Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20200909 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPETEMBER 9 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty Roger Moyer, Scott Kendrick, Commissioners not in attendance: Kara Thompson, Bob Blaich, Sheri Sanzone Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kevin Rayes, Planner Community Development Jim True, City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Halferty motioned to approve the minutes from August 26th. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in Favor, Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None CONFLICTS: Ms. Thompson, Mr. Kendrick, and Ms. Sanzone have a conflict with this meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: None CALL UPS: None OLD BUSINESS: 303 S. Galena Street - Minor Development. Mr. Halferty motioned to continue this topic to February 10th, 2020. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in Favor, Motion carried. Mr. Kendrick left the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 611 West Main Street Conceptual Major Development, Commercial Design Review. Sara Adams of BendonAdams will be representing the owner. Ms. Adams stated that this presentation was continued from the May 27th HPC meeting. Ms. Adams said that they are requesting approval for HPC conceptual review, temporary relocation, affordable housing project, growth management, and proposing to restore the historic resource back to residential use. Ms. Adams stated that they are requesting affordable housing credits. Ms. Adams said that after the May 27th meeting her team took the suggestions from the neighbors and commission seriously and produced a full restudy. She said that the massing and roof were too big and that the roof forms needed to relate to the district while highlighting the landmark on the property. Ms. Adams said another concern that was raised was the spacing between the historic landmark and the new addition, and parking concerns from the neighbors. Ms. Adams showed a rendering of the new project that had a reduction of units from 9 to 7 which reduced the FTE’s from 21 to 14.75. Ms. Adams stated that all the units are now above grade and 6 of the units are larger than required. She further explained that one unit is smaller by 30 square feet. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPETEMBER 9 2020 Ms. Adams said that the distance between the building was 0 feet and now 7 feet 3 inches wall to wall. She said that every unit now has one parking spot, and the project is 100% parked on site. She further stated that the code only calls for 60% parking. Ms. Adams showed renderings of the new floor plan starting with the basement that no longer has units and will be converted to a crawl space and mechanical. Ms. Adams showed the first-floor units and explained the layout of each unit and how it would fit into the landmark and new addition. She pointed out a specific storage unit that is larger than the others and has been assigned to the smaller unit. Ms. Adams showcased the shared bike and ski repair area that also offers extra storage for bikes and skies. Ms. Adams stated that the trash area is fully confined and meets the setback requirements. Ms. Adams pointed out that the open lawn in front of the landmark facing Main Street will be protected. Ms. Adams moved on to the second floor and how they stack the units on top of one another and explained the layout of each unit and how it would fit into the landmark and new addition. Ms. Adams showed a rendering from Main Street and pointed out that the addition cannot be seen from this view and that it fits with the sightline of the landmark. She further explains on a side view the gable roof of the addition is visible along with an ADA ramp. She showed a rendering that focused on the new 7-foot 3-inch space between the landmark and addition that allows foot traffic to pass through. Ms. Adams stated that the gable roof forms on the new addition were appropriate for the district while highlighting the landmark. She further explained that the wood and materials chosen for the new addition was to compliment the landmark. Ms. Adams showed the alley rendering of the new addition and pointed out the trash area being setback 5 feet. Ms. Adams pointed out in a side view rendering that they are requesting two non-historic variations, a rear yard setback of zero feet and the distance between the landmark and addition of 7 feet and 3 inches. Ms. Adams stated that they also have requested a historic variation for the front porch on the landmark to sit in the setback. She explained that they will not move the porch that this is a technicality they must meet. Ms. Adams stated the composition of the units will be five 2 bedrooms and two 1 bedrooms and all the units will be category 4. Ms. Adams stated that they appreciated the neighbor’s participation in the last meeting and for their comments that were echoed by city staff and HPC. She said the majority of the comments were about mass and size, parking, traffic, additional density, and rear setback. Ms. Adams stated that she sent an updated packet for this project to the surrounding neighbors, and only one resident reached back out. In closing Ms. Adams thanked HPC and they look forward to moving this project forward. Mr. Moyer asked if the wood on the new addition was cedar. Ms. Adams stated that they have not landed on a wood species yet, however, at the final review there will be details. Ms. Greenwood asked if the previous setback for the alley was zero. Ms. Adams stated that it was two feet. STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Rayes stated that he will be reviewing the growth management plan, special review, and transportation & parking management. Mr. Rayes said his colleague Ms. Yoon will be reviewing the commercial design review, dimensional variations, and relocations. Mr. Rayes reviewed the history of this lot and the proposed project. Mr. Rayes outlined what each floor would look like with the units and explained how the units would fit into the landmark and new addition. Mr. Rayes stated that within the historic resource there are three units. He explained that two of the units are above the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority’s (APCHA) minimum net livable area and one of the units is slightly bellow. He stated REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPETEMBER 9 2020 that the smaller unit must have a special review and approval to be slightly under the minimum. Mr. Rayes stated that the criteria for having a unit under the minimum threshold can be found in the HPC packet. Mr. Rayes stated that each unit will have 18 square feet of external storage and the slightly smaller unit will have 38 square feet of external storage. He said that this property will offer plenty of outside space for communal use while offering private patios and porches. Another amenity that will be offered Mr. Rayes said will be a washer and dryer with full closets. Mr. Rayes stated that staff finds this project meets all the criteria for special review and recommends the full approval of the 14.75 FTE’s. Mr. Rayes reminded HPC that within the mixed-use zone, 60% of parking must be onsite. He explained that the applicant will be offering seven parking spots for seven units going above and beyond with 100% onsite parking. Mr. Rayes stated that staff finds that this project meets the transportation and parking needs. Ms. Yoon showed a Sanborn map of the historic lot that the applicant was required to maintain. Ms. You stated that the new addition has no connector element to the historic resource, unlike the previous plan that had an element that hungover the resource. Ms. Yoon showed the design guidelines that the staff used concerning the variation findings. She said that staff supports the setback variations to maintain the 7ft 3inch separation. Ms. Yoon discussed guideline 10.6, that the detached addition is a product of its own time. Ms. Yoon explained in the redesign the applicant has come back with a gable roof that relates to the historic district and that it does not mimic the historic resource’s gambrel roof form. Ms. Yoon stated that staff is in support of the use of wood as a material on the new addition rather than metal. She explained that wood relates to the resource more so than metal. Ms. Yoon stated that the redesign hones in on the compatibility. Mr. Rayes stated that staff recommends that HPC approve conceptual major development, commercial design review, setback variations, relocation growth management, special review, Transportation and parking management, and certificates of affordable housing credits. Mr. Rayes pointed out on the HPC resolution section 2: Growth Management, Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits, and Special Review number 2 to strike that language and proposed the revision stating the applicant shall designate the category of each unit, and shall provide APCHA with the required documentation prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Greenwood asked if the revised resolution was ready for HPC. Mr. Reyes stated that it is not in the packet however can be provided to HPC first thing. Ms. Greenwood stated that this is a great project, and it is relatable. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ms. Greenwood asked Mr. Reyes and Ms. Yoon if there were any letters sent in. Mr. Reyes stated that he did not receive any public comments. Ms. Greenwood stated that is a great sign and kudos should be given to the applicant and team for working with the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood stated that the project is very clear and what it is about. She further stated that this is an excellent project. Ms. Greenwood said that this is a great example of when the commission wants the applicant to go back for a restudy and the product comes back better than ever. Ms. Greenwood stated that this project is great for the neighborhood and thanked the applicant. She said the opportunity for an individual to live in a historic building is a special experience. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPETEMBER 9 2020 Mr. Moyer stated he agrees with staff. Mr. Moyer warned that depending on what the exterior platting is used can be very expensive due to maintenance. He further stated that APCHA should make the homeowners have a maintenance budget. Mr. Moyer said that he has been contacted by many HOAs about this and that there can be hidden costs. due to technical difficulties and poor connection, Mr. Halferty’s statement was inaudible. Mr. Moyer moved to approve Resolution #17-2020. Ms. Greenwood seconded. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 3-0. OLD BUSINESS: 616 W. Main S Change in Use & Special Review. Chris Bendon of BendonAdams representing owner, Jordan Nemirow owner of the property. Mr. Bendon stated that the property has a historic resource located on it and at one time was a residential home then converted to a commercial frame shop in 2004, then changed back to a home without proper steps. Mr. Bendon stated that this application is to convert the historic resource back to a residential dwelling. Mr. Bendon showed that the resource is one of two structures on this property. He showed visuals of the property showing the newer unit that sits in the rear of the property. He reminded HPC that the application only pertains to the historic resource. Mr. Bendon stated that the change of use will fit in perfectly within the mixed zone district. Mr. Bendon said that there was a parking waiver provided to this property when the historic unit was used for commercial use. Mr. Bendon stated that they are presented with the requirement to provide housing mitigation which is specified in the code. He said that the current use is commercial and through the City’s calculations would generate 3.28 FTE and should be exempt from and mitigation. He said that they are reducing their impacts on the neighborhood. Mr. Bendon stated that the second request was regarding parking. He explained that part of the change in use, the code requires two parking spots for the historic unit. Mr. Bendon pointed out that there is a parking pad in the back of the lot that holds an encroachment permit. Mr. Bendon stated that HPC can provide parking waivers if parking results in difficulty and undesirable result or if offsite facilities adequately serve the needs of the development and finally if a waiver would enhance or mitigate an adverse impact to the historic resource or property. He said there will be negative impacts on the property that would come about proving parking on site. Mr. Bendon showed HPC the standards that are in the guidelines that preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches and how that relates to this project. Mr. Bendon told HPC that one of the standards that will be under review is if the transportation needs are being met. He reiterated that moving from a commercial space to a residential home relieves the pressure of transpiration on the neighborhood. Mr. Bendon stated that in the back of the historic recourse one could pack two cars in tandem. He explained the non-historic fence would need to be moved and this scenario is undesirable. Mr. Bendon pointed out that one of The Secretary of the Interior standards talks about avoid adding parking to an open area that detracts from a historic resource. Mr. Bendon stated that they can make the parking work if mandated and that the applicant does not want to pay the $76,000 for offsite parking. He further explained that the neighborhood offers street parking and that the historic resource has been functioning as a residential dwelling for the past 10 years and that the neighborhood is comfortable with street parking. Mr. Bendon stated that HPC has granted a parking waiver for this property in the past, and they are asking for a regrant. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPETEMBER 9 2020 Mr. Nemirow stated that he is the property owner and that this matter is extremely important to him and his family. Mr. Nemirow said that he and his wife live and work in Aspen year-round while raising their two children. He said they consider themselves apart of the ever-dwindling community of the West End. Mr. Nemirow stated that he and his family take great pride in being a part of the victorian homeowner community in this community. Mr. Nemirow stated that he would like to tie up loose ends from the previous owner. Mr. Nemirow said that he is not a developer nor will any development happen with the change in use and parking request. Mr. Nemirow explained the history of the property and stated that no alterations would happen to either unit in the future and is seeking HPC approval to convert the historic resource back to a residential dwelling. Mr. Nemirow stated that his second request is the approval of a parking waiver. He said that the property could support parking if HPC feels the need. Mr. Nemirow stated that he is not in a position to write a check for offsite parking. Mr. Nemirow said that requiring 4 parking spots on this property is unnecessary. Mr. Nemirow stated that he has been shifting away from his dependence on his car and that this property lends itself to that. He explained that the property is walkable to town and sits on all transpiration lines. He said with more parking, cars will follow, and with limited parking, one will use alternative means to get to town. Mr. Nemirow stated that he purchased the historic resource in 2014 with no parking available on site. He further explained that he has not needed it. Mr. Nemirow stated that in 2004 a special review was conducted and a parking wavier was granted with support from City staff. He said the parking allotted to the non-historic unit fulfills the needs and no additional parking is needed. Mr. Nemirow outlined that HPC may waive cash in lieu or offsite parking requirements. Mr. Nemirow stated that if parking onsite is forced, that this will take the one outside space that both units enjoy and share. Mr. Nemirow reiterated his points of unnecessary parking on site. Mr. Nemirow stated that adding parking to the property would displace snow removal and garbage. Mr. Nemirow said that staffs concerns of increased density will call for more parking. He explained that there is no increase in density since he and his family have lived there for years. Mr. Nemirow reiterated and reviewed the design guideline 1.26. Mr. Nemirow reminded HPC that they hold the power to waive parking guidelines for this property. Mr. Moyer asked if parking was added and the fence had to be moved, where would the trash go. Mr. Bendon stated that the trash would be moved closer to the historic unit and off the alley. STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Rayes stated that the applicant is here to request a change in use and special review for parking. Mr. Rayes said that the two units that sit on the property, unit B is located in the back and currently approved to be a signal family dwelling and unit A the historic resource is located at the front of the property is currently approved as commercial use. He pointed out that neither unit has parking assonated with it on the property. Mr. Rayes went through the history of the historic property. Mr. Rayes stated that to bring the historic resource to a legal standing signal family home there are a few approvals that will need to happen. He explained the first would be dimensional variance which was granted by the Board of Adjustments resolution #03-2020. He further explained the next approval would be the granting of a change of use followed by the mitigation of parking. Mr. Rayes stated through staff's review it became clear that the second unit would need to be brought up to code as well in reference to parking. Mr. Rayes outlined the approvals needed for unit B to be brought up to code. He stated that a change in usage which was done through APCHA and second a special review for parking. Mr. Rayes stated that this process started with the historic unit for a change of use but parking on REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPETEMBER 9 2020 a signal parcel as intricately linked as this one, staff is having a thought time separating the issues. He further stated that if HPC does not address parking for both congruently that this could lead to complications down the road. Mr. Rayes sited the parking code stating that a unit needs a parking spot per bedroom or two parking spots per dwelling. He said that there are two dwellings on the parcel. Mr. Rayes stated that the historic unit will need and can fit two park spaces with adjustments to the fence. He said that unit B does not have room for two parking spots on-site, and cash in lieu would be sufficient to bring unit B to code. Mr. Rayes reviewed his main points that four parking spots are needed, two located behind the historic resource, and cash in lieu for unit B‘s parking. Mr. Rayes stated that the transportation and mobility of the residence of the project have not been met. Mr. Rayes stated that the property has double the density than any other property in the neighborhood and that it is reasonable to say that there will be more traffic. He moved on to the next criterion stating that an on-site mitigation solution meeting the requirements and guidelines is practically difficult or results in an undesirable devilment scenario. Mr. Rayes said that staff realizes that unit B physically can not provide parking in this case, cash in lieu is acceptable. Mr. Rayes said that the surrounding neighborhood can offer parking for unit B however unit A can house two parking spots. Mr. Rayes stated that the parking for unit A complies with the land-use code. Mr. Rayes summarized staff position of four parking units provide, two for unit A and cash in lieu of unit B’s parking. He said that staff is recommending providing .14 FTEs for the mitigation for change of use. Mr. Rayes stated staff approves the change of use. Mr. Rayes stated that staff recommends HPC adopt the attached resolution to approve a change in use to convert unit A from a commercial to residential use and recommends that the HPC deny the special review request for a parking exemption and require two on-site parking spaces to mitigate the parking associated with unit A. cash in lieu for two parking units should be provided to meet the mitigation required for unit B. Ms. Greenwood asked what is the physical description of a parking space. She further asked what size should it be, if pavers were ok. Ms. Greenwood stated as an architect the terms being used are pretty loose goosy. Mr. Rayes stated that he is uncertain about the surface materials. He said he does know that there are requirements on dimensions that are 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet long. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood stated that HPC is a volunteer board and that allows the board to bring commonsense to a situation where the land-use regulations are inconsistent. Ms. Greenwood pointed out that HPC just approved a one parking spot per two- bedroom unit across the street. She said that she has a problem with a little project like this being forced to have four parking spots. Ms. Greenwood stated that there is an easy solution and that is listening to the homeowner they know the property and home patterns on the property. Ms. Greenwood stated that she does not agree with staff’s analysis that the City does not offer enough transportation options. Ms. Greenwood said that this is not a quick fix. She further explained that once you introduce parking into a neighborhood one will deal with concrete, drainage, engineering, dry wells, and so much more. Ms. Greenwood stated the applicant can move the fence over and claim the new space as parking. Ms. Greenwood reiterated that she finds it wrong for the City to require four parking spaces when they are completely ok with the employee units across the street only requiring one per unit. She stated that it is not fair that past REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPETEMBER 9 2020 transgressions form APCHA and the City approval process and then years later ask for $7,600 for their mistake. Ms. Greenwood stated that she is not in favor of this resolution as it stands. Mr. Halferty stated that Ms. Greenwood’s comments hit the nail on the head. Mr. Halferty said that he is not in support of the staff’s resolution. He further said that the applicant made a strong and convincing case on transportation solutions. Mr. Halferty stated the land-use code is dated and should be revised. Mr. Halferty stated the change in the use of the historic resource is nice and should be approved. Ms. Greenwood stated that the neighbors must be supportive of the change in use since there is no public input. Mr. Moyer stated that he was on HPC when unit B was approved as an ADU. He said that he does not agree with staff. Mr. Moyer said that he approves the change in use and HPC should grant the variance in parking. Mr. Moyer stated that it is unconscionable to force someone to pay $76,000 for two parking spaces. Ms. Greenwood said $7,600. Mr. Bendon stated it was $76,000 Ms. Greenwood stated that staff must revisit this fee. Ms. Greenwood stated that the board was in agreement of not in favor of 1 and 2 under section 1 in the resolution. Mr. Moyer stated yes. Mr. Halferty stated yes. Mr. Halferty moved to approve Resolution #18-2020. Mr. Moyer seconded. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 3-0. NEW BUSINESS: 202 E. Main Street - Extension of Conceptual Approval. Ms. Yoon stated that this is a pretty straight forward issue. Ms. Yoon gave a brief history of this project. She said that this landmark came before HPC twice for a conceptual hearing and received approval. Ms. Yoon stated that the project was passed by Resolution #018-2019 and was not called up by the council. Ms. Yoon reminded HPC that a development has one year from the date of conceptual review to submit a final review application. Ms. Yoon stated that within the code there is a one time use of a six-month extension upon HPC’s approval. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood stated she has no problem extending. Mr. Moyer stated he is ok with the extension. Mr. Halferty stated he approves of this. Mr. Moyer moved to approve Resolution #19-2020. Mr. Halferty seconded. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 3-0. ADJOURN: All in favor, Motion carried 3-0. __________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy Clerk