Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20220112 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2022 Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Jodi Surfas, Kara Thompson, Sheri Sanzone, Peter Fornell and Roger Moyer. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the minutes from December 8th, 2021; Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. Motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Mr. Halferty mentioned that he had leased a carriage house at 233 W. Bleeker St. Ms. Johnson asked when Mr. Halferty had leased the carriage house. Mr. Halferty said it was about a year and a half ago. Ms. Johnson then asked if he had any financial interest in the outcome of this project. Mr. Halferty said no. Ms. Johnson said that it would not be a conflict of interest. Ms. Sanzone said she had a conflict on the second agenda item (233 W. Bleeker) and that she would jump off at that point. She said she would come back for Board elections. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Yoon mentioned that she had been sending out a couple project monitoring requests to commissioners. Ms. Thompson asked about the Crystal Palace project monitoring that she and Mr. Halferty were on. She said that they had given them some feedback and was wondering if there had been any response. Ms. Feinberg Lopez stated that she was handling the west wall aspects of the project and the Ms. Simon was handling the rest of the project. Ms. Simon said that she had passed the comments on to the applicant but had not heard back since. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Feinberg Lopez asked that if anyone had interest in going to the virtual portion of the CPI conference on February 9th should let her know. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: 205 South Mill St. had a door replaced. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice and that notice was provided per the code. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2022 OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 410 E. Hyman - Minor Development, Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Ryan Doremus – Thunderbowl Architects Mr. Doremus said they are representing the owner of the building at 410 E. Hyman and that the building is in desperate need of repair. The siding hasn’t been replaced in over 30 years and the windows are failing. Their client is asking for a facelift of the front façade to include exterior finish materials and replacement of all windows and doors. Based on staff comments no adjustments will be made to the original proposal. They are looking to use an all-wood material from a company out of Austin TX which is show in their application. The windows will be a clad exterior window in a black or dark bronze material. They will be installing a steel awning over the west side of the building to match the east side. All the existing windows and doors will be staying in their original locations and all the existing façade features including columns and structural members will stay as is. Ms. Thompson asked if the columns and beams will be painted a new color. Mr. Doremus said yes, the color will be adjusted. In the original you can see it is a little lighter. The columns need to be refinished due to some existing damage. Ms. Thompson asked what product they had in mind for the windows and doors. Mr. Doremus said they are most likely looking at the Marvin Contemporary Series. Staff Presentation: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Ms. Feinberg Lopez went over the land use approval requests that are up for review that are a Minor Development and Commercial Design Review. She then showed a picture of the current conditions. Then she showed the new rendering including the new siding, windows, doors, and awnings. She then went over staff recommendations detailing that the new siding be real wood, the windows do not have any colored glazing or films and that the awning match the awning on the east side of the south elevation. She said that staff suggests approval with the conditions. Mr. Fornell commented that the awnings on the new Boogies building are completely level and that after any rain or snow event they drip for a long time. He asked on this project is there a plan to have a sidewalk or some type of an entry with a small pitch to help things clear quicker. Mr. Doremus said that these awnings are more of an open trellis design and will not have snow build up. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Doremus if the existing lap siding under the bay window bump outs will be replaced with tongue and groove or stay as lap siding. Mr. Doremus said that they will go with a tongue and groove in those areas while using a lap style in the other areas to match the original. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson said that she thought the design guidelines have been met and would like to move this forward. The rest of the commissioners agreed. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with conditions. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, motion passes. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2022 233 W. Bleeker - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations, and Floor Area Bonus, PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Sanzone left the meeting. Applicant Presentation - Sara Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams introduced the new owners of the property and the team from Brandon Architects out of California. She noted the location of the property in the West End and said that most people know it as the DeWolf house. It is a 9,000 SF lot with two landmarks on it…a main house and a carriage house. She went over their requests including conceptual HP review, relocation to dig a basement, demolition of non-historic additions, complete restoration of the two landmarks, an FAR bonus, and a variance for a historic condition of a bump out that sits within a side yard setback. The relocation is only to dig the basement and fix some foundation issues and the building will be placed back in its original location. She said the project is fully compliant with the land use code. The landmark was built about 1887. One of the owners, Kat, said that she was honored to meet the Nicole and Ivan DeWolf. They have been coming to Aspen for 30 years and love the West End. They want to continue with preserving the historic structures. Ms. Adams showed a few pictures of other buildings on the block for context. She showed the original footprint from the Sanborn maps, the existing footprint and the proposed one. They will be reducing the site coverage from 40% to 38%. A lot of care was taken to restore all the indents of the historic footprint. They wanted to focus on keeping the historic buildings in their original locations and focus on the open space around the landmarks. She then showed the range of setbacks in the neighborhood and the proposed setbacks for the project (landmark 15’ / connector 37’ 6” / addition 30’ 6”). She talked about where they placed the connector, pointing out that it will be at the end of an existing wall. Speaking to the open space, she noted that the landmark carriage house is set back ten feet from the main house and they are proposing that it will be twenty feet from the one-story garage on the new addition, which is much shorter in height than the carriage house. She said she focused on the design guidelines that were in the staff memo (1.1, 1.7, and 10.10) She showed some renderings pointing out the open space around the buildings and said the connector would be 12’ 10” high. She then went over design guidelines 10.4 and 10.6 which talk to the relationship of the addition to the landmark. She next showed a comparison of the square footage, noting the total of the historic to be 2,046 SF and the addition to be 1.929 SF. She highlighted the gable roof and range of dormers on the landmark which were used as inspiration for the addition. They are proposing dark metal panel siding on the flat roofed bump out of the addition as well as wood siding for the primary material of the addition. The windows will be similar, they are vertically oriented, but the placement is different than the landmark. Ms. Adams moved into talking about the restoration noting that there is good documentation to guide this. She showed a photo (circa 1900) that they are using to guide many of the restoration elements. She showed historic and current pictures of the east elevation pointing out the large additions that are proposed to be removed. They are removing over 50% of the existing building of non-historic additions. She then showed pictures of the historic and current carriage house and talked to the restoration that will occur on it. She then went over the four criteria for the FAR bonus which is the only Historic Preservation benefit they are requesting. They are asking for the full 500 SF bonus to offset the extensive restoration. She mentioned the one historic variance that they are asking for which is for a bump out on the historic landmark that does not meet the setbacks. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2022 Staff Presentation: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Ms. Yoon started by showing a current picture of the project. She then went over the requests for approval, including major redevelopment, relocation, setback variation, and Floor Area Bonus. She went over the 1904 Sanborn map and highlighted the history of open space within the property. She said staff is always excited when an applicant is excited about the restoration. She then touched on the highlights of the staff memo. A lot of the project is related to restoration and staff wants the documents and restoration details are accurate. She mentioned certain features that may need work and referenced the revised staff responses (exhibit D) that were sent to the board on 1/11/22. She pointed out the proposed staircase for the restoration of the side porch that needs to be restudied. She said a big bulk of staff’s comments are related to the site planning of the new addition. Staff is very excited that the applicant wants to keep the historic structures in their historic locations. She noted the applicants attempt to set back the new addition from the landmark to help with design guideline 10.10. She then showed the proposed rendering viewed from Bleeker St., noting the relationship between the two structures and the ambiguity due to the massing of the addition. She said it was competitive with the historic resource’s front façade. Design guideline 10.10 was really conceived to create a prominence with the historic resource and showed other examples of this in the West End. The final result is to have no competition of the front façade. Staff does not feel that 10.10 was met to its fullest extent and recommend that the applicant restudy the site placement of the addition to create a strong prominence with the historic resource. She said the new addition does have many components that distinguish it as a new design and relate to the historic resource, but as you move to the rear the form changes and becomes a bit more ambiguous. Staff thinks there is opportunity to create a stronger relationship, especially because the full 500 SF FAR is being requested. The west side yard setback variation request of a 2’ reduction is for the historic bay window and is required to keep the historic resource in its original location. Staff is in support of this variation. The 500 SF FAR bonus is the maximum allowed on this lot and staff finds the criteria are not met with the proposed design and would like to re-evaluate the bonus request following restudy of the placement and design. They believe there is ample opportunity for the applicant to earn the max. bonus. Ms. Yoon then stated that staff’s recommendation is continuation with the conditions including: 1. A restudy of the site placement of the new addition to better comply with design guidelines 10.4 and 10.10. 2. A restudy of the proposed staircase leading to the screened side porch facing 2nd street. 3. A restudy of the proposed fenestration of the screened side porch and secondary garage structure. 4. Provide a more detailed stormwater and drainage plan thar is acceptable to all relevant City departments. Ms. Yoon said staff is on support of the relocation request, setback variation request, and that there is the potential to earn the 500 SF FAR bonus. Mr. Fornell asked about the difference between the original application and the amended application, pertaining to the distance from the front lot line to both the historic resource and the new addition. Ms. Yoon mentioned that there was no change related to the placement. Mr. Fornell asked what was the difference between the distance from the front lot line to the historic asset and the same distance to the new addition. He thought there was an amenable difference. Ms. Yoon said that page 60 of the packet REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2022 addressed the distances. She noted that the front of the new addition was setback 16 feet from the front of the historic resource. She said there is no set distance that is required but is more of a visual analysis of the historic resource as being the primary mass and façade without competition. Mr. Fornell asked about the setbacks for the property in the R6 zone. Ms. Thompson said that the setbacks vary dependent on the lot size. Mr. Fornell then said he noticed that the garage on the new addition was in the 10ft rear yard setback. Ms. Thompson said the garage features are allowed to have a 5ft setback per code. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Yoon if they needed to memorialize the setbacks for the carriage house. Ms. Yoon said that since the carriage house is not being lifted or relocated it can maintain the existing condition. Ms. Thompson said from the plans it looks like the East wall (of the carriage house) is going to be new and in the setbacks and wondered if that required anything. Ms. Yoon said staff reviewed this and it can remain is the location. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Thompson asked if the members had received the letter that Ms. Yoon had sent out. Everyone said yes. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson first addressed the relocation and setback variations review. All members were good with these. Ms. Thompson then addressed the major development review and the items under that. First was form and fenestration. Ms. Thompson sees a clear relationship to form between the two structures and felt all those items are appropriate. Mr. Fornell agreed with Ms. Thompson. Ms. Thompson then referenced the rest of the items, including massing, site location and items Ms. Yoon had brought up as a concern. She said she has no issues with the site layout, planning and location of the addition. As far as the massing, she said she would like to see the plate height of the addition match the historic resource. That would bring it to a point where she would approve the 500 SF bonus. Ms. Surfas agreed that reducing the massing would help with the concerns with where the new addition is located. Mr. Halferty agreed as well. Mr. Moyer said he was ok with the site plan. He did not support the FAR bonus yet, was concerned with the loss of the garden and thought there was too much massing on the addition. He said he thought the new addition was very close, but still too big. If that could be done, they might get the 500 SF FAR bonus. Mr. Fornell asked Mr. Moyer if when he said too big, did he mean footprint size or height. Mr. Moyer said height not footprint. Ms. Adams asked for clarification on whether they were getting continued. Ms. Thompson summarized the members comments. She said that they would like to see a reduction of the mass of the primary gable you see from Bleeker St. and have the volume of the addition not be taller than the volume of the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2022 historic resource. Ms. Adams asked for clarity that the footprint and location of the addition were ok and that it was the height of the addition versus the height of the landmark that they need to look at. That the two heights needed to match. Ms. Thompson said that was correct. Ms. Adams asked if there could be a condition of approval that the heights match instead of a continuation. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Yoon if that would be a possibility. Ms. Yoon said that mass and scale items are usually continued to make sure they are honed in correctly, but that it would be up to HPC. She said the soonest they could get this back if it is continued is February 23rd. Ms. Johnson said that while it is up to the discretion of the board, but she wasn’t sure what implications the suggested condition would have on the potential FAR bonus. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that the moratorium has put a lot of pressure on staff, and they would appreciate the opportunity and time to work with the design team and clarify some of the items that have come forward. She agreed that the February 23rd date would be best. Mr. Fornell asked if they couldn’t just place a condition on the new addition that its plate height is at or below the plate height of the historic resource. Mr. Halferty thought it was too loose because of how different roof lines could affect things and that the FAR bonus was tied to this. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to continue this to February 23rd. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, motion passes. Ms. Thompson commended the applicant on an excellent application. Mr. Moyer wondered if the board could look back 3 years at projects where a building was moved more than five feet to then ask themselves if they had done a good job. He thought it would be helpful. Mr. Fornell agreed with Mr. Moyer and thought it would go towards consistency, so that a higher level of expectation can be made by the public about what they can or can’t expect for the board. Ms. Sanzone rejoined the meeting. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair: Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Johnson how to proceed with the election. Ms. Johnson went over various options, including a secret ballot or after oral discussion a motion is made to who they feel should be chair and vice-chair. Mr. Fornell and Mr. Moyer were happy with the current set up. Mr. Fornell motioned for Ms. Thompson to remain as chair and Mr. Halferty to remain as vice-chair. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, motion passes. The board then discussed the open seats for HPC and qualifications for board members. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to adjourn. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passed. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk