Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20230111 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 11TH, 2023 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Peter Fornell, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Jim True, City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes from 11/16/22. Ms. Thompson seconded. Ms. Pitchford said she would be abstaining, as she was not at the 11/16/22 meeting. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer commented about the restoration of wood, metal, and stone. He referenced an article from Bowling Green State University. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon if there was an update from the building systems consultants. Ms. Simon said that they were working on developing some insulation details that could be shared with projects as best practices. Mr. Halferty asked about enforcement efforts related to the use of mirrored glazing on historic windows. Ms. Simon said she had met with the owner’s representative of one property and the intent is to have they come before HPC if they want to keep the glazing. Ms. Thompson asked about the 205 W. Main project. Ms. Simon said the applicant had contacted the City and asked to continue to February 22nd. Ms. Simon went over the upcoming meeting schedule. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: 135 East Cooper Ave. Ms. Simon introduced the item and gave some details of what is front of the commissioners. The property has a historic outbuilding that is being repositioned back to what is thought to be its original location. There is also a lean-to style addition that was previously approved. She said that Ms. Thompson is the monitor on the project and that herself and Ms. Thompson were approached with a request to amend the design of the addition and both believed it did not meet the guidelines, so the request is being brought to HPC. She then highlighted a few options, noted in the memo, that HPC has on this. They can direct Ms. Thompson and Ms. Simon to approve it as staff and monitor or they could find it is not in line with the guidelines and direct them to not approve, in which case the applicant could build what has previously been approved or file for a substantial amendment that could be appealed to City Council. She then described the previously approved addition as having a flat roof that tucked under one of the eaves of the out-building and what is being proposed as having more of a hip-roofed form and would be all glass, similar to a greenhouse. She stated that her and Ms. Thompson did not believe any of the applicable guidelines were met. She went over the reasoning for this, mainly related to the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 11TH, 2023 proposed roof form of the new addition as it relates to the out-building it is being added to. There was already a big departure in terms of form, fenestration and materials and adding this roof pitch only aggravates that compatibility issue. She then introduced Ms. Sarah Adams with Bendon Adams who is representing the applicant. Ms. Adams introduced herself and Mr. Cristof Eigelberger of Eigelberger Architecture and Design. She then went over the approval history of the project and mentioned that it is under construction right now. She described their proposal to change the roof form of the addition to the secondary historic out- building. She then showed images comparing the flat roof style that was previously approved by HPC and the proposed hip-roofed style and noted that there are no other changes to the addition. She showed some historic pictures of the property and noted that the relationship that the applicant was hoping to make was with the hip-roof of the landmark building. She then showed some examples of 19th century historic greenhouses that were the inspiration on this project and described a few historic greenhouses that had existed in Aspen. Next, she went over some of the guidelines that were included in the packet and went over their reasoning of why the proposed roof form is more compatible than the flat roof. Ms. Pitchford asked for some clarification, as to her it did not appear that the new proposed roof style of the addition was tucked under the eave of the historic out-building. Ms. Adams used a drawing to show where it was tucked under. Mr. Halferty asked if the approved flat roof had any openings to which the applicant responded no. There was then some discussion clarifying what exactly was previously approved and what is being proposed. Mr. Eigelberger went back to the inspiration images of other greenhouse examples and noted that they usually are shown with a pitched roof and that is the reason they are coming back to HPC with this proposed change. There was then some discussion of the history of the property and locations of various structures that have been on it over time. Ms. Thompson noted that this was not a formal approval process, but that they were just having discussion to get an understanding of who supports the change and who doesn’t. Ms. Surfas, Mr. Fornell, Mr. Moyer, and Mr. Halferty all supported the change. Mr. Halferty went over some of the guidelines and gave comment to why he thought the proposed change complied. Ms. Pitchford said she did not support the change. She agreed with staff and saw it as very ornate, taking away from the historic resource and not being compatible with it. With the majority of members supporting the change, Ms. Simon said the applicant would now need to submit a change order to pursue the change. STAFF COMMENTS: None. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Simon said that the next item on the agenda did not need public notice as it was just a recommendation to City Council and not a public hearing. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 11TH, 2023 NEW BUSINESS: 216 W. Hyman Ave. – Referral Comment to City Council – Establishment of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Staff Presentation: Amy Simon - Planning Director Ms. Simon started by mentioning that in code amendments made to the Historic Preservation Benefits some time ago, the transferable development right program was amended to say that HPC needs to make a recommendation to City Council. After this meeting they would be going to City Council at the end of this month and in late February to pursue Ms. Ann Mullins request for two TDRs. She then described some details of the property and house on it. She mentioned that Ms. Mullins has approximately 1,000 square feet of developable floor area on the site, and she would like to sell half of that as TDRs. Each TDR is 250 square feet and if City Council approves them, it only allows Ms. Mullins to proceed to create them, though she does not need to do so. Ms. Simon did mention that the TDR market is very tight and there is interest from people looking for them and those who have them are holding them tight. They would allow someone to take Ms. Mullins’ 250 square feet and build it at their house. It does not actually build it; it just gives them the right to build it. She said they are good for historic preservation, by allowing a long-time homeowner to capture some of the value in their home, reducing the pressure to add onto the existing property. Staff is supporting the creation of the two TDRs and is looking to HPC for a recommendation to City Council. Applicant Presentation: Sarah Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams introduced Ms. Ann Mullins and restated her request to remove 500 square feet in the form of two TDRs which would go to City Council for the final decision. She went over some of the history of the property and mentioned that some of it was unknown. They are looking for HPC’s support. Ms. Surfas asked if you sell TDRs does that mean they are gone, and the property never gets them back. Ms. Simon said that is correct. Ms. Surfas wanted clarification that you can hold them as long as you want to which Ms. Simon said yes, and that some people have created them and then changed their minds. It is when you sell them away that is unchangeable. Mr. Fornell asked about a small discrepancy in the packet on the total square footage numbers. Ms. Adams explained the discrepancy as due to a pending project to add a lightwell taking away a few square feet of floor area. Mr. Fornell then asked if Ms. Mullins could come back and ask to create additional TDRs with the remaining undeveloped square footage to which Ms. Simon said yes. He then asked Ms. Mullins why she was only asking for two TDRs at this point. Ms. Mullins said that having been on City Council for eight years she thought it would be a stretch for them to approve four TDRs and that she had seen one and two TDRs being approved but when people request more it usually doesn’t fly. She said that at the moment two TDRs are adequate. She said she is doing some renovations that the sale of these TDRs would help fund but may come back later. Mr. Fornell said he was just concerned that this request would preclude her from be able to ask again in the future as he believed any square footage that you can pull away from a historic asset leaves it more fully intact. He said he was satisfied with the request. Ms. Pitchford asked when you sell TDRs does the receiving site have to be in the City of Aspen limits to which Ms. Simon said yes, it stays within the City. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 11TH, 2023 PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson said she had no problem with the request. Mr. Halferty thanked Ms. Mullins and thought the TDR program is a wonderful tool to manage large additions on small historic assets. He said he is in complete support. Ms. Pitchford said she loved the house and how Ms. Mullins has always taken care of it. She had no problem with the creation of the two TDRs. She said she has had increasing negative thoughts about TDRs. Not necessarily the sending but of the receiving of them. Ms. Simon commented that with Ms. Pitchford sitting on the County’s growth management committee, she may be thinking about the County’s TDRs which are much bigger than the City’s. She also mentioned that City Council itself shares the same thoughts and have always liked the sending part, but not the landing part. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the next resolution in the series. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. There was then some casual discussion about the history of the property and house. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair: Ms. Simon mentioned that this has been done all kinds of ways, including nominations, secret ballots, etc. All members were satisfied with the current Chair and Vice-Chair of Ms. Thompson and Mr. Halferty respectively. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved that they retain the current officers. Mr. Fornell seconded. Mr. True suggested that someone request that it be accepted by acclimation. Mr. Halferty requested acceptance of acclimation. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk