Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20070328 - 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2007 411 E. Hopkins - Caribou Alley - Minor Development - continue to May 23rd................................................................................................................... I 110 E. Bleeker Street - Variances, Public Hearing ........................................ I 507 Gillespie Street - Major Development, Conceptual- Public Hearing.... 4 827 Dean Street - Landmark Designation - Public Hearing.......................... 7 214 E. Bleeker - Conceptual Development and Variances, Public Hearing.. 8 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2007 Vice-chair Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McNellis and Sarah Broughton. Jeffrey Halferty was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Jason Lasser, Planner II Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jim True, Special Counsel MOTION: Sarah moved to approve the minutes of March 14t1', 2007 as amended, second by Alison. All infavor. motion carried 4-0. Brian will excuse himself on 507 Gillespie. Jason Lasser, Planner said when he was on HPC they reviewed the adjacent property to 214 E. Bleeker but it is not pertinent to this application. 411 E. Hopkins - Caribou Alley - Minor Development - continue to May B'd, MOTION: Alison moved to continue 411 E. Hopkins until May 23rd; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. 11 0 E. Bleeker Street - Variances, Public Hearing Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I . Sara said there are two issues before HPC that deal with variances. The property came before HPC in 2002 and it came back in 2004 for a development of a rear addition to the historic home and some rehab. The two side yard setbacks comply with our guidelines and each is five feet. In the R-6 zone district the combined side yard setback has to be 15 feet and that was over looked by staff. The applicant is requesting that be remedied by asking for the combined side yard setback variance. There is an issue because property owners were not notified in 2002. I I \ I The second issue has to deal with the encroaching garage which is an existing condition. The garage encroaches on the right-of-way in the alley and also the east side yard of the neighbor. Staffrecommends that the 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2007 applicant pursue an encroachment license from the Engineering Department. Staff is in support of the combined side yard setback because we feel the development complies with our guidelines. Staff recommends continuation of the garage in order for the applicant to restudy and work with the Engineering Dept. to see if they can get an encroachment license. Staff would be in favor of recommending to HPC that the garage be moved onto the property and that there be a zero setback for the rear and east side yard. Evan Clark, attorney with Klein, Cote' and Edwards The side yard setback was overlooked and the garage is outside the boundary. The project went through extensive review. We view the side yard setback variance basically as a house keeping detail. What was approved is what we intend to build. The garage was also a surprise and after discussing it with the Engineering Dept. part of the requirement is having a recent detailed survey of the lot. Weare in the process of getting that. At this point it does not appear that we can move the garage onto the site. The encroachment license is the direction we are going to go. With regard to the neighbors that is a civil matter not something that is before the commission at all. Regarding the garage it was not constructed at the time of the main house. The survey indicates that the garage has been in its location since 1979. In general we feel that the design was approved as presented in the original application. Sara clarified that the garage was discussed with the zoning office not HPC. In order to get an exemption from the FAR bonus the garage doors have to be coming off the alley. There was an FAR bonus granted for this project for the new addition based on the historic house rehabilitation. Michael asked ifHPC had the authority to grant a FAR bonus to a project that has improvements on the neighbor's property. I I I I Jim True, special counsel said staff is recommending that the garage issue be continued for various reasons. I I I I I I Eban said we are going to assert that it is our property and it has been in his location for at least 28 years and the statutory period is 18 years. Weare not asking for HPC to say yes the garage belongs there we are asking for a setback variance in that comer for the position of the garage. Michael said we cannot give you that because it is not on your property. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2007 Jim True said he feels this is clearly a civil issue whether they have an adverse claim or whatever. I am not sure the HPC wants to get into that and there are certainly grounds for continuation. Jim said one way or another he would have to get a variance for the garage setback which was never granted. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Gregory Jordan, attorney with Garfield and Hecht. Gregory said he is representing the owner of the property to the east on which the garage is encroaching. The owner's position is that the combined side yard was not noticed therefore they did not comment at that time. The plan indicated that there is a new building planned to the west which now takes us to a high density lot situation and in addition there are new plans for the garage which involve right up to the property line placing a door and in the setback area a walkway and some other elements that will essentially turn the northeast section of the property by the garage into now a viable usable area where before this was a high density use of this property it was not an area that was likely to be used. The concern is for the future that there will be much less privacy. We would like to see the opportunity to get more involved and have the entire project continued. Eban Clark noted that the project went through the process twice and in both cycles is looked at extensively. There were numerous opportunities for everyone to show up and what was on the site was clearly apripough. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Michael asked staff if a variance was given on the property. Sarah said the variance was for 5% over the coverage that was allowed and it was public noticed. Sarah said it is unfortunate that the setback wasn't caught and it is up to the professionals hired to know the zoning laws. We have looked at this project a lot. Sarah indicated that she would approve the side yard setback and continue the discussion of the garage. Brian agreed with Sarah. There is a good likelihood that the side yard variance would have been granted ifit were on the table at the time given the 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2007 characteristics of the application. He also agreed that the garage should be continued. Alison said she feels similarly especially since the historic resource was not moved. If the garage gets a zero setback approval is the board comfortable with that. Sarah said she could grant a zero setback for the garage. She is not comfortable with the civil actions. Michael also agreed with the board and from a legal standpoint the reality is that our willingness to give a variance of the combined side yard setback has no effect on your clients because the historic house which is closest to your client's property is not being moved. The variance for the sight coverage that was given in 2004 got to this same issue and your clients had the opportunity to participate in the process. Michael also said he is not comfortable addressing the garage issue. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve resolution #9 for the combined side yard setback variance of jive feet for 110 E. Bleeker Street and to continue the garage location discussion to June 27'h; second by Alison. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 4-0. 507 Gillespie Street - Major Development, Conceptual - Public Hearing Brian recused himself. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Sara explained to the applicant that they need all three affirmative votes. I 1 I I Sara said the subject property is Lot B of a lot split in the West End. The FAR bonus was grandfathered to the fathering parcel so that is not an issue here. This is currently a vacant lot with 2,840 square feet of FAR that is allotted to this parcel. The applicant proposes to use all the square footage for the development. They are proposing a new single family residence and they are required to provide affordable housing mitigation so they are proposing an on-site ADU unit that is sub grade so it will need a variance from the standard for ADU's indicating that ADU's have to be above grade. All the parking requirements are met including the space for the ADU. A side yard setback variance is being requested for proposed light wells. Overall staff finds that the design is sensitive to the adjacent historic 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2007 resource. The proposed height is 23 feet where 25 are required. All the design guidelines have been met and this is a great proposal for a single family residence in this neighborhood. Staff is very pleased with the design. The residential design standards are met and the guidelines are met. I I I I Regarding the ADU, the sub grade space does not meet the purpose statement which states that ADU's are to be above grade. This lot could support a two story element in the back and the sub grade space could go on top of the garage. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request from the ADU design standards. If the applicant decides to relocate the space above the garage it will count for FAR unless they decide that it will be a for sale unit in which case they will get the FAR bonus. Right now it has to be deed restricted but it doesn't have to be a for sale unit which means it doesn't have to be occupied all the time. The applicant also has the opportunity to pay cash-in-lieu which would amount to $197,436.80. If they did cash-in-lieu they would have to remove the bathroom and kitchen facilities from the space because they are not allowed to have a sub grade space. They are proposing three light wells. There are two light wells off of bedrooms that are required by the IRC and the minimum size required is 9 square feet. Anything larger is not allowed in the setback. Staff is not in favor of any of the variances for the light wells because this is an empty lot. The size of the light wells off the bedrooms that are in the setbacks should be reduced to the minimum. Staff also recommends that the light well off the bedroom be removed. Randall Bone, presented. The idea was to keep the house as short as possible and keep sub grade space so that it wouldn't interfere with the view of the adjacent house and the house on the other half of the lot split has their living space on the second floor and she had asked that we keep the garage pushed onto the other side of the property and keep it a one story and as low as possible. We told the neighbor that we would not put the ADU on top of the garage and if HPC doesn't want us to build it we'll figure out something else for the space. Regarding the light wells we were not aware of the dimensional changes. I I I I Sarah pointed out that typically we have dimension drawings that are full scale and we want to see context especially when we are giving setback variances. We also like to see a streetscape drawing. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2007 Randall pointed out that this is his fourth or fifth project and he was never asked to provide context or streetscape drawings etc. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Steve Falender, neighbor said it is a nicely designed house and it is great if they rent the ADU. His concern is the window wells in general. The houses in the west end are big on small lots. New construction in the West End should meet the codes. There is no reason it have light well variances on new construction. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Alison said with the new rules the ADU clearly doesn't comply because it is not above ground. It is great that it is going to be rented but it should not be underground. Sarah said she is struggling with the ADU new code. Paying cash-in-lieu is unfortunate when there could be a unit. There are ways to make units better underground livable. With the current configuration she is less likely to issue a variance for the ADU. The overall height of the building and its relationship to the historic house next door seems like it is rather tall. Michael agreed with Sarah regarding the lack of information provided to evaluate the project. Regarding the setback variances in general we put too much density in the West End. He can't support the setback variance for the light wells because you are working essentially with a blank canvas when it comes to this lot and you should be able to make everything fit within the parameters of the lot. As far as the ADU, he is torn. I I Randall pointed out if we bring the ADU above grade the FAR increases. . We looked at a parking variance but realized that it would be best if we could keep all of the parking on the site. Randall said they can make the light wells 3 x 3. I . I I I Michael pointed out that he could approve the ADU. Sarah also said she could approve the ADU because of the context that it is in with the West End neighborhood as opposed to an urban environment. Hopefully the ADU would be able to use the outdoor area. The window in the stair o(the ADU also adds light. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2007 Alison said she is concerned about setting a precedence on the ADU. Sara asked if the ADU was made more livable to comply with the purpose statement would HPC be comfortable. Alison said the purpose statement doesn't specifically say it has to be underground. Sarah pointed out that the one story garage helps promote in this zone district that we are looking at as opposed to a two story. MOTION: Michael moved to approve resolution #10 as submitted with the elimination of condition #1 and #2. The sub grade ADU is approved and the variance is granted. Wejind that the ADU meets all criteria except #4 and it is in character with the zone district; motion second by Sarah. Roll call vote: Sarah, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes. 827 Dean Street - Landmark Designation - Public Hearing I I I I I Sara said the owner is proposing designation of their chalet. The permit was pulled in 1954 and it was built in 1956 by Harry Poschman. In World War II he was with the lOth mountain division and saw the chalets in Europe and was inspired by the style. He also helped to build lift I A. Criteria A has been met; an event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history. We feel Harry represents cultural significance of this era. There are very limited building permit records for this house. The integrity assessment scored 79 points. Points were taken off due to the alterations of windows over time. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Staff pointed out that a letter was received from Les Holst in support of the designation. Neighbor said he lived next to the 827, the Christmas House for 28 years. He supports this application and the house is in good shape. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. I 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2007 Sara pointed out that most of the original doors and windows are intact. Sarah said when she looks at this property the orientation to the mountain and how the house is sited is important. Alison said she feels criteria A for designation are met. The orientation to the mountain is historic. Michael said it clearly is an example of a chalet style and the characteristics . have not been destroyed. Brian felt that more than one criteria are addressed for designation. The most important thing is that the Chalet style is intact and the orientation of the property. Brian said he feels orientation of buildings should be included in the criteria for designation. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #11 for 827 E. Dean Street to be included in our inventory of landmark buildings; second by Brian. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael. yes. Motion carried 4-0. 214 E, Bleeker - Conceptual Development and Variances, Public Hearing Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Jason Lasser explained that there are no historic resources on this site and HPC has full purview over the project. The subject house will be the only non- Victorian structure on the block. It sits between two one-story miner's cottages. The allowable FAR is 3,240 square feet. No other variances are requested other than for a light well that is not technically required by the building code because it is proposed for a den. Staff finds that the project does not meet the inflection standard which requires new development to step down in height toward the one story structure. Jason pointed out that changes have occurred and David Rybak can go over them. The dimensional requirements for light wells are 3 x 3. Staff is recommending continuation. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2007 David Rybak, architect. David said he made small revisions to demonstrate that the design meets the guidelines. The vacant lot has a series of cottonwood trees and spruce trees at the south end of the property and the east frontage which tend to restrict the site and we are trying to make everything fit within the context. The proposal submitted tonight eliminates any needs for variances and the light well sits within the setback. The proposal is for a two story residence with a partially detached garage and a small connecting link from the garage to the main house. There is a one story gable element to the west side and a two story gable form along the east. We chose a hipped roof cross gable to bring down the wall planes and not have gable elements on the western side. The guidelines state that hipped roofs are OK. The garage has a 12 x 12 gable roof. Sara said because the property is sandwiched between two one story resources the property owner gets to decide which side to inflect on. They have to inflect on the length of the lot line as far back as the historic resource goes. I I I I Jason said staff is concerned about the two story element that is set back where the stairs go back to the second floor. We do not know if that is included in the inflection idea and we have not had a chance to review this with other planners in our office. The code says if a one story building sits directly adjacent to the subject site new construction must step down to one story along the common lot line. David said the inflection has to be a minimum of 12 feet along the street frontage. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. I I I Mirto Malory thanks the architect for including them in the process. On a whole this is a unique place in the West End. Mirto suggested that the front fa9ade be broken up so that the church is clearly the dominant structure on the street. This is a neighborhood with gingerbread houses and unfortunately stone is not part of the gingerbread look on that street. One other question is the chimney. The mass seems large. The lilacs have been there for all long time and hopefully they will be preserved on the alley. If some of them have to be removed hopefully they will be replaced. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. 9 I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 28. 2007 Sarah thanked the architect for a complete packet. One concern is the alignment of the front wall in that it aligns with the front porches and not the front walls of the historic resources which make it more imposing on the street. The entry two story gable might be able to come down a little and be minimized. The bay window on the second story seems heavy and imposing. The inflection is definitely on the right side. The chimney is imposing and adding to the overall height of the house from the front. The one story garage fits in well with our guidelines and it is a nice nod that fits in with the character of our alleys in that neighborhood. Sarah recommended continuation to look at the massing of the fa9ade in the front. Brian also agreed that the massing on the front is a concern. Another concern is the fa9ade of the building extending to the end of the porches and that might cause a problem. Possibly that could be brought back a little so that it is not one solid mass. I Alison pointed out that David has done a good job bringing the front elevation down to the one story. This building could be a lot more imposing. If the church elevation was there it would actually make this building look smaller. The point about the front fa9ade being all the way to the porches might be the reason it has mass and scale problems. She also agreed that the chimney needs to be less imposing. The roof forms read very nicely. I I MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 214 E. Bleeker until June 27'h; second by Brian. Roll call vote: Sarah. yes; Michael, yes; Brian, yes; Alison, no. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen 1. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk I I I I 10