Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20150325 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were-Nora Berko, Jim DeFrancia, Bob Blaich, John Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal and Eric Secrist: Sallie Golden was absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Jim moved to approve the minutes of February 25th, 2015; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried.' The board welcomed our new board member, Eric Sechrist 211 E. Hallam St. — AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances, continue the public hearing to April Stn MOTION: Jim made the motion to continue 211 E. Hallam.to April 8, 2015; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Wagner Park— Conceptual Major Development, Planned Development Project Review, Growth Management, Conditional Use and Mountain View Plane, continue public hearing to April 22"a. MOTION: Willis moved to continue the public hearing on Wagner Park until April 22"a, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. 834 W. Hallam St. — Conceptual Historic Major Development, Relocation, Variances, Residential Design Standard Review, Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits, GMQS, Public Hearing Debbie reviewed the affidavit of public notice and asked Steev Wilson if the enhanced mailing included the two drawings in the packet. Steeve said there was a site plan and rendering in the public notice. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 Debbie said HPC needs to continue the special review for affordable housing to a date certain to allow people to comment on that item. Exhibit I— public notice Sara said this is a 6,000 square foot lot and was originally zoned R-6. In 1994 it was rezoned to office which is now called mixed use and as part of that rezoning there was a floor area cap placed on the property of 4,000 square feet. It was slighty more than what the R-6 zoning allowed which was 3,240. Council gave them the rezoning to legalize the restaurant but they wanted to restrict the floor area. The project will also go to City Council to request the increase of the 4,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet. The proposal is 100% affordable house with three detached buildings. 11 affordable housing units are proposed. Sara thanked the applicant for coming in with an affordable housing project that addresses the community goal that we have and we feel it is important to have affordable housing. It isn't easy to come in with 100% affordable housing project especially on a landmark property. Reviews: Conceptual Demolition of non-historic additons Relocation of the historic home on the lot RDS's variances Parking waivers and setback variances Growtrh Management for affaordable housing Special Review for Affordable Housing units that are more than 50% below grade. Establisment of affordable housing credits that can be sold on the free market. Sara said council will review the floor area increase and then the project will come back to HPC for final review. Conceptual review: Sara said this is a 6,000 square foot lot and there is about 7,100 square feet of floor area proposed on the site. Our recommendation is a restudy to reduce the mass and scale on the site. Staff is mostly concerned about the impacts on the rear building. The building to the right of the landmark contextualioy fits in for the most part with some adjustments to the front porch. The massing and dormers have a nice relationship to the landmark in a simple way. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 Sara said the rear building is three stories, flat roof. We are open to the flat roof because it helps keep the height down as opposed to a gable roof and it will help with their storm water mitigation but doing the mitigation on the roof. Livability floor to ceiling are very important for the housing units. Staff is concerned that there isn't enough dialogue between the rear building and the historic landmark. There is also concerns about the externalized circulation and the parking. There is an element.to shield the stairs and the elevator goes straight up. The relationship between the rear building and . landmark building could be improved by internalizing the circulation for the rear building. There needs to be some screening of the parking carport in the back. We also feel that the back building should meet the RDS's or at least get closer to meeting those variances facing 8" street. The mass needs broken up. Overall we find that the review criteria are not met. Demolition and relocation: Sara said.taff is supportive of demolishing the non-historic addition which would.be the front porch and the non-historic additions to the rear. We are also supportive of the relocation and find that those review.criteria are met. Picking the building up and moving it slighty forward on the lot allows the consntruction to be detached which is a huge advantage to this project. Setback variances and parking waivers: Sara said the required setback is five feet and across the front is ten feet. The setback variance on the front is for the front porch which meets the RDS's which has the six foot depth. Staff suggested they reduce the size of the front porch on the second home as the two buidlings need to relate.to each other. The entire development is moved towards the interior lot line in order to get out of the dripline of the cottonwoods. Parks is requiring at least a 15 foot setback from the cottonwoods so everything is shifted over to the east lot line. Staff is recommending that the meet the ten foot dimensional requirement between buidlings. Parking: Sara said they are required 11 parking space one per unit. They have 7 spaces along the alley. On the Fornell property they paid the $30,000 per space for three spaces. Special Review, growth management and affordale housing credits: 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 Sara said the total FTE's would be 27 1/2. They have 5 one bedroons, two , two bedrooms and three three bedrooms and two four bedrooms. They have two units that are more than 50% below grade. What pushed them over the edge of 50% requirement was some small additional storage which is what we are asking for for the other units. We have concerns with the overall livability of a lot of the units. Four of the 11 don't meet the minimum size requirement and there is minimal storage in the units and there is not much outdoor space. The housing board is supportive of the project and it is proposed a category 2. They are recommending a few changes. It is within HPC's purview to discuss the livability. Overall we are recommending continuation of the project with reducing mass and scale; meet minimum size requirements of the units; meet the RDS's for the rear building; meet the intent of the design standards along 8t' Street; reduce the front yard setback for the front porch element so that it is more proportional to what you see at the landmark; meet the distance between buildings and increase the livability of the units. Sara said a-mails or letters were received from Michael Kosnitsky, Sheri Sanzone, Neil Siegel and Housing. (Exhibit II-V) Gretchen said there is a porch on the historic resource on the east side. Is that something that should be getting restored. Sara said she also got a letter from Kathryn Kensington, Exhibit VI. Kathryn asked HPC to address storage for personal items during the review. Applicant: Matt Brown, owner said they have spoken with APCHA and city officials and tried to take in all the feedback which resulted in the proposal. We originally came in with a dormer scenario but there was opposition. APCHA wants for sale units. As you drive into town it is a dark area and not attractive as an historic site. APCHA is OK with the livability of the project. With regard to the sub 50% we spoke to Cindy at housing and we made changes based on her recommendation of interior closet space and for that now to be a black market feels a little unfair. From our studies the mass and scale seems to be in line. This is an entryway to Aspen and this feels like a worthy endeavor. Steev Wilson, architect said they will restore the front of the Historic House that faces the entrance to Aspen back to the original state and we will move 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 it to the corner of the site. A sympathetic structure will be created next to it to the east and in the rear yard will be a separate unit. In the center of the lot is where the circulation will be. We have looked at WE-cycle and car share programs to alleviate the parking need. The units that are asking for more than 50% below grade meet the minimum requirements. Rather than filling it with dirt we gave them extra storage. This enhances the unit and meets housing's requirements. On the parking we lost one more parking space due to.the trash/recycle enclosure so now we have 6 spaces. Staff would like us to screen the parking but if we are going to maximumize the parking to the lot line any screen would be 42 inches or lower I'm not sure what screening effect you would get from a structure of that type. We would also have to pursue another variance to do that. It is an advantage to bring the elevator to the center of the buildings. The ADA units are up two stories. There was a lot of concern for storage. The four bedroom units have two bathrooms. We have significant size closets in all the bedrooms. We aren't asking for any height variances. The elevator is somewhat encroaching but it is stepped back so the historic resource has breathing room. From a massing standpoint we are looking at a structure that is sympathetic to the neighborhood. The area is predominantly RMF. We are requesting to go back to the underlying zoning. Matt Brown said it didn't feel that commercial use long term is filling in this neighborhood. We really tried to put our best foot forward for affordable housing and support 11 famillies. Steev said all the bedrooms have been switched to the back per APCHA. The living spaces are up front. Sara said part of the project relies on the Si Johnson ditch which is along the side of the property on 8th Street. Part of the project is to move the ditch slightly. Steev said they are working with the ditch company and the Water Department. Steev said the height of the back building is just below 28 feet. Willis asked Sara about the housing credits. r 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 Sara said one of the criteria is that the growth management is met and we found that those were not met based on the livability of the units. Sara said APCHA goal is to get affordable housing units and staff looks at design and compatibility and livability when we review the landuse code. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Charlie Eckard, President of Sagewood directly to the west across 8th street. I am also here on behalf of the Open Space and Trails Board. We are in favor of the development and renovating the historic structure; however, we have a parking issue in the neighborhood. Commuters use 8th Street so they don't have to park downtown. We have an overflow issue of parking also. We also have the new pedestrian bicycle way that is being discussed. The Forest property has also gone through a schematic design. The future of this neighborhood is going to change. It would be best to scale it back and reduce the number of units. Bill Shafer represented the Aspen Villas. The historic house is not exciting due to the denseness of the project. We have 26 units and 39 parking spaces. It is out of character to squeeze 11 families on the historic property. Chet Feldman represented the Villas of Aspen. We are supportive of a residential development and very concerned about the parking. We have one parking space for each of our 36 units. We are concerned about the over flow of parking onto 8th Street. Having 11 units and only 6 parking spaces is a big concern. Most families have more than one car. Moving the structures within 4 feet of the street puts them right in the bus stop. Pete Thomas represented the owners of lot 4 and 5 in the Aspen Ranger Subdivision. Curt Sanders represents the owners of lot 1 and 2. Curt's clients also have the same concerns as mentioned. The short comings of this project is that there is too much on the lot. There are too many units on the lot. No one disputes the affordable housing and it is important to this community. You can't just sweep away the requirements of the code. The people that will live in these units deserve better. Andrew Lodge homeowner of he Sagewood townhomes. The traffic that this will create are 11 units with families and kids playing. 7th Street is always blocked off at 5:00 and the traffic will be compounded. The size is pretty big for the neighborhood. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 Peter Fornell said he supports Matt's project and he is exciting to have someone else enter the arena of affordable housing. He has watched enough applications go on and whenever someone wants to make light of what they think are concerns of a project because they are in the neighborhood they all reach immediately to the parking issue. Of the first two projects that I have completed there are less number of vehicles than there are front doors of those buildings. The notion that everyone has two cars might be valid for a neighborhood of people who live in the &750,000 or two million dollar purchase price. These people purchase these units for $105,000 to $160,000 price range. If they have two cars on a loan they are not going to get a mortgage. A front door for a working family is of more value to the community than a parking space. If you go to the 518 Main project there are no complaints about the three spaces that we didn't create. You don't see people with two cars. There are 11 units on a 7,500 square foot lot. Sara said there are 8 two bedrooms, one 3 bedroom and 1 one bedroom and one studio at Peters. The total floor area for the 7,500 square foot lot is about 7,100 square feet. It is .9 to 1. Dee Matthews said she lives at the Villas of Aspen. When you look at the affordable housing built along Main Street it is full of bicycles, strollers, wagons and lots of little kids running around. I'm not sure I would want kids running around Main Street. Applicant Steev said you are hearing from people of the private sector who are worried about their homes. Who you are not hearing from are the families who aren't here yet. In Peter's project there were 242 applications for those 11 units. It is really important to find housing in this town. Should a parking space prevent us from providing housing. Matt Brown said we are 15 feet from the bus stop. Housing families in this community at this income level is vital. That is the feedback we have gotten from the city and APCHA. APCHA has recommended these units. Steev said we live in the middle of a national park. There is access to all four mountains. We have taken a responsible stance and are trying to serve a need that is 244 to 11. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 Matt said we are only asking for a slight variance on the east side of the property because we are allowing three extra feet for the trees. The density ration is 2 to 1. Hopefully this will be an affordable family project that serves the community that is needed. Chairperson Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Willis identified the issues: 9 issues in the memo Conceptual mass and scale Demolition of non-historic additions are OK Relocation of the historic home are OK Parking Waiver of 5 spaces Setback variances, east, front and distance between buildings Special review for AH housing units that are more than 50% belowo grade. GMQS RDS that relate to building 3 Establish AH housing credits Sara said the housing guidelines list specific review criteria for granting a reduction in unit size that have to do with additional storage, window sizes etc. APCHA is supportive of the project. The Planning staff has concerns about th livability of these units. We think the minimum sizw requirement should be met. For the four bedrooms they barely meet the requirement for a three bedroom. We have learned a lot from other AH projects. The space between the buidlings is very minimized. Willis thanked the applicant for coming forward with an affordable housing project. The spot needs lilfe brought to it. Residential use is the right approach. Willis identified the issues. Demolition is fine and the side porch in the historic-photos should be studied. The relocation is fine and the general apprpoach to massing is OK. The underlying zone district is 2-1 and this is just above 1-1. The detached building approach is the right approach but it does put pressure on the perception of mass and scale. The three buildings make perfect sense. As a recommendation the entrances should be on 8th Street. Taking the screen off is good and there should be a ten foot separation. The setback variances 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 on the east is OK. If APCHA is supportive then I am generally supportive. . The FAR and bedroom count could be reduced for better mass and scale. Parking is always emotional. I would recommend that an Engineering study be done. I would think that people living here full time would displace the itinerant people. You are down to six spaces and you need 11. Patrick said he agrees with staff on continuation and the reduction of mass and scale. The ten foot front setback should be kept and athe ten feet between the buidlings. Possibly have off-site storage for cars and possibly have deed restrictions for cars. Also the car share program could be. implemented. Four bedrooms typically end up empty and are not rented. If we keep the 11 units eliminate a four bedroom and that would take off 1,000 square feet. Possibly change the roof so that it isn't all flat. This is a great potential project. Gretchen said the.project has great potential. The mass and scale is too large for the Victorian. It is the first Victorian that you see coming into town. House #2 needs to be moved back on the site to give front yard presence. The massing also needs re-thought and the variances should be reduced by half. The 4 bedroom concept needs eliminated and more bedrooms should be below grade. If you do a traffic study that will give us a better understanding on the parking. John said there is enough on the table to re-work the parking. Once you live in a place like Aspen you are going to have visitors. There is a lot of good in this application. I support all aspects of the project nad support the number of credits being generated. Eric said he appreciates that affordable housing is being built and the extra storage is commendable. The presentation was good and has a lot of context. As a suggestion try and keep the circulation internal and not be seen. Moving the historic resource to the west tucks it behind the cottonwoods and might not be so prominent. I also agree that building #2 needs pulled back. Giving a variance to that many parking spaces would be setting a new precident. Nora said we all applaud and appreciate housing. Building #2 is too mirrored and the historic house is not being celebrated. I can't approve a variance for 5 parking spaces. There needs to be some breathing room and it feels like you are concreting the entire lot. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 Jim said his biggest concern is that the new construction is overpowering the historic resource. We do not want to diminish the significance of the historic.resource. Parking is a stress all over town. I advocate staff's recommendation of reducing the mass and scale and restudy the parking situation. Bob said he commends the affordable housing. You can still redesign the property and provide affordable housing. Patrick recused himself. Eric was seated to vote. MOTION: Willis moved to continue the public hearing on 834 W. Hallam to May 27th; second by Jim. Roll call vote: Gretchen, yes; John, yes; Jim, yes; Nora, yes; Bob, yes; Eric, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 7-0. Proposed amendments to historic building relocation requirements Jim recused himself. Amy said right now HPC approves or disapproves a location based on the code language which is pretty general. It doesn't say how much money someone has to post and it doesn't say what your expectations are. Some of the unusual requests we get are off site relocation in town, out of town, using a crane, lifting the building right over the excavation site. We have also had people requesting to dismantle the 'entire building. Staff would like comments on what you feel we should do. Other departments want addition money if a street light is damaged or a curb etc. Some contractors like the idea of getting the building off the site. Willis said the other issue is construction mitigation and whatever we can do to expedite construction rather than delaying things.is good. I am in favor of moving the building off site to allow freeer access to the construction site. If the house is moved off site it should be protected somehow. Gretchen said relocation off the site is the way to go. It would also benefit the neighbors. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 John mentioned some of the bridges being unstable. If you are allowing homes to be moved you should start with the City of Aspen. 4 Willis said he is also in favor of moving the homes out of town. Amy said it is difficult to find places in town. The concern with out of town is the drive and what impact does that have on the building. Would they need a lift under the eaves. Nora said the home would end up in Rifle or Silt and it is better to limit it to Aspen right now. Gretchen said if there is a special situation you could review it. Willis said you need appropriate safeguards for all the circumstances. Amy said she will work with the attorney and start some policies. John said the duration of the move should be limited to the excavation only not for the entire time it takes to do the project. Gretchen said we also need more final photographs of the detailings. Amy said maybe the city finds a pre-determined space. MOTION: Bob moved to adjourn; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk a 11