Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20240522REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22ND, 2024 Vice - Chairperson Halferty opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeff Halferty, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Kim Raymond, and Charlie Tarver. Absent were Peter Fornell, Riley Warwick, Barb Pitchford and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Toni Kronberg commented that she is running for Pitkin County Commissioner and wanted to introduce herself. She noted that one her reasons for running was due to the existing dangerous conditions on Highway 82. She explained some of her concerns with proposed speed limit increases and a potential stop light near Smith Hill Rd. Mr. Halferty interjected to ask Ms. Kronberg if her comments were related to Historic Preservation. She said they were not and asked if she could just leave a flyer with the commissioners. Mr. Halferty said that this was not a place for political platforms and thanked her for coming. Ms. Kronberg again introduced herself and thanked the commissioners for their time. MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the draft minutes from 4/10/24 & 4/24/24. Ms. Raymond seconded. All in favor, motion passes. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Raymond noted that she was conflicted on the first agenda item and would leave the meeting at that point. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Armstrong noted that since the last HPC meeting there had been two approved project monitoring items. One at 135 W Francis and one at 418 E. Cooper Ave. She then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet. STAFF COMMENTS: None. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for the first agenda item. Ms. Raymond left the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 820 E Cooper Ave – Final Major Development - PUBLIC HEARING REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22ND, 2024 Applicant Presentation: Sarah Adams – Bendon Adams; Patrick Westfeldt – F&M Architects Ms. Adams began by introducing the owners of the property, Lauren, and Anton Bullard. Ms. Bullard thanked the HPC for being here and said that they were excited to move forward with the project. Ms. Adams noted that they are presenting a slight amendment to the height of the addition that was approved at conceptual review for HPC’s consideration. She reviewed what was approved by HPC at the conceptual review in September of 2023. She then briefly reviewed the context of the neighborhood. As in the conceptual review, Ms. Adams noted that the owners had already completed several restoration projects to the historic resource without asking for any benefits and that this project will not be touching the historic resource. Ms. Adams went on to describe the details of the final review and showed the site plan of the project. She went over the simple landscaping plan, parking spaces, and noted that the walkways and patios will match the existing brick. She reminded the members that part of digging the basement will be lifting the house to give it a proper foundation and positive drainage. Next, she described the proposed railings for the lightwells and described the placement of the condensing unit. She moved on to the floor plans, including the historic resource, connecting element and new addition. Ms. Adams then described the reasoning for the height change on the addition. She showed the elevations of the approved roof height and noted that after working with the mechanical consultants, it was discovered that they would need a bit more height in the stairwell to accommodate the heating and cooling systems. Showing an overlay of the new proposed height on the elevations she noted that it would be about a one-foot increase. She also showed updated renderings of the project and noted that the height increase would not be very noticeable for the street due to shrubbery coverage on one side and the existing house on the other. She mentioned that they find the project to be still in line with the historic design guidelines. Next, she went over the proposed materials for the addition and passed around samples. She also went of the proposed lighting for the project. Mr. Tarver asked if the new height of the historic resource after the basement was dug was represented in the proposed site plans and renderings that included the new height stairwell in the addition. Ms. Adams said yes. Mr. Moyer asked about the FDC Fire strobe light that was a proposed condition of approval by staff. Ms. Adams said they would address that at building permit but would comply with the condition. Mr. Halferty asked for some more clarification about the height increase and what it was needed for. Mr. Westfeldt said that after working with the mechanical engineer, they found it best to locate the fan coil and some of the ducting in the ceiling above the stairs. This led to the proposed increase in height. Staff Presentation: Kirsten Armstrong - Planner - Historic Preservation Ms. Armstrong began her presentation by reviewing the item and went over the background of the project including the conceptual approvals, Land Use Review request and description of the lot. She noted the applicant’s request to increase the height of a portion of the addition’s roof. This was in addition to the standard final review. She went on to describe the 2-inch height increase to the main roof gable and the one-foot 2-inch increase to the stairwell of the addition. She said that staff found the change strikes a balance between minimizing the addition and the usability of the space. She noted that staff found design guidelines 10.4, 10.87, 10.10 and 10.11 to be met. Next, she described staff’s REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22ND, 2024 reasoning for supporting the horizontal rails on the fencing of the egress lightwells. She then showed the proposed landscape plan and said that staff finds it to be appropriate per the relevant design guidelines. She did note that a recommended condition of approval was that the standard 1-foot-wide pea gravel maintenance boarder around the historic resource be created. She also said that staff generally finds the proposed materials to meet the design guidelines. She concluded by detailing the recommended conditions of approval for final review contained in the draft resolution and noted that staff is recommending HPC approval with these conditions. Ms. Surfas asked about the location of the proposed drywell. Ms. Armstrong noted that a preliminary stormwater plan was included in the application packet and that the drywell was proposed for the rear of the property. Public Comment: None Board Discussion: Mr. Halferty summarized the relevant design guidelines and topics for review and discussion. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve Resolution #06 with the conditions proposed by staff. Ms. Surfas seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 4-0, motion passes. Ms. Surfas volunteered to be project monitor. Ms. Raymond returned to the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: Resolution #05, Series of 2024 - Amendment to Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 7.7-7.9 - PUBLIC HEARING Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden – Planner - Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden wanted to note for the record that this agenda item was noticed as a public hearing in the newspaper as required. Mr. Hayden stated that this item was to discuss the direction given staff by the HPC on April 10th, 2024 to draft an amendment to Chapter 7 of the Historic Design Guidelines regarding roof materials. He noted that per section 26.415.060 of the Land Use Code, the HPC is given authority to amend the Guidelines. He then went over some the general elements of the Design Guidelines that apply to all historic properties, specifically detailing the ideas related to the replacement of historic materials. He moved on to Chapter 7 of the Guidelines and noted that the character of a historic roof, including its form and materials should be preserved. Next, he went over staff’s proposed amendments to Guidelines 7.7, 7.8, and 7.9 by reviewing the strikethroughs and underlines that respectively showed the proposed deletions and additions to the existing text, as outlined in Exhibit A of the staff memo. For each deletion and addition, he explained staff’s reasoning for the change and how it addressed the HPC’s requests while not overstepping the boards’ authority in amending the guidelines. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22ND, 2024 He stated that staff recommends HPC approval of Resolution #5 amending Historic Design Guidelines 7.7 – 7.9. Mr. Halferty asked for clarification that these changes only applied to historic resources and not on additions. Mr. Hayden confirmed that it only dealt with historic resources. Public Comment: None. Board Discussion: Ms. Johnson went over HPC’s role in this matter and noted that this would be a legislative act by the board as authorized in the Land Use Code section that Mr. Hayden referenced in his presentation. Ms. Raymond asked if this should be something that everyone looks at, knowing a few members were absent. Ms. Johnson said that the item could be continued to allow additional input from other board members. She also noted that if the resolution was to be passed, at the next meeting, if at least two member that voted to approve the resolution was present, they could move to reconsider the resolution. Ms. Surfas said that she knew Ms. Thompson was very interested in being here, but an emergency came up that kept her from attending. Mr. Hayden noted that because he would be the only Historic Planner going forward, he would only have the capacity to bring one item before HPC at each meeting. This being said, he felt he could add this item to a future meeting if necessary. He also mentioned that there are currently community members actively waiting on a result to this in order to pursue building permits. Ms. Raymond noted her support for the amendments. Mr. Hayden also noted that he had received an email from Ms. Pitchford stating her general support. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve Resolution #05 as presented by staff. Ms. Surfas seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 5-0, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Raymond motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk