Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.201708091 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai, Scott Kendrick Staff Present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Approval of minutes from May 31st, June 14th, June 28th, July 12t and July 26th. Ms. Berko motioned to approve all minutes except for July 12th, Ms. Greenwood seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Blaich motioned to approve July 12th, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: Carolyn Bennett visiting from Baton Rouge – Chairman of the historic preservation commission in Baton Rouge announced she is present to watch as a guest and observe. Public comment closed. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer asked if everyone saw the cover of the Aspen Times and said there was a Victorian with a connecting link with a caption saying, “all that’s left is the history” and wanted to know the reaction of the other board members. Ms. Simon said this was an advertisement for the project which they had a major enforcement issue on and she took it to mean that it’s a modern home instead of a restored Victorian. Mr. Moyer also brought a sample of a composite siding. He stated that it was after just one season and said they must be very careful when people want to use composite because it is very damaged. The sample shows water damage from just one season. Mr. Halferty welcomed Scott Kendrick to the board. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Ms. Berko said she must leave for the Bleeker St. project. Ms. Greenwood said she must leave by 8:00 p.m. PROJECT MONITORING: 124 W Hallam Amy Simon Ms. Simon stated that this is a Victorian on the north side of the Yellow Brick school. This project came through HPC a year ago, and has many additions and changes made to it. This project involves pulling that all away and restoring the house. The building has been gutted on the inside and she has been to the site and looked at the framing and knows they are doing a great job with it. It is intact when looking from the inside and it’s fairly old. She’s excited about the project and they are here tonight for one proposed change. Ms. Greenwood is the project monitor and they looked at the changed together and were not willing to approve it without board input. They want to add a skylight to the historic roof’s 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 pitch facing the alley on the backside of the house. HPC doesn’t typically want to introduce this on the historic part of the construction. Applicant Presentation: Bill Guth Mr. Guth said this is his 6th historic renovation in Aspen so far and has a lot of pride and passion about preservation and is not here to pass one over on anyone and appreciates all feedback. He showed the view from Hallam looking north into an interior lot. The skylight is invisible from Hallam St. and we’re having a lot of difficulty with the sloped ceilings and the pitch is so extreme, they would like to bring some natural light in. He doesn’t think it will be visible from the alleyway and has researched the most minimally visible skylight. Ms. Simon stated that to support the concern about light, there was a window that she has asked them to drop. Mr. Guth said that he and Amy have worked really closely together and he’s willing to accommodate to get this historically accurate. Mr. Halferty asked for dimensions of the skylight and said it seems large. Mr. Guth said he thought it was 3x7 ish. Mr. Halferty confirmed that it goes into a master closet. Mr. Pember joined the meeting. Mr. Halferty asked him if he’s read about the skylights in the guidelines and he said yes, but he appreciates the consideration. Ms. Greenwood thinks it’s inappropriate on a restoration and the skylight totally detracts. She’s doesn’t think they should open that door. Mr. Pember asked which direction it’s facing and Ms. Simon answered north. Mr. Guth said he is bringing this completely back to its original condition and Ms. Greenwood said this is an erosion of the guidelines. Ms. Berko said she understands the desire of it, but she concurs with staff and monitor. Mr. Blaich said he’s sympathetic because he noticed that it would be almost impossible to see it. If everyone can agree to have a smaller skylight up there, that might be ok. Mr. Blaich would support with a smaller size and Mr. Pember agreed and said it’s not without utility. Mr. Moyer concurs with staff. Mr. Lai said he is sympathetic with the applicant, but that it’s a slippery slope and might open the door for more of this type of thing and that would diminish the charge of this commission. He said he agrees with staff. Ms. Simon said the motion should be to give Ms. Greenwood and herself direction to allow or not allow this change through the project monitor process. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 MOTION: Ms. Berko motioned to uphold the staff and monitor decision, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call: Mr. Pember, no; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes. 6 yes, 1 no, motion carried. PROJECT MONITORING: 417 W Hallam: Amy Simon This is a west end project monitoring issue on a job that is under construction right now and is not on the historic resource. This is an unusual house that was expanded into a duplex in the 80’s and HPC approval involved demolishing the non-historic construction and restoring the historic resource and making an addition behind it. Tonight’s presentation is regarding changes to the windows on the addition and a proposed dormer facing the alley. Ms. Berko is the project monitor and wasn’t comfortable making the decision on this. Applicant presentation: Kim Raymond Ms. Raymond started by saying that she did not bring the project through originally, she inherited it. She didn’t realize serious waterproofing issue until she got involved. 15 ft further ahead, the glass from the windows leaves no room for waterproofing. They are hoping to bring the frame wall up to match the countertop, which adds some privacy to the master bath. Another option is to keep the glass down to the floor and do glass panels and back paint it to look like reflected glass. It would still have the same appearance from the street. These are the options we’ve come up with to stay in line with what HPC wants, but still waterproof it. Ms. Berko originally thought that when it went through the process, this supported the lightness of the glass. Mr. Pember asked how would you drain the flat roof behind the stone wall and Ms. Raymond said they will be draining to the west and will be sloped to the left. Mr. Pember said that this could be a lot easier to fix and asked if she has explored putting in a trench drain with a hot wire or lowering the roof or pitching it to modify and fix this easily. He also said she could pitch toward the stone wall and drain in the same direction and that there are so many ways of solving this problem and none of it involves a major alteration to what was approved. Ms. Greenwood agreed and said there is a pretty good solution to solving the waterproofing issue. She likes the concept of the building and feels they shouldn’t change the concept. Mr. Pember asked Ms. Raymond if she has a moisture consultant and she said no. He advised her to hire a moisture consultant and stick with the approval. Mr. Halferty asked Kim to address the dormer on the new construction. Mr. Pember asked Ms. Raymond what the purpose of the dormer is and she said it is to make the space feel better on the inside and to make it not seem so short. She said they are trying to make the space better for the people living there and that staff was in support of it. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 Ms. Berko said that it makes the elevation awkward to her and Ms. Greenwood said it doesn’t relate to the architecture of the building at all. Mr. Pember said that there are other ways to solve the problem and he thinks the back is negatively affected by a dormer and they need to hire a water person. MOTION: Mr. Pember made a motion to stick with the approved version (no dormer) and hire a water consultant, Mr. Halferty seconded. Mr. Blaich asked what the negative impact of the dormer is and Mr. Pember said it interrupts the elevation and it’s ugly. Mr. Lai said he would like to consider the two elements separately and would like them to make a motion for the front elevation and the waterproofing individually. Mr. Halferty reminded Mr. Lai that he can just vote “no” if he doesn’t agree with the motion. Ms. Greenwood suggested that he stop thinking of the building as two dimensions and said they need to consider the building in a 360-degree dimension. Mr. Lai said it’s a valid point and looking at reconsidering the dormer; if it improves the interior in the view point of the client, I think the articulation of that space is a valid architectural point. Mr. Pember said that wasn’t the point of this architecture as it was very pure without articulation. It has pure elegance and simplicity, which lent itself to final approval. Ms. Greenwood said that three times is a lot to be in front of HPC and it took a while to get to this point. Mr. Pember said that fiddling with it at this point, post approval, is very irksome. Ms. Berko pointed out that they spent a lot of time to minimize the impact of the addition and she happens to be an alley walker so to say no one sees it, isn’t true. Ms. Greenwood said that she would like to respect the boards hard work as it’s frustrating, hard and difficult. She suggested they continue on with the motion as stated. Mr. Moyer commented that he wasn’t here when it was approved, but the roof issue is a technical one that can be solved without complication. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, no; Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes, Mr. Blaich, yes. 6 – 1, motion carried. Staff comments: Ms. Simon pointed out an article in the paper regarding a street artist who has arrived in town and has applied some cement paintings to different buildings and has used a construction adhesive and glued them to eight properties downtown without the property owner’s permission, including Hotel Jerome, Prada and the Elks building. The person isn’t trying to be anonymous and he is somewhat recognized as a street artist. The City attorney’s office sent him a letter and told him to stop immediately. We have to find creative ways of removing these without damaging the brick face. It’s not that art isn’t wonderful, we just need to find a less damaging way to do it. Ms. Simon said they will be 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 asking Mr. Moyer for his thoughts on removal and Mr. Moyer said that part of this is education because it’s graffiti and there are techniques to removing graffiti. The last pieces were posted on Sunday and this is not something we’ve dealt with before. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she has the notice and all is fine. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon said Main St. Bakery was sent to city council and was not called up. OLD BUSINESS: 210 W Main Amy Simon She is presenting for Justin Barker and this is the third time in front of HPC so she is hoping to get it approved tonight. This project is a redevelopment of a multi-family apartment complex. The proposal is to demolish and replace and create affordable housing credits so everyone gains. HPC is being asked to approve the demo, which has no historic significance with three detached buildings proposed. There is discussion about open space on the site with a courtyard on site and not visible from the street. Another point of discussion has been the form of the buildings and the green roofs to be energy efficient, which HPC appreciated. Flat roofs don’t really fit in on Main St. so staff has been pressing for some type of sloped roof and porches in a residential character. They are asking for you to allow the building to be slightly taller and have asked for one foot over the 28-foot entitlement. There has been discussion of the onsite parking. Only six spots can be accommodated so a variance is requested here. They will also need variances for the porches and decks. They also project into the side yards only on the basis of a hardship variance, which staff doesn’t support. Applicant Ted Guy and Sara Adams of Bendon Adams Ms. Adams started by saying this building is located on Main St. in the historic district and is a 6000-ft. sq. lot. We would like to get an approval tonight. This was heard on April 26th and at the time, we were told to break up the mass and we heard from different neighbors, so Ted tried to incorporate pieces and parts. The building is now broken up into three modules with differing heights. The interior courtyard was shifted and HPC voted 4 to 2 to continue. Green roofs were discussed and the site plan was redone to relate better to the historic district. We have reduced the mass and scale and there are 8 two bedroom units. There are six parking spots and we cannot fit anymore based on the size of the lot. There is still exterior storage at grade and in the basement and a protected communal courtyard. Mr. Guy still believes that this is a huge amenity to have some protected outdoor space. There are outdoor porches or balconies for all units and we are ready to move this forward. We will go through the four points from the last meeting and we have provided an updated street rendering. We are committed to providing green roofs and feel that it fits in well with the street scape. We have been consistent with providing a slope in a response to a suggestion from the board, but we prefer the flat green roof option. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 Mr. Guy said that they are keeping heights down and have removed the front porch. The left building is set back 32 inches from the setback. The interior courtyard has gotten much smaller as well. This relates to the turn of the century development pattern and this is what you would find back then for residential. As you’re going towards the commercial core, it’s an important transition, while still being compatible. It is meeting the front yard setback 2 ½ more ft. and we have added front porch in the front. We thought it would be better to have an 18-inch projection instead of cutting into the livable space. Mr. Guy said they have reduced the grilling area and there is no firepit, but during the day Main St. is loud, dusty and dirty so we want protection from that. We have changed the height of the building and pushed them back and have broken them up. We have done vertical siding on the main building and then horizontal siding on the upper two levels. Ms. Simon pointed out the packet page 58 and said it will help HPC come to a conclusion. They’ve laid out seven conditions of approval. We’ve suggested that if you accept flat roofs, they need to have a green roof. Ms. Greenwood brought up the site plan and confirmed that the only thing changed is the sloping roof and the removal of the projecting front porch. Ms. Simon said they had some dialogue with the applicant and that central porch comes into the front yard setback, which could be allowed, but we were concerned it tied the buildings together and added more bulk, but Ms. Greenwood thinks it’s successful. Mr. Moyer reminded the applicant that if they have vertical siding in the alleyways, there is a chance for capillary action because of snow build up and it shouldn’t be brought all the way to the ground. Mr. Guy said he is aware. Mr. Pember asked if they are providing a green roof and Mr. Guy answered yes, it is their preference to have flat green roofs, but we’ve provided a design with a sloped roof and that would not be a green roof, but the other two would be. He is happy to do it either way, whatever HPC decides. He does not have a sample of the green roof as Tesla won’t be producing the roof material until next Spring. Mr. Pember asked if the balconies are truly cantilevered like that and Mr. Guy said yes and they will be concrete and maybe steel with wood frame in between. Mr. Blaich mentioned that an aesthetic change was made and asked why and Mr. Guy said it was to make the building seem not so massive and it now has a niche. Mr. Pember noticed that the plan shows a gated entrance and Mr. Guy said that was part of the porch to get three doors on Main St., so when he took the porch off, he took the door off. Ms. Greenwood clarified that the door under the cantilever is gone and Ms. Adams said yes, but it’s up for discussion absolutely. Ms. Adams also said there are no roof top decks. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 Mr. Halferty asked how one maintains a green roof and Mr. Guy said it takes a very low growing grass with removable panels so it’s easy to replace and lightweight. The people living on the 3rd floor will be able to see the green roof and it would be dwarf grass that you never have to mow. PUBLIC COMMENT: Carolyn Bennett from Baton Rouge asked how much the units would rent for after they are complete and Mr. Guy said around $1500.00 category 3. Ms. Adams said they are deed restricted category 3 and go up 1 or 2 percent a year and cap at 3%. Public comment closed. Ms. Greenwood said she is really happy to see this in the state it’s in. She thinks it’s ready to be passed tonight and she likes the breakup of the buildings, height and particularly likes the front entry and they match with the balconies. She likes the 18 inches sticking out in terms of detail and said this is one of the improvements of design on this building. She likes that the roofs are all flat, she doesn’t think it needs the sloping roof now. Different proportions to break up the slope isn’t necessary and she thinks they have created this successfully and wouldn’t change anything. Linking the buildings together with cantilevered detail, it feels important for a resident walking into the building that it’s protected and it has meaning to live there. There is really something important about a strong entry and something that adds to the interest on Main Street. There’s some work to do on the materials and details, but she supports variances for the front porch and overhang and feels this project is in a good place. Mr. Lai said he feels it has come a long way since last time it was submitted. He appreciates the scale and agrees with everything that Ms. Greenwood said except the side yard variance, which he does not feel is necessary and would take out of that space. But other than that, it’s come a long way and very much appreciates the scale difference. Ms. Berko agrees with both comments and appreciates using the siding and recycling the material and said it’s so rare. She pointed out the side yard setback for the neighbors, which puts the buildings close together, but likes the 18-inch overhang. Everything else she is ok with and the front yard she is fine with. She mused that the sloping roof is a little gratuitous and said she likes the green roofs on all three. She likes the joining and the entry overhang and said the cantilevered elements tie everything together. Ms. Greenwood said the cantilevered elements are modern and pretty. Mr. Pember said there is some consistency developing between the flat roofs and identifying the volumes. Having more green roofs is better instead of disrupting with the sloped roof. The side yard is really important and started the buildings character. Breaking up with big chunks of balconies is very powerful. Once you put a spanning element on the entrance, he has mixed feelings about having something cantilevered there. He said he is annoyed by little bump on second floor and that it’s really lame and asked if it’s a different material and said he is a little nervous. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 Mr. Moyer said he concurs with staff. He agreed that they should stick with the flat roofs and is ok with the 18 inches on the side. The project has come a long way and feels they should try and complete it tonight. Mr. Blaich said they now have the oom and still need to get the phh and that could be done in the final and feels they have listened to all the input. He’s with Ms. Greenwood with the proposals. He doesn’t have a problem with siding allowance and is in favor of the flat roof. Mr. Kendrick asked how close they would be to neighboring building. Mr. Guy said 8 ½ ft. Mr. Kendrick finished by saying he likes the design with the flat roofs. Mr. Halferty thinks the proposal has come a long way from first iteration and conforms to guidelines. He thinks the green flat roofs are much better and that the one sloped roof doesn’t have the merit. He said he is in support of balcony variance, which gives occupants a little more room. He is ok with the setback variances and feels the FAR bonus is merited here. The reduction of one parking space is ok and encouraged due to the bike alternatives. The allowable height variance is applicable here. There is still a lot of the detailing that is still in question so be conscious of that, but Mr. Halferty does feel that it meets the criteria and guidelines and is looking for a motion to move forward. MOTION: change from staff’s page 58, that side yard setbacks are allowed, Mr. Blaich seconded. Mr. Pember made an amendment to the motion to remove the bump, it’s lame, Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Lai, yes, Mr. Halferty, yes, Mr. Blaich, yes. 7-0, motion carried. Ms. Berko exited. 209 E Bleeker Amy Simon This project has been continued for redevelopment and is a Victorian dramatically altered from its original design. The proposal before HPC is to restore the old miner’s cottage in the front, pick up and put onto a new basement and add a second dwelling unit behind it. This will also function as a duplex with the miner’s cottage being one and the new addition the other. HPC did not previously have issues with the massing or relocation, but there was discussion of the extent of the incentives being offered. The miner’s cottage has always been a foot away from the west property line and in this project, it will be 2 feet away from the property line. HPC gave direction at the previous hearing to eliminate setback variations. Staff’s perspective was to focus on floor area. Because this application is asking to be duplex, they already get a 360-square foot bonus bump. They are viewing this as an incentive and request for 500 sq. ft. floor area bonus. The applicant has taken this to heart and have taken their request from 500 to 400 square feet. We don’t want to overwhelm the historic resource and want HPC to take this to heart. It’s going to be very much new construction, but we’re going to have a limited amount of historic 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 material onsite. They will be building back the missing pieces. This isn’t the same as when we have someone loving scrape and re-glaze, etc. They have suggested a few alternatives in the staff memo, one of them being that HPC could grant the full 400 sq. ft. bonus, but require a certain amount to be sold away as TDR, that way the owner still gains some financial incentive. We have suggested that they reduce the amount of floor area bonus granted and require the new unit only to meet the setback requirements while factoring the historic building out of it. She provided them with the previous memo and have suggested conditions of approval on page 107 of the packet. Mr. Moyer asked about the streetscape element and Ms. Simon said there is a streetscape element in the packet and we generally find the project to be successful, but we don’t want to send the message about limitless incentives in terms of square footage that an applicant should expect. Ms. Greenwood said they should have a sliding scale for projects for the amount of restoration for granting. Ms. Simon said they don’t have that level of detail right now and don’t want to invent on the spot. We want to make sure there is a balance and we have a concern with how neighbors are affected. Ms. Simon said page 19 is from the previous discussion and the list is shorter on page 107 with a position on the bonuses. Applicant Seth Hmielowski and Melanie Noonan of Z Group as well as Dan Fromm, owner; Chris Klug, realtor and Brett Byman & Ken Janckila of Janckila Construction. We are asking for a 55-ft. requirement on length and we have taken that off. We did add a setback variance that we should have asked for from the beginning. We did throw that request in as well and this shows what we initially submitted and what has been changed. The cabin has been moved to the very front setback and we want to keep the trees so we are staying away from the roots. We are keeping the setback away from the historic asset and are now asking for 400 sq ft floor area bonus. The elevation went down to 50 feet from 55. Mr. Byman said there is not much historic material left and he feels it’s very admirable to be committed to doing this. The owner is committed to shore, stabilize and lift the building which will increase the cost substantially. Mr. Janckila said it’s a pretty expensive venture, but the family will do it if that’s what HPC wantw. It’s doable, but the fact is, it’s about money. Mr. Klug said he represents the Fromm family for many years since 2007. His experience is that it preserves the historic component, moving it forward, to higher ground to make more prominent. It was attached as a single-family home in the beginning and is now detached and said he knows Mr. Janckila has a lot of experience doing historic renovations. He thinks this is a better project, better plan and is here to advocate the 500 bonus. Dan Fromm is the brother of Andy Fromm and said they have purchased the property together and is excited about the plans. Mr. Fromm also met with the neighbors who think this is a better plan as well. Mr. Hmeilowski said there are eight points to hit to demonstrate the Historic preservation and they hit six of them. 7 and 8 don’t have anything to do with their project and feels they are within the guidelines of what HPC is expecting. Ms. Bryan asked Mr. Halferty to make a motion to extend past 7:00 p.m. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue past 7 p.m., Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Greenwood confirmed that this new plan is for 400 bonus square feet and that they are looking at two diff plans and Ms. Simon said there are different illustrations of where they remove 100 sq. ft. Mr. Moyer asked when the former proposal came to HPC and Ms. Simon said 2015 for a SFH not a duplex. 500 was approved, but didn’t receive the 360 on the table now due to it being a duplex. There is 860 in total. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon if she feels this is a better project and she said yes. In the previous, they didn’t have an option but to hook the addition to the historic resource. It’s freestanding this time and that’s better. The site is a little bit of a pond and they will lift higher and regrade so there will be improvements like that. There is a question about this project if it is restoration or reconstruction. Mr. Moyer then clarified that it is really a reconstruction and Ms. Simon said yes. We have only brought this up in a few instances and she is not comfortable with 860 square feet in this circumstance. There is criteria in the packet regarding whether bonuses are appropriate or not. Ms. Greenwood asked what the total square footage is. Mr. Hmielowski said, just based on code it’s 3600. There are two garages, one per unit. 250 sq. ft. garage. PUBLIC COMMENT: Carolyn Bennett from Baton Rouge said it’s so gratifying to see this small historic structure being so cherished. Besides it’s architectural value, it has a great deal of cultural and historical value and a story to tell. She asked if you can use the federal tax credits? Ms. Simon said no. Ms. Simon had two letters to enter for the record. Gigi Whitman of 214 E Bleeker, said she has reviewed the plans and they look fine. John Kelly of 203 E Hallam, said he supports the effort and the corresponding 500 ft. of floor area. Public comment closed. Mr. Moyer supports staff’s comments and agrees. Mr. Lai thinks the plan is really ingenious. When looking at FAR bonuses and setback requirements, as a generality, it’s really gotten out of hand. In NYC, there are buildings that are much higher than anticipated, but here in Aspen, he didn’t realize, Aspen has been going down instead of up and is astounded by the work underground. This is an example of that. Its a given now and he doesn’t think we have a lot of leeway to do anything about the overabundance of basement space. The design is ingenious, but regrets the monstrous amount of space not visible to the public. Mr. Kendrick is concerned that the extra FAR will overwhelm the lot if the bonus is granted since it’s such a small lot. Mr. Lai also added that when he looked at adjacent buildings, they’ve started the precedence and the whole block is overdeveloped. The side lots do not exist and the development on the west corner is a 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 good design and commends the idea of moving the historic structure forward as it mitigates the problem, but it’s still an overcrowded block visually. Mr. Blaich is in favor of the project and is moving it forward, but he’s not sure about granting the 500- square bonus. He went to college with Mary Hayes and knew her well and wants to see this project move forward in her memory. Ms. Greenwood said this is an important lot in aspen because of Mary Hayes. She is very much with staff that in light of addressing staff’s concerns, to stay with 400 sq. ft. bonus. We want that to be a stand- alone building. She likes the front yard and thinks the historic building really does stand out and maintain the story of who lived there. She feels they should grant them the 400 bonus as long as they do a very detailed demo plan and relocation and don’t pull any punches. She thinks they should grant them a bonus, but a little smaller. Regarding the garage setback, she thinks it’s a ridiculous thing, but she can’t say no to it. She feels the rule should be changed. Mr. Pember said he wasn’t here for the first review and they need to speed up where they stand. They need to allow either 500 or 400 and staff’s recommendation was to reduce to 250 or sell 250 as a TDR. Mr. Halferty said this project has come a long way. What is proposed is meeting the guidelines and saving as much of the corpse as possible. It’s an interesting project and is not eroding the back side of the wall, which we do a lot. It’s nice to have square footage down low instead of higher and we can rebuild and use the historic materials on site. He is interested in recreating and agrees with giving them incentives. He agrees with a small reduction of FAR is suggesting the 400 bonus. It’s a strong project and they have worked with a lot of obstacles. MOTION: Ms. Greenwood motioned to approve items 1-6 that staff created and add item 7 in to allow 400 FAR bonus, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes, Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Pember, yes. 6-0 all in favor, motion carried. Ms. Berko re-entered the meeting. New Business: 415 E Hyman Amy Simon Ms. Simon said this is a minor review affecting a building in the downtown commercial core and a non- historic building. The applicant, Eric, has purchased the 4th floor commercial unit and the interior has been gutted. He would like to add more windows on the east and west sides of the building. Initially staff had considered to approve, but the applicant had more in mind so it was bumped up to HPC. The windows are to be replaced to match and have been proposed on the east and west facades of the structure. These windows are not typical and we don’t support more than one or two. Looking at Prada or the Red Onion, you have street facing double hung windows. Staff recommends to HPC that we can support sidewall windows down the front, which are square shaped and placed equally down the side of 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 the building. Staff feels that we should be sympathetic to patterns we already have downtown. You have received two options, which have different spacing and different shapes. Staff supports the last option. Mr. Moyer asked about the Eagles building and confirmed that the windows on the side were always there and Ms. Simon said, yes, they are historic and match what’s on the front. This isn’t a historic building we would be cutting into and the Elks has windows on the second story façade. We are trying to be consistent with the older buildings. Applicant Chris Bendon and Eric Mengleson, owner. Mr. Bendon stated that this building has some historic-ish characteristics. It’s a 4-story building mashed into a 3 story space so it’s sort of compressed. There’s a two-story element that has the windows facing north and some on the alley. To make space more usable, the window design has been selected because of the sill height window interior. The interior layout has to do with the window patterns for flexibility. Ms. Greenwood asked what size the windows are and Michael Edinger, architect, said they are 48 inches tall and 3 ft. 6 wide for the preferred option 1. Ms. Simon added that these are almost square in shape and the restudied option are a little more vertical matching what it on the front. Mr. Kendrick asked how tall the windows are in option 2 and Mr. Mengleson answered 5 ft. tall. They go below a normal desk height, which means they are not having the sill bottom go below the post furniture. Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Simon if she is in favor of option 2 and she answered yes, it meets the guidelines and seems like a good compromise. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Public comment closed. Mr. Mengleson does like the aesthetics in option 2 regarding the views of the exterior as well. He said they would be satisfied with option 2 as a compromise on all accounts, they just don’t want to be delayed. MOTION: Mr. Pember moved to approve option 1 that the applicant wants, Ms. Greenwood seconded. Mr. Lai said h prefers the option presented by staff and likes the rhythm and proportion of option #2. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Lai, no; Mr. Kendrick, no; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Pember, yes. 5-2, motion carried. Mr. Halferty motioned to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. ____________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 13