Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20191211 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:28 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Nora Berko, Jeffrey Halferty, Scott Kendrick, Kara Thompson, Roger Moyer, Sheri Sanzone. Absent were: Bob Blaich, Richard Lai. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner James True, City Attorney MINUTES: Ms. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes from November 13th, 2019. Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Halferty motioned to approve the minutes from November 20th, 2019. Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood stated that she is sorry to see Mr. Lai leave the Commission. She asked if he is an alternate. Ms. Henning stated that Ms. Sanzone is the first alternate, so she can automatically move up to be a regular member. Mr. Moyer stated that he was part of the committee to interview the finalists for the Community Planning Director position. All candidates were great and it was an interesting process. CONFLICTS: Ms. Sanzone stated that she has a conflict of interest on the first item, which is being continued. She will step out for that. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that there is a special meeting Wednesday 12/18 at noon in the Sister Cities meeting room. It will be an hour-long meeting, the only topic will be design guidelines for upcoming 5G wireless equipment. Staff will send out a short packet. It’s not really a decision-making meeting, it’s more to get input. Later into the new year, the Commission will get a more formal document that will be going through a review process. Ms. Simon stated that the date for the Colorado Preservation Inc. Conference has been moved to the last week of January. The City can pay for four people and currently Mr. Halferty, Mr. Moyer, and Ms. Sanzone have stated that they want to go. She asked if anyone else would like to attend. Ms. Thompson stated that she is potentially interested. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: Ms. Yoon stated that 202 E Main Street went to Council this week and it was not called up. When the applicant is ready, they may proceed with final review. 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Simon stated that they don’t need to submit any tonight because they’re continued hearings. OLD BUSINESS: 234 W Francis – major development, floor area bonus, setback variations MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue the hearing to February 12th. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 1020 E Cooper Avenue – conceptual major development review, demolition relocation, request for a variation Ms. Simon stated that the Commission saw this project last on July 24th. The Commission continued it for re-study. The applicant thought they would come back in October, but needed additional time. This property was a longtime home of Su Lum. This house is designated and considered a representation of an Aspen miner’s cottage, but it’s pretty unusual. At the last hearing, there had been a lot of discussion about wanting to dig in to understand the building better and there was asbestos abatement pending. That held up the applicant’s ability to take a good look at the structure. They’ve now finished the abatement and the contractor has stated that this is two separate structures that were pushed together in a cross gable form in the 1800’s. They haven’t come across this at all with any other property and it raises a number of issues. It’s not exactly like most of the miner’s cottages that make up the majority of the City’s historic inventory. The ridgeline on the two gables is not of the same height. The roof pitches are not at the same height. These are two individual structures that were kind of sewn together and staff do not have a lot of information about the property. All staff have is physical evidence, which puts them at a disadvantage in terms of determining exactly what this building looked like historically. At the last meeting, one of the things that received a lot of discussion was that the applicant was planning to hang on to a 1960’s era lean-to addition on the back of the house and add beyond that and the board was concerned with that because they preferred going back to the original footprint. The applicant has resolved that concern. They are proposing to remove that addition. Now the applicant is talking about just preserving the historic resource. It’s a very small structure of only about 500 square feet. This building is even more challenging to add on to in a way that is similar in mass. The downside for the applicant in removing the ‘60’s addition is that they had to take on a floor-area penalty. In this zone district, single -family homes aren’t necessarily preferred, so if you have an existing one and you demolish more than 40% of it, you take an FAR penalty, which is part of the discussion tonight. They lost 588 square feet of their allowed floor area by following the Commission’s recommendation to take that addition off. Ms. Simon stated that the Commission was also concerned previously about the connector, how it met the back of the house and transitioned to the larger addition. That has made some progress because the ‘60’s addition is gone, it’s allowed some more flexibility for the architect in how to make a good connector. The house is being lifted up, moved forward slightly, and put on a new basement. There are two sheds along the alley that are not Victorian. It’s not clear when they were built. Those are proposed to be removed. There are no variations as a part of this application tonight except there is a 500 square foot floor area bonus request. The applicant is asking for that to make up for the floor area penalty. They only want to use a portion of that, 279 square feet, on the site. They want to go to City Council and ask to sell the remaining part as a TDR. The staff memo includes a discussion about findings about the FAR bonus. This is under the old criteria. Staff finds that it is appropriate to help them 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 mitigate that FAR penalty. There are several criteria that staff believe are met, as noted in the memo. Staff have had to address the design guidelines. There’s one in particular that the Commission should focus on, which is the one that says that an applicant can’t more than double the size of the original building with your addition, and they are about tripling the size of the building. The historic resource is 500 square feet, the above-grade floor area of the addition is 1,800 square feet. These are the things the Commission needs to talk about and evaluate whether the property meets all the decision-making points that they need to take into consideration. Staff are supporting the project. This is a challenging site. They have talked to the applicant and the Commission about whether de-listing is the right solution here. This is a building with pretty limited historic integrity. The applicant’s goal is to retain the original fabric and interpret the building the best they can as a 19th Century structure. But it’s a very small building with a lot of unusual circumstances in a relatively small lot. Staff have provided the Commission with a resolution recommending approval. They have written it to say that, if City Council does not approve the TDR that’s being requested, that portion of the bonus will become invalidated. Mr. Halferty asked how their design would be affected if City Council does not allow the TDR. Ms. Simon stated that, if Council does not approve the TDR, the bonus expires. Mr. Kendrick asked what the purpose of the FAR penalty if there is an appropriate bonus to give that back. If it’s not in the Commission’s purview to make a project financially viable and they’re not planning on using that, why would the Commission give them the TDR to sell? Ms. Simon stated that, the fact that there’s a penalty for tearing down more than 40% of the house has to do with Council having created a disincentive for single-family development in the neighborhood. That doesn’t really have anything to do with HPC’s criteria for a bonus. Those are two separate issues. The reason staff are making a finding that the FAR bonus is appropriate is that the applicant was planning to retain that addition and has decided to work with HPC, try to meet common goals, and take it off. That was a significant loss in square footage for them. Staff are recommending that the commission try to balance that impact. It’s best for preservation. It is not that unusual that the Commission will have a request for a bonus where some of it is retained and some of it is converted to a TDR. That is allowable. Council makes the ultimate decision on whether or not the TDR is awarded. Mr. Moyer stated that the Commission could potentially add a condition that the fence could be moved for construction and put back when it was done. Ms. Simon stated that a lot of public comments received focus on a proposed fence on the west side of the property. At some point, this may have been only a 3,000 square foot lot and there was a decision to change the property boundary that moved the lot line westward and pretty close to the adjacent condominium building. That’s the reason why there’s a lot of concern about where the fence goes. It is, in fact, owned by this applicant. They’re putting the fence on their property line. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon about the tree. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Ms. Simon stated that there are a couple of trees proposed to be removed. They are not healthy and not considered to be significant trees. One of them straddles the property line. At this point, staff look to Parks to make the decision about what’s best for the health of the tree. Mr. Moyer asked how complicated it would be to de-list the property. Ms. Simon stated that de-listing requires a recommendation by HPC and a decision by Council. There are two criteria for a Victorian property to be designated. One is that it was built in the 19th Century and it is still standing. The other is a scoring process that has a 100 point system where you get a certain number of points for a variety of criteria. You have to get 50 out of 100. If you don’t, the applicant or City Council should be considering de-listing as an option. Ms. Greenwood asked how staff resolve the issue of the size of the addition. Ms. Simon stated that that is a guideline that was a big change in the 2015 update to the Design Guidelines. You can’t more than double the size of the historic resource, which is not hard when you’re adding on to a bigger building. The smaller the resource gets and the difference between that and the allowed square-footage, this is a challenge. Ms. Greenwood asked if they could get credit for the 550 square feet. Ms. Simon stated that floor area of the addition can’t be more than the same size of the original historic resource. They can’t look at the building as it exists now, they have to look at the historic building. Ms. Greenwood asked if the shed has ever been counted. Ms. Simon stated that it hasn’t and the City does not count detached buildings, just the building that is being added on to. Because that’s a very strict rule, staff have created bullet points and the applicant needs to meet at least two to grant an exception. Staff are finding that demolition and replacement of that older addition is beneficial and they are fully using the interior of the house. They meet two of the criteria, so they qualify for an exception if the Commission would like to grant it. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jamie Brewster Mcleod, Brewster Mcleod Architects Ms. Brewster Mcleod introduced the applicants David and Tracy McMahon and their contractor Steve Waldeck. Ms. Brewster Mcleod showed a photo of the existing property on the slide. She stated that this is not a typical miners cottage, unlike the applicants had originally thought. Through investigation, it has revealed itself to be just two buildings put together. The applicants are using the context of the miner’s cottage for the reconstruction of this because they have no other resources to go off of. That’s what the applicants have talked about with Ms. Simon. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that their project intent is to restore the historic resource. They are planning to rectify the existing setback and non-conformities and are looking at adding an addition that 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 compliments the historic resource and makes it the focal point of the project. She showed some photos on the slide of what the existing building looks like. The proposed redevelopment is demolition of the existing non-historic sheds, demolition of the 1960’s addition that was added on to the historic resource, renovation of the historic resource including the removal of the roof over-framing, reconstruction of the south elevation and the front porch, reconstruction of the north elevation, replacement of the non- historic windows with more historically-accurate wood, and replacement of the vesta siding with the historic clapboard siding. The applicants have not done the asbestos abatement on the outside of the house, only on the inside, because they were worried about the building falling over if they started taking off the exterior materials. They are also looking at an addition to the rear of the property using a connector and adding this to the historic resource. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that, at their previous meeting, demolition to the non-historic sheds and relocation of the historic resource was something that the Commission was in favor of. As such, she will not cover those areas, she will move on to the other points. At the July 24th hearing, there were four items that the board had asked to look into. One was the investigation of the existing materials on the historic resource, demolition of the 1960’s addition, adding a connector to the historic resource to the addition, and reducing the mass and scale of the addition. The applicants have worked closely with staff to go through what they believe the historic guidelines are as well as what the board, staff, and the neighbors have asked them to do. They have also had multiple conference calls with 1012 E Cooper, which is on the west side of the building, and 1024 E Cooper, which is on the east side of the building. They have met with both HOAs and people who were part of the HOA to get an idea of what their concerns were after the July meeting. In response, the applicants have re-designed their project. They are looking at the demolition of the 1960’s addition which reduces the allowable floor area. They have added the connector, which meets the standards, and they have reduced the mass and scale of the addition. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that the applicants have tried to find information about the historic context. They found that there’s no existing framing for the windows and the doors. Some of the framing was re-used, but it wasn’t re-used in a historic context. They believe that the entry port was removed, although they don’t know what it looked like. The exterior sheathing does remain, which they are planning to keep. The exterior siding is non-historic and will be replaced. There is one small gable, which does show the historic siding. That’s what they are replicating on the rest of the house. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that they looked at demolition of the 1960’s addition. HPC had asked the applicants to look at removing this even though it reduced their square footage. It does exceed the 40%. The accurate square footage is 558 square feet. It was reduced per the calculations that zoning does. They are asking for a 500 square foot HPC bonus. 250 will be used on site and 250 square feet will be used for a TDR. She showed a rendering of everything that is on site right now. She stated that the third item they’re looking at is the connector. The proposed connector they are looking at exceeds the minimum dimensional requirements. It is a one-story element. They are looking at exceeding the 10 feet on one side. It would not be the full extent of the historic resource. They are proposing a connector at nine feet, six inches in height. There is an eave on the backside of the house that they will have to reconstruct, which will be about seven feet two inches. She showed a rendering on the slide to give an idea of where the connector would go. On the east side it is inset ten feet from the historic 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 resource and on the west side, they are looking at adding a courtyard that will make it 17 feet nine inches from the historic resource to the addition. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that the fourth item they looked at was reducing the mass and scale of the addition, reducing the square footage of the overall addition, which they have done. The south gable pitch, they looked at changing that to a twelve feet twelve inches, so that it represented the historic resource more. They also set back the front south gable of the historic resource by thirteen feet one and a half inches so it creates even more space. They reduced the width of the south gable by three feet ten and three eighths inches, reducing the overall mass and scale. They added articulation on both the east and west elevations. Ms. Brewster Mcleod showed the south and north elevations on a rendering on the slide. She stated that the historic resource will be prominent. On the backside, they are looking at moving the mass and scale to the back of the building and away from the historic resource. She showed a rendering of the west elevation on the slide. Right now, the sheds go over the property line and the resource is set back. There are large multi-family buildings to the east, west, and north. They are moving the building five feet off the property line. This is a small, non-conforming lot. They are setting everything back within the five-feet setbacks on each side. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that they have done a re-study of the four major points that staff and the board had issues with. They are looking at the historic materials, which are all conforming. They are looking at the demolition of the 1960’s addition. They are adding a connector and reducing the mass and scale of the addition on all sides. They are asking for the demolition of the two historic sheds. They are looking at re-locating the historic resource forward so that it complies with current zoning regulations and makes it the forefront of the project. They are looking at restoring the historic resource. They are looking at adding an addition to the north of the property through a connector. As Ms. Simon has pointed out, this project complies with three of the eight exceptions. They don’t think of the floor area as a variance, it’s a bonus. They are fully within the height limits and the setbacks. In the preservation benefits they are asking for, they have a floor area bonus of 500 square feet, an exemption from the growth management quota, waver of the impact fees, and the TDR rights. She turned her presentation over to her clients who wanted to speak. Mr. McMahon introduced himself and his wife Tracey McMahon. He thanked Ms. Simon for her patience with them during this project. He stated that this has been a difficult site and they are trying to get the balance right between reconstructing the historic property while still ensuring they have a family home to live in. They understand that there are historic guidelines to work within and they have put in a lot of time for that. They are pleased with the final design that they have come up with and think it will beautify this area of Aspen. Mr. Halferty asked what the plate height on the front entry porch is. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it’s about seven feet. It’s right at code minimum. Mr. Halferty asked about the relationship with the cross gable. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that the cross gable is not at 12’12”. It’s much lower than that. That’s why it looks out of context. They’re coming up against a low-sloping roof. Mr. Halferty asked if she thinks, historically, that the cross gable was that low-pitched roof. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that yes, that is what the framing indicates. Ms. Simon stated that she did put a condition in the resolution that, as this project goes under construction, they’re going to want to talk with the contractor about whether he sees any scars and sheathing or anything that tells them more than they know now about where a porch might have been positioned or anything like that. They are just making best guesses right now at some of this. Mr. Kendrick stated that the issue of the fence was not brought up in the presentation. The rendering shows a low white picket fence. He asked if that’s what they are proposing now as opposed to originally. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that that rendering represents what’s actually on the drawings. They are looking at a white picket fence in the front that meets HPC and City guidelines. Towards the back of the house, they’re looking at a six-foot fence to create privacy. In some of the renderings, they didn’t show the fence. That would typically be brought up at the next meeting, during landscaping. They wanted to show the renderings without much of the fence so that they could see what the building looks like. Ms. Sanzone asked if the gable height is ten feet on the historic resource. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that, based on their drawings of what is as built out there, they have the historic resource. The 12’12” pitch has a ridge of 14’ 8 3/8” . Ms. Sanzone asked if the ridge of the addition is at 28. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that the second gable, which is the lower one, which is basically a 5.5 has a height at 10’9”. Ms. Sanzone asked if the addition is at 28. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it’s at 28.2’ ¾”. Ms. Sanzone asked what the floor to ceiling height is in the top floor. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it’s an 8’6” plate. Ms. Sanzone asked what the lot size is. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it’s 4,379. A standard would be over 6,000. 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Ms. Greenwood asked what the overall size of the project is from a finished floor area above-grade. Ms. Simon stated that the addition is 1862 floor area and the house is 508. That that makes it 2,370. Ms. Greenwood asked if that includes the 250 square foot bonus. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it does. Right now, what they’re looking for is 229 square feet. They would like the 250. They don’t plan on building anything above the 229, but what they’re looking at is if the heights on the lower level change slightly, just because they don’t have structural or mechanical drawings yet, they could use additional square footage for the below-grade space depending on what that calculation is. They are not looking at adding any more above-grade square footage. Mr. Moyer asked if it will be onerous to make some sections of the fence removeable and then they can be reattached. Ms. Brewster Mcleod asked Mr. and Mrs. McMahon if they are okay with someone else having access to their fence. Mr. Moyer stated that it will be necessary at some point. He would make it a condition. Ms. Greenwood stated that that can be handled between neighbors, but if Mr. Moyer wants to propose it she supposed they could discuss it as a condition. Ms. Sanzone stated that, at their July meeting they talked about site utilities and how storm water would be removed. There was debate about a dry well versus a pond or detention area. She asked if the applicants have updated drawings that show that or if they could identify where the site water holding area would be on the site plan. Ms. Brewster Mcleod showed a rendering on the slide and pointed out where the storm water management would happen, on the bottom left portion of the lot. Their civil engineer did talk to the Engineering Department and they would prefer storm water area versus a dry well. Right now they don’t comply with dry well regulations. The Engineering Department asked them to design towards a storm water management. The designated area does comply with the regulation of a storm water management. Ms. Sanzone asked if the applicants have been thinking about the utilities. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that that was in their original application. She showed an area on the rendering and stated that it is a mechanical roof with a three foot barrier with a railing around it that’s solid. They are looking at putting their condensing units there. They talked to Zoning about it and they were fine with it, instead of putting it right at the property lines. Ms. Sanzone asked if they will be able to connect to the offsite transformer. 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that they have not done the electrical count yet. They’re waiting for the mass and scale to be approved. They will do that for the next round. Ms. Sanzone asked if they are under previous guidelines. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that that is correct. Ms. Sanzone stated that they are looking for more information and more study upfront so that they’re not surprised at final review by some of the utility requirements. Ms. Simon stated that they are under the current design guidelines. They submitted before the new floor area changes and the changes to the historic benefits went into effect. Under the new guidelines, the floor area bonus would be a little smaller than 500 square feet based on the lot size they would have to do more affordable housing mitigation. Ms. Greenwood asked if that is the same for the other benefits. Ms. Simon stated that they are still eligible for the exemptions and things that have been in place for 30 years. They are not subject to the changes that Council adopted last June. Ms. Sanzone stated that they are requiring preliminary design for site drainage and utility placement. Is that something that was submitted that’s just not in today’s packet? Ms. Simon stated that there is information in the packet about everything that Ms. Brewster Mcleod had indicated. There’s not a drawing, but there is text. If the Commission wants staff to ask for a drawing, they can discuss that with applicants. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that at their original submittal there was a letter from the Civil Engineer. PUBLIC COMMENT: Baron Concors introduced himself as the representative of the HOA Board for 1024 E Cooper. He stated that there is a potential impact to the neighbors of a building of this. The de-listing is also something that the neighbors are concerned about. Regarding the tree, he stated that he has an email from David Coon, the City Forester, stating that they can do whatever they want with the tree on their property but touching the tree that’s on the property line will require the permission of the owners of 1024 E Cooper. If that’s not obtained then the canopy and the drop lines would have to be protected during the construction. On behalf of the HOA Board for 1024 E Cooper, he reached out to the architect a few days after the last meeting because they want to see this project be successful. They were told that the applicants would be back in touch with them, but he never heard back. Patrick Rawley from Stan Clauson Associates introduced himself. He stated that he is here on behalf of Buck Carlton who is the owner of Unit 2 directly to the west. His windows would look directly onto the addition. His firm just wrapped up the Historic Preservation Plan of Colorado Springs and it was approved just the other day. A big component of that preservation plan was adaptive reuse. From that 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 standpoint, he is applauding the applicant for taking the historic resource, reusing it, and maintaining as much of the character as possible. He understands that they have a desire to use this property. However, compatibility is also a large thing to consider when adaptively reusing a historic resource. They have regulations in the books that say that the addition can be no more than 100%. He understands that the historic resource is small and limited, so maybe holding them to that requirement is not realistic. However, some reduction should be made to the overall mass and floor area of the building. The size of the historic resource is small because the site is small and that speaks to the compatibility. There should be a happy medium where the addition is pulled back from the north. Concerning the fence, it is a major issue. When you erect a six-foot fence, understanding that that is within the bounds of the code, his client will have a six-foot fence immediately outside his window. That poses a serious issue with maintenance of the building. When they talk about a removeable fence, that is one option. Historically, this picket fence is an historic condition. Having a transparent and lower fence would be more historically appropriate and much more amenable to his client. The size of the addition needs to be drastically reduced, the massing should be pulled off of the alley towards the south, and they’d like to take a look at the fence condition. Ms. Greenwood stated that the setback is larger than what’s typical. Mr. Rawley stated that they appreciate the setback from east to west. The fence cancels that out because it is immediately outside the window. A potential solution is to bring the percentage of the addition much more in line with code. Claude Salter introduced herself as a representative of some of the homeowners at 1024 E Cooper. They are supportive and excited about the changes and they do have concerns about the fence. She stated that the HPC standard that is item 1.20 suggests that it is important to have the 42 inch high fence to give the best view of the historic resource. They would very much like that to happen. There are a couple of slides that show a different location of the fence. This is of great importance and concern to her client because they have lost a quick claim deed litigation from a previous owner, not this owner. They don’t dispute that they are, by right, allowed to build this privacy fence. Their concerns are the proximity, but there is also another challenge which is that the elevations between the two lots differ. The historic resource lot sits higher than her clients’ lot by a foot and eight inches. That means that a six foot high fence on their property line makes it more like a seven and a half foot high fence from their neighbors side. They ask that the applicant be aware that that condition exists. She would like them to consider type of material or potentially not going to that six foot height. Also meeting the standard that asks that the 42 inch fence goes as far around as it can before the six foot high fence starts. Ms. Greenwood asked how the grade can be resolved. Ms. Salter stated that there is no real resolution to it. Ms. Greenwood asked what keeps that grade higher. 11 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Ms. Salter stated that there is a garden there now and there is an elevation change. There are some rocks along there, but it’s a natural grade change. Her client’s property sits a bit depressed on its lot. That’s how it gets to be lower. Ms. Sanzone asked Ms. Salter who she is representing. Ms. Salter stated that she represents the rest of the homeowners. There are five of them in the Victorian. It’s called Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominiums. Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Salter if the HOA she is representing had been meeting with the architects about this issue. Ms. Salter stated that there was conversation with the architect, but she wasn’t privy to that conversation. Michael Smith introduced himself as president of the Cooper Avenue Victorian HOA. He stated that they had a call with the architect and expressed this concern. They’ve said they considered it, but they don’t seem to have made any changes. The applicants put this privacy fence further forward than it should be, according to the design guidelines. The lot does slope significantly as Ms. Salter pointed out. The fence is close and, for maintenance, it would be helpful to have that section be removeable. It will also create a visual barrier. Ms. Simon stated that she has more public comment to enter into the record. Staff received four letters, which she sent to the commissioners. Most of the comments in the email have been represented or re-stated at this meeting. One is from a number of neighbors who think the size and scale is too much and are concerned about the tree removal. Mr. Smith, who spoke, also sent a letter mostly focused on the fence and the conditions along the east lot line. He made a comment about the size of the addition. Buck Carlton sent two emails stating that he has concerns about the northwest corner of the site and the placement of the addition and of the fence. Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Brewster Mcleod if there were any public comments that she would like to address. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that the applicants did reach out to the neighbors at both 1012 and 1024. They did say they would take their considerations into account when they were redesigning and working with staff. They believe that they did because they have worked with staff to try to reduce mass and scale to look at what they could do to address everybody’s comments. Regarding what has been said today, they would really like to keep a privacy fence because it is a very small lot and they have three buildings on three sides looking down onto this property. They are not asking to build a fence that is beyond what is allowed. They’d be more than happy to look at the location of the six-foot fence on the west side at their next landscape site plan. They would look at moving that towards the connection of the back of the house. Regarding the tree that straddles the lot line to the east, they reached out to 1024 and talked to Mr. Concors. He had mentioned that he would like to get this through HPC first before he’s willing to talk about the tree. At that point, they put the tree discussion on hold. At that 12 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 point, when they did have a conversation with the Parks Department on site, they asked for them to remove that tree. It was unhealthy and leaning and they were in favor of them removing both trees. Regarding the mass and scale, they have reduced the square footage from their original presentation by 353 square feet which is a lot compared to how small this lot is and what is allowed. They feel like they have taken measure and listened to the board and the staff on reducing that mass and scale and what can be allowed on site. Ms. Greenwood asked how the tree effects their development. Are they able to proceed? Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that they would not be able to proceed with the development with the tree there. Ms. Thompson asked if the building is within the dripline of the tree that they’re discussing. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it is. It touches the building itself and Parks felt like it was deteriorating that building. That’s why they wanted it to be removed, because of the health of it and how close it was to all the buildings. Ms. Greenwood stated that there is considerable neighbor opposition to this project based on real issues that haven’t been resolved in the design. The applicant has, from a visual standpoint, reduced the mass from the last time they were here in July. In terms of variations, one of the big issues is that they have a small lot, they’re asking for a 500 square foot bonus, but only using 250 square feet, which they want to sell as a TDR. That’s not really the definition of a TDR. They have identified the area for the civil drainage. The site is maxed out in terms of the uses that are going on the site, from the additions to the historic residence, to the requirements of civil engineering. There’s considerable concern from the neighbors on both sides regarding the mass. The apartment building is affected by the mass development. That is a very difficult situation because that building is massive. If it were to come off the historic register, is a better building for the neighbors going to be built? Doubtful. The Commission should really address the neighbors’ concerns. The most affected seems to be the balconies off the alley on the east side, directly adjacent to this addition, which is really affected by this design. Considerable effort has been made by neighbors on both sides to study this project and let the commissioners know how it affects them. Mr. Moyer stated that, when he looks at the historic resource, something is missing. Most Victorians around town have their front door on the left. The room on the front was usually a parlor. It looks too clean and modern. It’s a great project and it’s marvelous that they’re getting back to a historic real Victorian. Ms. Greenwood stated that one of the reasons they changed their guidelines in 2015 was to not have massive additions on the back of small miner’s cabins. Here we have a project that doesn’t do that. Ms. Sanzone stated that the applicants believe they’ve addressed the exemptions that allow them to come to the Commission and asked if the commissioners agree. 13 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Ms. Greenwood stated that what’s resulting is exactly what they are trying to prevent: a large addition on the back. When it affects neighbors, it’s even more of a red flag. From the street, it masses out very nicely. But from a development, it affects a lot of people. She is having a difficult time with the design from the gable and back and the mass of it. It completely obliterates two peoples’ experience of living on their property now. The Commission can’t ignore that. The neighbors to the east, there’s an easy solution, which is to not approve a fence on that property. They have designed a very private space for outdoor use that really does block the connecting element between the old and the new. Ms. Sanzone stated that the fence was not presented tonight, it is part of final review. Ms. Greenwood stated that they can make conditions and get it solved. Another issue is the bonus. She would approve a 250 square foot bonus but not taking the bonus and selling it for a TDR. She would not take this project to City Council in its current form because of the mass of the addition on the historic resource. Mr. Kendrick stated that he is torn on this project. On the surface it looks nice, it’s a beautiful house and design. The mass and scale is too large for that lot in general. The City does want multi-family housing on that lot, which is why there’s a penalty for tearing down the extra square footage. The scale could be reduced a little bit. He is in favor of removing the historic designation as this project does not feel like it has a lot of history in it. Ms. Greenwood asked if that really qualifies for a 250 square foot bonus. That’s adding 20 by 20 square foot space onto the building which could result in part of that addition being a one-story, which could solve a lot of issues in mass on the property. Philosophically, they have moved away from bonuses. They’re still getting the employee housing bonus, which is a huge number. These FAR bonuses have always resulted in larger projects and they haven’t been happy with that in the end. A 250 square foot bonus would reduce 250 square feet out of the addition and likely be able to bring part of the addition to a one-story which may solve some issues on the east side. The Commission is here to solve those issues. She asked how they all feel about the bonus. Mr. Moyer stated that, when the owners bought the units, they were fully aware that something could be developed on that lot. How much empathy should we give to people who that happens to? How much should that affect the Commission’s decision? Ms. Greenwood stated that it’s a nice project but it’s over-scaled. Mr. Moyer stated that he is not in favor of giving extra bonuses to anyone. Ms. Sanzone asked what the total square footage that would be allowed on this lot if this were not an historic property and someone were to build a home on it. Ms. Simon stated that the only thing they would be allowed to build as a non-historic property is a single-family house. It would likely be a similar amount of square footage allowed. 14 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Ms. Sanzone stated that, regarding the bonus, in the recent past the Commission has really pushed on the exemplary project and wanted something that’s really amazing. This project is a little bit different because they have all of the additions that are on the site. The Commission asked them to take away the 1960’s addition. In her opinion, they’ve done that, which is why she would consider granting them a bonus. Ms. Greenwood stated that she doesn’t have a problem with the bonus, she has a problem with the east side and the general massing. None of that roof line steps down or breaks up. She always feels that there is an architectural solution to problems like that. You have to consider the neighbors next door and be a good neighbor. She does not think this addition on the back does that and the mass is an issue. Mr. Moyer asked if they would have to table the hearing to a date certain if they if they mandate that the applicants design that side a little better. Ms. Simon stated that, if the applicant were asked to restudy the project and remove some square footage, the place to remove it is on the south-facing gable end to get away from the historic resource. She does not think that the HPC guidelines are focused on protecting views of a neighboring property. The project needs to be respectful, but there’s a lot to juggle already on the site and their priority is historic preservation concerns. She is not certain that a continuation to reduce mass along the alley is something that serves HPC’s purposes. Ms. Greenwood stated that they do have a public comment portion of the meeting and she does not agree with Ms. Simon’s interpretation. Mass is mass. They don’t look at the building from one side, but from all over. Mass is affecting neighbors and they’ve been asked to comment. In good conscience, there are some architectural solutions that could be done easily to address that. Ms. Thompson stated that she disagrees with Ms. Greenwood. The scale of the addition needs to consider the context. To have a single-story home throughout this entire lot would not be speaking to either building on either side. They’re very large in scale and the addition kind of mitigates that and makes it feel more appropriate from the street. It does look significantly better than it did in July and it is reduced in its width and improves it. She would support what Ms. Sanzone said about the bonus being associated with their removal of the addition. The connector meets the Commission’s guidelines and she thinks it really improves the connection to the addition. She would support the bonus. Ms. Sanzone stated that it’s not in their design guidelines, but thinks that the response to the neighbors seems appropriate. They have an articulated neighbor with the Victorian on the west side and this project is articulating their elevation to respond. On the east side, there’s a very flat façade. This applicant has responded similarly. It’s in kind. In urban design, that’s an appropriate response. Ms. Greenwood stated that the east side is nicely articulated and it creates a nice relationship between the two except for the fence. That’s an easy solution for the two neighbors to come up with something that works. It is appropriate to have a two-story on this building. It looks very nice, but it’s still a long massive roof. She asked how long the roof is. 15 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Ms. Brewster-Mcleod stated that it’s somewhere around 45 feet. Mr. Moyer stated that he’d like to hear from Ms. Berko. Ms. Berko stated that she’d like to see some tweaking that respects the neighbors’ concerns. She thinks they’ve responded to three out of four, for her, but regarding 10.4 and 10.8, she does not feel that it’s compatible. She feels as though there are solutions to make the backside, that eastern wall, more compatible. It may just be that all the square footage is too much for a tiny lot. As regrettable as it may seem to an applicant, if you have a small lot, you need a smaller addition. She finds it rather overwhelming and would love to see it reduced. They want that kind of a streetscape. They don’t want another wall. To her, it’s Su Lum’s house. Mr. Kendrick stated that, considering all the aspects, he would be in favor of enough bonus to cover what they need to do but not the additional bonus to sell off as a TDR. Table the fence discussion until the final. Approve the project as is without the extra TDR. Ms. Greenwood stated that the reduction would probably happen in the rear of the house. She does not agree with staff that it would have to come off that south gable. They’ve stepped back that gable very nicely. She asked if it is a roof desk. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it’s not, it’s just a roof. They originally wanted a roof desk, but they didn’t want to put railing or a parapet wall that would make it feel like an even bigger connection between the two buildings. Ms. Greenwood asked the commissioners how they all feel about the additional 250 to sell. She does not think City Council is going to go for it. Ms. Thompson asked if there is a precedent for selling TDRs on historic properties. Ms. Simon stated that there is. You are allowed to earn a bonus and sell TDRs. It’s the Commission’s decision whether they think the bonus is appropriate which facilitates them being able to sell the TDR. Ms. Sanzone stated that she is in favor of the 250 bonus. They listened to what the Commission recommended and came back with a plan doing what they asked them to do. Mr. Moyer stated that he concurs with staff on everything. He would add a condition regarding the fence to the conditions in the resolution. Ms. Sanzone stated that she would not support a condition on the fence at this time. She would encourage them to continue talking with the neighbors and come up with a solution. Ms. Thompson stated that she thinks it should be considered with the landscape plan. Ms. Sanzone stated that it should be the same with the tree. 16 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Ms. Greenwood stated that the tree is something that could just stop this project. She was thinking that giving some concessions to 1024 might resolve that issue, design-wise. It would be nice if the applicants had come in with that resolved. Ms. Sanzone stated that they need more time to resolve the issues of the tree and the fence. Ms. Greenwood asked if she would do a condition. Ms. Sanzone stated that she would not for those two items because, technically, they are not a part of this review. Technically they’re a part of final review. Ms. Greenwood stated that she doesn’t have a problem with the 250 square foot bonus if there was more support for this from the community. She asked staff to remind her what their position is on the TDR. Ms. Simon stated that they are supportive of it. They would award the bonus and leave it to City Council to approve the TDR. If they say no to the TDR, that aspect of the bonus would go away. Ms. Greenwood stated that the tree issue needs to get resolved before City Council. Ms. Simon stated that the tree issue has nothing to do with HPC’s purview. That sounds like a complicated discussion that involves Parks and a dispute between neighbors. She does not think HPC should hinge its decision on that. Ms. Sanzone stated that they have two paths forward. One is to continue and allow them time to restudy based on what they’ve heard today. Or they can approve, with the condition that they may ask them to look at the east elevation to see if there’s any opportunity to create articulation there. It sounds like they can do that and still be able to create a conceptual approval that covers mass and scale. She asked if that’s correct. Ms. Simon stated that usually mass and scale is locked in at final. There certainly could be some adjustment of a wall or change of fenestration from what the applicants are presenting tonight. There should not be a noteworthy changing in massing after conceptual. Ms. Greenwood stated that there may be different views as a board in terms of moving it forward. Ms. Sanzone asked Ms. Simon if it would be okay if the volume or the mass is reduced. Ms. Simon stated that the code actually says that HPC cannot ask for changes to the massing at final. They’ve agreed to it here. It doesn’t say that the applicant can’t make some adjustments. Typically, the Commission has looked for this to be an approval. They’re just down to materials, windows, and landscape at final. 17 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Ms. Greenwood stated that it seems like most of the board are in favor of moving this forward with the mass that’s been presented and the 250 square foot bonus. She is not clear on the additional bonus with the 250 square foot bonus to sell for a TDR. She asked if they are making a recommendation to City Council. Ms. Simon stated that they are not making a recommendation on the TDR. The Commission would be facilitating the bonus by granting the floor area, so they should decide whether the majority of them want to get behind that or not. Ms. Berko stated that they can do an FAR bonus of 250. Ms. Greenwood asked if they can still go to City Council if the Commission approves just the 250. Mr. Kendrick stated that they wouldn’t have the FAR to get the TDR. Ms. Greenwood asked if they want to have a vote or have more discussion. Ms. Sanzone stated that she’d like to have more discussion. She is confused about the TDR. The applicants can choose to use it on the property, which none of the commissioners support. In lieu of putting more square footage on the property, the applicants are saying they want to get the value of that because they’ve earned it and this is an avenue for them to pursue, which is to sell it and have someone else use it on another property. Ms. Sanzone stated that that’s why she supports it because they’ve chosen not to put it on this property. Ms. Greenwood stated that they don’t have it on the property. It’s not like the Commission is reducing the mass on the property. TDR works when people don’t develop to their maximum potential. They are developing 250 square feet over their maximum potential to begin with. They took that area away, but that’s their decision. The Commission still needs to give them 250 square feet because they like the project except for the massive roof. If something could be done there, she would be in favor. We’re not going to grant them 500 square feet on an undersized lot. Mr. Moyer asked what the TDR is worth. Ms. Simon stated that it’s worth about $180,000. Ms. Thompson stated that they’re doing the 40% demolition, so they’ve taken away the 558 square feet. They’re getting 250 back. Ms. Greenwood stated that the site is undersized. It’s maxed out. Ms. Thompson stated that there are a bunch of lots in the west end that are 3,000 square feet that have historic homes on them. That’s the standard lot size. Ms. Simon stated that those homes have received 500 square foot bonuses and they’ve sold TDRs. 18 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Ms. Thompson stated that she doesn’t think this is very different from those. Ms. Greenwood stated that there’s a reason why they changed their guidelines. Ms. Thompson stated that she does believe that they are doing a significant restoration effort by removing that ‘60’s addition. Ms. Sanzone stated that she agrees. If this were a larger lot, they would have the ability to use the 500 square feet on the property, but they’ve chosen not to. They still want to realize the value of what they’re not putting in the design, which is the 250 that they would request from Council to sell. Ms. Greenwood stated that that’s exactly what they’re asking for. For 250, she thinks that the project works. And they’re getting a break from employee housing mitigation. Mr. Kendrick stated that they’re about 300% bigger than the historic resource. So they’re getting stuff. It’s not like they’re not getting anything for their project. Ms. Greenwood stated that they filled up the site. Ms. Thompson stated that, if they approve the 500 square foot bonus, there’s the condition that says if it’s not sold as a TDR, it can’t be put on the property. Ms. Greenwood stated that she is not giving them a 500 square foot bonus for this property. She thinks 250 is appropriate. The building can’t really have anymore square footage on it due to the constraints of the site and the size of it. Ms. Berko stated that, for her it’s philosophical, regarding what they are representing as a Commission going forward. Shouldn’t we be the ones who are making the right decisions? Ms. Greenwood stated that this board has a history of watching these small miner’s buildings get these large additions on the back and it’s been an issue for the Commission with bonuses because applicants automatically sought out the 500 square foot bonus and they automatically get it. When you see this come in over and over, City Council calls them up and moves to take away bonuses including employee housing and reduce the bonus, it’s because that’s the direction that the community wants to go. It is their job to be aware of that and be the ones to put that effort into decisions. Ms. Greenwood would like to see that roof broken up and address the east side of the property. Ms. Berko stated that she would too, but it either has to happen now or not happen. Unless it’s continued. Mr. True stated that the resolution states that HPC approves a 479 square foot floor area bonus. 19 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Ms. Simon stated that the applicant needs 229 but wants to have the flexibility as they engineer the project. What if they need ten more square feet? They’re asking for the whole 500. 250 would remain on site, 250 would go away as a TDR. Mr. True stated that the number would change to 500 if that’s the direction HPC wants to go. Or it could say 250, only to be used on site. What someone could do is make a motion to approve it one way or the other and any other conditions. They could propose amendments to see if they can move this forward. It seems like there are four votes to move it forward tonight. The remaining discussion is the floor area bonus. It might be productive to make a motion as they feel is appropriate for that paragraph in the resolution and whether anybody has any other conditions to add. They could do that through a motion or through amendment. Ms. Greenwood stated that, if they move to approve the resolution, it’s the 500 square foot bonus and they go to City Council. Mr. True stated that they can make a motion to say that it’s only 250 and there’s no TDR part of it. Ms. Greenwood stated that she would be in favor of that. She would like to have that roof restudied. Ms. Thompson stated that the hearing would need to be continued. Mr. Kendrick stated that he does not think there’s enough support for that tonight. Ms. Thompson asked if Ms. Greenwood would be in favor of the 500 if that roof was restudied. Ms. Greenwood stated that she probably would because she doubts that City Council is going to approve that. Mr. Moyer asked if we can receive a comment from the architect. Ms. Greenwood gave her permission. Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that they would be willing to back away from the 250 TDR with what they’ve heard, if they board would be open to that. Ms. Greenwood stated that this is not an example of what the Commission wants to see. They are doing what they can to move away from that. Granted, even under the old guidelines, they would continue a project to get a better design. They always get a better project when they ask for restudy. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve Resolution 21 with the revised floor area bonus of 250 square feet and the condition that the fence and tree will be addressed at final with additional study. Mr. Moyer seconded. 20 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019 Roll call vote: Mr. Kendrick, yes; Ms. Greenwood, no; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, no; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-2, motion carried. New Business: HPC Year in Review Ms. Simon stated that they are doing a quick summary of the year in review. They just started doing this the last couple of years just to remind the Commission where they’ve been. In 2019, they’ve had 21 meetings. They’ve reviewed 28 projects, 21 resolutions, and eight staff approvals. They have their annual HPC awards. They had two projects this year, Mesa Store and Sardy House. A number of commissioners attended the annual conference. Other topics that have come in front of the board: small cell is continuing on. They’ve had some changes to the HPC benefits, which really dominated the early part of the year. They recently talked about the dockless mobility policy. Ms. Simon gave a quick run through of the projects. 506 E Main, the courthouse looks like it’s just really gone under construction for these accessibility improvements at the front. 931 Gibson is in for permit. Hotel Jerome, that was the discussion about the artificial grass in the front that was approved. 300 W Main, the remodel of the log cabin on Main Street is in for permit. 549 Race, this was really just an approval of a fence, the addition to the property was approved some years ago. 105 E Hallam across from the Red Brick is a recently approved addition. 302 E Hopkins was also a discussion of artificial grass that was not approved in front of their property because they had less public use of that space in the front. 304 E Hopkins, an infill project that’s in for permit. 517 E Hyman came in as an enforcement issue. They had installed some speakers and wanted heaters in the front. 333 W Bleeker got a conceptual approval, the Commission will see that pretty soon for final. 135 E Cooper is an existing addition that went through an approval to be remodeled. 414, 422, that’s Red Onion. That had some minor exterior changes but a major interior renovation of the upper floor for Jazz Aspen. 616 W Main was a discussion of TDRs being removed from the property. They got approval to remove three. 301 Lake Avenue was enforcement, they removed the planters that were perched on the wall. They moved them in front of the window in a location where HPC has less purview. 229 W Smuggler was a recent discussion of a change to a side deck. 202 E Main has conceptual approval, went through call-up review and will be coming back to the Commission for final soon. 314 W Main was a minor change to landscape and marking space in the back. 223 E Hallam is the renovation of Ms. Berko’s old family home. Ms. Simon addressed projects that have been completed in 2019 so far. 602 E Hyman, the Yellow Brick and commercial building diagonally across the street. The Mesa Store, Sardy House, renovation of St. Mary which was mostly interior but HPC did review some exterior work. 980 Gibson Avenue is the other project that received a CO in 2019 so far. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:04 PM. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ______________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager