Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20201216 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Roger Moyer, Sherri Sanzone. Commissioners not in attendance: Jeff Halferty Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Kendrick moved to approve the minutes from December 9, 2020; Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion carries. PUBLIC COMMENT: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson stated that she is sad to see Ms. Greenwood stepdown. Ms. Greenwood said that she is sad to be leaving as well but the board is doing great. Ms. Greenwood stated that congratulations are in order for Ms. Simon and her new position. Ms. Simon thanked Ms. Greenwood and said that she is excited and will be advertising for a Historic Preservation Planner position in the coming weeks. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Thompson stated that she has worked on the project being discussed previously and disclosed this information to Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson felt that this was not a conflict of interest since Ms. Thompson no longer is associated with the project. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said that communication is ongoing with project monitors. Ms. Yoon said that she will be reaching out to her monitors about new details. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon stated that yes one was issued to Kenichi. She said the sushi restaurant will be expanding its footprint to address indoor dining and COVID-19 restrictions. STAFF COMMENTS: None NEW BUSINESS: 925 King Street- Minor Subdivision Lot Split, Relocation, Demolition, Historic Designation Boundary Line Amendment, Establishment of TDRs. Mr. Moyer moved to continue 925 King Street to January 27, 2021; Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor. Motion carried 3-0-2 NEW BUSINESS: 423 N. Second Street- Conceptual Major Development, Relocation. Bill Guth and Ro from Rockett Design and Anne Mcnulty Owner. Ms. Simon said that this is a really exciting project for HPC, that this is a really large Victorian house, and that Aspen does not have too many of these structures left. She explained that the house was relocated to its current location in the 50’s and for unknow reasons repositioned so the front door faces the alley. Ms. Simon added that throughout the year's additions were added like the wrap around porch, breakfast nook. She stated that the design team taking on this project has worked on restoration projects successfully in Aspen, citing 124 West Hallam. Ms. Simon stated that she appreciates how much time and research has gone into this project and the compromise the owner has taken. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2020 Ms. McNulty stated that they are very appreciative of the opportunity to present the project. She gave a brief description of her family's ties to Aspen. She said that the plan that will be present will show a lot of improvements and be practical for her family's use. Mr. Ro reviewed the location of the historic resource in the West End of Aspen and how the resource sits on the lot. He showed an existing layout of the lot and indicated where key features are like the front door opening into the alley, the added wrap around porch, and the garage opening up on to Smuggler St. Mr. Ro reviewed the history of the resource and the original location which was on Center St. and W. Francis S and then relocated and realigned to where it sits today. Mr. Ro showed a historic timeline that indicated when any addition was added to the historic resource and said that the obstacle that is at hand is removing the additions while a historic resource is underneath. He showed a detailed list of the non-historic additions on the outside and showed the careful probing work that was done on the internal structure to indicate historic vs non-historic. Mr. Ro stated that the proposed plan would be to remove all the non- historic additions, shift and rotate the historic resource lining the front entrance to Second St, adding of the new addition that extends to the southwest corner with a one-story linking element and garage opening to the alley. He said that due to the nature of the lot there will be a healthy buffer between the new addition and the streets. He explained that from Second St. there is 63’- 1” buffer to the new addition and 30’-1” setback from the Victorian. He said that there is 84’-0” from the Smuggler St. curb and just under 54’ from the front setback. Mr. Ro stated that the main living area and hub will remain in the historic resource and the supporting facilities and garage will make up the addition. Mr. Ro showed the proposed design for the exterior elevation showing that the new addition will be 8’-5” lower than the resource. He showed renderings from all angels to showcase how the resource and the new addition would sit together. Mr. Ro stated that the flat roof form was chosen to keep a quiet form that compliments and is an appropriate contrast to the gable pitch of the resource. He said that the material for the siding of the new addition would be a long and skinny brick that is light and muted to complement the resource siding. He added that there will be wood fenestrations to warm the building. Mr. Ro said that the base of the historic home will have a painted metal base that is neutral. Mr. Guth stated that one of the directives from the owners was to make this whole project welcoming and friendly. He said that this is one of the last grand Victorian homes in Aspen so there was extra thought and care when discussing and planning the new addition. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that there are a few items that need to be restudied. She said that the east side deck off the connecting element should be eliminated or at the least brought down to a grade-level patio, to create a more sensitive outdoor living area. Ms. Simon stated that the applicant submitted a stormwater mitigation plan that is simple however, there is a dry well that is being proposed on the southeast corner of the property and typically any foreground stormwater structures like this are to be avoided. She suggested that a sod lid could help this situation and said that this can be resolved at the next review. Ms. Simon stated that there is a concern with the fenestration on the non-historic bump-out that faces Smuggler St. She explained that the plan shows for large windows that are not characteristic of the resource. Ms. Simon pointed out that the non-historic front door will need to be redesigned to risible what was once there, a half-light door. Ms. Simon stated that this project does not need to meet the 10’ length requirement for a linking element because the addition is not taller than the resource. She added that there will need to be discussions about the screening element for the activities that are planned on the roof of the connector. Ms. Simon said that the proposed metal foundation band was expectable. She stated that there is a recommendation for a restudy for the location of the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2020 new addition. Ms. Simon explained moving the addition 10’ to the west so it is not encroaching on the resource as much. She added that it is typical to see an addition come from the back not the side of a resource and would like to give the resource as much room as possible. Ms. Simon stated that without the gable roof form to link the two structures the material must, especially the siding facing Second St. Ms. Simon stated that staff is recommending continuation of this project. Mr. Moyer asked if they discourage activities on a roof without a screening element. Ms. Simon said that there have been times they have discouraged it, Especially when the new addition is taller than the historical resource. She said in this case we are asking for a screening element to obstruct partial visibility. Mr. Moyer asked if the non-historic bump-out facing Smuggler St. should have different siding to indicate the historic vs non-historic. Ms. Simon stated that is not necessary nor would she want to call that much attention to it. Ms. Greenwood stated that keeping the bump-out is wrong and does not understand the staff position to keep it. Ms. Simon stated that the position is, acknowledging how much is being removed from the building successfully already, and understanding that the internal livability of that space is very valuable. Ms. Greenwood stated that this is a mistake and the applicant could make up the floor area in a different area. Mr. Kendrick asked how old is the bump-out. Ms. Simon stated that it was added after the relocation in the ’50s. Ms. Thompson asked if a variance is needed for the light well on a street-facing façade. Ms. Simon stated that it is recessed behind the front-most façade. Mr. Guth stated that he would like to address some of Ms. Simon's statements. PUBLIC COMMENT: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood stated that HPC should discuss the guidelines 10.3 and 10.6. Ms. Sanzone stated that it would be helpful to hear from the applicant in response to Ms. Simon's presentation. Mr. Guth stated that the form of the new addition was studied very heavily and had a hard time finding something that did not compete with resources. He explained that the flat roof is quieter and subtle. Mr. Guth said that they have no problem altering the east side deck to a stone patio and flushing out the details. The sod lid on the dry well is not a problem and that is the intent. He stated that the fenestration on the non-historic addition is a place holder to mimic the resource and is intended to be refined for the final review. The front door was an oversite and is planned to be a half-light door. Mr. Guth stated that replacing the glass railing on the connector roof with a screen element is welcomed. He said that there will be a great detail in restoring the original front deck. He said that the placement of the addition is in the best location. He explained that the side where the connector is located has been altered so much already and the setbacks are pretty large. Mr. Moyer stated that the community will view this house as it sits now with a large welcoming wrap-around porch. He warns of the uproar that happened with the Paepcke house project. Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees with Ms. Simon that this will be a successful project. He said that the placement of the new addition is in the best placement possible. Mr. Kendrick stated that REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2020 if the form will not be a gable relation then the material and fenestration are pretty far off. He said he supports moving this forward while monitoring final details. Ms. Sanzone stated that she agrees with Mr. Kendrick’s comments. She said that the placement of the new addition works great with the resource and if moved would take away from the simplicity of the design and not let the Victorian standout. Ms. Sanzone stated that she supports the raised porch on the connector element. She explained that the site is very flat and to achieve positive drainage a flat patio would make that very difficult. She commends the design team for keeping all the historic Cottonwood and Aspen trees. Ms. Thompson said that she agrees with the staff and previously made comments. She said that form and fenestration is the biggest topic for this project. Ms. Thompson stated that the material and fenestration should be restudied. She said that the relocation is very successful and the site plan as well. Ms. Thompson said that she is not opposed to keeping the non-historic bump-out on the Victorian in light of how much work is going into the restoration. Ms. Thompson stated that she agrees with Ms. Sanzone about the east side deck however, it should not meet the resource. Ms. Greenwood stated that she agrees with Ms. Thompson. She said that the form and fenestration have not been met but the location of the new addition and the linking element is perfect. Ms. Greenwood said the relationship between the new architecture and the old architecture is pretty strong when viewed on Second St. except for 10.3 in the design guideline. She explained that in 10.3 a corner lot new addition cannot deviate in form from the historic resource. Ms. Greenwood further explained since the project does not meet the guideline it must be continued and restudied. Ms. Greenwood asked the board how they feel about continuation in regards to design guidelines. Mr. Kendrick stated that there is no need to continue, the applicant has addressed enough of the issues that it can move forward. Ms. Greenwood stated that they have not addressed 10.3 and 10.6. She said that the new addition as a stand-alone is a great building however, with the resource there is no story to tell. Mr. Kendrick asked if this issue could not be addressed with fenestration and materials. Ms. Greenwood said that she droughts that they will do tiny little windows on a modern flat roof building. She said that you almost have to do a roof form that relates to the resource citing 10.3. Mr. Guth stated that these are guidelines and not strict rules. He reiterated that there has been extensive study done on the form and believed that all competed with the resource. Ms. Greenwood stated that Ms. Thompson and herself are architects, and they are sharing their opinion on what will make this a better project. Mr. Moyer stated that he would rather see the new addition be its own element and not fully relate to the resource. Ms. Greenwood disagreed with Mr. Moyer and stated that there does need to be a visual link between the two. Mr. Moyer said that is true and the project at hand, the new addition does not take away fr the resource. Ms. Thompson stated that how she interoperates the guidelines is not to the letter rather a principle application. She said that there needs to be sensitivity to how the two relate. Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees with Ms. Thompson. He said it does not have to have a gable and if you do that you will lose another part of 10.3 in terms of being subordinate and differential and modest because you will be adding more mass to the additions. Ms. Thompson said she agrees with Ms. Greenwood and the staff to continue. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2020 Ms. Sanzone stated that she is torn between moving forward and continuation. She said she would support moving this forward. She explained that the applicant has heard HPC’s concerns and trusts that they will be addressed. Mr. Moyer stated that he is in support of moving this forward and has addressed almost all of the staff's concerns. Mr. Kendrick stated he agrees that this could move forward and with the feedback given they will be able to address the concerns. Ms. Greenwood stated that this is sending a strong message to architects that guidelines don’t matter. Mr. Kendrick stated that he does not agree with Ms. Greenwood that they are that far off the guidelines. Ms. Thompson stated that this does not set a precedent for the board. Ms. Simon stated that the guideline will have to be addressed at final that the decision that is being made now is for the form and that cannot be changed. Ms. Greenwood said that her stance has changed since they have to meet the guideline regardless. Mr. Kendrick stated that he is reconsidering for a continuance so the applicant can address the concern for the form if needed. Ms. Greenwood stated that the staff’s recommendations are good. Ms. Simon stated that she forgot to mention that there is a setback variance being asked for. She explained that the garage, deck on the garage, and basement are intruding on the 10’ setback by 5’. Ms. Simon said that the staff supports the request. Ms. Greenwood said that she always supports the alignment of the garage and basement. She said that is just good building practices. The board agreed with variance. Ms. Sanzone moved to approve Resolution #027-2020 with added condition #3; Mr. Moyer seconded. Ms. Thompson asked if this was a resolution of approval or continuance. Ms. Greenwood stated it was for approval as presented. Roll Call: Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Thompson, No; Ms. Sanzone, Yes, Ms. Greenwood; Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 4-1. Mr. Guth thanked Ms. Greenwood for her service on HPC and stated that it was a pleasure to work with her. Ms. Thompson asked if there could have a discussion in the new year about the approval process. Mr. Moyer stated that he would like to have this discussion as well. He said he will miss Ms. Greenwood. Ms. Johnson thanked Ms. Greenwood for her service. Mr. True thanked Ms. Greenwood for her service. Adjourn: All in favor, Motion carried