Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20240626REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Kim Raymond, Barb Pitchford, Riley Warwick, Charlie Tarver, and Kara Thompson. Absent were Peter Fornell, Jodi Surfas and Jeffrey Halferty. Staff present: Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the draft minutes from 5/22/24. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes. 3-0, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs wanted to comment on the 205 W. Main St. item that had been in front of the HPC. He mentioned that after submitting a CORA request to monitor the progress of the administrative process, he said that there was a document (entered as Exhibit D in agenda packet) from Mr. Hayden that raised the issue of whether the west addition was in fact historic. Mr. Hayden said that he had found evidence that it was historic. Ms. Thompson’s reply said that the applicant represented that it was not historic, but if it was historic it needs to remain. Mr. Scruggs stated that that changes the whole dynamic of the project. He wanted to inquire if that addition was determined to be historic or not. Ms. Johnson reminded the HPC that this is the public comment portion of the meeting and that the 205 W Main St. project is not before the board tonight. She noted that the board was under no obligation to answer that question. Ms. Thompson said that they did not have an answer yet. When there is an answer staff will communicate it. Mr. Scruggs then stated that the applicant was asking for the trash component of the project to be placed in the 5’ west setback and have a waiver on the height limitation. He believed that both of those requests were not allowed in this type of review. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer commented that it was great that we live in a community that citizens can come before the HPC and state their concerns as Mr. Scruggs did. Ms. Pitchford asked if there was a timeframe by which an answer to Mr. Scruggs’ question must be given. Ms. Johnson said there was no specific timeframe but noted that staff tries to get to these requests as timely as possible. Ms. Raymond asked if the permit application had already been submitted. Ms. Thompson said no. Mr. Tarver recommended, knowing the current staff constraints, that instead of having one agenda item every two weeks, that they schedule two items once a month. Ms. Johnson said that staff tries to keep in mind the applicant’s timeframes into scheduling. Mr. Hayden echoed Ms. Johnson’s comment. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Thompson noted that she was conflicted on the agenda item and would leave the meeting at that point. She mentioned that they would be appointing Mr. Moyer as interim chair for the rest of the meeting. PROJECT MONITORING: Mr. Hayden noted that since the last HPC meeting there had been eight project monitoring items. These were at: • 135 E. Cooper Ave. • 227 E. Bleeker St. • 333 E. Bleeker St. • 132 W. Hopkins Ave. • 720 E. Hyman Ave. • 420 W. Francis St. • 510 E. Durant Ave. • 211 W. Main St. He then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet. Mr. Moyer noted that this should have been in his earlier comments, but he asked where staff was in the study of insulation on historic buildings. Mr. Hayden noted that since Ms. Armstrong left, there hadn’t been much movement, since she was predominantly doing the work on that longer term project. STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Anderson commented about the staffing of the Historic Planning team and the recent turnover. He noted that they had received an accepted employment offer. He went on to briefly describe the new employee’s background and mentioned that she would bring a lot of great experience. He then addressed the commissions’ comments about agenda item scheduling and noted that at the moment, Mr. Hayden had a lot of constraints on his capacity and over the next couple of months staff would still be trying to navigate those limitations. Ms. Pitchford asked about the general staffing needs of the historic preservation department. Mr. Anderson spoke to the current staffing levels and the open positions. He also noted that Kirstin Armstrong was still working on a temporary basis. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Mr. Hayden noted that since the last HPC meeting there had been two certificates of no negative effect items. These were at 201 E. Hyman Ave. and 510 E. Hyman Ave. He then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet. CALL UP REPORTS: Mr. Hayden noted that the 808 Cemetery Lane item that HPC had recently heard, went in front of City Council for second reading and was unanimously approved. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item. She then notified the commissioners that since Mr. Halferty was absent and Ms. Thompson was conflicted, they have in the past nominated Mr. Moyer as interim chair. Ms. Thompson left the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 335 Lake Ave – Minor Development and Relocation - PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Sarah Adams – Bendon Adams; Mike Albert – Design Workshop; Erica Williams – Olsen Kundig REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024 Ms. Adams started her presentation by going over the minor development request and the list of exterior remodel items that they are proposing and passed around a 3D model of the project. The remodel items included replacing the barrel-vaulted roof, removal of some projecting balconies, replacing a roof connection between the main house and garage, simplifying the material pallet and updating the windows and landscaping. She noted that this work is not triggering demolition by the City’s definition. She said that they would be presenting how they comply with the guidelines on the elements of the project that they are touching and that the goal is to make the addition meet the guidelines where they can, knowing that the scope is a minor development. She also noted that they are proposing relocation in order to lift the house to underpin and add a crawl space underneath the existing basement. She then described the location of the house in the R6 zone while showing some historic pictures and the site map of the historic lots. She also detailed the history of the property and the lot split that occurred in 2005. She noted that this project will reduce the floor area of the building by about 150 square feet. She showed the existing conditions and noted the grade change on the lot going up to the house from Lake Ave. She pointed out the red sandstone foundation wall surrounding the historic house that was added in 2005 and noted that there is no evidence of a stone foundation ever being on the house prior. She showed a few more pictures of the house from different angles as well as other houses in the area to give some context. Ms. Adams went on to describe the proposed changes, starting with the landscaping. These changes are designed to bring in better alignment with the design guidelines and include various perennial planting around the house, the thinning out of some trees between the neighboring house per the forester’s recommendations, and some lilacs proposed near the retaining wall on the front grade. She then moved to the hardscape and noted that they are proposing a lighter grey concrete material pallet. This included pavers for the stairs leading up to the house and grey stone for the retaining wall to replace the existing red sandstone. She said that a point of discussion in the staff memo was their proposed material for the driveway. She said that the existing material is a red tinted concrete that is now cracking, and that they are proposing grey granite cobbles due to their durability. She then noted the simple lighting plan that was in the application but wanted to comment on staff’s concerns in the packet regarding the two light fixtures on the front stairway upper landing. She said that while walkway lighting is up to HPC discretion, this was an important safety issue for the applicant and would go a long way in making it feel safer. She noted that they are proposed to be 18” tall. She then reviewed the historic preservation guidelines associated with their proposed landscaping elements. Ms. Adams then went on to describe the levels of the house and showed some existing and proposed elevations noting that anything in red is proposed to be removed. These included some window changes and the removal of existing triangular balconies that jut out on historic structure. These would be cut back and tucked in, so they are not visible from Lake Ave. They were also proposing to replace the existing gabled roof between the garage and non-historic addition with a thin metal roof form. Next, she showed their overall roof plan and noted the existing barrel-vaulted roof that is standing seam metal is to be replaced with a new gable roof. They are proposing to simplify the roof materials by having it all be wood shingles. She said that they felt that the siding and new windows on the new addition goes far enough to distinguish between new and old. She said that for the historic resource, they are proposing painted clapboard siding and she noted that the existing siding on the building is not historic, and they REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024 are proposing to leave it in place. They are proposing stained wood siding for the addition. She also pointed out on the elevations the change from the barrel-vaulted roof to a gable style and admitted that that roof form change would change the roof height slightly. Next, she described the current foundation condition that includes red sandstone that comes up about two and a half feet and is not historic. They are proposing to replace it with a light grey concrete and install new clapboard siding down so that there is only about a 6-inch exposure of the concrete. She then touched on the design guidelines that were brought up in the staff memo as somewhat met or not met at all and gave their reasons why they believed they were met. These dealt with guideline 9.5 regarding the foundation and 10.6 dealing with the roof form and materials. She wrapped up by reviewing the conditions of approval included in the resolution. Ms. Raymond asked about the foundation and bringing the clapboard down to 6 inches. She asked once this was completed if there wouldn’t be a step in the siding. Ms. Adams said yes. Ms. Raymond then raised concerns over the use of a wood roofing material over much of the project. She suggested that the applicant check with their insurance company. She then asked for clarification of the proposed location of the lilacs on Lake Ave. Ms. Adams said that they would be down at the main street level, almost in the right of way. There was some discussion of their exact proposed location. Ms. Pitchford commented on the proposed wood shingles and noted that HPC tries to distinguish between the historic and non-historic portions of the structure and that the roofing materials is one of those factors. Ms. Raymond asked how they will drain the newly proposed metal plate roof over the breezeway. Ms. Williams said it would have a slight pitch and gutter. Ms. Pitchford then stated that she was struggling on the proposed lights on the walkway as they conflicted with the design guidelines. There was some discussion about the exception that may be granted for safety reason that is noted in the guidelines. Mr. Tarver asked whether Ms. Admas knew if the existing non-historic red sandstone foundation material had replaced a historic stone foundation wall. Ms. Admas said they have no evidence of what was there before. Mr. Moyer asked if they had considered any other solutions other than adding siding to hide the cement foundation. Ms. Adams said they thought that was the best solution. Mr. Moyer also asked if they anticipated any issues with the proposed roof venting or if they were planning any new openings on the historic resource. Ms. Adams answered no to both questions. Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden - Planner - Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden started his presentation by noting that the proposed project at 335 Lake Ave. satisfies most of the historic preservation design guidelines and he commended the applicant for following the guidelines. He noted that the few exceptions could be easily improved by the conditions in the resolution. He then discussed the driveway materials pointing to guideline 1.4, as stated in the packet materials. He said that trying to better meet the second bullet point is why staff was suggesting in the approval conditions that another material be researched and approved by staff and monitor. This is of particular sensitivity, because the driveway doesn’t go to an alley but goes to another street behind It and that some neighbors consider that to be their front street facing side. He also addressed guideline 1.14 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024 concerning lighting on the walkway and said that while staff agrees that there is a safety need for lighting, since the elevation at that point is about eight feet above the street, there is a concern of light spill. He moved onto guideline 9.5 about the foundation and noted that while the proposed exposed concrete is appropriate, the addition of more clapboard siding gives a false sense of the historic height of the resource. He continued onto guidelines 10.3, 10.4, 10.6 and 10.9 and went over staff’s reasoning of why they were not met as described in the staff findings portion (Exhibit A) of the agenda packet. Next, he noted that staff finds that the proposed relocation to dig the proposed crawl space under the existing basement was an acceptable preservation method. He wrapped up by stating that staff recommends approval with the conditions outlined in Exhibit A of the agenda packet as well as included in the draft resolution. Mr. Moyer asked if dark skies was considered here and on other projects. Mr. Hayden noted that while not part of the historic guidelines, there was a recently updated section of the Land Use Code that deals with light pollution, and it would be addressed at permitting. Mr. Tarver asked if there was a certain max height that staff would like the proposed lilacs to be. Mr. Hayden said that it was more of an ongoing maintenance issue, but it could be included as a condition by HPC. Public Comment: Suzanne Leydecker noted that she lived at 710 N 3rd St. She believed that based on her home that there was a very large foundation under the structure. She was slightly concerned about the potential height increase of the gabled roof that will replace the barrel-vaulted roof on the addition. She noted that when she worked on her historic house, there was a limit placed on the roof height and now it sounds like this applicant would be able to build higher. She noted that in her many years living next to this house, everyone enters it from 3rd Street as there is no parking on Lake St. She also mentioned several trees on the vacant lot that had caused damage to her property over the years. She noted that in previous years the property had been rented and interior lights were constantly on which shown into her bedroom. Ms. Claude Salter asked about the proposed lighting on the path and noted that is it really dark in that area, and she supported having more light there. She wanted to bring to the commission’s attention that the property line is above the bank itself so the proposed lilac plantings would be in the public right of way. She was wondering if the applicant was planning on making a parking space in that same right of way. She was curious if the dry stacked red sandstone retaining wall was to be ripped out and replaced. She also wondered if it was proposed to micropile the entire foundation to dig the crawl space as that would be very impactful to live through. She wanted to prepare for a lot of loud construction. Ms. Adams responded to Ms. Salter’s question about the parking space and noted that it was included in the 2005 HPC application and is still currently open for public use. She also noted that the current red sandstone retaining wall would be replaced with grey stacked stone. Ms. Williams said that the current drawings do not show the need for micropiles but that could change during construction. In response to Ms. Leydecker’s question, Mr. Moyer asked what the difference would be from the existing barrel roof to the proposed gable roof peak. Ms. Adams said currently the barrel roof measures REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024 just over 24 feet and the new gable roof would be approximately 24 and a half feet. She noted the max height for the zone district is 25 feet. Ms. Pitchford asked the applicant why they needed an additional 6-foot crawl space under the existing basement. Ms. Adams said it was for mechanical equipment and storage. Ms. Raymond asked the applicant if they could produce the elevation drawings that show the difference in height of the current barrel roof and the proposed gable roof. Ms. Adams said they would work to produce those. Mr. Hayden responded to public comments by stating that the application represents the difference in height of the current barrel roof and the peak of the proposed gable was approximately 1 foot and 4 inches. Ms. Raymond thanked Mr. Hayden for the information and noted that while it was still under the allowable height, it was taller than existing and could be an issue for neighbors and is worth considering. Mr. Hayden wanted to note for the record that the neighboring vacant lot does have developable floor area so future development on the lot is possible that may affect the views from surrounding properties. Ms. Raymond asked if Mr. Hayden could speak more to his view of how the proposed change in the roof form and height met or did not meet the design guidelines. Mr. Hayden said it was a tricky balance between making it compatible to the historic resource and at the same time distinguishing it. He said in his mind it was becoming more compatible, but adding a similar shingle roof takes it too far and harder to distinguish. He commented on the roof height increase and noted that because of the grade on the lot, one cannot see the addition from Lake Avenue, so it was not as much of a concern for him. He said one can also not see the historic resource from 3rd St. Board Discussion: Mr. Moyer started board discussion by going through the list of conditions of approval stated by staff. The first condition was regarding the driveway material. The board was in support of the applicants request to use the granite cobblestone material. Staff’s condition to use an alternate material was stricken from the resolution. The second condition dealt with the proposed lilacs. The board was in support of the lilacs if they were of a dwarf variety. Staff’s condition was amended to include the use of a dwarf lilac variety. The third condition regarding the property line fence was left unchanged. The fourth condition was regarding the light fixtures. Mr. Warwick was in support of the light fixtures on the walkway for safety reasons if they were downlit. Ms. Pitchford agreed with staff that the western most light fixtures up near the front porch should be eliminated. Ms. Raymond said she would be ok with them if they were shorter. Mr. Albert said it would be feasible to use a 12 to 15-inch fixture. The board agreed to amend the condition to reduce the western most fixtures to 12 to 15 inches in height. The fifth condition regarding the roof vents and pipes was left unchanged. The sixth condition regarding the installation of addition clapboard siding was left unchanged. Mr. Warwick agreed that 2 and a half feet of concrete was not ideal, but also thought that siding all the way down to grade was also not ideal. Ms. Raymond agreed with staff that it would change the proportion of what the historic building looks like. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024 The seventh condition regarding the alternate roofing was first amended to remove the alternative option that the applicant add a 10-foot connector to separate the historic resource and the existing non- historic addition. Ms. Pitchford was concerned of the proposed roofing materials being the same on both historic and non-historic. She thought it would be become non-distinguishable. The rest of the board members agreed to leave the first part of the condition unchanged. Ms. Johnson noted that the applicant did not indicate any issues with the remaining standard conditions. Ms. Raymond brought up the increase in the roof height of the proposed new gable. She asked if the board was ok with the 15-inch increase. Mr. Warwick and Mr. Moyer were fine with it. Mr. Warwick said that with the grade you cannot see the new roofline. He said in his opinion it was not in their authority as long as the change stayed under the max height per the Code. Ms. Raymond said that she had sat on the other side of this table for a long time and over those years she felt the board had been somewhat inconsistent in what it allowed or requested. She noted that the design guidelines state that new additions should not be taller than the historic resource and that the roof replacement is basically new construction. She noted the concern of affected neighbors. Ms. Pitchford agreed with Ms. Raymond’s comments and said that regardless of whether they are allowed to do it or not, it would end up overwhelming the historic resource. Mr. Tarver moved to extend the meeting until 7:15pm. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor…motion passes. Mr. Hayden informed the members that the lot next door was part of a historic lot split and thus any future development would come before HPC. He also reminded them that roof height, as long as it met the max height found in the code was within HPC’s purview. Ms. Adams noted that the height of the existing barrel-vaulted roof was already taller than the historic resource. Ms. Johnson noted that if the proposed height of the new roof was an issue a condition could be added to the resolution to address it, or they could ask the applicant to restudy it. The board agreed not to include anything about the roof height in the resolution. MOTION: Ms. Pitchford moved to approve Resolution #07 with the conditions proposed by staff as well as the amendments to conditions 1,2,4 and 7 as discussed. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes. 5-0, motion passes. Ms. Raymond and Mr. Tarver were assigned as monitors. Mr. Raymond asked if they could potentially schedule a work session to address her concerns of inconsistencies that HPC has directed over the years. Ms. Johnson said that requesting a work session on a topic such as that was within HPC’s right but was dependent on staff time and resources. There was some discussion on the ability to meet to discuss this and potentially other topics. Ms. Johnson noted that while she appreciated Ms. Raymond’s concerns, she noted that board members, as well as their opinions do change over time. Mr. Anderson commented on the current environment of the historic preservation program and noted some of the differences from when it was started. He also noted that not only has the program changed REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024 over time, but the City itself has changed on a variety of issues over that same time. He thought that with the new historic preservation staff member coming on to lead the program soon, there would be some opportunities to take an overall look at the program and potentially identifying areas that might need addressing. Ms. Raymond thanked Mr. Anderson for his comments and suggested that the HPC members think about topics that they may want to discuss and wait to have a work session once the new staff member has started. Ms. Pitchford agreed. ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Raymond seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk