Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.201706281 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2017 Chairman Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:33 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Nora Berko, Richard Lai. Staff Present: James R. True, City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Approval of minutes from April 12th and April 26th. Mr. Blaich motioned to approve, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer handed out a drawing regarding a sprinkler system planned directly against a structure. He feels that we need to protect the resource better than we have now for historic resources and said this is a safety issue and fire hazard. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS: Ms. Berko will recuse herself on 209 E. Bleeker. Ms. Greenwood mentioned that her office is a couple doors down from 201 E Main St., but she is not conflicted. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has one item for Mr. Blaich regarding 232 E. Bleeker. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned the HPC awards on Monday night and thanked Mr. Halferty for doing such a great job and the nice words he had for everyone. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon said she issued one for Peaches as they were expanding into the salon next door and she has signed off on adding a window. She is also working on one for the Weiss house that did not need HPC review and just needs some temp shoring that will stretch outside of the building and get rid of non-historic windows. She is also working on one for Copper Horse on Main St. which has a fire escape and it needs to be replaced. PUBLIC NOTICE: Mr. True has reviewed and they appear to be fine. He also asked for verification from Ms. Greenwood on her disclosure. CALL UPS: None. OLD BUSINESS: 201 E Main St. continued from June 14th. Mr. True said the notice is appropriate. Justin Barker presented and started by saying the property is located on the SE corner of the Aspen St. and Main St. intersection. It was the Main St. Bakery not long ago and consists of two historic brick buildings covered in stucco around the 1940’s with brick underneath. It has a non-historic wood connector and the applicant is proposing to demolish this non-historic connector to build a new infill structure and service enclosure. They will build a new trash enclosure and there will be minor landscape 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2017 improvements. The south side wall needs to be rebuilt and there is a question of what this material should be and if they could reuse the existing, but it’s not possible in this case. The brick was damaged and is unstable currently so the applicant has shown wood in the application. Staff feels that brick is also an appropriate material to use. The requested approvals are the terrace style building (1880’s -1920) with a brick, flat roof, which is unique to Aspen. There is a proposed gable roof with a mechanical enclosure that staff is concerned about, which will minimize the mechanical equipment. Staff has requested the applicant to look at a flatter roof or with a rectangular shaped top. The mechanical heights should be minimal, but they look quite tall on the plans. In regards to fenestration, there are double hung windows and they are interested in the sill height on the Aspen St. side, which conform to historic sill heights. On the east wall of the north structure, there used to be three windows and were replaced by a door. They want to restore the original window and move the door further south. There is a concern with a proposed slate roof, which is not a historic material in Aspen. The applicant hasn’t provided a lot of information about how some of this will be restored regarding using the brick so we have asked them to submit a preservation plan highlighting how this will be repaired before they submit a building permit. In terms of landscaping, they have presented evergreen shrubs and staff would like to see this removed from the design as this should appear to be more as it was over time. Regarding lighting, staff feels that no new lighting should be added on the historic structures. Staff doesn’t want to see more drilling on the old mason walls so the identified lights should be removed from the design. Regarding setback variations, the applicant is requesting from the west and south side yard. The existing historic development encroaches into those setbacks and the west side does extend slightly over the property line. We are recommending that the board memorialize the existing setbacks for the historic structure on the west and north sides and maintain alignment. Staff’s recommendation is to approve the design with minor design tweaks. Ms. Berko asked what the lot size is and Mr. Barker replied, 9000 square ft. Dave Ryback represented 201 E Main St. alongside David Roth who is the restaurant operator and Guy Burn with 201 E. Main Holdings. The building was originally brick and when stucco was added along with plaster, it allowed the building to start tracking moisture. There is foundation currently and a lot of deterioration has taken place so we have already submitted for a repair permit to stabilize the building. As you remove the stucco, you remove the first layer of brick with a powdery substance. We found something called helifix that can repair the bricks by drilling in. This will make the walls more structurally sound and will stabilize them. There was a wood stud wall added at some point to that south wall to support the roof load and a letter has been submitted which states that the brick cannot be reused on this wall and is in poor condition. They are proposing to demo that wall and to use wood siding in lieu of brick. The proposal is to do a minor addition and not a large scale full site development. We hope to get the restaurant back open ASAP. We have preferred the gable roof to the flat roof. The terrace style has a flat roof, but neither of these buildings has a flat roof. On the west façade, both cornice lines are parallel and both concealed a pitched roof. On the north building, it’s a sloped roof. The screened solution doesn’t work in their location. Regarding the gable windows in the addition, the reason we want the sill heights low is the operation of the restaurant. On the east side, we want to use 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2017 those windows to serve both the patio and wait staff to grab food. We have proposed wood infill, lap siding and simple wood panel for the windows. We are open to discussing the slate roof to wood shake. The wall sconces were there for safety, but we are ok with removing those. Mr. Moyer asked about the alley wall and if they have looked into a consolidate. Mr. Rybak said because of the poor condition of the brick, they have nothing to bond to. Mr. Moyer asked about putting a footer in when they replace the wall and Mr. Rybak said yes, all the walls under the repair permit, are getting concrete foundations that will stop the moisture penetrations. Ms. Greenwood asked what they will do with the existing floor framing and Mr. Rybak said it is sitting on dirt in most locations so it is rotted out and needs to be removed. We are putting in a crawl space on the west side of the building. The condition of the floor joists are very bad and rotted out also. Ms. Greenwood asked what the existing pitches of the flat roofs are and Mr. Rybak said they are not very flat. The back one has a slope of 3’12” and the north one is at 3’12”. They are proposing slate for only the addition of the mechanical enclosure. Mr. Moyer asked if the cottonwoods have made roots under the foundation and Mr. Rybak said yes everyone assumes that is the case according to the forester. Ms. Berko asked about the windows on the west side of the new addition and said if they aren’t for serving, if they couldn’t come down and Mr. Rybak stated that those windows are planned as a work counter with cooling lockers below them and is part of the prep kitchen, which is a 2’10” height as ADA requires. She asked if they could be disguised and he said, potentially as there is some leeway for head height. The new addition wants to speak differently than the old and use different proportions, etc. They want those windows to identify the function behind them. Mr. Halferty asked if Mr. Rybak could talk about the fasteners on the stucco. Mr. Rybak said there will be two systems: One will be from the exterior and the other will be from the interior, staggered to create a 12x12 pattern. In a diamond shape, they will drill in on a diagonal. They won’t expose from either side, but they do grab bricks from both sides. They’ve removed the plaster from the interior walls so it’s been able to dry out. The exterior existing stucco will remain and we feel that it has dried out and there is no residual moisture. Mr. Halferty asked him to discuss the roof and mechanical equipment. Mr. Rybak said in the preferred proposal with the roof, they have all the equipment under the gable form and because it’s sheltered under a full roof, with only ventilation on the north and east side, they no longer need the snow curb so the overall height becomes much lower. The street view will see a receding sloping roof which makes a smaller mass on the roof as opposed to the screening walls. Mr. Blaich asked if they are retaining the stucco and Mr. Rybak said if the interior core of the brick is exposed, they will have to cover it up, but may need to caulk the stucco edge and leave the funky patches where it’s practical. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ruth Carver of 116 S. Aspen – she came to talk about the back of the building and she generally agrees with staff recommendations. She said it’s wonderful someone is fixing it and that her front door is on Aspen St., but uses the alley door for the most part. She said it used to have high 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2017 windows and it’s going to be quite a massive wall and would like to see brick personally. You can’t see the slope on the roof from the street and what they are proposing looks a little barn like. She likes the horizontal and more contemporary look. She doesn’t care for the slate idea on roof. She mentioned a small shed for dumpsters and is interested in what this is going to look like and she would like to learn about their garbage control, etc. Della Picoladia of 202 E. Main St. says she is in support of the plan. She is really here to state that she wants the vitality back in that corner and that people miss having the bakery there. Ross Ettlin, owner of the Rocky Mountain Pet Shop. He said he is in favor of the project and wants it to revitalize the area and in a timely manner. Mr. Rybak addressed Ms. Carver’s questions about the shed and said the enclosure is around back door and the trash enclosure sits on the alley and can only have a fence six feet high around it according to code. They want to put a wired electric fence around the top of it. They may ask for variance to put a roof over the trash enclosure and dress it up a bit and it’s their hope to clean it up in the near future. Mr. Lai said he would like to hear more about the windows on the addition that look into the kitchen. Mr. Rybak said they like the activity being exposed similar to the White House Tavern and feel it adds to having some interaction. Mr. Lai brought up the frosting that Ms. Carver suggested. Mr. Rybak said they are trying to separate the center from the historic resources. This could confuse what’s new and what’s old and this is what we strove for. Ms. Greenwood said it’s really successful as far as restoration and a technical plan to restore the brick façade. She said she likes the center addition, but is a little befuddled by the sloped roof and thinks it’s a whole other concept and it’s an uncomfortable solution. Perhaps it needs a false front and approach it with a wood framed screen or a screen on top to reduce snow impact. She doesn’t have a problem with the window alignment and agrees with staff on the lighting and landscape. She is in favor of all set back variances. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon what her feeling is on the south wall and she said she doesn’t have a right answer so someone has to make a judgement call and it has to be HPC. Ms. Greenwood said she is in favor of wood. Mr. Lai said he agrees with the sloping roof for mechanical equipment and likes the clear windows and setting the addition apart from historic buildings. The height of the ledge he is fine with and as far as the south side, he likes the brick idea. That was the original material so he feels they should stick with that and thinks it would be more handsome. Mr. Blaich is ambivalent about the materials and says he prefers brick, but he wouldn’t get hung up on it. He would like to simplify the mechanical roof and he likes the project and the design for the connecting unit. He likes the windows as they are with full visual access. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2017 Mr. Moyer wants to discuss how to deal with the mechanical arrangement. He agrees to keeping it simple, but is not opposed to the mechanical roof and thinks it should have a wood shingle roof. A screen is an awful solution and he would prefer a shingled roof. Lower than the screen is good; low and soft if they can agree on that. The sill height should stand and the restoration technically is terrific and well thought out. He agrees with everything staff has written, but he said to please leave the sprinkler system three feet out. Ms. Berko thanked the public commenters and said she can’t wait for the restaurant to re-open, but she is having a hard time with the roof proposition and doesn’t embrace the slate. She loves the repairs and agrees with staff recommendations. She likes the brick, but understands the argument. Mr. Halferty said that as far as conforming to guidelines and preserving building materials, the applicant has done a great job. He, personally, is wavering on using a screen or the shed roof to cover the mechanical equipment. He is in agreement with the other commission members for masking the historic resource and as far as the roofing materials, he agrees with staff. He is fine with the setbacks and ok with their restoration plan, but feels maybe the stucco should be given a second look as it is not the original historic material used. Regarding the light fixtures and landscaping, he supports recommendation of staff. The roofs will definitely need staff and monitor to carefully consider. He does support the proposed project as a whole. Ms. Greenwood said she supports a screen over the top with no roof and to drop the roof in the kitchen space and would suggest as a condition of approval to be worked out with staff and monitor. Mr. Moyer asked what they were going to use for siding and Mr. Rybak said wood, it was a round shiplap. Ms. Berko said she would support that to move it forward. MOTION: Ms. Greenwood motioned to approve the project with the following conditions: the mechanical screening be a fence type screen with the same materials with the proposed shiplap siding with the height to be determined between staff and monitor allowing it to be low (visual flat roof) wood sided screen, restudy the windows that can work functionally with the restaurant space to simplify, make rear of the building wood siding to match the new linking addition, the setback variances are granted and must include repair of all existing original materials and features, examine the exposed masonry, remove all proposed wall sconces, remove the unapproved plants on the landscape plan, put future sprinkler heads away from the building. Mr. Blaich seconded. Ms. Simon interrupted to make one last comment about the raw stucco on the outside, and said that it is not to be painted. Several members of the board said that it has already been painted in a taupe color. Mr. Lai asked if they would be ok with staff making the final decision on the mechanical room. Ms. Greenwood explained the motion to Mr. Lai. Roll call vote: Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. 6-0, motion carried. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2017 209 E Bleeker Street: Conceptual major development. Ms. Berko recused herself. Ms. Simon presented and started by saying that the property was owned by the Hayes family for 60 years. What they are presenting in pretty similar in site plan and form. It was a classic miner’s cottage and by the 1970’s, Sam Caudill, helped them with a major remodel. A second floor was added and a chimney was attached. This building is on the threshold of integrity as a historic resource. They plan to lift the house and put in a basement. The house is close to its west property line currently so they can shift it slightly two feet from the lot line. In this case, the historic side of the house has no windows which is very unusual. HPC will need to make a decision tonight about demolition. She handed out updated plans that they also received by email yesterday. She notified everyone to strike condition #1 regarding demolition. The applicant also wants approval to demolish a small shed in the back and staff is in support of removing this building. Regarding the re-location standards, it is important to be picked up as a whole piece and then demolition occurs. Ms. Simon doesn’t want unsecured strange sections of wall lying about because it sends a bad message to the community. A 30,000 financial assurance that has to be provided must also be approved tonight. In terms of design, the historic house will be free-standing and will be restored. A new house is to be built around it in an L shape. Staff supports the restoration plan and feels it is accurate and appropriate as well as the massing and height. Staff supports that the new unit is pushed back a bit and the plan to raise the grade of the site. The project meets the design guidelines. The applicant is requesting a 500 sq ft floor area bonus and they do meet most of the guidelines to receive this, but unsure if the entire bonus should be granted. They already get 360 sq. ft. more among other benefits for a historic property. In the rear of property, they have an upper floor deck of 5 ft. The final variation for tonight is building articulation or secondary mass. Staff is recommending continuation at this point. Ms. Greenwood mentioned that they referred to this building as a duplex. A duplex has to be attached on the upper level, but it will be attached below and this isn’t usually allowed so she asked how they are getting FAR for a duplex and Ms. Simon said that they interpreted for the HPC building that the meeting point is below ground. It’s not in the code, it’s an interpretation that they just approved. According to Ms. Greenwood, they are doing two homes, but are getting the FAR bonus for a duplex. Ms. Simon mentioned that this is why there is a question about the bonus square footage and whether they should get that or not. Seth Hmielowski and Melanie Noonan with Z Group Architects. Andy Fromm is the applicant. Mr. Hmeilowski said that Mr. Fromm is making this into a family compound / site. Basically, the cabin sits right alongside the property line. They would be removing the whole upper level addition and keeping the structure together and moving it, which is more of a hardship. The trees in the front are enormous and mask the addition from the street. The trees are key in responding to the 50 foot of building mass. From the street it is very shaded and screened. Regarding storm water, basically from sidewalk to the alley, the grade dips and it’s a giant pool so the civil engineer on board is looking at that and recommended raising the grade. If we do, then we should raise the building. Ms. Greenwood asked if she read that the engineering department isn’t requiring water retention. Their civil engineer met with PJ and they don’t think he needs dry wells. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2017 Ms. Simon said there are a lot of details to work out and it has been suggested that there are no storm water features forward of the historic house or in front of the new portion. Ms. Greenwood asked why Ms. Simon wouldn’t want them to remodel in its space and then pick up and move. Ms. Simon said that’s fine and another way to get at the same issue and this needs to be closely monitored. Mr. Hmielowski said the foundation is poor so they want to raise it and move as one piece to lift, excavate, pour and put back. Mr. Lai asked where the 500-sq. ft. bonus came from and Ms. Simon said this is part of the HPC package as an incentive benefit since more work goes into these projects to restore and preserve. Mr. Halferty asked if they have considered breaking up that mass on the façade and Mr. Hmielowski said has looked at it only in square footage so far and not in form yet. Mr. Blaich asked if the original project that HPC approved was as long as this one and Mr. Hmielowski said it was longer, at 66 feet and the new one is 11 feet shorter. Mr. Moyer asked when the house to the east was built and Ms. Simon answered within the last ten years. That was a tough project and it is a really large building, which overshadows the building next door. Mr. Lai asked if the gabled roof on the cottage was the original and Mr. Hmielowski answered yes, they will be using the same pitch for the addition. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ms. Simon mentioned that page 152 of packet contains the conditions of approval for continuance. Mr. Blaich made a motion to extend past 7 pm, Mr. Lai seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Hmielowski mentioned that his client is in favor of tearing down the wall recommended in conditions #9. Mr. Moyer pointed out the large massing and asked the board if they felt the full 500 square feet should be given to the applicant. Mr. Blaich said that because of the conditions and benefits from the project, he’s supporting the full 500. Mr. Lai said he needs to visit the site again. The design is very clever and utilizes the property to its fullest. It’s very nice, but he worries about the bonuses and wants to take a look at the enabling developments. He asked if they should penalize an applicant because of what has been granted on the neighboring properties and that there are several things to consider. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2017 Ms. Greenwood thinks the building and the bonuses are creating a building that is pushing us against a wall to give setback variances on a project that is new. It’s more than twice the size of the historic building and she thinks it’s too large and the bonuses are creating a building with a huge footprint that overwhelms the site. Not every project gets a 500-square foot bonus. She said they should think about giving this to only exceptional projects and consider a reduced FAR bonus. She doesn’t think they should approve the setback variation either. She agrees with Ms. Simon regarding granting a variation on that part and not to approve articulation of the building mass. She doesn’t think they should get setback variances for the new construction. They should try to move the building over a foot. Two feet is a bad construction technique. Give this some breathing room against its neighbor. Mr. Moyer agreed with Ms. Greenwood. The incentives, to Mr. Halferty means to incentivize an applicant and not to leave as is, but restore back to the historical time. He said this is very challenging and the massing of this square footage bookended by two other large structures, echoes what Mr. Moyer said. To him, the restoration, is worthy of some of the incentives of what the HPC board can offer. This is an excellent approach and it’s a tight site and very difficult and there are many constraints with the trees, etc., but feels that it mostly conforms to the guidelines and is a good restoration project. MOTION: Ms. Greenwood moved to continue with condition that they will grant 500 square foot bonus with the 2-foot setback on the west side of resource with no other variations. Mr. True said he was confused because they were continuing it, but also granting approvals. He said he doesn’t think they can make any approvals on a continuance. Ms. Greenwood struck her motion from the record. MOTION: Ms. Greenwood moved to continue. She also said that in their discussion, they can discuss direction for the applicant. Mr. True says this is appropriate. Mr. Moyer seconded. Mr. Lai said he doesn’t feel the full 500 square feet should be approved for this project. Ms. Greenwood said we should grant this when there aren’t so many variances to approve because the applicant worked so hard to make it work. Mr. Blaich said we can make a judgement when they come back and we see what they have. Ms. Simon continued to July 28th. Ms. Greenwood said she won’t be attending because it’s her birthday. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 5-0, motion carried. MOTION to adjourn: Mr. Halferty motioned, Ms. Greenwood seconded at 7:35 p.m. 9 ________________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk