Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20231108 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8TH, 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, Kim Raymond, Riley Warwick, and Kara Thompson. Absent were Barb Pitchford and Jeffery Halferty. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Luisa Bern, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer repeated his ask for the creation of a maintenance guide for owners of historic properties. Ms. Armstrong said that this was on staff’s “to-do” list. Mr. Fornell asked if the maintenance guide would be recommendations or requirements. Ms. Armstrong said it would most likely be recommendations. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Thompson noted that she would be conflicted on the 216 W Hyman Ave. project. PROJECT MONITORING: None STAFF COMMENTS: None CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Armstrong detailed a certificate issued for 325 West Hopkins that included construction of a parking pad and modification of an existing fence around the pad and the removal of some trees that was coordinated with the Parks dept. CALL UP REPORTS: None SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that the two agenda items only required posting on the property and that both were posted per the Land Use Code. Ms. Thompson assigned Mr. Moyer chair and left the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 216 West Hyman Ave - Minor Development, TDRs - PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Sarah Adams – Bendon Adams REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8TH, 2023 Ms. Adams started her presentation by quickly describing the property and going over the requests of the applicant, Ms. Ann Mullins. These included the addition of a lightwell, rear exterior stairs connecting to a non-historic deck, a skylight, and the request for HPC’s recommendation of 2 TDRs that would remove 500 square feet of floor area from the property. She went on to describe the reasoning for the various requests also stating that none of the proposals impact any historical materials. She then showed drawings of the proposed new exterior stairs and lightwell and expanded on the reasoning for their additions. Next, she detailed the proposed skylight and noted that it was to be on the rear of the house. The intent was for it not to be visible from the street. She showed the roof plan and said that the skylight is to be centered on an interior set of stairs. She noted that there would be no historic materials or rafters that would be impacted by the skylight. She then showed a slide detailing the amount of available floor area and noted that in February Ms. Mullins had removed 500 square feet of floor area from the property in the form of two TDRs. She is now requesting the ability to remove 500 more square feet, and if approved, it would leave 16 square feet of available floor area on the property. Ms. Raymond noted that the application did not show a guardrail around the lightwell and asked how deep the lightwell would be. Ms. Adams said that it was 3’ 5” on one side and 2’ 4” on the other side. She noted that they would try to regrade the area to reduce the depth, but they could explore a railing with staff and monitor if the Building Dept. required one. Mr. Fornell asked why the applicant chose not to ask for all four TDRs at once. Ms. Mullins said that with her experience on City Council, they were usually hesitant to approve more than two at a time. She also noted that the TDRs are intended to pay for the remodel of the property. Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden started his presentation by stating that he had talked with the Building Dept. and they told him that since the lightwell would be more than three feet from a walkway that a railing was not required. He then described the history of the property, additions that had been made over time and showed a few historic photos. He noted that HPC had reviewed a number of applications for this property before and he described these. He then reviewed the applicant’s current requests. He went on to review the applicable historic preservation guidelines related to each of the proposed minor development requests. Referencing guideline 3.7, he noted that the proposed skylight is not similar in scale to the historic openings and because it is much larger than the existing historic openings, staff finds that the application does not fully meet guideline 3.7. He said that a reduction in size of the skylight would yield a more appropriate design. He noted that staff finds that a skylight over 3 feet wide and 13 feet long, extends beyond the apparent flexibility of guideline 7.3. He then mentioned that while more investigation may be required, cartographic evidence suggests that the roof materials on the subject roof section may be original to the historic resource. Staff finds that removing these materials to install the skylight would not meet guideline 7.7. He said that reducing the size and or relocating it will help mitigate the potential loss of original materials. Next, he reviewed the 10 standards the Land Use Code requires to be satisfied for the establishment of the requested TDRs. He presented and reviewed 4 of the most relevant standards (A, B, G, J) for HPC REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8TH, 2023 consideration. He stated that staff supports the proposed removal of the allowable development rights from the property and recommends that HPC provide a recommendation of approval to City Council for the creation of the 2 TDRs. He finished by stating that staff recommends approval with the condition that the applicant submit a proposal for a smaller skylight that is lower on the rear roof slope to minimize it’s physical and visible intrusion on the historic resource. Mr. Fornell asked if the skylight, as proposed by the applicant, would be visible to the public walking by on the street. Mr. Hayden said, as proposed, no. Mr. Warwick asked if there was an alley side of the property, to which Mr. Hayden said yes, but the view is relatively obscured by a detached structure in the rear. Ms. Raymond said that it seemed like staff thinks the roof materials are historic and the applicant thinks they are not. She asked if that is something that could be investigated. Mr. Hayden said that a physical inspection in the attic could confirm this. His concern was that the 1904 Sanborn map shows a similar roof form to what is there currently. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. Mr. Moyer allowed the applicant to respond to staff’s presentation. Ms. Mullins spoke to the request for the skylight. She said that the idea for the skylight was in response to the smaller window openings on the historic house as well as bringing more natural light down into the lower level of the house. When it came to the roof materials, she noted that the front gable was fairly steep, while the rear was much shallower. She said that from their research, the gables were the same pitch historically and the current rear gable was a more recent addition. Ms. Adams added that Ms. Mullins is attempting to make the house more livable without any additions and that that was really important and unique to this property. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Moyer opened the board discussion by going over the requests. He asked if the board was in support of the TDR recommendation, the lightwell and rear stairway. All members were ok with these requests. He moved on to the skylight request. Mr. Warwick said that he was generally for the skylight, especially if you cannot see it from the street and it is not changing the historic roof pitch. He said that it was worth noting, when someone uses the TDR program, keeps the house, lives here full time, that is important. He thought it was a small exchange to ask to add a skylight. He was somewhat concerned that it could set a precedent though. Ms. Surfas commented about the “green” benefits of the skylight, and she also agreed that it could set precedent. She did think it should be slightly smaller and set back more so that there is no way it could be seen from the street. Overall, she was ok with the skylight if it was a smaller footprint. Ms. Raymond agreed with Mr. Warwick and Ms. Surfas that it could be a little smaller as the precedent it sets is big. She noted that many skylights have been denied for years on historic properties. She thought they needed to consider the precedence because of how big it is. Overall, she was ok with approving a skylight, she just wanted the size to be reconsidered. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8TH, 2023 Mr. Fornell said he would be ok with the skylight as it was presented. He thought that if it cannot be seen from the street, he did not want to micromanage the development. He thought that with some other recent HPC approvals of skylights, the precedent may have already been set. He said that with the applicant’s history with historic preservation, he trusted their goals were altruistic. Mr. Moyer said that he was not opposed to the skylight and did not believe that the structure was historic in this case. He then asked the other HPC members if they thought the skylight issue could be something for staff and monitor. Mr. Fornell and Ms. Raymond agreed. Mr. Moyer then asked Ms. Johnson about what should be contained in a motion regrading staff and monitor’s review of the skylight. Ms. Johnson commented that if the motion did not contain staff’s suggested condition that calls for staff and monitor’s review of certain items, it could be interpreted by the applicant as a blanket approval with out the allowance for staff and monitor review. Ms. Johnson and HPC members reviewed staff’s suggested conditions. Mr. Fornell suggested that they include language that relates to a situation where if historic materials are found to exist that staff and monitor have review. Mr. Hayden asked regarding historic materials, are they only talking about the rafters or are they considering other roof materials, like trusses. Ms. Raymond suggested that the motion focuses on not seeing the skylight from the street, as opposed to saying it needs to be smaller or lower on the roof. The HPC members and Ms. Johnson discussed two conditions. One relating to the applicant submitting of a proposal that minimizes the skylight’s physical and visual intrusions on the historic resource and the other relating to the potential situation that if historic materials are determined to exist, that details would be reviewed by staff and monitor. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the resolution with the two conditions that were discussed. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes. 5-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Raymond was assigned as monitor for this project. NEW BUSINESS: 400 E. Cooper Ave. – Minor Development – PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Eric Westerman – 523 Architecture Mr. Westerman started his presentation by describing the property (Golden Horn Building) and its location in the downtown core. He then went over the request to lower four windows on the south elevation. He described the clad window design and showed a few renderings of the existing conditions through to the proposed changes. He noted that there had been a few prior staff approvals that had got them to were there are today with the windows about 18 to 20 inches above grade. The request now is to lower them to be much closer to grade, increasing the storefront and visibility into the retail space. He then showed a few pictures of other buildings in town that have windows close to grade. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8TH, 2023 Ms. Thompson asked if the proposed windows had the same specifications and the previous approved ones and if it was just to change to a larger unit. Mr. Westerman said yes. He also described some details of the type of window units. Ms. Raymond asked how much space would be between the bottom of the windows and the ground. Mr. Westerman said that on the right-hand side it would be about 4 ½ inches and because the grade falls right to left, the left-hand side it would be about 9 inches. Staff Presentation: Kirsten Armstrong - Principal Planner Historic Preservation Ms. Armstrong started her presentation by describing the building and its location, noting that it is not a landmark building, but is in the commercial core historic district. She described the applicant’s minor development request to lower the windows. She went over some of the building’s history and detailed the previously approved certificates of no negative effect. She then showed the proposed elevations highlighting the larger windows. She went on to review the relevant design standards and guidelines and noted that staff found that the criteria had been met for the minor development approval. She also reviewed the recommended condition of approval, which was for a sample of the window be reviewed by staff and monitor. She noted that staff recommends HPC’s approval of the requested Land Use Review, with the condition. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Raymond made a few suggestions to Mr. Westerman about the sill height and referenced a few buildings in town that had taller sill heights. Mr. Westerman said they are trying to maximize the amount of glass but would not be opposed to going to 6 inches on the right side to create more of a sill. The board members discussed the possibility of going to 6 inches instead of 4 ½. Mr. Warwick, Ms. Thompson, and Mr. Moyer said they were ok with the proposed 4 ½ height. Mr. Fornell agreed. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the next resolution in the series with the removal of condition #1. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. Mr. Warwick was assigned monitor. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Raymond seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk