Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20190724 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2019 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:29 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Kara Thompson, Sheri Sanzone, Richard Lai. Absent were Nora Berko, Jeffrey Halferty and Scott Kendrick. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner MINUTES: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the minutes of June 26th, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood said that Mr. Lai handed out something he would like to share with the board as a citizen of Aspen. Mr. Lai said this has nothing to do with this commission. He said he appeared before city council last night to make a comment on their deliberations regarding office space. He wanted to inform his colleagues on what transpired the previous night. Mr. Blaich said the latest edition of the Aspen Sojourner has an article about building community and is all about Hunt’s projects. He saw this yesterday and said he would give a copy to Ms. Simon to distribute to the board. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon said she went to Korea and attended a 3D documentation class while there, which she will do a presentation on at some point. Ms. Simon said at the end of the agenda, there are code amendments for tonight, but we can wait until there are more board members if they wish to hold off on the discussion. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: There was one for a replacement of all 3rd floor windows on the Elks building and have been upgraded to energy efficient windows and will be installed soon. CALL UPS: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said all is in order. NEW BUSINESS: 1020 E. Cooper Amy Simon Ms. Simon first wanted to acknowledge some things that were not conveyed in the memo. She said there are 300 historically landmarked properties in town, of which, 250 of those are Victorians and half of those are miners’ cottages like this one. This one has to be one of the most altered of the 125. This property sat on the market for a long time and is not the easiest project to take on. We are all here as a team to preserve Aspen’s history. There are staff and neighbor concerns, but she does want to emphasize the end goal for everyone. The historic resource appears to be an L shaped cross gabled cottage that has a porch which has long been enclosed with a lean-to addition on the back. There are 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2019 two sheds along the alley. The applicant would like to demolish the two sheds and staff supports this as they are not Victorian era. This part of town was considered the boonies, so the Sanborn maps did not reach that location. We have looked at other maps and photographs and have determined that the sheds are not Victorian era and are not historic. We don’t know when they were built and do not show up in any photographs throughout the mid 1920’s. They do show up in an aerial photo from the 1970’s. The second part of the project is for an onsite relocation. The applicant hopes to remove a portion of the non-historic lean-to at the back of the miners’ cottage, pick up the remaining structure and move it forward seven feet and westward two feet to more or less center it on the lot. They will put it on a new basement and put on a new addition. Staff supports the relocation request and said it is important to give as much room as possible for the addition and distance it somewhat from the resource. We don’t feel that there is anything being lost by moving the building forward. We are struggling with the nature of the restoration and addition to the historic building. We have raised some questions about what is historic and what isn’t and particularly a proposed change to the roof pitch. The applicant will present some photographs and we are not convinced about the accuracy of the way they want to reframe this part of the house. This is the main goal obviously. All of the historic windows are gone, and the front porch is enclosed. We want to expose the framing and learn, and in this case, it’s hard to make assessments about what is right and wrong. Regarding the proposed addition, we are concerned that it doesn’t meet most of the design guidelines. The resource that is being preserved is probably only about 500 square feet. The addition being proposed is about three times the size of the resource. They are also concerned about the connector transition between the new and the old. Staff doesn’t feel that the relationship between the new addition and the resource is being achieved. Ms. Simon said they have reached out to other city departments to try to smooth out this project early on before submitting for permit. The neighbors are concerned with tree removals. There are two spruce trees in decline, which will be removed, but one of them is still being discussed. They are recommending continuation and have some dates available. Ms. Greenwood asked where the 500 square foot number came from and Ms. Simon said that is an estimation, but they have requested more detail from the applicant. Ms. Thompson asked about the floor area penalty and Ms. Simon said they don’t want to perpetuate single family homes, so if you are demolishing over 40% and trying to reestablish, you take a 20% penalty. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Teraissa McGovern and Jamie Brewster of Brewster McCleod. Ms. Brewster said the owners are also in attendance, Tracy and David. She thanked the board for the HPC award on the Sardy House and for their time. She said this is a very unique building and recapped the history. She said they want to restore the front porch back to the original intent, replace the windows with double hung, remove the roof over framing and expose original roof line, remove non- historic addition of shed roof on the back of the property and remove the sheds as well as look at the addition of the rear of the house. She showed the various elevations on screen. The fence is not on the property line, but it’s inset about a foot inside the property line. They want to relocate the historic resource to comply with today’s codes. On the east side, they want to move it over 2.5 feet to make sure it meets 5-foot requirement. They want to renovate the historic resource and renovate the 1960’s addition as well as add an addition to the rear of the property. The square footage that would be reduced is 557 square feet. She continued to show the plans on screen and walk through each. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2019 Ms. Brewster addressed all of the staff findings by each section of the guidelines and explained why she feels they do meet each one. She said they are not asking for any variances on this project, but staff has said that the floor area bonus would be a variance, but we do not see it as such. They feel they are compliant with five out of the 8 exceptions in order for HPC to approve the addition. Mr. Moyer asked if they remove the 1960 addition completely, how it adversely affects the project in regard to square footage. Ms. Brewster said it reduces the square footage that they can build to by 550 square feet. We wouldn’t be able to build the property we are asking for. Mr. Moyer asked if the shingles on the house are asbestos and Ms. Brewster said there are a lot of asbestos issues with the property and are starting the abatement program. Ms. Greenwood asked if they want to retain their TDR. Ms. Brewster said they are designing to their current allowable square footage and floor area. They are looking for a 500 square foot bonus saying they’ve done a good job with restoration and will be rewarded for that. Mr. Moyer said he sees the 60’s as being a boondoggle. He asked if there is an opportunity for them to be creative to work around that so it can go away, and the connector be more to the boards liking. Ms. Simon said the issue with not being able to demolish more than 40 percent, without a penalty, is black and white. This is a calculation of surface that might be removed. She doesn’t know how tight they are on it or how much of the addition they could remove before they would have a problem. Ms. Thompson asked if this is under the current guidelines and Ms. Simon said yes, it is under the new guidelines, but they applied before the benefits were changed. Ms. Sanzone asked about the mechanical aspect and where they imagine all of the pipes on the roof. Ms. Brewster said they are looking at having all of the pipes on the addition versus the historic entity. There will be a mechanical rooftop to be enclosed on all four sides so not to be disruptive to neighbors. Ms. Sanzone clarified that the fence is not historic, and Ms. Brewster said no. Ms. Sanzone asked about their plan to restore the miner’s cottage and Ms. Brewster said they aren’t trying to replicate, but just preserve the forms. Ms. Sanzone asked about the storm water plan and if they considered drywells and Ms. Brewster said they have started discussions with engineering and currently believe storm water is a better resolution than doing the drywell. Ms. Thompson asked how close they are on the demo percentage and Ms. Brewster said very close. We are saying we’re not reframing the roof, but only taking materials off one side and recreating the other side because that is part of the demo calcs. Ms. Greenwood asked if the front porch is part of this as well and Ms. Brewster said yes. Mr. Lai said he was confused about them requesting a bonus and also asking for TDR and asked for an explanation and Ms. Brewster said they are looking at selling some square footage as well. She said they are not necessarily going to use the 500 square feet on the property but may just want to use as a TDR. Mr. Lai said he was still confused about the TDR and Ms. Simon explained it to him. PUBLIC COMMENT: Patrick Rawley of Stan Clauson Associates on behalf of Buck Carlton who is a neighbor at 1012 E. Cooper. He said he wants to seek collaboration because it is a very difficult project. He said everyone would like to see improvements to the existing conditions, however, they can improve upon the presented design. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2019 He also provided an email for the record. The main issue is the massing and size. The addition is way too big for the historic resource and makes the resource the secondary feature of the site. Regarding section 10.4, they need to take into account both levels. The massing of the addition seems out of scale. Section 10.8 should be reconsidered because this could be much more compatible. They need to look at the alley a little more closely regarding the sheds because they are encroaching into the alleyway. Whether they are historic or not, the nature of the sheds speaks to historic relevance and that should be considered. An adaptive reuse as a parking area that works with the separation with the alley to the main addition, could be successful. They need more dimensional details which people need to know. The renderings presented today are helpful, but 3D models would be preferred. He also said the neighbors have not been reached out to for discussion and would like to be included to take a look at the proposal. This project needs to be refurbished and restored, but in a much more sensitive manner. This neighbor is directly to the west in the Victorian multi family. Baron Concourse at 1024 E Cooper directly to the east. Mr. Concourse welcomed the new neighbors and said he is excited about the project. There is so much interest because there are 12-15 families and home owners affected by what happens here. Our home is our number one asset, so we are all aware of the historic preservation guidelines and don’t want the value of our homes affected moving forward. He said he is in unit #10, the balcony on the east side. They will be impacted regarding sunlight coming into the master bedroom or whatever it is, he would like everyone to take into consideration the gravity of the decision being made. Steve at 1012 E. Cooper. He welcomed the new neighbors and said one of their concerns is that their condo is a lot lower than the property at 1020. For the two people on the side of the building, it’s a vision blocker. He said this is really about being cognizant of the neighbors and trying to work with the neighbors. Kristy Genley at 1024 E. Cooper. She said she wants to see the new neighbors do the best thing and she agrees with the other commenters about being cognizant of their building and the light. She’s in unit #8 and with a structure so big, it blocks all the light. She asked them to consider their views. Ms. Simon said we do have three letters that arrived today and will be entered into the record. She believes all authors are here at the meeting. Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment. Ms. Brewster thanked all commenters and said they have not reached out to the neighbors yet because they wanted to see HPC first. We’re glad you’re here to be a part of the process. Regarding mass and scale, it is in line with the city regulations of height and scale and are trying to match the roof forms. The clients do not want a flat roof and do not like modern homes. We are looking at reusing the sheds, but they would have to reconstruct, and it would be detrimental and block access to the alley. We want to make sure we have a garage to access off the alley. We are happy to present dimensions as they are needed and were not requested in the HPC packet. In regard to elevation of the fence, it is a 6-foot fence and that is what the code allows. We do know there is a huge change in elevation, that fence helps us maintain the stormwater management because they will grade into the back yard. Ms. Sanzone asked if there are other examples of this same type of project and Ms. Simon said she believes the Victorian to the west, triggered demo because they removed non-historic aspects of the 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2019 building. This is really case by case and hasn’t come up that often. Mr. Moyer and Ms. Greenwood said they are not happy with the connector and how the building is exposed. Ms. Greenwood said there are creative ways to rework that. She said it very clearly doesn’t meet the guideline, so that is one issue. She said they are headed down a wrong path regarding the mass and scale. She noticed that the buildings on either side have articulation of architectural elements both in windows and fenestrations. The addition they are proposing is a big box and inappropriate for that property. She is sensitive to the neighbors on either side especially the ones on the east. The city doesn’t regulate scale but is really for an architect to design a building that isn’t just a box. Ms. Thompson agreed and said the only thing the Victorian has left is it’s massing because all the detail has been taken away from it, so she has a really hard time with the linking element as well. She understands the 40 percent, but you lose the form of the Victorian. Ms. Greenwood said she doesn’t feel this resource is being restored at all, but just getting windows that aren’t appropriate for a miners’ cabin. Mr. Blaich said this might come as a surprise to Ms. Greenwood, but he agrees with all of her points. He said she hit the nail on the head. He said section 10.4 was a major point for him. He said it’s a very difficult property. He said the design they’ve done must be rethought. What the owners are asking for is reasonable, but it creates bigger problems from a design point of view. He said he wouldn’t favor an enclosed garage at all. It’s really a design problem, but he is not going to tell them how to design it and they can take it from there. Ms. Thompson said she supports the relocation and thinks it’s a big improvement and likes that aspect and helps bring the Victorian to a bigger presence on the street. Ms. Greenwood agreed that she supports moving it forward as well. Mr. Lai said he has always been a proponent of buildings that are not so large in scale. However, looking at page 100, the property is flanked by two very large buildings. The site visit concerned him because he saw a cute little Victorian sandwiched between two very large buildings, especially the one on the east side. It makes no attempt to follow the Victorian form. He believes that most people who commented, live on the east side and worries that maybe they’re complaining about a building that is trying to mimic the Victorian form, and yet, your building itself is a big shoebox. He worries about this kind of criticism from people who have a shoebox as a building, saying that the smaller building isn’t to their liking. He said he knows he’s treading on a lot of toes here, but he doesn’t know what the solution is. Ms. Greenwood said if you look at the west elevation, it appears to be the same as the boxy condo building. Mr. Lai said he doesn’t have an answer for this, but just worries about the pot calling the kettle black and said it bothers him. Ms. Greenwood said she doesn’t feel the resource is the star player on the site and said the Victorian doesn’t get to respond back in a huge way because the building on the east is huge too. Mr. Blaich agreed and said he feels the west elevation is misleading because you’re looking at it as though there is nothing next to it. The solution lies in treating the original resource somewhat separately. Ms. Sanzone said that additional study is warranted and thanked them for the presentation and detail. They need additional time to study because it’s just not coming together. The most important aspect 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2019 for her, is 10.4 and the ability to go above 100 percent for the new addition. The connector is not providing the articulation that the board is looking for. They are just not convinced yet that we can see this amount of square footage on the site without the additional design refinement. Ms. Greenwood summarized that a reduction in floor area is important and that 10.9 is also an important guideline to meet all aspects. The connector needs to be smaller. She thinks they would really enhance the design if there was a breakdown in scale. She thinks the garage and the five-foot setback is great. She said they should approach this from a pure restoration standpoint. She said the bonuses are determined on whether the restoration is good, bad or indifferent and she said it’s indifferent at this point. Ms. Thompson commented on the linking element and said to consider more gracefully how it meets the roof of the historic structure. It appears to die into the historic roof, and she doesn’t think that is appropriate. Ms. Greenwood asked everyone if they were on board with the continuance vote and everyone agreed. She said they are trying to give them some direction. Ms. Sanzone said there are a lot of clarifications needed and Ms. Greenwood said Ms. Simon can probably give them more direction on how to handle the redesign. Ms. Brewster asked a few questions to clarify what the board is looking for. She listed mass & scale, connector and drywell. Ms. Brewster asked about delisting the property due to its poor condition. Ms. Greenwood said they are always in poor condition and the board is not interested in delisting. Mr. Moyer also echoed that the board doesn’t delist, they save the resource, if at all possible. Ms. Greenwood said since it was not in the memo as something on the table for discussion, it’s not an option. Ms. Simon said it’s a question worth talking about because this property is on the threshold and what makes the most sense. Letting the resource disappear or doing a not so great restoration is the question at hand. There is more to find out on the property and there has to be more evidence to guide us for preservation. Ms. Brewster reminded them that they can’t explore until they do the abatement. Ms. Greenwood asked if they own the property and Ms. Brewster said yes. Ms. Greenwood said maybe they can do a site visit after the abatement process has started to take another look and said the board is here to help preserve the small-town quality as much as we can. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to continue to August 28th, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Simon summarized the changes to the HPC benefits for the board. MOTION: Ms. Greenwood motioned to adjourn, Mr. Moyer seconded at 6:35 p.m. ______________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk