Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20210113 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 13 2021 Vice Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Roger Moyer, Jeff Halferty, Sherri Sanzone. Commissioners not in attendance: - Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jim True, City Attorney Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Thompson stated that there needed to be an edit to page 8 to read “does not set a good precedent”. Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carries. PUBLIC COMMENT: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer asked about the upcoming Saving Places conference. Ms. Simon stated that it will be virtual and if any commissioners are interested she will forward the information along. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone has a conflict with 1020 W. Cooper. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said that communication is ongoing with project monitors. Ms. Yoon said that she will be reaching out to her monitors about new details. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None CALL UPS: Ms. Simon stated that the City Council approved the voluntary AspenModern designation of 211 West Hopkins. Ms. Thompson asked if Ms. Greenwood's project monitoring would be reassigned. Ms. Simon stated that the reassignment is being worked out. Notices: Mr. True said that he and Ms. Johnson reviewed them and they are appropriate. Ms. Sanzone left the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Transportation and Parking Management. Owner James DeFrancia, Sara Adams of BendonAdams. Ms. Simon stated that this property has been in front of HPC in the past however there is a new property owner and a new proposed project that is a 100% affordable housing project. She said that there will be 5 units in addition to the historic resource. Mr. DeFrancia said that he has been active in the development community and has served on a few of the citizen boards and has always had a concern about affordable housing in the Aspen area. He said that it has been proven that one can build an all affordable housing project for profit like Mr. Fornell has done in the past. Ms. Adams stated that the applicant will be seeking HPC conceptual review, relocation of the historic resource, demolition of rear sheds, growth management, transportation and parking, and establishment of affordable housing credits. She said that no variations are being requested and REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 13 2021 that this project meets 100% of the code. Ms. Adams gave a brief history of the property stating that there is limited information about the property because it was outside the boundaries of the Sanborn fire insurance map. Ms. Adams pointed out that the two sheds that sit on the rear of the property are not shown on any historic map and are slated for demolition. She said that this is a unique opportunity that they can inspect the interior of the historic structure. She explained that they discovered the structure is two buildings stitched together. Ms. Adams stated that the plan will be to keep the historic structure as is and preserve what is truly historic. She said that there is evidence that there was once an open porch and they plan to reopen. Ms. Adams showed maps of the property that highlight the district and other affordable housing projects. She highlighted the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) district and pointed out that this project is well within this district. Ms. Adams showed photos of the high-density neighborhood that has a mix of single- family homes and multifamily homes and then showed a rendering of the proposed project. She pointed out that they are proposing lifting the resource and relocating towards Cooper St. to the 5’ setback. She explained that this will give the historic resource and new addition a nice buffer and they are not attached. Ms. Adams reiterated that they will not be seeking any variations and that this project is 100% code compliant, she said that this project is well under the floor area and just under the height limit. Ms. Adams stated that there will be 4 on-site parking spaces provided and cash in lieu for the 5th spot. She showed a rendering of the proposed footprint that outlines the parking, garbage, and preserved tree. Ms. Adams said that the two storage units that are shown on the west side of the resource have been taken out of the plan to address staff concerns. She said that there is a plan to address transportation needs with the Transportation Department. She explained that the tenants will receive a year membership to the Car-To-Go and We-Cycle program. She further explained that every tenant when moving in will receive a packet of alternative available transpiration options. Ms. Adams stated that there will be five units total, two in the historic resource with subgrade bedrooms and 3 in the new addition. Ms. Adams discussed the breakdown of the affordable housing units and the square footage and stated that they all meet the requirements. She stated that this project would generate 12.75 Affordable Housing Credits. Ms. Adams said that the new addition will relate to the resource in L shape form and gable roof. She said that the material that is being proposed is an unpainted wood finish to relate to the historic cabin a bit more. Ms. Adams stated that the fenestration is a bit more contemporary but keeping with the landmark. Ms. Adams showed a rendering of the proposed plan of breaking up the form and mass to give it more depth and architectural interest. Ms. Adamas stated that they are very proud of the communication efforts with the neighbors and this project. She explained that there is a project website with up to date information, a FAQ resource, decanted email campaign, and online neighborhood meetings where comments and concerns can be shared. Mr. Moyer asked if this was a three-unit project would it be economically feasible or even four units. Jean Coulter stated that five units is the breakeven mark because of the cost of the new addition. Mr. Kendrick asked if this project needs historic designation or would it work better without it. Ms. Simon stated that it does need the designation. That was a decision made in the 70s that it was appropriate to protect this as one of the community’s Victorian-era resources. The designated property is allowed to be developed with any use that can be permitted in this district if the designation were removed it might be limited to only development as a single-family home because the property is smaller than the minimum. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 13 2021 Mr. Kendrick asked if the adverse possession been addressed and if the distance between the neighboring buildings meets the fire code. Ms. Adams said that the adverse possession has been addressed and a letter has been sent to the City of Aspen Attorney‘s office for review. She addressed the fire code question and explained that the Building Dept. has reviewed the project plans and has signed off that they have met code and the buildings will have a sprinkler system. Mr. Kendrick stated that the neighbors to the west were very vocal about the last project. He asked if there was communication with them this go around. Ms. Adams stated that they have attended the zoom meetings and received emails through the designated email. Mr. Halferty asked if the shutters on the windows are for visual or sound or both. Ms. Adams stated that they wanted to add visual interest to the building and took in comments that were made about the last proposed project about blank walls. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that the relocation proposal is to pick up historic resource and move it 12’ forward and 2’ west. She said that staff finds it appropriate that the resource will remain a free-standing structure with a good relation to the street. Ms. Simon explained that unlike the previous proposed plans keeping the stitched addition and persevering the resource as a whole was ideal and staff supports the relocation of the whole structure. Ms. Simon stated that the sheds in the rear lot do not appear on any historic documentation, staff supports the removal of the sheds, and doing so allows for a new structure. Ms. Simon said that it is exceptional that the guaranteed outcome will be a free-standing historic resource, and that this is not very common in Aspen. Ms. Simon stated that there are very small conditions listed in the attached resolution. She explained that there are light wells that will be serving the new basement and staff wants to make sure they are designed appropriately with grates and curb height. She stated staff appreciates the removal of the storage closest that were proposed to touch the most historic aspects of the structure. Ms. Simon said that the new structure will sit 10’ back from the cabin and that the fact that they are detached makes a big difference in the interpretation of HPC guidelines. Ms. Simon stated that there are development rights permitted here and they are working with the applicant to balance the two structures. She said that staff finds the design guidelines have been met and in terms of relocation and demolition staff approves. Mr. Rayes stated that the applicant is seeking 100% Affordable Housing Credits. He explained that 3 units will be 2.25 FTEs and 2 units will be 3.00 FTEs equaling 12.75 FTEs. Mr. Rayes showed renderings of each floor plan, unit storage plan, and square footage of each unit. He showed a rendering of the outside amenities that included a private front porch, a common area, large windows, and private balconies. Mr. Rayes stated that there were some concerns that ADA requirements have not been met however, he pointed out that all ADA requirements have been met. He said that each unit will have a washer and dryer. Mr. Rayes stated that staff finds the criteria related to growth management and certificate for affordable housing has been met. He said staff is recommending approval for the full 12.75 FTEs. Mr. Rayes stated that this project requires one parking spot per unit. The applicant will be providing four parking spaces, one will be ADA if needed, and cash in lieu for the fifth spot. He pointed out that there are alternative transpiration opportunities that are offered. He explained the car share program, bike program, Bus line, and the physical distance of the property to the core of Aspen. Mr. Rayes stated that staff finds the transportation and park mitigation requirements have been met. He said that staff recommends that HPC approves the project with the listed conditions. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 13 2021 Mr. Moyer said that the alley is very wide and there was a comment that there were only 12' to turn around. Ms. Simon stated that Mr. Moyer is referring to a letter that was received raising concerns about not enough turning radius for a car to enter the new proposed parking area. She explained that the individual who raised this question appears to be parking on the alley and not private property themselves. Ms. Simon further explains that the alley is a 20’ right way which is the standard and staff does not find any reason that the parking would not function as proposed. Mr. Moyer asked if there were any plans for the ally to be paved and if this is even in HPC prevue. Ms. Simon stated that this is in the prevue of the Engineering Dept. PUBLIC COMMENT: Merry Elisabeth Geiger with Garfield and Hecht representing the Riverside Condos 1024 E. Cooper and Cooper Ave Victorian Condo Association 1012 E. Cooper. Ms. Geiger stated that HPC’s mission is to preserve historic properties and review proposals that affect the properties to ensure compliance with the guidelines. Ms. Geiger raised concern about mass and scale and stated that her clients are not opposed to affordable housing. She said there is concern about the relocation of the resource to the front of the lot, that there is significant importance for the front yard. Ms. Geiger said that if you look at the renderings there will not be a lot of natural light for the back units there is only 10’ between the properties. She stated she would like the commission to realize this is a small lot and the mass and scale dwarfs the historic resource. Baron Concors stated that the main issue is the same as last time, the mass and scale. He said that one could see the passion for this project just by the neighborhood participation in this meeting. Mr. Concors said that this is a small lot and that the project overwhelms the lot. Julie Peters 1015 E Hyman back neighbor. Ms. Peters stated that she has a designated parking spot along the alley and is concerned about getting hit with added parking. She added that there was a dumpster fire at some point and fire engines have to fit down the alley. Buck Carlton stated that he is surprised that the previous project was pulled. He said that all they had to do would be drop the roofline and give up some square footage. Mr. Carlton stated that the project that is being presented has so many rules and guidelines that are being broken. He raised concern about the challenges of height, functionality, livability. Mr. Carlton warned about the legal landscape and financial burden this will cause. Dennis Moon 1000 W. Hyman stated that parking will be an issue and the alley is very narrow. Kristi Gilliam stated that the pictures that are being shown are deceptive and not showing the true property. Ms. Gilliam explained that the tree is actually on the neighboring property and rubs up on a unit and is very tight. She raised concerns about the max occupancy allowing 24+ individuals to live there. Ms. Gilliam said that trash will be an issue with that many individuals. She said that there has been no conversation about smoking in the units. She said that parking will be a major issue, there is no parking on this side of town. Leisha John stated that her main concern is the mass and scale for the size of that lot. Ms. John also raised concerns about parking. Lou Stover stated that she is concerned about the mass and scale stating that this is way too big. Ms. Stover also said that the traffic in the alley and snow removal will be an issue. She said she is very discouraged about this project. Michael Smith 1012 E. Cooper. Mr. Smith stated that this sounds like an Affordable Housing Commission and not HPC. He said the only merit he can find is that the developer will be fixing up the cabin, but that does not outweigh the detriments. Mr. Smith stated that this project will REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 13 2021 destroy the open space that is there now. Mr. Smith listed the guidelines he felt that this project did not meet them. He said that the last project was sent back to HPC from City Council for similar issues and the project that is being presented is even bigger. Mr. Smith showed concern about overcrowding of occupants and parking. Mr. Smith stated what is being asked for is far too much for the site. Stephen Abelman 1012 E. Cooper stated that he supports affordable housing, but this project has the opportunity for overcrowding. Tiffany Smith 1012 E Cooper stated that she has concerns about mass and scale. She said that this project will not honor the historic resource or the value of living in Aspen. Ms. Smith stated that this is not a project to help the affordable housing issue rather than a money-making scheme for the developer. She said that even though this neighborhood is zoned MFR every lot does not need to be, do not turn the east side of Aspen into Brooklyn. Ms. Smith urged for a scale-down of size. Chris Bryan with Garfield and Hecht representing the Riverside Condos 1024 E. Cooper and Cooper Ave Victorian Condo Association 1012 E. Cooper. Mr. Bryan stated that it is astonishing that there has not been one call in for support of this project. He said that this project should be similar to scale and proportion according to the guidelines. Mr. Bryan explained that the project is currently too large in scale referencing the guidelines. He stated that the previous project had issues with mass and scale and City Council had issues with it, now this project is even worse. He explained that the mass is almost doubled the livable area compared to the historic resource. Mr. Bryan stated that it would be arbitrary and capricious to approve this project when having problems with the previous project. Mr. Bryan said if this project is approved the City will be exposed to legal challenges and that it is in no one’s best interest. He said that HPC’s job is not to make affordable housing rather it is bound to preserve historic structures. Mr. Bryan suggested denying the application as it stands or continues the project so the applicant can come back with a more appropriate sized project. Ms. Simon summarized written letters that were submitted. Letters attached. Will McDonald stated that he wants to reiterate what his neighbors stated about mass and scale and the parking situation. Ms. Adams stated that they appreciate all the public participation during the meeting and the zoom calls they have held. Ms. Adams said that the land-use code has been met and they are not cherry-picking sections, this project is under the floor area and meeting all requirements in the RMF zone district. She said that the community is asking for affordable housing and that is what is being delivered and that HPC is being asked to wear more than one hat. Ms. Adams stated that HPC has to review all aspects of the code when dealing with preservation. She said that the guidelines are not standards and can be worked with. She stated that a reduction in units will hinder the whole project and the community is asking for more affordable housing. Mr. Moyer asked if the restriction of smoking and pets are in the purview of HPC. Ms. Johnson stated that this is outside of HPC’s purview. Mr. True said that a request can be made to the applicant but that is up to the applicant to adopt. Mr. Kendrick asked about the qualifications to win a unit. Mr. Rayes stated that these will be rental units and a lottery is usually not assisted in choosing. He explained that assuming that the ownership stays with the developer, they will have the right to choose. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer stated that the mass and scale is way too large and will not fit into the neighborhood. He said he lives in a multi-building on Park Circle and that the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 13 2021 concerns brought up are issues that his building deals with all the time. Mr. Moyer said that all the comments were wonderful and if this project went to City Council as is, it would be a no. He stated that he can not allow it to move forward, it is too big. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Moyer if there is a difference the mass and scale since this is a separate structure and there is no connecting element. Mr. Moyer stated that design-wise and relocation is ok and legal, but it is just too big and HPC will mess up the neighborhood. He said when you have 15 neighbors adamantly opposed we are not doing our job. He reiterated that he can not support it. Mr. Halferty stated that there is always a bit of push and pull when trying to preserve. He said as the project is presented the mass and scale is too large. Mr. Halferty said that the points that were brought up by neighbors all touched on great points. He stated that the fact the applicant is not asking for any variations is great however, the historic resource is very small. Mr. Halferty said that the restoration efforts have been done well and the position of the cabin is good. He further said that the new addition is just too tall. He posed the question would a two-story building with subgrade units be better. Mr. Halferty said that this is a difficult situation with the historic building already sandwiched between two large buildings. Mr. Halferty stated that he would vote to continue this project. Mr. Kendrick motioned to extend the meeting until 7:30 PM; Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor. Motion passed. Mr. Kendrick stated that there are a lot of competing elements to this project. He said he is a big proponent of affordable housing, however; we are here for historic preservation. Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees with fellow board members that the mass and scale is too large. He said he has a problem with the resource being moved that close to the street while eliminating all open space on the lot. Mr. Kendrick stated that this is a difficult situation, on one hand, you have two large multi-family buildings and a new structure would fit in and on the other hand, the new structure is too overwhelming on the historic resource. He said he would need to see the scale come down of the mass before fully supporting the project. Ms. Thompson stated that this is a difficult situation. She said she agrees that the massing and scale are a bit overwhelming and HPC needs to balance what is reasonable to the site. Ms. Thompson said that she apricates the 10’ separation between the resource and addition. Ms. Thompson asked the board what specific feedback would you give to the applicant to develop the project further. Mr. Halferty stated that he believes it would be the relationship between the resource and addition. He said that the plate height, the number of levels, to respond apparently to the resource. Mr. Moyer stated that he agrees. He said that the resource is little, and the structure is too wide and too tall. Mr. Moyer stated that maybe one way to fix this is by making this a 2 or 3 unit project. He said he is not in favor of the relocation of the resource, the removal of the sheds no objection. Ms. Thompson stated that she could be a proponent for the stepping back of the upper story of the new addition more. She said that the addition needs to relate to the surroundings as well as the resource while creating more variation of the façade. Ms. Thompson stated that she is struggling with the idea of the project being one story shorter. She said that she has no objection to the relocation of the resource, this will allow for more distance between the addition and cabin. Ms. Thompson stated that parking is an issue all over and apricate that the applicant has designated space on the property. She stated that she is in favor of the transportation REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 13 2021 requirements for this project and that it is not appropriate for HPC to dictate how many individuals live in one unit. Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees that HPC cannot dictate how many individuals live in a unit however the mass of the building allows for more people to live there. He said that if the mass is reduced the burden of infrastructure will not be as much. Ms. Thompson asked the board if they would be in favor of a continuance so they can see a reduction in mass. Mr. Kendrick stated that the plan calls for 5 affordable housing units and asked if that needs to be addressed now or at the continued meeting. Mr. Kendrick reiterated his concern about the relocation of the resource. Ms. Adams summarized the direction HPC is wanting the project to go in. Mr. Kendrick said that he liked Ms. Thompson’s idea of some setbacks to help reduce the visual of the mass. He said losing some of the buffer space between the cabin and the new addition will be ok. Ms. Thompson stated that the distance between the structures is fire code, and cannot be any closer. Ms. Adams asked if the board would be ok with a restudy of the roof form. Mr. Moyer stated he would be fine with a restudy. Ms. Thompson said that she would be fine with a restudy. Mr. Kendrick stated he would support the restudy and that neighbor buy-in will be important. Mr. Moyer said that there are still too many units. Ms. Adams asked Mr. Moyer if they come back with five units would he oppose the project. Mr. Moyer said yes. Ms. Simon stated that the board needs to be careful and not operate outside their purview and if the project has met code take that into one's findings. Mr. Moyer moved to continue 1020 E. Cooper Avenue to February 10, 2021; Ms. Thompson seconded. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halfery, Yes; Ms. Thompson, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes. NEW BUSINESS: Election of Chair and Vice-Chair. Mr. Moyer nominated Ms. Thompson for Chair. Ms. Thompson accepted the nomination. Mr. Moyer nominated Mr. Halferty as Vice-Chair. Mr. Halferty accepted the nomination. Mr. Moyer moved to approve Ms. Thompson as Chair and Mr. Halferty as Vice-Chair for the Historic Preservation Commission, Ms. Sanzone seconded. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halfery, Yes; Ms. Thompson, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Sanzone, Yes Adjourn: All in favor _________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy Clerk