Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20220413 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 13TH, 2022 Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, and Barb Pitchford. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant II MINUTES: Mr. Fornell motioned to approval the minutes from 2/9/2022, 2/23/2022, 3/9/2022. Mr. Halferty seconded. Ms. Thompson abstained from voting on the 2/9/22 minutes. All in favor; motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson recognized and welcomed Ms. Pitchford as the newest member of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned that HPC members are invited to some work the City is doing on the lighting code. She described how the meetings will proceed. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Feinberg Lopez mentioned that three items were called up to City Council. These included 233 Bleeker, 925 King (demolition permit) and 410 E. Hyman. She said that Council only discussed the 233 Bleeker project due to the major review. They looked at the size and square footage of the addition and wanted to know why it was a side yard addition and not in the rear of the structure. Mr. Fornell asked if Council had issues with any setback variances that were provided. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said they were fine with the setbacks, but they wanted to go over the square footage of the basement. She mentioned some of their comments made the paper. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Feinberg Lopez if Council knew that many of their comments were not in HPC’s purview. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said she believes that HPC could have a conversation with Council about what HPC can and cannot do. and that Council may not have a full understanding. She said that she thought it was a great project and not to be discouraged. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice and that notice was provided per the code for the agenda item. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 13TH, 2022 NEW BUSINESS: 949 W. Smuggler – AspenModern Historic Designation and Benefits, Conceptual and Final Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, TDR, Subdivision, Growth Management – PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning LLC & Derek Skalko, 1 Friday Design Collaborative Mr. Haas introduced himself and Mr. Skalko and mentioned that Chris Vandemoer, their client was listening in. He then showed a vicinity map highlighting the site at 949 W. Smuggler St. and mentioned that they were applying for AspenModern landmark designation. He then described the negotiated approval process of the AspenModern program through which preservation benefits and incentives beyond those identified in the code are available and applicable sections in the code take on a flexibility that does not normally exist. Mr. Haas then thanked Ms. Simon for her hard work and inspiration and for her thorough but fair review of their proposal. Mr. Haas went on to describe the history of the Vandemoer family on the property. He then described the reasoning for and details of the eventual Vandemoer lot split which was finalized in 2020. The project that is being discussed is located on the 18,000 square foot “lot 2”. In order to afford to keep this legacy property in the family and to preserve the historic significance of the home, Mr. Vandemoer is seeking the AspenModern designation. Mr. Haas mentioned that if this application is not successful, Mr. Vandemoer would have to sell the property to the highest bidder, who would most likely not keep the historic structures. Mr. Haas then went over the existing conditions of the property. It is an 18,000 square foot lot which includes a chalet style structure that sits on the western side with a four-side wrap around porch. The structure is flanked by two huge evergreen trees on each front corner and one at the back corner. There is also a wooden structure at the back of the property, referred to in the application as the “chicken coop” which was built at the same time as the house. Mr. Haas then showed a few historic pictures of the house as well as a current picture, noting that nothing has changed since it was built in the 1940s. He also went over the historical significance of the property and house. He then went into describing the proposed site plan, which includes subdividing the property into two lots, Lot 2(a) and Lot 2(b). Parcel A will be a 10,000 square foot lot (100x100) and will include the historic chalet, the relocated “chicken coop” and a new detached single-family residence to be built along the alley front. Parcel B will be a vacant 8,000 square foot lot which will be given a residential growth management allotment but will not be designated or be subject to HPC purview for future development. He mentioned that there are no proposed changes to the historic chalet on parcel A. Per the AspenModern negotiations and incentives, they are asking to combine conceptual and final reviews with HPC. The applicant seeks to maintain the existing historic fence in its existing location as shown in the existing conditions and also maintain the existing parking pull out on W. Smuggler St. The standard 10 foot set back on the north side of Parcel B is proposed to increase to a 30-foot setback for any above grade development in order to assure maximum visibility of the historic structure on Parcel A from W. Smuggler and 8th street. They are proposing a combined side yard setback of 15 feet instead of the required 25 feet of combined setbacks on Lot 2(b) which will need an HPC variation. If preferable to the City they would memorialize these setbacks as a building envelope on the final plat. They are also proposing to drop the normally allowed 3,520 square feet of floor area for an 8,000-foot lot to 3,240 square feet which is what is allowed on a REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 13TH, 2022 6,000-foot lot. Because of this reduction they are asking for a 250 square foot TDR be issued to the applicant. Mr. Haas then addressed the Chalet lot (Lot 2(a)) and that they are not requesting any Floor Area Bonus (FAB) from HPC. He stated that for this 10,000-foot lot a total of 4140 square feet is allowed, but that the combined square footage of the historic structures and the new building would be less than that. He mentioned that the proposed new location of the “chicken coop” would require a 5-foot side yard setback variation and that they are also requesting a 5-foot rear yard setback variation on the new building to allow for the light well and room for a laundry space and mechanicals. He then mentioned that language in the original Vandemoer lot split mentioned no further lot splits can occur on the divided lots, they are calling this a major subdivision, but that is really in name only. He said that they are requesting that the applicant be able to sell the vacant lot before paying the cash-in-leu for affordable housing mitigation on the new building. Mr. Skalko started by showing the proposed elevations of the new building noting that the new building basically hides behind the historic asset when looking from W. Smuggler. This was achieved by pushing the distance between old and new structures to the greatest extent possible (approx. 26 feet). He then showed a 3D rendering of the property (Lot 2a) to get a better look at the mass and scale of the structures. In closing Mr. Haas said that the applicant desires to see the historic chalet and outbuilding preserved in perpetuity via historic landmark designation under AspenModern in exchange for the associated benefits within the code for designated landmarks. Mr. Halferty asked about what appears to be a water line going through the vacant lot. Mr. Haas pointed out this line on the utility plat and said that is a home service line that runs from 8th St. to the chalet and mentioned that it will need to be removed at some point. Mr. Halferty asked that the variations for the “chicken coop” be gone over again, which Mr. Haas did. Mr. Halferty wanted to clarify if the proposal meant that HPC wouldn’t have purview of any design review on Lot 2b. Mr. Haas said that is what is proposed in order for the applicant to sell the lot and maximize the value. Mr. Fornell asked if the “chicken coop” was heated living space and part of the FAR calculation. Mr. Haas said they are counting it as part of the FAR calculation because it is enclosed but it is not heated nor is it habitable under building code. Mr. Fornell wanted to extend his gratitude to the applicant, Chris, and his family for their stewardship of the property over the many years. He then mentioned that the request for a deferral of affordable housing mitigation is a loophole in the requirements that is designed for people who live and work at a job in Aspen. He asked for more of an explanation of the request. Mr. Haas said they have only conditionally requested a deferral. That condition is only in the unlikely event that the applicant decides to build the new structure before the lot has sold. Mr. Fornell wanted to state for the record that a deferral should be reserved for those who qualify under the guidelines. Mr. Haas mentioned that the housing office has supported the deferral request. Ms. Thompson asked if Mr. Skalko could go over the proposed materials for the new building. Mr. Skalko proceeded to go over the various proposed material options on different parts of the building. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 13TH, 2022 Staff Presentation: Amy Simon, Planning Director Ms. Simon started by going over the history of the Preservation program and the voluntary AspenModern program. She also went over the timing of this application and the scheduling of HPC meetings set for it. Also noted were various incentives that have been part of different AspenModern applications in the past. She then reviewed some of staff’s thoughts that are laid out in the memo, regarding the historic resource and the new building, noting that as far as design review staff is not raising any objections. Staff also finds the relocation of the “chicken coop” an acceptable way to keep it part of the property and maintain its relationship. She then went over a few points for HPC discussion. One related to the parking in front of the Chalet on City property in the Right of Way that has always been there. Normally Engineering would say that needs to go in order to reclaim the public space. In trying to accommodate the owner, no one finds this a necessity as it has been a traditional element. Engineering did ask for the parking to become parallel. She wanted HPC to discuss this and make sure that the view of the house is not impacted by the number of cars parking there. The next item she wanted discussion on was the adjacent lot. Staff greatly appreciates the deep setback on the front and is in support of widening the building envelope to balance things out. She asked the commissioners to discuss possibly increasing the front setback for above grade development in order to maximize the view of the chalet from 8th St. She also asked for discussion of the fact that the application asks that the lot not be designated which is a concern because of the benefits being requested. She did not think we can forgo designating the lot because of the TDR being requested. A discussion was also requested about the growth management calculations for the lot since it was technically a second lot split of the property. Ms. Simon wanted to make clear that there is an exception being asked for to mitigate for this as if it were an existing lot and while it is not a deal breaker, a balance is wanted to be found. She pointed out that the City is asking for a first right of refusal to purchase the lot at a market rate to potentially build affordable housing. Mr. Halferty asked if the right of first refusal would be a conflict of interest. Ms. Simon said because it would be at market rate it would not be. Ms. Johnson mentioned that since HPC members wouldn’t be directly benefited financially it would not be a conflict. Ms. Thompson asked if they had ever approved a limitation of height on a part of a lot. Ms. Simon said not for AspenModern, but that this is a negotiation. Ms. Thompson said she was surprised that Engineering would allow parking in the right of way and asked if it would be reasonable to limit that to a specific number of spots. Ms. Simon said that there are other parking spaces in the right of way around town and that this parking would be signed for use by the general public. Mr. Fornell gave his support to the project and was looking forward to seeing it again at the next meeting, but that something had come up that he had to attend to and would be leaving the meeting. Mr. Fornell then left the meeting. Mr. Moyer asked if the City were to buy the lot if they would be treated like any other developer or person. Ms. Simon confirmed that yes, they would and that HPC could decide that if the City ended up buying the lot that it would come under HPC design review. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 13TH, 2022 BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson asked how Ms. Pitchford was doing. Ms. Pitchford said she was learning a lot but does appreciate the property and the applicant’s intent to preserve it. Ms. Thompson went over the items for discussion. The first being the fence and its encroachment into the right of way. Mr. Halferty said he was ok with it but was concerned about consistency when it comes to other projects. Ms. Pitchford asked if the fence in discussion includes the fence on the alley side of the property as well. Mr. Haas said it was really just about the one in the front of the Chalet lot. Ms. Thompson said she would be supportive of the encroachment to keep the fence in its current location and allow maintenance of it, but to limit the amount of landscaping between the property line and the fence. Mr. Moyer said he wasn’t opposed to the fence and that if the parking is parallel, it won’t overwhelm the view of the fence or the house. Ms. Thompson agreed with Mr. Moyer on the parking given the location of the property. She then asked for someone to start the discussion about the new structure. Mr. Halferty said he thought the new structure complies with their guidelines and that the requested setbacks related to the garage is fine because it helps maintains a nice distance between the historic resource and the new structure. He thought it is a product of its own time. Ms. Surfas agreed with Mr. Halferty and that it complements the existing structure. Mr. Moyer had no issues with the new structure. Ms. Thompson also agreed and supported the variance for the deck and below grade. Ms. Pitchford said that she thought it was a product of its time but didn’t necessarily complement the existing structure but realized that it didn’t have to. She asked a question about 30-foot setback of the proposed building envelope and if everything was approved that any new owner of the lot would have to adhere to that setback. Ms. Thompson said yes. Ms. Thompson then moved the discussion to the items related to the vacant lot, including the sub- division agreement, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), and the developable area. She said she was concerned about the 30-foot setback while allowing all that floor area to be built on a smaller footprint. She asked Ms. Simon if she was correct in the assumption that if the 30-foot setback was approved that it would still be the same amount of floor area for a lot of that size and that the mass could be larger than if they did something to limit a future project. Ms. Simon said those type of things is what they are here to discuss and reminded HPC that even though the lot is 8,000 square feet, the applicant is restricting themselves to the floor area allowed for a 6,000 square foot lot. Mr. Halferty agreed with Ms. Thompson’s concerns over the potential massing of future development. He thought it would help if any future development did a lot of sub-grade floor area. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 13TH, 2022 Mr. Moyer thought it would be helpful to go over and stake out a few scenarios. He also suggested that sub-grade floor be able to go toward the front and be below the yard and above-grade be allowed to move closer to the east property line. Ms. Thompson agreed that a site visit would be helpful. Mr. Moyer asked Mr. Haas if it was a disadvantage to a developer to be next to a landmark building and what would come with that and if it would it be that much harder to sell. Ms. Haas said he wasn’t a realtor, but that the members were bringing up some good points and things he hadn’t thought about. He knew they were coming back for another meeting and wanted to further discuss the topics with the applicant and City staff and hopefully come back with everyone on the same page. Ms. Thompson said that she is generally supportive of the TDR but noted that she did not know the last time the City Council approved a TDR. Mr. Moyer and Mr. Halferty was also supportive of the TDR. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon if the newly created lot could not be a receiving site of the TDR. Ms. Simon said that a site that is not designated historic can be a landing site for TDRs which is why the discussion of landmarking the lot could be part of any conditions of approval. Ms. Thompson said she would be in favor of whatever they can do to limit the ability for a TDR to land on this site if it’s not landmarked. Ms. Pitchford asked to clarify if the fence on the east side of the second lot is inside the property line. Mr. Haas said it was about 1-2 feet inside the line. Ms. Thompson said she was in favor of the relocation of the “chicken coop” and the related setbacks. Other members agreed. There was a short discussion of the requested 10-year vesting rights. Ms. Thompson said that if they were deferring payment on employee housing until the adjacent property is sold, that they include some time limits on how long it could be deferred. There was discussion on administrating and scheduling a site visit. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to continue this hearing to Wednesday, April 27th at noon at 949 W. Smuggler St. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passed. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk