Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.201711081 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:33 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 Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 11th, 2017 Mr. Blaich moved to approve, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko asked about taking a tour of St. Mary’s after the current renovation. Ms. Simon said yes, they have gutted the interior so it would be good for everyone to see. Mr. Halferty welcomed Sarah Yoon as the new Historic Preservation Planner. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon noted that she had a couple of reminders for the board. There is a special meeting next week at 4:30 for HPC because the next regularly scheduled meeting is cancelled for Thanksgiving. There is only one meeting in December due to Christmas. She emailed everyone yesterday about the public open house tomorrow for the mall study, which is in the library meeting room and the board can also attend the November 14th council discussion. There will be three variations of the mall renovation presented and it will be narrowed down and there will be a presentation to HPC in the new year. Mr. Pember entered the meeting. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon issued one for the White House Tavern restaurant to replace the stairs that enter into the kitchen from the west side of property. She has allowed them to replace the steps with stone. Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Bryan if she has the appropriate public notices for the agenda items and Ms. Bryan answered yes. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon said that staff appeared at city council to report HPC’s decision on 122 W. Main St., which was the remodel introducing some lodge units and council chose not to call up the approval for further discussion. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 201 E. Hyman Amy Simon This is a project that is nearing completion and HPC approved a renovation of this building into a larger single-family house, restoring a miner’s cottage and they have made an addition on the east side. There were preliminary indications of where the mechanical equipment would be placed on the inside and outside of the building. Some of the condenser units need to be a different selection as originally anticipated. They would sit in the east side yard setback between the addition and the Limelight building. It will be no more than 30 inches above and below grade. The equipment being spoken about tonight is not too tall, but being hung on the side of the building and violates the height variation. It is appropriately sized and meets the max decibel levels, but it does require a variation. Staff supports HPC granting this variation request and does not appear to have an impact on anyone else. The review criteria is on page 9 of the packet and we recommend approval. We received two public comment emails that are also attached in the packet. Ms. Berko asked if the Limelight has a five-foot setback and Ms. Simon said no. Applicant Presentation: Derek Skalko of 1 Friday Design along with Carl Schindler of Brikor, Brendan Guerin of Guerin Glass Architects, Steven Meyer of Brikor and Eric Aanonsen of Brikor. Mr. Skalko said this is a fairly self-explanatory ask. As you are all aware, 201 E Hyman is the old Hartman House, which sits at the intersection of E Hyman Ave and S. Aspen St. adjacent to the Limelight Lodge. Between the Limelight and 201 E. Hyman, is where we are proposing to put the mechanical equipment. The Limelight Lodge is 1 foot 8 inches off the property line and we are at our 5-ft. limit so there is about 6 feet eight inches between the two buildings. The packet explains what they are asking for and what the equipment is. We will ensure that the equipment is well-hidden and obscured, but also whisper quiet for the community. Ms. Berko clarified that the condensers weren’t where they were originally proposed to be and Mr. Skalko pointed out that Ms. Berko was the only original member on the board in 2012 who approved this project and the discussion at that time, really left it open ended. What we intended initially, it was to be on the cul-de-sac and an alley locate, so we held off and wanted to figure it out and be fair to surrounding neighbors. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve and grant the variance, Mr. Blaich seconded. Mr. Pember asked who the project monitor is and Ms. Simon said it was John Whipple. Mr. Halferty volunteered to be the new project monitor. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 6-0, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 533 W. Hallam St. Sarah Yoon This is a landmark Victorian that has been reviewed for conceptual twice previously before it was continued. Today’s application is brought to you by a new architect and owner, but will be judged under the old design guidelines. This is a 6000-sq. ft. lot within the R6 zone district. The lot allows a single- family home or two detached houses and the applicant is proposing a single-family home. HPC should review the following actions: to demolish all existing non-historic additions and relocate the historic building in a forward direction of 9 ft. 4 inches toward Hallam St. on top of a new basement addition. The garden shed will be relocated towards the alley and restoration work is proposed for the Victorian. New additions are proposed both above and below grade and the basement addition extends beyond the footprint of the Victorian. The addition will be connected with an above grade connecting element and the applicant will be requesting a 500-sq. ft. floor area bonus along with setback variations for the basement, the garden shed and the front bay window. The restoration work will focus primarily on the front porches of the historic Victorian. Much of the historic rear wall has been lost over the years with the various additions. The proposed rear wall does not represent the full extent of the historic footprint. The applicant proposes to restore both front porches and reestablish the entrance on the east side and they plan to bring the roof back to its original design. Staff supports this project. The site is in an area with mature trees and they have been identified as significant by the Parks Department. The Parks Department was consulted with this issue and offered recommendations on how to proceed with the basement excavation. Staff is concerned that relocation of the historic resource forward, will put the historic resource at risk by placing it closer to the tree and will take the resource out of historic alignment with the neighbor to the east. On that note, public comment has been submitted by a neighbor. Moving forward, staff is concerned with how the storm water will be handled with a full basement addition. This has been resolved in the past with man holes placed in front of the resource and we would like to avoid this moving forward. The new addition above grade has a connector and is important that it reads as a subordinate element between two resources and subordinate to the historic roofline. The current design has a height and a footprint that challenges this idea. For the setback variances being requested, there is a 5-ft. rear setback variation for the basement and a rear and east side yard setback variation for relocating the garden shed onto the lot line against the alley. Staff supports these setback variations with the condition that the garden shed be pulled slightly in towards the lot line. They are also requesting a front yard setback variation regarding the front bay window, but it needs additional study. The overall roof design is in conformance with the historic structure; however, the second story flat roof on the west side is overpowering in scale and massing. (Ms. Greenwood has joined the meeting.) Staff is not in favor of roof design option B for this reason. Staff does not support the full award of the 500-sq. ft. bonus because of these issues and suspect that the additional floor area has created the dominant massing above grade. Staff recommends continuation to December 13th. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Ms. Bryan announced Ms. Greenwood’s arrival and asked if she read the packet and is comfortable voting on this project and Ms. Greenwood said yes. Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Yoon to revisit the shed on the alley. She said the applicant wants to place the shed on the lot lines and staff wants to pull it inside of the lot lines slightly. Applicant Presentation: Sarah Adams of Bendon Adams along with the owners; Carlos (Charles) and Leslie Duncan and Andy Wisnoski of Poss Architecture as well as William and McKenzie of Poss. Mr. Duncan started out by saying he appreciates everyone being here. He stated that they are from Houston and plan to make this their family home and they aren’t building it to sell. He grew up here and his children have grown up here and they’ve seen a lot of redone houses in the west end. He would like to keep the old Victorian vibe alive and they have renovated old homes before and have been working with this team for the past seven months to present this application to the board. Ms. Adams mentioned the site visit that took place earlier today and said they met with Kristen Henry yesterday who is the neighbor on the east side and have recently met with the Parks department to establish the excavation parameters. They are presenting two different massing options in the packet. They have had site visits with an arborist and staff trying to respond to concerns that staff has raised at the end of last week. This property is on the corner of Hallam Street and 5th Street. After meeting with Kristen, they are really trying to be sensitive to her views and her sunlight, etc. Ms. Adams has checked with the Historical Society for pictures of the rear of the building and was unable to come up with anything unfortunately, but she did find pictures of the front porch so this will help in replicating and restoring this area. The historic resource is a little over 9 ft. of a move forward, shifted towards Hallam St. The bay window extends over the 10-foot setback line and the zoning code typically allows for an 18- inch projection for bay windows. We are actually asking for 7 inches on this and by being able to move this landmark forward, we are achieving more prominence since it is buried in the trees currently and this will allow it to be more visible. We currently have a large cottonwood on site as well as spruce trees. The Parks Department is protective of the cottonwood, so we pushed everything towards Ms. Henry’s home while respecting her five-foot setback. Parks is supportive of shifting the house forward as it’s a good preservation method and they will just have to limb up the trees no matter what. Ms. Adams mentioned that they went out and did an analysis of the existing setbacks on the block and there is a range in this neighborhood. Next door, Ms. Henry is at 15 ft. and at this point a year ago, planning was ok with moving it forward. One of their strategies was to push as much massing into the basement as possible and they are asking for a 5-foot setback along the rear below grade. They had received direction from Ms. Simon to restudy the flat roof so they looked at a more traditional gable and provide an alternate option, but they prefer the flat roof. It’s simple and keeps the height down and adds some interest to that corner. She summed up why they feel they meet the review criteria for the 500-square foot bonus. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Ms. Berko asked if they are planning to bring the connector down 10 ft. and tuck it under. Mr. Wisnoski said they haven’t proposed any changes to what they are currently doing at this point and it is within 10 inches of what they are talking about. Mr. Pember asked Ms. Yoon what the objection was to staff regarding the flue treatment (chimney) on the historic resource. Ms. Yoon said there was not historical documentation of the flues so they wanted them to do a restudy because the placement because it seemed a bit odd in the renderings. Ms. Adams said she felt it was best addressed during demolition, but they are happy to comply. Ms. Greenwood asked what the difference is in height between the existing Victorian and the tallest proposed gable towards the alley. Mr. Wisnoski said it is 10 ft. 6 inches. Ms. Adams noted that the height slopes toward Hallam St. Ms. Greenwood asked what the floor area is of the finished Victorian versus the addition on the back. Ms. Adams said the landmark is 686 sq. ft. of what is being restored. The addition is 1404 sq. ft. and the garage is 567.5 sq. ft. Mr. Blaich asked what the comparative square footage is between the existing structure and the new proposal. Ms. Adams said the existing floor area is 2,427 and what is proposed is 3,740. Mr. Lai mentioned reading the letter from the neighbor which was included and asked Ms. Yoon to elaborate on the setback from Hallam. Ms. Yoon said that if you want to move a historic resource, you want to make sure it will survive and that it’s in the best interest of resource. To staff, putting it into the trees was not in favor of the resource. They suggested doing some studies to move over to the east just for the Victorian in terms of the public comment. Mr. Lai said that another consideration should be as to how it relates to the existing street. Ms. Yoon said it is brought up in the memo, that it is still sitting on the historic site and moving that is going to bring it out of historic alignment with its neighbor so they are not in favor of moving forward. Mr. Wisnoski noted that the conversation with the neighbor was about the cabin too and she was not in favor of moving it to the east. It wasn’t an all or nothing kind of move for the whole house. He pointed out to her that they were bringing the house into alignment with the house on the west so she recognized the pattern they were creating of alignment along the street so she softened her position. Mr. Pember asked what the ceiling height is on the west view of the connector. Ms. Adams said it is 9 ft. 6 inches. Then he asked what the ceiling height is in the historic resource and she said it is vaulted ceilings. Mr. Wisnoski guessed that it is around 10 feet. Mr. Pember explained that he asked that question due to the 9-foot band that wraps around the addition and ties it all together and establishes the height of the porch on the west side and said it’s a very important dimension to the addition. Ms. Simon said it results in the connector sort of climbing on top of the roof. Mr. Lai asked for the staff recommendations to be put back on the screen. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ms. Adams said she would last like to point out the storm water design. She said the first they heard about this was on Wednesday of last week and that they didn’t know that was going to be something 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 planning would ask for at this point. Under the code the previous owner submitted under, it was not required, so it was a surprise to them and are asking for some flexibility. She said they are happy to show HPC the design at final. Mr. Halferty summarized what HPC needed to discuss. Ms. Greenwood said that her take on the project presented, is that the reason to move it forward is not for historic preservation, but because the rear of the property is being obliterated by the addition. She said it is being moved forward to create more buildable area on the site. She doesn’t feel that is an A+ solution to historic preservation. She likes the concept of the building moving forward because getting it away from the trees is a good solution for that façade, but allowing this to occur, means that there should be a benefit from that. You’re obliterating one entire side and the connector should be as minimal as possible so the four major facades of the historic structure should be prominent on this property and it falls short of that in terms of the massing. The footprint is three times the size. While she supports moving the resource forward, she doesn’t support the attachment and the fact that more than half of the back side of the building will no longer be visible. For her, this goes back to the reasons why they changed the code in the first place to not have gargantuan additions added onto these modest homes. It’s very disappointing to her to see this being presented and feels it’s a very unsuccessful project, it’s not historic preservation and she can’t support a bonus. She supports moving it forward, but only if it allows some breathing room, which it doesn’t in this presentation because it’s being attached in an uncomfortable way. This feels like a small resource with a train wreck attached because it overwhelms the historic resource. She is a little surprised that it would be taken so nonchalantly to not have a linking element. The addition itself, from a massing standpoint, has a lot going on with flat roofs and dormers. The historic resource should be a visual model for where you are taking the addition and this has very complicated looking gables that don’t seem to relate to anything on the historic resource. The complication of massing doesn’t meet our guidelines nor do the flat roofs. This needs to be simpler and quieter because it overwhelms the historic context on the corner. She wants them to rethink the whole proposal and do the restoration that they say they want to do by reducing the square footage on the site, bring down the massing, simplify the house and expose more of the historic resource. Mr. Lai said he concurs with staff in terms of the recommendations. He also questions the reason for the setting of the building forward. He agrees with Ms. Greenwood that the idea is not to preserve, but to increase the FAR. When we look at the configurations from 5th St. on page 401 of the memo, the complex is much too complicated. If you take away everything on the second floor that is in the middle component, it would be a lot more elegant. With the additional FAR, it spoils an elegant design. The gables echo the design of the historic building, so when you add the second story flat roof addition, it complicates the whole design like you are trying to squeeze every FAR possible out of the project, which is the root of all the problems. Ms. Berko said she echoes the staff recommendations. She doesn’t feel that 10.7 is met at all for the connector. She would like to see a connector not as living space, but connecting and she would like to see it tucked in and under. She doesn’t feel it meets mass and scale (11.3) as it totally overwhelms that 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 little house. Part of what she is feeling is that if one needs variances, there is too much program. The relocation is problematic for her. She said she cannot support moving the house forward because she feels that is destroying the historic streetscape. She said what happens across the street is not their concern so she is having a hard time. The words she keeps reading in the memo over and over are “overpower”, “overwhelm”, “imbalance” and “complicate”, with the solution being “reduction” and “simplification”. This is so overwhelming to her that she can’t support it. She feels the house has been completely buried by the construction on the back. Mr. Pember commented that the renderings are the most compelling to him as far as the ones that show the trees. Since the Parks department has determined that these trees have to stay, the resource needs to move, otherwise it’s getting crushed and is a fire hazard. It is not always fair or correct, but it’s Parks decision. He feels the addition slips in and out of the landscape in a convincing way and thinks it’s very musical the way it bounces up to a giant crescendo. It may be a half tone out of scale and too large, but everyone needs to remember that the back side has already been compromised before anyone drew their first line on this proposal. He thinks the concept is clever, but again, the band organizes the whole thing and it seems very chunky. Many contemporary architects around here miss the constructivists clues that these old buildings had. He feels the connector needs to be restudied, which needs a little more finesse. Mr. Blaich said he lives very close by and he doesn’t have a problem with moving it forward and doesn’t care if it is to maximize on the property or not and said the storm water issue has already been addressed. The connecting element needs restudy, but he doesn’t have a problem with it himself. He agreed with the restudy of the scale and massing, but thinks this is a great improvement over what exists and thinks it’s a better design proposal than what was previously presented. He feels that it’s a pretty good reflection of the historic resource and thinks it has that kind of resonance for him and it doesn’t look foreign. He feels that the scale and mass need to be reworked a little, but is generally positive and thinks it’s going in the right direction and feels it will be a good addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Moyer concurs with staff’s comments. He said connecting links came to be in the 1990’s when he was on HPC and he said the point was simple; it was not to look exactly like the historic resource and not to look exactly like the new addition. He feels the key to this proposal, is that the connecting link looks like the new addition and that has to be changed. Because the link is short, fat and high, it brings that mass closer to the resource and you have the impression that it’s overtaking or swallowing up the resource. It’s the big fish swallowing the little fish. He is with Ms. Greenwood, that he is only in favor of moving the resource forward unless it enhances the resource. He continued to speak about the trees and how they can be damaging to a historic resource and feels this topic needs much more discussion. He spoke about the sprinkler heads against the house. As far as the 500-sq. ft. bonus, he doesn’t feel they should give the full amount unless it is an exemplary project. He feels all applicants are expecting FAR because they build it into their project. Ms. Greenwood agreed. He feels this needs to be addressed with the City as well and restudy this before we give any FAR. He feels the underground variance should be granted and doesn’t have a problem with the shed being on the lot line. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Mr. Halferty said in summary, he would have to agree with the board. He feels that 10.7 is a key point as far as compliance. The link is most problematic due to height and the way it crashes into the south façade. He does feel that the architecture of the addition and the modules is very clever and it does work in certain parts and the renderings are well done, but the mass and scale are the biggest problems. He mentioned 10.9 regarding the roof forms. He feels the gables are very well thought, but the flat roofs and combination into them, creates a competition. He feels the board should give variances and bonuses when they are warranted, but doesn’t feel that is the case here. He said restudy is warranted. It’s close to meeting the guidelines, but it needs to be massaged more. He said it makes sense moving the resource to the north if it helps HPC promote restoration. He is not sure if moving it more forward helps the situation due to the trees and to design around the tree, is very difficult. 10.9, 10.7 and 11.3 are sticking points for him. Specifically, he agrees with Mr. Pember regarding the link and feels it is busy, large, fat and detrimental to the historic resource. He agrees on the placement of the shed that was presented and he can support. He agrees and understands how the board feels about the floor area bonus. He approves of and supports staff recommendations, but feels the applicant has strong intent as do the architects and planners on this project. MOTION: Mr. Lai moved for continuance to December 13th, 2017, Mr. Blaich seconded. Ms. Greenwood moved to amend Mr. Lai’s motion and remove #5 regarding the FAR bonus, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, no; Mr. Pember, no; Mr. Blaich, no; Mr. Lai, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. 4 yes, 3 no, motion carried for continuance. Mr. Halferty motioned to adjourn, Mr. Moyer seconded at 6:45 p.m. ________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk