Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20000524ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, May 24, 2000 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. In attendance were Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Gilbert Sanchez, Lisa Markalunas, Rally Dupps, Heidi Friedland and Jeffrey Halferty. Melanie Roschko and Christie Kienast were excused. 110 W. MAIN STREET, HOTEL ASPEN - CONCEPTUAL - PH Augie Reno, Herb Klein, Bob Morris and Alfred Beadelston were sworn in. Amy indicated at the last meeting Staff recommended denial of the application finding that it did not come far enough to meet the review standards but the board gave input and continued the meeting until tonight. Additional modifications occurred to the roof shapes, wall planes and height of the addition and staff feels that it does meet the standards. Staff continues to have concerns about the overall size of the building and whether this is a contribution to the historic district. As a suggestion windows should be looked at to add to the west elevation. The west wall is very blank and tall. Staff is requesting that the Board make a strong comment to the Planning & Zoning Commission who will be looking at the back part of this project which is adjacent to three historic buildings in a residential neighborhood. That part of the hotel could have a significant impact to the neighborhood. There are two large trees proposed to be removed, which need Parks's approval. A lighting plan of the new addition needs submitted to staff, particularly for the third story. Augie Reno presented the changes that were submitted in the packet. Each of the elements has been lowered. The two center gables were lowered three feet and the flat roofed areas were lowered 3 1.2 feet. A flat roof on the third floor would be too "box" like. The applicant committed to windows on the west wall but in reality you don't see the blank wall due to the building next to it. The building has also been lowered on the Garmisch Street side. From Main Street the addition is shadowed but it is visible from the alley. Augie relayed that the two story bridge that cross the alley provides for better internal service for the maids and maintenance personnel. The alley is also a vacated alley. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ May 24, 2000 Jeffrey had a concern with the billboard type two-story bridge because it is so thin and possibly more transparent glass could be picked up. That might help with breaking up the length of the building down the alley. The undulation helps the south elevation and provides shadows to make it appear smaller. The majority of the board members felt that the west elevation needed to be restudied and windows added in order to break it up. Gilbert felt that the central gables could have steeper pitches to give a little relief to the long line. The board agreed that the P&Z needs to know about the significance of the Bleeker Street side with the historic structures on that street. Susan felt that the third floor should be eliminated. Lisa had the same concern with Jeffrey regarding the bridge and possibly more transparency could be incorporated. The variety of undulation is commendable. Augie also relayed that they have a tree permit in place. MOTION: Mary moved to recommend conceptual approval for 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen with the following conditions: 1. The applicant should consider adding windows on the west elevation of the addition as this piece might be visible from Main Street. 2. The HPC should make a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Commission to look very carefully at height and bulk issues on the West Bleeker Street portion of this project. Height may be an even more significant problem there, within the residential neighborhood. Additionally, there are three historic homes in a row along that street frontage, the plans for the Hotel Aspen note two 70-80foot tall spruce trees to be removed along West Bleeker Street, leaving the new construction particularly exposed to view. 3. A lighting plan for the new addition and cut sheets for the exterior lighting fixtures must be provided for final review. 4. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ May 24, 2000 adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 5. The connector needs' to be more transparent. Gilbert second the motion. Motion carried 6-1. Yes vote: JefJhey, Rally, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Lisa No vote: Susan 501 W. MAIN ST. - CHRISTIANIA LODGE - CONCEPTUAL - PH MOTION: Lisa moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 501 W. Main Street until dune 14, 2000; second by defJhey. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Rally, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Lisa, Susan 111 E. MAIN STREET - EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS - FINAL, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING Heidi was seated at 5:45p.m. Amy informed the board that conceptual was granted January 12, 2000 and there are a few minor modifications from those drawings. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. They have to provide parking for the new construction they are doing but in this case it generates an increment, part of one parking space. They can pay that as cash-in-lieu instead of providing it on the site but the growth management section of the code requires the HPC to out waive the parking because it is an historic landmark. Katalin Domoszlay was sworn in. The elevator will not be constructed and they intend to close in the side of the staircase. The conservatory will be of Victorian nature with high quality detailing and double thickness glass. Some changes need to occur in order to handle the snow load with regard to the structure. One of the purposes for the conservatory is to take the food out of the book store and keep it separate. The existing dining room will remain. All of the windows are operable. Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing. Amy asked if the glass was clear or tinted. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ May 24, 2000 Katalin relayed that three sides would be clear and possibly one side tinted tan or green depending on the engineering report. Mary stated that the board has reviewed green houses in the past and clear glass is the preferable. Heidi, Lisa and Susan felt that the conservatory was a little too fancy. MOTION: Mary moved that HPC grant final approval for 221 E. Main Street as presented May 24, 2000 with the following conditions: 1. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of any exterior lighting fixtures added as part of this project. 2. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the buildingpermit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the buildingpermit. 4. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 5. Unless the HPC determines that it is unnecessary for this particular project, General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a buildingpermit. 6. Approval of the code section 26. 470.070 5b Any parking that cannot be located on site and would therefore have to be required to be provided by a cash in lie payment shall be waived. 7. A sample of the glass be presented that will be used on all sides of the conservatory prior to approval. 8. The proposal as submitted be approved finding that the standards 1,2, 3, 4 are met. Heidi second. Motion carried 7-0. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ May 24, 2000 Yes vote: defJhey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Lisa, Heidi 945 E. COOPER AVE. - UNIT D Parking Variance Request Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer reviewed the affidavit of publication and determined that HPC had jurisdiction to proceed (Exhibit III). Sworn in were: Joe Krabacher, Damell Langley, Bob Langley, Ed Fabb, Marsha Goshom, Jerry Hatem, Christine Amini and Nell Ross. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer, noted that this is the same project reviewed by HPC for a parking variance at the last meeting. Five units are being developed on this site; two of which are historic. The site plan for this project was extremely tight. HPC encouraged the preservation of two buildings on site. Affordable units were created. At the time of approval, everyone thought 5 small buildings was preferable to a massive addition on the old house. During construction some errors were made which squeezed two of the parking spaces, one of which received a variance at the last HPC meeting. The owners of the Unit D which is in the middle of the back row are applying for a parking variance. This building on site D has been under stop work order because it was being constructed in the wrong location. The city attorney and the applicant's attorney have had discussions and have determined there are statutes that allow the house to stay where it is and the stop work order will be lifted after HPC takes action on this parking variance. Ms. Guthrie reminded HPC they are discussing a parking space variance only. The parking variance request is to reduce the width from 8'6" to 8'0". Ms. Guthrie told HPC there were a lot of reasons the city supported this project. The 8'0" space will still function and Ms. Guthrie recommended the variance be granted. David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, pointed out there is a precedence as the neighboring parcel received a variance for reduction of parking space size. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ May 24, 2000 Joe Krabacher, attorney representing the applicants, said this request is for a 6 inch variance on a parking space on the backside of the lot C. Krabacher presented maps of the site for the Board to illustrate this parking space and what happened in the errors in the building. This project went through a complicated process. At conceptual approval, the buildings and footprints were established in a conceptual manner. When the plat was done after HPC conceptual approval, the building envelopes for all of the lots were too small to fit the footprints that had been approved. This was a surveying error. This parking space is between units D and E. The parking variance approved at the last HPC meeting was between sites C and D. Krabacher told the HPC there is a 2 inch error caused by the surveyor; the other 4 inches was caused when the building on site E was constructed and the lightwell on that property encroaches into what would have been the parking space by 6 inches. This is the reason for the 6-inch request for a parking variance. Krabacher said this request meets the standard that the grant of the variance is consistent with the AACP as this is an affordable housing project and also combines elements of historic preservation. HPC has the power to waive the parking requirements entirely; however, the applicant is only requesting a waiver of 6 inches. This request also meets the AACP goal of providing off- street parking. Krabacher said the next standard is that the grant of variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the parcel. Krabacher reiterated they are only asking for a variance of 6 inches from an 8'6" space. The next standard is that literal interpretation and enforcement would cause unnecessary hardship or practical difficult. Krabacher said they feel there was be hardship and difficulty because the solution would be to have the building on lot E move his lightwell or to move the building on the lot D. These solutions are more difficult than granting a variance. Krabacher said another standard is that there are special conditions applicable to this parcel and not other parcels in the same zone district and does not result from actions of the applicant. Krabacher said this will be addressed in the public hearing. Krabacher noted the applicant had sued the surveyor over these errors and is alleging negligence on these errors. If the applicant had 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ May 24, 2000 done this intentionally, they would not be suing the surveyor. The final standard is that the granting of the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied to other parcels. Krabacher reminded HPC an 18" variance was granted for another space on this parcel. Ms. Friedland asked if this variance is not granted, what will be the result. Ms. Guthrie said the applicant would not be able to proceed with their construction as they are not providing adequate parking on site; they would then have to go through an appeal process. Ms. Guthrie noted that Rally Dupps and Gilbert Sanchez have excused themselves as they work for Studio B, architects for the house on site D, the property subject of this hearing. Ms. Reid opened the public hearing. Hoefer noted a letter was received from Sandy Schonwald opposing the variance. Neil Ross, owner of lot E, said he does not know where the comment that the building envelopes were too small for the houses comes from. Ross said his house is the right size for the building envelope. Ross noted for lot E on the south and west sides, the house is 1 foot back from the building envelope. Ross said he does not know this is a survey error. Ross said the surveyor did not set the points on the house for site D. Ross said the surveyor did the plat for this property and it is recorded in Pitkin County. The surveyor stated he disclosed to the parties for lot D that the house was out of its footprint on the sides and on the north side and that he could not set the points because the plans as drawn show the house as dramatically out of its site. Ross told HPC the contractor and owner were setting their own points. Ross told HPC he questioned this and asked if they did not want a surveyor. Ross said he does not think his lightwell is into the general common elements but is right on the line of his L.C.E., which is for use as a lightwell on the west side of the house. Ross said the variance in question is part of the general common elements of the East Cooper Court condominiums. This can be seen on the original plat. The applicant should be the condominium association. The owners of lot D make this application; therefor, this request is flawed. In compliance with the 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ May 24, 2000 Declaration of Covenants of the subdivision, Ross has the agreement of all 4 other owners, and they withdraw this variance request. Ross said the Association and its members voted 4 to 1 to oppose granting any variance request regarding residential site D. In the previous application for a parking variance, which was made by the Association, the members of the Association voted 5 to 0 in favor of the variance request. Ross contended this variance request is a redundancy and not necessary. Ross presented a letter written by the applicants, the Langleys, to the city attorney December 1999. Ross read from the letter that, "in response to the city's red tag of our building, we have decided to comply with the city's requirement. We will relocate our house pursuant to the plat and subdivision agreement". In light of that, the city and the other 4 property owners relied on the integrity of the owners of unit D. Ross reminded HPC he appeared before them for review of design work on his house. HPC said his original design did not comply with "the Aspen vernacular". Ross said he has a deed restricted house and redesigning it was an economic burden. Ross said he had the house completely redrawn. Ross said if this variance is granted, the red tag will be lifted. If the red tag is lifted, there are concerns about public safety that have not been addressed by either the police or fire department. The encroachments will encroach in such a way there will not be access to this subdivision. Ross said it is consistent with HPC's purpose that they would want the implementation of the conceptual to conform to what was approved by HPC. Ross pointed out the Condominium Association supports 4 to 1 the denial or withdrawal of this flawed request. Marcia Goshom reminded HPC they were asked to approve a parking space 7' wide at the last meeting. If a car is in a 7' wide space, owners would need a sunroof to exit the car. Ms. Goshorn told HPC in the building department file, there is a note requesting clarification from the planning office on whether this window well would cause a problem. The planning office said it would not. Ms. Goshorn said every house on this site, except the one not built, is out of it's building envelope. One situation in this condominium complex did not cause all the problems. Ms. Goshom pointed out the category 3 housing unit was set by the housing board and by City Council. The owners requested category 4. The owners sent a letter to the Langleys 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ May 24, 2000 requesting they pay the difference between the cost of building and the cost of resale restricted to category 3. Ms. Langley said the land was sold to the Hatems for $10 so they could build a unit. These units did not go through a housing lottery. The RO unit does not have a cap on it and can be sold for any amount. Ross noted that the window well was moved at HPC's request and that window well does not encroach. Ms. Reid closed the public hearing. Krabacher told HPC he went over the encroachment into the general common elements and violation of the subdivision covenants with the city attorney. Krabacher said the Colorado Common Interest Act governing condominiums and general common element covers the building. Krabacher said the parking space was required for site D; the application is for site D. Krabacher said who the applicant should be was also covered with the planning staff. Krabacher told HPC the applicants have received no notice of the homeowners association to vote whether this variance should go forward. The applicants are property owners and should have received notice. Krabacher said going through with this variance does not preclude the possibility of the applicants suing the homeowners' association or vice versa. Hoefer reminded the HPC the only issue before them is that of the variance for the size of the parking space for unit D. Ms. Guthrie noted on the last application she believes the Hatems were the applicant of record, not the Association. Ms. Friedland said she would prefer to table this than vote on it as there are so many issues involved. Ms. Guthrie said HPC would have to make a finding that the standards for granting a variance have not been met in order not to take action. Hoefer said the applicant has the right to request a vote of HPC. Krabacher said the applicants are requesting a parking variance and have met all the standards in the code applicable to variances. Krabacher noted the applicants supported the previous parking variance even though they were the most impacted. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ May 24, 2000 Halferty said he was on HPC when they originally reviewed this project and feels it was a successful proposal. Halferty said the nature of deed restriction is wonderful; the nature of the historic resource and breaking up affordable lots is wonderful. Halferty said he supports granting the variance and making this a successful project. Ms. Hirsch agreed. Ms. Dodington agreed this is a good project; however, she is uncomfortable with all the complications. Ms. Markalunas said HPC is only to focus on the parking spaces and she feels there was a precedence set by granting an 18" variance between lots C and D. This request is for a 6" variance. Halferty moved to find that the review standards for a waiver of the parking space width on unit D are met and recommends that HPC grant a variance to allow an 8'by 18'parking space; seconded by Ms'. Hirsch. Yes vote; Halferty, Reid, Hirsch, Dodington, Markalunas. Heidi Friedland, abstained. Motion carried. Ms. Hirsch said everyone who has this property and has a home in Aspen should be able to get along. 609 W. BLEEKER- CONCEPTUAL, PUBLIC HEARING Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer reviewed the affidavit of posting and HPC had jurisdiction to proceed. Amy informed the board that a lot split was reviewed for this property and the house on one half of the lot is under construction, the historic building and the addition. This application is for the house on the empty lot. There are a number of constraints due to existing vegetation. The new structure is pushed forward on the lot. The proposal does not meet a few of the residential design standards and those are the inflection standard where it should step down in height towards the historic building; the street oriented entrance standard where the front door ought to be facing the street and the front porch is slightly undersized. In the new elevations the front door faces the street. Staff does not feel that the porch needs to be made larger, as there is no porch on the historic house. Staff also feels that the inflection standard would be better met by flip flopping the house or in some other way stepping it down because the central piece of the house is about the same width as the historic building and there is a good relationship there. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ May 24, 2000 Mary Holly was sworn in. In response to staff' s concern the front porch was revised and the door now faces the street. A dormer was revised. The model indicates how the two buildings relate on the site. The buildings are separate and the ADU is on the back alley line. A variance was given by the Board of Adjustment. Suzannah asked for clarification of the change in the bay window. Mary relayed that the bay window does not project very much. Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing. The board felt that the massing of the house was well thought out. Some members had concern about the east elevation windows and the contemporary look with the amount of glass on that side. The ADU, one story separated from the house is very successful as it relates to the alley. The detailing should be more contemporary rather than Victorian. The board that this project is an excellent example how the lot split worked and how the massing can be kept small enough in the West End even with the new development. Suzannah suggested a small window be added to the bathroom in order to break up the facade. MOTION: deffbey moved to approve the Conceptual Development for 609 144. Bleeker Street Lot B with the following conditions: 1. The conceptual development review standards' have been met. 2. The architect should explore options for placing the front door parallel to the street as the "Residential Design Standards'" require. 3. HPC should waive the "The Residential Design Standards'" in regard to the size of the front porch and inflection. 4..411 representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ May 24, 2000 5. Consideration of adding a north elevation window. 6. The approval represents the drawings that were presented tonight by the applicant showing the new door location dated May 24, 2000. 7. The detailing should be simpl~ed and restudied. Motion second by Heidi, carried 7-0. Yes Vote: defJhey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Lisa, Heidi MOTION: defJhey moved to adjourn; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjoured at 7:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ May 24, 2000 110 W. MAIN STREET, HOTEL ASPEN - CONCEPTUAL - PH ..................................................... 1 501 W. MAIN ST. - CHRISTIANIA LODGE - CONCEPTUAL - PH ............................................... 3 221 E. MAIN STREET - EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS - FINAL, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING .............................................................................................................................................. 3 945 E. COOPER AVE. - UNIT D .......................................................................................................... 5 PARKING VARIANCE REQUEST ...................................................................................................... 5 609 W. BLEEKER- CONCEPTUAL, PUBLIC HEARING ............................................................. 10 13