Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20190227Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 1 Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2 Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2 Conflicts of Interest ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 105 E. Hallam – Conceptional Major Development, Relocation and Setback ............................................ 2 931 Gibson Avenue – Conceptual Major Development and Demolition ..................................................... 4 Work Session - Citizen Suggestion for Historic Preservation Benefits ........................................................ 6 Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Gretchen Greenwood called the regular meeting to order with Commission Members Jeffrey Halferty, Sheri Sanzone and Roger Moyer present. Also present were Andrea Bryan and Linda Manning. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. Commission Comments None. Conflicts of Interest Ms. Sanzone stated for the second item she will recuse herself. Ms. Bryan said we have taken the position as long as we open the meeting with a quorum if a member has to leave due to conflict we have not lost quorum. If the board takes action, all three members must take action unanimously. Ms. Greenwood asked if the applicant is not happy they could take action, but they could do that anyway. Mr. Moyer asked suppose the applicant doesn’t care her husband owns the firm. Ms. Bryan replied it could be anyone who has an issue. Ms. Simon stated she has nothing for the rest of the list. Stephen Kanipe is retiring. His party is tomorrow at the police community room from 3:30 to 5:30. Minutes Mr. Moyer moved to approve the minutes from February 13, 2019; seconded by Mr. Halferty. All in favor except Ms. Sanzone who abstained since she was not present at the meeting. Motion carried. 105 E. Hallam – Conceptional Major Development, Relocation and Setback Ms. Greenwood opened the public hearing. Ms. Simon stated it is a 3,314 square foot lot in the west end near the Red Brick school. It was built in 1885. There use to be twin with house directly to the west. The second floor was dropped in the 80s. It is no longer a twin. All of the homes are Victorian era homes on this block. There are no consistent setbacks. The plan is to demolish the small addition on the back, move the resource forward five feet, dig a full basement and build a new addition. The reviews include conceptual major development, relocation and setback. There is no floor area bonus ask. The property is 500 square feet below the allowed maximum. The applicant is proposing no alterations to the historic resource or shed. Below grade is appropriate for the addition. Moving forward allows reasonable response to the block face and connector to new and old. There are a few things that need restudy. We are concerned that the addition doesn’t meet the mark on three of the design guidelines related to compatible relationship between the addition and the historic house. The addition is a mix of gable and shed roofs and not quite there yet. The building department said the historic house and shed will be close to the property lines and may require fireproofing. We need more understanding of that. The historic house is wider and will trigger fire code adaptations. They are proposing to build a basement that is forward of the resource and will require a setback variation. Parks is concerned with a cottonwood tree. We need to ensure sod can be laid. We need an explanation on how the house can relate to grade. There is a light well that is close to the front north east corner. There are other referral comments we want the applicant to work out regarding a transformer on site. We have concerns about tree preservation, micropile walls and stormwater. There are front basement setback variances needed. There is a four inch reduction for the west side yard and a four inch for the combined side yard as well. We recommend continuation. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 3 Ms. Greenwood asked about air conditioning. Ms. Simon replied we haven’t got to that level of detail. They are allowed to sit in the setbacks. Mr. Moyer said mechanical keeps coming up. Is it something we need to discuss in the future. Ms. Simon said we are trying to be more proactive. We have started doing this mini referral process. Mr. Moyer said the fire issue is interesting. Would a fire retardant paint be sufficient. Ms. Simon stated she does not think so. Mr. Halferty said we haven’t moved a lot of brick structures. Ms. Simon said we don’t have an explanation from the engineer yet. Ms. Sanzone said the house next door was recently remodeled. Will there be a sidewalk here. Ms. Simon said engineering is asking for a floating sidewalk. Ms. Sanzone replied I think it would be important for the commission to weigh in on that topic. Applicant Melanie Noonan, Z Group Architects, representing the applicant, stated the property contains a one story Victorian built in 1885. Large cottonwood trees sit in front of the property. We would like to remove the non historic addition in the rear of the house. The proposal is to move the house forward and align with the house to the west. Moving the house forward makes room for a one car garage. We are still looking in to the transformer. The tree at the front, we will start at the 15 foot line and build back from that. We’ve started talking with the house movers about the move. The front porch is flush with grade now and we want to keep that look. We want to keep the landscaping minimal like it is now. We can come up with a solution for the fire rating. The new portion is all within the set back. Mr. Halferty said the shed has the same fire rating issue. Ms. Noonan said it is within the setback and something we want to preserve. We will have to work with the building department to get the one hour fire rating. We will have to do it on the interior. Mr. Moyer asked how will you address the light well. Ms. Noonan said with the landscaping it would be similar to what we have now. We are happy to keep the wall the minimal above grade. We would have low landscaping to hide it visually. Ms. Greenwood asked about the design guidelines and said she does not think they meet any of them. Ms. Noonan said some of the thought for the back and looking at the surrounding properties we have the gable roof. In order to get the square footage it is hard to put in a big hip roof. We want the historic property to be the prominent feature. The idea was to keep something lower and stay behind it so we don’t have the visual impact. We kept the same scale and proportion for the materials. Mr. Halferty said as far as the guidelines, have you considered the guidelines for the roof form. Ms. Noonan said we did look at a hip roof and it becomes a lot of roof to see. It felt really big and heavy. Mr. Moyer asked would there be an issue extending the connector two feet to meet the minimum. Ms. Noonan said we are just shy of the 10 feet at 9 foot 10 to get the full size garage in the back. Ms. Simon replied there is a pinch. They can’t move the house any further forward. Ms. Greenwood opened the public comment. There was none. Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment. Commission discussion Ms. Sanzone said the referral comments are helpful. We need more information, particularly on the sidewalk. The requirement for a transformer on the property seems restrictive. Ms. Greenwood said she agrees with staff. She has a problem with the five foot front yard setback. This is a pure development project, not a restoration. What are we getting from it except allowing development to be easier. There is a reason for a 10 foot setback. She is not in favor of going beyond that. It is the wrong precedent to set. She does not think this project deserves a bonus in the front. She understands the rear. This limits the ability for landscape in the front. We have very specific design guidelines. You have to pick from three concepts. This addition has none of them. I think you need to rethink the addition in its entirety. I think you could get more creative with the lightwells and maybe combine two in to one. She is fine with moving the building forward. Mr. Halferty said it is an interesting addition for the relationship to the resource. One of our guidelines talks about related roof forms. Seeing the sheds and gables related to the resource not being compliant. As far as the setback, because it is subgrade, I’m fine with it. I think the link and connection is another Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 4 guideline that is not compliant. I think the mass and height of the addition is close. It is too tall of an addition. As far as site plan the resource and shed, I feel the shed is an important element of the project and is left in the back. I think as far as staff is concerned the light wells can be restudied. The roof forms of the addition are non conforming to our guidelines. Moving a brick structure is a whole other element and needs to be done right. He would recommend continuance for additional study. Mr. Moyer said when we move a structure there is a bond, can it be increased. Ms. Simon replied I think it is set in the code. Mr. Moyer said it is a close project but not quite there. He is not so much against the set back as Gretchen. He would like to ask for a larger bond to move the structure. Ms. Greenwood said it has to be continued. It has to meet the guidelines. Mr. Moyer moved to continue 105 E. Hallam to April 10, 2019; seconded by Ms. Sanzone. All in favor, motion carried. 931 Gibson Avenue – Conceptual Major Development and Demolition Sarah Yoon, community development, stated 931 Gibson is the receiving site for the two Victorians. It is a 15, 497 square foot lot in the R15A zone. They were asked to return with a fully developed application for development. They received approval from council for relocation. The demolition of the existing non historic structure is not part of review. There were four conditions of Ordinance 22. The applicant has been working with city depts to determine community impacts related to the relocation. The applicant has provided confirmation from the house mover stating the resources would be able to withstand the relocation. There has been an ongoing discussion regarding phasing the permitting processes. Staff supports the phasing for the relocation permit, but staff does not support the phasing for the foundation permit because the appropriate approvals and development orders would not be in place. The applicant has since revised their request for submitting both permits prior to the final approval. The applicant proposes to restore the historic configuration as indicated on the Sandborn maps. There is an above grade addition with a 30 foot long connecting element. They applicant is not requesting any dimensional variations at this time. They plan to fully restore the historic buildings once they are relocated. There are two areas that have been called out for alterations. Both have been covered with non historic additions. One is where the connecting element is proposed to be located the other is where the new windows and doors are proposed. Staff recommends additional investigation for the area related to the connecting element. Guideline 10.4 states the focus must be the historic landmark and it must be the predominant structure. It also talks that the above grade addition must not exceed 100 percent of the above grade floor area compared to the landmark. Since the proposed design does meet two of the listed criteria HPC may consider an exemption from this requirement. This project does meet this requirement. The addition is slightly taller than the landmark. The proposed totaling floor area for the new addition including the connecting element is approximately 2,320 square feet, making it about 25 percent larger in comparison to the landmark buildings. The plan shows that the front most facades of the addition is proud of the front façade of the historic landmark by about seven feet which contributes to staffs concern related to visual dominance. The connecting element is about 16 feet wide and 30 feet long. Staff finds the site can support a longer than typical connecting element. The design guidelines do not specify a maximum. We do have concerns with the width of the connecting element. There is a large light well in a highly visible location. Staff is recommending restudy of all of these areas. 10.6 states the new addition is recognized as a product of its own time but the addition must achieve visual compatibility when compared with the landmark. The form relates closely but staff is concerned with the proposed secondary screened wall feature and extended skylight features and how they may interfere with the form. The applicant is now proposing to remove the extended skylight and lower the height of the brick wall. The applicant is also proposing a roof deck on top of the connecting element. Typically roof decks are not permitted on connecting elements unless they have limited visibility. Staff is recommending it be removed. In terms of form, the gable roof and pitch relate back to the landmark. The proposed materials for the addition are mostly masonry and brick and the connecting element is mostly glazing. The proposed building materials appear to be a purposeful departure from the materials and that is permitted. The proposed fenestration Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 5 on the new addition does hint at the size and ratio using the brick screens on the front façade, however the relationship isn’t carried throughout the rest of the addition. Staff would like that restudied. Staff recommends continuance to April 24th for restudy. Staff would like restudy related to compatibility and scale of the new addition. There are seven conditions mostly related to compatibility and scale. Mr. Moyer said on the connector, sometime a little messy vitality is good and activity on the rooftop could be considered. Ms. Yoon said it is not prohibited if there is limited visibility. The way the connector faces Gibson it is hard to achieve. Ms. Greenwood said one of the recommendations talks about the width of the connector and the objection is the material of the historic resource. What is the façade. Ms. Yoon replied it is a side that has been covered. Our first concern is there might be historic material back there. Applicant Sara Adams, Flynn Stewart Sevrie and Bryan Hendries Sara Adams, representing the owner, said we omitted the skylight that would require a variance. It will be flush with the roof pitch. We were here last summer to discuss relocation. Flynn Stewart Severy, architect, stated we are trying to create the historic lot rhythm by separating the structures by 30 feet. The structures will be connected by a single story element. Ms. Adams said the lot is 15,500 square feet. It is wider than it is deep. There is no alley. The allowed floor area is just over 4,500. We are not asking for a bonus. The primary entrance is the landmark. We want to work with the existing veget ation. The width of the connector is 16 feet but 30 feet wide. We know it is something not traditionally seen. Having the kitchen centrally located keeps the resource in play. We meet five of the eight criteria to receive more than 100 percent square feet than the landmark. We feel we have gone above and beyond. We feel the massing is appropriate. For materials we don’t want to compete with the Victorian and are proposing brick and screening. It is similar form and a strong reference with the windows. It is compatible but not an imitation. Mr. Moyer asked why is the new structure more forward than the resource. Ms. Adams replied we struggled with that. There were trade offs that needed to happen particularly with where the garage needed to be. We wanted to minimize the amount of hardscape for the driveway. Mr. Moyer said the new building is slightly higher. Ms. Adams stated it is and the grade of the site goes up as well. Mr. Stewart Sevrie said the addition is on the higher side of the lot. The elevation change is three feet. Mr. Moyer asked if I were to walk up to the connector and look at the resource there is a doorway. Ms. Adams said that is what we are proposing. We don’t believe there is any historic siding. Ms. Greenwood opened the public comment. 1. Mike Maple said his parents own the adjacent house. Last summer I had strong objections to relocating the structure, FAR bonuses, setback bonuses and the garage bonuses. I appreciate council prohibited the lot split. I am happy to see instead of two houses and two garages that the underlying zonings have been adhered to and there are no bonus requests. I tip my hat to the owner for complying with the underlying zoning. Generally, it looks good to me. With respect to staffs concern to the deck, I don’t have that concern. 2. Ms. Yoon received four comments via email all in support. Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment. Discussion Ms. Greenwood said I commend you on an excellent project. Guidelines are guidelines. I am really impressed with the creativity in which you gave respect to the guidelines but ventured out. The forms followed our guidelines. I don’t agree with staff. I would hate to see you water down this proposal. The connection is perfect for the two forms. This building belongs next to the resource. The amount of historic preservation is extraordinary and worth everything to the City of Aspen. It is a gift. The site plan and architecture create a park like setting that the neighborhood is lucky to have. The sensitivity in which you did the windows on the addition is beautiful and relates to the addition. The brick detail feels like the right residential for this building. I like the deck on top and think it will be a beautiful place to be. I feel Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 6 this is ready to move forward. I don’t agree with restudy. There couldn’t be better compatibility with the resource. I like that the two buildings are compatible and one is not forward and one is not back. It is really evident the historic building takes precedent on the site. I disagree with staff and feel you meet the guidelines. I have no issue with the skylight and think the natural light is important. I would like to see this move forward. Mr. Halferty said I echo Gretchen’s comments. I think it is really well thought out. You have all done an excellent job. This is the proper place to relocate the historic resource. I think it meets all the sections for streetscape. The fenestration versus wall for the new addition is complimentary and compatible for the resource. I think the link is well done. I have no problem with the roof deck. I think it does comply with section 4 for doors and windows. 5 and 6 is well presented for mass and scale. Section 7 for roof is very complimentary. The addition is very complimentary. It does not compete with the resource. Section 10 is well presented and does not compete with the resource. They are not asking for variances and are under the FAR. I could approve the project as is. Mr. Moyer said I think you have done an excellent job with visual compatibility. I think the use of the deck is a great idea. Messy vitality is great. I don’t have a problem with the sky light. Items 5, 6, and 7, I would like to see included in the motion dealt with at final. Jessica Garrow, community development, suggested removing subsections 1, 2, and 3 from section 1 of the resolution for the motion. Mr. Halferty moved to approve Resolution #2, Series of 2019; seconded by Mr. Moyer. Roll call vote. Moyer, yes; Halferty, yes; Greenwood, yes. Motion carried. Work Session - Citizen Suggestion for Historic Preservation Benefits Ms. Simon said we are planning to take forward code amendments that you saw in December. Council wants changes to the affordable housing waiver to maybe eliminate it and replace it with other waivers. If you were to add on 1,000 square feet more than you already have you would be receiving an affordable housing waiver of $50,000. We’re trying to replace that. We are thinking about relief in the permit fees. We don’t want to start waiving other department’s fees. We would rather come up with a waiver than have the benefit go away completely. Ms. Greenwood said good projects deserve to have a benefit. Ms. Simon said a citizen came before us with some suggestions and we included his letter in the packet. A few years ago there was a change to the zoning that on Main Street there couldn’t be a mixed use development. He is suggesting some new floor area waivers only to historic properties. We are not supportive. Most of the conversation we are having is to reduce square footage, not grant more allowances. He is looking for an exemption for a back porch. He is also looking for large area wells to not have a height or floor area penalty. Height is already dealt with. He is also suggesting that decks don’t count at all. Ms. Greenwood moved to extend the meeting to 7:15; seconded by Mr. Halferty. All in favor, motion carried. She said a rear porch not counted, no one would do that. On a small property four feet won’t count. Mr. Moyer said I’m in favor of it. Having a little bit of activity in an alley is a good thing. What are the negatives. Ms. Simon said it potentially exempts a significant amount of floor area and additional mass on the site. Mr. Halferty said in reality no one is going to give up that square footage. Ms. Greenwood said we already have the ability to grant a bonus for a rear deck without changing the code. Ms. Greenwood said for number two she likes the concept but once again they can use a bonus for it. Mr. Halferty said for number three you should be able to make it work. Ms. Greenwood said once again you can ask for bonus for it. At 7:15 p.m. Mr. Halferty moved to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Moyer. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk