Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20200212 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Bob Blaich, Nora Berko, Scott Kendrick, Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Absent were: Kara Thompson, Sheri Sanzone Staff present: Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney MINUTES: Mr. Kendrick motioned to approve the minutes from January 22nd, 2020. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None CONFLICTS: None. PROJECT MONITORING: 300 W. Main Ms. Simon stated that she will discuss this project with Mr. Moyer at the end of the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that staff are canceling the March 25th meeting and replacing it with a meeting on March 18th. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: Ms. Simon stated that 1020 E Cooper was called up by Council for further discussion. They will decide whether to uphold HPC’s conceptual approval or remand that project for further discussion. Ms. Yoon stated that she, Ms. Simon, and three board members attended the CPI conference. It was a good meeting. Ms. Simon presented on the permit process related to historic preservation and held a roundtable with other small jurisdictions. OLD BUSINESS: 234 W Francis Ms. Yoon introduced herself as the Historic Preservation Planner with the City of Aspen. She stated that this is a continuation. They are here for conceptual major development review. 234 W Francis is a special property because it has layers of historical significance. It’s a Victorian structure and is associated with Herbert Bayer. It’s both on the local inventory and the national register for historic places. The property has two historic resources. It’s on a 9,000 square foot lot in the R6 Zone District. The commissioners did a site visit earlier today. Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant is here to request conceptual major development, setback variations, and a floor area bonus in the amount of 472 square feet. She showed the bird’s eye view map and the Sandborn map showing the resources in their current location. The design guidelines relevant to this project are those related to site planning and design compatibility related to the proposed addition. At the last meeting, there were concerns related to open space on the site planning side of things and design compatibility regarding mass and form. The applicant was asked to restudy. The new application before the Commission today has taken those comments into consideration. It’s important to note that 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 this is a corner lot so there are more stringent design guidelines related to design compatibility. It has to be recognized as a product of its own time, but the addition should be subordinate. She showed a comparison of the previous site plan and the one before the Commission today. The Parks Department has made it clear that the spruce trees on the northeast must remain. The historic resources are remaining in their existing location. These both contribute to where the applicants can build. The new location for the garage structure in the proposed design simplifies the mass and the relationship along Second Street. The new mass for the living space is a one-story element that has been pushed into grade. The massing relationship along Francis for this element is seen to be very respectful and remains respectful to the historic resources and the site. Open space around the historic structures are improved and the new structure is designed to be respectful in scale. Ms. Yoon showed the south elevation on the slide. She stated that the applicant proposes to remove the non-historic elements on both historic structures and proposes a design that shows a gable end. It is significantly set back from Francis Street and subordinate in massing. Ms. Yoon showed the west elevation as seen from Second Street. The two-story addition contains the garage which is now aligned with the west elevation. The one-story elements of the proposed additions all read subordinate to the historic resource. The applicant is requesting setback variations for the two- story above-grade addition and the sub-grade level that follows the structure down to the basement level. The west side yard setback request will align that garage addition to the historic Victorian’s west elevation and the rear yard request for the structure so that it sits five feet from the property line. The resolution also goes into detail about the combined yard setback request that they’ll need, related to the other resource. The setback request to the west is also included, so to combined yard setback request is also in the resolution. Staff finds that the setback variation criteria are met with this application. The applicant has reached out to the Engineering Department since the staff memo has been released and they’ve been in communication with the engineering comments related to this revised design. Out of the ten comments, six have been resolved and they’re working on the other four. Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant is requesting a floor area bonus. With the changes made, the 9,000 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum floor area of up to 500 square feet. The applicant is requesting for 472 square feet for this project. There is a preservation scope associated with the project. They are taking away non-historic additions and restoring the historic resources on both the one-story historic resource and the two-story Victorian. The designed addition is also seen to be compatible with form and material with the re-design. It reads as subordinate and the site-specific conditions related to the trees is a factor to take into consideration. Staff finds that the criteria for this is met and requests that HPC further discuss the criteria and the request for 472 square feet. In conclusion, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: the applicant should better define the stormwater mitigation plan and bring those back for final review. The applicant is already working with the relevant departments. Design the curb-heights for the lightwells to be fewer than 6 inches in height. There is some investigation of historic framing and historic documentation before restoration, to be reviewed by staff and monitor. At the appropriate time, obtain a permanent encroachment license from the Engineering Department. This is related to the historic Herbert Bayer fence. The Commission found out last time that it is not sitting on the property boundaries. Staff is recommending the bonus for 472 square feet. The setback variations that will be needed for the proposed garage addition are included in the packet. Final development plan should be submitted to HPC review within the year. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams introduced herself as being from BendonAdams. She is representing Steve Ells, the owner. She introduced Derek Skalko as the local architect helping Selldorf Architects who are based in New York and were here in November. She thanked the Commission for the feedback in November. They went back to the drawing board and really looked at the design guidelines, listened to the Commission’s direction, and wanted to come back with a really great project. Ms. Adams stated that they are resting conceptual approval, setback variations, and they are requesting a portion of the FAR bonus. She is going to touch on the changes that have been made instead of going through the whole project. She stated that this is a 9,000 square foot lot and has two landmarks on the site. They are both in their original locations and the applicants think that is very important. They are not proposing to move them. It’s also important to remember the residential context of the neighborhood. The applicants did a lot of historic analysis including looking at maps, old pictures from archives, and Selldorf did a lot of different visual analyses. The applicants have another physical model and digital models. One of the key things that Mr. Ells wanted to do was bring back the simple style of the 19th Century Victorians. In the 1990’s there were a lot of decisions made that started to confuse what was and was not historic. They are proposing to remove all of those non-historic additions. She showed the existing site plan on the slide. It’s very faux-Victorian and that’s not acceptable. There was a lot of area for improvement. One of the changes will be shifting the garage to be aligned with the landmark in an effort to highlight the landmark. Ms. Adams stated that the feedback that they heard from HPC in November included to restudy the two-story flat roof addition and increase porosity on site. She showed a comparison of what was proposed in November and what is being proposed at this hearing. They moved the mass from the east wing on top of the garage and re-worked that form. The proposed addition to the east is set back 60 feet from the property line. She showed a comparison of the site plans. She stated that the applicants pushed the garage in so that it’s now aligned with the landmark. They shortened the wing and sunk it. They moved the bedroom to on top of the garage. They took away the pergola and they moved as much below-grade square footage as they could. They now have a full basement that’s proposed. She stated that the applicants took the design guidelines literally and tried to meet every design guideline that they possibly could. Ms. Adams stated that feedback from the last meeting included “remove trees from the rear of the property line.” They met with the Parks Department after the hearing to see if there was going to be any flexibility at the rear. They’ve had four site visits with the Parks Department, so they are very familiar with this property. They are very clear that the spruce trees cannot be removed. They are able to thin out a few of the aspen trees. There are some sight constraints including the landmarks in their original locations. They are not proposing to move them. Feedback also included restudying the roof forms. They have moved the mass on top of the garage. This simple form is much more complimentary and more subordinate to the landmark than what was previously proposed. A gable building on an alley is typical of a historic property. She thinks it allows the landmark to shine. Ms. Adams showed the physical model. She stated that they’ve simplified the roof forms, pushed everything back and down within the site constraints that they have. They’ve removed a lot of the 1990’s stuff that got added. She thanked the commissioners for their feedback in November and stated that she feels it created a better design. Ms. Berko asked how far down it is sunken. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Mr. Skalko stated that it is sunken eighteen inches into the grade. He stated that the story poles were situated at eleven feet six inches from the grade line. Ms. Greenwood asked if the solar panels are flat on the roof. Mr. Skalko stated that they are. They opted for the flat system even though it’s a little less efficient. They figured it’s more respectful to the neighborhood and historic resources surrounding it. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. David Dowler introduced himself. He stated that he is looking forward to having Mr. Ells as his neighbor. He lives at 229 W Smuggler and 429 N Second. He discussed the project with Tom and Suzie Phillipe, who are his next-door neighbors. They concur with his comments. He thanked Ms. Adams for forwarding him the revisions they are presenting at this meeting. He appreciates efforts to make the redevelopment appropriate to the neighborhood. Some of his comments refer back to the November meeting. At that meeting, he stated that all projects should develop the historic development pattern of the block, which has not been discussed today, and allow for some porosity on the site, which has been mentioned. He appreciates the reduction in the mass and scale of the new portion, but it seems to him that the living room building proposed still interferes with the rhythm of the block, which he described in more detail at the meeting in November. It is shown clearly on the second page that he sent to the commissioners. He is still concerned about that. He has struggled in prior years to solve development problems regarding the historic structure of his property and he empathizes with the new owner. With regard to other aspects of the plan, he understands what Ms. Adams described in terms of moving the garage. If you don’t move it, it’s an advantage as to leaving more open space internally, which does affect the porosity. He does not think the existing garage location detracts from the western elevation at all and it’s not significant from the north elevation. His stated that a one bay garage with two levels would be a great solution. He appreciates the improvements made in this plan. If there’s some sort of view through the property, his concern would dissipate. Mr. Halferty stated that he wasn’t at the first meeting. He thinks that this is an interesting proposal. He hears the neighbor’s comment. He was wondering how appropriate the copper canopy is. He appreciates the restoration of the carriage house and feels that the garage location complies with guidelines. He appreciates the reduction in mass from the first proposal. He appreciates all the restorations of the historic resource and the main house. With the changes, he could approve this project. It does comply with guidelines. Ms. Greenwood stated that the project has improved enormously. There isn’t a lot of ability to develop this in modern times and live on the property in a modern way. This is a good solution. It does remove the porosity on the site, but that’s not necessarily in the guidelines. A lot of the square footage is below-grade. It’s an enormous restoration project and she would be in favor of it. She agrees with staff comments. She agrees with the 472 square foot bonus. It’s as quiet as it can be for a modern addition on a Victorian building. They’ve brought a lot of things into compliance. This tells a beautiful story of then and now. She would like to see the project move forward. Mr. Kendrick stated that this is night and day from where it started. It really highlights the historic buildings on the property. He hears what the neighbors say about the porosity, but given the site- constraints, this is a good middle ground that addresses that issue. Overall, this is a fantastic project. He would agree with moving forward. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Ms. Greenwood asked if they changed the ridgeline of the garage from the last hearing. Ms. Adams stated that they did. Ms. Greenwood stated that that is successful. It’s more harmonious with the two outer buildings on either side. Ms. Berko stated that she likes the project. She hears the neighbor’s comments about the porosity. She feels that the addition is now nestled into the trees, so she will defer to the Park’s Department’s decision. Her only concern is garage setbacks. Mr. Moyer stated that this is a much better project. He would like to see the Commission have a work session on alleys. He feels that there needs to be more discussion on how to deal with alley setbacks. He does not really oppose putting so much square footage underground. It allows the applicant to have space for the modern world but not interrupt the existing historic structure. This is ready for conceptual. He is interested in what Mr. Halferty had to say about the copper canopy, but the Commission can deal with it at final. He agrees with staff’s recommendations and would vote to approve. Ms. Greenwood asked Mr. Halferty what he was referring to in his comment. Mr. Halferty stated that he does not think the copper should not be attaching to the historic resource. It seems foreign. Ms. Greenwood recommended that it be restudied. She asked if there are stairs. Mr. Skalko stated that there is one platform up to a step. Ms. Greenwood stated that the living addition is clean. She recommended that they maintain that look for continuity. She wants to see less stuff on the historic resource. She wants to add it to their conditions to either eliminate that or figure out an alternative. She wants it to be quieter and simpler. Ms. Adams stated that they will figure out something for final. Mr. Blaich is in agreements with the comments that have been made. It’s a huge improvement over the original proposal. Mr. Kendrick stated that he does not necessarily have a problem with the overhang. He asked if everyone else wants to see that removed. Ms. Berko stated that she does. Ms. Greenwood stated that it feels like an add-on. Ms. Yoon asked if the language for the condition they wanted to add was to remove or to simplify. Ms. Adams asked if they can restudy it. Ms. Greenwood stated that she would be fine with that. Ms. Yoon asked if they want the language for the condition to be: restudy the overhang on the secondary entrance from Second Street, to be reviewed at final review. 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Ms. Greenwood stated yes. Mr. Moyer motioned to approve Resolution Five with the conditions. Mr. Halferty seconded. VOTE: roll call vote: Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes. NEW BUSINESS: 227 E Main Street Ms. Simon stated that this is a 3,000 square foot lot on Main Street. It’s one of the older miner’s cottages left in Aspen since the town developed from the center out. This one is in the core of town. It was built in 1886. This building is very deteriorated. In fact, staff have had internal conversations about demolition by neglect being a concern. The Moore family has owned the building for a very long time. It was occupied by a retail store for many years. Mark Friedland has purchased it. Staff are very happy to see the project come in and see some restoration on the building. The plan is to convert it to a single family home. When you do that in the mixed-use zone district, you take a 20% floor area penalty because that isn’t necessarily the preferred use in that commercial area, but it is an allowed use. The total floor area permitted is 1,920 square feet. That’s what’s proposed and a bonus is requested. The applicant plans to excavate a basement under the miner’s cottage and lift it approximately six inches. They will be doing restoration on the house. An addition is proposed behind the house. It’s separated from the building with a ten-foot connector. The connector splays out, which isn’t what normally happens but it isn’t prohibited. It only touches the historic resource in a minimal way, which is really the goal. The addition is two stories in the center and drops to one in the back for a single-stall garage. The applicant needs two on-site parking spaces. One is in the garage and one is uncovered on the site. They are pushing the whole addition towards the east property line, consistent with how the historic resource is placed. There is discussion needed about whether that creates conditions that are a problem in terms of drainage or maintenance. They mentioned that the center two-story piece of the addition has some form elements to it that aren’t necessarily in compliance with the guidelines, particularly the long slope that runs over to the staircase. It will probably have some limited visibility but it does appear to peep up over the top of the historic resource. Compatibility is important. Roof pitches on the addition should match what’s on the historic resource. Staff is recommending continuation. The constructability of this is a concern. The Commission is being asked to approve relocation to lift the building and build a basement. The house is as wide as the site. It can’t move forward off the property because of the historic trees and the right-of-way. It can’t move into the alley. It can’t be temporarily be moved somewhere else, there’s no way to maneuver it. They might want to discuss if this is really viable. Staff are also concerned about future maintenance alongside the structures. The applicant is having trouble getting a civil engineer on to their project in the early phase. They’ve done what they could do estimate a stormwater plan. The Engineering Department has responded by saying that drywells won’t be particularly reasonable on this property because you have to stay ten feet from all property lines. Transformers seem to be triggered by the next project that comes in over and over again as each alley reaches capacity. They need a pretty big footprint of about ten by ten. This site plan wouldn’t accommodate that without some adjustment to the walkway and the parking space in the back. Ms. Simon stated that there are trees on the Explore Bookseller’s property that are right on the common property line and appear to impact the ability to excavate a basement under the miner’s cottage. That doesn’t really have an above-grade impact. They want the applicant to continue to talk to the Park’s Department. At final and during permit review, everyone is going to need to work together to 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 find every opportunity to restore this miner’s cottage. There will be a need to post a $30,000 financial security as always when excavating under a historic resource. The applicant is requesting a number of setback variations. There’s a front variation requested to continue the exact existing condition. The house is about four-foot two from the front lot line where ten feet is required. They want to continue that. The resource is on the lot line on the west, so they want to continue that. They want to be one- foot one inch from the east property line for the historic resource and the addition and one feet from the alley. They understand the need for those variations. The applicant is not asking for a floor area bonus but they are asking to position the constriction and work with the Commission on the benefits to be able to achieve the best outcome. Staff are in support of the general idea of the project, they just have a number of concerns. Staff think that a continuation to March 18th would be appropriate. Ms. Greenwood stated that they upgraded the transformer on a property that she is monitoring. There will probably be an opportunity to upgrade that with the city. Ms. Simon stated that they all seem to be reaching capacity. Staff want that conversation to be had. Ms. Greenwood stated that upgrading the transformers is a benefit. Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Simon if staff is suggesting that the transformer go on the applicant’s property. Ms. Simon stated that they are suggesting that they find out sooner rather than later if they’re expected to accommodate one and figure out how it is going to fit on the site and comply with whatever the Commission approves. Ms. Greenwood stated that it looks to her that they’d have plenty of room to move this back on the site while they excavate. Ms. Simon stated that the backhoe can’t come over the front of the property. Ms. Raymond mentioned the possibility of craning it over the historic resource and onto the site. Ms. Berko asked if the transformer will be where the parking spot is. Ms. Greenwood stated that, hopefully they can just upgrade one on another existing piece of property. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon if it would be best if the Commission or staff recommend that the Engineering Department talks to the neighborhood and starts to solve these issues rather than put it upon the last person who is doing re-development and look for a better solution that wouldn’t disrupt the character of the historic neighborhood so that that new piece could be put somewhere that doesn’t impact a historic property anymore than would be necessary and could be moved to another place. Why wouldn’t something like that go where there’s space rather than in a place that happens to be historic. Maybe that’s something that should be looked at again in the future. Ms. Simon stated that the Commission is probably going to be talking about this issue a lot. They are going to see more and more transformers. The International Electric Code is requiring certain capacities 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 and a lot of these houses are very complicated. She will pass on Mr. Moyer’s comments. She just doesn’t know how realistic it is because nobody wants it. Ms. Greenwood asked if they are going to have an agreement with Explore about trimming the trees, which is going to affect construction. She asked if that has been addressed. Ms. Raymond stated that they have been trying to get ahold of the neighbors on both sides. The Parks Department met with one of her staff and the tree that is closer to Explore is growing under their foundation. Staff suggested that that tree came down for the safety of that building and that the trees between Explore and the applicant’s building should come down. The applicants will do what they can. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Kim Raymond introduced herself as being with Kim Raymond Architects. Milo Stark introduced himself. Ms. Raymond showed historic pictures that they found showing the Moore property building. The shorter Moore property building is within a foot of its property line, too. It’s tight. She showed the decorative above the window, which would be restored as well as the trim above the porch. There is an old metal railing around the porch. She doesn’t know if that’s historic or not. They would replace the columns and take it back to wood siding. The wood porch is down into the sidewalk. Currently the ice is coming up onto the wood porch. What the applicants would like to do, which is allowed in the historic guidelines, is pull it up just enough so that they don’t have the drainage issues. Ms. Raymond stated that the demolition by neglect has been pretty severe with this building. The inside is falling down. From the outside, it’s sinking in. They are excited about restoring it and making it a great house again. Also, adding on an addition to the back. Ms. Raymond showed the current conditions. It’s so tiny between the brick building and Explore. Picking it up for the drainage helps you even notice it. Taking out some of the extra trees between, you’ll actually be able to see the historic resource. She showed a rendering of the existing site. She stated that the little building is not quite straight on the site. On the east side, it touches the property line. On the west side, the minimum is thirteen inches. It gets bigger because it’s crooked. When they do the demolition of the building, they will look to see if there are any other windows. From what they can see now, there aren’t that many windows on the east or west. They will look to see if there are any windows that can be recovered there. She showed the proposed site plan. They’re going to square up the little building. Whoever moves in will have square walls. They want to remove the little shed part and have a patio in that area. There will be one window well, hidden between the buildings to service the whole level. There is a link where it’s angled. They pulled it in six inches in through the west property line. There are seven feet of the cabin showing. They are connecting to the historic building with the smallest footprint that they can and angling it back towards the addition. The garage in the back is detached. There is a little roof over the doors that go into the building and into the garage. This allows the applicants to keep the five feet that’s the minimum distance required between the addition and the detached garage. It lets people be try going from the garage in. There is one parking spot in the garage, the parking space that’s required. They drew a transformer in the back just in case that’s required. They’re hoping not. They think that if they had to do that, they’d have to put one of the concrete piers in the ground. 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Ms. Raymond showed the landscape plan. She stated that they will keep the grass in the front. They will keep the concrete sidewalk and wood porch. They will put a border of the little black pebbles around the front of the building, for drainage purposes, and plant a flower garden in front of that. Around the side, they’ll have the raised flower gardens that will act as the rain screens. That will help with the drainage issues. Mr. Stark pointed out elevated rain gardens on the rendering on the slide. They have been pretty effective in water filtration. They will sit anywhere from six to twelve inches above the finished grade. Ms. Raymond pointed out a sidewalk on the alley side that goes past the garage, up to the backdoor of the house. In talking about setbacks. They were trying to keep the addition as minimal as possible. The footprint of the addition is actually 200 square feet smaller than the footprint of the historic cabin, if you don’t count the length. They are asking for a setback for the single-story garage towards the back so that they can keep the five feet between the garage and the building and have the mass of the addition feel smaller. There’s a green roof on top of the garage, which is a deck. When the civil engineer finishes his calculations, they can put green roof over the link also. Between the raised rain gardens and green roofs, he is very confident that he can make the drainage work. He’s working on that right now. Mr. Raymond showed their proposed lower level. They are pushing most of the development to the east side. They’re lining up the new development on the east side with the cabin. They carried that straight back and left more open space on the other side. She showed the floor plan. In keeping with HPC guidelines, they’re using all of the cabin as primary usage. Going in the front door that’s existing, they’re just changing the swing on it. They’re keeping the front porch. All the public spaces are there. They’re putting a patio off the back and a grate over the window well with an access gate. That will be the kind of backyard living space that’s in the middle. Upstairs is just the master bedroom and suite. Ms. Raymond showed rendering of the property from different views and angles. Ms. Raymond showed the shoring plan. She stated they have enough room to build the foundation by bringing the shoring out. In the area on the property line, they’ve moved the foundation in a little bit with different shoring. Ms. Raymond stated that the setbacks they are requesting are for the east property line and the garage on the rear of the property. Regarding the questions that Ms. Simon posed. When the building is pulled back and there’s more space around it, they can actually address the siding. That’s going to be the best way to put the new siding on the building, especially where it’s really close to the existing Moore building. They can get most of it in there, get it painted, and someone can squeeze in there to touch it up. They will have a final civil plan at final. Regarding the transformer, they are hoping for the upgrade. They are working with the Parks Department and Explore on the trees. That’s the next hurdle they’re trying to get over. They can save some of the trees in the back. They feel that they’ve been sensitive to the site, the little cabin. They are trying to make it a livable place for someone eventually, but still make it so that that historic resource is the part that stands out on the site. When they’re done with the renovation, it will be a great historic building that’s gone back to its original looks. Mr. Moyer asked if the garage has to be separate from the new addition. 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Ms. Raymond stated that, to keep the addition to the small cabin smaller, they made it separate. Ms. Simon stated that there’s a design guideline that prohibits more than doubling the size of the historic resource. They are already crossing the threshold. She doesn’t know that it’s completely fair to say that the garage is detached because it has that bridge. She gets the idea that they were trying to create that condition. It does conflict with the guideline that you can’t more than double the size of the building. But it’s also a 700-square-foot historic resource. Historic preservation is running into this more and more, that that guideline is pretty hard to meet. Mr. Moyer stated that he would like to see the garage moved back from the alley. There are other ways of doing that. The new addition could be smaller. The garage wouldn’t have to protrude out that much. He asked if they’ll be able to access to east side of the house when they move the house back. Ms. Raymond replied yes. Mr. Moyer asked if they have thought of any plan how they would make that wall so that it will withstand another 100 years of no maintenance. Ms. Raymond stated that they don’t know all of those details yet, but they did think about taking off the asphalt shingles and exposing and refurbishing the siding that’s there, replace the pieces that are bad, paint it. In some places, when they do renovations like this, they take the siding off, sand it all down, make sure it’s all really clean. Then they can put sealer on it, put it back, and paint it. It would be very well protected. Mr. Moyer asked how much space there will be between the new addition where it’s up against the brick wall. Is it the same as existing for the house now? Ms. Raymond stated that the link is seven or eight feet away. Ms. Simon stated that the historic house and a good part of the new addition are only one foot ten inches from the property line. So that is not really a lot of room to work in. Hopefully there will always be agreement with the neighbor. That’s why it was brought up as a concern. Ms. Raymond stated that she has been working with the neighbor. They have a good relationship with him and he is happy to help. Mr. Kendrick asked what happens if they don’t come to an agreement and can’t remove the trees on the side. Ms. Raymond stated that they will have to re-design the basement and pull the basement foundation wall in and cantilever the historic building back out over. It’s a tricky detail, but they can do it. Mr. Stark stated that the Parks Department has stated that the trees along the west façade are not in that great of health. The reason they recommended that they open that discussion with Explore 11 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Booksellers is that there could be an agreement where the applicants beautify this area for them because it’s also the entrance to their store. Ms. Berko asked what the plan is for snow removal. Ms. Raymond stated that the long section of the new addition that’s close to the property line has that sloping roof. That will take care of most of the snow and it will just go down into the side yard. The historic house can’t be changed. The green roof will take care of itself. The long sloping thing makes that element look smaller, pushes the mass farther back, and creates the drainage they need on their property. Mr. Kendrick stated that the neighbor could develop that lot right up against their property line too, then they wouldn’t be able to do maintenance on the garage since it’s on the property line. Ms. Greenwood stated that the overhang is right on their property line. She asked what that is. Ms. Raymond stated that they can cut that back. The little second curb is where the green roof is. Mr. Stark stated that the overhang is nine inches right now, but it could be flush, in line with the siding below. Ms. Raymond stated that they can put cementitious panels on that façade so that there’s no need for maintenance. They are trying to keep the materials very simple. Ms. Greenwood stated that this hearing is to discuss massing. The materials can come later. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ruth Carver introduced herself as a neighbor across the alley, on the corner of Aspen and Hopkins. The alley is like another street in this area. It’s extremely busy. It would be a wonder to save the dilapidated building. She does not think there will be any luck getting any of the neighbors to put the transformer on their property. The garage is a concern. She asked if it’s a variance to bring it further back into the alley. Directly across from that is the observatory house and they have some extra space on the alley. Mountain Forge is causing havoc in the alley and probably always will. With the building moved back, people park there and run into the liquor store. People park there at night. She stated that it would be great to not have that so close to the alley. Her focus is to protect the width of the alley as much as possible. It’s important for that neighborhood. The parking lot has all the people who have businesses there parking in there. The bakery might be a space where they could put the transformer. The garage is going to collect a lot of snow on the flat roof. Looking at the addition, the window is out of kilter with the front door and the windows of the Victorian house. It doesn’t line up with anything, even the roof. They will have to take down the fence between the property and Explore. She is not sure who that belongs to. It’s in bad shape. If they dig up the poppies in the yard, she’d love to have them. Otherwise, she thinks this is a great project. 12 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Ms. Simon stated that she made a mistake in the memo about the rear yard setback variation. In this zone district, it’s a five foot setback requirement, not ten in the rear. She overstated the variation that would be needed. Ms. Raymond stated that, in response to Ms. Carver’s comments, it does get a lot of south and west sun. There won’t be a lot of snow staying on that area, so that probably won’t be a problem. Even if the garage is only a foot off the property line, people can’t drive on that part of the property anyway. She understands the perception of space. There is a lot of activity in alleys, that’s what alleys are for. COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION: Ms. Greenwood stated that the issues to discuss are the variances, especially for the addition and the garage. They’re here to discuss mass and scale, with windows at a later date, though it’s appropriate to comment on that as they contribute to the design. She would not be in favor of the variance on the east side of the property for the addition. She thinks it’s a problem for the neighborhood. She would be in favor of seeing a three-foot. She think the footprint has to be completely restudied. It’s a new addition and it should try to not create more problems. Since it’s a total of six feet on both sides, they could break it down to three and three. She won’t vote for this project until they have a larger three-foot setback at a minimum. Regarding the alley, if they could reduce that to two feet, she thinks that’s a decent compromise. They’re creating problems for themselves that they don’t have to have. She doesn’t think this project should move forward until they solve the setback issues. The massing should also be restudied. She finds the sloping roof to be odd. When you look at the front elevation, they’re trying to emulate the gable of the Victorian. It has some relief from the sloping roof so that gable gets emphasized. It wraps the corner. From a massing standpoint, they should try to make that happen. The proportions are odd. The Victorian residential buildings have small fascia details and small trim details. They need to take it one step further and think about those on the addition. The windows could be much better. It’s a new window form when they’re emulating a historic resource and it’s not successful at all. She agrees with staff about restudying that long slope and flat roof. Use the historic resource as a guide for design decisions. She thinks they’re going to have to have a good relationship with the neighbors next door. They should make sure that they have these issues resolved before they come back. Windows can be discussed at final, but they need to rethink them on the historic resource. They seem like they don’t speak the language of the historic property. Mr. Halferty stated that he does not agree with Ms. Greenwood on the site planning. The variance on the eastern side is something that can be handled. Creating a variance towards the eastern part is problematic. As far as the neighbor’s concern, this is a very tight alley. He’s wondering if some part of the addition could be sucked in there to create a little bit more relief on the back alley from the site- planning standpoint. The site constraints are challenging. The addition wants to be sort of a shotgun addition like you’d see in New Orleans. The architect’s done a great job talking about the constructability. It’s going to be tough to move this structure, but it is possible. As far as the general site planning, the transformer issue is a challenging one. It would be great if it could happen on site, but it would be great if they could upgrade that existing transformer. That parking space is important for the neighborhood. As far as the addition, he agrees with staff as far as the slope roof on the eastern side. Especially with the glazing, it seems very out of character for that part. The addition itself could be restudied. The comments that Ms. Greenwood made regarding the thickness of the fascia and the rake 13 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 are well taken. He agrees with the comments about the slope roof. He is not sure that is the most successful solution for that eastern side. He is okay with the ridge height. The addition is the most challenging part of this as far as the mass and the location. If it could go to the west, it would help the site planning as well as the mass and scale of the whole thing. It’s a lot of program and a tight lot. The variances that are requested, it needs a little bit more design continuance. With some of the suggestions of staff, this could be an exemplary project. It just needs to fine tuning. He recommends this for continuance. Ms. Berko stated that she is glad to see this building getting the help it needs. She is not in support of any variances. She feels that this taking public spaces for private gain. Alleys are busy and it causes problems. She does not support the alley variance. As she has always said, if they have a small lot, they need a small addition. She won’t support an eastern one-foot setback. She would like to see the whole thing moved over or made smaller. The rooflines are confusing, she would love to see those be made more compatible with the resource. She supports staff’s continuation. Mr. Moyer stated that the commission needs to hold firm on variances. They are a major problem. If they give a variance, the design reason has to be exemplary. It’s going to be a really good project and workable. There will be certain allowances with a two or three-foot setback. Sometimes you have to just have a small project to make it work. The Commission’s purview is to protect the integrity of the community. It will work and the applicants can make it work, but they’re going to have to do it without the variances. They need to think about the drainage issue. Ms. Simon stated that the reason that the Engineering Department is promoting and supporting the green roofs and rain gardens is that that does clean and filter the water before it leaves the property, versus the drywell which doesn’t really accomplish that. The applicants are doing the right thing from that point of view. Mr. Moyer stated that the trees that were planted to the east side of explore and west side of the historic resource were misguided. It’s the last place you’d want to put trees in a small space. They should be just taken out. Ms. Greenwood stated that that’s not their purview. But this project will come to a good term, trim them up, do some nice landscaping. It will give it a nice canopy as you walk in. The issue I definitely going to be what kind of root damage is going to be done to the trees because they’re not going to be healthy, given their location. It needs to be rethought. She wouldn’t want to see anything less than three feet for the addition. Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees that this is a very challenging project but it would be nice to see some life brought back into this house. He agrees with staff on continuation. There are too many unanswered questions. He agrees with Ms. Berko about the setbacks. He also agrees with most of the other comments. He is in favor of continuation. Mr. Blaich stated that he agrees with everything he’s heard, specifically on the setbacks. That’s a very important place for people being able to park to visit Explore. If they’re going to be talking about 14 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 plantings, something ought to be done about snow removal in that area. It all gets dumped right in that space, people are going to have difficulty with access. Ms. Greenwood stated that they have unanimous agreement on continuation and the board would like to see them change the setbacks. Some commissioners want to see the setback reduced to three feet, some commissioners want no variation at all. Ms. Berko stated that setbacks exist for a reason. Ms. Simon stated that they cannot build to capacity on the front half of their property. They have a one- story limitation, they have to have a connector. There are special considerations and the commissioners can agree with them or not. Ms. Greenwood stated that it’s a design issue. They work with what they’ve got. When they buy these historic properties, they know what they’re buying. Ms. Raymond stated that they could move the addition over and have the three and three. Since the historic property was so close, their reasoning was to leave that side of the property close. Her concern was about the garage. Ms. Greenwood stated that there are members on the board who are not going to approve setback variances in this commercial local, but it really depends on what they’re presenting. The board is in agreement that this is unacceptable at this point. They are all in favor of continuation. VOTE: Mr. Blaich motioned to continue the hearing to March 28th. Mr. Moyer seconded. Ms. Greenwood stated that the Commission has given the applicants concrete advice as to what they need to come back with. All in favor, motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS: None. ADJOURN: Mr. Kendrick moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 PM. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ______________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager