Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20220427 SITE VISIT & REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 27TH, 2022 HPC Site Visit April 27th, 2022, at 949 W. Smuggler - AspenModern Designation and Conceptual Review. Site visit started at 12:00pm. Commissioners in attendance: Kara Thompson, Jodi Surfas, Roger Moyer, and Barb Pitchford. Staff present: Amy Simon – Planning Director Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Principal Historic Preservation Officer Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Also present were the applicant and the applicant’s representative. Tour of site, staff and applicant identified approximate location of lot split boundary and setback lines. They also identified trees and accessory structures. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to continue the public hearing to May 11th, 2022. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes. All in favor, motion passes. The site visit ended at 12:50pm. ____________________ Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford and Sheri Sanzone. Staff present: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty commented that it was exciting to have everyone in person. Ms. Sanzone asked about the potential to have a hybrid meeting to allow better participation for all parties. There was some discussion about the current capabilities of holding hybrid meetings and Ms. Johnson mentioned that she had stressed to City Staff that the ability for hybrid meetings would be appreciated by board members, applicants and members of the public wishing to participate. SITE VISIT & REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 27TH, 2022 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Johnson mentioned that there were a number of outreach opportunities surrounding the Moratorium if any board members would be interested in participating. Ms. Thompson asked if anything had come of the lighting meetings that had occurred. Ms. Feinberg Lopez described the two meetings she had attended. Mr. Fornell asked if there had been any resolution regarding the project monitoring matter at 930 King St. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that it was a project of Sarah Yoon and she was not completely up to date but thought it was still in process. There was some discussion on the project. 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 the agenda item. OLD BUSINESS: 312 W. Hyman – Conceptual Review and Setback Variations Applicant Presentation: Jeffrey Woodruff - Cloud Hill Design / David Tarrab – Applicant Mr. Woodruff stated that they went back and reviewed the Historic Preservation Guidelines and the packet provided City Council for the original historic designation noting the key physical attributes of the resource. He then showed some similar chalet style examples that they are using as reference and historic pictures of the existing chalet. He described some of the interior features they are planning on, referencing some interior pictures of the chalet and showed some newspaper clippings from the time the chalet was built. He showed what they had proposed in January and mentioned that the Commission had requested the applicant team go back and restudy each of the façades and the fenestration. He also mentioned that the Commission didn’t have much issue with the garage/bedroom conversion and that they had spent a lot of time with Parks and Forestry. He went over some changes made to the façades and upper and lower levels by showing the existing and proposed plans. He then showed the updated renderings highlighting that the proposed south elevation is exactly what the existing chalet looks like currently including the garage doors. The only modification is on the window under the eave. The west façade, a previous concern to the Commission, is virtually unchanged from existing conditions. He then went over each façade comparing the existing and proposed side by side. Next, he described some of the energy efficiency studies that they conducted with a consultant from CORE and the proposed lighting options. The placement of the one car garage in the rear was then discussed in regard to the layout of the existing trees on the site and potential setbacks. Other landscaping ideas were also described. SITE VISIT & REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 27TH, 2022 Ms. Sanzone asked if the civil site grading and drainage sheet was existing or proposed. Mr. Woodruff said it was basically existing. There was some discussion on the placement of drywells in the back of the property in relations to existing trees. Ms. Sanzone then asked if the existing transformer was adequate to serve the house. Mr. Woodruff said it may need to be upgraded because of the planned renewable energy aspects of remodel. Mr. Fornell asked about the visibility of the skylights from the street and how they plan to be in compliance with the lighting code for them. Mr. Woodruff said they had reduced the total skylights from six to three and if the Commission would like them shaded, they could do that. Mr. Halferty asked about the south elevation and the existing vent under the eave. Mr. Woodruff said the proposal is for either a hopper or an awning, but that the rough opening would be the same. Mr. Halferty then asked if they are proposing to rebuild the existing chimney in the same place. Mr. Woodruff said no and that they are proposing to relocate it to the middle of the new living room. They then discussed the retaining wall on the west side of the lot. Ms. Thompson asked if they had spoken with engineering about the front driveway. Mr. Woodruff said yes. Potential sidewalks and curb cuts were then discussed. Mr. Fornell wanted to confirm that Engineering did not have an issue with the south curb cut on Hyman. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said they did not. Staff Presentation: Natalie Feinberg Lopez - Principal Planner Historic Preservation Ms. Feinberg Lopez started her presentation by showing the existing location and conditions. She then went over some of the previously proposed changes and described the current modifications to those changes. She wanted the Commission to discuss the new proposed skylights and the relocating the exterior stairs which will result in an increase of the deck space. Both are usually not allowed per the guidelines. She said she is inclined to agree with both of those items. She then went over other proposals and staff recommendations. Variances were then reviewed, referencing the site plan as to the placement of the garage in the rear. She stressed the amount of time spent with Parks regarding the preservation of the main trees on the lot. She asked that the lighting and drainage plans be postponed to final review. She stated that staff recommends approval for this application and went over some details of this recommendation. Mr. Halferty commented on the addition on the north side and that historically eave overhangs are larger than what is proposed. He asked if staff found any issues with the minimal overhang with relation to the wall of the addition. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said there was significant discussion on this, but if the addition doesn’t get tucked under the eave, then there would be a change in the roof. In maintaining the south and west elevations, the north side was all they had to work with. She also mentioned that from the street you can’t see any of the addition on the north side. Mr. Halferty also asked about the proposed landscape plan where the driveway meets the building and whether staff had any comment on the density of the hedges and the border they create that is not typical of the chalet style. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said since it was removable it could be reversed at any time and could be part of the landscape discussion at final. Mr. Halferty then asked about any staff comments on the proposed chimney placement since it wasn’t typical of the chalet style. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said it would be her preference to keep it in its current location, but the existing chimney and fireplace system is not at all within the energy efficiency standards that are proposed. SITE VISIT & REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 27TH, 2022 Ms. Surfas asked about the flat skylights and day lighting. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that normally new roof penetrations are not allowed, but since it’s a flat roof you will not be able to see them. She also noted the skylights will add to the energy efficiency of the building, but that doesn’t mean they have to move forward with them as they go against the guidelines. Mr. Fornell asked if the board had any say on the interior design, in relation to the rafters. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said no. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson said that since they had already seen and discussed this project that they didn’t have much to discuss. She was in support of the skylights seeing as the applicant had removed the triangle windows from the south façade and she was appreciative of the reduction of the number of skylights. She also appreciated the removal of the addition on the west side and thought the new proposed addition was in the appropriate location. She agreed with the stair adjustment. She appreciated the effort and cooperation that had been done with the Parks department. She believed the approach being taken with respect to the driveway and rear garage to satisfy the two parking spaces was appropriate. Her only comment was about the proposed chimney but thought it could go to final review. She asked if more detail and study of the terminus and scale of the chimney could be presented at final. Ms. Sanzone supported all of Ms. Thompson’s comments but did have concerns of the drainage plan. She recommended a condition of approval be that what is brought back at final does not further impact the trees that are trying to be saved. She also had concerns of the utility run and if it needed to be upgraded which may further impact the trees. She commented on the potential of the fence’s impacts on the shrub plantings but appreciated the species that were selected. Mr. Halferty thanked the whole team and agreed with comments from Ms. Thompson and Ms. Sanzone regarding the alterations and design for conceptual approval. He had reservations of the overhang eave but appreciated the removal of the addition on the more prominent west side. He thanked the applicant for working with the forester and Parks on the location of the garage. He thought the change under the eave from a vent to a window, as long as it was the same scale, could be up to staff and monitor. As for the skylights, he had some resistance from a consistency standpoint, but understood why it works on this and appreciated them pushing them back. He thought the changes to the staircase on the east side were allowable. He then went over a few other items that would be discussed further at final. He commented that the chimney is not typical for the style of architecture and would like to see more detail on how this will look but was not a fan of it being on center. Mr. Fornell wanted to note that the neighbors all sit at higher elevations than this building. He appreciated the reduction in skylights but wanted to recommend a condition of approval to include shading of the skylights. Mr. Moyer agreed with the skylights and stair adjustment and other comments made by fellow commissioners. He had no additional comments. Ms. Surfas was ok with the skylights but agreed with the shading. She also wanted to see more details on the chimney and thought it was a bit odd being right in the center. SITE VISIT & REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 27TH, 2022 Ms. Johnson mentioned that the Resolution provided should be #6 and that there are some standard conditions of approval for major conceptual development that may want to be considered as additions to this Resolution if they are planning on approving it. She went over these in some detail. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #6 with the following conditions. #1 - to provide details and final location of proposed drain basins making sure they do not conflict with trees that are being preserved. #2 - to provide a detailed roof plan. #3 - to provide a detailed preservation plan. #4 – to provide detailed information on the proposed chimney at final review. #5 – development application for the final development plan shall be submitted within one year from conceptual approval. #6 – shading be provided at skylight locations. #7 – details on the garage overhangs and window elements be provided at final review. #8 – information be provided on the window layouts and proportions for all new windows. #9 – a 7’ 9” combined side yard setback variance is granted for the property. Ms. Sanzone asked for an amendment to condition #1 to include other site utilities and not just drainage. Ms. Thompson said yes. Ms. Sanzone also asked that the drainage design be compliant with the guidelines. She also asked to amend conditions #2 to include all other roof penetrations. Mr. Halferty seconded the amended motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, abstain; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, with member one abstaining. Motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor; motion passed. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk