Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20191113 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2019 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Kara Thompson, Nora Berko. Absent were: Richard Lai, Sheri Sanzone, Jeffrey Halferty and Scott Kendrick. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director thrd MINUTES: Mr. Blaich moved to approve the minutes of October 9 and October 23, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has one item she’s already resolved with Mr. Moyer and one item for Ms. Greenwood to discuss after the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon reminded the board of the special meeting next Wednesday, so they don’t have to meet on Thanksgiving eve. Ms. Greenwood said she will be absent, so Mr. Blaich will chair. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon said she issued one today for some window changes on a non-historic house on Neale Avenue. CALL UPS: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said all notices have been submitted. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 234 W. Francis Amy Simon Ms. Simon said that Ms. Yoon is the lead on this project, but she is traveling on the east coast this week. Herbert Byer used to live in this house. She showed a picture of it and said it’s a lovely and large Queen Anne Victorian. There are two historic resources on this site and there is a Herbert Byer fence surrounding the property as well as some beautiful cottonwoods. She showed a bird’s eye map and a Sandborn map. There was a remodel in the 90’s which added on to the structures and this proposal is to remove all of that and take the structures back to the original form, which is great. There is a proposal to take the upper level off of the non-historic garage along the alley. This identifies a few of the concerns brought up in the staff memo. We initially received a proposal for a pergola and an open trellis structure to span between the two structures on site, and we objected to this. The applicant has since 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2019 withdrawn that request. There are a number of large spruce trees at the back of the site which must be retained, but they provide an obstruction to where we normally would like to see an addition occur. We’re concerned that compatibility hasn’t been met yet between the historic resource and this aspect of the addition. It feels pushed into the center of the lot, but we don’t have a great solution due to the trees. The applicant did do a restudy of form, which brought down the height of the center element. She showed the side street elevation. There is a request for setback variations to change the roof form of the garage and they are maintaining the footprint. The setback variation criteria have been met. They are also asking for a 500 square foot floor area bonus and this is our first project under the new floor area criteria. We are recommending continuation for compatibility on the addition. Mr. Moyer said we learned today that the historic fence is not actually on the property. Thus far, it can be retained and asked if there is anything, they can do to not make it an issue in the future. Ms. Simon said there has not been an encroachment license issued thus far, but we could certainly ask engineering to do that. Ms. Greenwood commented on the trees in the back and said HPC does have purview over parks allowing trees to be removed if it will benefit the historic restoration. She asked what staff’s opinion is since they are concerned about the addition being in the center of the lot. Ms. Simon said she’s not sure if Ms. Yoon has spoken to the parks department. She said maybe the forester feels that these trees are far enough away from the historic structure that they don’t have to be removed. These will stay put if they are healthy and not impacting the structure. Ms. Greenwood asked about the addition. Ms. Simon said there is room to add onto the site. Ms. Greenwood said that any applicant can make the argument against it. Ms. Simon said she thinks, depending on how this conversation goes, the conversation can be revisited, and we can decide that before the continuation date. Ms. Greenwood said it’s important for all applicants to know this and it’s not a hard and fast rule. Ms. Greenwood asked if they want to go over the FAR. Ms. Simon read through the criteria. Since the lot is 9000 square feet, it’s eligible for the full 500 and smaller lots get less. Ms. Greenwood asked if the project being presented is with the 500 square foot bonus and Ms. Simon said yes. Ms. Berko was what the total FAR is, and Ms. Adams said 3660 and with the bonus 4160. She said they are not asking for the full bonus, but just under that. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams with Bendon Adams and Sara Lopergolo of Selldorf Architects in New York. Ms. Adams said that Selldorf Architects specialty is the joining of historic and modern architecture and Ms. Lopergolo brought a physical model for everyone. Ms. Adams showed the existing conditions. The building was built in 1888. She presented the Sandborn maps and included some documentation from the historic society. There was a major renovation in the 1990’s and they are improving this and removing additions and making it more compatible with new construction. She showed a diagram of the constraints on the site. We’ve been checking in with parks along the way regarding the trees and we want to work the design with them. The dripline does dictate a bigger setback. Our main goal is the historic preservation plan. We are doing a complete restoration of the carriage house and preservation to the main house, making sure the new addition is lower than the primary building. We are also nd improving the 2 street façade. The mix of roof forms is a little too complicated. We have pushed a lot of development into the basement and it will be one single family home on this property. We are restoring the rear dormer and reducing the existing lightwells and will be restoring the historic chimney. 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2019 We are removing the non-historic side porch and also removing the front porch of the carriage house. The carriage house got a lot of Victorian details in the 90’s that were pretty confusing, so we are proposing to remove all of that. They can work with staff and monitor to figure out where the entry was. We do have evidence that the windows were a lot longer than they are today, so we will be restoring those as well. She said they have significant setbacks and explained all of them. Ms. Lopergolo switched out the buildings on the model from existing to proposed and explained it to the board. Ms. Thompson asked if they would maintain the same material and Ms. Lopergolo said they were going back and forth on that, but the idea is to use the same material; the cedar siding. We haven’t decided yet whether we paint or go natural. The addition would be natural, and the garage should go in that area, but we can also see it being painted. Mr. Moyer asked what their thoughts are on treating the natural cedar and Ms. Lopergolo said in the past, they’ve left it alone. He asked if they’ve done any homes in the mountains and she said yes. Mr. Moyer said it turns black and weird and not appealing. She said they’ve done a house in Edwards and would do the same treatment. She doesn’t remember the exact formula. Ms. Berko asked about copper not being used on the windows and Ms. Adams said they are open to staff’s suggestion on the lead coated copper. Ms. Greenwood asked how the square footage is allocated and Ms. Adams said the allowable square footage is 3660 total FAR, and we are proposing 4160. Derek Skalko explained in detail the numbers. He said there is currently 861 square feet in the main Victorian, 587 in the mining cottage, and the additional is 525. The connecting octagonal element is being removed and that is 700 square feet. There is a slight reduction from the mining cottage as well since they are removing the non-historic addition. The proposed Mr. Moyer asked how wide and how long the connecting link is. Ms. Adams said it is 20 feet 10 inches long and 15 feet in depth. Mr. Moyer asked how transparent it is and Ms. Lopergolo said it’s just a side door there and will not be very transparent. PUBLIC COMMENT: David Dowler nd Mr. Dowler said that his house is at 229 W. Smuggler and 426 N. 2. He has read the application and wanted to say that he really likes Selldorf Architects and admires their work. He went through the code and has written remarks which he passed out. He said his concerns are similar to the concerns of the HPC staff regarding the scaled, the massing, etc. He asked if they considered putting the garage behind the cabin and described what he did at his house. He really feels like walking along that street is one of the great joys in Aspen and thinks that the structure of the addition is what disturbs his eye. Ms. Adams said it’s a great idea to put the garage behind the cabin, but because of the spruce trees, it cannot be located there. Ms. Greenwood said that HPC has purview over tree removal and Ms. Simon said that is not the case. We can’t demand that parks issue a tree removal permit. Ms. Bryan said that is correct, HPC doesn’t trump parks. Mr. Moyer said he went over on the weekend and stood on the south side. He thought all of the removals were dead on. He looked into the yard and realized he would be looking at a big wall and said 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2019 it’s a great big box. He said he walked to the east side and the first thing to hit him was the connecting link. Both the width and length. He said the length is great, but he thought we want the connector to show the separation from the historic to the new and that it be transparent. He said the open space on this lot has always been a part of the history. He is not totally opposed or in favor of the 500 square foot bonus, but he wants to see something special. Ms. Berko thanked them for the model. She said this is one of the only remaining compounds to have kept its original scale. It’s on the national register. It’s a part of the identity of Aspen’s history and spent a lot of time there when it belonged to Robert Anderson. She’s attached to its openness. She really needs to see more discussion regarding the integrity of the guidelines for her to feel comfortable. If you take off the 500 from this calculation, what kind of an addition could be done that would still meet the perceived needs. The open space is totally gone with this addition. She can’t really feel too enthusiastic at this point and thinks the whole addition needs some reworking. Ms. Greenwood said it’s a complicated project and she’d like for more discussion. She feels the guidelines have been underwhelmingly unmet. To her, it doesn’t belong on this property. She could see it downtown on its own. This isn’t a new concept for an old site here. She doesn’t think the addition form relates. The windows don’t match the historic windows at all since there is a modern fenestration. That’s not what is on the historic resource. She doesn’t think they’ve met form or fenestration and she concurs with Ms. Berko and Mr. Moyer. She is not in favor of a 500 square foot bonus and said there is too much building on the site which really affects the rhythm of this beautiful property. Ms. Thompson said she thinks the form could be interesting if the materiality of that element was developed further to not look exactly like the cabin but to provide a contrast to be a more modern element. She likes the roof a lot better than the original proposal. It could be more delicate because it’s too heavy for her. Ms. Berko said it’s an amazing lot. Mr. Moyer said that we all agree, it’s way too much mass. Mr. Blaich said that all his thinking is to preserve what we have. When I went to the site, he went to the back and realized what affect this has on the alley. It started to change his thinking. He wondered how this could this be done better. He agrees with the comments by staff, but just saw the actual drawings today for the first time. He thinks they are going in the right direction. Ms. Greenwood asked if everyone is in agreement to continue and the board said yes. th MOTION: Ms. Berko moved to continue to December 11, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Adams said she needs some clarification. She asked if they should include the bonus or not. Ms. Simon said you have to design it and present it and that you shouldn’t walk away thinking you can’t ask for it. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion carried at 6:24 p.m. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2019 _____________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 5