Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20221026 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 26TH, 2022 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:35pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Peter Fornell, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk Kevin Rayes, Planner MINUTES: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer mentioned an article in Preservation Magazine about the Soldner House. Mr. Halferty suggested the idea of creating a pamphlet showcasing historic buildings in town. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: 931 Gibson Avenue. Ms. Simon introduced Mr. Flynn Stewart-Severy who is the architect on the project and that Ms. Thompson is the project monitor on this. She said there has been a lengthy conversation about what to do with the roof shingles on this home and at the moment staff and monitor have not approved replacement of the shingles. Mr. Stewart-Severy started by going over some history of the home and project. The house was successfully moved from 333 Park and the shingles were removed during the move in order to stabilize the roof structure. He mentioned that they believe the original roof to be Cortright metal slates or similar product and he went on to describe the product and its installation. He showed a few pictures of the shingles before they were removed and said that they are requesting to use a replica. He presented and described two different replica options (Berridge and Fine Metal Roof Tech) and passed around examples of them and the original shingles. He also described the installation process for each. He mentioned that the first option has 30-year materials warranty, and the second option had a lifetime warranty. Next, he said that the scope of work here would be to replace the entire roof over the interior space and that the entry roof was up for debate. He mentioned that the insurance company said they would not insure the home if the old shingles were reused. He said that they feel the existing shingle is damaged beyond repair and should not be reinstalled. Maintenance ceased in about 1960 and the last coat of paint to the shingles was at that time. Ms. Simon said even though staff always prefers to save original materials they recognize the difficulty when talking about a material that is important to the sustainability of the house. She also noted that while the patina on the original shingles is nice it is not what the original roof looked like. She said that staff is recommending allowing the full replacement on the roof and it should be the closest match REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 26TH, 2022 possible. She also said that the entry roof would be an opportunity to save the original and if not possible that a custom replica should be required. Ms. Thompson said, being the monitor on this case, that since there was detailed discussion on this during the review process, that she wanted it to come before the whole board. She was in support of Ms. Simon’s idea of replacing the shingles on the main roof and if they allow a replica to be used on the entry roof that it should replicate the smaller size. Mr. Halferty asked about the extent of the discussion of the metal roof. Ms. Simon mentioned that during the original review of the project it was represented that the original shingles would be salvaged and reused. After further investigation it was found that that would be difficult. Mr. Fornell asked if Mr. Stewart-Severy had a product preference and why. Mr. Stewart-Severy said he probably preferred the Berridge product because it is mass produced, there is a warranty on it and they should be able to get it faster. Mr. Fornell then asked Ms. Simon the same question. Ms. Simon said that since it was a two-story building that slight differences may not be notice, but that it was more important to get the scale right on the porch roof. Responding to a question about noticing of neighbors from Mr. Halferty, Ms. Johnson said that if this was brought to the level of and deemed a substantial change it would require the applicant to file a substantial amendment application and it would go to a public hearing that would need to be noticed. Ms. Thompson asked if any members objected to replacing the shingles and replicating a smaller shingle for the front porch roof. No member objected and the board left it up to the applicant on which product option to use. There was then some discussion surrounding the differences in the two product options with regard to the warranties and availability. STAFF COMMENTS: None. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon mentioned that the Jing project, the 134 E. Hopkins project and 312 W. Hyman had all recently been called up. Ms. Johnson confirmed that Council did not have any comments on them except that they complimented the 312 W. Hyman project and appreciated that it was a small project. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice, and that notice was provided per the code for both agenda items. NEW BUSINESS: 205 W. Main St. – 205 W. Main Street- Historic Preservation Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Growth Management Quota System, Special Review, Transportation and Parking Management – PUBLIC HEARING REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 26TH, 2022 Applicant Presentation: Stan Clauson – Clauson Rawley Associates, Inc. Mr. Clauson introduced Michael Brown, representing the ownership group and Brian Beazley from DJ Architects. He then went over a brief history of the property and showed a few pictures of the current conditions. He noted that affordable housing is one of City Council’s key goals. Next, he said the project would be 100% affordable housing and went over some of the details of the proposed project including number of units, bedrooms, amenities, and landscaping. He then showed the site plan and pointed out the historic building, noting that it would be slightly relocated on the site. He also pointed out the parking in the rear of the project and where the new additions would be located. He then showed a rendering of the proposed development as seen from Main St. and said a lot of time was spent on the compatibility of the new development to the historic resource. He noted that there is a sidewalk proposed on First St. where there isn’t one currently. He went over details of the proposed 7 parking spaces which include one handicapped space. He noted that in the Mixed-Use Zone District 60% of the parking mitigation can be met with off street parking which would result in a minimum parking requirement of 5.4 on-site spaces and that they are proposing 7 spaces. The remaining 40% of parking mitigation can be met by cash-in-lieu, but that can be waived by the Historic Preservation Commission under appropriate circumstances. He said that they believe that the waiver is appropriate in this case, and he went on to describe their reasoning. He stated that the project was intended to house employees of the Molly Gibson and that the two properties are very close. The proximity to the Molly Gibson was what drew the applicant to this property. They believe the proximity to the Molly Gibson and the commercial core will potentially reduce the need for residents to have cars. He then described some aspects of the preservation of the historic resource currently on the site noting that the relocation will put it in the most prominent location on the site. The two new additions will be set 10 feet away from the historic resource which meets code requirements. He said they believe all historic guidelines have been met and that no variances are being requested. Mr. Beazley went on the describe the mass and scale considerations, using a site drawing to go over the details of the elevations. Mr. Clauson recognized that the new structures are larger than the historic but are consistent with the land use code and allow for the optimization of the property for affordable housing. He then went over the special review being requested and noted that some of the units are below the APCHA square footage standard but are within the 20% reduction when sufficient amenities are provided. He also noted that some units are below the 50% below grade requirement. He went on the describe the amenity factors that they believe support this request. A chart was then shown detailing each unit’s proposed square footage compared to the APCHA unit size guidelines. Mr. Clauson mentioned that there are currently no affordable housing certificates on the market and that this project would create 24.3 certificates. He then detailed the floor area request for the project related to what is allowed in the mixed-use zone district and went over the criteria for granting this special review. Next, he showed the landscape plan and went over its details. The building plans were then shown, and Mr. Beazley detailed the floor plans of several of the units. Mr. Clauson requested that HPC reconsider section 1.6 of the resolution, that states that the proposed light wells be reduced in size, and he went over their reasoning behind the request. He then noted that they have APCHA’s support for the units. The units are intended for APCHA qualified tenants, but they are requesting that Molly Gibson employees be exempt for the maximum assets and income limits and Mr. Clauson noted that Cindy Christensen, Deputy Director of APCHA, said this was an acceptable provision. He concluded by noting the benefits to the city in providing affordable housing and the restoration of a historic Victorian. He also noted that the mass and scale were consistent with the historic district and Main St. zoning and that REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 26TH, 2022 they had APCHA support. He then went over their responses to guidelines 11.3, 11.4 and to conditions included in the resolution. Ms. Thompson asked where the transformer is proposed to be located. Mr. Clauson showed the utility diagram and Mr. Brown said they had talked to the Electric Department, and they confirmed that the existing transformer at the western end of the alley has capacity, and a new transformer is not needed. Ms. Thompson then asked if keeping large light wells that are proposed are to increase light in the units, why are the other windows so small. Mr. Beazley said they would make the windows as large as they can. Mr. Moyer asked what the distance between the buildings and the walkways was. Mr. Clauson said ten feet but that some areas that are larger. Mr. Moyer asked how difficult it would be to design the new addition to be one foot lower that the historic resource. Mr. Brown said it could be done but you would lose units. Mr. Moyer asked how many variances are being requested to which Mr. Clauson answered none, but there are special reviews that are being asked for related to parking and unit size and subgrade nature. Mr. Halferty asked what the Affordable Housing Credits are being used for. Mr. Brown said that this is a fully voluntary project and that they do not need them for the Molly Gibson or any other projects. Ms. Surfas asked about the proposed APCHA income exemption. There was then discussion about the difference between the credits created by the project and how the units will be used. Mr. Brown asked if there was a direct relationship between the applicant and the Molly Gibson to which Mr. Brown said he owned the Molly Gibson. Ms. Pitchford then asked with 22 bedrooms proposed how they came up with 7 parking spaces and why they thought that was adequate. Mr. Clauson said there was only enough room for 7 spaces on the alley side of the property and that the code requirement is for one space per unit, but that can be reduced to as low as 60% which would be 5.4 spaces. Mr. Fornell noted that parking cash-in-lieu has been denied for 3 other similar projects in this district and asked if they thought they had a compelling argument that this should be waived for this project. Mr. Brown went over their reasoning. Mr. Fornell asked if the cash-in-lieu amount would have a bearing on the completion of the project to which Mr. Brown said every dollar matters. Mr. Fornell asked if the lightwells were built to the code minimum, would that put the project under the 1:1 ratio for floor area. Mr. Brown said it would be closer but not necessarily under. There was discussion about the percentage of square footage under the APCHA requirements and Mr. Fornell commended them for being much closer to the requirements that the other projects he referenced earlier. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon - Planning Director & Kevin Rayes – Planner Ms. Simon went over some history of the project and showed a few historic pictures of the historic asset and noted that the applicant intends to demolish a non-historic addition on the historic resource and she pointed out. She also noted that the applicant is proposing to move the resource 10 feet to the north and 10 feet to the east. She showed the rendering of the proposed new addition and pointed out that it is set back to let the historic building be the most prominent. She then went over the two conditions in the resolution related to what she had been talking about, including the lightwell and the financial security for moving the historic asset. She pointed out in a rendering that the historic house in the site plan would be free standing and that there are few examples of this in town. She said that not making a new addition to the historic resource is a huge win and diminishes concerns of some of the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 26TH, 2022 aspects of the surrounding construction. Showing a graphic from the memo, she pointed out that even though the new structure is bigger there are sympathetic nods to the historic resource and the highest mass is pushed into the furthest corner away from the historic resource. She then went over the recommended conditions related to the conceptual review. Mr. Rayes went over the growth management, certificates of affordable housing credit, and special review related to parking and transportation. He went over the unit layouts and details and then went over the affordable housing credits being generated by this project. He then showed the chart of the unit square footages and noted that while some of the units are below the APCHA required minimums, provided in the packet, APCHA has provided a formal recommendation of approval because other on- site amenities are being provided. Noting that a few units exceed the below grade minimum, he went over the criteria for HPC to consider in allowing below grade space to be more than 50%. This included detailing the additional on-site amenities being provided. He went on to talk about the parking and transportation pieces and he reviewed the parking code noting that the mixed-use zone district requires one parking “unit” per dwelling unit. He clarified that a parking “unit” doesn’t necessarily mean a parking space, but it can either be an on-site space or cash-in-lieu. He mentioned that 60% of parking needs to be on-site, which in this case is 5.4 parking spaces, rounded up to 6 spaces and the applicant is providing 7 spaces. He said that staff is recommending denial of the applicant’s request to waive the cash-in-lieu payment for the 2 spaces they are not providing on-site. The reasoning included that the cash-in-lieu is used to fund different transportation options that the tenants of this project would likely be benefitting from. He then noted that each of the nine units will be receiving one on-street parking pass. Next, he reviewed the special review request for floor area and noted that a ratio of 1:1 in the mixed-use zone is allowed by right and an applicant can request up to a 1.25:1 ratio when building affordable housing. He said the applicant is requesting a 1.1:1 ratio and he went over the criteria for allowing this, detailing why staff finds the criteria to be met. He concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of conceptual major development, relocation, growth management, certificates of affordable housing credits, parking and transportation management, special review for sub-grade living space and floor area and recommend denial to waive the fee-in-lieu for parking. He then mentioned the public comments from concerned neighbors that had been received and forwarded to HPC members and noted that they are really focused on the massing of the new additions and the parking. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon if this also needs to be approved by City Council. Ms. Simon said no. Staff will do a notice of call up to Council if HPC approves conceptual and then it will come back to HPC for final. Ms. Thompson asked if there was any proposal to add additional square footage to the historic resource to which Ms. Simon said no. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon about other lightwells allowed in town. Ms. Simon described some examples of oversized lightwells allowed by HPC. Mr. Moyer asked how this project fits into the Main Street Historic guidelines to which Ms. Simon said those guidelines are for commercial and lodge development and since this is a residential development the historic preservation design guidelines and the residential design standards are being applied. He then asked Ms. Simon if she feels that this fits within guideline 11.3 regarding mass and scale. Ms. Simon said they think the applicant has done a lot to speak to the historic resource, bring scale down and step back to the rear where they need to have the most height and mass. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 26TH, 2022 Mr. Fornell asked if the storage units part of the current floor area count of each unit and if they are counted in the overall floor area. Mr. Clauson said they were in addition and Ms. Simon said they are not counted as net livable space but are part of the floor area. Mr. Fornell asked if there were any ADA compliant units to which Mr. Beazley said all the ground floor units and two of the second-floor units. There was discussion of HPC’s jurisdiction to issue the certificates of affordable housing credits. Ms. Pitchford asked about the applicant’s request to waive the APCHA income and asset requirements. Mr. Clauson said this was not something they are asking HPC for approval of, but that it would be worked out with APCHA. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Simon noted the public comment emails that had been received from Mr. David Scruggs and that they had all been forwarded to the members. All members confirmed that they had read them. Ms. Johnson talked about Mr. Scruggs’ concerns about his ability to appear via WebEx for this meeting and that he had also brought up his concerns to City Council the night before. She mentioned that written comment was afforded to Mr. Scruggs, like all citizens, and that the meeting was publicly noticed as in-person. Ms. Simon was not certain that she had forwarded Mr. Scruggs’ email from Monday Oct. 24th, and she then read it into the record. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson wanted to start by going over the relocation, growth management, special review for below grade space and certificates of affordable housing credits. She said she had no objections to the proposals in those sections. No other members had objections to those items. Ms. Simon said that when it came to the $30,000 financial assurance, Mr. Brown’s main concern is when it is collected and that he would be fine if it was due at permit issuance. Ms. Thompson moved on to discussion on parking and transportation management. She said she thought this to be a land use code that the applicant conforms to and regarding waiving the cash-in-lieu, she felt HPC’s ability to do that is related to an impact on the historic resource which doesn’t exist here. She thought it was more related to it being an affordable housing project and though it was more of a question for City Council. Mr. Moyer spoke to some of history with the property and his thought on the project. He said he did not think the project came close to meeting guideline 11.3 related to mass and scale. He thought it was too large and that if it was the same height or a foot less than the historic resource he would be totally in favor. He said there is no reason that a structure next to a historic house should overwhelm it. He said he would not let it happen here. He said the parking management was not in HPC’s purview, so he was not going to comment on it. All members said they were not in favor of the waiver of cash-in-lieu for parking. Ms. Thompson moved on to reviewing major development. She said she tended to agree with Mr. Moyer regarding the mass and scale of the addition. She thought this project would have greatly benefited from a 3D model to help with their discussion. She described her thoughts on how building #2 could be reduced to better comply with the guidelines. Mr. Fornell reiterated what Mr. Clauson had said about affordable housing being a top community goal. He acknowledged that the project challenges the compatibility with the historic resource. He thought REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 26TH, 2022 that when they start to try to pair back massing on a building that conforms, we are losing the ability to house workers. He said that because of the product that it is, he is satisfied with the mass and scale. Ms. Surfas said that guidelines 11.3 and 11.4 were what she highlighted before the meeting and thought the mass scale of a corner lot is just as important as from Main St. Mr. Halferty agreed with the need for affordable housing, but the 2D site planning was a challenge and agreed with Ms. Thompson on the benefit a 3D model would have brought. He thought the height of the new building should be lower or the same height of the historic resource to better comply with the guidelines. He agreed with other members that the mass and scale should be revisited. He said any parking is better than no parking and said that with some revisiting he could support this project and thought it needed some mass and scale adjustments. Ms. Thompson moved to extend the meeting until 7:30pm. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes. Ms. Pitchford agreed with most members and thought this project had a lot of really good things, but it came down to guidelines 11.3 and 11.4. She would also appreciate seeing it in a 3D model and thought the mass and scale were too big. Mr. Fornell said the site plan views presented were not at the angle that someone from street level would see and thought the visual impacts may be less if looked at from a lower angle. He thought they should have a bit more give and take and that community benefits are another goal that they need to consider. He thought the are asking for a pound of flesh from someone who is complying now. Ms. Thompson did not agree with Mr. Fornell and said that mass and scale are part of their purview. She said they have to keep in mind historic preservation and that what people see along Main St. is consistent with the guidelines. Ms. Simon showed the site plan again and there was discussion on where the concerns were on mass and scale. Mr. Clauson said they would appreciate an approval at this meeting with conditions and if the specific reduction of mass that was discussed was a condition for final that it would eliminate one unit. He requested a continuance to restudy the mass and scale. There was some discussion on potential date for a continuance. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to continue the meeting until November 16th. Ms. Thompson seconded. Mr. Moyer voiced his concern over the public hue and cry that would result from this project. He asked that the applicant make it less overwhelming. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Fornell seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk