Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20210825Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 1 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeff Halferty, Jodi Surfas, Roger Moyer, and Kara Thompson. Commissioners not in attendance: Peter Fornell and Sheri Sanzone Staff present Amy Simon, Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kevin Rayes, Planner Cindy Klob, Records Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES None PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Caroline McDonald complained members of the public must wait long times for the opportunity to provide public comment at City Council meetings. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Moyer noted the enormous walls around construction sites and asked if historic properties require 14 FT walls. He recently had a member of the public ask what was being done at the old Poppies property and he asked if staff could provide him an update of what was previously approved. He also feels the board members need to visit the properties under construction to be aware of the approved changes. Mr. Moyer asked staff to also confirm the windows approved on the house located at 931 Gibson Ave. Ms. Simon responded the construction fencing is required for sound mitigation and does keep the project from view during certain phases of construction. She added staff stays in contact with the contractor and performs site visits to ensure the project is progressing as approved. Ms. Yoon noted the project on Gibson Ave is in the process of restoring historic pieces and staff is in contact with the applicant team. A monitor has been assigned to the project. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ms. Johnson stated for the record that Ms. Sanzone and Mr. Fornell have conflicts of interest requiring their recusal from the hearing. PROJECT MONITORING Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 2 Ms. Yoon noted City Council called up 121 W Bleeker St. yesterday and HPC’s decision was upheld. Ms. Simon stated she has two project monitoring submittals to check-in with commissioners. Ms. Simon is coordinating a site visit for Ms. Sanzone for the project at 125 W Main St. Ms. Simon added she needs to coordinate a visit at 423 N 2nd St. STAFF COMMENTS None CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED None OLD BUSINESS 1020 E Cooper Ave – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Transportation and Parking Management – Public Hearing Ms. Thompson asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Johnson replied public notice had been provided in accordance with the code. She added the hearing was previously scheduled and noticed for June 9, 2021 and that hearing was continued so the notice is effective for this hearing as well. Ms. Johnson wanted to state for the record this will be the third hearing for this applicant and Ms. Surfas joined HPC after the two previous hearings. Ms. Surfas had been provided all materials from the previous hearings and Ms. Johnson asked her to confirm she has reviewed the materials provided prior to this hearing and is prepared to move forward with this hearing. Ms. Surfas confirmed she has reviewed the material and is prepared to move forward with this hearing. Ms. Johnson asked Ms. Surfas if there was a conflict of interest based on her previous employment with the Aspen Skiing Co (SKICO). Ms. Surfas responded she has not been employed by them for two years and does not feel there is any conflict of interest. Ms. Johnson reviewed the previous two hearings. The January 13th hearing resulted in a continuation and asked the applicant for further study. The hearing on February 17th concluded with two motions. The first motion was to approve the application with conditions which ended in a tie vote which means there was no action. A second motion was made. Then at the request of the applicant, a commissioner changed their vote on the first motion to deny the application and also allow for movement on the application. The applicant then appealed the denial to City Council on April 19th. City Council reviewed the application and decided to remand it back to HPC as documented in Resolution No 40, Series 2021. She then highlighted their findings and direction in the resolution. She then reviewed their options and procedure for this hearing. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 3 Ms. Thompson then opened the hearing and turned the floor over to the applicant. Ms. Sara Adams, BendonAdams, introduced herself and Mr. Jim DeFrancia, Principal with the applicant. Mr. DeFrancia wanted to underscore the following regarding the application. He added the need for affordable housing is self-evident. • It complies with zoning • No waivers or exemptions are requested • It is fully compliant with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) • It meets all HPC Design Guidelines (HPDG) Ms. Adams noted the application presented today is consistent with what was presented at the previous HPC hearing. Based on the work with the design consultants and the comments from the January hearing, she feels they have exhausted the available design options available on this lot without compromising their primary goals. She stated the project cannot be any smaller. There is no buffer is available to shave off. She noted the application would preserve the landmark without a major addition, meets the HPDG, and meets or exceeds the code requirements. The below grade space is maximized. The units are sized appropriately and supported by both the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) and City staff. The trash requirements are met onsite. Four parking spaces are provided when none are required by code. The engineering design requirements are met and all nonconformities on the property are cured. Extra storage has been provided. Ms. Adams then introduced the project team and reviewed the process of the application to date. In addition to the timeline provided by Ms. Johnson, Ms. Adams noted after the City Council appeal, neighbors filed two lawsuits against the City. The application team requested a continuation of the June 9th hearing due to the lawsuits. Ms. Adams next reviewed the HPDG. The applicant feels the proposal appropriately balances the HPDG, code compliance and the AACP policy. Ms. Adams then reviewed the site plan. The neighborhood has been zoned residential, multi- family (RMF) since about 1975. She displayed an older map of the neighborhood showing the historic development pattern and an aerial view of the proposed application with surrounding properties. She noted the proposal meets the undulation of both the historic map and today’s context. She then discussed the required and proposed setbacks noting they are proposing a 6.5 FT front setback as a response to feedback from the initial hearing. The applicant team feels pushing the landmark back any further than it is on this site will compromise the visibility and prominence from Cooper Ave and will push the landmark into the required protection zone around a spruce tree on the right side of the property. She added moving the project toward the alley will reduce the windows sizes and livability of the units based on fire code requirements for property line protection. She noted the new building is entirely detached from the landmark so moving the landmark back would compromise this separation. She stated the only property Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 4 within the block that is actually in compliance with the RMF setbacks would be the proposed 1020 project. Currently the project does not comply, but that would be cured. Ms. Adams then discussed the context of the historic project as the HPDG recommend. The proposed project is located between two multi-family buildings, the Victorian Condos with five units and the Riverside Condos with 10 units. The proposed structure is a three-story building with five units. Ms. Adams stated the existing setback conditions in the block demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed 6.5 FT setback. Ms. Adams then discussed how the AACP and HPDG relate to the site plan as included in the agenda packet. The proposed project buildings are separated by 10 FT and are very livable units. The proposed project is surrounded by adjacent multi-family similar in heights and density. The proposed project exceeds the front yard setback, faces the street and is very pedestrian friendly with an open front porch. She stated the landmarks is proposed to be moved towards Cooper Ave and per the HPDG, may be acceptable if doing so accommodates compatible improvements that will assure preservation. She added they also want to preserve the spruce tree. Ms. Adams stated they made changes to the mass and scale based on the HPC comments from the hearing in January and presented those changes at the February hearing. She then compared those changes with the applicable design guidelines. She noted the detached new building preserves the size and scale of the landmark and is supported in staff’s memo. Elevations and renderings were displayed identifying the changes and how the guidelines have been met. She stated they chose to strongly relate the new building with the landmark in building form and pointed out the similar gable roof forms and they are working on refining the materials to relate to the landmark. The windows will have a vertical orientation similarity, but with a contemporary application. Ms. Adams reviewed the proposed dormers added to accommodate a bedroom and allow more light into the unit. She noted the dormers will not compromise any historic material. She feels the proposed project also complies with the HPDG Chapter 11 introduction statement and AACP Policy IV.1 regarding energy efficiency and Policy IV.5 regarding density optimization and compatibility with the mass, scale and character of the neighborhood. Ms. Adams then reviewed the dimensional changes made to the project between the January and February hearings. She stated the AACP emphasizes equity across all aspects and for land use and historic preservation equity is implemented through zoning in the land use code. She pointed out the code for multi-family projects is the same for affordable housing and residential free market. She displayed a chart and stated it shows the reductions made between the hearings and noted the dimensions are compliant with the code. She stated the neighbors have expressed concerns about the project being too big in mass, scale and height. She displayed height and floor area charts showing the proposed project is in the middle when compared with nearby multi- family buildings. Ms. Adams next displayed a matrix showing the net livable and size details of the five units. She noted APCHA and staff support the size of the units. She stated the local design team wanted to ensure the livability of the projects with indoor and outdoor space. They Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 5 have also committed to restrict the units to no more than one unrelated adult per bedroom. Ms. Adams then reviewed the floor plans for the units reviewing the living spaces, storage areas, parking spaces, trash area and bike racks. Ms. Adams then displayed a map of the area showing the length of times to walk from the proposed project to areas in town, its proximity to bus routes, We-Cycle and Car to Go for the transportation options of the project. All members will get a Car to Go membership to discourage car ownership. Ms. Adams next reviewed their neighborhood outreach efforts and are committed to keeping the communication lines open through the design and construction phases. She provided research conducted on the public comment received up to the February hearing. She noted not just individuals, but the Aspen Skiing Company, 10th Mountain Division Hut Association and the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) have all spoken in favor of this project and their comments are in the agenda packet. She displayed a slide and stated it shows who the Aspen Skiing Company and ACRA represent in comparison to the neighbors that have been sending multiple letters from the same household in opposition to the project. She showed another slide for three affordable housing project lotteries in 2020 pointing out 526 working residents in Pitkin County were not successful in their bids for housing in these lotteries. She stated this slide and other research will show there is a high demand for affordable housing. Ms. Adams concluded stating this code compliant project will set the tone for future affordable housing projects and neighborhood influence over a decision-making body. She noted change is hard, but this is what is in the code and the project is code compliant. She wanted to make clear they have studied this project and it can not get any smaller without losing bedrooms and units. She stated the AACP calls for integrated affordable housing within established multi-family neighborhoods. She concluded stating the AACP asks for regulations supporting a year-round diverse community and avoid segregation of economic and social classes which she feels is reflected in the land use code. Ms. Thompson asked if the dormers for the bedroom in the upper-level unit provide egress. Ms. Adams replied there is an egress window in the non-historic section on the east elevation and displayed the elevation to point out its location. Ms. Surfas asked where the bathroom is for the bedroom in the area with the dormer and how is it accessed. Ms. Adams displayed the floor plans and pointed out the location of the stairs, the powder room on the main level and the two full bathrooms on the lower level. Ms. Thompson then turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Kevin Rayes, Planner, introduced himself and stated he would be reviewing the growth management certificates, affordable housing credits and the transportation portions of the project. And Ms. Simon would review the conceptual major development relocation and demolition. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 6 Mr. Rayes reviewed the zoning, location, size of the lot and the existing conditions. He stated the applicant is proposing to redevelop the property with a 100% affordable housing project. This project is not required for mitigation purposes and is generating affordable housing. He then reviewed the mass, height, front yard, and design changes made between the January and February hearings. He noted the revised design is more aesthetically appealing and there’s more articulation of the massing. Ms. Simon wanted to remind the commissioners the historic preservation program is four decades old and was built and improved with the many years of participation of many community volunteers like the current commission, City Council members and City staff. She stated it has always been understood the guidelines need to be applied in a case-by-case basis to try to balance all kinds of specifics that come up on a property like this one. Staff finds the balance has been achieved with this project. She stated the fact the new construction is detached from the historic resource which is a huge win for the board as expressed in a number of criteria and allows bonuses to be given when an applicant detaches the new construction from the historic resource. She stated the new building needs to be compatible in scale with the historic resource, but it doesn’t need to be the same height. She reiterated staff supports the application and finds the criteria to be met. Mr. Rayes then reviewed the growth management criteria. He reviewed the configuration of the bedrooms, storage areas, common area and trash areas. He then reviewed the proposed 12.75 FTE credits generated. Staff finds this criteria is met in that it meets the land use code and is consistent with the criteria. Mr. Rayes stated in regards to the quality and size of the units, the land use code and APCHA provide guidelines regarding the minimum size of a unit. He then displayed a chart showing the units in the historic landmark meet or exceed the minimum guidelines. He displayed another chart for the new construction showing the units are 2% - 16% below the minimum guidelines. APCHA’s guidelines state the net livable SF can be reduced up to 20% pursuant to specific criteria covering storage, natural light, and amenities which staff finds are met. Mr. Rayes stated staff finds the criteria related to Growth Management and Certificates of Affordable Housing are met. Mr. Rayes then discussed the requirements for transportation and parking. He stated within an RMF zone district, parking requirements can be met via cash-in-lieu, so no parking is required to exist onsite. Four onsite parking spaces are proposed to be onsite which is 80% of the requirement. Mr. Rayes noted this is quite rare for affordable housing projects. Mr. Rayes noted the project will provide onsite bike parking and a Car to Go membership. He showed the location is 0.2 miles or about a four-minute walk to the downtown commercial area. The closest bus stope if 180 FT or a one-minute walk. He stated the proximity to town is a highlight of this project. Mr. Rayes stated staff finds the Transportation and Parking Mitigation are met. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 7 Mr. Rayes displayed a map showing a parking space across the alley from the project and wanted to point out the concerns received from neighbors indicating it will be hard to use the parking space. This has been evaluated and staff finds with the new structure, the necessary distance of 24 FT to maneuver into the space will be met and exceeded by one FT. Mr. Rayes noted there was a similar project on 611 W Main St recently approved by HPC with three dimensional variances. He reviewed the similarities between the projects. The variances allow for a five FT front setback, 7 FT 3 IN distance between the historic and new structure and zero FT rear setback. Staff felt HPC did a great job unanimously approving to preserve the historic resource while also getting much needed affordable housing in town. Mr. Rayes then reviewed how the RMF zone district is defined per the code. The RMF district is to provide for intensive long-term residential uses. Mr. Rayes emphasized the proposed project complies with the underlying zoning in regards to height, setbacks, parking and unit size. He provided a map showing the project site within the RMF zone district. He then displayed on the map the zones where only single-family, or duplexes are allowed to be built within Aspen. Mr. Rayes then read the following statement from the 2000 and 2012 AACP. “Our housing policy should bolster our economic and social diversity, reinforce variety, and enhance our sense of community by integrating affordable housing into the fabric of our town. A healthy social balance includes all income ranges and types of people. Each project should endeavor to further that mix and avoid the segregation of economic and social classes…” Mr. Rayes displayed a map showing existing deed-restricted units in the immediate area of the 1020 E Cooper Ave. The new units will be rental units and accommodate a different demographic than the ownership units nearby and will help people who are struggling to get started in this valley. This project also will reduce the number of trips being made in and out of town as compared to the Burlingame and Lumberyard projects. Mr. Rayes wanted to mention there have been several comments suggesting up to 24 people will be living in the units and he wanted to state that information is unfounded in this situation. There are 12 bedrooms proposed and each unit can not contain more residents than bedrooms. Staff is proposing to add a condition to the resolution stating the occupancy of each unit is restricted to no more than one unrelated adult per bedroom. Mr. Rayes concluded stating staff recommends HPC approve the application for conceptual major development, relocation demolition, growth, management, transportation and parking management, and certificates or affordable housing credits. Ms. Thompson asked if for any questions or clarifications of staff. Ms. Surfas asked for clarification of the compatibility with the neighbors. She wanted to know if that meant the neighbors directly to the left and right or those in the surrounding area. She added her question was in regards to Chapter 11 on page 85 of the HPDG where it states in the opening Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 8 paragraph that the new building must be compatible in mass and scale with its historic neighbor and not overwhelm it. Ms. Simon responded the chapter is about how the new construction relates to the historic resource on the lot. Ms. Thompson then opened for public comment. Mr. Allyn Harvey stated he grew up in Aspen and lived a nearby. He supports the project. He loved growing up there and the variety in the neighborhood was amazing. He stated there were all kinds of buildings including log cabins and an old hotel that was converted into apartments. He stated there was also a variety of people who lived in the area. He believes the project serves a dire need for affordable housing and doesn’t feel the options for free market housing are available anymore. He thinks it’s unique in that it keeps the original structure standing alone. Ms. Caroline McDonald, 1000 E Cooper Ave, believes the statements by Ms. Adams and Ms. Simon are false. She feels this is nothing more than a corporation trying to get as many bedrooms as they can to satisfy 1A and asked when are we going to take climate change into consideration and how detrimental 1A is going to be to the City. She feels the City is only supporting corporations. She feels the parking in the neighborhood is horrific and you cannot find a spot within four blocks. She feels the neighborhood will suffer immensely if you put any more cars on it. She asked HPC to not ruin her neighborhood. Mr. Chris Bryan, Garfield and Hecht Attorney representing a neighboring homeowners association (HOA). He stated they filed a lawsuit after City Council’s decision on April 19th and the court has not ruled on it yet. Mr. Bryan stated he was quoting Ms. Adams from a June 9th meeting transcript and she is asking for a continuance when she said “there is also the matter of the still pending lawsuits that are pending against the City, so we think it is really in the best interest of the public process to continue this hearing while the lawsuits proceed through the court system. On Monday, we sent an email to the city advising about request to continue the hearing and we also emailed and posted an update on our 1020 project website on Monday evening.”. Mr. Bryant stated nothing has changed since Ms. Adams made those comments on June 9th and for that reason, he thinks it’s incumbent upon this commission to do what the applicant requested which is to stay or table this decision until we know what the District Court for Pitkin County is going to do with a pending lawsuit regarding whether or not this commission even has jurisdiction on remand. Mr. Bryan stated the commission may make a decision that will complicate things because one way or another someone’s going to appeal to City Council again. Mr. Bryan stated if HPC is not inclined to table this then HPC needs to deny the proposal as submitted. Mr. Bryan believes HPC can deny the proposal and ask the applicant to reduce the mass and scale and come back. Mr. Bryan believes the applicant made some minor changes when the board requested changes previously and they are seeking to maximize the number of units which violates the HPDG. Mr. Bryan stated mass and scale is very important and he thinks Commissioner Surfas got it right when she pinpointed out how it dwarfs the landmark. Mr. Bryan stated the new structure is much larger than the historic landmark and HPC’s main duty is to preserver historic buildings that have been so designate on historic lots. Mr. Bryan stated as Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 9 far as precedent goes from Mr. DeFrancia, if HPC approves this project as proposed, the message to private developers is going to be that you can find a historic designated property and create structures attached or adjacent to them and dwarf them. Mr. Bryan stated the chart shown by Ms. Adams regarding height does not take into consideration that there must be the relationship there to the historic landmark. Ms. Diane Wuslich wanted to thank Ms. Surfas for looking at the HPDG and the project should only be accepted and approved if it meets the current HPDG. She wants the committee to adhere to the guidelines. Ms. Thompson noted the commission had received comments from Ms. Kristi Gilliam and asked her if she wanted to comment at the hearing. Ms. Gilliam did not comment. Ms. Marilee Susi stated she agrees with the other person who spoke about the parking impacts. She believes the people who live behind the project in the alley as far as the mass of the property. She agrees there is a very big corporate incentive and not so much a community incentive. She doesn’t think the livability of this space makes a lot of sense based on the plans. She feels this is going to impact the community and is extremely concerned about the quality of life and the aesthetics of our community. Ms. Mary Elizabeth Geiger is an attorney representing the Cooper Avenue Victorian Association, located next door to the project. She stated the neighbor opposition is not because it is affordable housing. She wanted to point out the units are below the APCHA guidelines for size and staff stated it was okay because there’s some amenities provided. She does not feel six SQFT of storage makes it okay. She also does not believe the green space between the buildings actual outside usable space. She believes the private decks cannot be used in the wintertime and will be full of stuff because there is not enough storage space. She stated at a previous hearing, staff had required they remove the 1960 addition so adding the dormers appears to be horse trading. She believes HPC has been misled because in previous hearings the 1960 addition was identified as nonhistoric but by adding the dormers it makes the historic resource taller and makes the mass look smaller. She also feels the lot is too small and feels the new structure is too large. She stated all projects must stand on their own two feet in regards to the project at 611. E Main St. Mr. Michael Smith quoted Mayor Torre from the April 19th meeting when he stated he did not see abuse of discretion from Commissioners Kendrick and Moyer, but the vote happened at the request of the applicant. Mr. Smith then stated the AACP supports the historic preservation policies stating it encourages owners to preserve structures to the highest possible degree of historic integrity while minimizing adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Mr. Smith stated the commission discussed many items but found the project failed to meet mass and scale guidelines. He then quoted Ms. Thompson stating we're moving to deny this because of mass and scale. Mr. Smith stated the applicant chose to resubmit the project in February ignoring the commissioners, neighbors and the mayor who all expressed similar comments about a needed reduction in size. Mr. Smith quoted Mayor Torre in stating a reduction consideration of 15% to 20% would make sense. Mr. Smith has previously provided letters to the commission detailing how he believes the project fails to meet guidelines and how the application and presentation includes errors and Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 10 outright false statements. He identified a table on page 58 as having incorrect information in it. Mr. Smith feels moving the historic resource violates guideline 1.1. He stated his letters provide detail how the height, mass and volume cannot satisfy guideline 11.3 and 11.4. Mr. Smith believes City staff is ignoring the guidelines because it is providing affordable housing. He does not believe the application meets the guidelines. Ms. Paulette Koffron stated she agrees with Mr. Smith. She feels affordable housing is important, but people need to be comfortable and feels the lot for this project is too small for five units. Ms. Thompson noted the commission has received letters from Mr. Ray Stover and asked if he wanted to comment. Mr. Ray Stover stated he supports affordable housing and feels the best use for this property is affordable housing. He stated he is part of Save Aspen and only wants the City to follow its own rules and guidelines. He does not believe the project is completely code compliant. He believes guidelines 1.1, 1.7, 1.12, 11.3, and 11.4 are not met. He believes HPC is not to consider extraneous factors such as the need for affordable housing in their decision. Mr. Stephen Abelman, 1012 E Cooper Ave, believes the big issue facing the developers is they need to have the proposed height, mass and scale in order to make the project economically feasible. He asked if the project could be scaled back with additional incentives. He stated the lot just to the west is 50% larger than the project lot and they would both have the same number of units. He feels a smaller structure will enable the developer to honor the historic preservation design guidelines. He requests HPC denies the project as it stands. Ms. Tiffany Smith, 1012 E Cooper Ave, stated she stands with the HPC decisions made in January and February. She believes the new construction is twice the height and three times the mass of the historic structure and doesn’t meet guidelines 11.3 and 11.4. She stated if the cabin is moved forward, it will be closer to the sidewalk than any other building in the entire neighborhood. She thanked the commissioners for their time. She believes the proposal includes AACP livability concerns completely unrelated to the HP guidelines. She feels HPC’s primary responsibility is to preserve historic resources to the highest possible degree of historic integrity. She feels this decision will set precedent. She stated Council Member Mesirow stated on April 19th the applicant’s plan is still too large compared to the cabin and Mayor Torre stated it should be reduced. She asked if the 2019 proposal for this lot was smaller but judged by City Council for being too big, then doesn’t that mean this larger project is also too large? She thinks it’s curious the developers and City staff seem to be working in lockstep on this project. She also feels the neighbors have been mischaracterized and have suffered for speaking honestly about their own experience. She stated some residents were not able to attend because of the sign in front of the project has not been updated and is lying in the yard with the 9th date on it and a reminder email was not sent until Monday. She feels the current plan is inappropriate and asked HPC to deny it. Mr. Baron Concors believes the HPC’s primary responsibility is to protect historic resources, not approve affordable housing. He stated the guidelines say the additional structure shall remain in proportion with the historic structure and he believes the proposed project is 300% the size of the Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 11 historic structure. He stated the neighboring projects are not historic, so they do not have the same mass and scale guidelines as historic projects. He feels the applicant ignored the feedback it received from the neighbors. He read comments from City Council members from their review regarding mass and scale. He concluded asking HPC to ask the develop to reduce the size. Mr. Bukk Carleton does not feel the application is not compliant with the setbacks, mass, and scale and the height of the new building. He also does not believe the renderings represent the actual size. He believes density will create stress and crime in schools, health and transportation. He asked if HPC will call out the developer for bringing back the same plan when they were asked to reduce it. He feels HPC should protect the rules and their decision will set a precedent. He asked HPC to deny the proposal. Mr. Scott McDonald, 1000 E Cooper Ave, stated the credibility of the HPC is at stake. He feels the project is really for corporate employee housing and fits the need of some large-scale corporate development like 1A. He feels it will hurt the neighborhood and will be an ongoing deal. He is disappointed with the City staff and feels cash-in-lieu lines the pockets of the City and doesn’t resolve the problem. Ms. Lou Stover, 1006 E Cooper Ave, believes most of the residents in the neighborhood like the diversity, eclectic houses and the people living in the area and want more of it. She feels they’ve been talked down to and at, but not with, regarding this project. She reiterated Mayor Torre’s comment regarding his proposed size reduction. She asked HPC to look at how this project could be better. Mr. Ross Jacobs, 1012 E Cooper Ave, stated he was happy to see affordable housing as part of the project. He asked HPC to stay within their guidelines and to not sellout the guidelines for affordable housing. Ms. Leisha John stated she fully supports a three-unit affordable housing on the lot. She feels the rooms are too small, there is not enough storage and little outdoor space. She agrees with Mayor Torre’s comments regarding the size reduction. Ms. Julie Peters, lives directly behind the project lot and she appreciates HPC in opposing the project for its mass, scale, lack of parking and livability. Ms. Thompson motioned to extend the meeting to 8 PM and was seconded by Mr. Halferty. All in favor, the motion passed. Ms. Simon noted for the record that staff emailed the board a series of letters today that were received after the packet was provided. Ms. Thompson stated the board received the letters and they were read by HPC members. Ms. Thompson then closed public comment. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant if they had any rebuttal. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 12 Mr. DeFrancia knows these decisions are difficult and he empathizes with the commissioners and appreciates their responsibilities. He feels there are some measures that are quite defined and clear including zoning, code and the master plan and a project is either in compliance or not. He noted the guidelines are open to interpretation and feels the board needs to defer to staff who are trained and professional in balancing all the issues to be taken into account. He noted there may be multiple interpretations for each person, but staff is the authoritative interpretation in his view. He feels there is a parking problem in the City, but the project complies with the parking code requirements. He asked HPC to respect staff. Ms. Adams wanted to touch on the references to quotes made by Council Members. Ms. Adams stated if Council wanted a reduction in size, that would have been their direction. Ms. Adams noted that Ms. Johnson read the actual direction form City Council and it was to apply the HPDG and the AACP. Ms. Adams added that Ms. Johnson stated that HPC is not bound by comments made by Council members. Ms. Adams also wanted to respond to Mr. Michael Smith’s comments. She stated all the information she has provided is based on documents in the City’s Archive and documented in the chart provided. Ms. Adams stated although this is a small project with five units and 12 bedrooms, it has a really big impact on someone who is sleeping in Rifle and commuting up to work every day as well as the impact on the community. Ms. Thompson asked if staff has any rebuttal or clarification. Ms. Simon and Mr. Rayes stated they have nothing to add. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Johnson for clarification on some of the legal issues brought up during public comment. Ms. Johnson stated HPC could act upon the requests made but there is no legal obligation to do so. Ms. Johnson stated at this time the court has not issued a stay and HPC has jurisdiction to make a determination with respect to this appeal. Ms. Thompson then opened board deliberation. Ms. Thompson stated she appreciated all the comments from the public. She understands this is of high importance to the community and there is a lot of emotion involved. She added the commission is made up of locals who also care about the community. Ms. Thompson reviewed the items associated with the hearing. She added HPC does not have purview over the number of units or the number of occupants. She also added there are a lot of sections in the land use code that are not subjective. She stated the conceptual major development and design guidelines are up for interpretation. Ms. Thompson asked to start the discussion on the demolition of the two sheds and the relocation of the historic structure. Mr. Moyer stated he is not opposed to demolition and is opposed to moving a historic structure at any time. Ms. Surfas agreed with Mr. Moyer. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 13 Mr. Halferty noted the guidelines state if a structure is to be relocated it has to do with its prominence. He is okay with the relocation and the demolition to allow for a better redevelopment. Ms. Thompson stated she supports the demolition and feels the relocation is appropriate because the historic preservation method of not attaching an addition to the structure. Mr. Moyer feels the structure behind is too large and believes if a historic resource is relocated, the result must be absolutely fabulous and does not feel the new structure provides this. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Moyer to start the discussion on mass and scale. Mr. Moyer stated it is a three-story building towering over a one-story building. Mr. Halferty feels this proposal conforms to the guidelines 11.3 and 11.4. Mr. Moyer does not feel it meets those guidelines and does not feel the building is similar in scale. Ms. Thompson stated she would agree with Mr. Moyer on the first iteration but feels the revisions made for the second meeting reducing the size of the third floor and the alley façade made those improvements significant. Mr. Moyer feels the revisions were insignificant. Ms. Surfas is in full agreement with Mr. Moyer. She feels the scale is out of proportion with the historic structure and overwhelms it. The setback is slight, and the building is still as tall as the neighboring buildings. Ms. Thompson agreed with Mr. Halferty that the context of the RMF zone district is challenging because there are not one-story resources that allow for three-story structures. Typically, the applications are in different zone districts that limit the building height. She feels the context makes this a unique situation because the resource will be dwarfed by the rest of the structures in the neighborhood. Mr. Moyer feels HPC needs to consider the implication of this project on the street, block and neighborhood of what it may be like in five to 10 years. He realizes this is a unique project for HPC. He considered the historic resource first and feels the project overwhelms it. He worries their decision could negatively impact the entire town. He feels there should be employee housing, just smaller. He doesn’t feel guidelines 1.1, 1.7, 11.3 and 11.4 are met. Ms. Thompson feels these codes are kind of all growth management made by City Council and HPC does not have purview. She added perhaps this needs to be look into further. Mr. Halferty feels their purview is to look at the guidelines and how it protects the historic resource. He feels it conforms and under what HPC asked them to do. He completely agrees with the proposal. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission August 25, 2021 14 Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the resolution with what was presented at this hearing. Mr. Halferty seconded the motion. Ms. Thompson requested a roll call vote. Roll call: Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Surfas, no; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Thompson, yes for a total of two – two (2 – 2) tie vote. Ms. Johnson stated a tie vote is no action so at this time the application is still on the table. Ms. Adams requested a continuation. Ms. Thompson asked if any member was opposed to a continuation. All stated they were not opposed. Ms. Thompson motioned to continue the hearing to November 10th and was seconded by Mr. Moyer. Ms. Thompson requested a roll call vote. Roll call: Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes for a total of four – zero (4 – 0), the motion passed. Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Halferty. All in favor, motion passed. Ms. Thompson adjourned the hearing at 7:37 PM. Cindy Klob, Records Manager