Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20040629ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF' JUNE 29, 2001 949 E. COOPER AVE. - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PH -(CONT'D FROM JUNE 9, 2004) .......... 1 403 W. HALLAM ST. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTU~ - vARIANcES _ PUBLIC HEARING ............................................... 701 W. MAIN ST. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT - RELOCATION - PH ............. ~ .............................................................................................. 5 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 29,' 200a Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Valerie'Alexander and Sarah Broughton. Jeffrey Halferty was seated at 5:15 p.m. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief DePuty City Clerk MOTION.. Sarah moved to approve the minutes of May 26, 2004; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure Michael will recuse himself on 949 E. Cooper Valerie disclosed that sheis working on a project with Gilbert Sanchez but in no way will it influence her decision on this project. 949 E. COOPER AVE. Michael recused himself Valerie chaired - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PH - (Cont'd from June 9, 2004) Amy said this application involves the historic home on the property. It has asphalt siding on it and no original windows and really wasn't in good shape in terms of its integrity when the original project started. What exists today just kind of represents the shape of the building. The side porch is the accurate way a porch would enter the property but there are no authentic materials. We are talking about a deck on the addition of the building. HPC had a worksession and the concern were posts that are now needed because the deck is getting larger. The other concern is the proximity of it to the porch. Staff has no problem extending the deck to the south but has some concerns about coming northwards toward the porch and not allowing those two elements to be distinct, as we normally would require. Usually there is a little more separation from the historic building. HPC needs to determine whether the enlarged deck detracts from the historic building or not. Sworn in: Gilbert Sanchez ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF J~E~2'9,'~"2~00~' ...... Affidavit of posting Exhibit I Gilbert said the concern about the deck were the posts. We were trying to do a cantilever. What is required to do the cantilever is so expensive it is not feasible. The. deck will hold a hot tub and needs to be supported. The engineer came up with three 8x8 posts which are located at the comers of the new proposed deck. The existing posts are 6x6. The deck does not touch the historic house at all. The deck is at the back of the building and the view corridor is verv limited. The deck doesn't touch the historic house and it has no impact of what integrity there is. Gilbert presented two drawings: Existing and proposed. Comments: Valerie said the existing posts on the historic porch are reconstruction, they are not old. Sarah said there was a porch at one time but it was reconstruction with different materials. Derek said he is fine with the proposal and it follows the guidelines and there is no impact to the historic resource. Sarah said we are within our guidelines and asked the architect to look at 10.4, which talks about creating an addition that is a product of its time. Valerie said she spent some time on-site looking at the deck more closely and the context is very tight and it is difficult to see. The new porch is set back from the dimension of the historic porch and it is about as simple as it can be and is on the rear of the structure. Gilbert said they looked at circular columns but the Victorian house suffers so much from the 1995 addition that it was decided not to add a third vocabulary. Valerie opened and closed the public hearing. 2 ASPEN HISTOR/C PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 29, 2004 MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #18, 2004for an expanded deck as show in the submitted drawings with three posts as indicated in the drawings; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 3-0. Yes vote: Derek, Sarah, Valerie 403 W. HALLAM ST. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - VARIANCES - PUBLIC' HEARING Michael was seated. Valerie recused herself. Sworn in: Jody Schoeberlein and Stan Gibbs. Amy stated that the bonus of 376 square feet is solely to create TDR's. They do not have the right to make a bigger addition. Jody went over the changes. They will attempt to restore the L shape porch, which will have two doors and a window, which is very traditional. They would like to add steps but can't prove that they existed. The steps would help in the circulation of the yard. They have eliminated a gable dormer. They will reuse the original window. All skylights were removed. Ventilation on the second floor will be from the window. The back wing of the house was rebuilt in 1957. The gable end donner will be shifted to a shed dormer, which more clearly distinguishes it from the original construction and is consistent with the character of the later addition. Jeffrey was seated at 5:15 Jody said at the last meeting there were comments on the Chalet style porch rail which was creating some ambiguous readings that some of the board was uncomfortable with. The proposal is to eliminate that and make it a simpler volume so that there is no recessed porch. We will put a bay window in that projects one foot from the wall. The bottom of the window well on Third St. has been raised to window ceil height and we have gone to windows that are egress height. Shrubs will be planted. Jody clarified that the dormer height is 19.5 feet rather than 20.3 feet. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 29~ 2004 Derek asked if the applicant is asking for a variance for the light well on Third Street. Amy said yes, it is included in the application. Michael asked the applicant to clarify what variances they are requesting. Jody said to go from five feet on the side setback to three' feet. The alley would require a combined setback front and back, which could have you as far forward as 13.9 ¼ from the alley. We are proposing to go five feet, which is the minimum for a garage. Amy explained that the front and rear setbacks have been eliminated from the code. The rear yard setback is the only concern which is supposed to be ten feet and the applicant is proposing five feet. Jodv said the purpose of the variance requested is to bring the addition as far away from the street and from the existing building to give breathing room. The window well also needs a variance. Amy said we public noticed the request up to a five feet variance and a variance on the combined side yard because you are short on the other side. Sarah said the light well has been brought further into the building so the variance would be less. Michael opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: Sarah stated that she admired the owners for not moving the house from its original location. The simplifying that was done to the addition is appropriate and nice. Sarah said she was concerned about the character of the glass link but is somewhat disappointed to see it go. The transparent nature of that link really helped distinct the original house from the addition. The gable link draws attention instead of being something that is purely a link in connecting an addition to our historic resource. Sarah supports the setback and FAR bonus. The restoration of the front porch is going in the right direction. The only thing troubling is the link and the nature of it. Possibly use a more subordinate material. Derek' said absolutely this project is deserving of the FAR bonus. The architect has addreSsed the concerns of the board and was willing to work with the board. The mass and scale of the addition is appropriate. Derek said he has no issues with the link and it will be a product of its own time. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 29, 2004 He is also comfortable with the variances and setbacks. Jeffrey stated that this is an excellent project. The removal of the western original dormer is a huge improvement. Jeffrey also supports the bonus and setbacks. The larger light well can be supported. The proposed restoration of the porch is excellent. Jeffrey als0 stated that he supports the garage door added to the west side. Michael stated to the applicant that he appreciates their sensitivity to the board's comments about the dormer. He feels the bonus is appropriate because the TDR program encourages property owners to leave something on the table. MOTION.. Derek moved to approve Resolution #19, 2004for 403 W. Hallam with the revised plans as submitted and with the following amendments to the resolution: Deletion of condition #2. Revise condition #3. The east light well is approved as drawn. Revise condition ia/. HPC hereby grants an FAR bonus up to 350 square feet as needed by two TDR 's. Motion second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Sarah, Derek, Michael 701 W. MAIN ST. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT _ CONCEPTUAL - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT'2 ~LOCATIoN - pH Valerie was seated Sworn in: Jake Vickery, Paul Taddune, Rob Wein, Mary Lackner Amy said the property is a non-conforming lot because of an adverse possession situation with the adjacent property, which took a little over 200 square feet away from this formerly 6,000 square foot lot. The building on the property is 1935 era construction, which was certified from the Assessors office. The front portion of the building was once an open porch. It is clearly a rustic cabin and probably had little or not decoration on it at all. We are talking about a very simple structure in the long term. The project involves an historic lot Split proposal. This is not a 6,000 square 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF J~E 29, 200a foot lot and they cannot do a lot split at all unless HPC grants a variance to the minimum lot size required. To do that you have to use the standards that the Board of Adjustment uses which are hardship criteria. Staff's position is that there is a hardship here in the sense that it is going to be verv difficult to meet any preservation goals if the only option on this site is a sir~gle family home or a commercial development that is at .75 to 1 FAR if all we can do is add onto the cabin. The massing will be awful particularly, since this is a basic structure. Regarding demolition we know that some of the front was original. Keeping the entire building is probably the appropriate direction to go. The house is in the middle of the lot so on-site relocation is proposed. HPC needs to discuss which half of the lot is the right place to put the historic building. There is a FAR bonus request and that needs supported by as many facts as we can acquire about the building. Setback variances will be needed as well. Jake had a site visit w/th the Parks Department and there are a number of trees that they do not feel are that important and could be eliminated. The large spruce in the front needs to be retained but they will trim it up. Jake said the first goal is to preserve the historic structure and the second goal is to attain a historic lot split. No architecture is being presented at this time. The discussion is focused on the lot split and nature of the hardship. This site used to be a 6,000 square foot lot. There was a legal action between the adjoining property owners where by the Anson's ended up with a lot that is 2.35 feet smaller than what it used t~) be which equals 5765 square feet. 2.35 feet were lost in the lot width. We would like to treat this as a hardship and treat the 5,765 as if it were a 6,000 lot. In order to grant this variance there needs to be a hardship. Hardship: The loss of lot width and site area is created against the will of the owners. Furthermore, there is a large evergreen tree that is on the property that complicates loss of area. The historic structure requires specific placement on the site. Amy said not being able to do the' lot split limits the development options so much that it is verv difficult to meet our design guidelines. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE29, 2~04 Jake submitted diagram H as the potential option for the lot split. The entire historic resource including the shed would be moved to the Westerly lot. Towards the alley a two-car garage would be added with a second floor above it. The spruce tree will remain and be trimmed to expose the front of the historic resource. The front of the cottage would be restored to expose the porch consistent with the drawing that Amy found. The entire historic structure would move south about ten or 15 feet and would require a variance from the Residential Design Guidelines because it would have to be set back more than two feet from the faCade line due to the tree and it canopy. The new structure would be on the east lot. The placement of the historic house is sympathetic to the neighbors because they have a one-story house. Jake requested a copy of the memo from the forester regarding the tree. Under the asphalt of the historic house are rough sawn boards running horizontally that are 1 inch thick and 8 inches high. Jeffrey asked about locating the historic house on the comer because our guidelines talk about when moving an historic structure it should add to it's prominence. As part of the conceptual design the comer make sense. Jake said that could be done but he feels since it is not an ornate elaborate structure locating it to the west is a suitable location. If it is switch it forces the massing of the development toward the neighbors. Amy said this is in the office zone district and they can do mixed use or a commercial type development and that ratio is .75 to one. If you had one single family dwelling it could be a 3,500 square foot building and here you are breaking the 3,500 or less into two pieces. HPC would not accept something that is a massive addition. They might come in requesting 800 square feet instead of saying since this is a single family we have the right to add 2,765 square feet. Originally they wanted to de-list and that is not a good solution. This historic structure is part of Main Street. Jake said the entire idea about the lot split is to bifurcate the new square footage away from and off of the existing small structure. Jake also said he is proposing a basement under the historic resource with no light wells on the front. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE.29, '2'~04 Valerie said there might be some kind of proportional FAR number for a smaller lot instead of 500 square feet. Jake stated the criteria for hardship: He feels they conform to both A &B. Michael asked what the nature of the use was that gave rise to the adverse possession. Paul Taddune said there was a fence that was there and when they went to remove the fence there was a claim of adverse possession. A court order was issued. Paul also said 8th Street is larger than all of the other streets due to the surveying that was done. There is special stress on this property. Jake said he is asking the board to make the review that there is a hardship in this case and state that finding, and that HPC would treat the application as a 6,000 square foot lot. Vice-chair, Michael opened the public hearing. Mark Lacker, owner to the west said they desire to look at a proposal that has the least amount of impact on their property. Making' the hardship decision tonight might be pre-mature. We cannot say two lots are better than one because there is not enough information presented. There have been a lot of good HPC projects that actually show that you can have one building element that is historic and something else attached and has that necessarily been explored in this application. Mary said the fence was in place in the 1940's and they made amends with the neighbors to split the difference. If a house goes up where the fence is now she will essentially loose her garden area, which she enjoys. We are not ready to make a decision because one lot has not been thoroughly explored. Is it necessarily a hardship? What you are giving them is a hardship made on financials? They have made their money on this lot. The hardship is can you even building a unit on a non-conforming lot, and now it is can I build two instead of one. That is kind of pushing it. Rob Wein said they live in 1200 square feet. Part of the historic resource that this house offers is that it is a small house on a reasonable size lot; once the buildings are built to the maximum area allowed, whatever historic 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 29, 2004 entity this little Sears house actually represents is lost. We are not pleased to see a huge development next door. Paul said you have a situation that the existing situation is a hardship for the owner and for' the neighbor because the house is in a dilapidated condition because they have to experience people living there that are not sensitive to the property. Paul said this is an opportunity for the HPC to say lets move on and make something more refreshing and that is consistent with historic preservation, something the'community can be proud of. Michael closed the public hearing. Michael said we are asked to decide a very narrow issue which is can we consider this to be a 6,000 square foot lot for the purposes of our regulations. Derek said his biggest concerns would be less than taking this lot and splitting it in two. As a neighboring property this would ensure that the massing and scale would be appropriate for them. Because we are already making a non-conforming size lot which is 27.65 wide, obviously the first building is 16 feet wide so we have a very modest size structure. As you go to the back the concern would be massing and scale and the relationship of what you are putting there with the historic house. This is something that has to be delicately handled. How does the two-stall garage with a space above relate and reft ect to what is going on in the front of the property. How it sticks out on the sides is also an issue when you are dealing with onlY 16 feet. Derek stated he is going to be a stickler on variances. If we are going to a 27 foot wide lot and then all of a sudden variances are being requested because it is now narrow will not be supported. Valerie stated that she feels the same way as Derek with the respect to variances if the lot split is granted. Valerie said she believes that the lot split is a better solution in terms of context with the neighboring conditions. Her significant concerns are the location of the historic resource and which 10t would receive the resource. Possibly a basement should not be located under the front portion of the house. The Parks Dept. would be open to a unique foundation that would work with the root system of the tree and you could bring the structure forward so that it wasn't so hidden and tucked 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ,MINUTES OF JUNE 29, 2004 behind. At this point, not really understanding the architecture very well and not agreeing entirely with the plan presented she could not support the lot split at this time. Jeffrey stated that he can see this as a hardship but the hardship presented in the plans is created to the neighbor to the west. There are design objectives remaining. There certainly are design constraints. Sarah stated the tree; the historic resource and the size of the lot are all contributing to your hardship. Michael said this requires a leap of faith to think that you can approve this through a variance process but he is willing to go forward. It is helpful to historic preservation in Aspen as it shows that we are flexible and we do want to use our tools to help people than have them blindly adhere to regulations that are created by council. There is a hardship in terms of the adverse possession claim. Paul said he understands lets go forward to the next level and see if we can make something that is better than what is there now. Design: Sarah said option H was chosen as it fits in with many of our guidelines, 1.11, 11.1. The design is preserving and maintaining the development of pattern on Main Street. This also goes into the office zone. For that reason the lot split is positive because we maintain residential scale buildings on Main Street and not bridge multiple lots in creating monolithic buildings. Jeffrey said he prefers design H but feels( I )could be created by placing something in between the two historic resources. Something that would be complementary between the two historic resources. You would get the historic house and a smaller scale construction in between that is complementary to the historic resource on the comer. It truly could be seen on three sides if it was on the comer. There are good examples of this throughout town. Amy stated that the forester referred to the tree as a"character" tree in terms of its stature. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC___.PRESERVATION COMM. ISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 29, 2004 MOTION.. Valerie moved to continue 701 W. Main to duly 28, 2004; second by Derek. ,4 ll in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11