Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20220126 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2022 Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jodi Surfas, Kara Thompson, Sheri Sanzone, Jeffrey Halferty and Peter Fornell. 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: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None. Mr. Moyer joined the meeting at 4:32pm. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Yoon thanked Ms. Thompson and Mr. Halferty for being very responsive about the project monitoring questions. She said she sent Ms. Thompson a follow up email and asked her to look at it. Ms. Yoon then said she had one more project monitoring for Ms. Sanzone at 920 East Hyman and asked Ms. Sanzone to let her know when she would be available. 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 for both agenda items. She noted that for the minor development at 303 S. Galena the code only requires posting. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 303 S. Galena - Minor Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED TO 3/9 MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to continue this item to March 9th. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. Motion passes. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2022 312 W. Hyman - Conceptual Major Development Staff Presentation: Natalie Feinberg Lopez – Historic Preservation Officer Ms. Feinberg Lopez started by showing a picture of the project in its current condition and went over some identifying information about the lot and zoning. She then presented a few historic pictures of the property and noted that Ms. Simon was able to save this building from demolition. It is a fairly untouched representation of the Aspen Modern Chalet style and was built in 1956. She then showed a historic picture and pointed out a number of proposed alterations. She noted that currently there are double hung doors on the west elevation that serve as the main entrance. These replaced an original window. The applicant is proposing a two-story addition to the west side of the building for a new entry way that would be tucked in under the eaves and include an interior stairway. This would change the footprint and fenestration. She continued to go over other proposed changes including new windows on the south elevation, a new chimney and skylights, new siding on the east elevation, a wraparound deck at the NE corner, and two new bedrooms on the lower level. There is also an addition proposed on the North elevation (back) of the building and that this is where staff likes to see them. The applicant is also proposing a one car detached garage. She said that this is very different from the typical project in that they are not proposing to relocate the building, there’s no basement and no large addition in the back. She said there are many aspects of this design that she is excited to promote and just wants to get it to meet design guidelines. She then went over some areas she is concerned about. We are losing a lot of the original windows and changing the sizing. Typically, we don’t change windows for doors or add windows or additional penetrations. Normally additions are not on one of the main elevations (West) and are typically on the rear of the structure. She then went over some issues she would like to look at for redesign. She referenced items that had come back from referral comments from different City departments, including Engineering, Parks, Building, and Zoning. She then went over staff recommendation to continue the application with the following direction: 1. Restudy the fenestration as proposed on all elevations of the historic resource. 2. Restudy the entrance and proposed associated addition. 3. Restudy roof penetrations and remove new chimney. 4. Provide a study for Utilities and location of any equipment needed. 5. Provide a study for tree health and stability. 6. Restudy the site to address Zoning and Engineering concerns. She also noted that they are missing a site rating and existing elevations that will be needed for the next meeting if continued. Mr. Fornell asked about Zoning’s comments about a zero-foot setback on the West. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that her thought is that they are looking for a restudy for a combined side yard setback. She said she needs to make sure she has the right people to discuss that with. Ms. Thompson mentioned that HPC can waive that requirement in a variance. Mr. Fornell referenced Building’s comment that there needs to be a one-hour fire wall for any part of the property that is less than five feet from the lot line. He asked if that was a concern for HPC. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that it was something for the building permit stage that will be reviewed. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2022 Mr. Fornell then asked what happened to the deed restriction. Ms. Simon said that there was never a deed restriction and the fund had been paid back and it is free market. Mr. Fornell asked about two pages in the application. One in which it says the applicant is not asking for any TDRs and another that says they are requesting up to 4 TDRs. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that her understanding is that no TDRs are requested. Mr. Fornell asked if they can request those later. Ms. Simon said yes, they could, and Ms. Johnson said they would have to meet all code requirements. Mr. Fornell referenced the existing condition that the building sits 2’ 4” off the east lot line and asked if in their remodeling if that requires a variance. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that it did not unless they changed it or had a demolition percentage that triggered requiring a variance. Mr. Fornell asked about the placement of the jacuzzi because it looked like it was in two different places in the application. Ms. Feinberg Lopez Said that it did show in two places and that the applicant would speak to that in their presentation. Ms. Surfas asked if there were existing plans. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that they are in plan view and are next to the proposed. She mentioned that Zoning had called for better clarification of the labeling of that. Applicant Presentation: Jeffrey Woodruff – Cloud Hill Design / David Tarrab - Applicant Mr. Tarrab started by showing a rendering of the building and described its location, next showing an overhead of the building’s vicinity. He then showed the existing conditions of the lot and noted the angled position of the building on the lot. Mr. Woodruff stated that the project was about how to take something that was at some point intended to be a multi-family and create a single-family residence. He said the house is 1870 square feet and they are proposing to add 47 square feet. He referenced the front south facing façade is all about the car, pointing out the two-car garage and that the southeast corner is the mechanical room. He said the goal is to have the downstairs be a three-bedroom, three-bathroom en suite and an open plan upstairs. He then showed the west elevation and noted that because of the canting of the building on the lot that both the south and west facades are street facing. He showed the project overview including the existing square footage of 1870 SF and the various proposed additional square footage. He talked about the move of the garage to the back of the lot. He then referenced the addition of the two triangle windows on the south façade and the bump out addition on the west elevation to include a double height staircase. This addition is to be kept under the exposed soffit per staff’s comments. He then talked about the existing staircase being in the center of the house and the house only being 1800 SF. The goal was, after conversation with the city, to have a modest bump out on the west side, staying under the existing soffit for the staircase. He showed the bottom level garage doors and said that they will stay operable and serve as egress for the bedrooms. He clarified that the jacuzzi would be on the lower level in the back and not visible from the street. He then showed the 47 SF addition on the north elevation, similar to the bump out on the west elevation, that would add living space. Next, he showed renderings of the proposed one car garage in the back to include a mud room and trash enclosure. Mr. Tarrab then went over a few design review criteria that they were provided from the City. Ms. Thompson asked to see a drawing showing where the trees are on the site. Mr. Tarrab show a few slides showing some trees. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2022 PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson went over the topics of discussion including the new garage addition, the additions to the historic structure and the fenestration changes. Mr. Fornell complemented the applicant for the project. He said that as small as the west addition is it is going to give a different look than historically. He said that with not moving the house and the small percentage of additions being done there is opportunity for discussion on the fenestration. He also said that you don’t have to change the look of an exterior to gain energy efficiency. He did not have a problem with the addition under the eave, but was concerned with the historical features, mostly with regard to the glass. Ms. Sanzone asked if there had been a discussion between the applicant and staff about what time frame the restoration should be targeting. She said what she hadn’t heard was an approach to restore this back to what it was. It seemed more about adaptably reusing the structure to make it more livable and that really wasn’t what the goal of the HPC program. She would really support going back to a fenestration that mirrors a point in time. Ms. Thompson agreed with Mr. Fornell’s thoughts about the effort that has gone into the project and that the applicant is not moving the structure or do a massive addition. She understands the approach to the garage and thinks the fenestration on the south façade should mimic what is currently there. She understands the small size of the house and lot and is amenable with the addition on the north side but is struggling with the addition on the west side and the change it creates in relationship with the eave. Mr. Halferty agreed with previous comments and said the addition to the west feels like an appendage. He was in support of the site planning of the garage and thought it was a logical spot. He commented on the proposed triangle windows on the south side being where the sunlight is but agreed with Ms. Sanzone’s comments about a true restoration. He said that while the windows make sense from a functional standpoint, he wasn’t sure if they were supportive of HPC’s guidelines. He said that for the restoration, use windows that are a product of that time, and any new additions can have their own identity while being compatible. On this project Ms. Thompson disagreed with the guideline that states that you have to have a walkway running perpendicular to the street from the house. It wasn’t appropriate to require with the angle of this home. Mr. Fornell thought that there was competing goals from departments, especially with regard to the driveway. He asked if the goal of leaving an amended driveway was to accomplish the second parking space. Ms. Thompson said the last time they looked at this project they agreed that it was important to preserve and maintain some aspect of the driveway because that was the original site plan. Ms. Sanzone compared this issue to doors that don’t lead anywhere. Attempts are made to keep exterior doors in place even if they don’t have a use. Mr. Fornell wondered about the appropriateness of the skylights as it relates to the guidelines and the comments regarding a sidewalk. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2022 Ms. Thompson said that they have to provide two parking spots and it would be something the applicant would be discussing with Ms. Feinberg Lopez and the Engineering Department. She said HPC has not usually had success pushing back on sidewalks, but it would also be something discussed with Engineering. She said that they have allowed skylights and that she would be ok with some minimal flush skylights in favor of removing the triangle windows on the south facing façade. Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Thompson what an acceptable flush skylight be. He said he agreed and would be ok trading the triangle windows for minimally profiled skylights. Ms. Surfas agreed about the skylights as long as they were held back enough from the south so you wouldn’t see them protruding from the roofline while walking by. Mr. Fornell asked if the skylights would present a lighting code issue. Mr. Moyer mentioned to Ms. Feinberg Lopez that when he first got this, he questioned why HPC got it. There were so many things proposed that HPC just doesn’t do on landmark buildings. He said that since they are looking at it, he is not opposed to the garage addition on the back providing that the building has the same size openings as the historical building. He is not opposed to the skylights because they have allowed those in the past on landmark buildings as long as they are as flush as possible. He said regards to the walkway, because of what they have it doesn’t need to be perpendicular to the street. He agreed with all the other comments and said that it is not their job to remake a landmark building, it is to preserve them in everyway possible. Ms. Thompson pointed out that there were many comments about the building materials not being met and thought that there is more work to be provided on the rehabilitation plan. She then mentioned the chimney and referenced that venting is required for appliances and that this should be as minimal as possible. She thought what was represented tonight was fairly significant and would like to see it reduced or an explanation of why what was represented is required. Ms. Sanzone said that they are missing some important information regarding stormwater plans, utilities and grading which are all critical to get and need to be worked on with a landscape architect or civil engineer so that surprises are not brought up at final that require additional changes. Typically, HPC doesn’t accept it as a complete application with out that information. Ms. Thompson also asked to see existing elevations because it is hard to differentiate went pulling from photos. She said the low slope roof on the garage is important and the scale of the garage was appropriate to the site. She pointed out the symmetry on the chalet and suggested it should be used as a guideline for the layout and proportions of the garage. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to continue this to March 23rd. 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. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passed. ___________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk