Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20211110 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2021 Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Jodi Surfas, Kara Thompson, and Sheri Sanzone. Absent were Peter Fornell and Roger Moyer. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kevin Rayes, Planner II Jim True, City Attorney Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the minutes from August 25th and October 27th, 2021; Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor; motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty commented on the fantastic work done to the Wheeler. He commended the city, architects, preservationists, and contractors. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon about the move to the new City Hall and if future meetings would be there. Ms. Simon mentioned that Community Development is in the process of moving and unpacking and would be in a position the next week to meet in person if anyone would like to stop by. They still need to get some training on the new meeting spaces and are thinking of sometime in the new year to start in person for meetings. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Thompson mentioned that Ms. Sanzone was conflicted. Ms. Sanzone confirmed and said she would be leaving before the agenda item begins. Ms. Thompson also mentioned that Mr. Fornell was conflicted as well. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon mentioned that she needed to follow up with Ms. Thompson and Mr. Halferty on the Crystal Palace item. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon reminded commissioners that this would be the only meeting in November, being that the next one will be canceled due to it falling on Thanksgiving Eve. She also mentioned that they would only have one meeting in December on the 8th, because the second one would fall during the holidays. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: None. Ms. Thompson commented that Mr. Moyer still had not shown up and that they would be moving onto their agenda items. She asked Ms. Simon how to proceed. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2021 Ms. Simon said she was not able to get in touch with Mr. Moyer. She mentioned that they did have a quorum and could proceed with three members, but that all three members would have to be in agreement. Ms. Sanzone left the meeting. Ms. Johnson confirmed that any action would require the vote of all three. She mentioned that under the code the applicant has the right to request a continuance. The commission would need to find that good cause exists to grant this continuance because the applicant has already received their first continuance. Ms. Simon said that she heard from Mr. Moyer and that he had a personal issue come up and would not be joining. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant about the continuance. Ms. Adams said they would like to proceed with the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 1020 East Cooper Avenue – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits and Transportation & Parking Management. STAFF PRESENTATON: Kevin Rayes, Planner II Mr. Rayes stated that HPC reviewed this application most recently on August 25th and continued the project for restudy, giving the applicant direction to reduce the bulk and mass of the rear addition. The applicant has returned with a new design which is what is up for discussion this evening. If the application is approved, it will go to City Council for a notice of call up and then back to HPC for detailed review. Mr. Rayes then showed a map and picture of the current property mentioning the landmark Victorian era home and two sheds at the rear. He said that the applicant is planning on converting the site to 100% affordable housing and demolishing the two rear sheds, which are not historically significant. Mr. Rayes then mentioned that the maximum height for the Residential Multi-Family zone is 32 feet. He then showed pictures of the evolution of the project’s height from the January 13th meeting where it was 31’ 8.3”. At the February 17th and August 25th meetings the height was reduced to 29’ 8.5”. Currently the applicant has revised the rear addition from 5 units to 4 units and from 3 stories to 2 stories, resulting in a further reduced height of 23’ 8.5”. He then showed a side perspective of the revised addition noting the difference between the previously proposed height. He then showed the setbacks, including 6’ 6” between the historic resource and the front yard, a 10’ buffer between the historic resource and the rear addition and 5’ from the rear of the addition to the lot line. All of these comply with zoning for this district. Mr. Rayes then showed a chart of the Growth Management / Affordable Housing Credits for the revised project. This totaled 11.75 FTEs. He then described the layout of the units and a breakdown of their square footage. This included the two units in the historic resource and the two units in the rear addition. He mentioned that a few of the units were below the minimum net livable area required by APCHA. He then described the criteria needed to allow net livable area to be reduced by up to 20% REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2021 below the minimum. This means exceeding the expectations of APCHA guidelines by complying with certain conditions. These include: • Significant storage, such as additional storage outside the unit. • Above average natural light, such as adding more window area than the Building Code requires. • Unit amenities, such as access to outdoor space or private patios. He said that staff finds that many of these criteria are met. Additional sub-grade and loft storage has been provided. Each unit is at least 50% above grade and plenty of fenestration is being provided. He then showed a few renderings of the outdoor spaces including a private porch on the historic resource and a gathering area and private balconies on the rear additions. He then said that staff finds that the criteria related to Growth Management and Certificates of Affordable Housing are met. Mr. Rayes then spoke to the Transportation & Parking mitigation. He mentioned that one parking unit is required per residential unit in the Residential Multi-Family zone district. For this project, 4 parking units are required. He emphasized that a parking unit does not mean a parking space. A parking unit can be either an on-site parking space or can be paying cash-in-lieu. In the revised application the applicant is proposing two on-site parking spaces, one of which is ADA compliant, and paying cash-in-lieu for the other two parking units. He pointed out that there is plenty of off-site parking in the area and that the applicant is also proposing to provide on-site bicycle parking and a one-year Car Share membership for the residents. He noted that the location is 180 feet from the nearest bus stop and 0.2 miles from the commercial area of town. He said that staff finds that the Transportation and Parking Mitigation Standards are met. He then noted that staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission approve this application for the following: 1. Conceptual Major Development 2. Relocation 3. Demolition 4. Growth Management 5. Transportation and Parking Management 6. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits. He noted that in collaboration with the neighbors, some additional language has been added to the Resolution to provide clarity to APCHA regulations. He mentioned that the revised version of the Resolution was emailed to the Commissioners earlier today. Staff recommends that upon approving this project that the revised resolution is adopted. Ms. Thompson asked if the roof height dimensions that were shown were to the ridge or to the height that the city measures. Mr. Rayes responded that it is calculated to the way in which the city measures it pursuant to the Land Use Code. He mentioned that the heights shown are the highest point in the application. Mr. Halferty asked for clarification about the ADA parking spot related to how things change depending on if it is used by a tenant with accessibility issues or not. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2021 Mr. Rayes responded that they confirmed with the building department that if each unit were occupied by tenants that did not require ADA access that they would be allowed to use the space. It is only required for ADA access if one of the tenants requires ADA access. He noted that no matter who occupies the units, the ADA space will be able to be used. Ms. Surfas asked if these spaces were assigned. Mr. Rayes said that it would be up to the building owner to determine how they assign parking. Ms. Simon pointed out that staff has been supporting the project all along, in great part because having the alley building detached goes a long way toward preserving the historic resource. Letting it be a free- standing building has always been a valuable part of the project. She restated staff’s support of the work that has been done to come to this design. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sarah Adams of Bendon Adams Ms. Adams introduced herself as representing the owners of 1020 E. Cooper. She mentioned that since this was the fourth meeting on this project, she would be concentrating her presentation on changes made to the application. She highlighted that the project is still fully code compliant, meets the Aspen Area Community Plan, has wide community support, staff recommendation of approval and most importantly, as Ms. Simon mentioned, that most of the new construction is detached from the historic landmark. She provided as a reminder that the HPC guidelines emphasize that you have to balance the guidelines, not every single guideline needs to be met. Ms. Adams then spoke to the relocation. They are proposing to shift the historic landmark forward on the lot which facilitates the detached construction and brings the landmark to a more prominent view along the street. She pointed out that 1020 E. Cooper is actually two buildings stuck together. She said that this implies that they are not in their original location. She provided pictures of the interior construction connecting the two buildings. She then showed an overhead of the site plan stating that shifting the landmark will provide more room for maintenance. They are proposing common open space in addition to each unit having private open space. She said they think it is more successful to have open space in the middle of the site due to it being located on Highway 82. She then moved onto Mass and Scale, sighting the two guidelines that were brought up in August as being in conflict (11.3 / 11.4). She pointed out that the third floor was removed, the roof form was simplified and that the ground level and basement were expanded to provide a 4-bedroom unit in the detached building. She said they still think that 11.3 and 11.4 are met in this redesign compared to what was shown in August. She showed a few more renderings comparing the redesign to what was shown in August. She then, in summary, stated that they think that HP design guidelines 11.3 through 11.7 are met, that the intent of the guidelines are met and that the Aspen Area Community Plan policies regarding affordable housing and historic preservation are also met. She then showed a chart comparing the dimensional changes over time. She also showed a bar chart comparing the height and size of this project to other buildings on the block, noting that they are one of the shorter and smaller buildings on the block. She then went over a summary of the unit details. This included a total of 12 beds: one 2 bed unit, two 3 bed units and one 4 bed unit. She mentioned that APCHA is supportive of this project. She then showed the unit floorplans of the landmark and detached building, highlighting the storage spaces. She addressed the proposed parking spaces, noting that no onsite spaces are required but that they are proposing 2 onsite spaces. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2021 She then reminded everyone that there is a lot of demand for affordable housing, showing a few newspaper headlines related to this issue. She concluded with a slide of the requested amendment to the HPC resolution (section 2, paragraph 4). Their intent and commitment, if HPC approves the amended application, is to record a private restrictive covenant that “any lease for any unit or portion of the property shall include an occupancy limitation of no more than one unrelated adult per bedroom.” Ms. Thompson wanted to clarify the relocation of the home was to be 6’ 6” back from the property line and that the property line is about 8 feet from the street. Ms. Adams confirmed the 6’ 6” setback from the property line and noted that the 8-foot distance of the property line to the street was a good guess. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Chris Bryan, attorney for one of the neighbors, Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association Inc., stated that they had opposed the prior iteration of this project and that there had been some legal action taken in respect to that. He then stated that the Association does support this amended application along the lines of the current configuration. He referenced a letter, written by his colleague, Mary Elizabeth Geiger, that was forwarded to the HPC members. He stated that the Association believes that with the representations made by the applicant and with the reduced mass and scale, that this amended application is something that the neighbors he represents are in support of so long as those conditions are satisfied. He said that he and his clients applaud the applicant for hearing their previous concerns and listening to the members of HPC who agreed with them and revising the project. He said that this is more suitable to the sub-standard lot space, that their concerns have been met and that it addresses a need in the community. Ms. Julie Peters commented that she appreciated all the changes but is still concerned with the amount of parking. Mr. Ray Stover commented that he had been involved with this with some degree of angst but wanted to point out one thing that he felt was critical. The intelligence, common sense, and integrity of the HPC commissioners. He stated that while facing sustained and intense pressure, the members stood as agents of rule by law. In the face of pressure to support unrelated goals of affordable housing, the members stood their ground and honored their oath of office. He thanked the commission personally and for other members of Save Aspen. Ms. Mary Elizabeth Geiger, colleague of Chris Bryan, representing the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association wanted to clarify something in their letter of support. She said they misstated the bedroom configuration and wanted to be clear that they are supporting the unit bedroom configuration that Ms. Adams presented. Ms. Kate Johnson, City of Aspen Attorney’s office stated that Caroline and Scott McDonald showed up at City Hall as the meeting was started and voiced some concerns about a page in the packet that they feel fraudulently represents their position. Ms. Johnson said she searched for the page and could not find it. She stated that it is a letter from July 10th of 2019 and believes that it was potentially related to a prior application. She stated that the McDonalds were given the call-in information to join the meeting and asked that if they were still on the call that they unmute and voice any concerns. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2021 Ms. Simon stated that she could add some clarification to that. She said that she had gathered some old letters related to previous discussions and included them in an electronic file for this case, wanting to make sure nothing fell through the cracks. They ended up being uploaded to this packet and were old information and not comment on tonight’s agenda. She suggested to have them stricken from the record. Ms. Johnson asked that the commission not consider any letter dated prior to 2020. She asked that it be stricken from the record and that commissioners present not consider any information in those letters in their deliberation tonight. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Surfas and Mr. Halferty is they had any comment. They had none and Ms. Thompson had it stricken from the record. Ms. Thompson asked if there were any board questions or clarification regarding public comment. They were none. She then asked if Ms. Adams had any rebuttal. Ms. Adams said no. Public comment closed. Ms. Thompson stated that Ms. Adams had pointed out the two main topics that had been discussed last meeting that Ms. Surfas and Mr. Moyer had concerns over which were Relocation and Mass and Scale. She stated that she continues to support the relocation. She asked if Ms. Surfas or Mr. Halferty had any comments on the relocation. Mr. Halferty stated that part of the guidelines was to move a historic resource if it helps its prominence and visual nature. He is in support of the relocation. Ms. Surfas had no comments and stated that it has been explained very well at this point. Ms. Thompson then brought up the Mass and Scale and stated that herself and Mr. Halferty had supported this previously. She thought that this was an improvement from what was seen before and was happy to see the changes. She asked Ms. Surfas for feedback. Ms. Surfas stated that she was very happy to see this packet and the changes that were made and is in full support of the current design. Mr. Halferty commented that it was fantastic that it lost almost 10 feet. He felt that the applicant had done a great job putting it together. He said that he hated to lose the one unit but as far as its presence to the historic resource he is in full support. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the resolution and did not have any revisions to that. Mr. Halferty seconded and asked if it was the amended resolution that was received that day. Ms. Thompson clarified that it was the amended resolution. Roll Call vote: Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-0, Motion carried. Ms. Thompson said that that was for conceptual but wanted to give some feedback for the next meeting. She wanted to tell the applicant that they had represented matching the porch element on the historic resource to what the restoration of the porch would be. She thought that might not be appropriate and that it would be more appropriate and meet guidelines to have that be differentiated from the historic asset. She said that would be the only thing for final that she would like to see. She REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2021 thanked the applicant for their efforts and appreciated all the public comment they’ve heard over past number of meetings. Mr. Jim DeFrancia thanked the commission. He thought the feedback was viable and that they produced a good project that provides quality affordable housing in a terrific location. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor; motion passed. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk