Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20220309 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2022 Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:45pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Sheri Sanzone and Roger Moyer. Staff present: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant II MINUTES: Ms. Thompson motioned to continue the approval of minutes from February 9th, 2022; Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor; motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson asked about the date scheduled for the work session. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said they were moving forward with April 27th. 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 for both agenda items. OLD BUSINESS: 303 S. Galena Street - Minor Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED TO 5/25 MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to continue this item to May 25th. Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, motion passes. 132 W Hopkins Major Conceptual Review - PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Gretchen Greenwood – Gretchen Greenwood Architects, Inc. Ms. Greenwood went over a quick review of the project showing a few historic pictures that she has been using to address the restoration. The house used to be located at 120 N. Spring and was moved to 132 W. Hopkins around 1980. She then went over some of the planned restoration details as referenced REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2022 from the historic pictures. She mentioned that she would be going over the items and comments provided by HPC at the last hearing, including a restudy of the roof, zoning compliance, engineering comments and issues raised by Parks about the cottonwood tree located on the property. She started by describing the roof restudy and commented that while on HPC she always thought better projects usually came out of restudies. Showing the previous proposed south elevation and the new revised proposal, Ms. Greenwood said she was able to lower the height of the main gable of the addition by 2’ 10” and reduced the form of the previous flat roof section to a sloping angled 12 & 12 pitch. She also reduced the size of the main window and removed the sun overhang above it. The new proposed height of the gable is 26 feet. She then showed the east and north elevations and further described the lowered gable roof height. She then shared some renderings done of the proposed project describing the historic resource and new addition in relationship to what is currently there. Referencing the Zoning comments, Ms. Greenwood said she had several meetings with Zoning to go over floor area. The existing floor area is 1,576 square feet and the proposed is 1,809 square feet. During the meetings they also went over the setbacks and she then described the four sections of proposed setbacks variations on the west and north sides. She then emphasized that he proposed footprint of the building is slightly smaller than the existing one. The civil engineering comments related to the electrical source for this building. Ms. Greenwood said she talked with the City Utilities department, and they confirmed that they do have 400 amps for the property. The current house draws 200 amps, and they are asking for 200 more, which will be tied in with the transformer for the Molly Gibson Lodge. Engineering also wanted them to sign a sidewalk agreement that will be signed by the owner and wants them to create a curbed sidewalk around the cottonwood tree in the front of the property which will be presented at final. Ms. Thompson asked about the fireplace and commented on the height. Ms. Greenwood showed the historic photo again and pointed out how tall it was historically. Mr. Halferty asked to see the main level floor plan again and asked if the bay window bump out on the west elevation was historic. Ms. Greenwood said yes, it is. Mr. Halferty then asked for Ms. Greenwood to go over the proposed setback variations again. He also asked what the requested Floor Area Bonus was. Ms. Greenwood said they are requesting 105 square feet and mentioned that the neighboring property was granted 116 in 2017. Staff Presentation: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Ms. Feinberg Lopez started by showing the current conditions of the property and reviewed the approval requests, including conceptual major development, relocation, setback variation and floor area bonus. She then went over the previously reviewed items of concern regarding the restoration and previous alterations. She then reviewed the changes to the new addition that Ms. Greenwood had described earlier and the referral comments for City departments that Ms. Greenwood has addressed. She went over the multiple requested setback variations and floor area bonus request. The setback variations include a rear yard reduction of 5’ on the north, and side yard reductions of 4’ on the west side and on the east side reductions of 3’ (segment A), 1’ (segment B), and 4’2” (segment C). She then stated that staff recommends HPC approve this application as all items requested for restudy have been addressed. She pointed out that staff is going to be interested in finding out the original placement of the chimney when demolition starts. Staff believes it may have been rebuilt when the building was moved. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2022 PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson started with a request for comments on the relocation of the building and the related criteria for approval. No comments from commissioners. She then stated that the massing and scale, setback variations and floor area bonus were fairly tied together and suggested that discussion on these occur together. Mr. Moyer agreed with staff recommendations and that Ms. Greenwood had done a great job. Mr. Halferty thanked Ms. Greenwood for listening to the commission’s comments and thought that reducing the height on the rear gable was very affective. He thought that because of the amount of restoration being proposed and that they were asking for less than the allowable floor area bonus, he would be in support of this and found it to be a great project. He requested that the applicant work with Parks and their civil engineer on the different department comments. Ms. Sanzone agreed with previous comments and thought it was greatly improved. She liked the modern addition in its new form and appreciated the extra time spent with staff drilling down on the issues and coming up with great solutions. Ms. Thompson agreed and is supportive of this. She appreciated the removal of the window near the front porch to make this a true restoration. She agreed with Mr. Halferty that it is such an oddly shaped lot and because of that the setback variations are well earned. She thought the fact that this is a long and skinny house, combined with the revisions to the height of the rear addition, the addition would not be very visible from the street and what would be visible would be complimentary to the historic resource. She liked the revisions to the siding from the original design and thought it was successful in breaking up the mass. She then asked Ms. Greenwood about the existing drywell and asked if it needed to be deepened. Ms. Greenwood said it was installed in 2010 when the foundation around the entire house was fixed. At that time Parks and Civil Engineering watched the installation of the drywell. She said that more information would be coming in the final review. Ms. Sanzone mentioned that the conditions for approval in the resolution were different from what Ms. Feinberg Lopez’s final slide showed. She asked if Ms. Feinberg Lopez’s final slide showed the comments from the previous meeting that had been addressed. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said they were from the previous meeting. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the Resolution with conditions. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, 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