Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19950322ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 520 WAL~T STREET, CONTI~ED CONCEPTUAL, SPECIAL REVIEW, PH 232 E. MAIN STREET MINOR DEVELOPMENT ..... 432 E. HYMAN - ASPEN DRUG - MINOR ...... 205 W. MAIN, CHISOLM - WORKSESSION ..... OFFICE ZONE WORKSESSION ........ 1 7 9 9 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Meeting was called to order by chairman Don Erdman with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer Linda Smisek and Martha Madsen present. MOTION: Linda made the motion to approve the minutes of March 8th; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Amy: Dan Sullivan will be attending our discussions on the character guidelines. I have a schedule set up for each neighborhood for next week. Les will represent the HPC on the Entrance to Aspen. May 14th through the 20th is Preservation Week. The P&Z adopted the changes to the landuse code and I will get all members a copy. Roger: In some states and cities a CO is not issued until all encumbrances are paid, could you meet with the attorney's office to see if that is something that could happen with historic properties. I feel basically people are taking advantage of the situation. Jon Busch talked about the trolley schedule and will present to HPC at a determined date. 520 WALNUT STREET, CONTINUED CONCEPTUAL, SPECIAL REVIEW, PH Amy: This is a continued public hearing and there was a lengthy discussion of the project Feb. 8th at which time HPC voted to grant the variances for the historic miners cottage which would be eight feet off the front property line and five feet off the north property line. The reason for this was to allow the applicant to construct a new residence and in no way attach the two structures. Because the miners cabin is an accessory structure it has a 15 foot front yard structure which would force the building together. One of the things we need to do is clarify the motion stating specifically what the variances are. On Feb. 8th the Commission felt it was not appropriate to grant any variances to the new residence due to neighbors concerns and gave the applicant that direction and she has come back now with a new design which has some similarities to the old one but is more narrow and taller. In my evaluation I felt there should be some restudy of the south elevation and there is not much of a break in the wall except at one point on the second level. This is a good illustration of why our variances are important. While this is certainly not a bad project at all the previous design was more compatible with the historic structure because it was not forced to be as tall and there was more opportunity to break up the mass. I agree with the applicant in that sense. On the W L I am findin~ there is not as good a relationship between that facade and the historic structure as previously and that the concrete pad which has been added to connect the two should be eliminated. The applicant is also ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 proposing a 6 foot privacy fence on the north and south property lines due in great part that she has very little yard space and wants privacy. I feel it has been a general policy of HPC that toward the front of the property especially around an historic structure that the fence should be approximately 3.6 inches tall as the maximum and open in character so I have suggested this in the approval. Gretchen Greenwood, owner: As an architect and someone who has tried to understand what the HPC and City is trying to do with design guidelines for different communities and working with a lot of historic structures I feel particular sensitive to historic structures as I am going through this laborious process of land marking my project which is something that I do not have to do to make this project work. I came here the last time requesting a 5 foot setback variance and the hardship for that was based on the fact that the property is between two larger parcels one to the north and one to the south which I illustrated and will undoubtedly be a duplex property. To the north has a deteriorating victorian house on the property. I am going through the process to preserve the historic building and move it far away from the new construction on the property and try step the house back so that I have a five foot setback variance which is more common in my neighborhood than the ten foot setback. The neighbor to the north is five feet from my property and the one south is three feet from me. My whole intention was to set the property back to have some space and to follow some of the guidelines that are so well illustrated in the design guideline book. It states open space should be of the size that can be used or at least has significant visual impact as a landscape area, so I am unable to meet that design guideline because the neighbors were not in favor of the five foot setback even though I think for historic preservation or neighborhood design guidelines that it is a mistake to not have granted that variance. It is disappointing on the part of the HPC that they cannot recognize what is more important for the neighborhood than perhaps what the neighborhood feelings are. I realize that it doesn't follow the rules but it would have been best for the property to grant the variance. We now have a ten foot setback on both sides of the property. Many people in my neighborhood use their setbacks for trash and junk, storage and additional cars and that is a logical spot, which is more than likely to happen when my husband puts the ski boat in that area and that is what happens when you have these kinds of setback issues. I wanted to bring that out in analyzing a property you spend time and it is unfortunate that it could not be understood to the neighbors as it was a variance. I tried to design a house on this property without having any landmark property because the price is almost getting too high to pay because there is a zero benefit. The house I am proposing is the same width of 25 feet and it is only longer at the glass entry because in the guidelines I wanted ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 199K to have a clearly defined front yard and entryway. I like the contrast between old and new with the glassy structure. I have no control of what is going to be built in front of me and I am more concerned about the property to the south. There would be no design review to that property to the south. In trying to design this house I tried to visualize the effect of what could happen to us if the other properties around were built on. We bought the property for the miners cabin and it is something that I have always wanted to do. In looking at the neighbors concerns and objections that we wanted to try and meet we have moved the house into its setback. I raised the peaks of the house in anticipation of what would happen to the south of me. I want to be up above any potential development in front of me. They raised their objections and I am raising my roof. The views could potentially be blocked and so thus with this design we are trying to put the entry from the old design at the north of the property to the new design of the glassy area on the entry of the south west corner of the property. The reason for that is to keep as much glass to the west and to the south. Our plans are pushing us to live on the property to the north and to create a buffer with a deck. This building conforms to all the site coverage, FAR etc. It is better for the miners cottage that we shift it away from the new property. If there is continual objection the project will not be as good. I desire conceptual and design approval so that I can move forward. The miners cottage will be used as my office and I am anxious to get the building moved. CLARIFICATION Jake: What is the status of the landmark. Amy: Designation will be Monday night and it is the last step and it is listed on the inventory at this point. Jake: Variances are conditional upon landmarks. Roger: If the bldg. is landmarked and the person on the south wants to build do we review it? Amy: We don't but wiLk or~. #35 all residential development will be reviewed probably as a check list. Roger: Why should she landmark. Jake: Theoretically it protects the property. Gretchen: In order to receive a variance to move the building over to the setback I feel landmarking is the best solution for the property. I can build a house on the property without seeing anybody here but I would be five feet from the building. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 199K Everything I have ever heard from any of these meetings is that it is nice to have the separation of buildings and it is to the advantage of the building and property and open space that HPC is trying to do. I agree with that. Roger: I feel if you are tandmarked you should have some protection. Amy: If we do this check list we will take into account historic structures. Gretchen: Ail houses next to historic homes should be reviewed. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Amy: Where is the access for the ADU. Gretchen: I am still undecided about the ADU and I want to keep it conceptual. Donnelley: Could you review with me why you split the sideyard to ten and ten instead of 5 on the north and a larger on the south. Gretchen: I was under the assumption that the setbacks were five feet and I designed it five to the north. The zoning is ten and ten in that neighborhood and also one of the neighbors went ballistic. Linda: You re-designed your house and at the last meeting we found that your first design was quite compatible and what was the reason for your change? Gretchen: One of the last comments that stuck with me was that I should be able to work with the ten foot setbacks as an architect. I also received a letter from my south neighbor indicating he was concerned that he might be in jeopardy and with all that in mind you gave me the message that I should go back and redesign within the ten foot setback. If I came within the setbacks I would be right on top of my south neighbor so I decided that I needed to change my potential view direction. The Board sent me that message loud and clear. Linda: Are you happy with this design? Gretchen: I would prefer to have a setback variance and have 15 feet in the front but I like the design. My husband likes the other design. Martha: I thought at the last meeting everything was clear on the cottage. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Amy: It is all under the same application but the cottage is clear. Donnelley: You mentioned the neighbors concern about south glass in your previous design but it appears that the new south L has the same amount as well as a gable that is four feet higher. Gretchen: I want to maintain a south gable and I want sun and also I potentially considered what the neighbors might build in the future. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Jon Busch: Angie Griffith is the north facing neighbor and she is concerned about loosing her south facing sun if the applicant go back into the setback five feet. The approval for the 10 foot setbacks on the subdivision was due to the lots running east and west. I also reviewed the old plans and feel they fit in with the neighborhood more and I also realize her concern for her views. My other concern was the ADU and because the garage is five feet from the alley there really isn't much of a place for an extra car. Race Street is really an alley. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jake: I feel there is some validity for the five foot set back to the north on the first plans submitted. The idea of creating usable open space is far superior than creating long spots of unusable open space. Neither of the adjoining properties are conforming. On the first designs my problem was the north wall and it is still one long continuous wall. I do not mind giving variances in the setbacks if there is a reason to do it. In a situation with an historical structure that has a modest scale the scale of the elements of the new building that occupy the same property need to also be broken down into a sympathetic scale. What I was hoping would come forward in your revisions was a restudy of that north wall and some study of the massing on that side and possibly bring back some of the forms to the 10 foot setback line. Give relief to the long continuous plane. There is a lot of playfulness in the decks and a lot of unique things going on in materials and the decks and windows. It is a very nice design and I am sorry that you didn't work and follow through on that. Les: My feeling at the the north wall a little on the five feet. end of the meeting is that you would work and come back and we split the difference ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Gretchen: It didn't work as there is too much circulation. Les: I would prefer the old plan if there was some way to make it work. Gretchen: I could look at it further but I need approvals. Les: We are getting designation and saving this cabin and that is important for the neighborhood. Martha: Are you staying with the new design due to the protection that you need. Gretchen: I got such opposition almost to the level of abuse with the five foot setback variance that I was not going to come back in and fight for that as it is not worth it to me. Gretchen: It is very confusing because we do like the first design and I do not want to shade my neighbor and I want to be sensitive to that. Donnelley: It appears that in the present plan the north wall is a straight plane and one of the criteria of the guidelines is that these long planes be broken. It does not conform to the guidelines. Gretchen: It is probably workable at final. Donnelley: The first plan is recommended. Gretchen: I could take the first plan and move it into the setback but I tried to work staggering the building but it just didn't work. Roger: I concur with Jake that I would rather see usable space than unusable. I would prefer the first design also. I am not hung up on the long wall to the north as the landscaping will break it up. I would object if it were in the west end. It is not a pedestrian area. Gretchen: There would be certain changes made to the old design. Donnelley: Lets see if we can do a motion that would allow a successful resolution here. MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC give conceptual approval to Scheme I of 520 Walnut Street finding that it meets Standards 1,2,3,4 and with the following conditions: That the structure conform to the 10 foot setbacks. On Feb. 8th variances were given ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 for the miners cottage of 5 feet on the north side yard and 8 feet on the west sideyard, second by Roger. DISCUSSION OF MOTION Roger: You are suggesting that the setbacks not be 10 and 10. Jake: Yes. The applicant is already sandwiched between two nonconforming structures. Amy: This has been tabled and Council was informed that there would be no variances. Les: I feel the neighborhood would be best served with a variance on the north side. Donnelley: If we can approve scheme A with all parts of the new structure falling outside of the ten foot side yard setbacks you could manipulate the roof form in such a way that perhaps you are turning the gable on the east side to the east and we could consider that a minor change and would not have to go through a public hearing. Les: I feel we need a monitor on the miners cottage. AMENDED MOTION: Jake amended the motion to add that the applicant can proceed with the miners cottage, second by Roger. Donnelley: Do you want to state anything about the north wall or breaking it up. Jake: I would like to see the long interrupted surfaces broken down so that the architectural elements on that wall are consistent with the guidelines. Martha: I also agree that the north wall is OK as is. Jake: There is no support for an amended motion. VOTE: Ail in favor of motion and amended motion. Motion carries. 232 E. MAIN STREET MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: The applicant is requesting a satellite dish to operate their business. This is the smallest dish that they can do. It is located at the rear of the structure and the dish is a little over 3 1/2 feet and it is below the ridge line and will not be visible at all from Main Street. I recommended approval with the condition that if there is any reflective metal it should be painted out. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Les: Over the years there has been discussion of the usability of the alleys and creating messy vitality. We have had problems with KJAX with installing their dish and we still haven't figured how to hide that and there are no other dishes visible in town. The installation will enable headquarters Amoco to download their computer any time of the day or night which is probably commendable. I think it is a dangerous precedent to start. I feel the alleys are a sacred part of the historic resource of this town. I do not feel it meets the standards. Donnelley: Where is it visible? Les: Coming down the alley you will see it from both ends. Donnelley: It has to clear the roof. Amy: This does require a conditional use so that the neighbors will be allowed to voice objections at that time. Donnelley: It is more like a sign than an architectural projection. Amy: I also feel it is somewhat a freedom of speech issue. If this were an historic building I would have more problems with it. Jake: Could it be screened with a skirt or something. Linda: Could we find another location for it. Les: It is in the historic district and I would hate to see everybody that has a national headquarters wanting to install satellite dishes to download. Jake: There are other methods which would encompass freedom of speech in theory. Amy: They have installed these in other communities so I feel they have thought this through already. Maybe the motion could state site specific and does not set a precedent. Donnelley: If we do not approve it they can appeal to City Council. Roger: I didn't think it was a big deal but I am listening to you. I do not have an opinion at the moment but do see a potential problem. Linda: I am not convinced. the building. Maybe it could go somewhere else on ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Donnelley: I would like them to come before us one more time. Les: Also it is visible from the Jerome Hotel and people are paying $300. a night and they do not want to see a satellite dish. That is my feeling in the historic district. MOTION: Roger made the motion to table 232 E. Main Street to the next meeting and to request further information and possible relocation; second by Donnelley. Motion carries 5 - 1. Les opposed. Martha: Why are you tabling it instead of denying it. Jake: We are tabling because the applicant is not here to answer pertinent questions. Donnelley: We have no idea what that roof overhang is and it does cause a hazard in the alley and it is a public way. 432 E. HYMAN - ASPEN DRUG - MINOR Amy: It is listed on the historic inventory and the upper most floors of the building burnt down in 1918 and at sometime more recently the second and third floors as we see them now were built. The proposal is on the third floor where there is an existing deck to enclose it and to change a few of the existing windows. My finding was that we approve this as submitted. I find that the second and third floor addition are extremely incompatible with the historic structure and this proposal does not increase that situation. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC approve the minor development application of 432 E. Hyman Avenue; second by Martha. Ail in favor, motion carries. Les: The proposal will not change any of the visuals at all. Ted Koutsabous, owner: The overhang is seven feet and we are only coming out four feet. You can't see it. Visually there is no impact at all. 205 W. MAIN, CHISOLM - WORKSESSION Amy: We approved lightwells and a shed in the past and they would like to build a garage and need a recommendation from HPC before going to Board of Adjustment for variances. They do not wish to pursue landmark designation. Richard Klein: This house is on the corner of Main and First ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Street and recently a basement unit was added. They want to add a garage with storage and a room above the garage so essentially it is a two story building. We have two possibilities. With the existing house put a garage off the corner of the house and Amy indicated that she would prefer not to see a connection to the house. Divorce the two structures. To do so we would require a variance in the setback. We could put the garage within the setbacks and connect it to the house. In the office zone there is a minimum of ten feet between structures. We could do that but there are wonderful 35 foot evergreen trees. The smallest one is in the corner. Architecturally dealing with an old house and a new garage it is easier to deal with if they are separated. The adjacent neighbor would prefer it separated. Linda: Is it proposed to be a single or two car garage? Richard Klein: Two car garage. We would like to have a letter or communication with the Board of Adjustment indicating the approval of a separate garage. Les: In order to get a variance you need to demonstrate hardship. Richard: We could loose wonderful trees along the alley. Les: You can build the garage no matter what? Richard: Yes, we can but we would loose trees in order to put it in. The garage will have stair on the side so that you can get up and down. The Newcombs' are next door and we took their concerns in designing this garage. The garage to the west would impact the Newcombs' The house is on the inventory. The integrity of the building is maintained with an adjacent building instead of having it attached. Martha: In general we like detached garages but we are against encroachments in the setbacks but in this case I feel it is better because of the entire concept of the parcel. It detracts less from the main residence if the garage is detached. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC send a letter to the Board of Adjustment stating that if a garage is to be built at this location that we would prefer to see the garage to the rear of a possible landmark house for the following reasons: That the garage is not attached; that the view plane if it is in line with the house that it is not visible from Main Street. That the view plane from First Street is more compatible. We find that it is more in keeping with the neighborhood character guidelines by granting the setback in that it maintains usable open space between the existing possible landmark structure and the neighboring landmark home and that there is much less impact on the neighboring landmark 10 · ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 structure by having the garage behind the corner house and not attached. And that we find also by putting the garage here one small tree can be moved and saved and if put in the other position two trees would be lost. We encourage detached garages rather than attached, second by Jake. Richard: This would be a two story garage with a lower plate in the roof. It would not be a full eight foot roof and the idea is to keep it lower. Jake: First of all it is not a garage it is a two story structure so the variance is not just for the garage it is for the upper floor above the garage also. You will have to support that. From an historical aspect I feel the two story structure placed in the corner of First Street is more competitive and more detractive than the other location although I understand the other points. I would prefer B as it pulls the structure back onto the interior of the property. Donnelley: I can understand Jake's concern but I also cannot support destroying two spruce trees. Jake: In R-6 you couldn't take the upper floor closer than 10 feet to the alley. Amy: Is there the possibility of a one car garage? Karen Chisolm: I do not know my mothers intents. Amy: with all this additional storage is the she that was built without a permit going to go away? Richard Klein: I cannot answer that. VOTE: 5 1 passes. Jake opposed. OFFICE ZONE WORKSESSION Amy: The Planning Dept. is going to attach onto another project LeBerge to allow lodges in the office zone as a code amendment. We will attach to that retail uses in historic landmarks so we will take of Caroline McDonald's concern. HPC might comment on whether they feel it should be general retail of limited. Are there some you feel are offensive. Should it be restricted by first or second floor uses that might not be compatible. Is it OK to have multiple uses in one building. Donnelley: Retail on the second floor is self defeating and does not work very well. Second stories tend to be office space. 1--1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Donnelley: Restrictive use gets the city into difficult situations. Les: Are all these buildings going to turn into GAPS on Main Street. Amy: There is no way to keep chain stores from coming into Aspen. We could encourage neighborhood uses which is in the AACP. Martha: I do not feel we need to be to concerned as all of Main Street will not suddenly be retail. Jake: The rates would be cheaper than they are in the core. Amy: This is only for historic landmarks not generally across the board. Les: My fear is that they want small lodges to disappear and I do not want this to get piggybacked on some legislation that will allow small lodges to disappear. Amy: This is totally separate from the small lodge discussion. Jake: Why just landmarks? Amy: It is the office zone district and that is valuable office space and we do not want to allow it across the board to turn into a commercial core but as Caroline indicated we do want vitality of some local oriented businesses. Les: This is a way to preserve a small house by letting them have extra uses that they are not allowed to do now which is a valuable tool. Ultimately if the intercept lot works etc. it will be a 50% reduction of traffic coming into town. Martha: But not buses. vehicles. They will eventually have to be smaller Roger: This encourages little businesses for people living in the homes. Caroline McDonald: Why couldn't you say that no chain stores would be allowed on Main Street. Amy: The City Manager investigated other cities and franchises are not prohibited. Les: You could restrict ownership. Linda: Owner occupied businesses. 1__2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 Jake: I feel the FAR for the office zone should be reduced and that employee housing mitigation should be dropped. Amy: In the code there is an incentive for historic landmarks that if you build less than the maximum FAR you have less employee mitigation requirement. Caroline: Once the houses come in and want conditional uses then they have to go through the mitigation and see what the impacts are of the neighborhood and for someone that has gone through it that wants to move freely through the market place and change the business and the market place is needed is that we can go to retail but we would loose the restaurant which is our highest and best use. If the retail doesn't work or changes in a couple of years when my children are older and I want to go back to the restaurant you can't. If you get a conditional use for a restaurant you should be able to downuse and go to a different business. You want to get the creativity. You need to be able to move in and out. Amy: The Planning Director does not like the idea of changing in and out due to the impacts and how do you define the impacts. Caroline: You equate it with your impacts and how many employees you need for that business. Amy: It is noticed for April 18th. Les: Caroline needs a letter from the Board. Caroline: We need to implement the historic buildings on Main Street with vitality. There is nothing to stop people as they come in. Les: I feel we need a reduction in traffic. I have asked the council everytime they approve an employee housing unit that they put in a commercial use of 150 sqft. that deed restricts it to the owner of the building and they have never done it. Anytime you build something downtown a guy should be able to have a shop and get some of the creativity back. Amy: I am happy to look at the back minutes and attach a letter to the P&Z packet. Donnelley: See if you can find a resolution such as resident owned units. Les: Something that would encourage ownership participation and long term living on Main Street. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1995 MOTION: Roger made the motion Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to adjourn; second Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk by Donnelley.