Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20210512 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY12, 2021 Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Roger Moyer, Jeff Halferty, Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell, Sheri Sanzone. Commissioners not in attendance: n/a Staff present: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Kendrick moved to approve April 14th minutes. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll Call: Mr. Kendrick; Yes, Mr. Moyer; Yes, Mr. Halferty; Yes, Ms. Thompson; Yes. 4-0, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Fornell stated that he is happy to be on the board and has been living in Aspen for 39 years. Mr. Fornell gave a brief background that included his role in the creation of the affordable housing certificate program. Ms. Surfas stated that she moved to Aspen from New York City 6 years ago. In her time in NYC, she worked for an architect at an architecture firm and interior design firms that dealt with a few historic projects in and around New York. Mr. Halferty said that the interview process was great and thanked the City of Aspen staff for gathering qualified candidates. Mr. Halferty asked if there were any updates about the hardhat tour of the Wheeler project. Ms. Yoon stated that the staff is looking into how to coordinate this request. Ms. Thompson asked if the HPC awards will still be announced at the council meeting in May or if they would be announced at a council meeting end of the summer along with the award presentation. Ms. Yoon said that the goal at this point is to have the announcement at the second meeting in May and the actual awards being presented in person sometime in August. She said they will follow up with specifics. Ms. Thompson asked if Mr. Fornell and Ms. Surfas are ready to participate and if they can vote at this meeting. Ms. Johnson stated that they have been appointed and ready to participate fully. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone and Mr. Halferty are conflicted with 202 E. Main Street - Final Review and Setback Variations. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Yoon stated that the historic resource is located at 931 Gibson and 323 Park. This was the project that was a relocation of a historic resource onto a different site and staff will be following this closely and will update at a later date. Ms. Thompson asked if the 1020 E. Cooper project will be coming back to HPC on June 9th. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY12, 2021 Ms. Yoon stated that they would like to reschedule the CPI conference discussion for the next meeting on May 26, to give adequate time for everyone to prepare. OLD BUSINESS: 303 S. Galena – Minor Development. Mr. Moyer moved to continue 303 S. Galena to July 14th; Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll Call: Mr. Kendrick; Yes, Mr. Moyer; Yes, Mr. Halferty; Yes, Mr. Fornell; Yes, Ms. Surfas; Yes, Ms. Sanzone; Yes, Ms. Thompson; Yes. 7-0 motion passes. Mr. Halferty and Ms. Sanzone left the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 202 E. Main Street - Final Review and Setback Variations. Chris Davis, Kevin Stevenson, and Ana White from BOSS Architecture representing the owner. Sam Baucum and Matthew Moritz from Bluegreen Landscaping design. Mr. Davis said that BOSS Architecture is a small boutique design firm based out of Denver. He stated that this project was approved conceptually under a different owner. Ms. White stated that this project will take the commercial use property and convert it back to residential use. She showed a Sanborn map of the historic one-story miners’ cottage and stated that the house currently exists in the same location. Ms. White pointed out that the current addition is not historic and was approved for demolition. Ms. White stated that the original owner and architect Jake Vickery presented plans that were approved at the concept approval meeting and there were several resolutions that were used to influence the final major developments submission. She said that the resolution from that meeting was to develop a temporary relocation plan, and through their efforts, they have a plan that allows the historic resource to remain on sight while the basement is being worked on. Ms. White added that excavation will occur from the rear of the property, so no disturbances to Main Street or the trees in the right of way. Mr. Baucum showed three different landscape plans that ranged from traditional rectangle planting to maximize transparency and openness, to a reoriented design where the planting is set diagonally. He explained that when coming up with the idea for the reoriented landscaping, his team took into consideration of the historic cottonwood that stands only a few feet away and its root system, they did not want to interfere with it. Mr. Baucum showed the planting design for the proposed reoriented landscape and said that 2/3 of the front is the lawn and will be open and transparent, and the other planting around the resource will be low and open. He said that all the hardscape will be concrete as it is encouraged in the HPC guidelines. Mr. Baucum stated that the proposed fence is not historic but inspired by neighboring properties like the Sardy House. Mr. Moritz said that there was a suggestion to look at a drywall system for the underlying drainage system. He said that this style of drainage was not the most peaceful option in the front yard, due to setbacks. Mr. Moritz stated that the proposed plan is now a rain garden system which is the preferred stormwater treatment approach by the city. Mr. Moritz said that water draining off the resource will be diverted to a rain garden either in front of the resource or on the east side. He explained that this setup is designed to move water away from the resource and currently water is pooling around the resource due to the uneven grade. Mr. Moritz stated that with low-level planting in the rain garden, the garden will be hidden from any pedestrian or vehicular views. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY12, 2021 Ms. White said that as far as materials the historic resource will be preserved as much as possible, and they will restore any details that are missing. She pointed out that the fish scale siding will need to be restored along with wood trim at the front porch, the chimney, corner details where they're missing, and the water table detail where it needs to be repaired, and finally the window trims. Ms. White stated that over time there have been storm windows that have been placed on top of the historic exterior windows. The plan is to remove the storm windows, restore the detail that exists, and install interior storm windows. She said want to keep the addition both as a product of its own time while relating to the historic resource. Both in materials and fenestration, they are proposing the use of a wood butt joint siding instead of the clapboard siding which is on the resource. She added that all the new fenestration has been scaled to match the historic fenestration. Ms. White stated that when the resource is lifted, the plan is to salvage the brick foundation and match any new brick that is needed. Ms. White said that there have been conversations with Aspen Tree Service, City Forestry, and City Engineering and they recommend the removal of the cottonwood in the right of way and the spruce tree on the property due to health concerns. She said they will plant a young healthy cottonwood back in the right of way. She showed a rendering of the proposed mechanical units that will be placed on the northeast corner wall of the alley. Ms. White said that there was some concern brought up by staff about the wall-mounted unities and she said that the idea was to keep them off grade to keep the amount of square footage for the rain gardens. She added that the proposed location was chosen because the neighbors to the east do not have any windows, openings, or doorways in this area. Ms. White stated that there was staff concern about the proposed skylight that this will permanently harm the resource. She explained that in the new proposal they will be keeping the already existing rafters and only the new sheathing and shingles will be affected. Mr. Moyer asked if there will be a metal cap on the chimney. Ms. White said that there will not be a metal cap. Mr. Moyer asked what the distance is between each neighbor. Ms. White said to the east it is 3 foot 9 inches and to the west 6-foot 1inch. Mr. Moyer asked if they expect vegetation to live in the space between the eastside neighbor. Mr. Baucum said they do and will be using low ground cover and it will be irrigated. Mr. Kendrick asked what the distance is between the hanging mechanical units and the neighboring wall. Ms. White said that there is 20 feet of room between. Mr. Moyer asked where the roof venting will be located. Ms. White stated the roof venting will be located at the rear of the historic edition. Ms. Thompson asked if the front door will change direction as indicated in the plans. Ms. White stated that they will not be changing the door direction and that must have been marked wrong. Ms. Thompson asked the height from the bottom of the lightwell to the top of the roof. Ms. White stated it is about 23 feet. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon reminded the board that this application for conceptual was submitted back on October 9th, 2019 for a new single-family home with an addition to the rear, and setback variations were granted as well as a 500 square foot bonus. She added that this application was accepted before the code changes to the historic preservation benefits. Ms. Yoon showed a visual of the landscape plan and focused on the front yard, calling it Zone A, being the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY12, 2021 most significant area on the lot as the frontage is on Main Street. She explained that in the design guidelines 1.12 and 1.13, it talks about simplicity landscaping and discourages contemporary landscaping in this specific area. After staff reviewed the proposed landscaping plan, they felt the applicant did not meet these criteria. Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant alluded to a restoration plan including architectural features, including fenestration, and the chimney. She added that the applicant will need to work with staff and monitor closely on this plan. Ms. Yoon said that the applicant submitted a revised skylight plan that does not remove the historic beams however the design guidelines generally do not support new skylights in a historic resource. She said that the light fixture on the historic porch needs to be reassessed to minimize impacts. Ms. Yoon stated that the proposed materials and fenestrations meet the design guidelines and that they relate to the historic resource. She said that the hung mechanical units that are being presented do not meet the design guidelines, that they should be grounded so they can be properly shielded. She added that the mechanical units are in the setback and will need an additional setback variation. Ms. Yoon stated that staff recommends approval with the conditions. Ms. Thompson said that HPC did not approve a light well at the previous hearing, and now it is shown in the setback variation. She added that this will need to be discussed and language changed in the resolution. Ms. Yoon said that the language in the resolution should be sufficient. Ms. Thompson stated that this is a different house compared to what was approved. Ms. Yoon stated that in terms of the conceptual design, staff did work with the applicant to confirm that the massive scale of the design was consistent. Mr. Moyer asked what the current foundation of the historic resource is. Ms. Yoon stated that there is a basement under the resource, and it’s made up of brick. Mr. Moyer asked if the mechanical equipment can be dealt with by staff and monitor. Ms. Yoon stated that would be set as a condition. Mr. Moyer asked the status of chimney restoration and if metal caps are allowed. Ms. Yoon stated that as far as restoration needs to keep with what is represented in terms of flashing. She added that staff may have to work with the applicant to protect the masonry. Mr. Fornell said that there was a discrepancy between the setback presented. He explained that in the packet the new addition does not encroach the red setback line however in the staff's presentation it does. Ms. Yoon stated that new addition has always partially encroached into both setbacks and the conceptual application also talked about the setbacks being granted to the addition as well as the historic resource. There are elements on the new edition that have changed, such as the lightwell. Mr. Fornell said that regarding the lightwells, the plan called out a railing around them. He added that generally there is a grate that pushes up in case of an emergency. Ms. Yoon stated that generally, that is the recommendation, however there is a strange site configuration where there is a grade change that's pretty significant. PUBLIC COMMENT: None COMMISSION COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson stated that she thinks this is a significant improvement to the mass and scale and the plan layout of what was previously approved. Mr. Moyer agrees with Ms. Thompson’s statement. Mr. Fornell stated that it's a significant improvement from conceptual to final concerning the relationship of the new construction to the historic. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY12, 2021 Mr. Kendrick stated he agrees with the previous statements. Ms. Surfas stated that it is a vast improvement. Ms. Thompson said that she agrees with staff that the contemporary orientation of the landscape in the front of the resource does not conform to HPC’s guidelines and needs to be revisited. She added that due to the significant amount of layering on the property, the plan could be a bit more refined to make the resource stand out as the most prominent item on the site. Mr. Kendrick stated he concurs 100%. More grassless plantings and a simpler plan. Mr. Moyer stated he agrees and keep it simple. Mr. Fornell asked if the rain gardens are visible from the street and if they require elevation. He proposed the question of turning the sidewalks and driveway into pervious paver to eliminate the necessity for those rain gardens. Mr. Moritz stated that pervious pavers are not possible in that location because of the limitation on the sidewalk and driveway. Ms. Thompson asked how the rain garden detailing will be concealed. Mr. Moritz stated that because of the size and length of the rain garden, they are able to keep it very shallow. Mr. Fornell stated that he is not concerned with the depth of the garden, but more so of the border. Mr. Moritz said that no border will be protruding from the sod. Mr. Moyer shared concern about water drainage on side of the structure. Ms. Thompson stated that she likes the pallet that the applicant has pulled together for the materials, as they are incredibly elegant and meets HPC's guidelines and fully support. Mr. Fornell asked if they were going to save the bricks from the foundation or use them in some sort of architectural fashion. Ms. Thompson said yes. Mr. Fornell stated that he would like to make sure that the brick remains original and not painted. Ms. Thompson said yes. Mr. Kendrick said that he agrees with Ms. Thompson that the materials were nicely chosen and that the materials relate well to be a historic resource and offer enough diversity. Ms. Thompson stated that the mechanical equipment is in an appropriate spot and it still has to conform to city guidelines. She cautioned the applicant that while this singular unit might meet the decibel requirements, the city will request that compounded noise of those three units be evaluated. Mr. Kendrick stated that he mostly agrees with Ms. Thompson. He showed concern about the applicant’s statement of the estimated need size. Mr. Kendrick explained that he would not like to see these units get any bigger. He said the placement of the units works in this instance. Mr. Moyer reiterated his concern about the lack of capping on the chimney. Ms. Thompson stated that she agrees and if anything is being vented through the fireplace, nothing should be visible. Mr. Fornell warned that a lot of the time the chimneys have to be enlarged due to oversized equipment. Ms. Thompson stated that if that's the case, the equipment would have to be located behind the main ridge of that structure not visible from the street-facing facade and it would need to be separate from the brick chimney. Ms. Yoon said that this is something that the staff and monitor can work on. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY12, 2021 Ms. Yoon stated that zoning requires mechanical equipment in this setback to be either 30 inches above or below grade to be in the setback. In this case, it is above 30 inches because it is mounted onto the building. She added there will need to be a setback variation granted. Mr. Fornell said that the applicant has a more than sufficient rooftop deck and could this be a consideration for a condition for the mechanical instead of wall mounting. Ms. Thompson stated that it is definitely up to the applicant where they are located. She added that due to their stormwater requirements she is okay approving the wall-mounted units. Ms. Thompson said that if the units become bigger or do not meet the notice requirements then the proposed location will not work. Mr. Moyer said this is the first time he has seen mechanical units attached in this manner and likes the idea. He said when these pieces of equipment are placed on the ground there is a pad of concrete that is placed and that opens up a whole set of issues. Ms. Surfas asked if the applicant has looked at the requirements for the space around the equipment and can they get the equipment in the grey color that is shown. Mr. Stevenson stated that they have spent a tremendous amount of time on these details and what is shown is the dimensions exactly that the mechanical engineers said what was needed. Ms. Surfas asked if there will be a snow or rain guard above the units. Mr. Stevenson stated that there will not be a guard above the units since this is not a shedding roof. He added because the fans actually move air horizontally through a sort of suitcase-sized mechanical unit versus traditional larger units that have a fan that pushes air straight up top. Mr. Fornell asked if it is possible to review the decimal levels of these mechanical units. Ms. Thompson stated that this will be a part of a Building Department review. She added that the location of the units is great, they are not on the resource and with their drainage requirements a variance should be granted. Mr. Moyer agreed. Ms. Thompson said that the proposed skylight with exposed rafters is pretty cool. She added that the cricket that is being shown should not be shingles. At this specific slope, shingles would not function correctly. Mr. Moyer agreed with Ms. Thompson. Mr. Fornell stated that he supports the skylight as long as there is no visibility from the street. Mr. Kendrick said he has mixed feelings but could go either way. Ms. Surfas stated that she is a fan of natural light and skylights. She said that exposing the rafters is a very compelling detail. Ms. Thompson said going back to the landscaping plan HPC is asking for a relatively significant adjustment. And this seems like a lot to put on a monitor if approved. Mr. Kendrick stated that it seemed that everyone was on the same page with direction, so this should not be a big deal for a monitor. Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #09, 2021; Mr. Moyer seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Mr. Fornell; Yes, Ms. Surfas; Yes, Ms. Thompson; Yes. 5-0, motion carried. Mr. Moyer stated that the new HPC members should shadow a current member as a monitor so they will understand the process. He said that he will be the monitor along with Ms. Surfas for 202 E. Main Street. Mr. Moyer asked if HPC could have a work session to flush out details and become more proactive on certain details and items that HPC deals with. Ms. Thompson stated that there have been conversations with staff to set up a work session. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY12, 2021 Mr. Kendrick moved to adjourn. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes. _________________ Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk