Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20211208 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 2021 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 Feinburg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Surfas motioned to approve the minutes from November 10th, 2021; Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. Motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Feinburg about a mural that was painted on the side of the Benton building. He asked if that would need attention. Ms. Feinburg mentioned she had not had a chance to look into it. Mr. Moyer said that it was actually graffiti and it was going to be very difficult to remove. Ms. Simon mentioned that the City would need to reach out to the building owner. Ms. Thompson asked about the new City Council emergency ordinance on development and how it would affect their work. Ms. Johnson said that since all applications on HPC’s agenda had been submitted before the ordinance would take effect, she said that it may not affect things in the short term. Ms. Simon added that they have applications scheduled through about the end of February, but there will be a point where it may affect HPC’s meeting schedule. Mr. Moyer asked about the project at the old Poppies location at Main and 8th. He wanted to have a discussion at some point on that, questioning if it was a good project or not. He wondered if HPC did a good job with it and I they could learn from it. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Yoon if that would be discussed at the year-end review at the end of the meeting. Ms. Yoon said that the Poppies project had been approved quite a while ago and would not be reviewed at this meeting. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: None. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. 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 DECEMBER 8, 2021 OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 132 West Hopkins - Conceptual Major Development APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Gretchen Greenwood – Gretchen Greenwood Architecture, Inc. Ms. Greenwood started by describing the project’s history, showing a few historic pictures. It is a simple one gable building with a long side porch and 3 doors off the porch. She noted the decorative porch overhang which is still on the building. In 1988 the building was moved from 120 North to 132. In 1989 the property was granted a building permit that HPC reviewed for a 650 square foot addition, a one car parking variance and a 5-foot west side setback variance putting the addition on the western lot line. In 2004 the property went through a historic lot split establishing the current property boundaries. Many subsequent minor remodels had occurred resulting in the residence losing some historic details and simplicity. In this project they are proposing the rectify the past changes and restore the project to its more simplistic self. She then showed a more current street view of the property and the south facing wall. She pointed out a window that was added in the 1940s on the east side that adds a lot of natural light. The window would be removed in the restoration plan, but that the removal was not in the owner’s plan. Since there are going to be many window and door changes in the historic resource that will reduce light coming in, she would like HPC to discuss keeping the east side window. She then showed some pictures of the non-historic addition that will be removed. She showed a picture of the north side of the historic resource and noted that window changes that had occurred in the past. She said she did not have any historic pictures to reference what might have been there originally but was planning on putting in two single windows to match the south side. Then showing the west side of the historic resource she pointed out the skylight that is to be removed and the small window that would be changed to a double hung window. Ms. Greenwood continued by describing her proposals for the project including moving the building 3 feet to the west to assist in the construction of a full basement and a new addition. To meet current zoning standards regarding parking, the redesign of the addition will include a parking space in the northeast corner. She mentioned the building will also be moved forward by 10 feet 2 inches to allow for siding off the front of the property line. While showing different elevation drawings she mentioned she is proposing to restore the building and add a two-story addition on the rear of the property. She is also proposing a 14-foot wide gable on the second story of the addition to match the single gable of the historic resource. The addition will also have simple vertical metal windows and horizontal and vertical wood siding. She mentioned that they will be restoring the horizontal siding on the historic resource. Showing the east elevation, she pointed out the windows that she is proposing to take out but that the owner would like to keep due to the light that they provide. She then showed the north elevation pointing out slopped skylights on the addition to provide light in the bathroom and also pointed out the parking area. Ms. Greenwood then went over the existing and proposed floor areas noting that the new floor area would only be increased by about 80 square feet. She mentioned that the building itself meets all the residential design guidelines with no variations needed. Also through the restoration they will be able to solve drainage problems that currently exist and bring the building up to civil engineering standards for drainage and water quality. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 2021 Mr. Fornell mentioned that it was easy to notice from the street that on the west side of the roof line of the historic resource you could see a metal flashing flue or venting that hasn’t been addressed or shown in pictures. He asked if Ms. Greenwood was aware of this. Ms. Greenwood said she wasn’t aware, but it would be addressed at final approval. She mentioned that the mechanical room would be relocated to the addition so no venting would have to go through the historic resource. Ms. Sanzone asked about historic plant materials namely a lilac shrub. Ms. Greenwood said that she was not aware of any lilacs on the property. STAFF PRESENTATON: Natalie Feinburg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Ms. Feinburg Lopez started by pointing out a few items. She said the applicant is in Conceptual Major Development and is asking for a relocation, setback variations and a floor area bonus. She then showed two pictures, one from the early 1900s and one from 1991 after the building had been moved from Spring St. to Hopkins. She highlighted the proposed restoration of the property and said it was a benefit to the historic resource but pointed out a few items that staff is concerned with. One is that the double hung windows that were added to the East elevation be removed and the siding replaced. Another is to restudy the chimney placement and design during construction in order to meet criteria for the floor area bonus. Staff would like both of these concerns to be discussed by HPC. As far as the new addition, staff finds that it meets most of the relevant HPC guidelines but recommends restudy of specific elements such as fenestration and overall height. They believe that the sill height may be higher than what is deemed acceptable and would like to see an overall shorter height. She asked that HPC discuss this as well. She then highlighted referral comments from Engineering, Parks and Zoning departments related to concerns about the relocation of the house forward on the lot. Ms. Feinburg Lopez then went over the setback variance requests. These included a rear yard setback of 5’ above and below grade and side yard setback reduction of 3’ on the west and 8”-12” on the east side. She then mentioned that the 116.4 square foot floor area bonus request is dependent on the rehab of the building to restore the historic resource to match the historic pictures. She then went over the staff recommendations to continue this application with the following direction: • Restudy the fenestration and height of the new addition • Remove the double hung windows in the East elevation of the historic asset and restore clapboard siding • Provide a study for Utilities and locations required. • Provide study for tree health and stability • Provide a detailed stormwater and drainage plan that is acceptable to all relevant City Departments. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Feinburg Lopez what happens if it is found that the structure cannot be moved forward or if it cannot be moved the full amount requested due to drainage issues, etc. Ms. Feinburg Lopez said that if the Engineering and Parks Departments require it not to be moved then we can have the next discussion and move into a variance for the garage on the north side. Mr. Fornell stated that back in 2007 this property was granted a floor area bonus and he asked if the current floor area bonus request is appropriate since one had already been granted. Ms. Feinburg Lopez REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 2021 said that in the ordinance a total floor area bonus is set depending on the lot size and the previous bonus did not use the total amount allowed for this property. Mr. Fornell stated that in the packet staff mentions that the proposed 3-foot setback on the east side would be better for the neighbor than the current 1-foot setback. He asked if the 5-foot setback required in the land use code would be even better. Ms. Feinburg reminded HPC that they are juggling things here and that the code does require 5-foot setbacks on both the east and west but that they just don’t have that room and are doing the best they can on the lot. Mr. Fornell said that it sounds to him like the historic asset can live within the setbacks. He said that on page 14 of the packet staff says the application respects all of the zoning including setbacks. He asked what part of a request for variances on three of the four setbacks meets the zoning goals. Ms. Feinburg responded by saying that they are doing their best to make sure the historic asset has the floor space, substantially below grade, that there is a smaller addition than what is there currently, and that the design of the addition is more compatible with the historic asset. She said that the application is the best scenario that they have seen in a long time for taking a small 3,000 square foot lot and having the asset site centrally on the lot line. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. David Melton said he lives across the alley and said the current garage is monolithic and was concerned if the height of the new addition would be higher than the current structure. He asked if someone could answer the question of what the proposed height of the new addition would be compared to the current structure. Ms. Greenwood said that the top of the proposed garage is 21’ 8” at this point and that the current height of the structure is 23’. She then clarified that the top of the current gable is 23’ 7” and the proposed height of the new gable is 28’ 3” but is well forward of the current gable. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson went over the points for discussion and review including relocation, setback criteria, floor area bonus and conceptual major development. She wanted to start with relocation and setback criteria. Mr. Moyer stated that it was an interesting project and that the new was smaller than the old. He was not opposed to moving the building or the setback variances. Mr. Fornell said he was not opposed to moving the building and was also not apposed to any setback variances related to the historic asset. He said was opposed to setback variances related to the new addition. Ms. Surfas was not opposed to the relocation and the setback variances. Mr. Halferty was fine with the relocation of the historic resource. He said that the setback variances on the new addition were a bit confusing but thought it was better that it moved a little bit and wondered if there was any more room to allow more space between the property line. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 2021 Ms. Sanzone supported the relocation. For the setback variations, she appreciates that its a small lot and supports the setbacks for the historic resource. She said she supported additional study of the new addition to see if it could better comply with setback requirements. Ms. Thompson said she was struggling with the setback variations because they were hard to understand from the plans as related to the angled property line. She was not opposed to the setback variations but would like some more clarity on the documentation. Ms. Thompson said she agreed with staff that for the floor area bonus to be granted they would need to see full restoration of the windows at the front of the house. She said that while she appreciated the width of the gable on the new addition being similar to the historic resource the overall height made the proportions look out of place. Mr. Moyer agreed about the height of the addition and said he was not opposed to the floor area bonus. Ms. Thompson said that for her to support the floor area bonus that she would need to see the height come down on the addition. Ms. Surfas also thought the height needed to be reviewed. She thought it did not seem compatible with the historic asset. Mr. Fornell would not support a floor area bonus nor support approval for the new addition within either of the side yard setbacks. He asked if the proposed height met code. Ms. Thompson said yes but that in their guidelines it allows for a bit more discretion. Mr. Fornell had no issues with the height as long as it was within code. Mr. Halferty agreed that in order to consider the floor area bonus a full restoration needed to comply. As far as the height, he commended the architect trying to do the 12x12 pitch to match the historic resource but thought it was a bit towering above the historic resource. To support it the height needs to come down. Ms. Sanzone agreed with prior comments but added that she would like the applicant to consider the style of the historic fence that shows up in the historic reference photo. Ms. Thompson summarized that there was agreement that the relocation was appropriate. That there were some varying questions regarding the setbacks and about the new addition in the setbacks. That in order to grant the floor area bonus there was agreement for full restoration and a reduction in the height of the addition. Ms. Surfas commented that there wasn’t discussion of the chimney. Ms. Greenwood said that her goal would be to retore it to its original location. Ms. Thompson asked for clarification that there was two parking space in the project. Ms. Feinburg Lopez confirmed this. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to continue this application based on the feedback given tonight. 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. Ms. Thompson asked if there was a date in mind. Ms. Feinburg Lopez said that March would be the soonest. March 9th was set as the date for the next meeting. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 2021 END OF YEAR REVIEW – Sarah Yoon – Historic Preservation Planner Ms. Yoon presented on the Historic Preservation Commission’s previous year. She showed that HPC had a total of 18 virtual hearings and 1 in person work session. There was a total of 15 projects presented to HPC and 15 resolutions. There were three attendants to the 2021 Saving Places Conference. She then referenced the 2019 and 2020 HPC award winners. She then noted some staff additions and changes on HPC this year. Natalie Feinburg Lopez started with the City on May 25th as the new Historic Preservation Officer and Amy Simon started her new role as Planning Director for the City of Aspen. Peter Fornell and Jodi Surfas joined HPC this year on April 5th as well as Mike Sear starting as the new Deputy Clerk for HPC. She also noted that we lost Bob Blaich this year who had been on the HPC board and did so much for the community. Ms. Yoon then went over all the various projects that were seen by HPC this year. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passed. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk