Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20220810 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 10TH, 2022 Ms. Johnson started by pointing out that they Commission did not have a Chair or Vice-Chair at the meeting. She noted that the members present would need to select a chairperson for the meeting. Mr. Moyer was selected to be Chair. Mr. Moyer opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, and Sheri Sanzone. Staff present: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant II MINUTES: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the minutes from 7/27/22. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; All in favor, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Sanzone said she was conflicted on the item tonight. She will leave once normal business was complete and before the new business item. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Feinberg Lopez noted a staff and monitor issue coming up for Lift 1 Lodge. She would be in contact once a date is set. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Feinberg Lopez noted that there was a misprint in the newspaper. 215 E. Hallam – Minor Review - was noticed for this meeting by mistake and has subsequently been noticed for the 8/24 meeting. 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. Ms. Sanzone left the meeting at 4:35pm NEW BUSINESS: 233 W. Bleeker – Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 10TH, 2022 Ms. Adams started her presentation by introducing Brandon Architects, Justin Yarnell the civil engineer and Katherine Lam the owner. She then went over a brief history of the property and the conceptual approval granted in February of 2022, that included a “relocation” to dig a basement, demolition of non- historic additions, complete restoration of two landmarks, FAR bonus, and a variance for historic conditions. She then went into the Final review proposals, starting with the landscape plan, including the primary and secondary walkways, planting designs, and pathway lighting. She then went over the stormwater mitigation plans and mentioned that time had been spent with PJ Murray from the City’s Engineering department along with Ms. Yoon on the plans. She pointed out on the landscape plan where the drywell would be located and noted that the drains that connect to the drywell have a sod cover. She also briefly described the proposed fencing on the property. Ms. Adams went on to describe the landscape plans as they relate to the historic carriage house. At the conceptual review, HPC had given direction to work on the restoration efforts on the front façade and come up with a subtle way to express the original function of the building. Using hi-res historical photos, they decided that tire tracks would be the most subtle way to express that it was originally a carriage house. She presented three options for the design of the tire tracks. She noted that there is no curb cut allowed on N. 2nd St. so the tire tracks would never be used. Ms. Adams then described the proposed materials and referenced the update that was sent to commissioners removing the Hardie Plank from the entire project. She went over the proposed materials for both the historic landmark and new addition. Talking about the windows on the project, she noted that all the windows on the historic landmark are to be restored pursuant to the historic photos and the approach for the windows on the addition was to subtly reference the historic landmark in a simple way. She then highlighted the ridge vent details on the whole property. The proposed lighting was then described. Ms. Adams closed by going over the restoration plans to bring the historic landmark back to what it was and said the applicant team was completely amenable to all the conditions of approval that Ms. Yoon has put together but requested that condition #4 be removed because there is no longer Hardie board proposed in the application. Mr. Fornell asked for some clarification of the applicants request to remove condition #4 and also more information about condition #6. Ms. Adams provided an explanation of the removal of condition #4 and went over more details of the ridge vent design from condition #6. Ms. Surfas asked Ms. Adams if they were planning on any snow steps on the roof of the historic landmark as they were a recommendation. Ms. Adams said there are no snow clips proposed on the roof of the historic asset, but there are snow guards proposed for the new addition. They would work with staff and monitor to add them if needed. Mr. Moyer asked what the soffit overhang distance would be on the historic structure. Ms. Adams referred to Brandon Architects to answer that question. Brandon Architects asked for some clarification of Mr. Moyer’s question. Mr. Moyer said that traditionally Victorian structures had ample overhang and this one seems to be minimal. He was wondering what the distance was, if they thought it was sufficient and if it would be unreasonable to ask for a larger overhang. Brandon Architects said both the overhang on the historic asset and new addition would be 18 inches and that they were satisfied that it, along with the drainage plan, would protect the windows and siding. Mr. Moyer was also concerned about the West side of the historic not having a gutter proposed and less of an overhang, combining to potentially causing an issue with falling ice damaging the front porch below. Brandon Architects showed a historic REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 10TH, 2022 photo highlighting that the original overhangs were not that substantial and said they tried to the best of their ability to match those in the proposed design. Mr. Moyer then asked if there was a modern sconce proposed for the front porch of the historic asset. Ms. Adams said that modern sconces are proposed for the whole project. Mr. Moyer said he would question the modern sconce on the historic asset. Staff Presentation: Sarah Yoon – Historic Preservation Planner Ms. Yoon started by showing photos of the current conditions and details of the property. Then she showed the Sanborn map of the lot and a historic photo from 1963 of the structure. She then touched on the pieces of the staff memo. When it comes to the landscape plan, she mentioned that the applicant has worked with city departments on the details of the drainage plan, specifically the drain cover detail and that the cover details are consistent to what has been seen on other projects as a solution to help disguise the grates. She reviewed the options presented for the carriage house path and stated that staff was in favor of option #2. She went on to state that in terms of the overall landscape plan, staff finds that it does meet design guidelines. She said that staff was in support of the changes made to the front façade of the carriage house in response to the conditions of the conceptual approval. She then reviewed the benefits requested, including the west side yard setback reduction of 2 feet and the 500 square foot Floor Area Bonus. Staff finds criteria has been met and is in support of these. Next, she reviewed the staff recommendations for approval, noting that condition #4 is being requested to be removed as staff finds it has been met. Mr. Fornell asked about condition #7, relating to snow stops on the historic resource. He said that with his experience in the development world, after looking at the roof, he was convinced that snow will slide on the roof. He was concerned about the useful life of a gutter where snow slides off the roof. Ms. Surfas asked for a refresher on the details of the side porch. Ms. Yoon reminded her that as part of the discussions at conceptual review the original proposed railings and steps had been removed from the design. The new proposal is to recreate the screened in porch seen in the 1955 image. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Yoon about the proposed modern light fixture on the front porch of the historic asset. Ms. Yoon responded that when it comes to fixtures on historic resources staff just asks for something simple. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Moyer started by addressing the tire tracks at the carriage house and if anyone was opposed to option #2. Mr. Fornell mentioned that he had normally seen HPC require paths for autos where they were going to be functional. He asked if requiring one that would not be functional was standard practice. He said he was satisfied with option #2 but would also be satisfied if there were no tire tracks. Ms. Surfas said she was questioning why they were there if there was no curb cut. She got the point but wondered why they should be there if you were not going to use them. Mr. Moyer said just having them might be an invitation for someone to pull a car up and thought in the landscape plan it may not be necessary. He asked Ms. Yoon for her thoughts. Ms. Yoon said that including the tire tracks was a direction given by HPC at conceptual to try to represent the original usage of the carriage house in a REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 10TH, 2022 subtle way. Ms. Yoon asked for clear direction from the members to either go with option #2 or no tire tracks at all. Mr. Moyer, Mr. Fornell, and Ms. Surfas all were in favor of no tracks. Mr. Moyer then brought up the ridge vent and all members were not opposed to it. All members were ok with the removal of condition #4. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve Resolution #12 with the removal of condition #4 and #6. Ms. Surfas seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes. 3-0, motion passes. Mr. Fornell said he would be the monitor for this project. ADJOURN: Mr. Fornell motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passed. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk