Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20181128 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 2018 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Absent were: Bob Blaich, Scott Kendrick and Sheri Sanzone. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Chairperson Greenwood brought the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty said it’s good to see some of the historic projects completed and buttoned up. Ms. Berko entered the meeting. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Greenwood is recusing herself on 211 W. Main, so Mr. Halferty will be closing the meeting. PROJECT MONITORING: 131 W. Bleeker Amy Simon Ms. Simon passed out some photos. This property is across from the Yellow Brick and a new owner purchased the property and did an interior renovation only. We will be having a brief conversation about gutters. The gutters that were put up are copper and we do not typically approve copper gutters on miner’s cottages. We want them to be very modest and neutral. We typically go for a painted metal or galvanized. We did discuss using an intense patina. The applicant would like for it to be approved as is. The guidelines say it should be a material compatible with the building. Mr. Pember entered the meeting. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Ryan Doremus of Thunderbowl Architects Mr. Doremus said they’ve worked hard to keep the existing character of the home. The gutters were an afterthought to repair and replace because they were in a state of being inoperable. We also had some issues with the building settling. Regarding the copper gutters, we had a discussion about metal or light materials and applied them without getting final approval and hoping they were acceptable. The only photos of Victorian gutters we could find, were wood. We are hoping to keep these copper gutters as is since they have already darkened and patinaed to a point of a painted color. This wasn’t intended to be a highly reflective metallic material. Ms. Simon noted that there is no project monitor on this because it was an interior remodel. Ms. Berko asked what type of material the original gutters were. Mr. Doremus said they are unsure, but they appeared to be low quality. 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 2018 Ms. Berko said she feels they are out of character for a miner’s cabin. Ms. Greenwood agreed and said it’s too rich for a miner’s cabin. Ms. Berko said she like to see them stay in line with the guidelines and the intent of the resource. Mr. Lai said he doesn’t have a problem with the way it appears. The question for him is if we should allow this to set a precedent, as it could be a dangerous one. He is really undecided between the two. Ms. Greenwood said they are all individual situations. She doesn’t want to have someone else come here in the future and then it snowballs. Mr. Doremus asked Ms. Simon to read the code on this so we are all on the same page and clear on what it states. Ms. Simon read two guidelines to the board regarding materials. Ms. Greenwood said it is pretty vague. Mr. Halferty said we have a little vagueness in the guidelines and it’s a little loosey goosey. He said he understands Mr. Lai’s comments about precedent. The material, if it can be patinaed, to make it seem unassuming in keeping with the historic resource, is ok with him. MOTION: Mr. Pember motioned to approve as is, Mr. Lai seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Berko, no; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 5-1, motion carried. PROJECT MONITORING: Aspen Meadows Reception Center Amy Simon Ms. Simon said they want to replace an original door and to change an original window into a door. Ms. Berko is the project monitor and viewed this on a site visit. Ms. Simon feels this is a serious issue to be removing Herbert Byer features from an important structure. It’s an important building, so changes should be discussed by the board. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jim Curtis representing the Aspen Institute and Becky Ward, Facility Manager Mr. Curtis said he hopes everyone came out to see the center this summer. We were in operation for the summer season and everyone was pleased with it. We would be happy to take you through it at any time. It is equally important that Ms. Simon gets the acknowledgement she deserves. Everyone on the city staff were helpful and provided assistance when they could. We received the TCO on June 17th, had a soft break-in event on the 18th and the first event of the summer season on the 19th. Coming off of the summer operations, there are two things we saw that we’d like to modify. The images shown are also in the package. He showed the existing south façade and the proposed façade, originally constructed in 1958. The door is too narrow to comply with current building codes for wheelchair access. It is currently 29 ½ inches and needs to be 32 inches. The building dept approved this as a preexisting and non-conforming egress access. What we’d like to do is change out the door to be code compliant and we are proposing a 33 ½ inch opening. We are concerned about having a non-compliant door as it is a potential legal liability. There are no store front windows or doors on the south façade. The Herbert Byer aluminum storefront window and side panels changed in 1965. The south façade was modified two times in a significant way and the second time was by Ted Guy in 1993. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 2018 The second request is easier because it’s on the upper level and there is an existing window where the elevator used to be and provides access to the lower roof where the kitchen and mechanical equipment are located. He showed the north window on screen and said they would like to change it out to a storefront door. It was originally installed to put in an elevator in 1993 as part of those renovations. Ms. Berko asked if the Byer door from downstairs will fit in the location of the window and Mr. Curtis said no. Mr. Halferty asked Mr. Curtis if he has a floor plan to show since they are only seeing part of the picture and he said he does not have one. Ms. Greenwood asked if they have thought about making that door bigger with a frame and asked why they are changing it. Mr. Curtis said the institute would like to have it code compliant and would like wheelchairs to be able to go through it and he hadn’t thought of the frame option. Mr. Moyer said that what they want to do is not outrageous in the least. Mr. Pember noted that if the board is to go with the proposed, it doesn’t even resemble the detailing of the 60’s. Mr. Curtis said we can comply with more consistent detailing if that would help. If you have suggestions, we can make refinements. Ms. Greenwood said the door needs to have a relationship with the other doors. The main thing is, expanding the door, doesn’t work with the structure. The new door will sit under a beam. She doesn’t know what solution is, but he doesn’t think they are there yet. Mr. Halferty agreed that it’s awkward, visually in the proposed plan. Mr. Curtis said they discussed a solution about putting in an ADA compliant door and a glass side panel and that would be basically very consistent with the 65 and 93 renovations. Mr. Lai said the problem is the ADA opening being so large. He said this is a difficult problem and he doesn’t have a solution. Mr. Halferty said he’s all in for accessibility, but he doesn’t want to butcher this. It’s a butchered solution. He wishes they could find something better. Mr. Curtis asked if he should come back with refinements and Ms. Greenwood said, no refinements, but a new solution. It will help to have a floorplan next time as well. We have multiple issues here as a board and we are all in agreement. Mr. Curtis said that all comments are well taken and appreciated. Ms. Simon said they will come back on December 12th. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said there is a list of assigned projects in the packet. She’s looking at the need to assign list and said some are near permitting. 420 E. Hyman, 110 W. Main and 300 W. Main. Ms. Greenwood will do 420 E. Hyman, Mr. Halferty will do 110 W. Main and Mr. Moyer will take 300 W. Main. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon reminded the board of the work session next Tuesday December 4th at 4:00 pm. The packet will include the current proposal for code amendment wording and we will be presenting a suggestion to council. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 2018 CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: None. Ms. Greenwood exited the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 211 W. Main Sarah Yoon Ms. Yoon said this is the first showing at HPC. This is a minor development review, which includes an interior and exterior remodel, a new carport and breezeway. The applicant is asking for approval for the minor development and setback variation. It’s a two-story Victorian located in the mixed-use zone district. There are non-historic additions on the east side and behind the landmark. The applicant proposes to remove an existing curb cut and the two parking spots off of Main Street and restore the gutter and sidewalk in the process. They will also remove an existing door that is between units A and B. There are no changes proposed to the front of the landmark, but there are changes proposed to the rear of the landmark, which include: openings, fenestrations, fixtures. We would like the applicant to restudy the rear façade. From the north or front elevation, there is a non-historic addition, which is recessed from the landmark. It currently has a lean-to roof and they have proposed a pitched roof option and the flat roof option. Staff would like to see a roof form more compatible with the historic resource. Regarding the new carport and breezeway, it is located in an appropriate location, but it does require a setback variation which could have impacts on the alley and neighbor. We don’t find that it meets the criteria on page 36. Staff recommends continuation of the application and a restudy of the proposed roof forms, carport/breezeway and glazing. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams of Bendon Adams alongside Rally Dupps Ms. Adams said the property was built in 1952 and was Richard Shaw’s residence as a little boy. Ms. Adams showed the Sanborn map, which marks the location of the out building. Ms. Adams dug through the assessor records and found an old picture with a lean-to that was added in 1971. There was a change made to the landmark at this point, as well, which was an added window and we want to remove it. The current condition of the property, is a 4 plex. It’s a residential building and now is non- conforming, but the proposal cannot trigger demolition, which is why we are proposing little tweaks and they are very precise. She showed the roof view and said the client prefers the sloped roof option. They feel that the sloped roof separates the historic from the addition in a better way than the flat roof. The purpose of the remodel is to bring the property closer to the design guidelines and be more livable for the tenants. Mr. Moyer said on the Main Street side, there are two cars which are parked and asked if that’s becoming grass. Ms. Adams said that engineering is requiring us to remove the curb cut. It’s dangerous, so the two spaces should be removed and is not something they would ever allow today. Mr. Pember asked about the FAR and Ms. Adams said the square footage will be reduced. Ms. Yoon said she wanted to make a clarification. Regarding the west elevation and the windows being changed, there is actually no change on this elevation because it is the fire wall. Ms. Berko asked where the mechanical is going to be, and Mr. Dupps said it will be in the basement. Ms. Berko asked if they could they take a couple of trees out and Ms. Adams said they are mitigation trees and they have reached out to parks, but there are a lot of rules for trees on Main Street. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 2018 Mr. Halferty asked if they will require a parking variation and Ms. Adams said no, Jessica Garrow said a waiver is not required at this time. Mr. Halferty asked about accessibility standards being implied by the building department requiring ADA compliance and Mr. Dupps said yes, four units are existing there already so it’s a non-conforming continued use and they have already reviewed this. Mr. Halferty asked if there are any comments on the fenestration that is suggested, and Ms. Adams said it’s really important to Mr. Curtis because of views from that unit. There are already penetrations back there which are not original, and we feel there is some flexibility on this rear façade. Mr. Pember brought up the west proposed elevation, to the right of the upper deck guardrail, there is a series of lines and he asked what that is about. Mr. Dupps showed a bird’s eye view from the south and explained. Regarding the roof options, Ms. Simon reminded the board that staff isn’t recommending either of the roof options but are recommending restudy. PUBLIC COMMENT: Henry Trachett Mr. Trachett said this is his son in law’s house. Regarding the rear of the house, initially they discussed to have the whole back end be glazing as opposed to the sliding doors. Historically, we can see the house from the front, but from the rear, it’s something else. We were shot down on this and I couldn’t understand why. The carport is important since there is snow and ice to worry about. He thinks Mr. Dupps has done a good job under the constraints of the project. He would like HPC’s help to make it a little more exciting. Mr. Halferty summarized the issues for the board. Mr. Pember doesn’t see that they’ve departed that much with the resources fenestration. He loves Mr. Trachett’s idea, but he thinks it might be too much. It would be aesthetically cleaner and better, but it’s probably not an option so we will stick with Mr. Dupp’s presentation right now. He appreciates the argument which was made to make it more livable and it will remain a 4-plex, which is very challenging. He’s fine with the variation for the carport. He’s fine with staff and monitor handling the lights. He’s fine with the fenestration. His issue is with SketchUp giving too much detail. Ms. Yoon reminded everyone of another public comment from a neighbor which was received from David Scruggs of 212 W. Hopkins and was opposed to the variation. The letter is included in the packet on page 43. Mr. Lai said he likes what they’ve done to the resource. It stands well. As far as additions, looking at the two comparisons, he prefers the sloping roof as it is more in scale and doesn’t impose as much as the flat roof. To be very honest, he’s sorry that the porch with the columns is gone. The porch was very seductive for him. He’s generally satisfied with the project. Mr. Moyer agreed that the sloped roof is much better, and he is fine with that. Looking at this from the street, it’s a little awkward. The siding on this is matching too close to the resource. The fenestration on south side of alley is what it is, and he is ok with it. It’s an interesting dilemma with the alley and activity. He’s not opposed to the setback, but just really not sure. 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 2018 Ms. Berko said having staff and monitor doing the lighting is fine with her. By having the sloped roof, you see more of the resource. Regarding the glazing, she doesn’t want to see anymore as there is already a lot. She’s not sure how to talk about the material, but maybe a variation of narrow or wider; so it’s not the same. Ms. Simon said there is an adequate tree policy, so we can go to bat on this if we need to if there are trees blocking or damaging the historic resource. Ms. Adams said tree removal isn’t in their scope and we aren’t proposing that. As long as it would not be binding on the applicant, we are ok with it. Mr. Halferty said he can support the sloped roof. He is ok with the carport and ok with the setback requirement. He is ok with the light fixtures. He thinks the glazing on the south side is ok. He can support the application as proposed with comments made by the commissioners. Regarding the siding, he agrees with the boards comments and the variation of the siding not to mimic the resource. The detailing on the eaves could be studied through staff and monitor on the east addition prior to the submittal of the building permit. MOTION: Mr. Pember motioned to approve resolution #18 with clarifications read by Ms. Simon, seconded by Ms. Berko. 5-0 motion carried. Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn at 6:42 p.m., Ms. Berko seconded. ___________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk