Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20030910 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMER 10t 2003 635 W. BLEEKER - MONITORING ISSUES ........................................................................................... 1 470 N. SPRING STREET - CONCEPTUAL & VARIANCES (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO OCT. 8. 2003) ................................................................................................................................................. 1 135 E. COOPER AVE. - CONCEPTUAL, ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND VRIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 311 S. FIRST - WORK SESSION ............................................................................................................... 6 DISCUSSION - GUIDELINES .................................................................................................................... 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMER 10, 2003 Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Neill Hirst, Valerie Alexander and Sarah Broughton. Excused were Jeffrey Halferty and Teresa Melville. Staffpresent: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland. Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of August 27, 2003: second by Neill. ~dll in favor, motion carried. 635 W. BLEEKER - MONITORING ISSUES Darin (Red) Reinks said the light wells were flashed with patina copper and they would like to put a sandstone 1 ½ inch cap on top of the copper. The board agreed on the sandstone cap. Red said the side porch was closed in and the first option would be to put back wood on the porch but the owner would like slate. The board said historically the porch would have been wood. The board recommended wood, Douglas fur 3 ¼". Red said he would run the planks in the same pattern that was historically there. 470 N. SPRING STREET - CONCEPTUAL & VARIANCES (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO OCT. 8, 2003) MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development and variances for 470 N. Spring Street to October 8. 2003; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried. 135 E. COOPER AVE. - CONCEPTUAL, ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND VRIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in: David Gibson and Mitch Haas ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION coMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMER 10, 2003 The affidavit of notice was entered into the record, (landuse file) as Exhibit I. Amy relayed that the major concerns at the last meeting were focused on the connecting piece of the old house and the new addition; how tall and how wide it was. There was also concern on the massing of the new addition. The owner has changed architects and the connector is six feet wide and as narrow as it can be. The connector removes a section of the wall but no other features will be lost on the historic house. The new addition has a hipped roof and has no plate height or ridge height higher than the main house, which was an issue the last time. Both the historic house and out building are to be relocated two feet into their opposite comers which is something that can be justified if it allows some breathing room around the house and in other ways improves the preservation of the house. The outbuilding will be retained. The applicant is asking for setback variances as well as the 500 square foot FAR bonus. Fenestration and skylights can be addressed at final. In terms of massing and height it is very good. Mitch Haas said the only thing new is a pair of skylights that flank the chimney on the historic house. The roof form stays the same and the height. David Gibson said the addition sets back 27 feet from the property line and 17 feet from the face of the historic house. All the major vegetation will remain. The house will be moved about four feet. Derek asked what the intent was with the two skylights? David said they are trying to "daylight" the attic. There is only one window that provides five square feet of natural light. Neill asked how the alterations would occur on the rear of the historic house? Mitch said right now there are no windows on the south side and it would be nice to exit the back of the house or provide natural light with French doors. David said at some point a bump out was added and the French doors would bring it closer back to what it would have been historically. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES ON SEPTEMER 10, 2003 Ron Erickson said he is the property manager for Windfield Arms, which is the property that is located to the west of the subject property. The concern is the west side setbacks. Why does the guest house have to be moved three feet closer to the neighbor when it is pristine? The addition that is being added is brand new and why can't the addition be built five feet in from the property line. There is no reason why it has to be built into the setback. The square footage is substantial and is right next to Winfield Arm's recreation area. Having them retain the five-foot setback on the west side is not depriving them of their property rights. The other issue is the net loss of one parking space. With the renovation of the Little Red Ski Haus across the street parking is more and more of a problem. Chair-person, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Mitch addressed the setback of the addition and the only way to make that bigger is to move it closer to the historic house and that would compromise what we are trying to achieve, which is to have it read as two structures. To move it closer would not be a preservation approach. Mitch said the existing parking spaces are not wide enough to really be parking spaces. We are providing one space which is a single tenancy property and that is adequate. David Gibson said currently we have no legal space on the property. Michael relayed the topics to be addressed: The variance issue; the issue of the 500 square foot bonus, the on-site relocation. In terms of the addition the issues are the connector, ridge height, plate height. The board said with regard to the addition it meets all of our guidelines. Derek said with the height; as it is it is responding by setting itself back 27 feet. Valerie also said the addition is subordinate and is a good balance. It doesn't degrade the streetscaPe by being back 27 feet; On-site relocation. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMER 10, 2003 Derek asked if the entire mass could be pushed to S. Aspen Street since it is new construction? Amy said we did not notice any variance that would move the house closer to Aspen Street. If you wanted to dc that the connector would have to become shorter. The guesthouse does not have that same constraint. Michael said this proposal meets guideline 9.1 and he would be reluctant to push the addition closer to the historic structure. Neill felt that the board did not put enough thought into the setback variances. Is it really necessary to push the guesthouse into the illegal unorthodox setbacks? Variances are important to neighbors and we need to make sure it is really necessary to encroach upon setbacks and not just allow them because of design issues of the owner or developer. Sarah also agreed that the guest residence should not have a variance, The board and applicant discussed the pros and cons of moving the entire project forward on S. Aspen Street and decided that there were too many negatives, which included the historic fence. Amy said the house as it sits has a more dramatic setback due to its placement on the lot and she would not want to destroy that. The foundations would be very close to drip lines of trees. Valerie said she feels the relationship of the historic house and addition are great and she feels the variance on the guest residence would give them more open space on their property but it is taking away open space from the neighbor. She feels the guest residence should comply with the setback on the west side. All board members agreed with Valerie. FAR bonus. The board said the proposal more than meets all of the code requirements and it is an exemplary project. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMER 10, 2003 Neill felt that a lot of issues that normally get addressed at final should be discussed tonight because he would not grant the FAR bonus under the current proposal. Derek said Neill has an excel.lent point. Amy said there are two alterations proposed to the historic house and they are the skylights on the roof and the French doors on the back. Michael said it would be incumbent upon us to be much tougher at final. Neill's point is well taken, once something has conceptual approval we tend to get momentum and approve things at final, which shOuld be discussed in depth. Derek also said his two concerns are the skylights and the French doors. He would favor the French doors but feels the skylights are m an obscure location on the historic house, Michael said he doesn't have enough information ro make a judgment about the skylights. Neill said the French doors and skylights are so important that they affect the eligibility for the FAR bonus. Mitch said they could forgo the French doors on the guest cottage if they are going to prevent the FAR bonus. The other French doors and skylights should be looked at in the entire context of the building. David Gibson said he is thinking that the skylights on the guest cottage porch they could live without. The French doors into the guest residence, they can live without those and they could eliminate one of the two skylights on the roof of the historic house. David said he is flexible to work with the HPC. Amy said at final she would like to see investigation of any restoration opportunity here. If there was a bay window in the back it should be restored instead of putting in French doors. David said he is open to pursuing that. Mitch said he feels there should be a little leeway by the HPC. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMER 10~ 2003 Amy said the concerns about the skylights on the guest cottage and the French doors on the cottage can be taken off the table because the applicant has removed them from the project. On the French doors in the back of the house there ~rfight be the opportunity to restore a bay window and they already offered to remove one of the skylights on the historic roof. For clarification, Mitch said he might be willing to remove one of the skylights. David Hoe£er said the board should reserve the right to discuss the skylight. Amy said we need to do that because there are the concerns of precedence and we normally do not allow skylights on historic buildings. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #18, 2003 with a change to condition #1 where we grant a 3' west sideyard setback variance for main house addition and no variance.for the guest residence. We do approve the 1.5 'east sideyard setback variance and 8' rear yard setback variance and a 3 'for the new garage and 500 square foot FAR bonus. Condition g4 added: Skylight on the historic guest cottage to be taken out. French doors on the historic guest cottage to be taken out. Study the restoration opportunity of the back of the old house (possible bay window) where the French doors are proposed. Restudy one skylight on the historic roof. Motion second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried. Yes: Derek, Neill, Sarah, Valerie, Michael 311 S. FIRST - WORK SESSION David Hoefer relayed that proper notice to the neighbors has not occurred; therefore, the board at maximum can only say they object or do not object to the project. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMER 10, 2003 Amy said the intent of the work session is for the applicant to present the project as they would like to have it build. I£the board has significant concerns with the variances that were not noticed they will present their minor development application, which is in the packet. The board had no major issues with the work session, The applicant withdrew the minor development request and will public nonce at a later date. DISCUSSION - GUIDELINES NO - MINUTES MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Neill. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 7