Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20190313Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2019 1 Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2 Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2 Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Other Comments ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Conflicts of Interest ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 333 W. Bleeker – Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations ............................................... 2 330 E. Main St – Hotel Jerome – Minor Development ................................................................................. 5 Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2019 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Gretchen Greenwood called the regular meeting to order with Commission Members Roger Moyer, Nora Berko, Scott Kendrick and Bob Blaich present. Also present were Andrea Bryan and Linda Manning. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. Commission Comments Ms. Berko asked if there is any movement around Main Street Bakery. Ms. Simon said there is a rumor the property is being sold. Staff Comments Ms. Simon said they issued one certificate of no negative effect for windows at the Flora Dora building. It is a large Victorian that has been expanded for office use. All of the original windows have been replaced in the past Other Comments Ms. Simon said she has no project monitoring tonight. She will not be at the next meeting. Council had first reading for the HP benefits on Monday. She will send updated language on the light well issue. Second reading will be on April 8th. Council was almost entirely focused on affordable housing. They basically said they want to stop doing the waiver. We want to try to keep alternatives on the table. Ms. Yoon said 931 was presented for notice of call up. Council did not request call up. Conflicts of Interest None. Minutes Mr. Moyer moved to approve the minutes from February 27, 2019; seconded by Ms. Greenwood. All in favor, motion carried. 333 W. Bleeker – Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations Ms. Yoon said this project was continued for restudy. The property is located on a corner lot on Bleeker and 3rd. It is located in the R6 zone on a 3,000 square foot lot. There was a lot split in 2002. The applicant is seeking conceptual major development, relocation and setback variations. For the revised design the applicant no longer plans to move the asset forward or to the east. It will need to be suspended to excavate the basement. They propose to relocate the historic outbuilding by rotating the structure to have the opening face the alley. An eight foot connector is still proposed to connect the new one story addition. It is pretty clear there has been constant change when comparing the Sandborn maps. The outbuilding is not original to its current location. Staff can support the proposal to rotate the outbuilding and remove the enclosed rear porch addition. Staff recommended restudy of the proposed skylight feature. It was abutting against the historic landmark. It was not minimal in size and altered the condition with the landmark and how it meets grade. Staff requested that feature be restudied. The applicant has reduced the size of this feature, but staff is still concerned with the historic relationship with the landmark and grade. It is not maintained with this particular side of the landmark and the Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2019 3 recommendation is to further reduce the skylight. Changes were also made to the lightwells. The applicant has revised so there are no longer floating lightwells in the new plan. There are two that abut the resource. Staff wants to make sure the curb height for the proposed lightwells around the landmark are minimized in height as to not cover any historic materials. Staff has been in ongoing conversations related to stormwater mitigation. It has been determined they do need a drywell. The main concern is that no feature of the stormwater mitigation is located in the foreground of the resource. Staff recommends continued study of this process. The application is still proposing fenestration changes to the resource and outbuilding. On the outbuilding it was to remove the non historic skylights. On the historic house they are proposing to remove a non historic sliding door and changes to a series of windows to two double hung windows. Staff recommends the fenestration changes require more study of existing framing to determine that they are not original. These changes can be addressed during construction and demolition. Staff and HPC had concerns with the one story addition related to the roof form and fenestration because the design did not meet the guideline 10.6. The applicant redesigned the roof and increased the siding on the addition. The location of the chimney was moved to the west elevation. Staff understands the explanation regarding the outbuilding covering the addition from direct view but it is important the new addition meets the design guidelines. Since it is on a corner lot there are more points of exposure than just straight on. Staff finds the redesign is moving in the right direction, but the proposed 8 12 pitch does not relate to any pitches seen on the landmark. We are asking for more study of the pitch. In terms of materials, the new addition does draw from the landmark, but the glazing remains the dominant material of choice. The roofing material doesn’t relate to the historic landmark. Since the memo the size of the chimney has been redesigned. Staff recommends restudy so it strongly relates to the landmark. Staff recommends the applicant continues to work with engineering on the proposed path along the ditch. For the setback, staff is in support for the variation requests. They reinforce the pattern of the district where the parking access is located to the alley. The overall design is moving in the right direction. We recommend continuation for restudy for new addition compatibility with the landmark. Applicant Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, said the biggest change is we are no longer proposing to move the historic house. We are still proposing to rotate the outbuilding garage. We reworked the form on the addition. It is replaced with a traditional pitched roof. We looked at matching the pitches of the historic roofs but they are very steep. We did not feel it was appropriate to match the pitch since it would make the addition taller than the historic buildings. While we recognize it is on a corner lot, it is not a standard corner lot. The 3rd street elevation helps to hide almost all of the addition. We feel we have done more than enough in terms of materials and form to satisfy guideline 10.6. For the skylights we eliminated the floating skylight. On the east, we removed 4 or 5 feet of length. We feel we are consistent with the guideline. The skylight is not visible from the street. On the drywell we are willing to look in to an alternative location. If we have to it will require a variance from the engineering department. I don’t consider foreground to include underground. I feel from an engineering perspective it is the best place to put it. Rally Dupps, architect, said we have been working with Josh Rice and because of the large green roof he believes we will not need a very large dry well. Mr. Halferty asked about the proposed location for the drywell. Mr. Dupps showed it on the site plan. Mr. Halferty asked how does the subgrade work. Mr. Dupps said it is a typical drywell with a steel grate with mesh and sod on top. Ms. Simon said the only one I know is in Nora’s front yard. I haven’t heard quite what you are describing. Ms. Berko said the skylight is in addition to the light well. Mr. Haas replied correct. Ms. Berko asked what are you thinking for the chimney, brick or sandstone. Mr. Dupps said that is a good question. We are happy to design anything. The client is happy to make it wood to match the house. Ms. Berko asked is there a reason why it can’t be on the east where it can’t be seen. Mr. Dupps stated we thought it would be hidden by the garage. Mr. Haas said every time we put stuff on the east it means less room for the trees we have to mitigate for. Ms. Berko asked are there trees on the west. Mr. Dupps replied the cottonwoods stay. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2019 4 Mr. Kendrick said rotating the outbuilding and the one foot setback, how will you get vehicles in and out. It is narrow as is. Mr. Haas said the building today is less set back. This corner is the best spot for getting any turning motion. Mr. Haas said as it is today you can’t get in the garage because there is a curb in front of the driveway. Mr. Kendrick said if you went with a matching roof pitch how much higher would it be. Mr. Dupps estimated 5 to 7 feet higher. Mr. Kendrick said I think there might be a happy medium. Mr. Haas said we were going for compatible not matching. Ms. Greenwood asked is the addition elevated off the ground. Mr. Dupps said the addition is at the same finished level as the house. At the front it is about 18 inches and 12 at the back. Ms. Greenwood asked is there a possibility to set the addition at grade. It would have been good to see some studies of the roof at this point. What is the reason for the one foot off the alley. Mr. Haas said having some yard area and exposing the historic house. Ms. Berko asked why was the link not 10 feet. Mr. Haas said we are already too close to the alley. Ms. Greenwood open the public comment. There was none. Ms. Greenwood close the public comment. Discussion. Ms. Greenwood said regarding the compatibility of the addition in terms of material selection, the size of the windows negate the positive and negative space with what is occurring with the resource. There are smaller openings with more material on the building. That is not compatible as well, in my opinion. I agree with staff that this is not yet ready. The building is not compatible and does not belong on the property with two historic resources. There is no relationship visually or design guideline wise to either resource. There is minor restoration going on. We typically award variances for excellent preservation efforts. I don’t understand the location of the historic outbuilding one foot off the alley. There is a solution for moving it more to the north for a better relationship to the resource. I’m in favor of supporting the staff recommendations of further study and work. There are better solutions. I support the idea that the fireplace feels incompatible and should be hidden and on the east side of the proposed addition. The windows need restudied for more compatibility with the resource. Mr. Kendrick said he agrees with everything except the fireplace. It could be mitigated with materials. Ms. Greenwood said that is a good point. Ms. Berko said she would like to support the staff recommendation. She would like noted that the small windows if historic need to be kept. She does not support the rear yard setback on the outbuilding. It is a burden on the public to allow alley setbacks. It should be moved to the north. Setbacks are there for good reasons and if buildings need to be smaller to respect them then they should. Ms. Greenwood asked about the sky light. Mr. Kendrick said it depends on the height. Ms. Greenwood said there is an importance for natural light. She does not have a huge problem with them. It is probably a good solution. Mr. Moyer said he supports staff. He does not have a problem with the slope of the roof. Using asphalt shingles would be good. The garage should be pushed more north. If there is an issue with the trees we can deal with parks. The skylight on the east side is not an issue or a problem. He questions the need for a fireplace in the world for which we live. Why do we need a protrusion with a gas fireplace. He would support the fireplace on the east. Staff and monitor can deal with the walkway on the east. If the windows are historic they should be kept. If not double hung are fine. Mr. Halferty said it is getting there as far as staff has indicated. He agrees with staff on the majority of the comments. He is not convinced on the pitch of the roof. It is better architecture then the prior application. He agrees with the comments on the garage. There is enough room on the site that it could be moved to the north. The fireplace is an architecture element and it would be better if it is minimized. He does not support moving it to the east. He is ok with the skylight on the east side, it is 50 feet off the street. The drywell, with additional study, either location is ok. He would like some detail on the sod and relationship to grade. The walkway, from the west, he would be in agreement with the pavers. On the outbuilding he would like it shifted more to the north for the alley condition and relationship to the resource. He appreciates the reduction in the skylights. The glazing versus wall proportions on the addition could be restudied. He could support this with additional tweeks. Mr. Blaich said he agrees with Jeff’s comments. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2019 5 Ms. Greenwood said we are following staff recommendations. Restudy the form and materials of the addition. Regarding the skylights, we support what the applicant has proposed so we can eliminate number 2. 3 restudy the location of the drywell. They will be doing that regardless, so we can leave it in. 4, restudy the proposed secondary walkway. That can be handled at another time. Ms. Berko said she would like to leave it in. 5, during construction investigate framing on the west and south for any evidence of historic materials. We should leave it in. Besides number 2 I think that covers the form and materials. The windows should be added to number 1. Ms. Berko said the fireplace should be included. Mr. Haas said what I’m hearing is push the garage further off the alley. Ms. Greenwood said I think it is more about the usefulness of the alley. Mr. Kendrick moved to continue 333 W Bleeker to April 24, 2019; seconded by Ms. Berko. All in favor, motion carried. 330 E. Main St – Hotel Jerome – Minor Development Ms. Berko recused herself Ms. Simon said this is for the courtyard at the Hotel Jerome. When the hotel went through the most recent renovation we approved the landscape plan. They executed the plan and received a CO. Last summer Tony came in with the struggles of the grass and asked if they could install synthetic grass for the season. We permitted that. He is now back asking to install the grass permanently. We are concerned about allowing it. We have not supported the request. We have suggested they come up with an alternative that may be hardscape. Engineering and parks have a concern that it drains properly. Applicant Tony Delucia, general manager Adam Mekies design workshop Tony Delucia, general manager, said he has been at the Jerome for 31 years. Grass has been an issue the entire time. We resod every spring and patch the rest of the summer. Last summer we laid the ground with irrigation looking for a proper solution. We completed the project and opened the patio. The grass died. We relaid sod and it still wouldn’t grow. At one point we had green spray paint. We came to staff and proposed synthetic turf. Once we put the turf down people had kids out there and did yoga. With hard scape you can’t do that. From the street this is appealing. In the winter we cover it with burlap so you don’t see green. The garden historically had grass on it. We went out and got the best turf we could that looked as real as possible. Ms. Greenwood asked why is the grass failing. Mr. Delucia replied traffic. Last summer we served 5,000 more people than the summer before. The number of private functions has increased. A lot of people are utilizing the space. Mr. Kendrick asked what is the lifespan of the artificial. Adam Mekies, landscape architect, replied 10 to 15 years is the warranty. The longer it is there the more natural it looks. Mr. Kendrick asked when it is time to replace the turf, I don’ t want a blanket approval. I want a similar quality. Ms. Simon said we would want the burlap a condition as well. Mr. Moyer said there is a better solution than burlap. Mr. Mekies said it really is the traffic. We installed 14 inches of USG heavy traffic soils. Mr. Halferty said I understand the traffic. Is it something as simple as irrigation. Mr. Mekies said we had Heinz irrigation, with a history of no total failures, reprogram the irrigation. We tried multiple irrigation patterns. None of them improved the condition. Mr. Moyer said there is nothing you could put there other than a path that would keep the grass alive. The fact we have artificial turf and it can be used is a must. It won’t waste water, it will always look good and it is indestructible. I think it is a brilliant solution. It saves us from having more hard pavement. Ms. Greenwood said the concern of this is the precedent it is setting. Ms. Simon said we support using natural materials for everything. We had a discussion about this being quite unique downtown with events and food service. It is a different circumstance. Ms. Greenwood said I’m not afraid of precedent because we take every property individually. Mr. Blaich said I’m very emotional about this project. I support this. I recognize your concern. I think this is a very good solution. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2019 6 Ms. Greenwood said it is a commercial space used for commercial functions. It is not just a landscaped yard. I’m not in favor of it but for your application it is essential. Mr. Halferty asked have you tried other investigative lawns like a putting green. Mr. Mekies replied I’ve never learned more about grass than on this project. We sent the contractor on an overnight drive to learn more about grass. I spoke to a number of growers who custom grew grass for Aspen. I’ve never seen a traffic condition like this. Mr. Kendrick moved to approve Resolution #3 approving the use of artificial turf to be covered with unobtrusive material in the winter and to be reviewed again when time to be replaced; seconded by Mr. Blaich. All in favor, motion carried. At 6:00 p.m. Mr. Halferty moved to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Kendrick. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk