HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.201711151
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Bob
Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Absent was Scott Kendrick.
Staff present:
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Amy Simon, Senior Planner
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Pember was in Boulder, Estes Park and the Rocky Mountain National
Forest this past weekend and had a lot of fun.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Berko stated that she is conflicted on the second item for 209 W.
Bleeker. Mr. Halferty said he is conflicted on the first item for 500 W. Main.
PROJECT MONITORING: No.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned a special HPC lunch meeting for the first week of December,
which she sent an email about so they can go over some policy issues, etc.
Mr. Barker has an update on revisions to the Land Use Code and asking for some feedback on the
miscellaneous section regarding calculations and scattered items. They typically update this every two
years or so to keep up with current technologies and calculations. For this update, they have a
screening board of eleven people, which includes architects, designer, landscape architects, etc. to help
identify all of the issues. They are also looking to update some of the parking standards as well. There
was a meeting held on the 8th of this month and page 2 of the memo lists the ideas that the group came
up with. They would like to have something in front of council by early spring. We would like HPC to
continue to give ideas or experiences to either Mr. Barker or Mr. Supino and the board will continue to
meet about every two weeks or so until they present to council.
Ms. Greenwood asked if there is this an issue that needs to be changed for parking for multi resident
residences. Mr. Barker said yes, there has been a big shift in this community regarding this type of use
and they really need full adequate parking and they want to ensure there is enough parking for
residents. They are looking at alternative methods because they feel the current parking standards are
too lenient.
Mr. Halferty asked Mr. Barker to revisit the zones that were discussed. Mr. Barker said it would be the
commercial core and Main St. district with multi-family projects in that area regarding one space per
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
unit. Mr. Halferty asked if it is PUD, what that process looks like and Mr. Barker said those are looked at
separately and have site specific approvals.
Mr. Pember referred to bullet point 6 and said they should use the word, “clarify” as well as the address.
The problem is not only being the relationship between natural and artificial and covered walking
surfaces and exterior stairways, but the whole subject matter is very mysterious. There is a lot of
questioning and who is going to decide what and there is no reason written. Mr. Barker agreed and said
they would like to simplify this. Mr. Pember said all of these things are related and jumbled together in
regard to FAR and he suggested a separate chapter for FAR.
Ms. Simon said she isn’t working on this update, but mentioned it takes a lot of effort to figure out how
to calculate things on both sides.
Mr. Barker said they will also be meeting with P&Z and continue with the bi-weekly meetings and hope
to come back to HPC with more specifics and get a little more technical feedback sometime in late
winter.
Mr. Blaich mentioned that there has been a lot of discussion about parking and especially about the
project they are discussing tonight. This needs to be coordinated with the city and worked out because
it affects projects such as the one being discussed. He was unsure if this is relevant to current situations
or just planning for the future. Mr. Barker said this definitely ties into multi-family developments, but
could play into other projects and agrees, there needs to be better coordination.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon said yes, they issued two in the last week. She signed
off on the Sardy House for repair work to deteriorated wood, masonry repair and re-roof and all within
scale of normal repair issues. Ms. Yoon did one for 330 Gillespie for the addition of a window in a
window well on the east side of the non-historic addition.
Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Simon if some of the repair work being done is on the historic resource and she
said yes. He said it is a pretty special building and asked if she advised them of the proper restoration
and repair guidelines. She said she signed off authorizing them to apply for a permit and gave them
specific requirements, materials, samples, test patches, etc. that will need to be reviewed. She will bring
out the project monitor on site to see the test patches and work that is being done.
Mr. Pember asked Ms. Simon if she discussed or reviewed the windows again since the last meeting. Ms.
Simon said there hasn’t been any changes since that meeting, but we did follow up because she was
uncomfortable so we looked at the glass again with the glass expert and concluded there was maybe
only one or two panes of historic glass to make sure we are all on the same page.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan stated she had 500 W. Main and was fine with that one. The notice for 209
W. Bleeker was just handed to her and she will review as the meeting proceeds.
CALL UPS: None.
Mr. Halferty exited the meeting.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: 500 W Main St.
Sarah Yoon
This is also known as the Mesa Store and a very well-known historic landmark in a mixed-use zone
district. It has recently received a land use approval for their revised mechanical plan for setback
variation. This is regarding two condenser units on the west side yard and a transformer unit in the
northeast corner. They have submitted a first design and the applicant has revised since communicating
with staff. This new proposal moves the trash enclosures to the east side yard setback. The applicant has
proposed a closed in fence for the chiller units and the trash enclosure, but because of the location in
the setback, it is subject to land use code 26.57, which says it needs to be screened, but it also needs to
be double the minimum setback. The design does meet those two requirements, but there is another
requirement, which prohibits mechanical equipment in the setback between a primary structure and the
adjacent street, unless an exception is made by the Community Development Director, who was
consulted. Ms. Garrow has accepted it, if it is approved by HPC. Ms. Yoon said it is in conformance with
the historic pattern and the revision mitigates adverse impact by creating screenings and keeping it
away from the historic resource. Staff recommends HPC approve the 5’ setback variation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Dana Ellis of Rowland & Broughton
They submitted for building permit a few months ago and one comment which came back on the review
had to do with location of the transformer. This brought up items of combining mechanical equipment,
which brought us to the chiller location that was presented to staff and they advised them to rethink
this. They are comfortable with the new location and feel it is a good compromise. The sites are dealing
with tight constraints and the existing alley has the trash on the opposite side of the alley pathway. They
were focused on the back façade and didn’t want the equipment to block this view. They want to do a
compliant six-foot-tall fence along that property line and would provide the screening for the trash
enclosure. They are showing a planter in front of transformer and the city informed them that they
need to have a permanent encroachment in order to put concrete in front of it and have access to the
transformer. The trash enclosures are Barracuda brand so it’s not an exposed trash can and is used a lot
in the west end due to the bear problem and is more attractive than bright green ones that waste
management provides. It will be 5 ft. 4 inches tall and screened completely by the fence. They are trying
to keep the line of the property and the historic building intact. They are not sacrificing a parking space
for this and will keep the two they have now. They will paint them a neutral color and will not clad them.
Mr. Blaich asked if the tree that is shown, is a crabapple because if so, it will attract bears. Ms. Ellis said
it is a snow apple tree that Parks recommended and just flowers, but does not bear fruit.
Mr. Pember asked how one would put a fence around a chiller. Ms. Ellis said it would be a venting off
the top and open on the ramp side for intake. She said you can also get it custom painted or wrapped in
anything you want, such as aspen trees since it’s a pretty ugly piece of equipment.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
Ms. Greenwood asked about the concrete wall and clarified that it is an engineering decision and Ms.
Ellis said yes. Ms. Greenwood said she doesn’t understand how this can happen. It’s the complete
wrong language and she feels that a simple bollard would be better as she feels this is overkill. She
doesn’t understand how this can be allowed on historic property. Ms. Ellis said the alternative would be
an at grade path, but then it’s a concrete pad, which they felt is even worse. A transformer needs a
certain clearance and a bollard would work, but wasn’t acceptable to Engineering because they want a
permanent surface treatment that cannot be knocked down or moved, but it’s in the right of way (at the
fence line) so they have no control over that anyway. The applicant doesn’t love it either and Ms.
Greenwood recommended that staff discuss this with Engineering. Ms. Simon agreed and said now that
they know it’s objectionable, they can make as a suggestion to Engineering to try to find an alternative.
Ms. Greenwood said they need to have some sensitivity to the historic property.
Mr. Moyer said they need to meet with the tree people and Engineering because there are a lot of
issues to discuss. Ms. Greenwood said they need to flex their muscles a bit with these departments.
Ms. Ellis said they would be happy with two bollards at the two corners with a bush in front or whatever
and that was their original suggestion. She did say that Parks has been great and they really like the
fence line.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Ms. Greenwood said she is in favor, Mr. Blaich said he is in favor and Mr. Moyer said he is in favor, but
commented on the landscaping. He said he noticed shrubs against the building and encouraged that
this doesn’t actually happen and to have no sprinkler heads within two feet of the building.
MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to approve with the conditions outlined in the staff memo.
Ms. Berko asked to add that they would like to see something softer there, like a bollard. Mr. Blaich said
that could be recommendation #3 in addition to the other staff recommendations. Mr. Moyer seconded.
Mr. Pember continued the discussion on adding a strip of gravel.
Ms. Greenwood asked for a voice vote on the motion. All in favor, motion carried.
Ms. Berko exited the meeting.
Ms. Bryan confirmed she reviewed the public notice for 209 W. Bleeker and it is fine.
Mr. Halferty reentered the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS: 209 W. Bleeker St.
Amy Simon
This is the final review for the former home of the Hayes family. This has been in front of HPC a couple
of times now and the Fromm family are now the new owners. This will be a free-standing home and
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
then they will build a new house behind it. There have been two hearings on the conceptual review with
a very detailed discussion on how to relate the new and old buildings. There were some setback
variations and floor area bonuses involved. All of this has been resolved for the final review tonight.
There is a limited scope tonight and we will be looking at landscaping, lighting and fenestration and
selection of new materials. There are two conditions of approval. One of them is that in this version, it
was recognized that the house is sitting in a depression, which calls for bad drainage. The applicant has
proposed to raise the cottage up and bring the grade back to character. The house will be about 7 inches
above surrounding grade. The other thing that was said, was no storm water features should be
appearing in front of the cottage. Typically, the civil design is not done until the permit is almost issued.
At conceptual, it was said that we do not want manholes in front of the resource. They have provided a
detailed landscape plan for drainage and will be in front of the new structure, not the historic structure.
Staff is recommending approval with a number of conditions and feel they can be resolved during
permit review. They have done a good job with the landscaping to create a setting that is somewhat
differentiated from the modern building, which helps to create a scale. We support their proposed
fence and walkways. There are a number of shrubs around the new building that we feel could grow
very high and we’d like to see a slight reduction in this. There are a few trees that have to be preserved
on this site on the northeast side of the property and no fill can be added, even though there is a small
dip. There is a terrace area that will help retain water and would like you to focus on is the fact that they
are proposing some retaining walls in the right of way. Engineering doesn’t normally allow this, so we
need to hear more reasoning from the applicant and have HPC decide what is appropriate. Architectural
issues that need to be dealt with at this point are selection of materials and detailing of the project. Staff
would like to see shop drawings for the restoration of the front porch. We support the applicant’s choice
of materials for the new construction, which relate to the historic resource, but aren’t a copy of it. There
are a lot of solar panels proposed for the roof. Staff feel that the application meets the guidelines and
are recommending approval.
Mr. Halferty asked about the side walls for the landscaping on the engineering side and said this is
atypical for historic properties. Ms. Simon said they need to hear more from the applicant what their
limitations are. She said they are basically creating a retaining pond surrounded by some low walls and
can’t get too close to the tree. It is an unusual situation and they want to make sure if fits in. She said it
is engineering and parks call overall, but they do want to hear HPC’s input.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Seth Hmielowski and Melanie Noonan of Z Group Architects, Katie Tabor of Connect One Design along
with Dan and Andy Fromm, owners.
Mr. Hmielowski began showing plans on the screen. As far as the street side view, there will be no solar
panels from that direction. There will be canned lights under roof or eave and the cabin has three
sconces. He said they are debating over having a white picket fence or wrought iron and is up for
discussion. They are doing a brick chimney with an extended flue and proposing a wood shingle roof.
They are also proposing a gutter over the top of the entry with a downspout and a Kynar finish to match
the flashing. Regarding the doors, they would like to refurbish them. As far as wood siding, they are
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
already at a 4 ½ inch wood lap siding that they will match. They are going to reuse the wood decking.
There will be three sconces added and they will have frosted globes to comply with the code.
Ms. Tabor started by saying that their overarching goal was to create a sense of identity for each
building on the property and to set the cabin apart visually. Regarding the historic cabin, there is a brick
walkway leading directly to the front door and there is a step up onto the front porch. They have pulled
the shrubs away from the house and created a more historically accurate woody screen to the front
behind the fence and have stepped down the plant material to a vegetative plant. There is no landscape
lighting except for the entry lighting sconces, which Mr. Hmielowski previously mentioned. Regarding
the new residence, there are three legacy trees that the parks department want to reserve and this
creates a sort of dip so to mitigate this, they have created a sunken courtyard. They will be replacing a
CMU wall with a very thin profile steel and micropyle footings so to not damage the roots of the trees.
They are proposing step lighting and two path lights due to the tree cover making things very dark and
hard to see. As for the plant life, they are proposing a smooth hydrangea, a spirea, a chokeberry (which
only grows to around 3 ft.), hosta and a vinka.
Mr. Pember asked Ms. Tabor to go through the planting plan again and on the screen to see where they
will be located and what will go where. Ms. Tabor proceeded to go through the plan and said the
chokeberry will be lining the front of the fence, then in front of that is the hosta, which creates a layer
that goes all the way out to the lawn. The spirea will run along the side of the cabin and the porch, the
hydrangea will be along the retaining wall to soften the edge and the vinka will be underneath the
spruce trees.
Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Tabor to discuss the drainage and retention a bit more. Ms. Tabor said they
thought the trees were all at the same elevation, but looking at the survey, there is one tree higher and
the existing retaining wall is at the property line so that changed the condition.
Mr. Pember asked if there is any concern with snow sliding off the house onto the spirea since they are
so close to the house. Mr. Hmielowski said they will have a snow fence on the new structure. Ms. Tabor
said they will have little snow clips on the historic cabin.
Mr. Moyer asked what the overhang is on the historic cabin and Ms. Noonan said it is about 18 inches.
He said he wanted to make sure the plants are at least that far from the house and Ms. Noonan said
they can do that. Mr. Moyer asked where the sprinkler heads will be located and Ms. Noonan said they
are not planning to have a watering system there.
Ms. Greenwood asked if the civil plan has been approved by the engineering department to dig down
and around the existing trees regarding the water quality. Ms. Tabor said it will not be a typical type of
rain garden, but will just be using the green space to filter the water and they are working with
engineering on this currently and do not have an issue with it thus far.
Mr. Halferty asked about the steel plate detail and clarified that it will go through the root system. Ms.
Tabor said that is correct and they will dig two feet apart, little micropyle footings and then place the
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
steel panel slightly above so as to not disturb the below grade vegetation. She said they do not have
final sign off on this yet from parks.
Mr. Pember asked what kind of solar panels they will be installing and how effective they are. Mr.
Hmeilowski they are working with Sunsense Solar who put together the design. They want this to be
more green with a low profile and will sit about 5 inches off the roof and are photovoltaic. Mr. Pember
asked if they have done any shading studies. Mr. Hmielowski said yes and was surprised at how high
efficiency they can get. Mr. Pember asked about the porch light being replaced by a frosted globe and
asked if it is the same shape as what you are seeing on the screen and Mr. Hmielowski said yes.
Mr. Moyer asked how they are capping the top of the chimney and Mr. Hmielowski said they will do a
low-profile flashing.
Mr. Lai asked Mr. Hmielowski to expand on the fence preferences and said they would rather do a
wrought iron and it would be thinner than a wood picket fence, but could be a bit more ornate than
what was happening historically. Mr. Lai asked what color the wrought iron would be and Mr.
Hmielowski said it will be either black or charcoal.
Mr. Pember asked if it is a typical detail to have the gutter over front porch and asked what color or kind
of kynar is being used. Mr. Hmielowski said they would be doing the flashing on the facia in a dark
charcoal and were looking at going dark or going light to have it blend in with the color of the framing.
They do not want to call attention to it or have it be shiny.
Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Simon if she doesn’t like to see galvanized and she said yes, there are a
couple of things that have come up in the presentation that were not part of the packet so they need to
clean up a few points. First, the drawings show wood shingled roofing throughout the historic cabin so
the introduction of the metal roof over the porch is new and doesn’t meet the design guidelines. These
modest little cottages may have had some tin on aspects of the roof, but this high-level roof that is being
suggested, has not been approved. We allow a membrane, not a standing seam metal on a miner’s
cottage. The other thing was the discussion of the metal fence. We typically have not approved a metal
or wrought iron type of fence in front of little buildings like this. Only the fanciest of houses had this
type of fence historically so we ask for modesty. She feels this should stay as low key as possible, but is
for the board to evaluate and she is happy to show what the fence actually looks like that they normally
approve. The gutters are indicated as half round on the drawings and doesn’t have to be this way, but
the guidelines call for painted metal, galvanized or lead coated copper. This could be resolved with staff
and monitor. The reason galvanized has been used is because of its simplicity, but if they don’t like that
look, a painted metal is ok.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Mr. Halferty recapped the chapters being discussed for the board discussion.
Mr. Lai said they did a good job meeting the guidelines overall. He said he still wishes that the precedent
in this area of having such large additions, was not there. He feels overwhelmed by the additions when
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
he walks down that street, but thinks the applicant has done a good job of preserving the historic asset.
He agrees with staff to not have a wrought iron fence in front of the miner’s cabin, but have a picket
fence instead. He said the addition does a good job of reflecting, but being distinctive of the historic
asset so he would vote to approve this project.
Ms. Greenwood said she would also approve this project, but she still feels that the addition is
overwhelming the Victorian and really hopes this is the last project with this much sq. footage involved.
She feels the landscape plan for the Victorian helps show the importance of the Victorian and she really
likes this. As far as the drainage issues, she doesn’t understand the green drainage concept and prefers
to see them take the steel detail to minimize the depression versus a concrete modern design. She feels
that if they can minimize that depression, the project will be much more successful. She feels like it’s
more development on the site that it can’t handle. She doesn’t think the concrete walls are congruent
with Aspen. For her, it doesn’t work. She would like to see the whole front yard have the simplicity of
the historic resource. She just doesn’t like the modern landscaping. She suggested they take staff’s
recommendation from staff on the fence. The Victorian looks really nice and she will vote for it, but
would like staff to monitor this project closely.
Mr. Pember said he loves the landscaping because it distinguishes the new from the old. These are new
projects and it shows the power of design. The history of the cabin and the white picket fence are a
consistent narrative regarding the cabin itself. It falls into the realm of surrealism to have this little cabin
with a white picket fence that you would see in Nebraska. This is quite amazing and we should applaud
them for the landscape and working with it to achieve a goal. If people would see it as a way to work
with architecture and work with civil engineering…he feels they have grabbed the landscape by the
heart and have done a good job. It’s really strong. He said the detail about the porch should be worked
out with staff more clearly. This is one of the better solutions they’ve seen as far as mass and scale goes.
He feels they’ve done the best they can in dealing with those vicious arborists considering parks wants
to keep the trees.
Mr. Blaich said that professor Pember stole his whole pitch, but he particularly likes what they did in the
front on the new construction. He thinks architecturally, the new house is standing alone and this
reinforces that so he likes the proposal as it is, but there is only one thing he would have liked to have
seen regarding the landscaping plan. He said in the old days, they used to refer to this house as the
Hayes hollyhock farm. He said it was all hollyhocks and it went with the rusticity of the house so it
would be nice, as a sort of memorial, if they could find a spot for some hollyhocks. He said they need to
be in a sunny spot for them to grow well. He said he likes the project very much and that Mr. Pember
covered his major points so he is satisfied with what was said.
Mr. Moyer said he feels it’s a very good project. Regarding the landscaping, he understands the hard
lines on new addition due to sunken lawn, but he prefers dirt rather than steel to soften it, but it is not a
major concern. Regarding the porch/ roof, he discourages the membrane and says it would be a
nightmare to maintain so he would do a steel roof instead. Regarding the fence, the idea of a white
painted fence is nice, but it is a nightmare to maintain. He would do a wood fence and use a cedar or
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
bleaching/weather stain and let it develop a soft grade patina, which would offer a softening to the
historic house and would blend with a little bit of history. Overall, he feels it’s a job well done;
particularly the landscaping for the Victorian.
Mr. Blaich said he agrees with Mr. Moyer on the fence. He thinks this is a very good proposal from Mr.
Moyer on how to treat this and keep the character.
Mr. Halferty stated that the applicants have met the requirements for approval. The restoration of the
cabin is wonderfully detailed and the landscape design is compliant with our guidelines and
distinguishes new from old. He likes the subtle improvements around the historic resource and the
detailing on the east side of the lot. He wants to reiterate, regarding parks, there will be a lot of concrete
paving and large sidewalks going over root systems so he would defer to them regarding on-going
maintenance on the historic trees. Regarding the architectural detailing of the porch, he would defer to
staff and monitor on this. The lighting is in compliance with the guidelines and the materials of the solar
panels are fine on the southside away from the historic resource. The mass and scale are a nice change
because it doesn’t actually have a link on the rear façade. He said this is commendable to the architects.
Regarding the historic imagery the detailing of the headers and roofs, should also be dealt with staff and
monitor. He supports this project overall for final approval.
Mr. Halferty said there is a resolution in the packet on page 41. Ms. Simon said the resolution is actually
on page 50. She reminded everyone that the first condition is about the shrubs in front of the miner’s
cabin due to a concern about the chokeberry’s getting taller and possible obstruction to the front of the
cabin. The second condition is no longer an issue and has resolved itself. The third condition has to do
with providing more detail about the restoration of the front porch. The other topics that have come up
tonight are the issue of the roof on the porch and the fence.
MOTION: Mr. Pember moved to approve resolution #25 as written, Mr. Blaich seconded.
Mr. Pember noted the amendments: to replace the standing seam with flat seam metal or membrane
over the front porch and include drawings which include the porch and fence.
Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes;
Mr. Lai, yes. 6-0 all in favor, motion carried.
Motion to adjourn at 6:44 p.m. by Ms. Greenwood.
_______________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk