Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20240925REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford and Kara Thompson. Absent was Peter Fornell, Kim Raymond and Riley Warwick. Staff present: Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the draft minutes of 8/7/24. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the draft minutes from 9/11/24. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs distributed a handout outlining his comments (included in the record). He then went over his concerns about the 205 West Main St. project. He was concerned about what could be the historic west addition and in his mind the misrepresentation of facts by the applicant that the west addition was not historic. He continued by going over his various comments as listed on his handout, included his belief that the HPC does have the right to revoke their approval of the demolition of the west addition. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer thanked staff for providing him with the audio and minutes from the 8/7/24 meeting. He said it was very helpful. He then commented that over his many years on the HPC, he has felt that from time to time it is ok for the board to say “no” to an applicant. He thought that it could produce a better project. He thought it was beneficial to self-analyze their past decisions to see where they were right or wrong. He also mentioned that while HPC cannot dictate colors of projects, he wondered if they could encourage material differences to better differentiate between historic resources and new construction. Ms. Pitchford commented about her strong feelings about situations where historic resources are sacrificed for employee housing. She also commented about additions to historic resources and the amount of square footage that is allowed by the Land Use Code. She realized that they did not have any control over the square footage, but felt it was a line that could be crossed through process. She also commented on the Pan Abode on Main St. that the City owns. She noted while HPC did not have a say over the color, they did have a say in the materials. There was some discussion between the members and staff about HPC’s purview over materials and finishes. Mr. Moyer then commented about the Special meeting set for October 2nd and that it ignored a religious holiday that affected one of their members. He was disturbed by it and thought the meeting date should have been changed. He felt that HPC should not have to make special considerations for an applicant and that the applicant should have to make special considerations for HPC. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 Ms. Thompson noted that she had discussed this with Ms. Johnson and that going forward more holidays would be taken into consideration when scheduling meetings. Mr. Anderson noted that it was a deliberate choice by him to request the special meeting. He said that due to the special nature of and community interest in the property they are dealing with and additional issues with quorum and schedules of the Clerk’s office staff, October 2nd was the selected date for the meeting. Ms. Johnson noted that once the date for the meeting was decided and at least four members confirmed they could attend, the applicant was given instructions to notice for that date and did so. She reiterated that there will be a concerted effort by staff not to schedule meetings around holidays. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Johnson addressed the members and acknowledged Mr. Scruggs’ public comments and various questions from board members regarding the 205 W Main St. project. She said that the questions that have come up require a legal analysis and opinion and the Attorney’s office would like to give the board a legal opinion on these issues. She proposed that an executive session be scheduled to facilitate a private discussion between the board members and the attorney’s office who represent HPC. She explained the reasoning for not discussing legal opinions in public, as they would be discussing issues that may be relevant to litigation in the future. She suggested October 9th for the executive session. She noted that any action the board would like to take as a result would have to be done at a public meeting. Mr. Hayden expressed his appreciation for the public comment process. He also noted that he had several project monitoring reports and suggested they move those to the end of the meeting. Ms. Thompson amended the agenda to move those to the end of the meeting. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None 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 as it was previously noticed and continued. Ms. Johnson also noted that Mr. Moyer was not present at the first hearing on this property, but that she had provided him with a copy of the audio recording of that meeting as well as the presentation slides from both the applicant and staff and the packet materials from the meeting. Mr. Moyer confirmed he had reviewed all materials. OLD BUSINESS: 325 W. Hopkins Ave. - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, and Variations Review - Public Hearing – Continued from 8/7/24 Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams & Wheeler Clancy – DJ Architects Ms. Adams started by noting that their presentation today would concentrate on HPC’s design direction from the last meeting. She then noted their requests which included conceptual major development, relocation to underpin and fix the foundation and a setback variation to legalize the original location of the historic resource. She also stated that there are no variations requested for new construction, that they are requesting to do a complete restoration of the landmark and that they are not asking for any historic benefits or floor area bonuses. She pointed out that the project would be under the allowable floor area, even if this was a single-family home. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 She moved on by going over the areas that HPC supported at the last meeting, including the site plan and location of the detached new construction, the temporary relocation to fix the foundation and the restoration of the landmark and rear addition. She noted a complete preservation plan would be provided with their final design application once interior demolition had begun. She then went over the areas for redesign for both the landmark and the new construction. For the new construction this included increasing the front setback, the reduction of the height and mass of the two- story portion of the new home, simplifying the roof forms and to revise some architectural details to appear more modern. She quickly reviewed the history of the property and showed historic images and maps that were presented at the last meeting. She again reiterated that they are using the 1904 Sanborn map as the basis for their restoration of the rear addition on the historic resource. She then showed the plans of the historic landmark which were consistent with what was presented at the last meeting with the exception of the roof of the porch. Next, she showed the front elevations of the proposed new construction that were presented at the previous meeting as well as updated versions based off HPC feedback. She went over some of the changes, noting the that the footprint has become a bit smaller. She detailed the increased front setback measurements of the new construction compared to the property line and the setback of the historic landmark. She then showed the second story plans and detailed the changes made from the last meeting as well as the changes made to the roof lines. She showed the front elevations of the rear two-story portion of the new construction and noted that the roof height had been reduced by over three feet and was under the height limit of 25 feet. She also showed a few renderings of the updated design. She noted they were proposing two main materials for the new construction, including wood cedar siding and metal panels, roofing and windows. Ms. Adams then went over Chapter 11 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines that they were subject to on this project and emphasized that all the new construction was completely detached from the historic landmark. She finished by stating her appreciation for HPC’s feedback at the last meeting and felt that it resulted in a stronger project. Mr. Moyer asked how many additions had been added to this resource over the years. Ms. Adams detailed the Building Permits that had been approved, noting that there had been two significant additions. Ms. Pitchford noted that in the renderings from the street, she couldn’t see the second story of the new addition and wondered if Ms. Adams had a view where it was visible. Ms. Adams said that because of the tree and especially the angles and perspective looking at the property from the street, someone would not be able to see the second story because of how far back it is set. Ms. Pitchford then asked what the difference was between the height of the historic resource and the height of the new addition. Ms. Adams said it was approximately nine feet. Ms. Pitchford then asked about the porch on the historic resource and whether any of the materials were historic. Ms. Admas said that more would be know once they start on the project and get a closer inspection of the porch, but that on just a visual inspection, it didn’t appear that there were any historic materials. She said that if any historic materials are discovered they would amend their design accordingly to keep those materials. Ms. Adams reiterated that they are planning on restoring the porch based on the historic photos. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 Mr. Moyer noted that the renderings did not include the neighboring structures that were needed to provide context. Ms. Adams responded that the renderings presented at the August meeting included the neighboring context, but they did not have enough time to include them in this redesign. Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden – Acting Principal Preservation Planner - Historic Preservation by Mr. Hayden began his presentation by addressing guideline 6.4 and related it to the use of the Sanborn maps. He said that they are a useful tool but not the final authority on the size of historic buildings. He said they were used as fire insurance maps and were mainly concerned with building location, distance to other structure and materials. He noted that in this case they are fortunate to have many historic photos which guideline 6.4 states should be used to substantiate restoration efforts. Mr. Hayden then showed an image of the proposed design for the rear addition and overlayed it with a historic picture and noted that one of the proposed windows did not line up exactly, thus demonstrating that the proposed addition was shorter than what was historically there. He said that in his estimate the addition would need to be about three feet longer to be more historically accurate. He showed a few more photos that demonstrated his point. Mr. Hayen moved on to discussing the proposed gutter placement on the front of the historic resource and they still did not meet guideline 7.10 as outlined in the staff memo. Regarding the rear addition, he noted that it did not meet guidelines 10.3 or 10.6 as outlined in the staff memo. Moving onto the new building, Mr. Hayen noted that staff did not believe it met guideline 10.1 related to the historic development pattern of the neighborhood, as outlined in the staff memo. He then went on to discuss guidelines 11.3 and 11.6 and noted that staff found them not to be met as outlined in the staff memo. Mr. Hayden concluded his presentation by noting that staff is recommending continuance to the November 13th, 2024 meeting to allow the applicant to better meet the guidelines. Ms. Thompson noted that Sanborn maps had been relied upon by previous preservation staff members for reconstruction and wondered why Mr. Hayden was taking a different interpretation. Mr. Hayden responded, noting that the maps are a helpful tool, but that it was unique to have so many close-up historic photos of this resource and they should be considered equally to the maps. Mr. Moyer noted that Mr. Hayden didn’t seem to address the mass and scale of the new addition in his presentation. Mr. Hayden said that he addressed those aspects related to guideline 11.3. He admitted he may have gone over that guideline quickly, but he did not find the mass and scale of the new structure to be appropriate in meeting that guideline. There was some discussion about the historic photos used to gage the proportionality of the proposed reconstruction of the rear addition to the historic resource and if there could be a path forward where staff and the applicant could work together on the flexibility of balancing whether this was considered reconstruction or new construction and how it related to guidelines 10.3 and 10.6. Ms. Surfas asked for some clarity on whether they were trying to determine if the rear portion of the historic resource was there originally. Mr. Hayden said that there was no dispute on whether it was there originally, but the question was rather if the applicant’s proposal was an accurate reconstruction as well as if reconstruction was an appropriate treatment for this. Further, Mr. Hayden noted that according to the guidelines, new additions should be distinct from the historic resource and not a reconstruction of something that is currently not there. He did admit that there was the potential that REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 the historic photos that they were using may not capture what was the original construction, but that the photos were the best they had to go on. Public Comment: None Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson thanked the applicant for coming back after hearing HPC’s feedback at the last meeting. She confirmed that the members were all still in agreement about the relocation to underpin the structure to reinforce the foundation. All members said yes. Ms. Thompson then started with the restoration of the historic resource. She felt that this was a unique project, in that the historic resource was being maintained separate from the new construction. She felt the restoration of the front porch was appropriate and met the guidelines. She thought restoring the rear portion of the historic resource as best as possible was the best restoration approach, realizing that the applicant would be removing several old non-historic additions. She understood staff’s concerns about the size of the proposed rear portion but would be open to staff and monitor working through that once demolition was complete. Mr. Moyer said he could agree, but thought that since they would be reconstructing it, could it be differentiated in its materials from the actual historic resource. Ms. Thompson noted that the applicant will have to replace almost all of the siding and windows on the historic resource, so all the materials on this resource would be new anyways. Ms. Surfas thought that if they were trying to go back to what it was in the historic photos, that it should all be the same and look as close to what it was. She also noted that this portion was in the back and the owners would really be the only people who would see it. She agreed that it was a good preservation effort. Ms. Thompson wanted to add a condition to the resolution that stated that, if during demolition, additional information about the historic footprint of the resource is discovered, that it be addressed. There was agreement for the members on the requested setback variations to establish the current location of the resource. Ms. Thompson moved the discussion to the new construction and felt that there was enough of a form relationship to the resource based off the feedback given to the applicant at the last meeting. She appreciated that the applicant restudied the one-story element at the front of the property and modified the roof to be more consistent as well as lowering and simplifying the roofs on the new construction. She did believe that you would be able to see the second story from the middle or other side of the street but thought it would be an unreasonable ask to not see it. She gave weight to the fact that the new construction would be complete detached from the historic resource. Mr. Moyer thought that the mass and scale of the new construction was too big. Ms. Surfas agreed that the applicant took HPC’s feedback from the last meeting and she felt the mass and scale was acceptable at this point. She did agree with Mr. Hayden about how many different materials were proposed for the new construction and felt it was too much. Ms. Thompson agreed that the material relationship was not strong enough but thought it could be restudied at final review. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Moyer that the new construction was too big. She referenced guideline 10.8 and felt it overwhelmed the historic resource. She felt the large footprint of the new construction did not allow for any porosity on the site. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant if they would be open to continuing the hearing at this point. Ms. Adams said it seemed like they didn’t have the votes to move forward. She felt it a bit disappointing as they were so far under the allowable floor area. She agreed to coming back in November but was unsure about what the plan would be and how they could get much smaller. Ms. Thompson said she was struggling as she thought the applicant responded well to the feedback they received at the last meeting. Ms. Surfas thought the windows were still problematic. Mr. Moyer commented that vertical smooth wood siding was a stupid thing to put on any building in this environment, especially if there is no overhang on the building. He felt the ten feet between the buildings was a dead space that no trees or grass would grow very well. Ms. Adams said they were struggling with the fact that they were already under the allowable floor area for the zone district by a significant amount and now are being asked to make it smaller and were surprised by the feedback based on precedent. She said they would do their best to figure things out for the November meeting. She was hoping they could get some agreement on the other aspects, such as the restoration of the historic resource, so that they would be returning in response to the feedback given regarding the new construction. There was discussion between the members on what parts of the applicant’s proposal they were in agreement with versus staff’s thoughts. The members were in agreement with the applicant’s proposal for the restoration of the historic resource and the rear portion of it. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to continue this hearing to November 13th, 2024 at 4:30pm. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Thompson noted the board would take a short break. Ms. Thompson reconvened the meeting and asked Ms. Johnson for an update on the new HPC member. Ms. Johnson informed the members that due to staff and Ms. Severe’s schedules they were still trying to schedule training, but she felt that Ms. Severe would be trained and able to participate in the next HPC meeting. PROJECT MONITORING: Mr. Hayden noted that since the last Project Monitoring update there had been seven Project Monitoring items. These were at: • 135 E. Cooper Ave. • 110 W. Main St. • 343 E. Cooper Ave. • 312 W. Hopkins Ave. • 720 E. Hyman Ave. • 420 W. Francis St. • 510 E. Durant Ave. He then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Mr. Hayden noted that since the last update there had been five Certificates of No Negative Effect. These were at: • 435 W Main St. • 216 W. Hyman Ave. • 635 W. Bleeker St. • 332 W. Main St. • 211 W. Hopkins Ave. He then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet. Referencing the Project monitoring list, Ms. Thompson noted that Mr. Hayden had sent her a list of the projects that Mr. Halferty was assigned to and that since he was no longer a current member of HPC, she would be working to suggest other members to take them over. She would present those suggestions at a future meeting to finalize. Mr. Anderson wanted to inform the HPC members that a few days after a recent Planning & Zoning meeting the applicant informed staff that they had been the victim of a phishing scam. He went over the details of the scam and noted that multiple City departments were working on ways to minimize these risks. ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk