Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19930113Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of Januar~ 13, 1993 RESOLUTION 1, 1993 - 442 W. BLEEKER (PIONEER PARK) 434 W. SMUGGLER -PH- REVISED CONCEPTUAL, FINAL DEVELOPMENT AND FAR VARIATIONS 332 W. SMUGGLER - REVIEW FOR INVENTORY REFERRAL COMMENTS TEXT AMENDMENT FOR OPEN SPACE WORKSESSION FOR AIRLOCKS COMMUNICATION 1 9 9 11 12 14 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of January 13, 1993 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Martha Madsen, Karen Day, Les Holst, Don Erdman, Linda Smisek, Roger Moyer and Jake Vickery present. Joe Krabacher was excused. RESOLUTION It 1993 - 442 W. BLEEKER (PIONEER PARK) Chairman opened the public hearing. Roxanne: This is your typical vested rights resolution that you have seen in the past. It is for the Stromberg minor development application from Pioneer Park. Bill: No comments from the public. Public Hearing closed. MOTIONs Les made the motion that HPC approve Resolution 1, 1993, vesting the rights of 442 W. Bleeker i.e (Pioneer Park Lot 1) Weaver Subdivision as proposed; second by Donnelley. Ail in favor, motion carries. 434 W. SMUGGLER -PH- REVISED CONCEPTUALt FINAL DEVELOPMENT AND FAR VARIATIONS Roxanne: The applicant is also seeking final development at the same time. If the HPC finds that the conceptual application is adequate and any conditions you place on it could be met prior to the issuance of a building permit you might want to consider approving final tonight. On Sept. 23rd you granted approval with conditions to be met at final and you also granted conceptually a full parking waiver of four spaces. You also granted a rear yard setback of five feet. An ADU was included in the detached building. The changes now include additional variations and the applicant had to re-notice. The architectural changes are appropriate and the ADU eliminated. The incentives in this application are: A $2,000 designation and waiver of park development impact fees which totals over $4,000. The setback variations from HPC, the rear yard and the combined front/rear yard and the FAR variations and parking reduction. The P&Z allowed for designated parcels is an approval for a second unit on a smaller size lot than what is allowed by code in that zone district. These are all available to the applicant once landmark designation is approved. Landmark Designation is pending HPC approval and P&Z approval. It then goes to Council for designation approval. Roxanne: Regarding standard number one (compatible in character with the designated structure with the historic resource we find that the architecture is very good. The variations are the most important discussion of tonight's meeting. After considerable restudy the Planning Office recommends that one space be kept on site. Three different alternative sites are indicated in your packet. We are recommending alternative A keeping one space in the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of January 13, 1993 garage. With that hinges the FAR variation. Should a parking space be required inside the garage, less of an FAR variation would need to be granted by HPC and we support that. HPC needs to consider the impacts that a free market unit could potentially be condominiumized. At the last meeting you had found that on-street parking was acceptable on this particular lot. It is important that you review this site in a planning impact context. We do support the setback variation. Standard two, three and four have been met. Possibly the windows on the second floor need down sized slightly. A number of alternatives have been presented. We are recommending conceptual development approval with the setback variation as proposed but only with the three parking space reduction and an FAR variation of no more than 100 ft. finding that the variations are more compatible in character with the landmark. The condition to be met at final is that the proposal be revised and submitted reflecting one parking space located within the garage and the accurate FAR variation. Gretchen Greenwood, architect: On Sept. 23 we were granted a conceptual approval on our setback variances and our parking variances. The HPC was presented support from the neighbors and community and 17 letters in favor of our parking request were received. The premises of the concept was to retain the house in the most original pristine form. That is why we wanted to build the guest house in the back. At no time was it discussed putting parking on the property. I would like to state that the applicant is not going to put parking on the property. If she were to decide to put parking on the property this project would be another design and not a detached guest house. Basically the whole project would be spoiled. We have already done full working drawings. Going through the laborious process of landmark designation and HPC approval and Conditional Use approval with extremely time consuming and expensive for the applicant we ran across that the Planning office said because of the ADU they wanted us to put in a parking space. That recommendation threw us for a loop because our whole premises of this project in order to preserve the existing house was to not put parking on the property because if we were to do that we do not need HPC etc. We would do the project ourselves and would be done much quicker. In response to that parking issue we chose to eliminate the accessory dwelling unit. And now within the last couple of days it came to our attention that the Planning Dept. was going to recommend another parking space. It is a moot point for us to go into a lengthy discussion about justification for the FAR because this is not the way we originally received conceptual approval and what that approval was based on. Our direction and working drawings with HPC guidance and support of the neighborhood were for this project. We want to save this sensitive victorian. There is basically no change to what is there now. The ADU was lost and we felt we had to respond to the parking issue. H~stor~c Preservation Con~n~ss~on N~nutes of ~&nu&~ ~3~ ~99~ There is a great amount of vegetation that surrounds this property. It is our desire to use the existing footprint and build a guest house with normal size bedrooms 12 by 14. I would like to go on record that we do not need conditional use approval from the P&Z and we would not need landmark designation unless we are able to continue along the lines that HPC gave us. The City will stand to loose quite a bit by this. This is not building on top of a residence it is building something in an existing footprint. There is no change to the neighborhood and in fact it will be more preserved and HPC will be able to review any changes to this property in the future. The city has already lost the ADU because of the parking space. The Landmark Designation will be a loss to the City also. We are able to expand the house but that is not in the interest of preservation, period, or in the interest of the City. It is a very important concept to understand that this is historic preservation in its purest form and nothing is going to interrupt the history of the house. We have been through this before with the HPC and you voted in our favor. I would like to see the Board support this project as it has been presented to you and let us preserve the house without having to go back and revise. Clarification: Roxanne: In order to do two single family dwelling units you would have to have landmark designation and a conditional use. Gretchen: We would not be doing this project as presented, we would go directly to the Building Department. Karen: We are talking about the main house and the guest house. The ADU is gone. Jake: Currently this is not a landmark and it is on the inventory, middle category. Contributing. Roxanne: Any demolition or partial demolition goes through the HPC anyway whether it is designated or not. Jake: They are going through a conditional use which is allowed for landmarks. Jake: When you applied for your ADU, who told you that a parking space was needed? Gretchen: Kim Johnson and Leslie Lamont made a recommendation in their memo in response to our application to P&Z. Jake: Was that in spite that HPC granted full parking variations. Historic Preservation commission Minutes of January 13, 1995 Gretchen: For a studio or one bedroom a parking space is not required for ADU and they enlightened me that that still requires approval. When I was designing this project Leslie did not bring up the fact that they could do that. Jake: How many bedrooms are in the new proposed unit? Gretchen: Two bedrooms in the existing and two proposed. That is only four bedrooms in a 7,500 sq. ft. lot. I just want to reiterate that a parking space is not required by code for a one bedroom accessory unit; however, that Staff believed that the parking space should be added. Jake: How many bedrooms were in the ADU proposal? Gretchen: One bedroom. Bill stirling: What is the category of this house? Roxanne: Contributing. Jake: These parking variations are in perpetuity and even if you took into account the current owners philosophy persia, eventually a new owner could come in. Diane Moore, Planning Director: The code does not require a parking space with an ADU when you go through conditional use approval. Typically the P&Z looks at a parcel and neighborhood and determines whether a space should be added or not. The parking space that we are requesting onsite is not tied to whether it is an ADU or whether it is the detached two bedroom unit. We are talking about two detached structures onsite. After a long reconsideration we are requesting the one space. We are still recommending variation of three spaces. We looked at the site and recommending site A which is enclosed. We understand the impact on the gardens and foliage. We have had discussions with the applicant over the past months and this application is one of its kind requesting an ADU and a detached unit on site in addition to the landmark home. There was a little confusion on Staff's part and I received clarification from the City Attorney regarding the parking variation in that HPC does take precedence over the Planning & Zoning in that regard. That was explained to the applicant once that had been determined. We stand by our recommendation of one site. We do not feel that is unreasonable. I personally have spent a lot of time on traffic in the City. We would like to encourage owners to park onsite not on the street. There is a visual issue of clutter on the street and providing parking in the neighborhoods makes sense. Historic Preservation commission Minutes of January 13~ 1993 Gretchen: It states that a parking space is not required by code for a one bedroom accessory unit although Staff believes that the property will contain five bedrooms total, a conditional use for the ADU should require one dedicated parking space for the deed restricted unit. We specifically designed our project from that point on to take the parking space out of there so we would not require parking. Diane: Our discussions have been consistent. The real issue is the waiver and how it relates to the site specific. Gretchen: We lost the ADU due to the needs of the parking in that area. 17 neighbors do not see parking a problem. We felt there was a need for the ADU. Roxanne: There is no way that the height of the structure would be allowed unless it were a separate free market unit. There is a maximum height limit of 18 feet. In the R6 zone all detached bldg. on the back have a height limit of 12 feet. The only way they could do this at all is if it is designated. Gretchen: We could max out the property but we are not. Jake: ADU's still go through conditional use. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Don: We approved a version of this approval with no parking requirements and all of the committee members had their individual reasons for doing so. I would like to state that this is not a typical situation. A corner lot has two to two and a half lineal feet of parking available on the street. This was a very important factor in my decision. Then we get into what I think is more important, mess vitality. When the city tries to make everyone park onsite assuming that means garages or onsite parking which is out of site of the street, you loose all of the vitality that happens when people come and go from their automobiles and meet other people outside of the boundaries of their lot. That is very important and something that we should consider and keep considering. The sterilization of the west end is something I do not want to see. It has partially happened by so much absentee ownership. This is one more factor that adds to the sterilization but forcing people to be in their cars and sneak out the alley and the vital interaction of the people in the west end is lost. The minor details of a slightly larger window on the second story of the proposed addition is not a critical element. I am sorry we are loosing the ADU and had hoped the City had found a way to keep it as we originally approved it. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of January 13, 1993 Les: I went through all the standards and spent numerous hours on the site. I feel it meets all four development standards. I was also trying to figure out how to keep this section of town alive and went to the community plan. In the transportation plan they are looking for less dependence on the automobile, altering landuse patterns, establish residence parking issues. All of these issues indicate the direction city Council is going is more walking, bike paths and less automobiles. I am leaning toward giving the variance for all four parking spaces because the community would be better served. My selfish goals are getting this house designated. This is a very important tradeoff for all of us. Karen: I feel this house is very special for our community historically and therefore it is critically that we get designation so that we can have review over this house in the future. This house is the house Bill Stirling lived in who was our mayor for eight years and the house that Katharine Thalberg lives in who started the Explorer Bookstore. This would be a monument to our history, to the time that we lived in Aspen and because of that designation is most important. Seventeen residence in that neighborhood do not consider this parking being a problem. There is parking on the side of the house and we already lost the ADU due to a car. In summary we either save this house as a monument to our history or we provide a house for one car. I am not willing to trade a house for one car for what this house means toward the history of our town, Aspen. Jake: I believe HPC needs to be consistent in the application of their principles to different owners situations in fairness to everyone. I feel we should have policies and apply them. If we go away from those policies our reasoning should be clear. Architecturally when I look at what is being proposed I do not have a problem with it. I believe it is better to have massing broken into two forms and that is a policy that we are promoting rather than one big house. We support the adaptation of alley buildings for residential uses, that is positive and the changes in detailing are positive. This is a compatible solution to the problem. I am having a problem with parking and it seems to be intuitively that every house should have at least one onsite parking space. Not only are we not getting two more spaces for the two new bedrooms we are loosing two for the existing bedrooms that are already there. This free market is more than an impact than the ADU was. I apologize for the confusion regarding this parking issue but if you were going for an ADU you should not have to provide a parking space for it and you already had your other variations you needed from the HPC in your previous conceptual approval. You are enlarging that rear building and increasing the use of it so that you should need more parking spaces rather than fewer, logically. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of Januar~ 13, 1993 If these variations travel in perpetuity with the land and we don't know their life style or pattern we should be consistent. Martha: I struggled with this parking issue at conceptual. The project and concept I approve off and I do not feel it is unreasonable to ask for one parking space. I wish there was a common ground to resolve this. It is unfortunate that we cannot come up with a solution to have it both ways. Linda: I am undecided. Jake has a point that it is not unreasonable to ask for one parking space but to loose historic designation over it is another concern of mine. Roger: When we approved conceptual I thought everything was in order. The project meets the standards architecturally and is well thought out. It is unfortunate that we loose the ADU. My main goal is to not loose this property and the designation is a very important aspect. I feel the designation is far more important than a parking space. I have been living here for 30 years and we have been going on and on about what to do with the car. It seems that every project we deal with we are trying to provide for more cars. Perhaps one day we will not need cars. I concur that it is a major problem with parking and the garage etc. It seems that we are always put in the position of dealing with the automobile. Our primary concern is to have the house designated so that we do not loose it. I would much rather loose a parking space rather than an old victorian. Bill: I do find that the project does meet the four standards and I am encouraged by this project. It is a value to the city to have this historic landmark and it becomes a great landscaped corner property. If we are forced to put parking on it and do not enclose it,it fights against the open space that we have. I would like to keep open the options that anything we review we would have the ability to work with any programs that happen in the future. The corner property allows for more parking on the street and the corner lot is more visible. I would like the applicant to agree if a program was enacted for parking that they would go along with it to keep consistent. Possibly you could put one parking space to the west of the stair where the ADU was. You could have a guest house on one side and a garage that is proposed by Planning. I would like to offer a compromise regarding a future parking program. Gretchen: Martha said she felt it was not unreasonable to require a parking space. One of the things you have to remember sitting on the Board of the HPC is that you are preserving a victorian home. The needs of the residence are different now. Most architects have been involved in the expansion of victorians as Historic Preservation commission Minutes of January 13, 1993 people want larger rooms etc. and in this particular case Katharine Thalberg has keep this building a small scale victorian and only added on gables. The form of the house has maintained itself. The house has one usable bedroom on a 7,500 sq. ft. lot. The second bedroom has three foot plate heights that rise to eight feet. It is a usable bedroom but not adequate. In designing this project we had the opportunity to maintain this small victorian house. We could certainly come in and expand it and go higher but we are choosing to go with a FAR variance, setback variance and a parking variance. Parking spaces and victorian residence are not in scale with one another. A parking space requires a ten plus minimum ten by 20 minimum area. It uses up area on the site. In this particular instance we do have a hardship because we are preserving an existing house. We need the square footage in the guest house to the rear of the property so that we do not have to develop the main property. I would also like to respond to consistency. There is no reason to have historic preservation if every single property cannot be reviewed individually. I feel it is wrong if the HPC feels they have to be consistent in every property. Not everyone is going to ask for a parking variance. It is your position to make inconsistent decisions because every parcel is different. The amount of time that we have spent since August with our project has been very consistent to have a parking variance to preserve the property. We want to meet the goals of HPC which is preservation. If you approve these variance the HPC will forever have review of this project. If you do not approve it you will loose it. Bill Stirling: What does the Board feel is the long term best interest of the community, a parking space or an historically designated house. That is what needs weighted here. Jake: The conditional use permit before the P&Z will get a lot of scrutiny because you are asking for numerous variations. What we have to say is that we are giving then a parking variation because we want to preserve the existing vegetation. We find that the existing vegetation is of much value that it should not be demolished in the process of putting in parking spaces. MOTIONs Les made the motion that HPC approve as proposed the revised Conceptual Development on 434 W. Smuggler finding that the development review standards have been met and finding that the rear yard and combined setback FAR and parking variations are more compatible in character with the designated landmark than would be in accord with dimensional requirements. I also move that we grant Final Development approval provided that materials not reviewed at this meeting will be approved by Monitor and Staff. This recommendation of approval is based on landmark designation being approved at the same time; second by Donnelley. Question was called by chairman, carried 5 -2. In favor: Bill, Donnelley, 8 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of January 13, 1993 Linda, Karen and Les. Opposed: Martha and Jake. DISCUSSION: Bill: The committee feels that this is a good application in that it allows us to save and retain the size of a smaller victorian structure by having a guest house on the rear portion of the parcel. Issues are on a case by case and we encourage the conditional use. 332 W. SMUGGLER - REVIEW FOR INVENTORY Roxanne: This little house is a classic representation of post war residential development and it is in the west end. The HPC is recommending that it be include on the inventory. There are a number of people who are willing to take the house and relocate it. Does the HPC feel this is an important resource. The applicant has a demolition permit but if it lapses and is on the inventory then HPC would have full review. Cindy Siegel: I am interested in the little house and have a lot that it could be placed on. Les: We have lost a few because no one would take them. Roger seated Karen stepped down MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC approve 332 W. Smuggler for inclusion on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; finding that the parcel contains architectural integrity, historic significance and the community and neighborhood influence, and further that the parcel be rated Contributing, finding that it has maintained its architectural integrity and that it represents a unique architectural design as recommended by Staff; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. REFERRAL COMMENTS TEXT AMENDMENT FOR OPEN SP~CE Klm Johnson, Planner: I would like to hear comments or concerns that the HPC might have in amending the text which says "open from the ground skyward". Don: When you have some device that modifies the light, it makes for a much more pleasant space to be in. Allowing a form of structure allows the owner to created a varied approach to dealing with sun and or rain. Opening it up to other design solutions is very important. It is difficult to just deal with umbrellas as a light shade device. Allowing for more diversity would be helpful. Historic Preservation commission Minutes of Januar~ 13, 1993 Bill: Numerous restaurants use outside seating and when it rains they cannot move all the people inside. The device would be reversible and seasonal. Kim: The language does not speak to coverings and that concerns me. In a casual conversation with the Parks Dept. regarding trellis like structures and vines, they same situation with diseases can occur. If the HPC wants to allow for rain protection we need to state that. Roxanne: If it is covered it then starts to count as FAR. Les: My problem with this is trying to bring this into historical perspective. I could not find trellis's historic anywhere! I also have a feeling that the open space requirements are not working. They have forced the developer into design solutions that do not work for the community. I feel open space needs to be redefined. I also called the extension agency and bugs can be treated with organic chemicals. We had a maintenance problem that turned into a design problem in regards to the Cantina. I hate to see these things getting out of hand. Roxanne: Once you state trellis that is all you will get. Are trellis's important in the historic district, I do not know. Bill: I feel you have to deal with the trellis. You can design contemporary and traditional structures that have detachable, seasonable covers and would provide more vitality and use for outside dining. You can design clear, translucent canvas that hooks on with grommets, a metal structure or wood and they collect water and disperse it down the sides. This concept will give an interesting use of open space. Roxanne: The language needs to be amended to include the seasonality of it. Could we reword trellis? Bill: Use temporary structure that is compatible. Kim: When I talked with the P&Z I understood it not to be temporary. Bill: Carnevalle is a good example as the framing could be put up and the canvas taken down. Roger: The Epicure which is now the Cantina had a parachute over the eating area. The real issue is that you have open space and whatever you put there should be temporary. It may sit there all winter but it is temporary. Regarding the Caribou, it could have 10 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of January 13, 1993 a glass or plastic top that is transparent and could be taken down. People should be allowed to do these things. Kim: Do we just want to see this in dining situations only? Roger: We also want this as open sided. Roxanne: There are areas in the commercial core that are required open space that are not Parks. Karen: What if you had an office complex with a garden level, would this apply to that also? Bill: If it is temporary I feel it should apply to all open space etc. Kim: I will give P&Z this information and let them come up with the language. WORKSESSION FOR AIRLOCKS Roxanne: There has been a proliferation of canvas and vinyl projections on buildings inside the districts and out. The HPC is being used as the design referral for all airlocks outside of the district and they are the design authority within it. Airlocks are a problem in figuring out their temporary nature and if it is an expansion of the FAR net leasable; building codes; fire codes and design compatibility. Linda: I feel Oct. 15th as an installation date is more appropriate due to the changeable weather patterns. Karen: I feel the airlock should be compatible with the architecture of the building. We spend numerous hours working out details of buildings and to do a plexi-glass box over the entrance is not compatible and the work that we had done goes down the drain. I observed Pour La France's airlock and it is a good example. Roger: I feel Pour La France is a good example of where you had a space and an airlock could have been done inside, as it is in the GAP. Energy Commission Representative: We do support anykind of double door systems. Saving energy is a primary concern of the Aspen Community. Airlocks are functional but ugly. Roxanne: Airlocks should be a necessary interior function of buildings. I would like the Energy Committee to support any new 11 Historio Preservation Commission Minutes of January 13t 1993 building having an airlock on the interior. we would not have a design/clutter problem. It is necessary and Roger: Why not adopt the 6 points and recommend to Council and the Planning Office that airlocks should be part of the planning process and the building permit process. Bob Gish, Engineering: We are ready to adopt the Energy Code and this could be incorporated. Jake: Does the Energy Commission have knowledge on Air Curtains? Energy Commission Representative: I have used air curtains but they are expensive to work. A blower comes on when you open the door and pushes the air back out. Bill: Everyone will want airlocks for comfort and they will use that against you and you will not be able to get rid of them. You need a strong energy code. Jake: I like the design of Silver city Grille. The area of clear vinyl is very large. The thickness of the canvas that they used is similar to the thickness of their wood trim. So there is a resemblance there. They broke the openings in the doorways and there is vertical plastic that is in similar proportions of the other windows. Bill: The whole idea of messy vitality is to allow people to look into the stores and see people dining. Jake: The first area is to discourage airlocks and if they are going to happen what can you do to make them the best. I feel we can have guidelines for both of those. Roxanne: Then we should require the incorporation of internal airlocks. Bill: They are flammable and you could not exit properly in case of a fire. Roxanne: I will bring back a reso at the next meeting. Bill: We are making a statement that we do not allow airlocks. COMMUNICATION Bill: The Hard Rock Cafe wants a ski rack placed in the public right-a-way. lZ Historic Preservation C~mmlssion N~nutes off ~anuar~ 13~ ~99~ Bob Gish: We approved the ski rack and there is an ordinance on the books allowing temporary ski racks. Don: The Hard Rock is adding additional lighting and we did not approve that lighting. Roxanne: I will do research on this and get back with the board. MOTION: Don made the motion to adjourn; second by Bill. Ail in favor, motion carries. Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk