Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20210811Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 11, 2021 1 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Sheri Sanzone, Kara Thompson, and Jeff Halferty (4:32 PM). Staff present Amy Simon, Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES None PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ms. Sanzone stated she has a conflict of interest involving the 930 King St application and will need to recuse herself from the hearing. PROJECT MONITORING Ms. Yoon noted there is one more edit for the list of projects provided in the packet. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Feinberg Lopez thanked Ms. Thompson and Mr. Halferty for handing out the HPC Awards at the recent City Council meeting. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED None OLD BUSINESS None Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 11, 2021 2 NEW BUSINESS 930 King St – Minor Development Review, Public Hearing Ms. Thompson asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Johnson replied public notice had been provided in accordance with the code. Ms. Thompson then opened the hearing and turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Chris Bendon, BendonAdams, introduced himself and the application to refresh the existing historic landmark and non-historic rear addition to better align with the historic design guidelines. He stated Mr. Richard Wax is the principal for the applicant, 920 King Street LLC. He added Mr. Wheeler Clancy, David Johnston Architects, is attending the hearing to answer any technical questions. Mr. Bendon then described the location of the property resulting from a historic landmark lot split. A remodel occurred in 1999. Lots A and B share a driveway and a 250 SF floor area bonus was granted to the fathering parcel. Mr. Bendon displayed the property as shown on the historic Willits map dated 1893 and a current day map of the neighborhood. He stated the landmark is known as No Problem Joe’s cabin. He stated Joe lived in Aspen for over 40 years and was described as cantankerous and eccentric, but everyone loved him and would respond to requests to repair various things and earned his nickname. He even replaced the City of Aspen’s Neal Street bridge sign with his own sign stating No Problem bridge. The City eventually relented and now the renamed bridge is adjacent to the No Problem Joe trail. He lived in the cabin until his death in 1993. Mr. Bendon displayed the existing and proposed site plans along with a list of the proposed minor changes. He noted the spruce tree between the outbuildings in the back yard which is noted as a condition to the approval has been removed. The application contains no proposed building moves. He described the proposed changes to the entries of the building and the small addition to the non-historic resources for a hallway and landing for the interior stairs. He displayed and described a picture of the front of the historic structure currently and the one with the proposed changes. He also described the two proposed footprint changes on the main level including a 49 SF addition to the west elevation for a bathroom and a 22 SF addition to the east elevation to support the entry into the landmark. He then displayed current and proposed east elevations including a small expansion behind the landmark along with new windows and horizontal wood siding materials which are consistent with the landmark and design guidelines. They are also proposing to change the metal railing on top of the connecting element to a glass railing to have it recede from view. Metal accents are also proposed on the dormer and roof. Mr. Bendon displayed a picture of the front of the landmark as it currently exists and a rendering of the updated version. He also displayed a roof plan and noted a roof cricket is needed on the back side of the landmark. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 11, 2021 3 He next displayed the elevations for the existing and proposed changes for the west elevation including the small addition for the bathroom, change in materials, changes to a light well and the rear balcony. He also displayed renderings of the current railing around the light wells and the proposed grates. Mr. Bendon displayed current and proposed elevations and renderings of the rear of the building and noted the grate on the light wells, new balcony, and updated windows. He next displayed a site plan and pointed out the location of the two outbuildings. Each will be stabilized, and the siding will be repaired. He concluded his presentation noting they are amenable to three of staff’s conditions including to work with staff and monitor of the roof material and roof cricket, the railing around the upper deck and the removal of the spruce tree. Ms. Thompson asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Mr. Halferty asked what materials are currently on the roof on the front porch. Mr. Clancy responded it is all wood shake and doesn’t drain well with the low pitch. Mr. Halferty asked if they thought about adding windows or something to the west elevation because it looks like a lot of siding. Mr. Clancy responded they thought about it, but the neighbor’s house is directly across from the driveway. They are happy to explore it further. Mr. Halferty noted it was more of a comment than question and thanked Mr. Clancy for responding. Mr. Fornell asked if the small penetration on the front roof served any purpose or not and could it be moved to the back of the house. Mr. Clancy is not certain of the purpose and is happy to explore moving it to the rear. Ms. Thompson asked if the pitch proposed for the upper-level deck is to create some vertical. Mr. Bendon stated the deck is existing, so the roof cricket is needed to manage the drainage, so it doesn’t drain onto the deck or onto the historic resource. Mr. Halferty stated even though it appears to be tall, he is okay with it since it won’t be viewable from the street. Mr. Clancy stated it was the safest approach to manage the drainage. Mr. Moyer stated the renderings show flowers up against the house and he asked if they will be kept away from the foundation. Mr. Bendon believed it was just a component of the rendering and stated if there is a parameter or condition, they are open to discussing it. Mr. Moyer stated he would bring it back up during the comments portion of the hearing. Ms. Thompson then turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner, introduced herself and stated she would review some high points from staff’s memo. She stated the applicant is not seeking any variations and the development requests are related to an existing addition. She provided pictures of the front of the historic landmark in 1991 and 2021. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 11, 2021 4 Ms. Yoon then displayed an existing site plan, the applicant’s proposed site plan (as provided in the packet) and staff’s revised site plan. Staff had comments related to the spruce tree located at the rear of the property between the two outbuildings which has been removed and the lighting leading up to the front porch should be minimal as per the guidelines. She stated the applicant responded and staff emailed the response to the HPC commissioners on August 10, 2021 (Exhibit I in agenda packet). Ms. Yoon stated staff does not see a significant change in the mass and scale. She noted the addition from the late 1990’s was reviewed and approved under a different set of design review criteria. She then discussed staff’s review of the materials for the porch roof. The application originally proposed corrugated metal and then revised it to a standing seam metal roof. Staff wants to keep condition 1 to continue to work with the applicant regarding the materials, theme, pitch and profile. Next, she discussed the railing detail. The current railing detail, which was approved under an older set of guidelines, terminates into the historic roof. Because the applicant proposes to change the railing, it is an opportunity to ensure the railing does not impact the historic roof. The current design does not completely encompass the roof. The building department is requiring a railing to go around the entire deck space. Staff wants to keep condition 2 and ask the applicant to study the glass railing, so it doesn’t terminate into the roof and complies with the building code. Staff has reviewed the revised roof plan with the cricket and does not feel it meets the design guidelines because it alters the historic roof. Ms. Yoon then discussed the proposed changes to the exterior. The applicant proposed changing the materiality, but it still closely relates to the historic resource. She noted the form of the exiting addition is not changing. The fenestration is departing from a previously strong relationship with the historic resource, but staff finds guideline 10.6 does allow for this flexibility and supports the proposed changes to the exterior as well as the repairs to the existing outbuildings in the back. Ms. Yoon next reviewed the proposed fence detail provided in the packet update the day prior to the hearing. It specifically relates to the fence going around the front of the historic resource and staff finds it meets the design guidelines. Staff would like to request some edits related to the designs provided in the application update. Condition number 3 details the light fixtures on the front walkway. Staff finds it has been met with the reduction of three lights to one light. Staff also finds the removal the spruce tree has been completed. In summary, staff would like to remove conditions 3, 4 and 7 and continue with conditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 as identified in the agenda packet. She asked if there were any questions from the commission. Ms. Thompson asked if there was boiler language to include the drainage perimeter around the foundation. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 11, 2021 5 Ms. Yoon responded there is no boiler language, but a condition can be amended if HPC feels strongly about it. Ms. Surfas asked if staff approves of the metal siding on the bump out on the new addition’s west elevation. Ms. Yoon responded staff feels it is compliant because the majority of the addition would still be wood siding. Ms. Thompson stated this should be a topic for the board to discuss. Mr. Fornell noted he could not find an easement with the property owner with regard to the sidewalk encroachment onto their property. He asked if this should be addressed. Ms. Johnson responded the street right of way (ROW) was set when the city was established. She added you can consistently find throughout city the ROW extends beyond the sidewalk and a ROW was never recorded at the County Clerk’s office. There is little ability of the City to legally require an easement unless it’s tied directly to the needs of the project. And even if the title work indicates the area is privately owned in the ROW, the ROW will eclipse it. Ms. Thompson added this will be part of the Building department’s review. Ms. Johnson responded it is not within the purview of HPC to address ROWs for the project. Ms. Thompson then opened for public comment. No one wanted to comment so she closed the comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Thompson then opened for board discussion. Mr. Moyer feels there were three items overlooked by staff. One was the plants up against the house foundation and moving sprinkler heads moved away from the foundation as well. Another issue is he feels the west wall is a little overbearing and could possibly use a couple of windows. And the third item was moving the roof vent on the south side. He added as long as the railing does not screw into the roof, it could easily be avoided. He has no issue with the design. Mr. Moyer feels it is sensible to have a metal roof of the front porch. Mr. Moyer is not opposed to the front yard fence. He concluded stating he agrees with staff’s comments. Mr. Halferty thanked the applicant for their cohesive application. In regard to the roof, he is okay with some additional study and detailing and for staff to monitor it going forward. For the fenestration, he feels going from the double hung windows to case windows is appropriate. The glass railing is always tricky to detail and he is okay with staff monitoring the architecture of the railing. He understands the challenges of the roof plan and would like to see the roof plan protect the historic resource and have it minimally viewed from the street. Mr. Halferty feels the windows on the west side seem large and would like additional attention regarding the architecture look and feel to be as cohesive as possible. He feels it looks like a blank wall and would like to see some kind of articulation or limited fenestration. He feels the light wells are a Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 11, 2021 6 better choice than railings. He also appreciates the protection and proposed uses of the outbuildings. He agrees with Mr. Moyer regarding the drainage plan. It would be nice if the roof vents could be moved, but he doesn’t feel it’s that important. He would vote for approval with the remaining conditions from staff’s memo. Ms. Thompson believes the windows on the west wall would be beyond staff monitoring if they are asking for a restudy. Ms. Surfas noted her earlier comment regarding the metal siding. She visited the site and from her review, she believes the windows on the far left were removed because of the location of the kitchen. And potentially the windows on the right do not need to go away. She feels it is a big surface area without punctuation. She has no issue with the railing and believes it is a much nicer application than what’s there now. She noted if the roof material had a matte finish, it would be very hard to see. Mr. Fornell stated he is satisfied with the glazing as presented. Ms. Thompson summarized the board’s comments and noted her comments. 1. Continued study of the details of the porch materials, but metal is acceptable. She agrees with the other board members. 2. Continued study and work with staff of the railing. She agrees it needs more work with staff and monitoring to minimize the impact to the historic framing. 3. Request for at least 8 IN of space between the exterior walls and planting. She agrees with Mr. Moyer. 4. Request for the relocation of the roof vent to be further explored. She agrees with this as well. She commended the applicant on the restoration efforts in the front porch, updated siding and maintaining the outbuildings. She also agrees with the others regarding the west façade. Ms. Yoon suggested the staff and monitor process could address this and there is the option to bring it back to the board for further review if staff was not comfortable with the fenestration change. A condition could be added to clarify this. Mr. Halferty moved to approve the application for 930 King St with conditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and condition 10 that deals with the staff and monitor of the fenestration of façade change on the west elevation on the upper level. Mr. Moyer seconded the motion. Ms. Thompson requested to amend the motion to include the applicant to explore relocating the vent on the front of the historic resource and revise condition 8 to provide for a planting schedule for staff and monitor and require 8 IN of area between the foundation walls and plantings around the historic resource. Mr. Halferty so amended his motion to include Ms. Thompson’s requests. Mr. Moyer seconded. There was no further board discussion. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 11, 2021 7 Mr. Clancy asked for time to speak. He asked about the roofing materials and Ms. Feinberg Lopez responded it could be discussed at a later time. Mr. Clancy added the windows had been removed from the west elevation in response to the neighbor requesting they be removed since they do a lot of entertaining on their deck. He added they are open to discussing it further. Ms. Yoon clarified the changes. She asked if a 1 FT border request was acceptable, and Ms. Thompson agreed. Ms. Yoon identified a restudy of the west elevation as a staff and monitor situation review process and the relocation of the existing vent at the front of the historical resource. Ms. Thompson agreed. Ms. Thompson requested a roll call vote. Roll call: Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes for a total of five – zero (5 – 0). The motion passed. Ms. Thompson closed the hearing. Ms. Thompson requested site visits to be included back on the agenda. Ms. Johnson stated they would have to be noticed. Ms. Simon responded they had been removed due to the public health order. She stated they could be included again. Ms. Johnson noted if the board generally supports site visits, they could be reinstated but would need to be reevaluated if public health orders impacted them in the future. Ms. Thompson stated if staff feels there would be benefit for the board to visit the site together on projects, she would be in favor of it. Mr. Halferty agreed. The other board members agreed. Mr. Fornell moved to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Thompson. All in favor. The motion passed and the meeting was adjourned. Cindy Klob, Records Manager