Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20180314 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 Chairperson Greenwood called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Scott Kendrick, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 14th was not included so no minutes were approved. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon if anything is being done regarding trees and how they adversely affect projects. Ms. Simon said she did reach out to the Parks Dept. and they would like to set up a future meeting regarding the concerns that have been expressed in HPC. Mr. Moyer said that everyone needs to have a serious discussion about the urban forest in Aspen, both positive and negative. Mr. Moyer also said that years back when they would get models from applicants, it was immensely helpful and that he would have liked to have seen one on this project and said they should encourage applicants to bring in models moving forward. Mr. Blaich and Ms. Berko seconded his statement. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she sent the board an email the day before regarding projects that need an assignment. Most are projects that have been approved and some are off in the distance. She noted several addresses that need assignment soon. She said that since her email, Ms. Berko offered to work on 333 W. Bleeker and Ms. Greenwood offered to work on 834 W. Hallam and 208 E Main St. is assigned to Mr. Halferty. She still needs someone for 122 W. Main, which is Timberline Bank. Mr. Moyer volunteered. Ms. Greenwood clarified that she and Mr. Kendrick have one together, but nothing was listed by his name on the sheet. Ms. Simon said she may have forgotten to update it since the last meeting. Ms. Greenwood reminded the board to volunteer and get some of these items off of Ms. Simon’s plate. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said they had issued an RFP for some improvements to the historic preservation permitting process so that project is underway and Gilbert Sanchez was selected as the lead. She said they will be holding some stakeholder meetings on this coming up and she is hoping by August to receive a plan. She said they also issued a request for research on Lift 1 as Council is exploring the base of that side of the mountain because she is concerned about the historic resource that is there. They are also going to be having deeper discussions on the HPC benefits that were a part of the work session that Council held previously. She said they will also be forming some stakeholder groups to discuss what adjustments are appropriate. Ms. Simon will not be here at the next meeting so Ms. Yoon will run the show next time with two applicants that night. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan confirmed she had received these previously for the continued project so she is ok with everything. CALL UPS: None. Ms. Simon said she should have mentioned earlier that they have added a project monitoring item to the agenda for tonight regarding Little Annie’s. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said that what used to be Little Annie’s is currently under renovation to be converted to a new restaurant. She mentioned that Dave Rybak is the architect and Mr. Moyer is the monitor. As they looked at the façade of the building, some issues came up, such as the front door to the space. She said you would take two steps up into the restaurant and this must be eliminated for accessibility so the threshold will be dropped and there will be a slight ramp into the space. That required the replacement of the previous door and the HPC approval was for a painted door similar to what is existing, but the applicant wants to do a stained mahogany door instead. She said they are trying to maintain the rustic character so she thinks this finish is important and should be discussed with Mr. Rybak. PRESENTATION: 517 E. Hyman – Dave Rybak of Rybak Architecture and Development Mr. Rybak said he is here representing the new owner who is now going to operate the restaurant. While renovating the interiors, they discovered the original bar is a mahogany wood so they would like to bring that to the front door, which would tie the exterior and interior together. The natural red tones will work well with the mahogany siding. Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Simon why they are being required to keep colors the same when that is not something which HPC decides. Ms. Simon said that is not the case, but that HPC does review finish. She said something being stained vs painted would be an issue for them to decide because it could affect the character of the building. Ms. Greenwood asked if the door is the same size in height and Mr. Rybak said it is the same width and design, but is about a foot taller and the head height remains the same, but they are extending the bottom panel. They will refabricate out of the mahogany wood so the current door will not remain there. Mr. Rybak said the façade was changed sometime in the 1970’s from a Swiss Chalet front to the historic rustic façade we see today. Sometime in the late 80’s a front porch was added in a very haphazard manner. It has evolved over the time period that Annie’s was operational, but have no original photos of the front façade. Ms. Berko asked one more time, if it’s not mahogany, it would be painted and Mr. Rybak said yes. Ms. Greenwood asked what the reasons was for bringing this before HPC and Mr. Moyer said it wasn’t his choice to bring it to the board and if she wants his opinion, he would approve as requested. Ms. Simon said it was her decision to bring it to the board. Ms. Greenwood said she would approve it as well. Mr. Pember asked how they can approve without knowing the rest of the finishes. Mr. Rybak explained what the plan is for the proposed finishes and said the flower boxes will remain and some were removed by the public. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve as requested, Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Berko, no; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Pember, no; Mr. Kendrick, no; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 4-3, motion carried. Ms. Simon mentioned that Mr. Halferty was on his way. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 Mr. Halferty entered the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 533 W. Hallam St. Sarah Yoon Ms. Yoon said the app was continued by HPC at the last meeting on November 8th of last year and is subject to the old preservation guidelines and standards. This is a 6000-sq. ft. lot in the R6 zone district, which contains a Victorian home and a historic outhouse. Over the years, various additions and alterations have been made. The applicant is proposing to restore and relocate the historic resource forward and place it on a new basement foundation and construct a new addition. They are requesting setback variations pertaining to the basement and outhouse and they are also requesting the full 500 sq. ft. floor area bonus. The applicant has since revised the relocation distance to 8 ft. 6 inches towards Hallam St and they will not require a front yard variation. The new addition will now be closer to the rear lot line so they are seeking a rear yard setback variation to sit on the lot line. They have redesigned the connecting element creating a larger distance and Ms. Yoon showed the August proposal on the screen. The historic outhouse has now been moved to the southwest corner of the property, the fireplace was removed and replaced with windows and there has been no reduction to square footage with these changes. The numbers of materials have been reduced to the west elevation and changes have been made to heights on the addition. Staff appreciates the changes made with the height reduction with the gables. Regarding the rear yard setback, staff suggests bringing in the outhouse slightly so it doesn’t project into the property line. Looking at the overall mass and scale, it remains largely the same and the flat roof still reads as prominent form. Massing and scale was a huge issue echoed by multiple board members last time so they recommend further restudy by staff and they do not recommend the awarding the full 500 sq. ft. bonus. Staff recommends to consideration of partial floor area bonus and no more than 250 sq. ft. and staff supports the revised connector. Staff recommends continuation due to the scale and massing. Mr. Pember clarified that these staff comments are from version 3.1 that was submitted the previous day. Mr. Halferty asked how they got from 500 to 250 sq. ft. Ms. Simon said there was no specific set of criteria they used to determine the number, they just try to reflect on clear restoration elements related to square footage that the applicant is undertaking. Mr. Moyer asked about the page with staff recommendations and asked for the changes to this for version 3.1. Ms. Yoon said that since the changes, points 3 and 4 remain the same and points 1 and 2 have been done away with. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams of Bendon Adams, Bill Poss and William Lewis of Poss Architecture Ms. Adams said the Duncan’s wanted to attend, but were unable. She asked for more discussion after the presentation to clear up any questions with the board. Ms. Adams explained their relocation plan for version 3.0 and 3.1. and said their approach is now to really push the addition towards the alley. She summarized the relocation guidelines for the board. They moved the shed and said it’s now in a better location. She said the garage is almost on the alley and is a trade off in response to HPC in exchange for getting rid of the front yard variance because now they need rear yard variance. They do not feel they are asking for more than what they need on this project or more than other HPC projects are allowed. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 She said they are respecting the side yards and the front yard and that the owners feel they are now utilizing the alley space. Mr. Poss said they discussed having a dialogue with the board to the owners since it helps make a better project. He spoke about some slides on the screen and said their structure will align with the neighbor’s structure. There are now 14 feet between the two structures on one side and 13 on the other. He continued to discuss the elevations showing on screen. Ms. Adams said the neighbor is aware of the changes that have been made to the plan and she has expressed her support for the project. Ms. Adams showed another comparison on screen which represents the longer connector. She said there is no requirement on the width of the connector and it reduces the height of the rest of the addition and allows for more one-story space. By allowing a wider connection, it’s an interesting solution for the property on the corner. The landmark is incorporated into the living space and is allowing the connector to function more as living space. The whole rear of the landmark is gone so she said they aren’t destroying any historic fabric whatsoever. Mr. Poss said they tried to use the historic resource as part of the mass and scaling. Ms. Adams went through the list of guidelines for the addition. She pointed out that the second story massing is pushed back by five feet. Mr. Poss showed the existing footprint on screen and discussed. He said they are adding 1, 073 feet on the main level. Half of the square footage they are building is below grade and said most of the family living is on the lower level. They are trying to be respectful of the massing that could potentially take place on this site. There are 928 square feet on the second level existing and the proposed is 1,040 for the master suite and office. Ms. Adams said the new addition is well under the height requirement. She said they are allowed 25 feet, but the addition is only at 21 feet. She said the flat roofs keep the height down since they showed a gabled roof previously. Mr. Poss said they have employed a simple non-descript architecture, which can be seen from west Hallam, but you can’t see the addition from the street. Ms. Adams added that it’s 52 feet back from the property on Hallam. Ms. Adams said they are asking for the whole 500-sq. ft. bonus and that they will be restoring all four façades, restoring the front porch, removing extensive vegetation, positioning drainage measures, removing non-historic additions at the rear of the property and preserving the old shed. Because of the aforementioned, they feel comfortable asking for the bonus. The main entry will be put back to the left side of the porch. They feel they meet all criteria and said they see the bonus as a way to restore the landmark. A way to give back to the community and find a way to suit their family. Ms. Adams ran down the list of why she feels they meet guidelines for the FAR bonus. It’s good to step back and look at all of the available bonuses. We aren’t asking for much and are proud of this project. We think it’s responsive to HPC and staff’s directive. Mr. Lewis showed a 3-D slide of the project to the board. Mr. Halferty mentioned that during the previous meeting, the link and connection were spoken about and asked if they could discuss the height difference between the new and old proposal. Ms. Adams said the height has dropped about 9 inches and it’s been elongated as well and set back about 4 feet 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 from the historic corner. Mr. Halferty also mentioned the trees on the west side and asked how that has progressed. Ms. Adams said the trees are staying so we have to respect Parks’ decision and the drip lines. Mr. Halferty mentioned the FAR bonus and asked where the square footage would be going and Mr. Poss said it’s in the basement. Mr. Pember asked if the neighbors letter would be entered into the record and Ms. Adams said there was one back in November, but there was not a new one circulated this week. Regarding the old evergreens, he asked if they plan to limb up the massive firs on Hallam St. as far as landscape solution and Ms. Adams answered yes, they are working with the Parks department and figuring out what will work. Public comments: None. Ms. Greenwood summed up what they need to discuss and focus on and she added a 5th item for each board member to discuss that isn’t something covered in the memo to stay on task. She said she is happy to have a dialogue on any corrections or mistakes that were made in discussion, but she is certainly not opening up another presentation. She suggested that all board members start with commentary on relocation. Relocation: Mr. Moyer said he is in agreement with the relocation as it stands. Mr. Blaich agreed as did Mr. Kendrick. Mr. Halferty and Ms. Berko also echoed the sentiment. Mr. Pember agrees provided that it’s tied to limbing up the evergreens. Mr. Lai agreed. Connecting element: Mr. Moyer said he is ok with it and that it’s an improvement. Mr. Blaich agreed as well as Mr. Kendrick who likes it and said it’s appropriate. Mr. Halferty said it’s an improvement and Ms. Berko said she appreciates it. By increasing it they are going into a setback question, which she has problem with. She likes it, but it ties into mass and scale and setbacks. In isolation, she approves, but big picture, she’s questionable. Mr. Pember said it’s a staggered connector and feels it’s successful from a planning point of view, but still seems kind of wide and clunky. Mr. Lai thinks the connector is an improvement. Ms. Greenwood thinks the connector is pushing them into setback issues and these setbacks are typically for historic property and not on new property. Creating more mass with the connector creates a philosophical difference on giving setbacks on new projects. Mass and scale: this is recommended by staff to restudy. Mr. Moyer said the advantage to what has been presented is that this is on a corner and they’ve done a pretty darn good job of allowing the addition to not over negatively affect the historic resource. He said perhaps the office height could be 7 feet instead of 9. Mr. Blaich said that all of the work is an improvement over the existing situation. After looking at the plans, everything gets bigger in Aspen, nothing gets smaller. It’s an improvement since last time. He generally thinks it’s a good project, but has a different opinion on the square footage allowance. He said he goes by that house a lot and every time, he looks at it and imagines and thinks they have done a good job of what it will look like. Mr. Lai thinks the project itself is good, but he likes the rhythm of the gabled roofs better. If he would choose one element that weakens the design, it’s the office in the back. The office is dark with a flat roof as if they are trying to hide it and he would like to have the owner consider getting rid of it or relocating the office to eliminate that part of the massing. They could also get rid of the FAR bonus if they do away with this. Ms. Berko said she appreciates the simplification, but she is very wary about mass and scale. She said there are a couple of recent projects in town that she has wondered how they happened due to the mass and scale. She said an applicant 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 can make a screen do anything they want, but seeing it in person is always a huge difference. She feels that this is still being driven by setbacks and bonuses and for her, doesn’t meet section 10.6 of the guidelines. She doesn’t find it compatible in size and scale and it’s a struggle for her. Mr. Halferty said he appreciates the applicant’s revisions. His biggest issue was with sections 10.7 and 10.9 regarding roof forms and has heard the concerns. He appreciates the link and agrees with Mr. Lai regarding the rhythm. He thinks they are set back far enough to adhere to the project. He thinks the variance helps and provides a strong separation and allows some breathing room. In this application, the mass and scale should be on the alley because it’s far enough from the historic resource so he feels they have listened to HPC’s comments. He thinks the roof porch will help as well so he supports mass and scale as proposed. Mr. Kendrick said in general, this project is a step in the right direction and he likes the connector. He said this is a project of give and take, but feels the mass is still heavy in his opinion and doesn’t like the link out to the lot line and doesn’t know that they need both variance and setback of the rear alley. Mr. Pember said regarding the mass and scale, the applicant has done a fabulous job of reducing and articulating the edges. He thinks that compared to the neighborhood, it is quite small. He doesn’t feel that mass and scale is the real subject and would like to focus on the second floor and the flat roof element and the proportional patterns. He also thinks Mr. Poss’ work is well done. He said the dark parts are recessive and he gets it, but feels it’s a question that should be focused on regarding the office and the stair in the back. Ms. Greenwood said she feels the building is on the correct path from the last time, but is more simplified in terms of the façade design. The mass and scale and proportions are odd to her and she’s not looking around the neighborhood, just how it relates to the historic resource and it’s the only thing that matters to her. As the building gets added onto, the form of the building grows and introduces large expanses of flat roofs and she doesn’t feel that it meets the guidelines. It’s not modern, but trying to replicate roof forms. There isn’t a rhythm established. The concept is good, but not quite there yet. The square footage on the site is difficult to work with, but she’s in favor of restudying that and reducing the FAR because for her, they fall short on 10.6 and it doesn’t reflect the small forms of the original building. This could be accomplished by reducing the floor area of the building so she agrees with staff on that. Mr. Lai clarified that he wasn’t talking about a rhythm of everything being the same, but likened it to a Bach piece. He said regarding the flat roofs, the connecting part where you have a flat roof, he doesn’t like on the second floor (office) it doesn’t become a non-statement, it becomes a statement so it has had the opposite effect. A rendering isn’t the reality and said he has a real problem with the two-story connection there. He feels they should consider eliminating it. Mr. Pember agreed word for word with what Mr. Lai said, but he thinks the rest is harmonious and very much likes it. Mr. Moyer said he agrees with Mr. Halferty and also said he would have painted that flat roof white and just make it go away. Mr. Blaich pointed out that it’s not just an office but also an elevator, which is good for access. FAR: Mr. Moyer said he concurs with staff, Ms. Berko said she does too and Mr. Kendrick agreed. Mr. Pember said their request for 500 is fine. Mr. Halferty agreed and said he would vote for the FAR as presented. Mr. Lai said he agrees with staff and doesn’t think it’s the epitome of historic preservation. He is for giving a reward, but doesn’t merit the maximum. Mr. Blaich is leaning towards the allowance of 500, but needs more feedback from presenters. Ms. Greenwood would grant the 500 if they solve the issue of that upper roof, but as of right now, she would vote for 250. Mr. Poss said they studied that flat roof section at great length and they would have used a gabled roof, but it’s much higher an impactful. He said they studied it at 10 feet apart, but they can re-look at this. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 He said they can eliminate and give back 5 feet in the back and push the whole structure forward where it was at. Ms. Adams asked about the proportion of the connector as to whether the board thinks it’s too long or an issue with the width. Ms. Greenwood said it doesn’t need to be 12 feet since it’s standard at 10. Mr. Pember said it needs to be proportional to the resource. Mr. Halferty suggested that the link become shorter and move the resource a little bit more forward and that also helps the back-alley issue. MOTION: Mr. Pember motioned to continue to April 11th, Mr. Moyer seconded Ms. Greenwood said in summary that everyone is in agreement with points 1 and 2 in the memo. The majority of the board agreed that point 3, regarding mass and scale, needs to be restudied. The 4th point, the majority of the board is in favor of only granting 250 square feet of FAR bonus. This is just a summary of the positions of the board. Ms. Simon wanted to clarify that the board feels the applicant should take two feet back out of the link in order to get off of the alley by a small amount, to work on the flat roof part in particular and the floor area bonus is in question, leaving the board sitting at 250 square feet. Mr. Pember said it’s not the boards responsibility to make that decision regarding taking the link back down to 10 feet. Roll call vote: Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 8-0 motion carried. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick moved to adjourn, Mr. Blaich seconded at 6:52 p.m. __________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk