Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20220223 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 2022 Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Jodi Surfas, Kara Thompson, 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. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes from January 26th, 2022; Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor; motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer said he was thinking about the employee housing issue and thought that they had made some mistakes over the past few years. He referenced the vacant building next to White House Tavern and said that it previously had two employee units in it that currently are empty and not being used. He thought that if employee housing is such an issue that they should be keeping that in mind when making decisions. He also referenced a building near his house at the corner of Park and Park Circle which for 30 years used to house about 20 units and is now owned by Mark Hunt and is sitting empty. He asked if HPC had any recourse to do anything. Then mentioning the Chase Bank building, he asked why it is only one story. Why aren’t there two more stories for employee housing. He didn’t know if HPC could make those demands but thought the City should consider these. Ms. Simon said that there were two deed restricted units at 304 E Hopkins (next to White House Tavern) that were replaced with housing credits. Mr. Halferty mentioned the Chase building as well and pointed out the large neon sing in the back of the interior. He thought it may pass code because it was more than 10 feet from the windows but said it was very bright back there and asked if it actually passed code. Ms. Simon said that depending on how far back into the interior it changes the degree of regulations. Ms. Feinberg Lopez responded to Mr. Moyer’s comments on employee housing saying that the moratorium is designed to address some issues around affordable housing and that there are also some lighting code changes coming up as well. She mentioned that some of these could be topics of discussion for HPC’s upcoming work session. Mr. Fornell stated that when a Historic property comes to HPC for review they are the final authority in that review. He thought they should be keeping an eye on not just the roof lines and shapes of windows but on the applicant’s applicability to the code when it comes to affordable housing mitigation. He used the 925 King St. project as an example. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 2022 Ms. Simon commented that the 925 King St. property, after staff had gone back and reviewed things again, did not qualify as multi- family housing and a specific determination of that was made in 2015 if not earlier. Ms. Thompson noted that from a land use code perspective, all affordable housing issues falls to Council. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Yoon mentioned that she would be reaching out to Ms. Thompson and Mr. Halferty about some project monitoring questions. STAFF COMMENTS: None. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Feinberg Lopez said one at 627 E. Hopkins for fixing some drainage issues and another at 400 W. Main for some window replacements. 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. OLD BUSINESS: 233 W. Bleeker- Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations, and Floor Area Bonus - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams mentioned that the owners and Brandon Architects are on the call. This project was discussed in January and was continued until tonight. She went over their requests as stated in the January meeting and covered the HPC feedback from that meeting. The feedback was to lower the height of the addition to match the height of the historic gable facing Bleeker St. She stated that she would be focusing on the feedback from HPC. She then showed a comparison of the proposal from January and the revised proposal presented now. She stated that previously the height of the gable on the addition was about 2’ 9” taller than the gable on the historic asset. The location of the addition and connector has not changed, and the addition is set back about 15’ 6” from the historic façade. She then compared the square footage changes of the historic asset and addition from January to February noting that the height of the addition has been reduced by 2’ 9” and the square footage is down slightly. She then went over the changes to the second-floor layout of the addition and also the gables on the addition. She then went over the changes to the side porch and carriage house from January to February. She talked about a few Historic Preservation guidelines and said she thought the historic resource is the focus of the property, especially now that the height of the addition is lower. She showed a few historic photos referencing the restoration work to be done and went over the FAR bonus criteria. They are in agreement with of all staff recommendations in the memo. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 2022 Mr. Halferty asked to see the historic photo of the carriage house again and asked about what appeared to be a garage door. Mr. Fornell thanked Ms. Adams for the work and thought it was an improvement over what they saw before. He asked if Ms. Adams had been engaged by the owners prior to the close. Ms. Adams didn’t think that was relevant to the HPC review. Staff Presentation: Sarah Yoon – Historic Preservation Planner Ms. Yoon summarized the prior meeting on this property and highlighted HPC’s direction on what changes they wanted to see related to the compatibility of the height between the historic resource and the new addition. She then went over the requests for approval and description of the lot. She pointed out the larger changes that Ms. Adams went over related to the height of the proposed addition and the subsequent change to the massing of the addition seen from the South elevation. She said that staff believes that the changes are in line with HPC’s direction given in January. She said it is clear that the amount of restoration work deserves to be evaluated for the full FAR bonus, however the care for the restoration needs to be as accurate of we can get. Staff is very excited to see both historic structures come back to the historic conditions they were in. She then went over the benefits request of the west side yard setback variation and 500SF Floor Area Bonus. Next, she went over the staff recommendations outlined in the staff memo found in the packet. Ms. Surfas asked about the Zoning department’s comments related to a variance needed for the stairs at the screen porch. Ms. Yoon mentioned that it was determined that the amount of changes in the revised application did not need another round of reviews by city departments and that the stairs have been removed as part of the revised application. Ms. Surfas also asked about comments related to a parking easement needed for a transformer. Ms. Yoon said that there was a response submitted as part of the revised application addressing this. Mr. Fornell pointed out a couple of incidences in the packet where the requested west side yard setback variance is referred to as an “east” side yard setback. Ms. Yoon said that correction would be made. Mr. Halferty asked if staff had looked at the landscaping related to the driveway leading to the carriage house. Ms. Yoon said that staff advised against a proposed driveway leading to the garage door and that it has been removed. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson summarized the general consensus from the last meeting was that HPC wanted to see the height reduction on the addition and that they hesitated on the FAR bonus approval until they saw that massing reduction would look like. She thought the applicant did an excellent job with the revised design and that she would be willing to approve the Floor Area Bonus. Mr. Moyer agreed with staff and Ms. Thompson. Mr. Halferty also agreed with staff and the other commissioners as far as the FAR bonus. Ms. Surfas said she thought it was a great improvement and is in favor. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 2022 Mr. Fornell said he thought they were complying with the requirements and guidelines and agreed with everyone here. He said he thought we were in an environment with our community where we are at odds with size and scale and that HPC was handing out Floor Area Bonuses and set back variances like chicklets. He said this project is more deserving than some. He felt that he was not one to hand these things out lightly. Ms. Thompson said she thought they were not either and that they have strict criteria for allocating those bonuses which have become stricter over time. She mentioned that the applicant is preserving an outbuilding and doing a lot of restoration to a building significantly impacted over the years to get it back to what it was. She thought that the historic structure is the key element, they are being pretty strict, and that the applicant has met the guidelines and accommodated the mass and scale comments made by HPC. Mr. Halferty said that in caretaking the property and in knowing the family he knew that they beat up the property. They preserved it but added and changed things, so to see a true restoration is complimentary. This is why they give FAR bonuses and variances when needed, when it is a fantastic and exemplary project. Ms. Thompson asked commissioners if they had any input of landscaping around the carriage house. Mr. Halferty said to do more research on the western façade of the carriage house and that having a door that looks like a garage door and having grass in front of it is a little confusing. Ms. Thompson agreed. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #3 with the revision to condition #5 and the addition of condition #8. Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, motion passes. NEW BUSINESS: 135 W. Francis Street - Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Kim Raymond – Kim Raymond Architects Ms. Raymond thanked HPC for their approval of the form and massing and mentioned that they are here tonight to talk about materials, a few staff concerns and fenestration. She showed pictures of the existing conditions and reviewed the project including the existing and proposed site plans. She highlighted the straightening of the building on the lot and keeping it in the historic location with relation to the front setback. She then showed pictures from the 1960s and described the restoration plans for some of the historic elements. The south and west elevations were then shown, and Ms. Raymond talked about the fenestration on the new addition and how it was attempting to mimic the look of historic resource. She then showed a rendering of the front of the building and noted the similar roof lines between the historic resource and new addition. She pointed out that the garage doors on the alley side would be frosted glass. The landscape plan was then described and also the proposed materials for the restoration and new addition. Renderings and elevations were shown highlighting the placement of different materials on the historic asset and new addition including siding, roofing, and glass. Ms. Raymond then went over a few staff comments including the storm water management and preservation plans that they are addressing. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 2022 Ms. Thompson asked if the lightwells would have grates and Ms. Raymond said yes. Ms. Thompson referenced the landscape plan and asked about a few pavers that seemed to be going from the property line to the fence. Ms. Raymond said they lead to the small patio area between the historic resource and the new addition. Staff Presentation: Sarah Yoon – Historic Preservation Planner Ms. Yoon noted that the applicant has received conceptual approval for major development, relocation, setback variations and a 60 square foot floor area bonus and are back tonight for final review including materials, landscaping and lighting plans. She said that staff finds the landscape plan to be respectful of the design guidelines. She mentioned that the exploratory demolition will be important on this project especially on the porch and its framing. She then went over staff comments about approval conditions related to fence details, light fixtures, garage door materials and FDC hook up. Going over the staff recommendations she noted that because of the additional information provided by the applicant, conditions #4 and #5 have been stricken. She said staff is recommending approval of the application for final review with conditions #1, #2, #3, and #6. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Thompson noted that Ms. Yoon forwarded a public comment to commissioners and asked if commissioners had received and read that. All commissioners said yes. She asked if there would be any response to it. Ms. Yoon said it will be part of the public record and was sent to the applicant. Staff and HPC members discussed some of the comments made and Ms. Raymond said they would be willing to reach out to the neighbor about her concerns. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson went over the criteria for review, including fenestration, materials, and landscaping. She agreed with Ms. Yoon’s removal of conditions #4 and #5 that had been addressed and did not have any additional comments. Mr. Moyer thought it was a good project. He thought it might be helpful to tag along to a Historical Society tour and try to think of what a tourist may think of when looking at a project such as this. He wondered if tourists would be able to differentiate between the historic and new addition. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #4 with conditions # 8 and #9 removed. 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. Mr. Fornell was assigned to be the project monitor on this. The commissioners and staff discussed the scheduling of the upcoming HPC work session. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor; motion passed. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk