Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20031119ASPEN HISTORIc PRESERVATION COMMiSSiON MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19~ 2003 ChairPerson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander, Sarah Broughton, Neill Hirst and Michael Hoffman. Staffpresent: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 1295 RIVERSIDE DRIVE - HISTORIC DESIGNATION, HISTORIC LOT SPLIT, MINOR REVIEW, VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING David Hoefer relayed that the applicant forgot to bring the proof of publication to the meeting. David requested that the applicant submit the proof of notice to the clerk's office by 5:00 Nov. 20th. Sworn in: Kathy and Ton Welgos, Rally Dupps Amy relayed that the prOject involves a Chalet style building built in 1960. There is a minor development, which relates to some architectural changes to the existing building and there is a request for variances, which result from the new lot line. Amy pointed out that the City has recently developed new standards for Historic Designation, particularly for buildings that were built after WWII. There are several criteria that need to be met. The property has to be constructed for at least forty years, and in this case the property was built 43 years ago. It needs to possess sufficiem integrity, which is integrity related to location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association. Staff scored this building at 86 points and the threshold is 75 out of 100 points. Overall the building is intact and it has very few alterations to it. There is an addition at the rear, which is relatively small and does not detract from the historic house. The rest of the criteria are association. The property needs to be associated with an event, pattern or trend with a significant person who has made contributions to history or it needs associated with a particular physical design. Chalet style buildings were important in the history of Aspen. We believe it began as a marketing tool for the town. Chalet styles have a romantic ASPEN HISTO~C P~SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19~ 2003 association with many ski resorts. Primarily lodges were built in the Chalet style and some of those survive today. There are 5 remaining lodges with clear Chalet styles. There are four residences that remain. Staff does not have information that would support a finding that Criterion B is met. Criterion C is that the property is associated with a particular style. Typical Chalet features are large roof form, the low pitch, deep overhands and rectangular footprints, decorative railings, white stucco face with brown upper eye level wood. They also had horizontal windows. Staff finds that Criterion C has been met and recommends designation of the property. Amy stated the property is eligible for a Historic Lot Split. Whether the house is designated or not the Welgos's could add about 2,000 more square feet to their house. That has the effect of ruining what we are trying to preserve. The idea of the lot split is to put that square footage into another structure. Overall there is no more square footage than allowed; it is just put into two separate buildings. They meet all the criteria for a lot split which is the minimum lot size. The are creating one lot of 5,734 square feet that will contain the Chalet house and the new lot just over 4,000 square feet. That lot will have the availability to build a house 2,408 square feet maximum. Minor Development review involves the changes of the existing home. One is that they need to move the entryway from the west side of the house to the east and that is because of the new lot line. The new lot will have to conform to all setback requirements and dimensional requirements of the City: The parking will also be located off to one side of the house so that the cars do not interfere with the front of the structure. For those reasons that is why they would like to move the entry to the east side of the building. This is an item that staffpsychologically struggles with because typically we do not want to change characteristics of the house. We do believe there are reasons why this works best with this property. In man cases the lot split is the best preservation option in Aspen. Staff's concern with the entry is the design of the new entry doorway. The original door has a steeper roof pitch and some of the trim and detailing is gone so we don't feel it is appropriate to construct that over again on the other side. For that reason staff is recommending continuation of the application. There is also a bubbled skylight that was added to the roof at some time over the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19~ 2003 doorway. The applicant is requesting to move that over the new doorway and staff does not support that. As a rule we do not like to have skylights added tO any hiStoric buildings and it would be best to get if off the structure if possible. Amy said they are also requesting the 500 square foot bonus. Most of it will be retained in the new 2,400 square foot house. The board will review the development of the new house and a public notice will be sent out. There are a couple setback variances being requested mostly because the new lot line will become relatively close to the existing housel The setback variances are internal to the site and will not affect any of the neighbors. They are also requesting setbacks for a non-historic shed that is in the back yard. In summary staff recommends continuation and that the entry be restudied, skylight removed and the issue of how many variances are needed for the non-historic shed be resolved. Rally Dupps handed out new drawings Exhibit I. The property consists of 9,980 square feet. The site is generally flat and there 4, 141 square feet available on the lot of which 2, 232 is being used by the Chalet building. A dining room was added in 1999. The site is R-15. The applicant is requesting 9 different approvals from HPC. Designation, lot split, conceptual approval, partial demolition of the entry and rear deck, 10 foot west side variance and a 10 foot east side variance and a 10 foot rear side yard variance all of which are to accommodate the new lot and shed. The R-15 zone requires separation distance and a variance is being requested for that. They are also requesting a 500 square foot bonus. There will be minor changes to the existing building except for the entry. The non-historic shed is to be moved to the rear of the property line. The new lot will conform to the R-15 zoning district with a 25 foot front yard, 10 foot side yard, 10 foot rear yard setback. The new lot will have 2,408 square feet of FAR and Will have a building footprint of approximately .1,430 square feet and a lot size of 4, 146 square feet. The 1960 drawings clearly show that the original entry is completely different from the one that is there now. Nothing of the original entry remains so what are we preserving. Without preservation this home could be sold and scraped off and one could maximize 4,141 square feet of FAR to build a new home that could potentially be 6, 500 square feet. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2003 Rally said they are asking t6 preserve this home largely intact as an outstanding example of an original Aspen Chalet style. Clarifications: Setback: The setback is being moved back along the west side to the roof overhang, which is three feet from the building. The other variances are related to the shed, which will go back to the comer. Valerie said the deck requires a variance and the shed. Jeffrey asked Rally to check into utility easements in the back. A neighbor brought a drawing that shows the utility easement as 7 feet that runs across the back of the lots which might affect the variance for the shed. Derek asked for clarification that they are re-creating the entry exactly as is existing on the opposite side. Rally said they are flipping the entry as is. Sarah stated that the bonus is being used for the new lot. Valerie said in the plans it seemed like some sub-grade space got reduced. Rally said they are reducing sub-grade and that is the function of cutting the deck back. For clarification that is a non-historic wall. Michael asked Amy what her opinion was on the new entry drawing. She replied that the roof shape is more sympathetic to the Chalet style but possibly a single door could break down the roof and the impacts on the wall. The new windows are more or a statement and too contemporary. ChairPerson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Sworn in: Cheri Pemell. Chariff stated that the neighbors met and she is representing 18 of them. Most of our issues come with the variances and bonuses and the lot split. Sworn in David Eddy. He stated the whole point is to preserve the visual and architectural integrity. His concern is the visual integrity and if the lot split goes through and the variance is given the two houses will be extremely together, about ten to 13 feet apart. Does it bother the 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2003 commission that one side of the house will be difficult to visualize because of the other building? He is also wondering where all of the cars will go for the new house and if there is a lot of cars on the street will that detract from the original house not to mention the entire lot. Splitting the lot. Cheri said the average lot size is 15,000 square feet and the lot in question is one of the smallest lots. There is a natural feeling to the neighborhood and they would like to maintain that. Fritz Benedict designed Riverside Drive. There is a dead endstreet in the neighborhood and it is contained. Benedict places high priority between the relationship of the house and its garden. Maybe there is a solution for the owners to make an addition to their house and not seeing the lot split. It would also preserve the natural setting of our neighborhood and the current house would be shown off. It would also be seen from the front and side instead of just one side. It would also avoid safety problems with cars etc. We feel it would benefit everyone if the property were kept as one. The neighbors also have a concern about the 500 square foot bonus, which seems redundant with what we are trying to achieve. SWorn in Dottle Kelleher. Dottie brought a copy of the plat. The curve is extremely sharp but it existed. She is uncomfortable with the lot split. Sworn in Dusty Hamrick. Dusty gave an overview of the process. Her concern is the impact on her home on the west. The front of the existing Welgos house is on the west. The back is on the east and they are proposing a completely switch the front to back. when you come out of Hwy 82 you never see the back of their house. With the introduction of another house in front of the existing front, which will become the back you will not see the front or back of the existing house, you will only see the end of the house. The shed being moved back closer to the property will be ten feet from the house. There needs to be a compromise with that shed. The shed in the proposed plan is a definite visual impact on the house. Her compromise is to have the entrance on the east but the entry on the north. Cheri said the parking in the West End works because they have alleys and ways of putting garages in. There will probably be 8 new cars that will be ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2003 parking in front of the houses. This neighborhood never had variances and doesn't want them. Sworn in Elliott Robinson. The Welgos's are friends and neighbors and they would be better off to improve their current house and in the long run their estate would be more valuable than splitting it into two small pieces. From a neighborhood standpoint if you drove down Riverside Drive you would say this proposal is not good for the neighborhood. It increases traffic and congestion. The curve that turns right is very dangerous. We picked that area because it is quite and beautiful. Preservation should be in an area where it is seen as opposed to an area where it is not seen. Dottie Kelleher said this is the first subdivision that Fritz Benedict did. He is an icon and she doesn't like the idea of chopping up what he did. David Eddy said they live to the north, which is right opposite to the house. The result of this proposal will be unattractive. The house is the way Fritz Benedict wanted it and the way the neighborhood loves it. David asked the HPC to think carefully about the final appearance of the final package. You are already starting with a small lot and that will be split into half with two small lots and two houses on the lots. They will be ten feet apart and it will have a cookie cutter like appearance. Both houses will be crowed on the lot and they will be out of synchronization with the intention of the neighborhood. David proposes to grant the designation but not the lot split. Neighbor's comments, Exhibit II David Hoefer said in terms of hearings the board has no set numbers and they can go on until they are satisfied with enough information: If the board approves the request the neighbors can appeal to City Council, also if the board denies the request the owners can appeal to City Council. Sworn in Dale Hower. She hopes that the HPC listens to the neighbors because they are interested in one thing and the neighbors are interested in another. Amy commented on the criteria. The boards job is to look at the criteria, listen to what staffhas to way and what the applicants and neighbors have 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBE~ 'i19~ '2'0~j~ to say, way them out and make a decision. Amy pointed out that financial impacts of the project are off the table and of no relevance. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the Public hearing. Comments: Designation of the property. Valerie stated that this property meets the criteria of designation and she is excited about including the Chalet on our inventory. It will be a wonderful contribution to our inventory. Sarah also supported designation of the property. Neill said historical background has very direct bearing on designation of a property. He stated he is not against designation but the context of the question needs to be carefully considered. Derek said he feels from a neighborhood standpoint the most important aspect of "neighborhood" was left out, not inviting the owners of the proposed property to the meeting. One of the neighborhood concern was massing and the inconsistency. This is not a designated property and they theoretically have the right to raise this entire property and have something come in that is much more massive and opposing and no one will have the right to say that isn't happening. From a massing standpoint, designation would not harm your community and you would have an active role as to what goes next to the existing structure. We have very few Chalet buildings left in Aspen. Derek supports designation. Michael and Jeffrey support designation. Jeffrey said finding out this was a Fritz Benedict subdivision was a valuable piece of information. Designation is a voluntary process of the property owner. Chalet style is very valuable for our ski town. Jeffrey said he is definitely in favor of designating Post WWII projects especially when they relate to our ski industry. Derek stated that a Fritz Benedict subdivision is not an end all driving force in the big picture of what we are doing here. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVE~ER i9, 2003 MOTION: Michael moved to continue 1295 Riverside Drive until Dec. 17th with the recommendations in Staff's memo and as]dng the applicant and neighborhood sit down and make an attempt to resolve their differences, second by Derek. Discussion Neill said if the neighbors and applicants want to have a meeting after this meeting then they can do that. We need to get on with HPC business and not socially maniPulate 1295 RiVerside Drive. Michael said we are not changing our process all we are saying is to try and get the issues resolved. Neill said we are at no risk whatsoever; HPC makes a recommendation to City Council regarding the designation and lOt split. Tony Welgos said he and Kathy have been invOlved in this for three years. He feels the neighbors do not know what was is happening. They were invited to the HPC and once they learned about the process and about historical importance they were sold on it. There is an education that they got working with the HPC that the neighbors do not have. MOTION WlTHDR WN Architectural improvements and the project as a whole. Valerie said the neighborhood has brought up some very thoughtful points on this project. One comment that resonates as it relates to the lot split is the Fritz Benedict development. We are in the process of looking at entire districts and this subdivision does have a lot Of open space. Valerie said she understands the loss of character by allowing two structures to be erected. In response, all could be developed on this lot except for 500 square feet, which is the bonus they are requesting. She doesn't feel the character of the neighborhood will be deteriorated in this application. In terms of the lot split, it allows us to shift some of the FAR away from the building and she is in support of the lot split. In terms of visibility there maybe a slight reduction on the west fagade but in general When weighed the enhancement and advantages to the historic structure is far greater than the loss of the visual relationship to the street. In terms of the FAR bonus, this application · 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2003 does not meet all guidelines. The entry as currently exists is not historic. . The location is but not the materials. If the applicant removes the request for the FAR bonus she could find the relocation of the entry acceptable. It would reduce the overall integrity of the structure. The materials on the east side entry are not historic and perhaps shave it off in order to accommodate the lot split. Retain that entry would be a better preservation approach. She would also the Chalet style roof or something more contemporary than the higher pitch of the roof. If the applicant wants the bonus then we need to meet windows, doors and no skylight on top of the house in order to get the 500 square foot bonus. If you don't want the bonus then the addition of the windows on the east fafade and the relocation of the entry to the west faCade would be OK. Sarah said designation of this property would be an asset to the City. She is opposed to the lot split. In driving down Riverside her immediate reaction was how much the lot split would deteriorate the historic structure. Sarah said designation is as much about site and open space and pattern as it is about the building itself. Jeffrey reminded the HPC that as our role, we need to compare the application proposal to the criteria and we are bound by the criteria. Neill said he completely agrees with Sarah and the neighborhood. He feels some kind of augmentation to the existing building would be so much better than the lot split. To substantiate guideline 4.1, 3.2, 3.3, 7.3 are not met by this proposal. Criteria 1.a, 1.b, 1.3 are not met for the FAR bonus. Neill also feels that the proposed alterations to the historic structure are clear violations of our guidelines to facilitate a lot split. It becomes a transaction using a lot split not for historic preservation but rather using compromised historic preservation to justify a lot split. Neill said there are other alternatives such as condominiumization. Derek agreed with Valerie. He stated that when this is all said and done the building would not be around in the direction we are going. Michael said this committee operates under the authority of City Council. The criteria are very technical. He would like to spend more time on the dimensional requirements, which are stated on page 6 of staff's memo. The 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 200.~ proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances are only permitted on the parcels that will contain a historic structure. Sarah agreed with Michael that the only criteria that might not be met are the dimensional requirement of the underlying zone district. Jeffrey is very much interested in designation of this property. The lot split criteria a, b are met. He also agreed with Michael regarding © underlying zone districts. A lot split is an incentive for designation. If we are going to designate then we should allow for bonuses. This building could withstand an addition in lieu ora lot split but if it is our premise to preserve the building as a whole we should take a hard consideration of this. Adding an additional lot will add density to the neighborhood but he also feels leaving the building untouched is a better preservation effort for our purview. The FAR bonus must meet all of the guidelines and there are some questions about the FAR bonus but we must remember it is also an incentive for designation. As Derek said if this is not designation we have the opportunity to loose this structure and allow for twice the density. MOTION.. Michael moved to continue 1295 Riverside Drive to December 17, 2003; second bv Sarah. Motion carrzed 5-1 Yes vote: Valerie, Michael, Sara, Neill, Jeffrey No vote: Derek MOTION.. Jeffrey moved to adjourn,, second by Michaet All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10