Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20190410Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 1 At 4:30 p.m., Gretchen Greenwood called the regular meeting to order with Commission members Jeffrey Halferty, Scott Kendrick, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, and Kara Thompson. Also present were staff members Andrea Bryan, Jeannine Stickle, Amy Simon, Sarah Yoon, Mike Kraemer, and Kevin Reyes. Approval of Minutes No minutes were included in this packet. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. Commissioner Member Comments Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon if there has been any discussion on financial insurance fees between Community Development and City Council. Ms. Simon replied that the number is not specified in the code. Since back in the 1980’s it’s always been $30,000 for a primary structure and $15,000 for an accessory structure, but the Commission can change that if they want to. Mr. Moyer stated that he would prefer it if people were required to bond. Ms. Simon stated that the City has allowed people to provide the money in different forms. Because the money is relatively low, staff are often seeing a personal check that they hold. She stated that the only time they’ve ever drawn on that money is the 232 E Bleeker project where they demolished more of the building than they were approved for. The more complicated it is, the more hoops people are required to jump through. Staff have considered what they’re doing to be adequate up until now. Mr. Moyer stated that he would like the Commission to take the walking tour with the Aspen Historical Society. He also stated that the commissioners are forgetting that their mission is to preserve. He requested that they hold a work session and decide on stances on certain issues. Ms. Greenwood expressed concern that Mr. Moyer is wanting the Commission to come to a consensus before they see an application. Ms. Simon stated that the Commission is overdue for a retreat with Community Development. Mr. Halferty asked for an update on the Council meeting on Monday night. Ms. Simon stated that they had second reading on the Historic Preservation Benefits Amendments with Council. It got continued to May 13th because there are a couple of things that were discussed that Council wants more detail about. Staff went to Council expecting the growth management exemptions to go away and Council added the commercial. Staff needs write up language to take to Council. Council also wants staff to do the floor area bonus as a sliding scale the way floor area is. Staff expects that it will pass on May 13th, and it would go into effect a month after that. She noted that they often see a new rush of applicants before the new changes are in place. Conflicts of Interest None. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 2 Project Monitoring No issues Staff Comments Rio Grande Recycling Center Update Mike Kraemer introduced himself as a Senior Planner for the City. He stated that Community Development has been asked by the Environmental Health department to do a plug for the Rio Grande Recycle Center. He described the location of the recycle center and stated that, until now, Pitkin County Landfill tipping fees have been funding that recycle center but that is going to be eliminated in the Spring. The City wants to find out if they need to allocate funds to keep the recycle center open. He encouraged the commissioners to take the survey that is available online or on paper. Mr. Moyer asked about a comment that he read on the survey that curbside recycling might be less successful if the recycling center were closed. Mr. Kraemer explained that there are businesses and residences that don’t have space for curbside recycling on their property and they currently use the Rio Grande Recycling Center. There is a possibility that those properties might not make the transition to curbside recycling. Mr. Moyer asked if there was any discussion of moving the recycle center to a different area. Mr. Kraemer stated that there is a discussion about that, but no location has been determined. Ms. Greenwood asked what kind of outreach staff is doing on this survey. Mr. Kraemer explained that there are City staff present at the recycle center to talk about the survey. Also, there are notices in the newspaper and announcements on the radio and Grassroots. Mr. Halferty asked why Pitkin County is no longer funding the recycle center. Mr. Kraemer responded that Pitkin County recently passed an ordinance that requires trash haulers to offer curbside recycling in the County. The tipping fees that were being collected at the landfill that funded the recycle center are going to go away. Mr. Moyer asked if there is a masterplan that would determine what would replace the recycle center. Mr. Kraemer stated that he does not have knowledge on that topic. That would come out of any Council discussions that would go forward. Certificate of No Negative Effect Issued – 301 E Hopkins Ave Ms. Simon stated that there was a staff approval that mostly relates to the brick cottage on the corner at that location. The property has recently changed hands and the new owner came to the City saying that the brick planters have been a long-term leaking problem into the basement, which is the cooking school space below the property. There was a staff approval to remove the planters and a more mobile planter will be placed in certain locations around the building. They will install some flashing to cover the concrete foundation that will be exposed. There will also be some cleanup of the site including painting and repairs. She stated that she hopes the Commission will be satisfied at the outcome of that. Ms. Simon stated that there will soon be some activity around the Crystal Palace site, which is a project that this board has approved. There will be a significant amount of demolition of the existing structure Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 3 that will take place because most of what’s there now is not original, it’s from the 70’s. It will be a dramatic construction project and there will be interpretive signs put up on the fence, but there will likely be a lot of public discussion about the impacts of that project. Ms. Simon mentioned a change in the agenda. The hearing on 517 E Hopkins has been moved to be the last item on the agenda. 105 E. Hallam Street - Conceptional Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations, Continued from 2/27 Ms. Simon introduced the project. She stated that the property is a 3,000 square foot lot with a brick Victorian cottage on it. This cottage was originally a twin to the house next to it, but the west building was remodeled many years ago and they don’t share many common characteristics at this point. Ms. Simon stated that HPC reviewed a request previously and continued for re-study. The idea of the project is to pick up the brick cottage, excavate a new basement on the site, move the cottage five feet forward of where it is now, and build a new addition behind it. There is also a brick shed along the alley that straddles the property line between the alleyway and the one to the west. No changes are proposed for that building. Ms. Simon stated that one of the things that HPC discussed last time was the character of the addition being proposed to the house. The addition is 500 square feet under the maximum allowable. This project is subject to the new design guidelines which do carry certain restrictions. The applicant has done a redesign that is fairly minor in scope, but staff finds it to be successful. The main pitch on the addition will be steeper than was shown before and it matches the gable end. There is a secondary shed roof that hangs off that gable that has been lowered in pitch. It’s slid down and has less visibility from the front of the site. Staff does find those amendments appropriate, supports the forward relocation of the building, and thinks that it adequately still relates to the historic resources that are on the block. Staff is recommending conceptual approval, though think that the fireproofing issues, the green roof condition for the basement, and the maintaining of the existing relationship to grade need to be addressed. The applicant will need to provide the $30,000 in financial security. Ms. Simon reviewed the setback variations proposed in the application. Staff does support the variations. The last condition of this conceptual approval would be that the applicant apply for final within the year. Ms. Simon stated that the Commission had previously talked about how stormwater would be managed on the site. The applicant determined that Engineering will accept an offsite improvement, an upgrade to the stormwater that serves the whole neighborhood. There was also discussion about a sidewalk in front of the building. It has been determined that the cottonwood trees would not tolerate that. So that will be deferred until the cottonwood trees can removed and new street trees can be installed. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon if neighboring lots encroach into the front yard requirement. Ms. Simon responded that neither of those neighbors have been relocated or granted a variance. Ms. Greenwood asked what is being proposed regarding the stormwater. Ms. Simon stated that the proposal is to improve a failure at the corner of the block. Water collection could be improved, and some treatment would be built into the system. Engineering indicated that that’s not going to be an option every time, but this was a problematic location. Mr. Moyer asked when the twin house was remodeled. Ms. Simon responded that it was done in the 1980’s and she does not believe that there was HPC approval for it. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 4 Applicant Seth Hmielowski, introduced himself and Melanie Noonan as employees of ZGroup Architects, representing the client. He stated that their presentation will focus on the changes they made since the first round. Ms. Noonan showed photos of the house and two houses that sit adjacent. She stated that the applicants are looking to preserve the Victorian and move it forward on the site to align it with the adjacent property. She stated that this would help give it more prominence and create room for a one car garage. They are proposing to remove the non-historical addition at rear of the property. Ms. Noonan stated they made an adjustment to the window wells in response to the Commission’s concern at the previous meeting. She showed the location of the cottonwood trees and stated that the Parks department is recommending ten feet for the excavation line, though they are recommending finding out where the cottonwood roots are. The new plan shortened the connector between the house and the addition to ten feet. Ms. Noonan showed the proposed floor plans and stated that they are asking for a five-foot variance at the rear below grade and at the second floor. At the front of the property, they are looking for a five-foot variance just below grade. Ms. Noonan showed on the slide the previous east elevation compared to the revised plan. They removed the large shed dormer and changed the pitch of the gable. They also lowered the roof to keep it lower than the existing historic. They lowered the shed roof that comes off the side to minimize the heights of everything. She showed that the revised plan changes the pitch on the front elevation to match the existing and lowers the shed. On the backside, the revised plan lowers the plate height for the gable to minimize the height of the second floor. Ms. Noonan showed renderings of the proposed new location with the two-story addition on the backside. The shed is attached to the shed next door, which is the reason it will stay in its current location. The applicants will need variations for that location because it sits right on the property line on the west side and south. Mr. Hmielowski showed a picture of the existing stoop. He stated that the applicants want to keep it at the same elevation when it’s moved. He asked Ms. Simon if staff wants to see the front porch be at the door elevation. Ms. Simon stated staff wants to see the stone step onto the front door. They will work the details out more at final review, but that the step should probably be wood, not concrete. Ms. Noonan stated that there is a statement from Bailey House Movers in the meeting packet detailing how they would go about moving a brick house in order to address the Commission’s concerns from the previous meeting. Ms. Greenwood asked if the commissioners had any questions for the applicants. Mr. Moyer asked why moving the house up will bring it into prominence. He stated a belief that matching the neighboring houses would give it prominence. He asked why they should be taken out of the historical context that they are in now. Ms. Noonan replied that the sister house has been modified and no longer matches. Mr. Hmielowski stated that, by moving the house forward, it is making the lot feasible for development. They are working around the shed in the back that can’t be moved. Also, by moving it forward, it is coming into alignment with the yellow house on the left, and it will be more pronounced within the row. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 5 Mr. Halferty asked if the applicants have considered a dormer form to help break up the mass of the east elevation roof. Mr. Hmielowski stated that his understanding was that the dormer was a bit more obtrusive from the front and was adding more mass, which is why they removed it from the previous design. Ms. Thompson asked how set back the connector is from the west wall of the historic building. Ms. Noonan replied that it’s offset six inches. Mr. Hmielowski stated that they put it where the existing non-historic addition is, so by doing that they’re trying to maintain the brick. Ms. Thompson asked if materiality is final. Ms. Greenwood replied that it is. Ms. Simon stated that applicants need to make a final determination on the form fenestration materials guideline at this point. Ms. Thompson asked what the material is for the connector. Ms. Noonan replied that they were looking at some different options. They wanted something that’s a smaller scale that would be in line with the wood that’s on the existing. Public Comments Ms. Greenwood opened the meeting to public comment. Seeing none, she closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commission Discussion Ms. Greenwood read the variance requests from the packet. She asked if the shed is going to get any kind of remodel. Ms. Noonan replied no, but they will have to fireproof it. Ms. Greenwood read staff’s recommended conditions for approval from the packet. She stated that there were also supposed to be some conditions related to the engineering requirements for the water treatment. She asked the applicants if they have any information on that. Mr. Hmielowski replied that they got a new study the day before. They are doing some sharing with the City, taking care of their site drainage into the curb and gutter. They are upgrading that corner for the City. Ms. Greenwood opened the hearing to Commission discussion. Mr. Moyer stated that he is opposed to moving the house forward. He agrees with everything in the proposal except for that. He reiterated that he would like the Commission to have a work session to get re- focused on their mission to preserve the historic character of each house and lot. Mr. Halferty stated that the applicant has done a great job of understanding the feedback from their first meeting. He was satisfied by the applicants’ reasons for moving the house forward on the lot. He does not think the Commission should require the applicant to conform to the sister house that was modified without the Commission’s oversight. He stated that he is okay with approval with the conditions recommended by staff. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 6 Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees with what Mr. Halferty said. He stated that he is in favor of the applicants planting on top of the subgrade space in the front yard. He would also like to see something to break up the east elevation a little bit more. It is a much better proposal than it was originally. Ms. Greenwood stated that there is only so much room on the site. Ms. Thompson stated that she is on board with the massing. She is looking forward to seeing some more details about the project in final review. She would vote to approve it conceptually. Mr. Blaich passed on commenting, stating that he has laryngitis. Ms. Greenwood stated that she does not feel that this is a good project. The massing and roofline overwhelms the Victorian and she does not think that a whole lot was changed since their first proposal. She does not feel that this meets the guidelines in terms of matching the rooflines. It looks like a larger building than it is. The applicants have gone to the maximum height of the existing historic resource and they’ve continued that throughout the new addition. She doesn’t think additions should look larger in mass than the most important part of the historic building. It does not meet the Commission’s guidelines of trying to be in conformity with the historic resource. She does not have a problem with moving the building forward. For her, the problem is the massing. She is not in favor of granting variances for the front yard if they are basically starting a new project. This is setting a precedent. As a new project, it should be closer to meeting the guidelines. She stated that she will not be voting for this project to move forward. Mr. Halferty responded that the Commission is comparing a one-story historic resource with a two-story addition, and the height is still comparable. He stated that that is not easy to achieve. He also stated that he would like to see examples of projects that the Commission has approved where the addition is the same height or smaller than the historic resource. Ms. Greenwood responded that they are looking at this project specifically. Ms. Moyer stated that he agrees with Ms. Greenwood’s point about not granting variances for the project. He stated that he does not see why a variance for something underground would be necessary, except regarding what is planted on the ground on top. Ms. Greenwood stated that we do not want to go in the direction. She expressed concern about the amount of variances the Commission issues. Ms. Bryan stated that the applicants are representing variations, not variances. Ms. Simon stated that variances request demonstration of a hardship. Variations are within HPC’s purview to grant solely based on the conditions of the historic building. Ms. Greenwood stated that this does not change her opinion. She expressed concern that the house has one parking space but five bedrooms. She stated that she does not think that allowing for the maximum development potential is good historic planning. Mr. Halfterty stated that the proposal is for four bedrooms. Mr. Halferty motioned to approve 105 E Hallam with the conditions stated in staff’s memo. He stated that, when it comes time for the relocation, that the Commissioners can review the stabilization for the brick house as well as the porch detailing and its relationship to the grade and stormwater finalization. Ms. Thompson seconded. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 7 Ms. Greenwood stated that City Council is concerned about the massive roofs on the projects that HPC is approving. She stated that this project is an example of where they should not go. Commission vote. Resolution passed four to two with Ms. Greenwood and Mr. Moyer against. 302 E Hopkins Avenue – Minor Development Kevin Reyes introduced himself as a Planner with the City of Aspen. He introduced the project, stating that the site is located in the commercial core zone district, within the historic district, and includes two historic resources on site. Mr. Reyes stated that 302 E Hopkins was built as a miner’s cottage in 1883 and it’s one of the oldest remaining structures in town. It’s used for commercial and residential uses over time. It currently houses the Hillstone Restaurant Group’s White House Tavern restaurant. He stated that there was an accessory structure located on site at one time. Staff finds that the location of the historic shed is an important historic resource in this location. As part of the project for this site, the applicant is requesting to relocate some utility meters at the rear of the property between the historic shed and the rear of the non-historic addition of that building. The second request is to install synthetic grass in the front yard of that property. Mr. Reyes stated that the existing utility meters are located within the rear trash area for the property next door at 304 E Hopkins, which is the next item on the agenda. He stated that part of the development for 304 E Hopkins required them to reconfigure the trash area at the rear in order to meet the new standards for Environmental Health. In order to find a solution to that tight space back there, Hillstone Restaurant Group proposed combining the trash area for the units at 304 and 302 in order to meet those dimensional requirements. That led to some difficulties with regards to the placement with the utility meter, located within that trash area. When Environmental Health reviewed the proposed trash area, it was their understanding that the utility meters would be located within that trash area and they approved the proposed combined trash area with that understanding. After that was approved, the Hillstone Restaurant Group met with Black Hills Energy. There were some concerns raised regarding the accessibility to those meters. The second concern is the trash receptacles in that area knocking in to the utility meters. The applicant is requesting to move the utility meters out of the trash room and into a new location between that historic shed and the rear of the building. At this point, the applicant is proposing to have the meters set back five feet from the lot line but are open to moving it more than that if necessary. They are proposing to mount it on a stand that would not impact the historic shed. Mr. Reyes cited Historic Preservation Guideline Historic guideline 12.4, stating that they should minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. The owner should be able to redesign the interior of the building to accommodate a larger trash area and possibly relocate those meters within that trash area or locate it on the exterior of the building and create some sort of space where it would be out of the way for garbage trucks and other vehicles passing through. The next criterion is 1.31, which is to minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. They should be grouped discreetly and use screening and materials to complement the architecture. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. This pace is going to be very visible from the public right of way. The applicant proposed screening these meters, which would entail drilling into the bricks of that non-historic addition. The Building Department has also mentioned that they would require a roof overhang above the gas utility meters. In staff’s opinion, the screening and roof would contribute to impacting the historic integrity of this space. Mr. Reyes stated that Historic Preservation Design Guideline 8.1 states that, if an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its materials, roof form, windows, doors, and architectural details. As part of the placement of these utilities, in order for them to meet the building requirements and the requirements for Black Hills Energy, there would be some snowmelt infrastructure that would be required to be installed on top of the historic shed, which would include heat tape and show guards. Installing these Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 8 features would further degrade from the historic integrity of that space. Mr. Reyes stated that, in the meeting packet, staff reference a Land Use Code standard that was not met, which was related to the allowed projections in the setbacks. That standard is not applicable in that case and staff request that that be removed from the record. Mr. Reyes stated that the second request is related to the synthetic grass located in the front yard. He stated that, in 2015, the property owner installed the synthetic grass onsite without approval from HPC, as they were not aware that that was a requirement. The natural grass was experiencing some brown spots because of pets and humans walking on it. Given that HPC is reviewing the utility meters, staff felt this would be an appropriate time to address this issue. The first criterion is Historic Preservation Guideline 1.24, which is to preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. They feel that the historic landscape and overall design intent was never considered as part of the installation of this grass. Mr. Reyes stated that the next design criterion is 1.25, which states that new development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. He showed a photo of the natural grass that existed before the synthetic grass was installed. Mr. Reyes stated that staff would be open to fencing along the walkway to keep people and pets off of the grass, should the owners be interested in that. Mr. Reyes stated that the next guideline, 1.12, states that, in the front of the property, new planting should be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. Commercial Design Guideline 1.3 states that landscape elements, both hardscape and softscape, should complement the surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the building. This applies to landscape located both onsite and in the public right of way. High quality and durable materials should be used. Staff finds that the landscape does not complement the surrounding context because it does not accurately respond to the historic character of the building. Mr. Rayes stated that staff recommend that HPC deny the request for permanent installation of the synthetic grass and recommends HPC deny the relocation of the utility meters and that the applicant work with the appropriate entities including Black Hills, the Building Department, and Environmental Health to keep the meters either within the trash area or somewhere along the rear wall in the alley in order to minimize the impact next to the historic shed. Mr. Rayes asked if there are any questions for staff. Ms. Greenwood asked Mr. Rayes if the patio heaters cause any problems. Ms. Simon stated that those heaters are moveable objects and Community Development does not get into much regulation with those. Ms. Greenwood asked what the distance is between the historic resource and the brick building. Mr. Lintz replied that it’s 24 inches. Applicant Sara Adams introduced herself as the representative from Bendon Adams and introduced Mathias Lintz and Bryce Johnston from Hillstone Group. She stated that they have been working closely with the City and Black Hills Energy on this project. She stated that the projects at 302 and 304 E Hopkins are intrinsically linked. She stated that the project at 302 E Hopkins is located on the corner of Hopkins and Monarch and is the location of White House tavern. She stated that they have two requests. Ms. Adams stated that the first request is related to the turf. The grass is located at the front of the building was installed in 2015. When it was installed, the Hillstone Group did not realize that they needed an approval. There have not been any complaints. Artificial grass is better than natural grass that looks really bad. Even putting a fence along the walkway, will still have a border of brown. The applicants understand the importance of soft scape in this location. She stated that she does not think it would be setting a precedent for these two small areas to maintain the grass that they’ve already installed. It meets engineering Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 9 drainage requirements. Ms. Adams stated that the second request is related to the gas meters. Right now, the gas meter for 302 is located on 304’s property. The applicants worked closely with Environmental Health on 304 to address trash concerns. The City’s requirement for a 300 square foot trash facility was hard to meet on a 3,000 square foot lot. They saw an opportunity to combine the trash at 304 with the trash at 302. They were able to combine the trash for those two spaces, but that means that the wall needs to come out and the gas meters need to be relocated. Ms. Adams stated that it was untrue what Mr. Reyes stated regarding the applicants misrepresenting that utility meters were located in the trash area. She stated that there is an electrical panel located in the trash area, the gas meters are proposed in a different location. Ms. Adams showed renderings of the proposed alley renovation on the slide. She showed a rendering of the roof plan showing the location of the gas meters. She stated that it’s seven and a half feet back from the property line that’s proposed, ensuring that it’s not in front of the windows, which is an improvement from the current condition. Ms. Adams stated that the Energy Department uses Black Hills’s energy guidelines to help them figure out where gas meters can go. The applicants provided a letter from Black Hills and the Building Department supporting this location. Those were provided in the packet supplement that was emailed to the Commission yesterday. Ms. Adams showed a rendering of the shed on a slide. She stated that no part of the shed has a physical change. There is heat tape and snow guards proposed, which is typical throughout town and does not significantly impact the characteristics of the shed. Ms. Adams covered the design guidelines that Mr. Reyes mentioned in his memo. She stated that, regarding 10.30, gas meters aren’t mechanical equipment and so the applicants believe that is not applicable. The applicants believe that 10.31 is met as the proposal is to group the gas meters and keeping them discreetly located at seven and a half feet back from the property line with screening. She addressed guideline 8.1, saying that the applicants believe that it’s met. The applicants also believe that 12.4 is met as the gas meters are not mechanical equipment but a utility connection. She stated that the applicants believe that this is the best solution to meet the City’s requirements. She asked the commissioners if they have any questions. Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Adams if there is a code regarding clearance. Ms. Adams stated that Black Hills is supporting this location and believe that the clearance is adequate. Mr. Halferty asked where the gas line would go. Ms. Adams stated that the applicants are happy to work with the monitor when it’s settled where the gas line will go and stated that it can’t go underground. She stated that there are ways to do it that don’t impact the shed. Mr. Lintz stated that it will not be seen because there is a gate in front of the gas meters that will not touch the White House Tavern or the shed. Mr. Halferty asked if staff has any concern about damage to the gas line leading to fire danger. Mr. Adams responded that the applicants are working closely with the Building Department and Black Hills Energy to figure out how to make it work and she is certain that they will address these safety concerns. Mr. Lintz stated that the gas line could run in the basement as well. The Building Department was not concerned that it could not be figured out. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 10 Mr. Moyer asked how the applicants are planning to get past the gas line to the back of the structure to maintain the historic structure. Mr. Lintz stated that it could be hinged. It’s a 24 x 24 in roof and there are ways to design it to be easily removeable. Ms. Greenwood asked why the gas line can’t go in the alley in an indentation in the building. Ms. Adams stated that that would cut into the trash area. The applicants wanted to stick with the sizes agreed on with Environmental Health. Ms. Greenwood opened the public comment. Seeing none, Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment. Discussion Ms. Greenwood stated that the applicants have the opportunity to find a solution for the gas line that is not going to be in a hole. She stated that they are completely blocking off the shed and she is not in favor of seeing that. She thinks that putting the gas line in the alley in a brick indentation would be preferable. She stated that she would like the applicants to figure out a better solution and bring it back. She stated that she is not in favor of seeing any astroturf in downtown Aspen. Mr. Halferty stated that he is in agreement with staff’s comments. He agrees with Ms. Greenwood’s idea for the gas line to run through the alley in an indentation. He stated that he is concerned for the liability if it were to be placed in the current proposed location. He stated that he is also not in favor of the synthetic grass. Mr. Blaich stated that the previous approval of astroturf was for a different situation. He stated that he agrees with the staff on the turf. He prefers the solution with natural grass and a small fence. Ms. Thompson stated that she has concerns about the utility person causing damage to the historic resource with the current proposal. Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees with staff on both counts. He prefers natural plantings. He stated that, placing the gas between the two buildings cause more problems than it solves and detracts from the historic resource. Mr. Moyer stated that he is also in agreement with staff’s recommendations. He stated that there is sufficient space sufficient space to put the meter in an indentation in the wall, as Ms. Greenwood suggested. Ms. Greenwood stated that no one in the board is in agreement. She asked if the Commission should make a motion to deny or continue the hearing. Ms. Adams asked what the process would be to come back with a proposal for a utility on the 304 property that also serves 302 if the proposal is denied. Ms. Simon stated that the first recommendation in the resolution of approval for 304 is acknowledging that staff and the applicants need to collaborate on a utility plan. Ms. Adams asked if it then has to be located on the 304 property. Ms. Simon replied that, in the 304 decision, they could welcome the gas meter to be on 304 or 302 if the applicant presented a design that was acceptable through project monitor. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 11 Ms. Greenwood stated that the applicants should discuss the historic limitations with Environmental Health to see if staff will help with that. Mr. Moyer voted to deny the resolution, number to be assigned. He stated that the future gas meter can be decided between staff and monitor, as long as it’s not in the alcove. Mr. Kendrick seconded. Mr. Halfterty asked what direction to give for the landscaping. Ms. Simon stated that there should be agreed upon timeframe for grass to go in or alternative plan that staff and monitor reviews. Ms. Adams stated that there are timelines in the landuse code for when landscape needs to be installed. They can follow that. The commissioners voted. All commissioners voted to deny. 304 E Hopkins Avenue – Minor Development Ms. Simon introduced the project at 304 E Hopkins Avenue, the adjacent property to the one discussed in the previous hearing. She stated that this is final review of the proposed new building to replace the existing 1980’s era structure on the site. She stated that there were three hearings at conceptual and some really complex discussions about some conflicting code requirements, pedestrian amenities, setback at the front of the property, whether or not there should be affordable housing on the site, which was addressed through credits. They talked about the second-tier space which is a separate commercial space that needs to be provided in the base basement of this structure. They also talked about trash storage. The architecture of the proposed building was developed very far through that process. She stated that, what the applicants will show tonight is almost identical to what was shown at conceptual. She stated that the Commission is being asked to approve final major development and final commercial design review. She stated that the packet includes the applicable design guidelines and the staff response. There are relatively few guidelines pertinent at this level of review, but staff does want to make sure that the material selection is appropriate. Staff had very few conditions of approval other than acknowledging that there may be some redesign at the back of the property to deal with utility meters, as discussed previously. The applicant will have the standard three years of vested rights to build their project. Staff finds that this complies with all the guidelines as the applicant has suggested in their proposal and staff supports the project as designed with no revisions. Applicant Ms. Adams stated that last week they extinguished the housing credits with the City, so their affordable housing mitigation is complete. She reiterated that this is very similar to what the Commission saw at Conceptual. She showed renderings of the proposal on the slides, stating that it is very similar to what the Commission saw at conceptual. She stated that the requirement for second-tier is 1,588.5 square feet, 50% of what is there right now. They are providing more than that at 1,854 square feet, but want to reserve the right to reduce to 1,588.5 square feet. Ms. Adams passed around samples of the primary materials proposed. They included brick, walnut for the front door, and concrete for the caps, paraphet, and header over the windows. The applicants provided a pant sample for the windows. In the packet are examples for the accent materials and lighting. Ms. Greenwood asked what material the planters are made out of. Ms. Adams stated that some of the planters are brick and others are wood. Ms. Adams stated that they are excited about this infill project. She thanked the commissioners for their hard work through conceptual. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 12 Ms. Greenwood asked what materials will be used on the sides of the building. Mr. Lintz stated that they’re doing structural brick all along the sides and the alley is brick as well. Ms. Greenwood opened the public comment. Seeing none, Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment. Discussion Ms. Greenwood confirmed with staff that they do not have any conditions of approval. Ms. Simon stated that there is just the first condition that, if additional utility meters not represented in this approved design must be accommodated on site, the applicant shall submit a proposal for review by staff and monitor. Ms. Thompson stated that she saw linear lighting proposed and she is aware that that is not allowed. Ms. Simon stated that she missed that, but it is not allowed. Mr. Halferty stated that this is a great project and has come a long way. He stated that the parapet wall is a clever way to shield some of the solar panels and is also echoes historic character of town. Mr. Blaich stated that this is a great example of working together. He likes the project. Ms. Thompson and Mr. Kendrick stated that they like the project. Ms. Greenwood stated that she likes the project and appreciates the improvements. Mr. Blaich motioned to approve the resolution to approve the project. Mr. Kendrick seconded. All commissioners voted to approve the project. Mr. Kendrick agreed to be monitor for the project. Mr. Halferty left the meeting at 6:46 pm. 517 E Hyman Ave – Minor Development Ms. Yoon introduced the project at 517 E Hyman. She stated that it’s located in the commercial core historic district. It is currently operated as a restaurant. The applicant is requesting approval of minor development in order to install speakers and heaters in front of the façade of the historic landmark. The property was designated as an Aspen modern landmark in 2012 and is an example of the rustic style architecture. The unpainted rough exterior finish with little to no ornamentation and decoration is considered a character-defining feature. To maintain the character, staff and monitor have approved all changes related to the front façade. The building does encroach into the public right of way and there is an encroachment license for the property. It’s in its historic placement, so that has been approved. Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant is seeking approval to attach two speakers at the entrance to this restaurant, which are already in place without approvals. The applicant pointed out that other speakers are appearing around the commercial core, which are done without approvals. Staff does plan to follow up with the historic properties that have these speakers in place. Ms. Yoon stated that the two speakers proposed for this property are projecting and are covered. The applicants have done their best to match the wood quality. In terms of the way they are placed and the type of speakers used, they do not meet the guidelines. They are convering historically restored fabric on the front facade. Staff is not opposed to the installation of speakers, but they have to meet the guidelines in terms of minimal visual impact and also meet the noise ordinance. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 13 Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant is also proposing three outdoor heaters to be mounted on the front façade of the building to serve the outdoor seating. The heaters would be permanently affixed to the building and used only when needed and approved. Staff’s primary concern is related to the visual impact of covering the restored exterior materiality. It also does create visual clutter and, in order to preserve the historic character that emphasizes a lack of ornamentation, staff is not thrilled with this addition to the front façade. As referenced in the staff findings and the review criteria, this location also does not meet the commercial design guidelines that stipulates any type of service or utility connection’s equipment be placed in a discreet location. In summary, staff does recommend that HPC approve the installation of the speakers but not the heaters. In terms of the speakers, staff have conditions written in the memo related to restudying the type of speakers that are to be in the front. Maybe there is a recessed option that would minimize visual impact, which could be reviewed by staff and monitor. In terms of the decibel readings for the speakers, they would have to follow Environmental Health requirements. In terms of the heaters, staff doesn’t find that there is an appropriate location on the front façade to hide or conceal the heaters and so staff asks that HPC deny the request for the heaters on the front facade. Ms. Greenwood asked if the chairs and tables are in the public right of way and if that’s allowed. Ms. Yoon stated that they are in the public right of way and that is allowed with their encroachment license. Mr. Moyer asked if the applicants could have removeable heaters for their outdoor seating. Ms. Yoon stated that they technically could as it’s a removeable feature so staff would not have purview over that. The applicant does indicate in their application that they have explored that option. Mr. McGuire stated that the fixed heaters would be a better option than having removable heaters. Ms. Greenwood stated that they are obtrusive. Applicant Dave Rabbeck introduced himself as the representative of Larry McGuire, who he introduced as the owner of Clark’s restaurant and the property. Mr. Rabbeck stated that the encroachment license is done through the Clerk’s office every season. He stated that this building has been modified from its original over the years. He showed historical pictures of the restaurant space over the years. He stated that the applicants would like to maintain the historic resource and also allow it to evolve for the needs of the operator and the vitality of business. Mr. Rabbeck stated that the applicants have tried to place the speakers and the heaters in locations that are visually as least impactful as possible. The heaters mount to the side of the building by brackets so there won’t be any covering of material. The applicants chose to enclose the speakers with wood as opposed to exposing the plastic speakers behind them. The speakers cannot be recessed into the walls. Recessing them into the ceiling of the entry shed is not very viable either. Therefore, the applicants’ approach was to place the speakers in the vestibule and use the wood shrouds, which cover a minimal amount of wood siding on a predominantly wood-sided building. The speakers will bring vitality to the street and they help the business have presence in an otherwise quiet block. The applicants feel the wood shrouds are the best approach to blend them in with the wood building. He stated that there are other examples on other historic buildings. Mr. Rabbeck stated that, regarding the heaters, the applicants are planning on putting in three. They have chosen to mount them to the building because of site constraints. Currently, they are able to put in four tables, maintaining the six foot path from the curb to the tables. If they were to go with a pedestal mount or a floor mounted umbrella type heater, they would eliminate outdoor seating. He stated that they don’t have a large patio area and can’t take advantage of the pedestrian mall. He showed a photo on the slide of the same heaters installed at a different location and showed that there will be the ability to see behind the heaters. It projects a very short distance off the wall and doesn’t really become an obtrusive element. In context, it tends to be just another element that emphasizes the horizontality of this one-story building. The applicants feel that both the heaters and speakers will combine and not detract from the historical resource. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 14 Mr. Moyer asked the applicants why they put such an ugly box around the speakers. Mr. McGuire stated that the applicants feel that the boxes are attractive and match the façade. Mr. Moyer stated that they do not match. He asked if there are pole heaters that are narrower than an umbrella type. Mr. Rabbeck stated that it’s the base of the heaters that take up the most space. Ms. Greenwood asked about the dimensions for the proposed heaters. Mr. Representative stated that they are 56 inches long with an eight and a half inch face. Ms. Greenwood asked if the applicants considered altering the fascia detail to accommodate the heaters. Mr. Rabbeck stated that part of the problem is that they need to maintain a certain distance from combustible materials. If it was tucked into a fascia or an eve, they still have to maintain that distance. The proposed heaters are the smallest footprint they could find with the least-limiting restriction. Ms. Greenwood asked if the applicants considered landscape speakers for exterior. Mr. Rabbeck stated that they had not considered that. They can try to look at that, but they are concerned about wiring. Ms. Greenwood opened the public comment. Seeing none, Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment. Discussion Mr. Kendrick stated that, if the Commission is in the business of protecting historic buildings, they should not approve putting more holes in the façade. He thinks that the speaker boxes present now are too big and obtrusive. The proposed heaters change the look of the face of the building. Ms. Thompson stated that she thinks the speakers are oddly placed and not aesthetically pleasing. They can be done tastefully, but right now they’re not in line with the architecture or any of the context of the façade. Mr. Moyer stated that he is not opposed to having the speakers. Holes can be filled. Small speakers can suffice. They can be painted to disappear. The Commission needs to spend some time to deal with the speakers all over town. Ms. Greenwood stated that the Commission is dealing with it right now. Mr. Moyer stated that they can have a speaker on a stand. Ms. Greenwood stated that the Commission needs to eliminate the erosion of the historic fabric downtown. Ms. Simon stated that, since it’s past 7:00, the Commission needs to formally extend the meeting. Mr. Moyer motioned to extend the meeting. Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Ms. Greenwood stated that staff’s recommendations are to re-study the speakers and to have absolutely no heaters. What the Commission is up against is the potential of having what they saw in the White House proposal earlier in the meeting, having moveable objects. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 15 Ms. Simon stated that there is a specific extent of the encroachment that’s been approved, so they have to stay within that footprint. Mr. Moyer stated that this can ultimately be handled with staff and monitor. Ms. Greenwood stated that the applicants would need to talk to an AV person to see what their options are. They should pursue a landscape AV option instead of attached to a building. Mr. Moyer stated that, regarding the heaters, they need to come up with other possibilities. Ms. Greenwood stated that it’s difficult to add anything to a historic façade. She does not see a solution, unless the applicants can come up with a detail that would be acceptable. Mr. McGuire stated that that would be just changing the façade more than just mounting a heater on to it. Putting four mushroom heaters out there is going to create more visual clutter. Ms. Greenwood stated that it’s a dilemma, but it’s very obtrusive to a historic façade. Ms. Simon asked if heated seats would be an option. She asked if there would be any more technology that hadn’t been talked about. Mr. McGuire asked if they can put the heaters on in the winter and take them down in the summer. Ms. Greenwood stated that that’s not in their guidelines. She stated that she hopes they take the speakers down because they are completely not allowed and they are ugly. She stated that she would like the restaurant have heat outdoors and have speakers that are completely hidden. She does not see a solution to the heat. Mr. Moyer stated that there are solutions that would work with a long linear piece coming out over the table. Mr. Rebbeck stated that he has looked at all the heaters on the market and the heating they are proposing is the most attractive one. They can put out mushroom heaters to heat the tables. Another potential solution would be taking these heaters and putting them on a steel trellis. It’s another way of getting there since it’s a moveable piece and the Commission won’t have purview over it. It would be less attractive. Ms. Greenwood stated that it’s difficult to create a custom detail around a piece of equipment. She stated that both the Applicant and the Commission has a dilemma, but the Commission does not want to have people putting objects on historic facades of buildings. It detracts from the look. Mr. Blaich stated that he does want to see heat there. Mr. Kendrick stated that these are the constraints of that building and they have always been there. Mr. Moyer stated that a manufacturer would may be willing to work with them to design something. Ms. Greenwood stated that the Commission might just need to live with freestanding heaters there. Ms. Simon stated that a moveable object might be something that doesn’t need approval, but if it has any kind of a gas line connection, it would need staff approval. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2019 16 Mr. Blaich stated that the speaker can be easily solved. Rather than the covered speaker they have now, he would rather see a speaker that’s not covered, but is as small as possible. Ms. Greenwood stated that they can work with staff and monitor on the speakers. Regarding the heaters, the applicants are going to have to come up with another solution. They can’t go on the façade of the building. She would be happy to be the monitor on the project. Ms. Thompson stated that she moved to approve with conditions of developing the heater with staff and monitor. Mr. Moyer seconded. All voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Kendrick moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:24 p.m. Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager