Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20221116 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:55pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Peter Fornell, Jodi Surfas, and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kevin Rayes, Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Jim True, City Attorney Ben Anderson, Community Development Deputy Director Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant MINUTES: Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes from 10/26/22. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0, motion passes. Mr. Moyer joined the meeting at 5:02pm. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer said he had been in front of the affordable housing project at 8th and Main and commented that since the historic resource and new addition are both painted white, he didn’t think anyone could tell the difference. He thought it was an issue that they should address at some point. He went on to comment that not having in-person meetings is ridiculous, because of the virtual meeting issues that are being experienced. Next, he described his belief that their job is not the applicant, it is the historic resource and the guidelines. Over his time on HPC he has learned that they can say no. Mr. Fornell said he respected Mr. Moyer’s comments but disagreed with his thought that their only job is the historic resource. He said that on one of the hearing items before them tonight, of the five issues before them to review, only two of them deal with the historic resource. They are making final decisions on matters that have nothing to do with historic preservation. He wishes their only task was to review historic assets, but they are also tasked with making final determinations on things like growth management quotas, transportation & parking, and certificates of affordable housing. He questioned why this is their job. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Johnson referenced a public comment that was made stating that Mr. Fornell should disqualify himself from one of tonight’s agenda items and that there was some context around why they felt that way. She stated that she had talked with Mr. Fornell and reviewed the public comment and didn’t believe that there was a conflict of interest in this case. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she had worked with Ms. Thompson and Mr. Halferty on their projects and would reach out to Mr. Moyer on another project soon. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 STAFF COMMENTS: None. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon mentioned that two projects were called up to City Council. 434 E. Cooper, the Restoration Hardware project as well as the 520 E. Cooper project, where Pitkin County Dry Goods is located were both called up and Council upheld HPC’s decision on both projects. Ms. Thompson asked if Council had any additional comments on the projects. Ms. Simon said Council had brought up some concerns with the Restoration Hardware project being a large space only devoted to one tenant and some councilors also showed interest in the dynamic glass that HPC influenced the applicant to use. 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: 413 E. Main St. – Minor Development Review and Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Gavin Merlino – Kuulla Studio Mr. Merlino started by mentioning that he had worked with Kate at Jing when they built a Covid temporary structure. He said that she wanted to take some elements from that enclosed heated space and try to make that work in a more aesthetic and functional way. He said it would be a two-part process that would first see an open-air porch structure built that will give them a bit more protection and privacy. This would consist of columns and a flat roof. They have a structural engineer on the project to make help minimize the size of the beams to make sure the structure does not appear too massive. The structure would also be completely within their property line. The second part of the project, which would go before City Council, would be to add temporary walls to the porch during the cold weather months. These would not be canvas or tent walls, but would be framed, properly insulated, and have functioning windows. He mentioned that what they are proposing to HPC tonight is a smaller footprint (192 square feet) than what was in the original packet. He then went over some of the differences. Mr. Ben Rose said they had originally proposed a larger footprint, but after feedback from City staff that they would be more inclined to favor a smaller footprint, they modified their proposal. Mr. Fornell mentioned the encroachment of the planter boxes onto the City right of way that Mr. Merlino had brought up and asked if they had been moved back onto their lot line. Mr. Merlino said that was to be determined as they are not sure if they would be using them. Ms. Thompson said as she understood it, that would be an encroachment easement that would be handled with the Engineering Dept. if they decide to use them. Mr. Merlino agreed. Mr. Fornell then asked if the moving of the planter boxes to within their lot line was a condition of approval, would they be ok with that, to which Mr. Rose said yes. Mr. Halferty asked if the windows represented were the sliders that were approved by HPC about a month ago to which Mr. Merlino said yes. Ms. Surfas asked if they had been installed yet to which Mr. Merlino said no, that they were waiting to see what the overall construction outlook is. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Mr. Halferty then asked about the drainage plan for the structure. Mr. Merlino went over their initial ideas to run downspouts to the existing drain on the property. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon – Planning Director Ms. Simon described the concerns that staff had raised about the design and size of the original proposed porch and thanked Mr. Merlino for his quick redesign. She said they had referred the project to the Engineering Department to make sure things like drainage were looked at. She suggested that HPC not make the issue of the planter boxes a condition of approval as it is really Engineering’s purview. She noted that the applicant would be approaching Council in a few weeks for a temporary use review regarding the proposed solid walls to be installed in the colder months, but that that is not on the table for HPC. She stated that staff is recommending approval of this restudy. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson thanked Mr. Merlino for his presentation and quick redesign and said she was in support of this reduced footprint. No other board members had any issues with the project. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with the revision to section #1, stating that HPC hereby approves Minor Development and Commercial Design Review with the reduced porch size as represented at the November 16th meeting. Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0: All in favor, motion passes. 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 – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Stan Clauson – Clauson Rawley Associates Mr. Clauson started by introducing Ryan Sutton from Conservation Housing Partners and Brian Beazley with DJArchitects. He went on to review the project background and the history of the historic resource, highlighting the outstanding item to be addressed, being the Main St. façade at the 3rd floor. He then went over the items that were previously accepted at the last meeting and had no changes. These included the Major Development, Relocation, Growth Management, and Special Review for unit size and percentage below grade. He then went over the items previously discussed and that have been updated. These included the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, due to the reduction of the 3rd floor, the Special Review for Floor Area, again due to the reduction of the 3rd floor, the Special review for Parking mitigation, now to have cash-in-lieu to be paid and Conceptual Infrastructure Design. He then reviewed the proposed updates to the FTE calculations and square footages which would result from the two options being proposed to reduce the 3rd floor area. He stated that there were no changes to the project location and again highlighted its proximity to the Molly Gibson lodge. Next, he went over more of the history of the historic resource and its original relocation to its current location. He mentioned that there are no changes to the site plan and parking. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Mr. Sutton went over the updates to the project which still included nine units but would result in a 1- bedroom reduction. He continued by describing the two proposed options (A & B) that were in response to HPC discussions at the last meeting. Option A moves the façade back 9 feet from the original proposal and places it behind the ridgeline of the historic resource. It also reduces on er of the units from a 2 bedroom to a 1 bedroom and from 866sf to 641sf. He showed site plan and elevation comparisons of this option to the original proposal. Option B moves the façade back 14 feet 6 inches from the original proposal and places it well behind the ridgeline of the historic resource. This option also reduces the unit from a 2 bedroom to a 1 bedroom and from 866sf to 561sf. He again showed site plan and elevation comparisons of this option to the original proposal. Renderings of both options were then shown. Mr. Clauson then showed a few pictures of precedent properties and made comparisons to this project. He then presented a wide picture streetscape study showing building proportions, scale, height, and width of the surrounding properties on Main St. Next a 3D model was presented and walk around views were shown from both pedestrian and driver perspectives. Mr. Clauson recognized HPC’s goal of protecting historic resources but noted that another goal is meeting the overall goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and City Council. One of these key goals being affordable housing. He reminded the members that this project is intended to house employees of the Molly Gibson Lodge and meets all the parameters of the zone district. Ms. Thompson asked about the ridge height of the front element of the new structure on Main St. She said that Mr. Halferty noted at the last meeting, and she agreed, that it would be more appropriate pulled down to the ridge height of the historic resource and asked if there was a reason why they did not make that change. Mr. Clauson said their understanding was that pulling the elevation of the third floor back to the HC gridline was the agreed upon issue to be part of the restudy. He said reducing the ridgeline to match the resource has no basis in the Land Use code or Historic Preservation guidelines and would considerably reduce the amount of affordable housing. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon - Planning Director, Kevin Rayes - Planner Ms. Simon started by going over the history and relocation of the historic resource to its current location from Hallam St. She showed a site plan going over the proposed relocation of the historic resource 10’ north and 10’ east on the lot. She also noted that while the house has sat on the lot in its current location for a considerable amount of time and this location is well known, it was not originally built on the property. Referencing the applicant’s presentation, she said that the relocation to the corner of the lot would highlight the historic resource and it would be consistent with the placement of other homes in the area. She highlighted one of the recommended conditions of approval, being that the applicant would be asked to provide the standard $30,000 security deposit for relocation. She noted that the applicant had requested that that be due at permit issuance instead of permit submittal and the condition has been worded to say that. Next, she detailed the condition related to the restoration of the historic resource related to the over-framed roof and non-historic additions to be removed. She also went over conditions related to the front walkway, the proposed built-in BBQ in the shared courtyard, the westernmost carport roof redesign, footprint of the proposed lightwell at the southwest corner of the Victorian and the stormwater management plan. Next, she noted and went over the applicant’s response to HPC’s direction and showed elevations and renderings detailing the two options the applicant had presented. She said staff believed that either of the two options would be successful. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Mr. Rayes then went over the proposed Affordable Housing credits, growth management review and transportation and parking review. He reviewed the unit distribution between the three buildings and the breakdown of the proposed Affordable Housing Credits generated within the two new buildings and the historic resource. These totaled 23.8 FTEs. He then showed a table of the unit square footages and highlighted the two options the applicant had proposed for unit 6. Next, he went over the special review criteria for sub-grade floor area and detailed the four units that have subgrade floor area. He then went over the transportation and parking review details and reminded the HPC members that the applicant has removed their original request to have the parking mitigation cash-in-lieu waived and will now pay the mitigation through cash-in-lieu. The Floor Area Special Review was then detailed by Mr. Rayes for the two options proposed by the applicant after their restudy. Option 1 would be a 1.01:1 ratio totaling 7,586 sq. ft. (86 sq. ft. above what’s allowed by right) and Option 2 would be a 1.02:1 ratio totaling 7,667 sq. ft. (167 sq. ft. above what’s allowed by right). The Floor Area Special Area Review criteria was then detailed, and Mr. Rayes said that staff believes the criteria to be met. He then referenced some language in the Aspen Area Community Plan regarding affordable housing. He finished by stating that staff is recommending approval of the Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Transportation & Parking Management, Special Review for Subgrade Living Area, and Special review for Floor Area. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon if this is being proposed to house employees of the Molly Gibson. Ms. Simon said that that is the applicant’s intention and clarified that this project is not the applicant’s mitigation for the hotel as they have provided affordable housing on-site for that project. This is a voluntary development of affordable housing which they may use for their employees, but it could be occupied by other residents. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Simon noted that there were a number of letters that were provided to HPC members in the packet as well as a few that were emailed to them on Monday and Tuesday. Ms. Thompson asked for confirmation for the HPC members that they had read the letters sent via email. All members said they had read them. Mr. Rayes displayed a letter from Mr. David Scruggs while Mr. Scruggs made his comments. Mr. Scruggs mentioned that he was not opposed to affordable housing and thought it was good for this location but had issue with the quantity of housing that is being proposed for the location. He disagreed with the status of the application as described by the applicant. He said it was merely continued for restudy and there were no limitations to HPC’s review. He stated that HPC’s obligation is to preserve and protect historic assets. He stated that he thought this project should be denied and continued for restudy because it doesn’t follow the guidelines of the HPC, APCHA or the Land Use Code. Next, he went over the guidelines and why he thought they were not met. In closing he asked that they not sacrifice history here and that the application be denied. He made a few suggestions for what the project should be allowed, including a reduction of the number of units to 6 and not to relocate the historic resource. Mr. David Dowler noted that he had submitted a letter to the HPC and after looking at the drawings he did not see the new buildings as being respectful in scale to the historic resource. He agreed with Mr. Scruggs that the project should be restudied, and the number of units be reduced. Ms. Marsha Dowler requested more information related to the historic neighborhood behind the proposed project. She said the applicant’s presentation defined the neighborhood from Main St. only and the examples of deferential scale of similar projects were mainly in a commercial context. She REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 thought it would be valuable for the applicant to submit a study that would map the patterning of the historic neighborhood immediately behind this project. Mr. Clauson responded to public comment by pointing out that the neighborhood in question here is the Main St. historic district. Those were the guidelines that were given to them and the guidelines they are to follow. Any properties across the alley are in a totally different zone district and have different parameters. They have met the parameters for the mixed-use district of Main St. which are significantly different than the residential districts. Mr. Moyer moved to extend the meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion passes. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson noted that HPC has to balance the Code and Guidelines in front of them, including the Aspen Area Community Plan and Historic Preservation Guidelines which are both subjective things that they need to interpret. She also noted that there are many land Use Code documents in front of them to review and approve, reminding members that they want to be fair to all applicants in the same zone district that need to meet the same guidelines. Ms. Thompson noted for the record that commissioner Barb Pitchford had joined the meeting at 6:55pm. Ms. Thompson clarified that no formal approvals were made at the last meeting. Discussions were had and recommendations were given to the applicant team. She then stated the items that were generally agreed upon at the last meeting included the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Transportation and Parking Management and Relocation and asked if there were any additional comments. There were none. She then brought up the Special Review items to allow for the maximum floor area increase and sub-grade living area percentages and asked if there were any additional comments from board members. There were none. She then moved on to Major Development and noted the discussions from the last meeting related to guidelines 11.3 and 11.4 and opened it up for further discussion. Mr. Moyer said he respected the 73 years of history of the house on the lot and was not opposed to the relocation of the historic resource as long as it met the guidelines. He did not feel the relocation would enhance the historic resource given the size of the proposal before them. He thought the mass and scale is outrageous and totally overwhelms the historic resource and that open space and porosity are virtually non-existent. He was not opposed to the affordable housing if it was reduced by 50% allowing the mass and scale to be reduced. He went on to describe his thoughts related to the affordable housing project at 8th and Main St. and that he believed the historic resource got lost. He felt if this project was to be approved with both buildings painted white someone walking by would not have a clue that there is a historic resource there. He was not prepared to approve this and would send it back and ask for a major reduction in the new additions. He thought that if this was a private person and not employee housing they would not be here. Mr. Fornell said that they have accommodated the movement of homes for affordable housing and free market development and the main reason was to afford the property owner the total use of their property which is one reason he is ok with this relocation. A second reason is that it has been moved once already. The third reason is that he is weighing community goals, one of which is the creation of affordable housing. He disagreed with Mr. Moyer about the 8th and Main project and described some differences between the historic resource and new additions on that property. He then stated he was satisfied with the scale and proportion of option B as proposed by the applicant. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Ms. Surfas stated that she supports affordable housing and lives in high density housing, but that she was not on HPC to approve and bend rules for affordable housing. She said that is what it feels like is happening. She felt that they are being asked to bend the guidelines that have been created to protect our town. She felt the mass and scale of the new structures are laughable. She said it needs to be restudied and if a few units are lost, that’s what needs to be done. Mr. Halferty thanked the applicant for the refinements and their proposal to build affordable housing. He stated that HPC’s purview is to preserve not just the historic resource but also the historic lot and district. He appreciated the revisions to the western structure but still thought it was too tall and too massive. In relation to guidelines 11.3 and 11.4 it is still challenging to what it does to the historic resource. He agreed with other members comments. He said that the reduction of one room in the revisions was commendable, but that more could be taken off. He said it was mainly the size of the third story that was challenging with the steep roofs and that the context shown from Main Street was helpful, but at the same time it is the Mixed-Use district and not the Residential or Commercial Core. He made additional comments about the open space, rain gardens and shading between the structures. He stated that he could support this project as it has merits, but still thought it needs to get smaller to better comply with guidelines 11.3 and 11.4. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Johnson if it would be appropriate for Ms. Pitchford to participate in the discussion seeing that she was not present for the presentations. Ms. Johnson said it would not be appropriate for her to vote on this project, but she could stay and listen to the rest of the discussion. Ms. Thompson said she appreciated the revisions and agreed with Mr. Fornell about proposed option B. She also thought that it was important that the second story ridgeline not go above the ridgeline of the historic resource as it speaks to 11.4. She mentioned that she did not hear on the board a majority to move forward and wanted to discuss how to give better feedback to the applicant. She agreed with Ms. Surfas that this project is probably given special priority with staff given City Council’s direction regarding affordable housing. She went over some suggestions she heard from members about reducing that mass and scale and asked if there were any more suggestions. Mr. Moyer said it was pretty simple. When he looked at the interior spaces, he thought they were ridiculously small, and the storage was very limited. He suggested to reduce the number of rooms and the overall project and then they would meet the guidelines. He said it would not work by just shuffling a roof line or removing a room and again said just reduce the overall size. Mr. Fornell commented on Mr. Moyer’s statement about the size of the units, stating that APCHA provides for a reduction in their recommended unit size contingent on several factors that the applicant has responded to. He said he has seen several affordable housing units that are smaller than what is being proposed. He then asked Ms. Thompson to clarify which ridgeline she was referring to on the addition that she thought should match the historic. Ms. Thompson said the ridgeline on the addition to the west of the historic resource. Mr. Fornell then asked Ms. Surfas what rules she thought they were bending. Ms. Surfas responded saying she thought they were being asked to not look at this in the same way they look at a private residence because it’s affordable housing. Regarding guideline 11.3, she did not know how someone could look at the new building and say it was in similar proportion or scale to the historic resource. She said maybe it’s not bending the rules, but that they are being asked to have double standards. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Ms. Thompson said she understood Ms. Surfas’ perspective but thought it was different in this case since the new additions are not touching the resource where in private residences they are typically touching and made more to look like one building. That is why she was not as opposed to the massing here as the rest of the board. Mr. Fornell asked the applicant about the unit that was set back and reduced from a two to a one bedroom. He asked if it was reduced further to a studio, would that get them to the 1:1 floor area ratio. Mr. Clauson said yes. Mr. Fornell then asked if the ridgeline height of the western addition could be reduced without reducing the number of bedrooms and employees housed. Mr. Clauson said it would amount to a one-foot reduction in ridgeline height and was doable without losing bedrooms. Mr. Clauson also said they would very much like to see an approval at this meeting and then work with staff and monitor and would accept a condition of approval to lower the ridgeline of the front portion. He said they were not bending the rules, that they were working within the rules and that every parameter has been met. He said there was a clear mandate in the Land Use Code to provide additional opportunities for affordable housing that would not be afforded to a private residence. He stated that there is a difference between the Main St. Historic and Mixed-Use districts and that of the Residential district. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the next resolution in the series with two conditions. Condition #1, to use proposed option B and further reduce the size of that unit so long as that gets the project underneath the 1:1 floor area ratio, removing that Special Review request. Condition #2, to provide a design before Final review that moves the ridgeline height on the western addition down to at least the height of the historic asset. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon if the new structures were considered additions. Ms. Simon said no, it is considered a new structure on a landmarked lot, so there are different guidelines that apply. It also greatly influences the applicable guidelines when it comes to the compatibility between the two buildings and the fact that the new structure is not touching the historic resource is a victory in the historic preservation program. She said that they are certainly not bending the rules but understood that people had different perspectives about it. Mr. Halferty said the motion was close, but he could not support it. Ms. Surfas said she would not support the motion and the project needed to be restudied. She also wanted to state for the record that she did not think the applicant was bending the rules, but rather that staff was asking them to finesse how things are done. Mr. Moyer said that he made a mistake in supporting staff on the 8th and Main project and thought HPC blew it in approving it. He did not want to see that happen here. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, no; Mr. Halferty, no; Ms. Thompson, yes. 2-3, motion does not pass. Mr. Fornell then motioned to continue to a subsequent meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. There was then some discussion trying to provide some direction to the applicant. Mr. Fornell amended his motion to continue the meeting to December 14th. Ms. Thompson seconded. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5- 0, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk