Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20150812ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2015 1 Chairperson,Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim DeFrancia, Nora Berko and Michael Brown. Absent were Sallie Golden, John Whipple and Patrick Sagal. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Willis made an amendment to page eight of the minutes and Michael made an amendment to page 6. MOTION: Nora moved to approve the minutes of July 22, 2015 as amended; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comment: Frank Hagar, owner of Aspen Gold Smith expressed his concern that all the little small businesses are leaving and the only thing left in Aspen are the corporations. Bob suggested that Frank go to a council meeting and express his concerns about rent and small businesses. Frank said there are six places where workers live at 447 E. Cooper. There are no places to rent in this town. Aspen needs to be a town where regular people have a business and you have a comradery with people. Disclosure: Nora will recuse herself on 223 E. Hallam TDR code amendment Sara said there are a lot of TDR’s and some are requested through the Aspen Modern negotiation. Landmark properties come in and ask for a 500 square foot FAR bonus and also request TDR’s. We know these problems are in the code and we want to make sure the TDR program is successful. It is one of the only benefits in the code that we have for historic preservation that removes development pressure from a property. Our program could be more successful if we put parameters on it. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2015 2 1. Limit the number of TDR’s that can be created on a single historic property. Right now we allow an unlimited amount. Should we put limits on the amount on Aspen Modern or West End Victorians. 2. Landmark lot splits. Properties that come in with a landmark lot split both lots are designated historic. We have had instances where the vacant lot comes in to establish and sell TDR’s. Is this in line with the program or not. Do you want to require that the lot has to have an historic house on it in order to sever the TDR’s. 3. Add review criteria that talks about demonstrating exemplary preservation or restoration through the creation of TDR’s. That would create a link between preservation efforts for the landmark and creating the TDR certificate. This would be the TDR program back to preservation. Staff will be doing additional outreach to users of the program to get feedback. We would then do a policy resolution to city council. Willis pointed out that TDR’s only occur with landmarks. You could use a TDR next to a landmark that isn’t designated. Residential zone districts: Sara said a single family home can land 2 TDR’s. In the mixed use and multi-family the TDR’s apply to the unit size. The TDR doesn’t allow the building to be bigger but internally the units can be larger. Fox Crossing is an example that had a certain number of TDR’s per unit that were established as part of their planned development. Nora said Victorians are protective and Aspen Modern’s are not. Sara asked how HPC feels about limiting the number of TDR’s on an Aspen Victorian property and then on an Aspen Modern property. #1 - HPC said no limit on TDR’s for Victorians or Aspen Modern. #3 – Explore criteria on good preservation. Michael said the TDR program is to remove development and pressure from the landmark property. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2015 3 #2 Sara asked how the HPC feels about TDR’s on a vacant lot that has been created by a lot split that doesn’t have a resource on it. Jim said they have a fundamental entitlement and specific floor area design to it. Gretchen said she feels they should be allowed the TDR’s even if there isn’t an historic house on the lot. All members agreed. Michael said we need to create a program that makes TDR’s usable. All square feet in our community are not worth the same dollars. Maybe a TDR should be worth more square footage in certain areas than others. We need TDR’s to be marketable if more sterilization of sites is going to continue. 447 E. Cooper – Conceptual Major Development Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, View-plane Review, Demolition, Public Hearing MOTION: Jim moved to continue the public hearing on 447 E. Cooper to September 9th; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Jim True said the public notice has been provided and is in order. 223 E. Hallam – Final, Public Hearing Nora recused herself Public Notice - Exhibit I Sara said conceptual was granted May 13th. At conceptual there were setback variations, relocation, partial demolition and FAR bonus granted. Overall staff found that the design guidelines have been met and we are recommending approval with some conditions. There are concerns about the landscape plan that had a raised planter at the front of the site which doesn’t meet our design guidelines 1.13 and 1.10 and 1.15. The front walkway should be narrower to no more than 4 feet in width. There are also concerns about site lighting which can be handled through staff and monitor. Condition #2 has to do with restoration details and can be handled through staff and monitor during the field inspection and once demolition has started. Condition #3 talks about staff working with the architect to take a paint sampling and document the Bayer Blue color. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2015 4 Condition #4 is a typical condition for a restoration of a building like this. The main condition that involves a re-design is the arched window on the south façade and Amy suggested it be an orthogonal window instead of a half round which is more traditional. Willis said at final we review fenestration, materials, window, landscaping, lighting and restoration. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi The building is being pulled forward on the site. We will have no above ground planters. We will have low shrubbery around the building. We intend to do beautification around the fence line. There will be lilacs and aspen trees around the perimeter of the building. The aspen trees will create some privacy as well. We will have no ground lighting. We will have exclusive lighting appended to the building as recommended by staff. There is no light bulb in the sconce and the light is inside the canopy. We were asked to look at the stairs again. We have pulled them back and reorganized them. The main stair has been moved to the center of the building. There is a small ornamental stair at the front that goes to the upper bedroom. On the historic windows we are going to scrape and repaint them and we will maintain the detail of the trim on the historic resource. We will take the paint off the stone and re-clad the foundation in that same stone. The Building Department said we do not need a railing at the front of the historic building. We will also keep the path at four feet which was recommended by staff. Steev said on the addition we will use shingle shake and a six inch horizontal siding and the foundation will be clad in painted brick. The addition compliments the historic resource. We are also looking at a clad window. We are fine with staff’s suggestion for an orthogonal window. Scott Rider, owner said we have made a lot of compromises and it has become a better project. We are happy to work with staff and monitor on all the issues. There are lilacs that could be used on the Mallory side of the property line. Willis asked about the fenestration as it relates to the guidelines. Steev said we do not want to compete with the historic resource so you can tell one from the other. There are longer windows in the front on the historic ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2015 5 resource. We are doing larger mullions on the windows of the addition. We also have smaller divided lights to differentiate. Sara said the windows on the addition should be a product of their own time and should be subordinate to the historic windows. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Howie Malory, 1230 Snowbunny Lane Howie said he feels the landscape plan lacks detail and HPC should review the final not just staff and monitor. The landscape plan should not slide off the public forum. There are lilacs in the alley and one of the Victorian landscape features are the historical bushes. There are 4 to 6 bushes in the alley. It would be a shame to lose those lilacs. The low shrubs proposed expose the historic structure. Relating the historic landscape to the historic building would be a good accomplishment. Maybe the lilacs could be moved to the south west corner of the addition to add color. Sara commented that it might be problematic having the lilacs in the public right-of-way. Steev said they are proposing to put lilacs in that corner all the way to the property line. Steev said he has not had great success with replantation. Scott said we share a common property line and maybe the lilacs can go there. The landscaping is not significant. The building is the statement in our view and we are only screening for privacy. Scott said he is also talking to the Parks Dept. to see if possibly the lilacs can be moved to another site. Sara explained that the landscape plan is in the packet but it is difficult to read. Gretchen pointed out that there will be a lot of construction and possibly a notice could be put out to the public to acquire the lilacs. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comment section. Willis asked the board how they felt about the fenestration guideline 10.3 and 10.4. Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its o wn time. The guidelines for fenestration need to be in the packets in all final ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2015 6 reviews. The applicant’s position is that the smaller glass sizes in the fenestration distinguish itself from the larger plate glass sizes in the Victorian. I feel it looks like a 17th century gesture with tiny glass pieces compared to the 19th century glass size which is generous. The openings are proportioned nicely; it is just the positioning of the muttons and tiny glass sizes. It is a good project and the landscape is going in the right direction, Lilacs are very difficult to transplant. Willis said #1 could be amended to add possibly transplant the lilacs and #2 develop a more thorough landscape plan and present it to staff, monitor and the neighbor. Jim said the neighbors should have the opportunity to review the landscape plan. Jim True said it becomes difficult. The discussion was relocate the lilacs if possible and provide lilacs along the side. I do not want to set up a situation where a neighbor has a veto power or a conflict gets staff and monitor in the middle of it. Scott Rider said it can be handled with the landscape that is in the packet. We will try and preserve the existing and locate them in the locations indicated on the current plan or new locations and we will work with the Forester. We have shown where the lilacs and trees go. Howie said the first objective is to keep them on the Victorian landscape. It is a constraint space and there are more lilacs than space. Scott said we are showing new lilacs and perhaps we can relocate one or two. Sara said transplanting has been tried before and it has not worked favorably but maybe there are new techniques. We can work with the forester. On #1 it should say existing or new lilacs. If the lilacs do not survive we have required in the past a certain size to be planted. #1 condition: Jim said the applicant will relocate or replace on site with a reasonable effort the lilacs to be approved by staff and monitor. Gretchen said she finds the windows a confusing historical reference on the addition. Michael agreed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2015 7 Willis said we can have staff and monitor look at the mutton size. Reduce the number of divided lights in the addition. Michael said guideline 10.4 talks about the addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. Gretchen pointed out that they don’t exist on the Victorian. New condition: Willis said the internal position of the mutton bars be reviewed by staff and monitor. Reduce the number of divided lights but the window opening size is OK. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #24 for final development of 223 E. Hallam with the revision of #1 the applicant will relocate or replace on site with a reasonable effort the lilacs to be approved by staff and monitor. New condition regarding the windows that the internal position of the mutton bars be reviewed by staff and monitor. Reduce the number of divided lights but the window opening size is OK. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Bob, yes; Jim, yes; Michael, yes; Gretchen, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-0. Michael Brown is the monitor. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2015 8