Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20230510 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 10TH, 2023 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford, Jeffery Halferty and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes from 4/12/23. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, abstained; Ms. Pitchford, abstained; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0; motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty commented about the site visit to 835 W. Main. He thanked everyone for organizing the tour of the cabin. He was in support of the property’s National Landmark designation. Ms. Thompson said she had listened in to the Ski Town Forum meeting and said it was interesting to hear what other towns are doing. Ms. Pitchford had visited John Doyle’s studio and said that he has a 3D model of town and that after seeing it she wanted to suggest that applicants provide 3D models with their applications and presentations to HPC. She said that it would be very helpful in understanding the mass and scale of projects. Ms. Simon reviewed the submittal requirements for applications and said that they could potentially make them more specific. There was then some discussion on the potential for additional and more descriptive models of future projects. Mr. Moyer commented on the large size of the addition on the Pan Abode on the other side of the alley from Ann Mullins house. He said that it was a good example of making sure that HPC sees more context on mass and scale when reviewing projects. Ms. Simon said that they could organize a van tour of previous HPC projects for the next meeting. Ms. Johnson reminded the commissioners that they are allowed by Code to request any additional materials from applicants that they feel would help them in their review and decision making. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Before getting into project monitoring, Ms. Simon wanted to take a moment to introduce Ms. Kirsten Armstrong, the new Principal Planner for Historic Preservation. Ms. Armstrong then went over her education and background. The HPC members welcomed her to Aspen. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 10TH, 2023 Ms. Simon mentioned that Ms. Sanzone’s projects would have to be reassigned, as she had resigned from HPC. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon commented on the background of the Ski Town Forum and topics that were discussed at the most recent meeting. She also reviewed preservation efforts by other ski towns (Crested Butte & Breckinridge) in the State. There was then some discussion about 100% affordable housing projects located on historic sites. 835 W. Main Street – National Register Referral Comment Staff Presentation: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Ms. Armstrong began by introducing the property and the National Register Referral Comment process. She then went over some of the history and characteristics of the cabin design and the surrounding property. She showed several pictures of the cabin and lot, while describing the design. She went on to describe the criterion being used for the nomination and how the property meets Criterion C. Next, she described the options that HPC have, noting that staff recommends that the nomination meets the NRHP eligibility criteria requirements. There was some discussion and questions about the current roof and its potential future replacement. All commissioners were in support of the nomination. Ms. Thompson signed the Referral form. 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. OLD BUSINESS: 214 W. Bleeker Street – Minor Development, Relocation and Variation Review – PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM APRIL 12th. Ms. Thompson asked about the difference between a variation and a variance. Ms. Johnson said that in the Land Use Code there are certain things that a variance is required for, for example a setback variance. Other things in the code allow a variation to be granted, like a variation to a guideline. Ms. Simon said the variances usually based on a hardship and the normally go to the Board of Adjustment. Applicant Presentation: Jason Ro – Ro Rockett Design Mr. Ro began by reviewing items that they had restudied on the project since the last meeting on this. These included the house lift, material conditions of the roof, and more study of the historic shed, it’s restoration and ways to give it more significance. He noted that all this would lead into the discussion of a square footage bonus request. He then showed a few historic photos of the house, highlighting some changes over time. He noted that the original house was sitting slightly above grade and that over time the grade had risen and built up. Next, he showed a current picture of the house, noting that the porch is now only about one step (6-7 inches) above grade. He also showed a proposed rendering of the project that with the lifting of the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 10TH, 2023 house would allow them to restore the original sandstone base and get multiple steps up to the porch. He described a few of their proposed materials on the historic and non-historic portions of the house. He then presented a picture of a similar project they had completed a few years ago. He went on to present and describe the proposed elevations, highlighting a few features. Next, he described the roof differentiation between the historic asset and existing non-historic addition that they are attempting to achieve, including different roof materials. He reviewed the proposed move of the historic shed to the north to better separate it for the non-historic addition. As they were calculating the FAR, they found that the size of the shed exceeded the non-exempt shed allowance that the code allows for. He noted that, built into their FAR bonus request, is the reduction of a non-historic shed on the side of the addition to the allowable 32 square feet and the FAR that is required to cover the historic shed. He showed a few pictures of the historic shed and noted some if its features and the current damage to the structure. In closing, he said that they hoped that all this shows an earnest effort to improve the historic asset and shed, in order to earn the 175 square foot FAR bonus they are requesting. Mr. Fornell asked when they thought the non-historic addition was built. Ms. Simon said it was around 1990. Ms. Thompson said from the shed elevations, it seemed like it was elevated about 6 inches on a slab and wondered if this was done in the past. Ms. Simon said that the 6 inches is the minimum building code requirement and that the shed is currently buried in the ground and moving it will allow it to be set on more level ground. Ms. Pitchford asked about the process of removing the chimney before raising the house and then how it would be re-built. Mr. Ro said that the strategy is to remove as much of it in one piece as possible. It would be documented with pictures and then rebuild it once the house has been raised and restabilized. Ms. Simon noted that the chimney restoration was a condition in the resolution. Ms. Thompson asked if the intent is to lift the house and move it, or just to lift it straight up. Mr. Ro said the idea will be to lift it in place. Ms. Pitchford asked about the existing fence on the property. Mr. Ro showed some pictures of the existing fencing and described the proposal of reducing the height of some of the fencing. There was some discussion of paint color and questioning of why everything nowadays is painted white. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon - Planning Director Ms. Simon started with some history of the project and application. The original idea was just to lift the structure and build a basement under it. After looking at the project more carefully with Mr. Ro a few things came up. These included the historic foundation with steps onto the porch which has been lost and also the historic shed. She showed some pictures of another project that Mr. Ro had worked on, pointing out some of the great features of the restoration. She noted that everything from the last meeting’s discussion has been addressed in a very cooperative way by the applicant. She then reviewed the seven conditions listed in the resolution. These included: 1. The financial security deposit of $45,000. 2. The preservation of the historic exterior materials. 3. Documentation of the chimney and stone foundation in order to authentically reconstruct them. 4. Setback variations for the primary structures. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 10TH, 2023 5. Floor Area Bonus of 175 square feet to be granted. 6. No stormwater features to be visible in the landscape in the front of the structure. 7. The shed roof must be with corrugated metal or wood shingle if the pitch allows. Mr. Moyer asked if there was a requirement for the foundation to be one or two cement blocks higher than grade. Ms. Simon said that building code requires 6 inches of clearance off the ground of any wood materials. Referencing the historic shed, Mr. Moyer suggested that they require one block or two above grade. He also suggested that this should be a topic of discussion for HPC in relation to future projects. Ms. Simon mentioned she had forgotten to include the normal condition of approval, requiring a 12” maintenance border at the perimeter of the historic resources. Ms. Thompson asked about a landscape plan. Mr. Ro said the owner is looking to do next to nothing in terms of landscaping. It would mostly be a grass lawn. Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Simon, that if the addition was done in 1990, how come it goes into two separate setbacks. Ms. Simon said she didn’t look back at the original approval, but since it went through HPC back then, they could have given setback variations, as the house is where it is. Ms. Thompson asked that since the shed is being moved from where it has been for a very long time, is there a discussion to be had about moving it so it is not exactly on the property line to allow for drainage and better maintenance. Ms. Simon said it was not something she had discussed with the applicant, but it is something that could be open to HPC’s input. Ms. Simon agreed that it should be moved enough to be safe from snowplows, but not so much that it takes away from its historical relationship to the alley. Mr. Fornell said he liked the shed’s orientation at the property line having been there historically but would be open to any suggestions. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson started by suggesting that when the historic shed is moved that it be placed 6 inches off the property line. Mr. Fornell said he supported that suggestion. Ms. Thompson noted that they had discussed the relocation criteria in the last meeting, and all generally agreed that the lift and place of the structure was acceptable. She said that while setback variations are not a favorite of the board, the shed would still be further away from setbacks than a garage could be, so she was ok with the proposed variances. She also believed that with the restoration of the shed that the applicant had earned the floor area bonus. Mr. Fornell wanted to clarify that the bonus was not really an addition of floor area, but rather to account for the different calculation. Mr. Ro said yes that the lifting of the house created a different calculation. Ms. Johnson noted that the floor area bonus in the resolution was requesting 125 square feet and it was represented at the meeting that it was a 175 square foot request and wanted to clarify the difference. Ms. Simon said that it was an update sent to the board on Tuesday. Ms. Simon said that she had also updated the rear yard setback in the conditions of approval to 4.5 feet from 5 feet, to note the suggestion from the board and could also add the condition of a 12-inch maintenance border. Ms. Thompson said yes to adding that condition. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 10TH, 2023 MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with the edits and additions that had been made. Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. Mr. Fornell and Ms. Pitchford were assigned as project monitors for this item. Mr. Moyer asked if the 12-inch maintenance border was a fixed number. Ms. Simon said that it was not and could be made bigger. Mr. Moyer said he thought it should be at least 2 feet if not 3 feet. He knew it was a lot, but it was needed and better than 12 inches. There was some more discussion about how wide a maintenance border should be to protect the house. NEW BUSINESS: HPC Awards Selection Staff Presentation: Amy Simon - Planning Director Ms. Simon started by reviewing the history of the awards in general and went over the various HPC Awards and some of their history. She then went over the projects up for awards this year and some details of each. These included: • Resnick Center for Herbert Bayer Studies. • Boettcher Building - Designation and Rehabilitation • The Wheeler Opera House Restoration • 105 East Hallam Street • 208 East Main Street • 533 West Hallam Street The commissioners discussed each project. Ms. Thompson said she would support the Wheeler Opera House Restoration. There was then some discussion about the details of the work completed there. All commissioners were in favor of awarding the Wheeler Opera House Restoration. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Fornell seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk