Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20211027 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 27, 2021 Vice Chair Halferty opened the meeting at 4:30pm Commissioners in attendance: Jeffery Halferty, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell. Absent were Kara Thompson and Sheri Sanzone. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Natalie Feinburg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Jim True, City Attorney Nicole Henning, City Clerk Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes from September 22nd, 2021; Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 4-0, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: none COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Fornell asked about the potential City Council Call Up for 135 W. Francis. He wondered if it would be useful to have an HPC member at these meetings to be able to answer questions. Mr. True said that that may not be appropriate and that the HPC minutes and resolutions speak for the body. Mr. Fornell said that answer satisfies him. Mr. Halferty mentioned the passing of Bob Blaich. He wanted to recognize his contributions and to be able to do something for the family. Ms. Simon said she would send the family a card with sympathies and thanks for all that he did on HPC and P&Z. Mr. Halferty mentioned the mechanical components of many of the construction projects in the commercial core, namely the HVAC units. He spoke to the improved job the commission has been doing keeping track of these, but with changing technologies and dimensions, and wanted to potentially discuss the topic and associated guidelines with the commission. Mr. Moyer asked about the status of the Main St. Bakery and Crystal Palace projects. Ms. Simon mentioned the Crystal Palace project had stopped for a while but is ready to start back up again soon. She also mentioned that the Main St. Bakery project has been moving towards building permit submittal. Mr. Fornell asked if there was a deadline for submittal. Ms. Yoon said there is no deadline and Ms. Simon mentioned that there is still time on their vested rights timeframe which ends March of 2023. They would need to be in the permit process by then. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS: Mr. Halferty mentioned that Ms. Thompson had recused herself from the meeting. PROJECT MONITORING: none STAFF COMMENTS: none REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 27, 2021 CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Lopez mentioned there is one for 508 East Cooper Ave. Suite 201. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Yoon mentioned she took 135 W. Francis to Council. There was some discussion related to the rear setback variations but ultimately, they did not call up HPC’s decision. The applicant is in line to submit for final review. PUBLIC NOTICE: Mr. True said he had reviewed all notices and confirmed that they were all appropriate and complete. Ms. Lopez asked to address the rescheduling of 623 E. Hopkins. Mr. True mentioned that the notice was partial and not complete due to an error that was not the City’s or the applicants. Ms. Lopez said that the goal is to reschedule it for the December 8th meeting. OLD BUSINESS: none NEW BUSINESS: 611 W. Main Street - Final Major Development and Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sarah Adams of Bendon Adams & Mark Hunt. Ms. Adams introduced the project and said it was the final design review and that it is a 100% affordable housing project. She showed a picture from 1975 and mentioned that it is one of the few examples of the Dutch colonial revival style left in Aspen. The structure is in its original location, and they are not proposing to move it. They are preserving the historic footprint and the historic addition, and all new construction will be completely detached. She then showed images of the original project that was proposed at conceptual review, which included nine deed restricted units and the approved revised project, which now is seven deed restricted units. She then mentioned that HPC approved the conceptual development 3-0 and that Council upheld their decision and was complimentary of HPC’s feedback. She then showed their landscape design. She mentioned that it will be pretty simple, and they will work with staff and HPC monitor to potentially reduce the number of plantings, which was a condition of approval. They will also work with staff and monitor to reduce the width of the secondary walkway to make sure it reads as secondary to the primary entrance of the landmark. She showed plans of the basement level and overall units in the project. These included the three units in the landmark and the four new detached units with associated parking spaces and trash area. She referenced an ADA access ramp that was talked about at conceptual and was a condition of approval. It has been taken out of the plan as the ADA unit in the back of the landmark has a ramp into it. She then showed examples of materials to be used in the new building, including metal roof materials, simple light woods, and polished concrete block on the lowest level. She next went over the proposed lighting ideas. These included traditional gooseneck fixtures at the three entrances of the landmark and more contemporary fixtures for the detached addition. She then explained the use of spandrel glass in two locations on the landmark that was a condition of approval, stating that there are bathrooms located in these locations. She finished by going over the staff’s conditions of approval. Mr. Fornell asked what spandrel glass is. Ms. Adams replied that it is opaque glass. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 27, 2021 Mr. Fornell asked about the separate 78 sq. ft that was in the FAR calculation and wondered where they came from. Ms. Adams said that it came from the square footage of each unit’s separate entrance, stairs, and storage area. Mr. Fornell then asked what the above ground FAR of the original nine units were that they proposed. Ms. Adams said she didn’t have that number accessible at the moment but would find it and let him know later in the meeting. Mr. Fornell asked what the current FAR of the seven units would be. Again Ms. Adams said she would get the numbers and be able to show a comparison later in the meeting. Ms. Surfas mentioned something in the zoning comments referencing the building height. She asked if there used to be an elevator in the design. Ms. Adams answered that there was an elevator, but it is no longer included. Ms. Surfas noted that the zoning comments need to be updated to reflect this. Ms. Yoon mentioned that those comments were carry overs from the initial DRC comments and that there was a small note at the top of the page that indicated that. Mr. Moyer asked what the materials used for the fence and columns on the historic building would be. Ms. Adams said that the fence materials would be wood and that they would be restoring what they could of the original fence and replicating sections that were too deteriorated. Mr. Moyer asked if there would be any funding that would be set aside to maintain the historic resource. Ms. Adams mentioned that since it was a rental project, maintenance would be managed by the landlord. Mr. Hunt said that reserves would be put in place. STAFF PRESENTATION: Sarah Yoon. Historic Preservation Planner / Kevin Rayes, Planner I Ms. Yoon reminded the commissioners that there had been two conceptual reviews and that this final review dealt specifically with details related to the landscaping and lighting plans and materials and fenestration. She then went over some of the points in the staff memo. These included keeping the historic door on the rear side of the historic addition even if is not the functional door. Also keeping the existing fence along Main St. and working with the applicant in it’s restoration. Staff also recommends keeping the single gooseneck lighting fixtures for the exterior entrances of the historic building and not using the pendant style. This is in line with preservation design guideline 12.3 and is in the resolution as a condition for approval. She said staff is looking for a more contextual and simple landscaping plan, especially in the immediate adjacency of the landmark. She referenced the 42” height limit for plantings in areas adjacent to the landmark and will work with the applicant to reduce the density of the plantings, another condition of approval. She then pointed out the secondary pathway that connects REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 27, 2021 Main St. to the rear units and mentioned staff will work with the applicant to reduce the appearance of this walkway as to not compete with the main pathway. Mr. Rayes introduced himself and mentioned that he had been helping with this project during conceptual review in the areas of growth management and affordable housing credits. He said there were a few minor changes that occurred between conceptual and final review. He then presented a slide showing some small changes to the square footage of the three units in the landmark. Only one of these units is under the APCHA minimum size requirements, but he mentioned that the requirements allow a unit to be up to 20% smaller than the minimum size if other amenities are provided on site. He then showed the same information in regard to the rear addition and pointed out that each unit is slightly smaller than the original design, but all are still above the APCHA minimum required size. Mr. Rayes then spoke to the FTE calculation for the project. He presented a slide showing the original FTE calculations for all seven units, totaling 14.75 FTEs. He pointed out that in April of 2021, City Council approved an Ordinance differentiating between units located in historic resources and those that are not. The ordinance states that the credits generated from units within a historic resource should be multiplied by a factor of 1.2. He then showed the updated FTE calculations, reflecting the increased FTEs for the units in the historic resource and the updated total of 15.9 FTEs generated. Ms. Yoon then presented a slide with staff recommendation for approval with the following conditions: 1. Continue to work with all relevant City Departments to finalize the stormwater mitigation plan prior to Building Permit submission. Staff and Monitor review and approval will be required for any changes. 2. Provide gutter, downspout, flashing and snow retention details for the historic resource, to be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor prior to Building Permit submission. 3. Delete the proposed pendant light fixture at the entrances of the historic resource. 4. Provide a Preservation Plan outlining areas for repair or alteration, to be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor: Spandrel glass for historic window openings is not approved, and the historic door located to the rear of the historic resource (Unit #3) shall remain. 5. Provide a 1’-0” maintenance edge around the foundation of the historic resource and reduce the number of plantings around the historic home and fence (possibly eliminate plantings adjacent to fence), to be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor prior to Building Permit submission. 6. Reduce the appearance and width of the secondary walkway, to be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor prior to Building Permit submission. Ms. Yoon then asked if there were any questions from HPC. Mr. Moyer asked about where the 1’-0” maintenance edge came from and commented that it was inadequate. Ms. Yoon said that it has been the dimension that has been consistently used for past projects. Mr. Moyer thought it should be three feet and that any sprinkler head that is established should be three feet away from the foundation as well. Mr. Halferty commented that the 1’-0” edge is a planting free zone with no sprinkler heads. He said that in new construction they want the plantings to have space to get close but not touch the structure in REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 27, 2021 order to help screen it. He recognized Mr. Moyer’s concern about the need to service and paint the structures but thought that 3’-0” may not be typical, especially on a 3,000 foot lot. Mr. Fornell asked if the one foot maintenance edge is by code or by suggestion. Ms. Yoon said that it is not required but is something they have seen to be effective. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Steve Swire introduced himself and stated that he owns 616 W. Hopkins which looks on the property. He said he was happy to see this going ahead. He expressed a concern over losing some privacy in their backyard from the second story units. They plan to plant some trees along the fence line. He asked if the architect could address this in any other way. Ms. Adams said that she would be happy to address any questions from Mr. Swire in a phone call. Mr. Moyer wanted to suggest to Ms. Adams about electrostatic glass in relation to the bathroom windows. After describing how it worked, he suggested that it could be a possibility for the windows. Mr. Moyer then made a motion to approve as submitted by staff with a change to item #5, changing the one foot maintenance edge to three feet. There was no second for this motion. Mr. Fornell then motioned to approve with one condition that he would like to add in. The condition was that neither the City of Aspen, APCHA, nor any other local government agency shall be permitted to require the applicant to provide any rights of first refusal or option agreements for purchase of any units created resulting for this approval. Mr. Halferty told Mr. Fornell that their job is to use the design guidelines and that they would be stepping outside that role with that condition. Mr. Fornell said that their role was expanded on this project to include the creation of affordable housing certificates. Mr. Halferty asked if Mr. True could weigh in on this. Mr. True said he agreed with Mr. Halferty on this and that while it might have been an appropriate discussion for the conceptual review, he thought it was outside HPC’s boundaries at this point. He said he did not think the City has the ability to exact the requirement that Mr. Fornell was referring to. Mr. Fornell said he was satisfied with that. MOTION: Mr. Moyer then made a motion to approve as stated by staff with the six conditions. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 4-0, motion carried. Ms. Yoon asked if Mr. Moyer would be interested in teaming up with Ms. Surfas to be the project monitor for this case. Mr. Moyer said yes. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn. All in favor. Motion carried. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 27, 2021 ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk