Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.201712131 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 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: James R. True, City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Draft minutes for November 8th and 15th. Mr. Blaich motioned to approve, Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko thanked Ms. Simon and Ms. Yoon for the presentations last week, it was really really fun. She also asked Ms. Simon about touring St. Mary’s before they buckle it up and Ms. Simon said yes, it is on her list. Mr. Halferty agreed on the excellent presentations and said they were very well thought out. He asked Ms. Simon is she was able to see the Bob Hope house and she answered no. He told Ms. Yoon that everything she presented from Mexico was very well thought out. Mr. Halferty then thanked staff for the invite to the Christmas party and said it was really lovely. Ms. Greenwood mentioned that when staff gives a presentation on the history of the projects, she feels they should make themselves available to the public and do an end of year presentation on projects HPC has been approving and progress that is taking place on current projects. She feels it would be interesting to the public to see this. Ms. Simon suggested they put presentations on the website with a slide show. Mr. Pember also supports that idea and would support any make up days they could offer since he missed the presentation. He suggested they could tie it into any AIA event easily and would put their support behind it as well. Ms. Simon asked who the contact is for AIA and Mr. Pember said Scott Smith. Mr. Pember also mentioned the idea of tree permits and moving trees around and said that Mr. Moyer has touched on this many times. He had a recent personal experience with the Aspen Tree folks and it was not a happy one. He met with the current and former arborists and said he isn’t talking about legacy trees or the Sardy house trees, which are just too large to relocate. He said they told him that everyone would ask them to remove the trees in front of their living rooms to have a view. He asked the board if anyone recalls that being a public discussion or policy change reviewed by city council. Mr. True said he is not aware of any change. Mr. Pember said he finds it to be antithetical to the subject of design to relocate trees rationally with regard to architecture, whether it’s historic or not. They have this concept of an urban forest, but he feels this is a very artificial environment. He said there is a lot of angst below the surface that he happens to know about and wonders if something could be done or to at least open up a dialogue. Mr. Moyer agreed and said this should be a priority item for discussion with council as they are totally ignorant on these subjects. He said the arborists and the boards need to have a conversation and find out what the intent is. Ms. Simon said she isn’t aware of a policy change. Mr. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2017 Halferty said it is something that could be taken up with parks to discuss how it constantly applies to HPC. Mr. Pember said it changes the way he thinks about trees now. Ms. Greenwood has a lot of opinions about the parks department and ordinances that they have come up with that need to be addressed. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has two items. The first being an addition on the old McDonalds building on the alley facing Ruby Park. They currently have a trash enclosure and environmental health has asked for a more solid structure than what is currently there. Mr. Moyer and Ms. Simon have approved fencing around the trash area. The second item is for 232 E Bleeker, which Mr. Blaich is the monitor for and the applicant is present to talk about a material change. Ms. Berko has recused herself. Applicant Presentation: Kim Raymond This is for the corner of the modern addition on the back alley and Monarch St. The first page of the packet shows what was approved by HPC, facing the east and the north. Wood louvres were proposed to soften the big glass. They have since discovered that the wood louvres are so heavy, it is hard to make it realistic to clean the windows. They would like to change from wood to aluminum so it’s more light weight and powder coat it to be a dark grey to match the flashing. On the last page is the rendering of the aluminum louvres showing in a black or light grey. Mr. Halferty asked if the proportions are the same and Ms. Raymond said yes, just the material is different and it will now have a hinged opening. Ms. Simon stated that she thought it was a disappointment to lose the natural material and she is unsure of how obvious it is from the street. Mr. Halferty asked if this is on the new construction and she said yes. Ms. Raymond reminded everyone that the wood would have been stained dark anyway. Mr. Pember asked if it is the same veracity and Ms. Raymond said yes. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to allow the change, Mr. Lai seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Pember, no; Mr. Lai, yes. 5-1 in favor, motion carried. Ms. Berko reentered the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon reminded everyone that this is the only meeting for the month of December and wished everyone happy holidays. She said a motion is needed for 533 W. Hallam to continue to January 24th, 2018. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to continue, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2017 PUBLIC NOTICE: Mr. True said it is acceptable, but he needs a copy of the actual mail notice. CALL UPS: None. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 300 W Main St. Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Relocation, Special Review and Variations. Amy Simon Ms. Simon said this property was built in 1944, which was an unusual construction date and most of the historic homes in this area are predominantly Victorian. 1944 was a quiet year and this property has a very rustic style. There are other similar era hand built log cabins in town. The property was built as a single-family home and in the 1980’s, the log cabin was converted to use as a restaurant and the addition we seen today, was built for residential use. Subsequently, there were a couple of businesses in the space and is now used as a single-family home. The property has been purchased by the owners of the adjacent Annabelle inn and a new addition is to be built and operated by someone else. The existing 1980’s addition is proposed to be demolished and the original log cabin is proposed to be moved 4 feet east and 4 feet three inches south and a new addition is to be built. Staff supports removal of the 1980’s addition. The way it was added does not meet HPC’s policies today. Demolition offers an opportunity to rethink and we do support the proposal for the addition. Regarding relocation, there are some enormous trees on site especially on the southeast corner of the property where the trees have hemmed the house in. This is the only building in the Main St. district that faces the side street with its entry. Staff could support an adjustment to the side of the building to allow breathing room between new and old construction. At this point, staff finds that the relocation is not benefitting the building because they would be making a change and decreasing authenticity. Regarding design review, staff made some policy shifts regarding corner lots. There are exceptions that HPC can make if there are large trees on site, etc. regarding the rule that you can no more than double the size of the cabin. This proposal shows a two-story addition and doesn’t have a connector and climbs onto the roof of the historic resource. This is not something that HPC can approve. There is a specific guideline that addresses a requirement for a connecting element that is one story tall, ten feet long, narrow like a hallway or corridor and that has not been provided here. Due to the trees, there is just not a lot of space. The project is subject to commercial design review and those guidelines have been provided in the packet. There is one setback variation request along the alley. The applicant asked to bring the building just above grade to one ft. away from the rear property line. Staff supports this request. The applicant needs to provide six parking units for this project and intend to have five spaces on the property and they do get bonus points for bike racks. Staff recommends continuation to Valentine’s day. Mr. Pember asked about the ramp accessibility going to the front door from the side street and asked if the steps are historic. Ms. Simon said yes and they will have something L shaped and will preserve the porch and the steps. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2017 APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Rich Pavcek of Charles Cunniffe Architects He thanked everyone for coming out to the site visit and recapped for those that didn’t make it. The property is located at west Main and north Second St. and the new owners would like to convert this to a lodge. The large pines were designated historic and are very healthy so they plan to keep those. The proposal calls for keeping the historic cabin and demoing the addition that is there now. Their goal is to demo the addition, relocate the cabin on the lot and put a new addition in place. They would like to repair and replace the green roof, which is non-historic and address the ramp on the front. The addition wraps around in an L shape and there is a connector for the existing basement and second level. Regarding the dimensional size of the parking, they have determined that three spaces can meet the engineering department’s requirement so they know they will abandon one parking space. The fence will stay as is. The ramp will be restudied, but they may leave as is and just put some plants in front of it and turn along the retaining wall so they will not be changing it, just reconfiguring. Mr. Pavcek continued to go over the proposed plan details on the screen for the second level. He mentioned that the owners want to rent the entire space and have a common area. He said they would like to lift and move the cabin to expand the basement level for a larger footprint and gain five more bedrooms, a common area, a separate entrance and rented separately. They are trying to relate the houses and residences nearby. Mr. Lai asked Mr. Pavcek to explain again which direction they will be moving the building and Mr. Pavcek said 4 ft. to the east and 4 ft. to the south, which will be closer to both streets. Mr. Lai asked why this is necessary and Mr. Pavcek said that one reason is because the addition was placed right in the middle of the lot so we would like to put the new addition on the back and have some separation. There isn’t a lot of space there and it is right on the edge of meeting the 10-ft. requirement. Mr. Pember asked what the 10-ft. rule is and Mr. Pavcek said that in order to do an addition on the back of a historic resource, there needs to be a one story ten feet link at minimum and it’s a guideline. This has been achieved on the west side to the peaked area, but on the south side, they achieved about 8 ft. 6. He said the ability to move more to the south, would also help them out. Mr. Halferty clarified that the measurements are 4 ft. 3 in. Ms. Berko asked Mr. Pavcek to explain how the two-story connector fits into the guidelines. He said it is being made with glass so it is as transparent as possible. Ms. Berko asked if it is living space and he said that one level is and one is not. He said it is also recessed back further behind the cabin and they will bring the ridge forward. Ms. Greenwood brought up the fact that the applicant wants to reuse the existing foundation wall and asked if they would have a light well back there because, in her opinion, that will not work. Mr. Pavcek said that was the original plan, but they are looking at changing this and will most likely not have a light 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2017 well in response to the comment about the adjacent retaining wall. Ms. Greenwood also said that she’s never heard that the trees are historically designated, but she has heard of a legacy tree and asked where that came from. Ms. Simon said that they are most likely legacy trees and have the normal protections of the parks department, but no special designation. Mr. Pavcek said they are mentioned in the historic designation for the cabin as to be part of the preservation. Mr. Pember asked for dimensions and Mr. Pavcek said they have a 31-inch trunk and are very big. Ms. Greenwood said they dominate the property. Mr. Lai asked what the projected remaining life of the trees are and Mr. Cunniffe said they are deemed healthy, but they do not know the projected life. Ms. Berko asked if they would be obscuring the cabin even more by moving it to the east and Mr. Pavcek said he does not think it actually changes anything, but does become more visible. Mr. Pember asked about plans for developing the basement and Mr. Pavcek said they are going to raise it up and dig underneath and move it to a new foundation spot and it will not leave the property, which they think is the safest way to deal with it. Mr. Lai asked if the height of the addition is about the same as the 1988 addition and Ms. Simon said it is about a foot higher. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Mr. Halferty summarized what the board needs to discuss. Mr. Lai said he is a little concerned about the height of the addition and that it is a fallacy to compare it with the historic carriage house next to it. He also worries about bringing the cabin closer to both streets. He feels the changes would be overwhelming and is convinced that it would have that effect and is concerned about it. Mr. Moyer said it is an interesting and complex corner with a very small cabin and a currently overwhelming addition. Because the cabin is so hidden by the landscape, the complexity to bring it to life is very difficult. The addition might be better to be more modern just because the historic resource is so hidden. He also questions the two-story connector because they are supposed to be a unit of their own and needs to be restudied and concurs with staff on that point. He suggested that having a model for this project would be immensely helpful because the resource is so hidden. Mr. Blaich agrees with the model idea from Mr. Moyer. He couldn’t be there earlier today for the walk through, but knows it very well. He mentioned that when he was on P&Z, there was a proposal for a major renovation on this property back then. He said the character of the addition is bothersome and thinks in this case, it might be beneficial to the project to have something stand on its own, from a design point of view. You might be able to lighten the whole feeling of the building without changing the square footage, etc., because there is a lot going on there. To try to retain the charming little building is one of the key elements of all of this. You are making a lot of moves in the right direction in what is being done to the cabin, but the addition is what is in question. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2017 Ms. Berko said she supports the staff memo which outlines the difficulties of the project and feels it’s HPC’s charge to make sure the resource doesn’t get buried by the addition. She said they’ve seen some successful free-standing additions on corner lots that aren’t so overwhelming. She supports staff’s recommendations and regarding the constraints of the lot, suggests a smaller, more elegant addition. Ms. Greenwood said this is the first project she’s seen in three years where what is being put up isn’t as good as what they are taking down. She feels that the current addition, retains the charm of the cabin and what they are proposing, does not do that. She agrees with staff and says it’s unfortunate to preserve the trees, but harm the resource in the process. She says this needs to be addressed somehow and she is tired of playing second fiddle to the parks department. In terms of this being an emergency, it should be determined who is driving the bus on this. It’s a large site and the owner wants to utilize the FAR. She said she wished they could eliminate parking to use the area for the addition and allow it to be a standalone building and perhaps put more lodge units underground. From a massing standpoint, it’s overwhelming the historic resource because of the rooflines that are above the cabin. She says it is eliminating all the charm of the property. There are layers of roof being proposed behind the cabin roof and that is unacceptable. She cannot support it in its present state. She suggests that staff totally rethink the massing and floorplan and what you are putting on it. Perhaps there is a way to be more important in the foreground than the trees. Mr. Pember doesn’t disagree with the bulk of the comments. He doesn’t feel that this application is written through the lense of a corner lot and what it should be. It’s a nonstarter for discussion for him and there is a disconnect for him that he doesn’t get. Mr. Halferty said he is in support of moving it even more to the south and east to create more breathing room for the addition. The mass and scale is a challenge since the large trees are taking up 40 percent of the site and says the linking element isn’t exactly a linking element. To him, this is the most troubling part as Ms. Simon indicated. He said the parking is excellent and he concurs with staff to restudy. Mr. Moyer asked if there is room to get rid of some of the parking and Ms. Simon said that HPC has the authority to get rid of all of it. Ms. Berko asked if there is more parking at the Annabelle and Ms. Simon said no. Ms. Greenwood said that the city is moving in an anti-car direction anyway. MOTION: to continue by Mr. Pember to February 14th, 2018; Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 7 – 0, motion carried. Ms. Simon said they need project monitors for 223 E. Hallam and 122 W. Main. Mr. Lai will take 122 W. Main and Mr. Moyer said he will take the Berko project and Mr. Halferty will take Salon Tulio. Mr. Halferty motioned to adjourn at 6:20 p.m. 7