Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20210217 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17,2021 Chairperson Thompson opened the special meeting at 4:40 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 Kevin Rayes, Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Kendrick moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor. PUBLIC COMMENT: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson said we need more members. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone is conflicted with project 1020 E. Cooper. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon stated that there was a certificate of no negative effect issued for window changes on a non-historic addition in the West end. Ms. Yoon stated that she is reaching out to the monitors directly. OLD BUSINESS: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue- Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Transportation and Parking Management. Applicant representative: Sara Adams with BendonAdams. Ms. Adams stated that her team took the recommendations to heart and have redesigned the project to address HPC concerns. She said that the code asks HPC to wear many hats with this project. She explained that this project is also about supporting city policy and is a code- compliant project following through with the Aspen Area Community Plan and that this code- compliant project is about meeting the intent and the requirements of the residential multi-family zoned area. Ms. Adams stated that the redesign is very responsive to HPC’s concerns of mass and scale, front yard setbacks, and distance between the buildings. She said at the previous meeting she heard a lot of support for affordable housing. Ms. Adams stated that they are asking HPC to use their authority to show that support. She said that this is a fully code-compliant project and if not approved, what project can be. Ms. Adams stated that the redesign shows a reduction in mass and scale, a lowered height of the new addition, a reconfiguration of the units, and increased front yard setback while maintaining the 10’ distance between the buildings. She said that no variances are being asked for on this project. She said that this project is applying for approval under the same zone district that allowed for these neighbor’s projects to be built. This project should not be treated any differently. Ms. Adams showed a side-by-side dimensional comparison from the project that was presented on January 13th to the redesign. She said that the dimensional requirements has no limit on the number of units allowed in the zone district and that's intentional. She explained the neighborhood was designated for high density, because of its proximity to downtown and transportation. Ms. Adams said that the max height allowed is 32’ and the tallest height of the new project is just under 29’. She stated that the new front setback is 6’.6”, exceeding the minimum setback by 1”.6’ while maintaining the 10’ of separation between the resource and the addition. Ms. Adams stated that there are no onsite parking requirements. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17,2021 She explained that there will be four spaces provided with a full transportation management plan that was developed with the City. Ms. Adams showed an Eastside rendering of the new proposed plan. She stated that in the revision, there is a step back on the 3rd floor by reducing it from a 3- bedroom unit to a two-bedroom unit, that extra room was relocated into the landmark with an addition of a dormer. Ms. Adams added that the dormer was added on a non-historic roof. She showed the Westside rendering that showed a reduction in massing and the adding of the dormer on the non-historic roof. Ms. Adams added that the redesign reads more like a two-story building with the adding of dormers, roof forms, and the top floor receding. Ms. Adams stated 11.6 of the design guidelines. She said that the new addition will relate to the landmark in form, in a L- shaped footprint, and gable roof forms. She added that materials are still being developed but the intent will be wood siding and the windows will be in a similar shape and size to the resource but have a contemporary feel. Ms. Adams stated that in 11.7 of the design guidelines the imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. She showed a rendering of the south face elevation and said that this is a clear building of its own time while highlighting the landmark. She said the added dormer allows the reduction of the third-floor massing. Ms. Adams stated that the area has been zoned RMF since 1975. She showed a Sanborn map that showed the historic development pattern, a range of front yard setback, and stated that the building footprint that is being proposed reinforces the traditional patterns of the neighborhood, perpendicular to the street, and a 6’.5” front setback. Ms. Adams said that they are proposing five units. She explained two units in the landmark and three in the new addition. One of the units 101 is over the size mandated by APCHA and 102 is just under .6sq. ft. under what is required for a three-bedroom. The units in the new addition are 20% allowed reduction they are smaller than the mandated size by APCHA. Ms. Adams said that her team is approaching the housing project as if they were going to be living there. She outlined the amenities of each unit from a private deck or porch, washer, and dryer. She pointed out that the smallest unit will have a front deck and back deck to help compensate for the size reduction. Ms. Adams showed a floor plan for the new proposed project. She showed visuals of the outdoor amenities that included a proposed grill and a storage basket that could be raised and lowered in the carport. Ms. Adams discussed the transportation plan with a map that showed alternative transportation methods that included walking, biking, WeCycle, and RFTA. Ms. Adams showed varying graphs that showed the differing height and FAR ratios of the neighborhood buildings. She pointed out that the proposed project will fall in the middle of height and FAR. She outlined the ongoing communication plan that includes a dedicated project website, FAQ, project email, online meetings, review updates, and public notice. Ms. Adams showed a visual of submitted comments from the community. She pointed out that there were letters submitted with full support from ACRA and Ski Co to no support from surrounding neighbors. She explained that the neighboring properties submitted multiple letters from each unit and a few letters came from 2nd homeowners. Ms. Adams showed a graph of the recent affordable housing projects and how many individuals placed their names in to win. She stated that there is a pretty clear community demand for affordable housing and that this is a code-compliant project. Mr. Defrancia stated that he fully agrees with Ms. Adams's presentation and reiterated that this is a fully code-compliant project. STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Rayes gave a brief recap of the history of the property. He showed the previous design plan and compared the revised design pointing out the addition of the dormer, redesigned mass on the new addition, and the 6’.6” setback of the landmark, and showed SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17,2021 the new floor plan for each level. Mr. Rayes showed the proposed affordable housing credits and explained that two-bedroom– 3 units x 2.25 FTEs = 6.75 FTE’s and three-bedroom- 2 units x 3.00 FTE’s = 6 FTE’s total proposed 12.75 FTE’s. He showed a visual of outside space and amenities that will help alleviate the reduction in net livability. Mr. Rayes stated that staff finds the criteria related to growth management and certificates of affordable housing are met and approval for all 12.75 FTE’s. He said that the zone district requires one parking unit per residential unit within a multifamily development. In the case of this project there are five units, five parking spots. He explained that the applicant will pay cash in lieu for one parking spot. Mr. Rayes reviewed the transpiration plan that included physical distance to downtown and alternative transportation methods. He said that staff finds the transportation and parking mitigation standards have been met. Mr. Rayes said that there has been some concern about the parking plan and the property across the alley parking spot. He explained that the engineering standards call for a 24’ wide driving aisle for a car to make the turn and with a 5ft minimum rear yard setback staff finds that the concerns have been met. Mr. Rayes stated that every project is unique, but staff felt that the balance of historic integrity was consistent with the balance of trying to get affordable housing in town. He said that the staff is in strong support of this project. Mr. Rayes stated that there has been concern about the overcrowding of tenets. He explained that APCHA will be regulating how many people can be in each unit and they will not be overcrowded. He recommended HPC approve conceptual major development relocation, demolition, growth management, transportation and parking management, and certificates of affordable housing credits. Ms. Simon stated staff finds that the design guidelines have been met. She said there are very few miners cottages that will be preserved in town with no addition added to it. This will forever have a detached building behind it. And that in itself is an enormous success. Ms. Simon said that there was a development review committee meeting held in November that involved multiple city agencies to vet the project and give their feedback to the applicant. Mr. Kendrick asked what is the exact purview of HPC. Ms. Simon said that the purview is outlined in the packet and should consist of conceptual major development relocation, demolition, growth management, transportation and parking management, and certificates of affordable housing credits. Mr. Halferty asked what is staff's position on the proposed dormer. Ms. Simon stated that it is a successful way to add to the net livable area without impacting the historic resource. Mr. Moyer asked if electric vehicle outlet installation will be a part of the permit process in the future. Ms. Simon stated that it is a part of the process, that at a certain number of units the project must have an EV source. Mr. Moyer asked if the historic resource will be energy efficient. Ms. Adams stated that it will be. PUBLIC COMMENT: Caroline McDonald read her letter that was submitted to the board in Exhibit A. Lou Stover 106 E. Cooper. Raised concern about mass and scale and the one-way alley. Baron Concors, 1024 E. Cooper Ave.: It’s important to stay grounded in the facts which are 1) the neighborhood opposition has nothing to do with affordable housing, 2) the mass and scale are overwhelming, 3) do those expressing support actually live in the neighborhood?, 4) neighborhood is SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17,2021 already overdeveloped, 5) developer’s FAR and height analysis don’t work because 1020 is a historic property and the others aren’t, 6) the alley is dead-end and one way in and out, will increase problems with cars blocking the alleyThinks this isn’t the right thing for future tenants or current neighborhood and if approved we know the process is broken. Bryan Schroy stated that he agrees with the previous comments, that affordable housing is okay but that mass and scale are issues here and he is concerned about the use of the one-way alley.Chris BryanGarfield and Hecht stated that the applicant has not done enough to reduce the mass and scale. He said they've ignored the various mistakes and the calculations regarding the floor area. They have raised concerns regarding the width of the alley and its sustainability for parking spaces. It doesn't appear that anyone's gone out there to measure the alley to confirm that it is the appropriate width. Mr. Bryan said that 3 of the 5 units still do not meet the minimum size requirements for affordable housing as set forth by APCHA. He stated that there is just not enough livable space. Mr. Bryan raised concern about the number of units and overcrowding. He said there is no neighbor buy-in on the 5-unit project as proposed. Wanting affordable housing does not supersede the charge to adhere to the clear historic guidelines and to acknowledge the sheer mass and scale of this proposal on this already very overdeveloped lot. Mr. Bryan stated that HPC needs to vote to deny this application. David Corbin Aspen Ski Co. He stated that Ski Co is in support of any affordable housing project that is so important to this community. Mr. Corbin said he finds this really remarkable that there is a high level of staff support, and the fact that this project is fully code compliant. He stated If it fits the code, it's not outsized. Diane Wuslich stated she agrees with Baron. She asked if any HOA or residential guidelines have been made. The HOA documents could address the concerns of the neighbors such as number of residents per unit, quiet hours, trash/recycle maintenance, number of cars per resident, pets, etc. At January HPC meeting the developers said this project would not be affordable for them to develop with fewer units which is a double standard since this is an AH project. Additional cars and visitors will make the already dangerous alley and intersection of Cleveland and Hwy 82more risky, and something would need to be done to increase visibility, especially because of the traffic in the alley. . Jerome Simecek stated he is in favor of affordable housing and this project. He said that this project is fully code compliant and if this project is not approved then what project is approvable. Jamie Robinson stated that she owns a few overdeveloped properties in Aspen. She objects to Ski Co’s statement that the neighborhood does not want affordable housing. She said that this project is not compatible with the surrounding buildings and there is no room for parking and the addition. Ms. Robinson stated that things meet code all the time but are not approved because they will not fit. She said that her concern is the needs and number of units. Julie Peters raised concern about the parking this project will bring. Kristi Gilliam stated that out of ten units at 1024 E Cooper four of themrent to employees. She said that this project is too small for how units are being proposed. She said that the grill area that is being shown will have no sun and being falsely represented. Ms. Gilliam stated everyone has to be real about the cannabis situation because kids getting off and young adults getting off from work are going to come home and smoke pot. She explained every now and again, at their complex, they catch someone smoking pot and it goes all the way down the hallway. Ms. Gilliam said that they edited their HOA rules to only allow four people per three bedrooms because of the Ski Co employees that smoke pot all day long and would come in at all hours of the night. She raised concerns about not enough room in the front yard. Ms. Gilliam asked if this will be all SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17,2021 adults no kids or mixed and if mixed would kids be exposed to pot smoke since the windows will be open because of lack of AC. She stated that they asked for this project to be smaller and nothing has changed. J Maytin stated that he chaired HPC for two years and sat on the board for 7. He said that this project is under code. He said no variances are being asked for and the property owner almost has a build by right. He painted a picture of what could be there is a much bigger project with more units. He asked with the single-family home that was presented and not accepted now this project being attacked, what project will be accepted. The lowering of property values has never been a problem. Mr. Maytin stated an easy way to fix parking is to have cash in leu for all spots. He said that the properties that are surrounding the resource make the property look forgotten. He agreed that moving the cabin forward and balancing it with a medium-sized addition would fix the property from enormous structures flanking on both sides. Leisha John stated that she is all for affordable housing but objects to the density of this project. It is unconscionable to have 12 or more people living on this tiny sliver of land. She raised concerns about more cars and more impact on the areaMark 935 E. Cooper; He raised concerns about overcrowding and the number of occupants per room. He has lived at this address for over 30 years. He has tenants that are employees and live on his property affordably. Concerned about excessive density of 1020 based on his experience. He has a 6000sf lot where he has four bedrooms and that would be 9 people if he maximized it. All his tenants have cars and 3 bikes and 3 sets of skis or 2 snowboards. Parking is definitely a huge problem. . Mary Elizabeth Geiger with Garfield and Hecht. Ms. Geiger stated that if this project was only about being code compliant and if that's all that HPC had to look at well then it wouldn't be before HPC. She said HPC should ask if it meets the critical guidelines of mass and scale. Ms. Geiger stated that mass and scale were a major concern at the last hearing for this project and quoted Commissioner’s statements who raised these concerns. She said that the redesign still has not addressed the mass and scale issue. She stated that without the historic resource the developer does not have free rein to develop up to zoningand there would be no discussion about a multifamily building on this site because it's only 4300 sq. ft. Ms. Geiger said that the only reason this in front of HPC is because of the historic resource. Michael Smith, 1012 E. Cooper, #1: Stated that the Commissioners had expressed concern about the size and mass but that the Applicant made only slight changes that removed no bedrooms, reduced floor area by only 3.7% and made the units less livable. Said this review is about HPC compliance and HPC guidelines, specifically 1.1, 1.7, 11.3 and 11.4 and explained how this project fails to meet those guidelines. Stated that neighbors had been consistent in their support of a properly scaled 3-unit project but the developer has been unwilling to limit density. Reminded the Commission that this is a non- conforming lot and this development wouldn’t be allowed without the historic resource which the developer is using to bootstrap into this project without complying with the guidelines. Paulette Koffron said that this project is too big and has concerns about parking. Peter Fornell stated that the project meets the code. He said that the lot itself and the district allow more than they are requesting. A special review would allow this property to have a 1.25 to 1 ratio of floor area lot size and what's more legitimate for our community to be granted additional. Mr. Fornell stated that he thinks that the applicant should be commended on the mass and scale. If this was his project, he would be asking for a lot more. He said that a major priority for City Council is affordable housing and you as a board are appointed by them to have the knowledge to support their goals. Mr. Fornell said in his line of work he has never come across SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17,2021 the argument of affordable housing being too close to free-market homes. He stated that if individuals do not like a land-use code, they need to take that up with City Council, not HPC. Ms. Thompson moved to extend the meeting; Mr. Moyer seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Philip Jeffreys Ski Co. He stated that he sympathized completely with the neighbors. Change is always very emotional, especially in these crazy times and construction is always jarring but we cannot make decisions of this magnitude on emotion. He said that the setbacks have been met, the resource has been protected, it meets our community goals, meets zoning. Mr. Jeffreys stated diversity is critical to a healthy and sustainable community and we cannot continue to exist as a place if all that gets built in this town is housing for the .1%. He said to keep our community's greater goals in mind when voting. Raymond Stover, 1006 E. Cooper. He echoed his neighbor’s concerns. He also feels that this is a true multi-family neighborhood, and it sounds like companies like SkiCo are going to buy these units for their employees. Mr. Stover said he would rather see families in the units than dormitory lifestyle and have this turned into subsidized housing for a company like Ski Co. He suggested turning it into multi-residential family units since that is what is zoned. Robert Sonderman stated the current white building looks a little rundown. He added to maintain the historic minor's cabin and put in 5 affordable units, which is a win for the neighborhood. Sarah Lasser ACRA. Ms. Lasser stated that ACRA wants to provide positive comments in support of this project on behalf of our broader business community. She said attracting long- term employees is a challenge that local businesses continue to face and believes this additional housing will help support and sustain local business. Stephen Abelman 1012 E Cooper. On behalf of himself and wife, the very minor mass and scale changes were disappointing and made the situation worse considering how many people the developer plans to house in those units along with cars, kids and pets. There should be more outdoor, indoor and parking space for the sake of the residents and their health. This decision should be made based on the welfare of the families and neighborhood, and not on the developers’ profit margin. Due to technical difficulties parts of Mr. Ableman’s comments were inaudible. Tiffany Smith 1012 E. Cooper stated that minor changes don’t address the fact that the Application still doesn’t meet HPC Guidelines 1.1, 1.7, 11.3 and 11.4, which apply to use of lot space and size, height and mass of the addition. City Staff rubber-stamped everything the developers wanted, ignoring difficulties like parking and more traffic in a 1-way, dead-end alley, that this large 5-unit complex will have on the neighborhood. She’s not at all against affordable housing on this lot but is concerned about too much density. Thinks this is a shady deal for the historic resource and existing RMF neighborhood. Asked how many Aspenites will benefit from this project and how many won’t. Ross Jacobs said he echoes the neighbor’s concerns. He stated he would like to see families move in next door. There were written comments submitted to HPC and are attached to Exhibit A. Ms. Adams stated that there's a lot of good info for a Council policy discussion from the neighbors, but that is not why we are here. She said that this project meets the code, adopted policy, Aspen Area Community Plan, under floor area, under height, contextual with the neighborhood, and parking. Ms. Adams said that the Council’s remand was for the tree, fence, and conduct better outreach to the neighborhood. She explained that they cannot reduce the density and keep this a viable affordable housing deed-restricted project. Ms. Adams said that they can limit the occupancy to no more than 1 unrelated adult per bedroom and will voluntarily do that. She said that they will work with APCH on an HOA document. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17,2021 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson stated that there is a handful of HPC guidelines to follow and land-use code. She said that there are a lot of great discussion points for Council. Ms. Thompson said that they will need to rely on staff and the Building Department evaluation of this project. Mr. Halferty stated that the applicant has done a good job addressing mass and scale and the addition of the dormer helped with that. The applicant met the concerns that are within HPC purview and complies. Mr. Halferty stated he can support this project. Ms. Thompson stated that she agrees with Mr. Halferty’s statement. She said she appreciates the revisions on the alley. It is a significant improvement to the façade. Ms. Thompson said that she would like to see the dormer lowered a bit, so it does not meet the ridgeline. Mr. Kendrick stated that the redesign is nice but does not address the mass and scale. He explained that the project is still too dense and overwhelms the resource. Mr. Moyer stated he agrees with Mr. Kendrick and said that the mass is too big. Mr. Kendrick said that the idea that this project is code compliant is misleading. He explained that without the historic resource the project would not be allowed, it's a nonconforming lot and very small. He further explained that slapping an HPC designation on it, is not free rein to build to the limits of the code. He stated HPC’s purview is still to protect the historic resource. Mr. Kendrick said that the project just needs more space. Ms. Thompson stated that nearly all projects that HPC looks at in the West End are smaller lots, they're historic. She said is not fair to characterize that this lot is not conforming it conforms to the land-use code. Mr. Halferty stated he agrees that this project conforms to the land-use code and that the purview is to protect the resource and the applicant has done that. Ms. Thompson stated that with no connecting element between the cabin and the new addition, the guidelines need to be applied differently. Mr. Moyer stated that there is another aspect to this project and that is livability. He said that the structure is too large, but the living area is too small. Mr. Moyer stated that if it was three units it would work but five is too big. He said that the structure is too large and cannot support it. Mr. Kendrick asked if the project that was the single-family home was smaller than this project. Ms. Simon stated the single-family home did receive conceptual approval from when it was sent to Council for call up. Council remanded it to HPC for consideration about the preservation of a tree and fence concerns. Ms. Simon stated that during the remand discussion, the applicant withdrew the application and sold the property. Ms. Thompson stated that they were very different application. She pointed out that there was a linking element in the previous project. Mr. Kendrick stated that the new addition is so close to the cabin that one would think there is a linking element. Ms. Thompson disagreed with that statement. Mr. Halferty stated that there is a clear separation between the two. Ms. Thompson stated that in past projects there has been discussion about variation and facades and that they are significant architecturally in making a massive difference. She said that what the applicant has accomplished. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Kendrick what could be done for his support. Mr. Kendrick stated that realistically fewer units. He further explained that looking at the south elevation of the original proposed plan and the redesign, there is little to no change. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17,2021 Ms. Thompson said that a 2D rendering is hard to read that is why as an architect the 3D models are better to show the differences. Mr. Moyer said that a two-story addition would be more compatible with the cabin. Mr. Kendrick said that going from a one-story resource to a three-story addition is a bit extreme. He said that the ridgeline of the new addition is the bulk of what is being seen from the street and if that could be lowered. Ms. Thompson asked the board about the relocation of the historic resource. She stated that she is in support of the relocation. Mr. Moyer stated that it is too close to the road. He said HPC needs to look at 1.1, 11.7, 11.3, 11.4 of the design guidelines. Mr. Moyer reiterated that the mass and scale is simply too large. Mr. Halferty stated that he could support the relocation, adding more space between the two structures and letting the historic cabin stand proud and pronounced. Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees with Mr. Halferty in concept. He explained he would like to see the separation a bit more. HPC was in agreement about the demolition of the non-historic sheds. Ms. Adams stated that they are respectfully requesting a vote for a clear direction for this project. Mr. Halferty moved to approve Resolution #03-2021with added conditions; Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. Mr. Kendrick, No; Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Moyer, No; Ms. Thompson, Yes. 2-2. Motion Denied Ms. Simon stated that the applicant has request direction with the vote so someone will need to change their vote to move this forward or denial. Ms. Johnson explained the procedure of how to move the vote forward. Ms. Thompson stated they need to respect the applicant's wishes in this situation and to achieve action. Ms. Thompson begrudgingly adjusted her vote to a no. Ms. Thompson stated the findings this is moving to deny this because of the mass and scale. She further explained a reduction of a story or a significant reduction in the mass of the 2nd structure. Mr. Moyer and Mr. Kendrick agreed that this project does not meet HPC guidelines. Mr. Kendrick moved to Deny Resolution #03-2021; Mr. Moyer seconded. Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Halferty, No; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Thompson, Yes. 3-1 Motion passes for denial. Adjourn all in favor. _________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy Clerk