Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20210127 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 27 2021 Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Roger Moyer, Jeff Halferty, Commissioners not in attendance: Sheri Sanzone Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor. PUBLIC COMMENT: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Thompson stated that she is conflicted as well as Ms. Sanzone on the 925 King Street project. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon stated that they are busy with project monitoring. She said that staff and monitor reviewed some revisions for 105 E Hallam. Ms. Simon said there will be a meeting to discuss the Aspen Institute project with the monitor. She stated that a certificate of no negative effect was issued to 330 Gillespie Ave. Ms. Yoon said that the certificate was issued and now waiting for the work order. CALL UPS: Ms. Yoon stated that 227 E. Bleeker was taken to City Council and not called up. Ms. Thompson left the meeting OLD BUSINESS: 925 King Street – Demolition and recommendation on the adjustment of the boundaries of the Historic Designation and the Establishment of TDRs. Sara Adams of BendonAdams LLC. Ms. Yoon stated that this project was continued from a December meeting. Ms. Adams stated that they are proposing the demolition of the non-historic structures, a traditional lot spit, adjust the historic boundary, and establish Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). She said that the lot is roughly 36000 sq. ft. and other than a few structures that were built without permits the lot is unchanged. Ms. Adams said that this lot is known as the Ernst Kappeli property however it has changed hands twice. She stated that there is not a lot of documentation of this neighborhood, and they reached out to Denver’s archives for clarity. Ms. Adams said without building permits on most of the structures it was very difficult to research what was there. Ms. Adams showed the non-historic duplex, shed, and a shack that is slated for demolition. She showed a picture of the non-historic shed that sits at the bank of the ditch. She explained that the material of the shed is mixed and slapped together. Ms. Adams stated that building #5 is being proposed to be retained, she said the structure shows evidence of being historic. She said that building #6 has no permits nor is it historic. Ms. Adams stated that there is a record with the county showing Mr. Kappeli’s intent to turn building #5 into a dwelling. She explained that there was a survey done in 1965 that accompanied the application showcasing what was on the lot. Ms. Adams showed a proposed preservation plan that identified the three buildings that will be preserved and the five non-historic structures that will be demolished. Ms. Adams stated that the lot split will make two parcels, 2A a non-historic parcel that is 21,045 sq. ft. and 2B a historic parcel that is 15,001 sq. ft. She showed a topographical map that highlighted REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 27 2021 the ditch, pond, and elevation change between to two proposed lots. She said that the pond is being proposed for removal. Ms. Adams stated that with the lot split and historic boundary HPC will have purview of Lot 2B with the miner’s cabin and log cabin however, HPC will not have purview over Lot 2A. She explained that Lot 2A has no visual connection between the upper and lower bench, the lots have different street frontages and there is a significant grade change between the lots. Ms. Adams stated that the lower Lot allowable FAR is 4,473 sq ft. and for parcel 2B the available FAR is 3,087. She explained they are proposing 2 TDRs to help remove development pressures from the historic lot. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon stated that the videos that were provided to the board can be viewed by reaching out to the City of Aspen staff. Ms. Yoon said that HPC will need to decide on the request for demolition of five structures on the property and to provide recommendations to City Council regarding the amendment to the historic designation boundaries that currently encompass the entire lot. She explained that this is not a request for a new designation or to delist anything rather an amendment to the current designation. Ms. Yoon added that HPC will be recommending the request of establishing TDRs of the historic lot. Ms. Yoon identified the five buildings that are slated for demolition and stating that staff supports the demotion of the non-historic buildings. Ms. Yoon Stated the proposed amendment to the lot line is in direct relation with the three buildings being preserved in their current location. She said that staff supports the designation staying with the parcel 2B where the historic structures will remain. Ms. Yoon explained that HPC will need to discuss the location of the lot line to ensure adequate buffering space between lots. Ms. Yoon stated that staff supports the 2 TDR request from the applicant. Ms. Yoon added that there is a condition in the resolution that all calculations must be verified with the Zoning Department before going to City Council. She stated that staff recommends the approval of the demolition of the non-historic buildings, the adjustment to the historic designation boundary, the establishment of 2 TDRs. Mr. Moyer asked what staff’s opinion about the lifting of the designation on the non-historic parcel. Ms. Yoon stated that the staff agrees with the applicant. She explained that it is an interior lot, a significant grade change, and there is a difficult visual connection. Mr. Moyer asked if there would be enough square footage to develop after the TDRs taken. Ms. Yoon said that HPC needs to consider where the lot line falls while taking into account setbacks. Mr. Moyer asked if there is enough room. Ms. Yoon said that staff would like to see a bit more room. Ms. Simon stated that when the time comes to add on to the historic resource, that it will be preserved on the King Street face and the addition will not have to come from the side. She explained that they would like to see an appropriate amount of depth in the lot for future plans. Mr. Halferty asked if the setbacks will be developed by a zoning exercise or conformed by the R15. Ms. Yoon said that setbacks will be conforming to the underline zoning of R15A. Mr. Halferty asked what the setbacks will be. Mr. Kendrick said 10’, 10’, 10’ for the side and rear 25’ for the front. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 27 2021 Ms. Adams stated that there is a ditch that runs through the property. She explained that the City is requiring an easement on each side of the bank and moving the lot line in the rear might help and there will be restrictions still. Mr. Moyer asked if the ditch could be moved or buried. Ms. Adams stated that the ditch will not be moved nor buried. She said that for maintenance reasons the City wants it open. Mr. Kendrick asked about the historic integrity of building #5. He raised the question of the historic benefit to the community if it is tucked so far into the lot who will see it. Mr. Kendrick said if building #5 was not going to be preserved it would be a lot easier and cleaner to draw the lot line straight across. Ms. Adams stated that they would be open to that plan. Ms. Yoon said that it has been difficult to identify the historic integrity of the buildings especially building #5. She explained staff is acting very conservatively to extinguish all avenues and identify any historic relations. Mr. Halferty asked what the Lot sizes will be. Ms. Yoon that the lot split will make two parcels 2A anon-historic parcel that is 21,045 sq. ft. and 2B a historic parcel that is 15,001 sq. ft. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION COMMENTS: Mr. Kendrick stated that he is in favor of the TDRs and the adjustment of the historic lot line to encompass the upper lot. He said that he is questioning how the lot lines are drawn and the historic shed. Mr. Moyer stated that he agrees with the staff. He said he is in favor of demolition and not opposed to the TDRs. Mr. Moyer asked if it is too soon to be looking at lot lines if HPC does not have an application for either lot. He stated that he agrees with Mr. Kendrick about making the lot lines simpler. Mr. Halferty said he agrees with Mr. Kendrick about the shed. Due to the cellphone connection, Mr. Halferty’s comments were inaudible. Mr. Kendrick asked if Ms. Adams could show the other Lot line proposal if building #5 is not historic. Ms. Yoon said she wants to understand and summarize what is being asked. That there is a question about retaining building #5. She explained that the information they could find shows there might be some historic integrity, and that is why the decision was to keep building #5. Ms. Yoon stated that they would have to assess building #5 through the demolition criteria and see if it meets the criteria. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Yoon’s opinion about the demolition of building #5. Ms. Yoon stated that the building was not assessed under the demolition criteria. Ms. Adams asked if she could show the original Lot split and the 1995 letter that described the buildings and historic inventory file. Ms. Adams showed the letter that indicates that building #5 was constructed by bits and pieces of found material and that it was placed in the location. She showed a rendering of the originally proposed Lot split with a more of a traditional line cut. Mr. Kendrick stated if that letter is accurate, and the building is not original to the lot and an incomplete building there is no real historic relation. Mr. Halferty said that it seems to be remnants of stuff without permits. Mr. Moyer asked if the City had aerial photos from the 1920s. Ms. Yoon stated that the earliest photos they could capture of this area were from the 60s’. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 27 2021 Ms. Yoon showed the demolition criteria that was used on the other structures. Mr. Moyer stated that building #5 meets the criteria for demolition. Mr. Kendrick said that it meets the criteria. Mr. Halferty agreed. Ms. Yoon asked if HPC would like to add building #5 to the list of demolition. All agreed. Ms. Adams asked if building #5 is demolished can the Lot line go back to the original proposed straight shot. Mr. Moyer said that is what Mr. Kendrick proposed and that he agrees with. Mr. Halferty raised concern with the lot adjustment and impacts with the historic resource. Ms. Adams stated that it would not since the ditch will remain and create a natural buffer. Ms. Simon stated that HPC is making a recommendation to City Council about this Lot line and will be confirmed with and by City Council. Ms. Johnson stated that the new information that is being shown needs to be submitted to the Clerks office for public record. Ms. Adams showed a Lot area map with the proposed straight across lot line with the historic resources, a ditch with the proposed easements. She explained that the ditch with easements and the setbacks already create a buffer between the properties. Mr. Kendrick asked if duplexes are allowed in R15A. MS. Adams stated for historic it is, and the lower lot is intended to be a single-family home. Mr. Moyer said that he feels whatever is built there in the future will not impact the historic lot. Mr. Kendrick stated that the motion for this project will recommend the TDRs, demolition of the buildings, and adding building #5 to the demolition list. Ms. Yoon brought up the proposed resolution to clarify the addition of adding building #5 to the demolition list and the adjustment to the boundaries to the historic designation lot line. Mr. Kendrick moved to approve Resolutions #02-2021 as amended; Mr. Moyer seconded. ROLL CALL: Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Mr. Halferty, Yes. All in favor. Motion OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Simon and Ms. Yoon showed a presentation of a Year In Review. This presentation was an overview of the different projects that came before HPC. There was 21 meetings total, 4 in-person 17 virtual meetings. There were 25 projects presented and 27 resolutions passed. There were 13 certificates of no negative effects issued. Ms. Simon and Ms. Yoon gave a brief summary of each approved project that came before HPC. Ms. Yoon showed the HPC award candidates for 2020 and stated that there will be a future discussion about the awards. Ms. Simon said that the recruitment process to fill the four vacancies is ongoing and please pass along anyone's information. Adjourn: All in favor.