HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19980513 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
Vice-chair Roger Moyer called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present
were Gilbert Sanchez, Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Heidi Friedland and
Jeffrey Halferty. Suzannah Reid and Melanie Roschko were excused.
MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minutes of April 8, 1998; second by
Heidi. All in favor, motion carried.
520 E. DURANT - MINOR DEVELOPMENT
Patrick Duffield was sworn in.
Julie Ann Woods, planner presented. The building is the Ajax Building and
the space is Malo, a clothier. The proposal is to increase the windows and
drop the brick in order to expand the windows downward and make them
more visible. A glass door would be changed out and replaced with a
window. They also propose to replace the northern door with a three panel
door similar to what is at Channel. A new awning is being proposed.
Patrick presented drawings and there are two awnings and the applicant will
apply for a sign permit.
Julie Ann informed the board that the building is set back and not the best
area for retail and they are trying to upgrade the space.
The Board had no concerns with the project.
MOTION: Mary moved to approve the Minor Development for 520 E.
Durant, the Ajax Building Unit 201 & 202 as proposed with the following
conditions:
1) Any signs, including signs on the proposed awnings, shall obtain a sign
permit.
2) The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity
is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and lOp~m.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
3) Development shall occur as proposed in this application. Any changes
must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation
Commission.
4) ~Ill material 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.
Motion second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried.
533 E. HYMAN - PITKIN COUNTY BANK -
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
Mitch Haas, planner presented. The applicant would like to add one new
window to the northwest comer of the top floor of the Aspen Plaza
,Building. The new window would be approximately six feet wide by three
feet tall and would have trim similar to the existing windows on the
building. Staffrecommends approval as proposed.
MOTION: Mary moved to approve the new window on the Aspen Plaza
Building at 533 E. Hyman; second byHeidi. All in favor, motion carried.
123 W. FRANCIS, LOT B - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL
MOTION: Heidi moved to extend Conceptual Development for 123 W.
Francis, Lot B until May 13, 1999; second by Mary. All in favor, motion
carried.
FOOD & WINE MAGAZINE - BANNERS ON MAIN ST.
Roger stated that HPC approved the banners last year for this event.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
Julie Ann stated that there will be approximately 60 banners along Main St.,
Durant St. and throughout town. It is a blue background with letters.
Jeffrey said last year there was a condition that the banners be placed on the
light posts with the proper straps and they be painted out.
David Hoefer, City attorney relayed that the banners will be approved by
the City Manager and monitored.
MOTION: Jeffery moved to approve the temporary banners for the Food &
Wine Festival with the following requirements:
1) That the banners be placed in accordance with an approved location
plan to be submitted to and approved by the Community Development
Department prior to installation.
2) That the banners not exceed 3 'x5 ' in size.
Motion second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried.
114 NEALE AVENUE -HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
City Attorney David Hoefer stated that the applicant, Jake Vickery has a
conflict and has left the room. Proof of notice has been provided. A legal
issue has come up as to whether HPC has final authority for a Lot Split or if
it has to be recommended and forwarded to City Council. The Attorney
recommended two motions: A, approve or deny the historic lot split or B
recommend to council that it be approved or denied.
Mitch Haas, planner relayed that the HPC has seen this project before and it
was approved as proposed now. After the previous approvals the applicant
did not record the plat within the 180 days so those approvals were then
expired. Whatever proposals are drawn up would have HPC approval. The
southern lot could only have one single family home.
Sworn in was Robin Gledhill wh° is representing the buyer.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
Roger inquired about the size of the lots. Lot B is 15,150 square feet and
the allowable FAR is 5,290 for a duplex and 3,945 for a house.
Robin said previously they had approval for the 500 square foot historic
bonus allotted to lot 1 with the FAR of 1,345 plus the 500 square foot bonus
which would make it 1,845.
Roger said bonuses can not be granted until something is designed. The
bonus is an award for an excellent design.
Mitch stated that the existing plat included the 500 foot bonus FAR.
Julie Ann stated that the previous conceptual is being withdrawn and there
has been nothing submitted relating to this project. The HPC is only
looking at the lot split with the FAR allocation in accordance to what they
have submitted.
David Hoefer, attomey stated that the figures will be verified by the Zoning
Officer.
Heidi said there is 5,000+ for the two lots which will be ratioed out based
on the size of the portions. A formula is set up.
Robin asked for an amendment and Mitch relayed that the previous plans
are null-in-void. Robin said she was told she was amending a current
approval that they received an extension on and they want to keep the 500
square foot bonus. They adjusted the lines and made the FAR less since the
property is 1000 square feet smaller.
Mitch relayed that the previous plat was incorrectly done. The applicant
should have applied for an extension. The plat was drawn up and indicated
the 500 square foot bonus which was not approved. There was never a 500
square foot bonus granted.
The entire board stated that when an application is not renewed everything
is void.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
Robin said she was told that the 500 square foot bonus was granted before.
David Hoefer stated that it doesn't matter if they were or were not because it
is not a valid approval. David said he doesn't see how it could be a valid
approval because it didn't go to final.
Roger said the bonus is given at final not conceptual.
Mitch said the total FAR is 1,345 with the potential of the 500 square foot
bonus.
MOTION: Mary moved to forward to City Council if the City Attorney
determines that the HPC approves or denies an Historic Lot Split. HPC
recommends to City Council approval for an Historic Lot Split for 17
Queen Street~il4 Neale with the following conditions:
1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development and
Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitla'n County
clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final
approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision
exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat
invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required
for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall:
a. Meet the requirements of Section 26. 88. 040(D) (2) (a) of the
Aspen Municipal Code;
b. Contain a plat note stating that development of the
new/southerly lot created by the lot split shall be required to
mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section
26.100. 050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code.
c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein
shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any
development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions
of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application.
d. The two lots created by this 'lot split shall have a total
allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 5,290 square
feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The
applicant shall verify with the City Zoning of)qcer the total
allowable FAR of each lot, taking into account any and all
applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided
into one parcel (the northerly parcel) of 6, 001 square feet and a
second parcel (the southerly parcel) of 15,160 square feet.
Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area
reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on the
northerly parcel would be 1, 345 square feet of floor area (plus the
potential for a 500 square foot floor area bonus if granted by the
HPC), and 3, 945 square feet of floor area on the southerly parcel.
The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be
included on the plat, as a plat note or series of notes.
1. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the
elements outlined in Section 26, 88, 050 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in
Section 26.88. 030(A) (2) (e).
2. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the
applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement
and pay the applicable recording fees.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in this application
and during public hearings with the City Council shall be adhered to
and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise
amended by City Council.
Heidi second. All in favor, motion carried.
MOTION: Mary moved if the City Attorney determines that the HPC
recommends to Council approval or denial of the historic lot split. May
moved to forward to City Council an Historic Landmark Lot Split for 17
Queen Street/114 Neale with the following conditions:
1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering
Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and
recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City
Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and
reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of
good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall:
a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen
Municipal Code;
b. Contain splat note stating that development of the new/southerly
lot created by the lot split shall be required to mitigate for affordable
housing pursuant to Section 26.100. 050(A) (2) (c) of the Municipal
Code.
c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein
shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any
development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions
of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application.
d. The two lots created by this lot split shah have a total
allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 5,290 square
feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable
lot area reductions t'i.e., slopes, access easements, etc. j. The
~' applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total
allowable FAR of each lot, taking into account any and all
applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided
into one parcel fthe northerly parcel) of 6,001 square feet and a
second parcel fthe southerly parcel) of 15,160 square feet.
Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area
reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on the
northerly parcel would be 1, 345 square feet of floor area (plus the
potential for a 500 square foot floor area bonus if granted by the
HPC), and 3, 945 square feet of floor area on the southerly parcel.
The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be
included on the plat, as splat note or series of notes.
2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the
elements outlined in Section 26, 88, 050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and
shah meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section
26.88. 030(A)(2)(e).
3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the
applicant shah stgn a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement
and pay the applicable recording fees.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application
and during public hearings with the City Council shall be adhered to and
shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by
City Council.
Susan second. All in favor, motion carried.
114 NEALE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL - WITHDRAWN BY STAFF
MOTION: Mary moved to withdraw 114 Neale Avenue Conceptual as
recommended by Staff; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried.
234 W. FRANCIS - CONCEPTUAL & FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING
The affidavit of notice was entered into the records but the mailing list was
not included and that will be a condition of approval.
Julie Ann Woods, planner stated that the applicant already has approval for
the renovation of the structure, changes to the carriage house, new kitchen
addition and a new basement. They came back after that to discuss a
connecting element and a garage and the HPC recommended that the
application is significant and asked that they return with the entire package.
They are proposing to remove the non-historic garage and construct a new
garage in the same location but being setback onto the property. Right now
it is in the alley right-of-way. Variances are being requested. A letter is
attached from Ramona Markalunas regarding her concerns for the
demolition of the garage, in which she feels the garage is historic. The 1904
Sanborn map does not indicate a garage. Carl Zessler, neighbor had no
concerns with the project. Joel Sacks neighbor is in support of the
variances. Staff recommends approval with conditions.
Sworn in were Arthur Yuenger, Marty Pickett, attorney for the Mullins,
Johnathan Lewis, Philip Hodgson and Gary Wheeler.
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
Arthur relayed that he feels the garage was built in the 70's due to the type
o£ construction. It does not meet the building code requirements as the floor
joists are inadequate. It makes sense to demolish it and build another
garage and push it back a little to negotiate the turn.
Vice-chairperson Roger Moyer opened the public hearing.
Philip Hodgson stated that Ramona did research and feels the garage was
built in 1930.
Heidi asked for verification on the garage.
Gary Wheeler, contractor said he would try and find information on the age
of the garage.
Julie Ann stated that the addition was part of the previous approval and
should not be acted on today. The addition has since been demolished. The
garage is clearly a later addition and is not contributing in any way to the
original historic resource.
Gilbert stated that the board decided that the addition was not significant or
contributing.
Susan asked about the location of the fence.
Gary informed the HPC that the fence, doors etc. are being stored and will
be replaced after the project is complete. The windows are boxed up and
covered with plywood and are being stored in Basalt. The red siding and
posts are also being stored. The house will be lifted up six feet vertically
where it stands by Bailey house movers. A basement will then be
excavated.
The board had problems determining what was previously approved.
Arthur stated that the two structures have to be linked due to zoning laws.
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
Clarification was given on the height of the door on the new connector and
it is a 6'8" door and the transoms are a foot high.
Members had concerns about the link and glazing. Some members felt that
the entire project should have come m at once instead of piece meal. They
felt too much has been added. Other members stated that they could not
vote until they find out about the history of the garage.
Jeffrey agreed with Gilbert that the garage did not have significant
importance and he did not have a problem with the design.
Heidi requested previous drawings for comparison.
Roger relayed to the HPC that the application is not complete. Materials are
not indicated. He also felt comfortable with Staff's investigation on the age
of the garage. It is unfortunate that the project has gone through a
segmented process and it is particularly hard on the I-[PC members. Roger
stated that ifa motion is made set back issues need addressed. The
statement of notice needs addressed. How the fence is saved. A detail of
how the replacement of historic objects is being handled. Materials need
identified and a clarification of the dormers needs outlined. He also
recommended that it be outlined what was previously approved.
Julie Ann Woods stated that the dormers were looked at in January'but were
not approved.
Gilbert also agreed that the application is not complete and there is only one
elevation of the garage.
Attorney, David Hoefer stated that the concerns of prior approvals and the
nature of the garage it would be appropriate to continue the matter until the
next hearing.
Marty Pickett stated that she had a draft resolution from previous meetings.
She also stated that she provide information on the age of the garage.
Bill Greenwood was sworn in.
10
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
Bill stated to the Board that he is familiar with what is going on with the
house within the last eleven years. No one has given it the care that it
should have. The owner is a long time family friend. There were a Iot of
other places that the owner could have bought but they chose this house.
Bill suggested a wrought iron fence.
MOTION: Heidi moved that HPC continue 234 W. Francis, Conceptual
and Final until May 27, 1998. At that time information will be provided on
previous approvals and drawings; age of the garage, materials and notice;
second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried 6-0.
Susan felt that the fence was a Herbert Bayer fence because there is another
one down the street and it should be saved.
Gary asked about the carriage house and the request to change the roof to
wood shingles.
The attorney suggested they meet with staff.
101 & 105 E. Hallam - Partial Demolition
Mitch Haas, planner stated that the HPC has seen the project as a
worksession i.e the garage portion.
Sworn in were Augie Reno, Alan Bush, Lisa Gotlieb Bush and Sven
Alstrom.
Mitch stated that the property is not an historic landmark but it is within the
historic overlay and the only standards that apply are partial demolition. It
is on the inventory of historic sites. Typically this would be a significant
development but since it is not a landmark it doesn't apply.
Mitch stated that part of the request is for the shed which is historic and is
on the middle of the property line. The proposal is to convert it into a
garage but save the shed and add onto the back ofit~ The roof would be
11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
torn off and existing brick would be removed to put in a garage door and the
extra brick would be used to increase the height 2 ½ feet.
Part of the building on the west elevation has a door which is recessed and
the request is to pull the door forward out to the existing wall with a slight
jog and use the same door and add new windows around the door.
The next part is to add windows to the addition. There is also a request to
add the addition ora basement. The basement would include five window
wells. The next propOsal is to lift the existing roof off and demolish the
roof and add about five feet to the height ofthe second story and then put on
a new roof with a hip form on the front, three dormers on the west elevation
with two above which is a total of five donners on the west elevation. The
east elevation would also have new dormers.
The last request is to relocate or adjust the southern walls or the alley side
and bumping them out and adding some window space. The entire south
end of the house is an addition and the entire second story has been changed
and modified through the years,
Mitch stated it was difficult to look at this proposal under the partial
demolition standards but that is all they had to work with.
The recommendation includes approval of the shed remodel with
conditions. On the west elevation the bump out, staff is recommending
approval with conditions. The east elevation proposal for a door which
would lead to the basement from the outside of the structure is
recommended only if the door goes where a window once was. The light
wells are all on the street side and would need a variance from the
residential design standards. There is not a structural report yet on the
lifting of the house. Variances are needed on the windows and proper
noticing has not been done.
Augie Reno stated that the house will be occupied by the Bush family. The
shed received a setback variance from the Board of Adjustment. The new
basement goes under the entire footprint of the existing house and the
proposed connection and the shed. Augie discussed the floor plans. The
12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 15, 1998
floor area on the second floor is very tight and they are proposing to raise
up the wall to a six foot plate height. They are raising it about 3 ½ to four
feet. The roof would go to a five foot maximum height. They propose a hip
roof with an intersection gable. The south elevation would be a wood
shingle.
Clarifications and Comments
The Board felt that the application is a significant development.
Mitch explained that it cannot be a significant development because it is not
a landmark structure and not within the historic overlay.
Roger stated that the Board could grant demolition and ask them to come
back with certain architectural elements for revision.
Sven Alstrom relayed that he is interested in the procedural process. The
proposal is changing the character from a one story element to a two story
version.
7
Susan stated that she is concerned about the moving of the house and the
numerous lightwells on the historic house. She is also concerned about the
entire roof being raised up and possibly just the back portion should be
raised.
Bush stated that they are not visible from the street.
Julie Ann informed the HPC that the applicant could redesign regarding the
lightwells or go to DRAC and request a variance from the residential design
standards.
Jeffrey relayed that the massing is not completely thought out. He refers the
houses as the "historic trio". Concerns about the height differentials
between the two other existing structures and now the proposed structure as
far as the main ridge height. The shed is' one of the more interesting
structures in town and it is vital to the history ofthe site. 11 feet difference
in the ridges are a concern for a comer lot.
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
The majority of the Board agreed with Jeff's comments. The entire design
seems too complicated and out of character. Some o£the lightwells on
Garmisch could be acceptable. In general there is a lot of glazing. The
western elevation ridge is overwhelming.
Bush asked for a compromise on the upstairs because if they do not start
digging they will not be able to do the project this year and that brings up
the question of putting the house on the market and moving down valley.
MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve at 101-105 East Hallam St. an
approval of the proposed shed remodel as proposed for both the Bush side
and the Krumm side, provided
(1) all existing materials that are salvageable are reused and these
decisions shall be made by the assigned HPC monitor, and the selection of
roof materials must be approved by the assigned HPC monitor.
(2) Construction of a new basement be approved as proposed, provided (1)
structural reports verifying the ability of the historic structure to withstand
the intended method of construction are provided by the applicant, and the
HPC approves the intended method of construction; and, (2) the location
and amount of light wells to be installed (particularly the one proposed for
the north elevation and the two northermost light wells proposed for the
west elevation) come back to the HPC for approval after further study. And
provided even if HPC approves the location of the proposed light wells, a
variance from the criterion 26.58.040(F)(11), Subgrade Areas, of the
Residential Design Standards would be required.
Motion second by Mary. All in favor, motion carries 5-1. Heidi opposed.
MOTION: Mary moved to continue 101 105 E. Hallam St. project to
include all the items not approved tonight from the Staff memo dated May
13, 1998 until the May 27th meeting, second by Suisan. All in favor, motion
carried 5-0.
MOTION: Susan moved to adjourn; second by Mary. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 13, 1998
520 E. DURANT - M/NOR DEVELOPMENT ..........
533 E. HYMAN - PITKIN COUNTY BANK -. ........................................................................................ 2
MINOR DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................... 2
123 W. FRANCIS, LOT B - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL ............................................................. 2
FOOD & WINE MAGAZINE ~ BANNERS ON MAIN ST ...................................................................... 2
114 NEALE AVENUE - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT ............................................................ 3
114 NEALE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL - WITHDRAWN BY STAFF ............................................... 8
234 W. FRANCIS - CONCEPTUAL & FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING ................................................. 8
101 & 105 E. HALLAM - PARTIAL DEMOLITION ............................................................................. 11
16