Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20031008.ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCtober 8, 2003 470 N. SPRING STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING .... 1 426 E. MAIN - GALENA & MAIN VISITOR CENTER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING ...................................................................................................... 1 311 S. FIRST STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING ......2 28 SMUGGLER GROVE - LOT SPLIT - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - LISTING ON THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTOIRc SITES AND STRUCTURES .................................. ~ ................... 2 PROJECT MONITORING .......................................................................................................................... 2 819 E. HOPKINS AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL _ ON-SITE RELOCATION & VARIANCES ............. ~ ...... ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 8~ 2003 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Michael Hoffman, Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander and Sarah Broughton. Neill Hirst was excused. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Disclosure: Valerie will recuse herself on 819 E. Hopkins Ave. MOTION.. Michael moved to approve the minutes of Sept 24th as amended,. second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. 470 N. SPRING STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Valerie moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 470 N. Spring to November 12, 2003; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 426 E. MAIN - GALENA & MAIN VISITOR CENTER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Toni Cronberg said the public notice sign is in the wrong place and possibly two s~gns could be put up since the project is on the corner. Amy said the item will be continued. If there is a problem with the sign the applicant will have time to change it. Klm Weil, architect explained that he put the sign up himself and they are correct. He will attach a current photograph. The affidavit of posting has been entered into the records of the land use file as Exhibit I. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 8, 2003 MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development of 426 E. Main until November 12, 2003; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. 311 S. FIRST STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. David Hoefer said the posting affidavit needs to be submitted at the next hearing. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and minor development for 311 $. First Street until November 12, 2003; second by Valerie. ,,ill in favor, motion carried. 28 SMUGGLER GROVE - LOT SPLIT - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - LISTING ON THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTOIRC SITES AND STRUCTURES Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Stan Clausen requested a continuance. MOTION.. Sarah moved to continue 28 Smuggler Grove and the public hearing until November 12, 2003; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried. PROJECT MONITORING 950 Matchless Amy said there is a Victorian in the front and an addition that was approved to the back of it. When the approval was given by HPC nothing was mentioned how the light wells would be covered except for one. HPC normally recommends grates. The applicant would like a railing around the light well that was approved for a grate. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 8, 2003 Alan said he talked to the Building Department and they indicated that a railing could be used instead of a grate. There are six separate roof pitches above the grate and they collect a tremendous amount of snow and with the grate, in an emergency with the weight of snow you wouldn't be able get out. There is no hinge made that can handle the weight. They are having snow melt and a gutter system but it isn't enough. Alan would like a handrail as opposed to a grate on the east elevation. Jeffrey and the board indicated that they could accept the modification to add a handrail. Christiania Lodge Derek said dormers were created for the mechanical equipment but there is a series of piping that has to be exhausted. The architect thought maybe a copula idea might hide all of the piping. The size would be 2 x 3feet and it is five feet higher than the ridgeline. The board felt that it was too tall and it looked like a chimney element. The board left the decision to the monitor, Derek and staff. 819 E. HOPKINS AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT _ CONCEPTUAL - ON-SITE RELOCATION & VARIANCES Rally Dupps and Mitch Haas were sworn in. The affidavit of public notice was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Amy said in April HPC granted conceptual approval for a project that involves a portion of the project that is before us tonight. It involved 9,000 square feet to the eastern part of the site. The proposal was to take the miner's cottage that was in the center of the property, relocate it slightly and build a new house that wrapped down the side of the lot. The major issues at that time were whether it was appropriate to relocate the house. A shed was being relocated on the alley and the new house was wrapping around a tree that the Parks Dept. has determined to be significant. Amy relayed that the owner is in the process of acquiring an additional 3,000 square feet next door. The plan is to demolish an addition to 811 E. Hopkins. That existing addition is in poor condition. 811 E. Hopkins would be restored moved to the opposite site and the yellow house restored ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 8, 2003 and moved on-site and create a new structure that wraps around the side and in back of the parcel. Staff's concerns are that the two houses are being moved significantly. 811 E. Hopkins is leaving the 3,000 square foot parcel that it has lived on historically, which is about 45 feet away. The 819 E. Hopkins cottage is being moved 30 feet away from its current site. The shed is still being rotated and placed on the back. Staff's concern is that there is an importance to the original location of the building and we know that from our integrity assessments. It seems like original locations are being pushed aside to build envelopes in a way that is detrimental to the integrity. The construction of the new building is 5,600 square feet and the cabins are less than 1,000. The concern is that it has not been developed in a way that breaks down in scale and relates to the two historic buildings. The construction is on a landmark site and there are a number of variances being requested, but the threshold issues should be resolved first before addressing variances. Mitch Haas said they looked at the Sanborn map and the building that is on 811 is not the same building. The existing building has a cross gable and the one on the Sanborn map doesn't. It is still an historic building but not historic to this site. The 811 Gates residence is a single-family house and on lot C of the property. A two-story addition was added to the back and they feel the integrity has been compromised. There is a new entry door, new clapboard siding and the front porch has been enclosed. The arched windows have been added and all the historic windows have been replaced with metal or aluminum clad windows. The only remaintng historic window is the bay window on the front. The relocation for our client is the only incentive for its preservation and restoration. The alternative would be to leave the house where it is and not do anything to it. The historic resources will maintain their current orientations to the street with their front porches facing the street. The parcel is not in the historic district. The relocation will enable and enhance preservation by allowing construction of foundations. Regarding the standards for relocation, the second standard has been met whicl~ states that the relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic property. It is 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MIN UTES OF OctOber 8, 2003 an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the buildings. They will retain the proximity of the houses to the front lot line and they will be move out from behind the large conifers to help visibility. The new structure was designed in accordance with the guidelines and will provide an appropriate buffer between the historic residence and the large multi-family building to the west. Overall they feel this project provided a far better preservation effort than the existing approval did. The new building maintains an appropriate orientation to the street and has a front door that faces the street and it is under a front porch oriented to the street as well. The architecture compliments the historic structures without imitation but will be readily discernable as a product of its time. The mass of the front elevation has been broken into modules. The only issue regarding scale and mass is the portion of the new structure behind the 811 house, which will become the ADU. The front setbacks are identical to what exists at the 811 house. The front and rear yard setbacks are a function of the necessity to preserve the cottonwood tree's root system. Only the two miners cottages are proposed to be less than ten feet apart. The distance between the two cottages is eight feet. The minimum in the code is six feet and the requirement is ten feet. We could increase the distance to ten feet but that would simply move 811 closer to the new residence and we felt that would be inappropriate under the guidelines. It is more important to retain a larger separation distance between the old structure and new structure than it was to increase the distance between the two historic structures. Another issue rinsed was the parking for the ADU. The ADU is voluntary but they are not volunteering an on-site parking space for the ADU. Regarding the Residential Design Standards the design location of the front porch and front door of the new structure were chosen as an effort to align with and compliment the historic structure. The porch is about 14 ½ feet deep and the standards say it can't be more than ten feet deep. The front door could be moved forward to comply with the standard but would compromise the complimentary nature of the structure and its compatibility with the historic resource. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISsioN MINUTES OF October 8~ 2003 The open space requirement states that 35% of the property be left undeveloped. They feel they have tried to achieve the spirit of the requirement by exceeding it in less sight coverage. They have a 61% site coverage and 39% of the property is free of structures. Only 26% complies with the open space definition, therefore requiring a 9% variance. They have left far less floor area than could be developed by right. It is clear that they are not intending to maximize development rights on this property. The site design is drive by the preservation of ihe cottonwood, which resides close to the center of the property and the desire of the HPC to have two historic residences grouped together on the street front. This project has three historic structures to preserve and an historic tree in the middle of the property. Derek inquired about the previOus application. Mitch said the proposal was five units including the 811 Gates house and this one is three units plus an ADU. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Mary Upton was sworn in. Mary relayed that she lives at 820 E. Hyman. Her concern is the impacts in the alley. The normal setback in the alley is ten feet. It will be difficult for cars to swing in. In general the project is quite large. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the pUblic hearing. Amy said the 819 house is being moved eastward and is basically moving aside to bring the 811 Gates house into its place. Something to consider is whether the two could be flip flopped so that the 819 yellow house essentially stays where it is today. Rally said the footprint of the Gates house is a lot smaller than the yellow house and for an ADU there is an 800 maximum square footage that is required. The yellow house on ground level would exceed that. Amy said a variance could be given. Mitch said Council has not passed that code amendment yet. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMiSSiON MINUTES OF October 8~ 2003 Mitch said pushing the yellow house in front crowds the new house more because it is a bigger house and it would be more difficult to fit it there. The main driving factor is to get the growth management exemption you have to have 60% of your units in bedrooms as deed restricted housing. The yellow house is a three-bedroom house after we put a basement underneath it. We need to keep it that size in order to have a three-bedroom house. Comments: Michael said if other members of the board feel strongly about keeping the yellow house in its current location he would be willing to continue the hearing to consider that. In terms of moving the Gates house off its current site he could accept that. He feels guideline 9.3 has been complied with by moving the historic structure to encourage the preservation of both structures and the shed. Michael said he would not vote for the approval of one less parking space. Amy said each of the category units should have two spaces and they are only giving one and the ADUis not having a space: Michael said he is troubled by the open space requirement but given all the constraints on this site he Overall supports the plan. Sarah said she can accept the relocation. The front setback is OK but she would like more space between the two historic houses due to maize of light wells that are going on between the two houses. The unit that is housing the master bath, pool etc. could get a little righter in the overall mass. The parking and open space requests are acceptable. Derek said this project has imProving and this project is a win-win for the City and the neighbors. There is a lot of sympathetic nature given to the historic resources. He supports moving the historic houses and they will be "highlighted" on the street. He has no problems with the site plan or massing.. Jeffrey said the additional 3,000 square feet that was afforded to this project has enabled the applicant to maneuver and be sensitive to the neighbors on the west. He feels that the historic house has always been there and was altered, Jeffrey also agreed with staffabout reversing the buildings and having the inflection talk to one another instead of having them back-to- 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCtOber 8~ 2003 back. Standard 11.3 talks about the mass and scale and volume. The new house overwhelms the historic ADU even with plantings and trees. Regarding some of the review standards the depth of the porch is OK because it helps set off the relationship that it is not historic. Regarding the open space requirement the applicants have proven that it is very hard to comply with all of it. He could support the parking variance because the historic homes are grouped together and the massing is inflecting upward. The shed is a contributing element to this property. Jeffrey said he is very uncomfortable with the eight feet between the historic structures. The buildings should be at least ten feet apart. He also has concerns with some of the ridge heights and they should be restudied. Jeffrey could support conceptual with a few modifications. Applicant's comments: Mitch said they could easily comply with the ten-foot separation between the historic buildings. An ADU is an accessory to a primary residence, so by flipping the two we have disposed the relationships between the two buildings and made the accessory building separated by a privately owned residence in between the two, which makes no sense. It also makes it difficult later on to come back and make a sensible condominiumization and sell off the deed restricted residences. One would be in with the primary residence and the ADU over next door to that. Rally said when he designs affordable housing he designs it sensitively with placing rooms how he would live. The yellow house is a better living house for a deed-restricted house. When the Gates house is restored it will be a little cottage. MOTION.. Sarah moved to approve the conceptual development for 811 and 819 E. Hopkins including the on-site relocation, setback vartances, on- site parking variance, and the open space variance. Also, the residential design standards have been met. Conditions.. 1. A ten-foot separation between the two historic houses. 2. The variance off the alley be reduced from 8.6 to 5feet on the main house. Motion second by Michael. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF October 8~ 2003 Discussion: Derek said he has no issues with the 8.6 setback in the rear. Michael said he has no issues with the eight feet separation between the two historic buildings. Motion denied 3-1. Jeffrey, no Michael. no Derek, no Sarah..yes MOTION: Michael moved to continue the Conceptual development of 819 and 811E. Hopkins to October 22~d with the following conditions: 1. Ten foot separation between the historic houses. 2. That the alley setback on the new house be reduced form 8.6 to 5 feet. 3. Restudy the parking variance. 4. Restudy flip flopping the historic houses. 5. Research the history of the Gates house. Motion second by Jeffrey. Yes vote: Derek, Michael. Sarah, Jeffrey Motion carried 4-0. Derek said he feels the houses are fine where they are and he has no issues about the variances. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor. motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9