Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20230412 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12TH, 2023 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Jeffery Halferty and Kara Thompson. Commissioners not in attendance: Ms. Pitchford, Ms. Surfas and Ms. Sanzone Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the minutes from 1/25/23. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, abstained; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-0, motion passes. Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the minutes from 2/1/23. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, abstained; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-0, motion passes. Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the minutes from 2/22/23. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty commented on a film he saw at a film festival at the Isis Theatre, called “Home of the Brave: When Southbury Said No to the Nazis”. It dealt with Nazi Bund camps in Southbury, CT and how the town came together to pass new zoning laws that banned these camps. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon about the possibility of getting back to conducting site visits at least on bigger projects. Ms. Simon agreed and said, if it serves a purpose to visit a site together, they can do that, otherwise she hoped commissioners were visiting on their own before a project comes before them. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon started by noting a few staff review applications that had come through lately. These included projects at the Yellow Brick School Building, 135 West Francis, and the addition of a patio in front of the Explore Bookstore building. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned that at the May 10th meeting, HPC would be seeing an item regarding a private nomination to put 835 West Main St. on the National Registry of Historic Places. The cabin at that address was designed by Fritz Benedict and occupied for most of its life by Bruce Berger. She said the process requires both HPC and the Mayor make a recommendation. She invited the commissioners to come see the house on Friday, May 5th at noon. Ms. Simon also mentioned that there will be a virtual meeting of the Ski Town Forum from 1pm – 3pm on May 10th. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12TH, 2023 PROJECT MONITORING: 414 – 420 E. Cooper Ave. JAS Renovation Ms. Simon introduced the item and went over some of the history of the project. She noted that HPC had reviewed and approved the previous application. She mentioned the remodel came in for building permit recently and the opening on the west side of the historic Red Onion leading into the adjacent building was much larger than HPC had originally seen. After discussion with Mr. Halferty, the project monitor, it was decided it needed to come back before the board. She said the focus of this conversation should be that no historic brick that is in its original location be removed if it doesn’t have to be, to make sure that new openings overlap areas that are disturbed as much as possible and that the applicant fill in any non-historic openings that they can. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Charles Cunniffe, Charles Cunniffe Architects Mr. Cunniffe introduced himself and Mr. Noah Czech. He started by reading a letter from Jim Horowitz the President of Jazz Aspen Snowmass into the record. Ms. Simon then showed a few historic pictures of the east and west sides of the building pointing out that on the east side there is no clear evidence of there ever being any windows, yet there are about eight windows now. She gave some thoughts on when these non-historic windows were added. She also noted that in the pictures you can see a few historic windows on the building’s west side. Mr. Cunniffe showed the floor plan that was previously approved by HPC. He pointed out space that was originally planned as restrooms, but since then M Development deferred to Restoration Hardware and gave them priority over the space, causing this project to reconfigure their space. He went on to show the original approved floor plans as well as the new proposed ones and described the differences, including the layout and wall openings that in the original plans totaled about 550 square feet of brick to be removed. He said the submitted plans from M Development showed all the walls removed, which was not the applicant’s intent. He then went over the proposed plans that he said pretty much align with the original approval, except for the relocation of a hallway and the new restroom space. He noted that the new plans would increase the amount of brick removal by about 22 square feet. He said their intent is to, as much as possible, align the new openings with existing ones. He described in detail these alignments. He then went on to describe changes to the east wall and the nine non-historic windows. These would be filled in using historic brick. Mr. Halferty, as project monitor, explained his reasons for brining this back to HPC for their thoughts. Mr. Cunniffe also mentioned that the historic brick that was removed, would be used to line other interior walls in the building, in order to keep it in the space. Ms. Thompson wanted to clarify that this is a different plan than what was submitted for permit. Ms. Simon said yes, this is a revision. Mr. Fornell asked if any of these changes will be visible for the exterior of the building. Mr. Cunniffe said no. He went on to further describe how the existing exterior walls will appear from the interior of the new space. Ms. Simon noted that while the applicant team has no intention to drywall over any of the interior walls, they could. She said that while HPC does not review interiors, this is being discussed because it is arguably demolition of historic fabric. Ms. Thompson said she supported this as an improvement and had no problem with what is presented. Mr. Moyer and Mr. Fornell concurred. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12TH, 2023 Mr. Cunniffe said that they will now pass these plans on to M Development to incorporate into their permit drawing as a revision. 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 both agenda items. NEW BUSINESS: 214 W. Bleeker Street – Minor Development, Relocation and Variation Review; PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Jason Ro – Ro Rockett Design Mr. Ro introduced himself and Mr. Bryant Suh. He then described the project as having a historic Victorian structure on the street side than has previously been added onto with a non-historic addition at the rear extending to the alleyway. He described their proposed project, at least above grade, as mostly an interior renovation, with some minor exterior adjustments primarily at the rear non-historic portion. The plan also includes a full excavation and construction of a basement. He then showed a few historic and current pictures of the building from the street and described some of the differences. He noted that looking at historic pictures over time the historic Victorian has mostly stayed intact, pointing out a few differences related to the front porch level relative to the natural grade and the foundation wall being clad in sandstone. He said the house is essentially a lift in place, excavate and build out the basement and then reset the house. They are applying for a setback variance because in the existing state the house does encroach past the current setback guidelines and their intent is to keep it in its historic location and not move it. He went over the existing elevations, pointing out where they believe the historic asset ends and the non-historic addition begins. He noted that after studying the FAR, the house was built out to its FAR capacity back in the 1990s. Knowing this they are adding a basement but are proposing to remove a portion of the interior square footage in an attempt to remain compliant. The historic shed at the back of the property does still put them over the FAR limit. He showed pictures of the existing shed and noted that while not in this application, they are planning on coming back to apply for an FAR bonus based on them moving the historic shed and relocating it to relieve the locational pressure between the shed and the non-historic addition of the building. He then went on to describe some of their restoration plans for the historic portion of the house, including the attempt to recreate the original height of the front porch relative to the grade. Next, he talked about an existing tree on the property and their collaborative work with the Parks department. He then went over the chimney in the historic portion and noted that for purposes of moving the house, it will need to be taken down and then reconstructed. He further described the current proximity of the historic shed to the non-historic portion and their proposal to shift it to the east to allow for more space. Next, he showed the proposed elevations, describing a few new features. Mr. Fornell stated that the historic shed in set on the lot line and asked if after the move to the east if it would still be on the lot line. Mr. Ro said that is only moving in the easterly direction and would still be on the lot line. Mr. Fornell then asked if he heard correctly that the applicant would be coming back later to ask for an FAR bonus Mr. Ro said yes. They had misinterpreted the FAR impact of the shed when they submitted this application. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12TH, 2023 Mr. Moyer asked how much higher the non-historic addition is versus the historic. Mr. Ro showed an elevation that showed the roof heights and said it is approximately three feet and that the tallest portion is back toward the alley side. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon - Planning Director Ms. Simon started by stating, while the original intent of the project was to lift the existing historic and non-historic addition, construct a basement and place the structure back, this has raised several questions about conditions on the property that could be improved. She referenced the staff memo and noted that the applicant has made some good progress on addressing some of staff’s architectural revisions. She said staff is still recommending continuance for two reasons. One is that both the Parks and Zoning department referral comments are still being investigated and worked on. Parks is still investigating the large cottonwood tree in the front yard which may affect the depth of the basement and Zoning had not realized that the Floor Area from the shed would put them over the total area limit for the project. She noted a few paths to address the additional floor area. Next, she addressed the location of the shed and noted that the addition, built in the 1990s, was allowed to be built very close (within a foot) of the historic shed. The location will be a problem in regard to the beams that would be used to lift the building and it would be hard to do without harming the shed. The shed is also not in very good condition. She showed a few pictures of another historic shed that was restored in town. She said hopefully with some more study the shed can be placed in a much better state. She also addressed the relationship of the front porch to grade and has asked the applicant to study if this can be addressed with the new foundation wall after lifting the building and digging the basement. Ms. Thompson asked if raising the house to address the relationship to grade would put it over the allowed height limit, to which Ms. Simon said she did not believe so. Mr. Fornell asked if this seems like they are on the edge of a minor development and a major development. Ms. Simon said no and stated that they go the major development route when there will be new massing that needs to be reviewed and there is no addition here. Mr. Fornell also asked if other projects that lifted a structure in place and dug below were successful. Ms. Simon pointed to 206 Lake that was successful. Mr. Moyer said that if they are proposing to move the shed while at the same time restoring it that a small floor area bonus seemed appropriate. Ms. Simon said it seemed reasonable and that this is something that HPC would need to provide feedback on. There was then some discussion about the cottonwood tree and its effect on redevelopment. Mr. Moyer said he would like to meet with the Parks department regarding their requirements and stated that back in the 1800s there were really no trees around. Ms. Simon said that the tree would not stop the project, but it may reduce the size of the basement. Ms. Johnson pointed out that there are parts of the municipal code dealing with the removal of trees that cannot be superseded in this case. There was then some discussion about the affect of trees on buildings. Ms. Thompson asked about the requested variance relating to the above and below grade development. Ms. Simon said that the existing garage conforms with the 5-foot setback and that the original application proposed to move the whole structure out of the setbacks and staff advised to leave it in its historic location. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12TH, 2023 Mr. Moyer concurred that it remains in its historic location. PUBLIC COMMENT: None BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson opened board discussion by stating that she agreed with keeping the structure in its original location. Mr. Fornell also agreed about the original location and that he would be ok with the relocation of the shed. Ms. Thompson said she was originally opposed to moving the shed, but after this discussion, knowing the amount of restoration that would occur and the overall improvement to the site, she was now on board with moving it. Mr. Halferty said he was a big fan of these type of sheds and referenced that there are several great examples in Telluride. He was in favor of the relocation. Ms. Thompson then addressed the minor development aspects of the project and said that with the adjustments the applicant has made, she had no problems with the exterior improvements. Mr. Moyer and Mr. Halferty agreed. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to continue this item to May 10th, 2023. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. There was then some discussion about fire rated roof materials. NEW BUSINESS: 312 W. Hyman Avenue – Substantial Amendment to Major Development; PUBLIC HEARING Staff Presentation: Amy Simon - Planning Director Ms. Simon started by reviewing the history of the property and the previous HPC approval of the project. She stated that when the applicant was preparing for Final review there was a number of architectural drawings that they assumed were in the packet and reviewed by HPC that were not and when they submitted their building permit, staff realized there were discrepancies that needed to be addressed with HPC again. She then introduced the applicant representative, Mr. Woodruff, and said that they are here today to present aspects that the applicant would still like to pursue that have not been reviewed before. She then reviewed the previously approved scope of work. Next, she went over the new information that is in front of HPC today. This includes the reduction of the depth of a balcony in order to gain interior living space, which would include the demolition of two existing upper floor walls on the historic structure. Staff is not in support of that. There is also a request to keep all original windows, but to modify them to include insulated glass. She went over some details of this request. She then mentioned the landscaping plan and details about it that will need to be reviewed. She stated that staff recommends approval of this substantial amendment. She also went over some details of the free- standing garage and its proximity to a neighboring retaining wall. The garage will be moved closer to the retaining wall to create more yard space, which staff is also in support of. She also went over a few elements to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Ms. Thompson said she thought that Parks and Engineering were not allowing a curb cut and it could not be used for parking. Ms. Simon said that was not her understanding. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12TH, 2023 The applicant went over their discussions with Parks and Engineering related to a floating sidewalk detail and their intent with the driveway design. The goal was to create the hint of a driveway. Mr. Fornell asked the applicant if the Engineering department is looking to put a sidewalk in, to which Mr. Woodruff said they have told Engineering that they would be ok with a sidewalk if they wanted one in the future. Ms. Thompson asked for more explanation of the setback variations requested for the garage. Ms. Simon said it was not in the packet as it would have required revisiting the civil drawings and they were not sure HPC would support it. She then showed site plans and noted that currently it is approved to be at the 5-foot setback, and they are proposing to move it two feet to the west to be three feet from the property line. Mr. Fornell asked if the neighbor was aware of the requested setback variations, to which Ms. Simon said he had received public notice that mentioned the variation and staff had not heard from him. Applicant Presentation: Jeffrey Woodruff, Cloud Hill Design LLC Mr. Woodruff started by handing out paper sets of drawings to each commissioner for reference. He went over details of the setback variation request for the garage as well as drainage plans and gutter details on the west side of the structure. Referencing the paper sets, he mentioned they contain the existing elevations, the prior approved plans, and the current proposed amendments. He went over the details of the proposed one-foot bump out of the upper floor wall at the balcony, also discussing the total allowable, current and proposed square footages. He said that if all their proposals are approved, they would still be leaving over 1,000 square feet of undeveloped square footage. Next, he described the roof plan and detailed the drainage, gutters, and downspouts. He showed the east elevation and detailed the changes to the approved design and fenestration. Moving on, he went over the details of the landscape plan. He then went over the three proposed changes the applicant is requesting. First, they would like to square off the garage. Second, they would like to use fiber cement on the north bump out, so it doesn’t look like another CMU addition. He went over a few design details of the application of the fiber cement panels which attempts to create a distinction between old and new. The third change, described by Ms. Simon, was to replace the approved decorative railing on the porch of the new addition with a more modern one to again differentiate old from new. Mr. Fornell asked if the materials HPC approved for the east elevation second floor would stay the same, just the wall would be coming out one foot. Mr. Woodruff said that previously HPC had approved roughly a 70% demolition on that wall to add the fenestration. The proposed bump out of the wall would take it from the proposed 70% demo to a 100% demo of the wall. Mr. Halferty asked about the drywell location. Mr. Woodruff pointed out on the drawings the second drywell. There was then some discussion about the use of snow clips versus snow pipes on the roof. He also noted the in the plans that were approved by HPC in July, it was proposed to use a standing seam metal roof and now they are proposing the leave the existing asphalt roof in place. Ms. Thompson asked how they would be panelizing the addition materials on the north façade. Mr. Woodruff went over his ideas and described the panel sizing and colors. Ms. Thompson noted the apparent difference in window sizes between the new addition and the garage and noted that the garage windows should be consistent with the ones on the new addition. She also REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12TH, 2023 pointed out two windows on the historic resource and asked if they knew if they were historic as they didn’t seem consistent with other windows on the resource. Mr. Fornell left the meeting at 6:30pm. There was then some discussion about whether the windows were historic. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson opened board discussion, starting with the proposed landscape adjustments and the garage setback variation request. She had no problems with what was presented regarding those items. No members had issues with those. Ms. Thompson then said she had no issues with the proposal to square off the garage. As before, no other members had issues with this. Mr. Halferty concurred with staff and some of Ms. Thompson’s comments regarding the window relationships on the garage. He did have an issue with removing the historic wall at the southeast corner. Ms. Thompson agreed with Mr. Halferty regarding the historic wall removal and bump out, noting the existing relationship between the wall and the roof overhang. She was not in support of that adjustment. Mr. Moyer was also not in support of this. Mr. Woodruff asked if they would be ok with the new proposed fenestration, but in the existing location. The members all agreed that would be ok. Ms. Thompson also said she would also support of the proposed change to the railing on the new deck. The other members agreed. Ms. Thompson and the other members were ok with the proposed gutters and downspouts as well as the solar panels. Ms. Thompson also wanted in the conditions of approval that the fenestration on the garage is consistent with the new addition. The commissioners all agreed with the use of snow fencing on the roof. Ms. Simon then reviewed all the conditions of approval in the resolution, including carry over conditions from the original approval and the new ones discussed and added at this meeting. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with conditions #1-#11 that have been discussed and Ms. Simon has noted and updated in the resolution. Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-0 vote, motion passes. ADJOURN: Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk