Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20240807SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024 Interim Chairperson Moyer opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jodi Surfas, Kim Raymond, Barb Pitchford and Kara Thompson. Absent were Peter Fornell, Riley Warwick and Roger Moyer. Staff present: Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the draft minutes of 6/26/24. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Pitchford moved to approve the draft minutes from 7/10/24. Ms. Surfas seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes. 3-0 vote, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson asked about the newly appointed HPC member. Ms. Johnson noted that Ms. Dakota Severe attended the site visit this afternoon and may join the meeting at some point to watch. Ms. Johnson also said that her and Mr. Hayden would be scheduling a training session with Ms. Severe in the near future so that she could properly participate in upcoming meetings. There was then some discussion of the current board makeup and the open alternate seat. It was also noted that since Mr. Halferty’s term had ended without him reapplying in time for the interviews in July, he could interview for the open alternate seat when the next round of interviews occurs. Ms. Thompson noted that they would have to elect a new Vice-Chair. Ms. Johnson agreed. There was some discussion about when they would schedule the election. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Johnson if she had any updates on the status of the 205 West Main Street item regarding whether the addition was historic or not. Ms. Johnson said that she and staff had a few discussions with the applicant team and their legal counsel. She noted that during the application and hearing phases, this issue was never raised, and the applicant has been working toward fulfilling the approval that was granted by HPC. She said that at this point she did not see a legal path to revoke that approval even if there was evidence that the addition was historic. She noted that there was no evidence that the applicant committed fraud or made any misrepresentations, and the issue was never called up by staff for further investigation during the application phase. She said that at this point the applicant has the right to move forward with the approved plans. Ms. Thompson said that was disappointing. She asked if something could be written into future approvals to address these types of issues. Ms. Johnson said that language to that effect has been included in some previous approvals to say that if historic materials are discovered that they shall be preserved. She did note that in this case she did not believe that there had been an actual determination yet on whether the addition was in fact historic or not. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024 There was some further discussion about this type of situation and the legal paths involved. Ms. Johnson reiterated the ability for HPC to include language in the conditions of future approvals regarding what to do if historic materials are found during construction. She again noted that this has been a part of other HPC resolutions. Ms. Thompson asked if this information update had been described to the public. Ms. Johnson said this was the first time it had been described and if HPC would like it described to the public that staff could put together an informational memo and notice it for a future meeting so that interested members of the public know it will be discussed. Mr. Hayden stated that staff has considered this situation a lesson and intends to be more diligent in determining if materials are historic or not. He said they would be requesting applicants provide as much evidence as possible, particularly evidence showing if something is not historic. Ms. Raymond believed that it would be better in the long run for the applicant to do the homework in the beginning and that it should be included in the conditions of approval going forward. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: None STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Hayden noted that an Aspen 311 complaint was made shortly after the last HPC meeting regarding items stored on the Boomerang property and that the owners have been diligently acting to get some of that taken care of. 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 agenda item. NEW BUSINESS: 325 W. Hopkins Ave. - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, and Variations Review - Public Hearing Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams & Wheeler Clancy – DJ Architects Ms. Adams started by describing the property’s location and noted that a site visit was conducted earlier in the day. She also noted that the applicant was amenable to staff’s recommended continuance. She wanted to make sure the applicant team got clear direction for the next meeting in September. Ms. Adams started her presentation by going over their requests, including conceptual major development. They are also required to request relocation as they will need to underpin the landmark in order to fix the foundation. She said that they are not proposing to move the landmark from its original location and are requesting two variations to legalize the landmark’s original location. She then described the requested variations to the front and west side setbacks. She noted that they will be conducting a full restoration of the historic landmark back to its original footprint based on the Sanborn maps with no new additions. They are not asking for any variations for the new construction and the SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024 total project is under the allowable floor area by about 290 square feet and they are not asking for any bonus. Ms. Adams moved on to describe the history of the property by showing a few historic pictures as well as the 1890 Sanborn map. From these historic pictures, she pointed out the original front porch that has since been significantly changed over time as well as a shed roofed bump out on the rear of the landmark that is no longer there. She said they are proposing to restore that. She showed a few arial photos from the early 1970s and described a few of the additions and other changes that had been done to the property over the years. Ms. Adams went over their proposed restoration efforts and noted that their main focus is the preservation of the historic resource. On the site plan she highlighted the areas in pink as historic and the areas that were in grey were not historic and will be removed. She said they are proposing to restore the front porch, historic windows and the shed roof bump out on the rear of the landmark, based on the Sanborn maps and historic photos. Ms. Adams went over the historic preservation guidelines related to the historic landmark building. She noted that in the staff memo it seemed like the shed bump out on the rear was being treated as a new addition. She said the applicant team is treating it like a restoration of the historic footprint of the building based on the historic evidence they have obtained. She then moved on to the site plan and detailed the lot and floor area noting that in the Zone district they are allowed two detached buildings. She went over the details of the site layout including the locations of the restored landmark and new detached construction as well as the existing setbacks. She noted that once restored, the historic landmark would be about 560 square feet and the new construction would be about 2,140 square feet. She showed the conceptual landscape plan and noted that it was still being dialed in. She also detailed the floor plans of the historic landmark building as well as the new construction and noted the garage and parking space for the historic landmark. Next, Ms. Adams went over the proposed roof plans for new construction and spent some time going over the various elevations, highlighting how the new construction related to the historic landmark. She noted that the proposed materials for the new construction are mostly wood with a few metal elements to break things up. She also noted that the roof heights are at 23 feet 2 inches on the east end and 22 feet 9 inches on the west end. The maximum roof height for the zone is 25 feet. Ms. Adams concluded by going over the historic design guidelines. She highlighted guidelines 11.3 and 11.4 as where the discussion may center. She explained how they were using form and materials to relate to the landmark and diverting on fenestration. Ms. Thompson asked about the civil drawings and noted that it seemed that the pervious pavers extended beyond the property line. She also asked about the proposed drywell location. Ms. Adams said that they would look at the drawings related to the pavers and noted that the drywell was proposed to be underneath the basement of the new construction. Ms. Raymond pointed out a few small sections of the floor plans and asked what they were. Ms. Adams said one was an access point to the crawl space below the historic resource and the others were lightwells. She noted that all of them were not in the setbacks. Ms. Surfas asked about the small rear portion of the historic resource and if Ms. Adams could clarify their restoration of it. Ms. Adams said it was a question in staff’s memo and would be better asked after SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024 staff’s presentation. Ms. Surfas also asked if they planned to lift the historic resources to underpin. Mr. Clancy said the plan would be to leave it in place. Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden – Acting Principal Preservation Planner - Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden noted that he had been informed that the staff memo might have come off as a bit negative and wanted to apologize as it was not his intention. He then stated that it was his belief that the application and proposed project meet most of the design guidelines. He noted that staff was supportive of the requested reviews for relocation and the setback variations as they met the guidelines. He pointed out design guideline 7.9, which relates to gutters. He noted that staff questions the northern most proposed gutter downspout location and whether it was necessary or not. He moved on to Chapter 10 of the design guidelines related to new additions and noted that staff did not believe that the application met guidelines 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6, as the rear addition to the historic landmark was directly replicative of the historic form, materials and fenestration. Referencing historic photos, Mr. Hayden said the proposal was not actually a restoration of what was there historically. He pointed out some of the historic feature of the rear shed roof bump out and it appeared much larger than what is being proposed. He said that to suggest that the proposal was a restoration was not completely accurate and that additional study of this element was warranted. Moving onto the new building, Mr. Hayden noted that staff did not believe that it met the overall policy objective of Chapter 11, which states that a new addition should not dominate the historic resource and should be compatible with it. He pointed out guidelines 11.3 and 11.6 as particularly not being met. He detailed the scale and proportions of the new building and pointed out the height differences to the historic resource. He thought that some slight changes could make the new building better reflect the historic resource and its proportions. Regarding 11.6, he said the blocky verticality of the proposed new building diverges from the more horizontal one-story L-shaped historic resource as well as the disproportionally large double front gable masses of the proposed new building have no historic parallel. Speaking to the setback-to-setback development, Mr. Hayden went on to detail staff’s findings related to guidelines 1.1, as spelled out in Exhibit A of the packet. Staff felt that since the proposed development was uncharacteristic of the block or neighborhood and lacked some porosity on site, that this guideline was not met. He finished by noting that staff recommends continuance to September 25th, 2024. Ms. Pitchford asked Mr. Hayden to speak to the issue of the rear shed roof area of the historic resource. She asked him to clarify staff’s position on whether the applicant’s proposal was a restoration or a new addition. Mr. Hayden stated that if that portion were a historic addition they wouldn’t be treating it as a new addition, but if it was recreating something that no longer exists, then it is new. He said that if it was considered a restoration, then it could be designed to better replicate what used to be there. He pointed out that the materials used to recreate this portion of the historic resource would not be historic. There was some discussion about the timeframes of the historic pictures that had been presented and that there was a difference between them and the Sanborn maps. Mr. Hayden noted that the Sanborn maps are a good reference but were not 100% accurate. He then showed an overlay of the 1904 Sanborn map and the applicant’s proposal for the rear shed restoration / addition. He noted that SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024 restoration based on the Sanborn maps may be limited and that the use of historic photos was more appropriate. Ms. Raymond asked about staff’s attitude toward restoration / rebuilding if there is enough evidence to rebuild what was there versus looking at it as new construction. Mr. Hayden noted that the guidelines don’t leave a lot of room for restoration and are geared more toward rehabilitation or making a site more useful for modern needs while retaining as much of historic resource as possible. He suggested that a restoration would not meet the guidelines, but that is a decision that HPC could make. Public Comment: Mr. Dan McCardy said that him and his wife live next door to the west. He thought the presentations were well done. He commented that the massing did seem quite large from the street and would impact the views from his property. While he recognized the applicant’s right to build a new structure there and welcome it, he felt the comments from staff were very important. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson asked both the applicant and staff to come to the table for the board discussion. She thanked both parties for their great presentations. She said she supported both the relocation and setback variations requests. The other members all agreed. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Clancy to present the 3D renderings so they could use them in their discussion. She said that she felt the site planning for the development to be appropriate for the property and that the location of the one-story portion of the new building to be well done and the height of it to be appropriate. She felt that everything in front of the two-story structure to be appropriate. Ms. Raymond felt the front of the new construction could be pushed back a bit so that the historic resource appears more prominent. Ms. Surfas had a similar thought and referenced the old Poppie’s site where people say it is hard to distinguish the new from old. Ms. Pitchford agreed as well. She thought the new construction should be pushed back so that the historic resource is more distinguishable. Mr. Clancy noted that there are a few large spruce trees on the lot that block the new addition. Ms. Adams clarified that the proposed new addition is setback six feet from the front of the historic resource. Ms. Pitchford said the historic resource is also somewhat blocked by trees. Ms. Thompson said she was having a hard time deciding on the location of the new addition, based on trees that would eventually die and the building would be there long after. Ms. Raymond said that what adds to the issue is that the front of the new construction is designed very similar to the historic resource and she did not see enough distinguishment. She felt the new construction had a stronger presence as presented and needed to be pushed back a bit or be designed to look a little more different. Ms. Thompson disagreed with those comments and felt it was appropriate in meeting the guidelines. Referencing guideline 10.6, she explained her reasoning. She felt the six feet it was set back from the historic was sufficient and was in line with what HPC had approved in the past. Mr. Clancy showed a few different angles of the 3D renderings, and the commissioners discussed their thoughts about the two structures and whether they appeared distinguishable enough. After some SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024 discussion they gave some feedback to Ms. Adams about ways the front of the new construction could be slightly changed. Ms. Thompson asked that the applicant restudy where gutters on the front of the historic resource where really needed. Ms. Thompson also asked if there was any way to find out more about the rear shed roof portion that had been discussed. Ms. Adams said that currently there are renters in the property, and it may be difficult to do much exploratory demolition, but that they would be fine with conditions addressing this in the resolution. The commissioners and applicant further reviewed the historic photos of the rear shed roof portion and tried to discern what may be historic. Ms. Thompson said the question was around whether the applicant’s proposal was an addition or a restoration. The members further discussed the historic photos and the pre-1890 Sanborn map, trying to discern the size and location of the rear shed roof area of the historic resource. Ms. Pitchford asked for clarification on what constitutes a restoration. Mr. Hayden noted that it was an important point in this discussion because there is a distinction between restoration and reconstruction. Her noted that reconstruction would be when there is no historic material remaining. He said they really don’t know if there is historic material in that section of the resource. Ms. Thompson said that she was ok with the proposed reconstruction of the footprint. Ms. Pitchford said that she would be more comfortable with reconstruction if they had more accurate information of what might have been there historically. Ms. Thompson said that as much investigation as possible should be done of the framing and foundation to determine what may be historic or not. The members all agreed to consider the applicant’s proposal for the rear portion as a restoration and not an addition. Ms. Raymond thought that all roofing materials should be the same as they were historically in order to make sure it looks as historic as possible. It was clarified that the 1904 Sanborn map showed the roofing to be all wood shingles. Ms. Thompson moved the discussion on to the rear portion of the proposed new construction. She noted that she agreed with staff that the form relationship was a stretch from what is seen on the historic resource and did not find the dormers appropriate in the relationship. She felt, as Mr. Hayden did, that the upper level of the new construction dwarfed the front portion. MS. Raymond asked Ms. Thompson why she thought the dormers were not appropriate. Ms. Thompson said she did not see their relationship to the historic resource and believed there was a lot going on with the roof forms. She felt like it could be simplified. Ms. Surfas and Ms. Pitchford both agreed with Ms. Thompson’s thoughts. The members then discussed the plate height of the second floor and the overall height of the wall from the floor to the peak roof pitch. Mr. Clancy said one option could be to lower the roof pitch. The members continued to discuss potential options to lower the roof pitch, but Ms. Thompson still thought the proportion of the rear section of the new construction was so much bigger than the front section as well as the historic resource. Ms. Raymond thought another reason it seemed so tall was the SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024 amount of “wall” that appeared above the gable of the front one-story section. She said it stands out and makes the rear section seems so tall. Ms. Adams noted that from the feedback she had heard the two biggest takeaways were that the volume of the second level is too tall in proportion to the historic resource and that roof forms of the new construction are over complicated. There was then some more discussion about the proposed roof forms and ideas for potential changes. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to continue this hearing to September 25th, 2024 at 4:30pm. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Raymond motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk