Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20031112ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2003 426 E. MAIN - VISITOR CENTER - PH - CONCEPTUAL .................................................................... 1 470 N. SPRING STREET - PH - CONCEPTUAL ....................................................................................1 311 S. FIRST STREET - MINOR REVIEW ............................................................................................... 2 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ROAD - HISTORIC DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL - LOT SPLIT - ON-SITE RELOCATION- PH ................................................................................................................... 3 WORKSESSION ...................... 2 WILLIAM'S WAY- ELK'S BUILDING ............................................................................................... 10 NO- MINUTES ........................ 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2003 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners ~n attendance: Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander, Sarah Broughton, Michael Hoffman, and Neill Hirst. Staffpresent: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION.. Derek moved to approve the minutes qf Oct. 8, 2003. second by k'alerie. All in favor, motion carried. Commissioner comments: Derek mentioned Asie restaurant and the airlock that was approved. He feels the board should take a firm position on airlocks and the appropriate design. Neill said he feels the HPC agendas should be approved by the chair. He also feels that historic designation should be on a separate meeting instead of having it on the same meeting as conceptual, lot split and on-site relocations and variances. Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer said a code amendment would have to go to council in order to change that procedure. David suggested the board have a worksession to decide what they want. 426 E. MAIN - VISITOR CENTER - PH - CONCEPTUAL MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 426 E. Main Street until January 14, 2003; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 470 N. SPRING STREET - PH - CONCEPTUAL MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 470 N. Spring Street until December ] O, 2003; second by Derek. ~tll in favor, motion carried. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2003 311 S. FIRST STREET - MINOR REVIEW Martin Mata and Paul Sandler were sworn in. The affidavit of posting was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Amy relayed that the piece of property has a Victorian brick home that wa's linked together with a larger new home in the 80's. The addition was not particularly sensitive to the historic house. The owners would like to demolish the connector and then repair the Victorian wall and the deck of the connector would remain in place as an outdoor deck because it is the roof to a basement space. No other changes will happen to the Victorian. On the new house some doors and windows will be replaced. They are also adding a garage. There are a couple residential design issues that relate to windows' on the east side of the building that go into the "no window zone" and staff feels this variance should be granted. Staff supports the garage variance because of the view you have from the street it doesn't have the appearance of a garage. Staff feels that the variance is not a problematic variance. Staff feels that the garage variances are appropriate because it allows the owner to create a garage that is functional and gives them the motivation to demolish the connector, which is the major issue that HPC is interested in. The garage is not an inappropriate design element and it prevents having a possible uncovered parking spot that might not be the most appealing foreground for the site. Martin Mata said the underlying element is to remove the connector and separate the two buildings and let them stand on their own. They intend is to do a general upgrade for the entire property. Paul Sandler said they desire to put the Victorian back the way it was. Presently there is no garage for either structure. Amy pointed out that there is no more square footage left on this property so the Victorian will never have an addition to it. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12~ 2003 Valerie said the new materials are a great improvement for the project. Michael said this applicant has worked extremely hard to find a design that works. MOTION.. Derek moved to approve Resolution 21, 2003, parcel ID 2735- 122-39-2003 as stated in staff's memo dated Nov. 12, 2003; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried. 6-0. Yes vote: Valerie, Michael, Sarah, Neill. Derek, Jeffrey 28 SMUGGLER GROVE ROAD - HISTORIC DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL - LOT SPLIT - ON-SITE RELOCATION - PIt David Hoefer pointed out that this project was continued from OCt. 8, 2003 and the applicant submitted an affidavit of posting as Exhibit I. Sworn in: Stan Clauson, Suzannah Reid, Jim Byrnes. Amy said this particular building is a Victorian era structure that was moved to the Smuggler Grove neighborhood. For the property to be designated you need to prove two things, one that it is at least 100 years old, which based on the architects inspections is the case. Secondly, it needs to past our integrity test. Staff scored 64, which is above the minimum threshold of 50 points. The form of the hoUse seems unaltered except for a very modest addition at the back. There are no new window openings but the units themselves have been replaced in most locations. Some of the materials have been replaced and the scale and massing are the strongest points of the building. Staff supports designation. The house was never designated because it was in the county. Suzannah reiterated that the form of the building, window openings and the scale of the interior spaces etc. are all consistent with a building of that age. Upon inspection of the crawl space at the addition of the rear and between the historic parts of the house you could see the original roof framing and sheathing in that area. Suzannah also said they believe the addition to the back was added to the house when it was moved to the existing site in the late 60's. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMiSSiON MIN UTES OF NOVE~ERi~, 2003 Neill said there was a comment that almost all of the exterior materials have been replaced. Amy said she agreed. They are going to gut the building and at that time we can make certain that the windows are the size and in the location that they have always been. The bay window needs to be looked at to see if it is original. David Hoefer said procedurally we do not want to have two public hearings. The board members need to indicate if they feel strongly that they cannot go forward on the historic designation issue and then go back to the full presentation. We cannot bifurcate the hearing and have two separate votes. Amy said the property is'located in a zone district that allows lot splits. The property will be divided into two lots one of which is just less than 3,500 square feet and one just less than 3,900 square feet. Both exceed the minimum lot size, which is 3,000 square feet. The existing Victorian will be moved to one of the lots and there will be no more than 2 houses, one on each parcel. The total FAR allowed is 3,433 square feet and they are requesting an FAR bonus. The historic house will be allocated 1,828 square feet. The new house will be no more than 2,105 square feet. Variances are being requested for the historic lot. Regarding the addition to the Victorian, the applicant proposes to demolish a non-historic piece and use a connector to make an addition at the rear of the parcel. The addition is very modest in scale and character. It is simple in detailing and exactly what we are always striving for. When the non- historic addition is removed they will expose the back roof plane. There are no issues regarding the on-site relocation because it is original to the parcel. The historic house will be square to the street. Staff finds that the FAR standards have all been met except the one related to landscape features, which don't exist because this wasn't the original parcel. The historic building will be the most prominent on the lot and the new construction is modest in size and design and there will be restoration work. The large setback in the front yard is 25 feet and they are asking for a 20- foot variance. They are also asking for relief on the side yards. There is a utility easement on the back, which prevents them from moving to the rear 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER i2, 2003 of the parcel, which is something we usually ask for. The last issue is on- site parking. Amy said she met with different agencies throughout the city to make sure everyone knew what challenges there may be. She did that because the neighborhood expressed that parking and other utility issues were a potential problem. The Engineering Dept. has studied the plan and right now this is a private road and the City does not maintain it. It has a 40-foot right-of-way width that is not paved. It is also a dead end street. Practically no one in the neighborhood has on-site parking on their own property that meets city standards. This project is asking for two spaces related to the Victorian to be waived. They have the fight to park on the street elsewhere in the City. The new lot will have on-site parking. This applicant does meet the standard that the parking spaces should be waived for the benefit of preserving the historic building. There are no alleys in this neighborhood. Stan Clauson said this lot of 7,377 square feet is a legal basis for an historic lot split. Stan made corrections to the dimensional sheet. The existing floor area is 1,054 square feet and the allowable FAR for the entire parcel is 3,433 square feet. With the requested 500 square foot bonus that creates an allowable FAR of 3,933 square feet. That would be divided between lot A, 1,828 square feet and lot B 2,105 square feet. The newly created lot would be conforming in size and setbacks. The historic structure will be realigned with the street. A diagram showed that adjacent to the pavement there is sufficient space for parallel parking and in fact in front of some of the homes that space has been widened to add head in parking. The DRC committee feels the paved roadway should be 24 feet wide and increased from 17 feet. That would easily provide for two 8 foot wide parking lanes on either side of the street. The lot is seeking a variance for parking because of the existing landscaping and because the historic structure itself would be slightly denigrated by having parking brought up close against it. Stan mentioned Steve Hach's letter, which alleged that that the parcel could not be legally subdivided because of certain aspects of deeds that have been provided. In general, it is not the purview of the board to enforce private matters. Stan entered a letter from Lennie Oates relating to access rights, 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2003 Exhibit II. In summary there is no legal impediment whatsoever to the Jukati Subdivision to have any additional lots created. Suzannah presented the design of the house and the alignment. The house is located in the center of the lot. The original corners of the historic house will be revealed with the removal of the addition. In order to do that setback variances are needed. The front yard setback is 25 feet and they are proposing a five-foot setback. There is an easement on the east side of the site and they are working with the City to move it to the center of the site and making it a combined ten foot utility easement down the center of the site. They are also requesting a 3-foot side yard setback on the west side. The newly created lot construction would be a minimum of 13 feet away ~ from the historic house. The majority of the addition is in the basement. The volume of the addition is about 900 square feet. The addition is modest and low key and hides behind the historic housel Stan pointed out that the DRC committee looked at emergency access and turn around, right of way and roadway width. They also recommended the installation of sprinklers in both homes. The applicant was asked to do sewer taps and to pave a two-foot width in front of his property, which would the applicant's contribution to establishing a 24-foot wide travel lane. Questions and clarifications: Neill inquired about designation. Amy said the structure is clearly a Victorian and HPC has said they value every Victorian structure that had integrity. The structure is 120 years old. He also asked if the connector meets our guidelines? Amy said the only time the guidelines address dimension and quality of the connectors is if the addition is going to be two stories tall. The addition is not significantly larger than the historic house and the corners are revealed. Neill asked David about the assertions of the letters that were received. David said he represents the board and as Stan mentioned previously it is a private issue. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2003 Michael asked if we have any regulations that would limit the number of vehicles that are attached to this structure. Amy said HPC has nothing but the Parking Dept. has a certain fee structure for residential parking. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Steve Hach was sworn in. The 9eighbors think there are inadequate considerations for the parking ingress and egress. Every time they come and go they have to go onto someone else's property or back entirely out of the subdivision. The structure had 3 building permits for modifications. The contextual value is gone. For clarification on Lennie Oates letter Exhibit IH, four of the 7 lots are 100% within the setback requirements. Mr. Hack went over the lots that had setback variances. The applicant needs to get some of their parking off the easement. It is a private easement and is not designated for parking. It is an easement designated for egress and ingress. Their parking on the easement doesn't allow other vehicles further down to get on and off of their own parking. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Michael expressed his concern over the parking issue and could we restrict the number of cars. David Hoefer said an applicant could always voluntarily agree to something. His concern with a covenant of that nature is that it is a major enforcement issue. Amy also stated if this street was accepted by the City then anyone can park there. It would be difficult to establish who has rights and who doesn't. Amy reminded the board that the HPC needs to decide whether waiving their parking meets are criteria, not where they are going to put their cars. Stan said the City code requires two spaces per dwelling unit. We are really talking about two cars that would be parked on the street. With a voluntary restriction, people do have guests and it can cause numerous issues. Valerie addressed designation. The structure was not original to the site and had no original windows. The foundation is not original and there are no photographs or documents to date to aid in the replacement of the altered structure. The application states that the interior of the house will be gutted 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2003 and with no exterior materials being historic she is finding that not much significance of the structure remains. A third of the guidelines talk about maintaining the historic structure and how you prevent further deterioration and 1/3 talk about repair of damaged historic materials and 1/3 talk about replacement of those materials. Numerous guidelines are not applicable. Valerie did the integrity scoring and came up with a score of 51, which would still qualify this for a designation, but she would request a continuance of this application. Derek also did the integrity scoring and came up with a score of 56. Derek expressed his concern with the legal issue. Architecturally he has no problems with the proposal. His concern is the parking issue. Michael said his pre-disposition is that the commission would like to air on the side of preservation. He said he is sensitive to the request of the commission for additional time to consider designation. He is concerned by those aspects of the application that increase the density of the project. We are talking about a lot split and a substantial addition; the property is already being used extensively. The prowsions of code section 26.415.110.C setback variance and the waiver of two on-site parking spaces, in his opinion have not been met. Sarah said where designation starts is in form. The form has a lot of its existing openings but she is also struggling with designation. She is less concerned about the parking and setbacks. Jeffrey said his premise is to preserve. Sarah mentioned the openings and those openings are retrievable which is an important aspect of our purview. Jeffrey supports the revealed comer boards of the historic house. The use of off-site variances helps us to not hide the historic resource. Jeffrey supports the other commissioners on continuance of the lot split not only for the parking issue but the utility variances that are being requested. He also agreed with Sarah regarding the alignment of the street and what that does to the pattern of the neighborhood. ASPEN HISTORIC P~SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2003 Michael summarized by saying he is not opposed to the lot split as long as they can demonstrate in a clear manner that the property is worthy of historic designation. Stan asked for further guidance as to what the HPC would like them to bring back. Michael said the threshold issue is whether this is an historic structure that is worthy of historic designation. Jeffrey said if you can provide photo evidence or documentation of the building that would be helpful. Suzannah expressed her concern that the form that was developed doesn't seem to have weight in the HPC's opinion to be useful. The form was developed to emphasize those things that were most important about this type of building. Derek said he comfortable with the designation but his concern is the lot split and the written commentary that was presented. Michael said he would like the applicant to try and reach some resolution with the neighbors because there are concerns of the neighbors. The code currently gives us authority to dramatically ~ncrease the density of this one lot and before we do that the neighbors need to be g~ven an opportunity to reach some acceptable solution on their concerns. Neill expressed his parking concerns that would further create obstacles. Suzannah said the two new parking spaces that would be created by the lot split for the new lot need to be on the site. MOTION.. Michael moved to continue the public hearing, conceptual development, landmark designation to Dec. 17, 2003: second by Neill. in favor, motion carried 6-0. All Yes vote: Valerie. Michael Sarah. Neill, Derek, Jeffrey 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2003 WORKSESSION 2 WILLIAM'S WAY - ELK'S BUILDING NO- MINUTES MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m, All in favor, Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10