Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20220824 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 24TH, 2022 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Kara Thompson, Jeffrey Halferty, Peter Fornell, Barb Pitchford. Staff present: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Amy Simon, Planning Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Halferty motioned to continue the approval of minutes from 8/10/22. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None. 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 the agenda item. NEW BUSINESS: 215 E. Hallam Street, Minor Development: PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Philip Jeffreys and Mirte Mallory The applicants introduced themselves and Ms. Mallory presented a picture of her grandfather, Ferenc Berko. She then went over some history of Mr. Berko and his photography. She mentioned that the project in front of HPC today was originally built in 1964 and was used as Mr. Berko’s studio where he developed many of his photographs. She showed a few historic pictures of the building. She mentioned that with the support of the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council this became a voluntarily designated historic asset. She briefly described her families’ year-round use of the property. She then showed an overhead view of the neighborhood and mentioned that 3 out the 6 homes in their block were under construction or redevelopment when they moved in. When they designed and built up the property, they had not envisioned the needs of a growing family but did discuss building sub-grade REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 24TH, 2022 space. At the time they did not believe they needed it or could afford it. Originally, they had approval to include below grade storage underneath the garage space, but ultimately, due to costs, did not include it in the project. She then turned the presentation over the Mr. Jeffreys to go over the objectives of the project before HPC. Mr. Jeffreys went over the proposed plan to add below grade space to include a bedroom, office, and some storage. He showed some images of the existing and proposed above grade views and mentioned these were subtle changes of which the only major difference was changing a window to a door. The rest of the changes were sub-grade. He then went over the details of the sub-grade changes and stated that all changes would not touch the Berko studio. The new addition would be located under the courtyard. He stated that in 2018 they received a side yard setback variance, and he went over the details of the different setbacks on the property. He continued by showing a few different views of the basement addition. Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant had thought about how they would build the sub-grade addition due to the existing layout and access to the space. Mr. Jeffreys said it would not be efficient but would be done with many “small shovels”. Mr. Halferty added to Ms. Thompson’s question by asking if they had looked into making sure the excavation will not undermine any of the existing architecture. Mr. Jeffreys said they had worked with Brian Kurtz out of Glenwood and that he was not concerned. There was some discussion about suggestions on how to accomplish the excavation safely. Mr. Jeffreys said this was something they were taking very seriously. Staff Presentation: Natalie Feinberg Lopez – Principal Planner Historic Preservation Ms. Feinberg Lopez started by going over the general information about the project and showed some pictures of the existing buildings including the Berko studio with the newer addition on the right-hand side. She went over a brief history of Mr. Berko and the studio. She then showed a few historic pictures of the property before the voluntary historic designation and construction of the new addition. She also showed a few taken during construction. She highlighted the new addition and square footage numbers associated with it. She then went over the proposed basement addition with the only exterior above grade change being the change from a window to a door. She highlighted the covered hallway that connects the existing basement to the proposed basement. She then went over staff comments. She said that a lot of time was spent with the Zoning and Building departments which is unusual for a minor review process. She had spent time with Bob Narracci (Zoning) going over floor area calculations and reviewing if everything would fit in the setback requirements. They both felt this would go through at the building permit phase. She also spent time with Justin Hahn (Building) and said he did not see anything of concern regarding code compliance. Next, she highlighted the site planning and reviewed current setbacks and the proposed variance of 5 feet for the total combined side yard setback. Then she went over the changes from the original approved window to a door in the proposed. She highlighted a page in the agenda packet that shows a chart going over the wall sections and floor area calculations (exhibit B-3). Staff feels comfortable that the project is within their allotted totals of 4100 square feet for the property. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 24TH, 2022 She then went over staff recommendations including setback variations and the requirements for approval of the variances that staff feels are met. Overall, staff is recommending approval of this review. Mr. Fornell asked about the definition of a double basement and asked if staff found this project was considered a double basement. Ms. Feinberg Lopez described a “double basement” to be one basement under another basement and that staff did not feel that this condition existed in the proposal. Discussion was had about the details of the plans regarding the proposed crawl space. Ms. Simon said that two levels of living space below grade is not allowed but one level of up to 15 feet and crawl space underneath it up to 5 ½ feet is allowed. Mr. Fornell then asked what the maximum basement depth is. Ms. Simon responded that it is inferred that the maximum would be the 15 feet of living space plus the 5 ½ feet of a crawl space. More discussion was had to confirm the total basement depth. Mr. Fornell asked if this application came to the City before the Moratorium. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Halferty commented that both staff and the applicant gave great presentations and he thought that it was a terrific project and complies with all the guidelines. He was in favor of the combined side yard setback variance and would be ok with language in the motion regarding the crawl space dimensions. He would encourage that substantial engineering on the civil, drainage and structural sides be done. Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Halferty and thought what the applicant had done with the property was what HPC is all about. Preserving the landmark while making the property livable. She thanked them for their presentation and said she was in support of the project. Ms. Thompson echoed Mr. Halferty’s comments and had no concerns with the combined side yard setback variance or the additional square footage. Her biggest concern was the feasibility, sequencing, stabilization, waterproofing, drainage, and structural aspects of the construction. She wants to make sure nothing happens to what the applicant has already built. She suggested potentially adding a bond to the Resolution. Ms. Simon said that practice is mainly for excavation under the historic resource. Ms. Johnson said that if there was concern that the engineering may jeopardize the integrity of the historic structure, HPC could, while unique, require a bond in this case. It would have to be directly related to specific concerns regarding the historic structure. Mr. Jeffreys asked if the engineering resulted in a smaller basement, would they need to come back. Ms. Johnson said that because they would potentially be granting the requested combined side yard setback variance based on the site plan in front of them today that if anything changed that would require a change of a setback then they would have to come back. Ms. Mallory thanked the members for the thoughtfulness of their comments and said they would love any guidance and insight so that they can put an effective sequencing plan together. Ms. Feinberg Lopez presented the Resolution that was included in the packet. She then showed a Resolution that was amended to include a few standard whereas clauses that were not part of the original Resolution in the packet. Ms. Johnson went over these. Ms. Feinberg Lopez described a few of the conditions included in the Resolution and the HPC members reviewed the Resolution. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 24TH, 2022 MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve Resolution #13 with additional conditions. #2 – Crawl space will comply with City of Aspen Municipal Code language. #3 – Engineering drawings for shoring, structural and civil are to be reviewed by staff and monitor in order to ensure the preservation and stability of the existing structures. #4 – Preservation and sequencing plan will be submitted at the time of building permit application. Staff and monitor to review. Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0; All in favor, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Thomson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor; motion passed. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk