and there is some concern as to What the price will be for these two dwellings. There is concern about the 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 20, 2002 impacts on the neighborhood and the massing and density that faces his property. Mr. Amato would like these issues taken into account. Phil Hodgson, neighbor around the comer. I applaud the restoration of the house but to keep it historically accurate you don't squish another house in with it. It does not apply at all. It doesn't work with the character of the neighborhood. Moving the house closer to the right-of-way is somewhat dangerous because children walk up and down that alley all the time and backing out cars is difficult. Phil said he doesn't understand why variances can be automatically granted and he doesn't understand the 500 square foot bonus, which he though is given out for really good applications. He doesn't see this project exemplary with squishing houses together. The 500 square foot bonus should be applied to the historic house. Bill Wise neighbor across the street. I have the same concerns as Joe. Jamming a bunch of houses in a small area is not the historical nature of our neighborhood. The Frost house is on a big lot and they never wanted a big house next to it. All ora sudden you are jamming something five feet away from the next house. I have three lots so I guess I could put 3 20-foot houses on my three lots. Is the footprint of Mona's house the same relationship to the sidewalk; the proposal seems closer. Is it 15 feet from the sidewalk? Stan said it is in the same relationship as the sidewalk. Bill also asked if it was the required front yard setback? Camilla said nothing has moved forward. Amy said you only need 10 feet from the property line to your building. Bert Myrin said in the staffmemo it mentions if relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of the historic parcel. If the historic building straddles two lots, it may be shifted to sit entirely on one lot. Both lots shall remain landmark properties. Does that mean then that the new lot would be a landmark property? Amy said yes, the entire original 6,000 square foot parcel is the landmark. 4 ASPEN HISTORIc pRESERVATION coMMIssION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 20, 2002 Bert said the city vacated the alley behind the two buildings. It is his understanding that the eastern most lot would go all the way back to the edge of the alley. He is unclear as to how the vehicles would get from the eastern most lot to the alley of the western lot all the way to the boundary? Amy said when the city vacates an alley it is vacated down the center line and half of it goes to the front parcel and half goes to the hack and there would be an easement arrangement. Start said there would be an easement arrangement. Amy said all of the cars come down what was the alley and turn into their garages. Bert also asked if the lot split were approved and you move the house to the one lot you have an empty lot and could it be sold fee simple. Someone could buy that with no obligation to the historic house. What is the guarantee that the historic house will be renovated? David Hoefer said there is demolition by neglect provisions that would preclude that from happening. Bert said what was raised from P&Z briefly, was a concern of safety in that alley. Speaking on behalfofP&Z who decided not to approve the density that is being contemplated tonight. The application before P&Z did not have four garage spaces in that backspace. They had life safety concerns about individuals using the alley and felt that the application did not meet the land use code. That denial was without the alley being narrowed. Now it is narrower, it is also several feet narrower on the east side from the snow falling off the Red Brick and also the garden that has been placed by the Red Brick. That alley is being constrained and that was not before P&Z. Bert relayed that the minutes are lengthy and it is not something that the board could digest in a few minutes and his suggestion to the board is to not make a decision tonight. The plantings next to the Red Brick has been prOmoted as a benefit and he sees it as a detriment to a public building. We now have something that requires moisture adjacent to a building. We have a private developer placing moisture against a public asset. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 20, 2002 Bert also said he didn't understand the lot split. He could understand it if the lot was 9,000 square feet to 4,500 square foot lot and the house could move between the two without variances. It makes no sense to create a problem that then has to be addressed at a future HPC meeting. The house appears too large and a lot split is not appropriate unless that house is going to another lot where a variance is required. He also mentioned that the public needs to be considered because they use that alley. Setting the house at a zero setback on the alley takes away from the public resource for the benefit if a private developer. Lisa Markalunas said the density is too significant for the parcel to have in effect three single-family homes on what is now currently one single family home. That does not serve the quality of the historic property; By cramming another building on that site you destroy the historic setting of that property and the way it relates to all of the other historic buildings in that vicinity. Suzannah Reid, architect relayed that she has seen this project in various different forms. Getting to the lot split with the two separate buildings is the best solution even though the space between the buildings is narrow, it reads as two distinct structures and that has always been the goal of lot splits. The goal of lot splits is to provide a place for the remaining FAR to go and not just be tacked onto the back of the historic house. Bert said it was mentioned that the house might be occupied by someone locally but there is no bedroom above grade in the historic house. P&Z has raised concerns for years about below grade ADU's being used for housing. Vice-chair, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Michael stated he needed more time to review the minutes because there are issues that he would like to think about before making a decision. Amy said staff has a brief summary prepared regarding P&Z's concerns. She also reminded the HPC that it was a different proposal and it is relevant to a certain extent. HPC is looking at a different scenario than what P&Z saw in some respects. ASPEN HISTORIC P~SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 20~ 2002 Valerie commented that she would also like to continue the heating in order to get a better understanding of the Planning and Zoning perspective and concerns. She would like the applicant to consider the orientation of the garage for the next meeting. Teresa relayed that she has been treating this application as a new project. She understands that there are still two families and is ready to go ahead with this project. Jeffrey said he is in favor of what this project represents to this neglected property. The restoration endeavor is major undertaking. P&Z has raised concerns regarding density on some of our other lot splits before. The lot split does justice to the historic resource by allowing relief to the size of an addition that could go onto the historic resource. A restudy of the garage orientation of the west elevation is recommended due to the public access and use of that alley. The light well could be reconfigured on the eastern side. He is also in favor of more relief between the historic house and the new construction based on the UBC requirements. Jeffrey also agreed with staff about the gabled windows on the east and western side. Stan said the lot split was passed by City Council after we had submitted our initial application for a duplex. Had that Provision been available to us we would have used that immediately. The duplex came under a completely different set of criteria for judgment. At the P&Z meeting, Mr. Myrin and a neighbor led a strong charge against the conditional use. Mr. Myrin is on the P&Z commission. What is being proposed tonight is not different than what had been approved earlier. It was significantly recommended at conceptual that the garage orientation be studied for final. The historical character of the town site is 3,000 square foot lots. The plantings that were done on the Red Brick School were done in accordance with the Parks Dept. They reviewed everything and it was also reviewed by the Recreation Dept. that manages the Red Brick. The alley is not narrower; the actual alley width has to be maintained and is part of our approval by City Council because of the Fire Dept. regulations. Camilla stated that they would be prepared to make the changes in the garage and the windows a condition of approval. If this were not to be 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 20~ 2002 approved there would be no change to the design. The alley is the required dimension £or fire trucks and the plantings are just as they were originally approved. We have taken over snow plowing of the alley and igthe Red Brick has snow falling that is dangerous we would put up a gutter. We are not adding density to the look of the place at all. The reality, aesthetically speaking is just the opposite. Amy said they have a project that is approved already. David Hoefer said P&Z would not review this project the way it is proposed at the moment. P&Z previously review this project under different criteria and what they say may or may not be relevant because they have not actually reviewed this proposal. MOTION: Michael moved to continue 216 E. Hallam, Conceptual, Lot Split and public hearing until Dec. l l, 2002. HPC break to ready the P & Z minutes. Stan said we feel this project is in greater conformance with the code and specifically the newly passed lot split code for 6,000 square foot lots. Michael withdrew his motion for continuance. Michael said he read the minutes and has digested them. It seems that the neighbors concerns as voiced tonight all relate to the additional density. The only concern that the neighbors raised that had urgency to it was the path beside the Red Brick. Very few people use that driveway at this point. Michael said the City should pay attention to what happens after the stairs are built and the connection to Clark's market and when the Park area is beautified. The City should make sure that there are no dangerous situations established. Michael also said he doesn't have the same concern as Staff about the garage doors facing the driveway/trail. Regarding the density, Council made that decision for us when they adopted the 3,000 square foot lot split decision. Michael then stated he supports the application. Teresa said after reading the minutes, her concern is what is going to happen to the 75-year-old lilac bushes? 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 20~ 2002 Camilla said the lilacs will be preserved and they are absolutely committed to saving them. Teresa relayed to the applicant that she has supported this project all along and greatly appreciates the applicant's interest in restoring and rehabilitating the little house. The use of the trail for public use is wonderful. The combination of pedestrian and vehicular traffic is going to be like any other alley in town and will probably have less traffic than others in town. It is preferable to set the additional space beside the historical resource. Teresa stated that she supports the historic lot split over the duplex idea. She appreciates the simplicity of the second dwelling and it enhances the Frost house and is a wonderful combination. As far as the historical character of the neighborhood this project is more pleasing and reads like a simple set of houses that was originally here. In referring to the garage maybe more restudying and attention could be made to that; possibly a smaller garage. The driveway in the suggested location is OK. Teresa stated in general the project is an excellent preservation project and she highly supports it including the FAR bonus. Valeria said there are a few things she has concerns about and would recommend that they be addressed at final review. They are the windows and the articulation of the garage. When the restudy is done the turning radius will be increased and current depth dimension that you have, should the garage door be relocated tO the north. She would not want to see the gravel encroach towards the barn structure. Regarding the circulation of the alley 24 feet is certainly adequate to accommodate both pedestrian and vehicular circulation. After reviewing the P&Z minutes she will dismiss them and she agrees with' the recommendation of approval and the FAR bonus and lot split. Jeffrey echoed Valerie's and Teresa's comments. The lot split is an excellent preservation to01 to keep our historic resources from having large stately additions to them that might not be appropriate. The majority of the minutes from the Planning & Zoning meeting are irrelevant because the subject was the concept of the duplex. A lot has been done to this site to warrant additional public interest to the Frost building as well as the pedestrian passerby experience. The plantings and soft cape and improvements that are made for the sidewalk and park in the back are 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOYEMBER 20, 2002 excellent ways to showcase this newly preserved structure. Jeffrey commended Valerie for her comments regarding the buffer zone. The 500 square foot bonus is warranted. Stan relayed that they are requesting the 500 square foot bonus and they are also shifting the one-foot setback from the east to the westr Amy sais the setback variances will not be granted tonight. They will be noticed for final. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #41, 2002 second by Valerie; motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Teresa, Michael, Valerie, Jeffrey -it Stan relayed that when they come back they will come back with the restudy of the garage and with the windows eliminated. 540 E. MAIN STREET - ZUPANCIS WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10