Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20230726 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford, Kim Raymond, Riley Warwick and Kara Thompson. Absent was Jeffrey Halferty. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the minutes from 6/28/23. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote; motion passes. Ms. Pitchford moved to approve the minutes from 7/12/23 with the correction to the formatting issue. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; 5-0 vote; motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Fornell brought up previous conversations about the benefits of having models. He showed a physical model he had used in his own business to present in front of the Board of Adjustment and mentioned it only cost him $1,500 and took less than a week to produce. He said the model helped him get in and out of that meeting in only one session. He stated that it was not difficult, expensive or time consuming. Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Fornell and asked staff why they can only request a physical model and not require it. Ms. Simon reviewed the code language and noted that it leaves it up to some discretion of the applicant to choose how to represent the context of a project. There was then some discussion about the process to create a physical model and Ms. Simon noted that it can be difficult for an applicant to anticipate what HPC may want when it come to a representation of a project. He said staff would continue to emphasize to applicants that HPC appreciates as much analysis as possible. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon updated the commissioners about the progress on the Boomerang Lodge. The chief building official is pursuing the process as the Land Use Code lays it out. There was a site visit with the chief building official, a structural engineer, and the ownership team. She then mentioned the Red Onion Office Building and referenced the meeting from a few months ago related to the west wall. She talked about the current condition and construction details of the existing wall next to the Aspen Sports building and said it was inadequate. Ms. Simon said the work session with Council is still tentatively scheduled for September 5th, 2023. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice, and that notice was provided per the code for both the agenda items. OLD BUSINESS: 205 W. Main Street- Minor Development and Relocation, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM June 28th, 2023 Applicant Presentation: Mr. Mitch Haas – Haas Land Planning, LLC Mr. Haas started by going over the history of the historic structure and the lot. He then talked about the project objectives, being the proposal of a 100% affordable housing project, restoration of the historic asset and removal of all non-historic additions. He said the relocation would move the asset to the most prominent location on the lot, being the front corner. He detailed the zone district and highlighted the property’s location on Main St., noting that it is close to amenities like parks and transportation hubs. He then highlighted the relocation standards related to a 100% affordable housing projects and noted that staff memos had always found the project to be consistent with the standards. He said the most important standard states that the HPC may not deny the relocation but needs to consider the relocation to best meet the historic preservation guidelines, while accommodating the allowable development rights of the property. He noted that the full site plan for the project was included in their packet. He then went over the proposed on-site relocation and detailed the location and stated for the record their commitments to the historic asset. This included using different color pallets for the historic asset versus the new structure and that the new structure would have a greater setback from Main St. than the historic. He moved on to go over the allowed development rights for the lot and lot size. He showed diagrams of different buildable areas based on various potential relocations of the historic asset and the resulting remaining developable area. He showed an example of a straightforward move of the asset and explained how this would not mathematically allow for the full amount of square footage development rights on the property. He stated that the asset must be moved to the front most corner that the setbacks allow to leave enough developable area to achieve the development rights of the zone. Next, he went over the relocation setbacks and noted the mixed-use zone setback distances. He presented several diagrams of the zone district context and detailed the setbacks of other structures on Main St. and in the district. He then showed a few context pictures taken at the site that included stakes placed that outline the proposed relocation of the historic asset. He stated that their proposed relocation not only moves the historic asset to prominence but also to consistency with the surrounding structures. Next, he detailed their restoration actions planned for the asset and also other site improvements and landscaping. He wrapped up by going over the main accomplishments of the project, including REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 advancing City Council’s goals of increasing livable affordable housing, restoration and preservation of the historic asset, restoration of the streetscape on First and that no variations were being requested. Ms. Surfas asked Mr. Haas how they came up with the average setback number for the district. Mr. Haas said the only way to consistently measure the various setbacks was from the curb line and that is what the entire context study was based on. Ms. Raymond thanked Mr. Haas for all the extra studying and effort. She asked him about the commitment he mentioned about setting the new building behind the front of the historic asset. Mr. Haas said the new building will not be at the 10-foot setback but would be set back further. Ms. Raymond appreciated all the restoration work they are doing, bringing the Victorian back to what it was. Mr. Fornell asked if the applicant believed that they will be able to achieve the allowable Floor Area Ratio of 1.25:1. Mr. Haas said that they think with their proposed relocation that they can. He also noted again that without their proposed relocation, they don’t believe they can reach it. Mr. Warwick asked how many units were being proposed including both the historic asset and the new building. Mr. Haas said they did not know that number yet. Ms. Thompson said that they need to limit the discussion to the historic resource. Mr. Hass said there would be two units in the resource. Ms. Pitchford asked if she was allowed to ask what the height of the new building would be. Ms. Thompson said that is not part of this review process, but it would have to meet zone district requirements and historic preservation guidelines. Ms. Pitchford said it would be important in her decision on relocation. Ms. Raymond asked what the height of the historic resource was. Mr. Haas said he was not sure of its exact height, but it was less than the 28-foot height limit. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon – Planning Director Ms. Simon started by going over some details of the minor development and relocation for this property and also those sections of the Land Use Code. She again went over the relocation standards and noted the specific standard staff believes has been met and the reasoning for this. She then showed pictures of the few landmarked historic structures that have been preserved in a way that makes a future addition impossible or very unlikely. She also mentioned the importance of having affordable housing to be located in a historic asset, being that it will be a full-time “lights on” situation. She then addressed the zone district setback context diagram and said that there is no consistent setback line that is being disturbed by this relocation and the existing home is not original to the lot or neighborhood. She referenced the diagram that was presented showing the potential footprint of the new development. She again noted that the tighter that the development envelope gets, still fitting the allowable square footage to be built, the less opportunity the applicant has to pull back, step down or reduce the massing of the new development. She then noted that staff is recommending approval with the conditions included in the resolution. She then showed a list of those conditions and noted that some of the things that have been discussed could REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 be added as conditions. These could include commitments that the applicant has made. She went over details of a few of the conditions. Mr. Fornell wanted to clarify that the stated commitment of the applicant to differentiate the color pallets of the two structures was a condition that HPC could add to the resolution. Ms. Johnson said yes, in a way it would be memorializing that commitment. Ms. Raymond asked if the same could be done for the applicant’s commitment to set the new development back from the historic asset. Ms. Simon said that could be included when a motion is made. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs had Ms. Simon had out a letter to the commissioners. He began by stating that the commissioners’ job is to determine the relocation based on the historic preservation guidelines. He said they need to relocate it so that there is livable space for the new development and that it is compatible with the setbacks of the neighborhood. He stated that the neighbors are asking for a 15-foot setback from Main St. and to maintain the 15-foot setback from First St. He went over their reasons for this. He then detailed the setbacks of the 3 contiguous properties to this one and others in the neighborhood, stating that they all have greater than 15-foot setbacks. He said he did not know how the HPC could ignore these facts. He finished by again asking that HPC maintain the consistency of the neighborhood. Ms. Thompson asked if all commissioner if they had read the public comment email from Elizabeth Milias. All commissioners said yes. Ms. Thompson then closed public comment. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson opened the board discussion and noted that most of concern the board has had is related to the relocation and that members have supported the removal of the non- historic additions and the overall restoration efforts the applicant is making. She maintained her support of the proposed relocation and thought that it is in context with the surrounding area and meets the design guidelines. Ms. Raymond said that after listening to past meetings and reading all the comments she was in support of the proposed relocation. She said part of her reasoning is the balance that HPC needs to meet for the City’s goals of affordable housing and the restoration efforts being proposed by the applicant. Another reason she noted was the more the historic resource gets pushed back the denser the applicant’s new building has to get, which would overpower the Victorian. With the applicant’s commitment of holding the new building back to keep the historic asset prominent, she felt it met the guidelines in her mind. Ms. Surfas still thought historic asset was being moved too far forward. She was ok with the east movement but thought the forward movement should at least be in line with the average setback. Mr. Fornell said he continued to support the project and thought they had a great combination of preservation and “local living” affordable housing. He would be giving his support to this. Mr. Warwick said he was in support of the project and that moving the historic resource to the north and east only makes it more prominent, which is important. He thought the affordable housing is a gift, especially in this location, inside the roundabout. He agreed with Ms. Raymond’s comments regarding the potential density and height. He thought preserving the historic resource and making it prominent relative to the new building was important. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 Ms. Pitchford agreed with Ms. Surfas that it was being moved too far forward. She referenced guidelines 9.3 and 1.1 and felt that the move was too far forward. She was not thrilled that it was being moved laterally but could let that go for not moving it so far forward. She understood the other’s perspective about allowing it to be more prominent, but she thought the grass area in the front is important and should be consistent. She appreciated a lot about the project, including the restoration, removal of non- historic additions, the east side parking going away and the employee housing, but that it was still moving too far forward. Mr. Moyer said it was interesting how people play the game and he thought that they just lost. He also agreed with Ms. Surfas. He would be ok with the move to the east but not forward. He spoke to the two new members and said that their job was the historic building and nothing else. He said the commission has been screwed by City Council and staff with the new affordable housing ordinance. He said it was very disappointing. He was not disappointed in the two new members and thought their comments were valid but thought that Council and staff’s mandate is that employee housing takes precedent over everything. Ms. Pitchford added to Mr. Moyer’s comment and agreed that their job was the preservation of the historic asset and nothing else. She also felt that they were stuck and that her job was preservation not affordable housing. Mr. Moyer then talked to the two new commissioners and described another project that he believed was one of their biggest mistakes. He said that when they were talking about the new code amendment before it was adopted, he thought that it was conceptually a good idea. He was looking at it in a situation of a historic resource with a vacant lot next to it. He did not think of a situation of someone buying a historic resource on a lot and wanting to put something around or next to it. He thought the two new members were making a huge mistake. Ms. Thompson commented on the project that Mr. Moyer referenced as HPC’s biggest mistake, stating that she thought it was entirely subjective. She noted that, at the moment they cannot relitigate the code change, but they have to operate under what is in front of them now. Ms. Raymond asked Mr. Moyer and Ms. Pitchford what about moving the Victorian forward was not preserving it. Mr. Moyer responded that they do not know what is going to be built around the resource and overwhelm it. Ms. Raymond agreed with Mr. Moyer on that but reiterated that the more you push it back the bigger and maybe more blocky the new building is going to become. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with the following revisions to the conditions. Revision to condition #8 to state that location of ground mounted mechanical equipment around the historic resource will also be provided for review. The addition of condition #11 to say that the historic resource and any new construction will be of different color pallets as agreed to by the applicant. Also adding condition #12 to say all new construction will have a greater front setback than the north face of the historic resource as agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, no; Ms. Pitchford, no; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-3 vote, motion passes. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 NEW BUSINESS: 420 W. Francis Street. - Minor Development, Demolition, Setback Variations - PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: David Rybak, Rybak Architecture and Development P.C Mr. Rybak started by going over some the history of the property and the many additions that had been added over the years. He said these have all contributed to a tight site and an overwhelmed north side of the resource. The intent of the applicant is to take some these off, remove the existing garage and CDU and construct a new single story one car garage on the alley and renovate the interior of the resource. He then showed a site plan of the existing conditions and detailed some the current distances between structures. He said their proposal will reduce the size of the outbuilding and give some breadth to the historic resource achieving the 5-foot requirement for separation between the two structures. Next, he showed a few 3D renderings of the proposed new garage and an elevation of the front façade, stating that they will be replacing all the existing aluminum clad windows with new wood units. They would also be removing a non-historic chimney and existing AC units on the west façade. He showed a sample of a lap siding material proposed for the north side of the existing addition, trying to differentiate old from new. He went over some details of their proposed new design for the historic chimeny, changing from a stepped look to more of a tapered look as consistent with historic photos. He continued detailing some of the proposed changes and the design of the new garage. He showed more historic pictures of the property, highlighting a few details. He then turned it over to Mr. Matt Moritz to go over the landscape plan. Mr. Moritz went over the details of their proposed plan. He said that the existing Herbert Bayer fence on the property would be repaired. He detailed some of the proposed materials for the walkways. Ms. Pitchford asked what the disatance was of the current garage from the historic resource. Mr. Rybak said it angled from 1’ to 1’8”. He showed the site plan of the existing conditions to better show this distance. Ms. Thompson asked if the neighbors’ shed was historic, to which Mr. Rybak said he did not believe so. Mr. Fornell said that it looks like there are currently two front doors and was wondering if that was a historic condition or a result of the remodels over time. Mr. Rybak said that the two doors had always been there, but over time the roof over the east door has gotten larger and now matches closer to the west doors making them look similar. Mr. Fornell asked if they were planned on changing those current conditions. Mr. Rybak said they did not intent to change them and showed a few historic pictures to show the evolution of the porch size. Mr. Fornell then brought up the CDU above the garage and asked Mr. Rybak to define a CDU. Mr. Rybak said it was a voluntary caretaker’s unit that was constructed in 1998 for which there was no employee mitigation. Mr. Fornell asked if it was a designated ADU. Ms. Simon said it was a voluntary ADU and that the applicant went through the process to remove the designation and that no mitigation was required because it was voluntary. Ms. Thompson asked for the site plan showing the dimension from the property line to the new proposed garage. Mr. Rybak said it was 5’ to the west and 1’ 6” from the rear property line. Ms. Raymond asked if they intended to keep the front porch railing shown in one of the historic pictures. Mr. Rybak said it does not currently exist and they are not intending on replacing it. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 Staff Presentation: Kirsten Armstrong – Principal Planner Historic Preservation Ms. Armstrong began by going over the background of the property and some details of the lot. She then went over the applicant’s proposals, that include exterior updates to the historic resource, demolition of an existing non-historic two story detached accessory dwelling unit, construction of a new one story, one car garage and requested setback variations. Next, she went over the background of the historic resource and noted it was designated as a landmark property in 1987. She described the original, historic conditions and the additions and alterations that have occurred over the years. She went over the major portions of the applicant’s requests and noted that this project involves a net decrease in floor area due to the removal of some non-historic additions. She presented the proposed site plan pointing out the smaller garage, setback farther from the resource. She went over a summary list of the exterior scope of work and stated that in general, staff finds the design guidelines are met with conditions and most of the recommended conditions in the draft resolution involve details of materials, which staff believes can be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. She noted that there are few topics staff feels need some additional consideration and one of these is the landscaping plan. She said that as proposed, staff finds that it is complex and clutters views of the historic resource. She highlighted a few existing trees that currently somewhat block the view of the resource and the applicant’s proposed addition of another tree in front of the resource will add to the clutter and further block the view, which does not meet design guidelines. She said staff is also concerned about the multiple proposed walkways. Staff recommends a restudy of the landscaping plan to simplify it and that the proposed 4-foot front walkway be reduced to 3 feet. Staff also recommends the front porch be rebuilt per historic photographs if it is found to be original. Next, she talked about the demolition of the detached non-historic ADU and noted that it meets the design guidelines. As far as the requested variations, she noted that the new garage is proposed to be sited in a similar position to the current structure at the rear property line. The current structure has a zero-foot setback and with the new garage the applicant is requesting a 1’ 6” setback, which given the smaller size is in line with the historic configuration of the site and draws construction away from the historic resource. She closed by stating that staff finds that the minor development, demolition, and variation criteria are met with the conditions listed in the resolution and recommends HPC approval. Mr. Fornell said that he did not find there to be a variety of setbacks of neighboring properties along the alley, as staff stated in the memo. He asked if there was evidence of these setbacks. Ms. Armstrong said she did not believe in her response that she discussed varied setbacks and based on the Sanborn map there were mostly consistent setbacks for out buildings at the property lines along the alley. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson started with the proposed demolition of the non-historic two-story structure at the back of the property and said that she was ok with it. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 Mr. Fornell asked with the proposed demolition and subsequent reduction in floor area what the difference in the resulting total floor area would be compared to the total allowable floor area for the lot. Ms. Pitchford commented that she liked a lot about this project, especially that they are reducing the mass, but also restoring the Bayer fence and the chimney. Ms. Thompson moved on to discuss the architectural elements and the lightwell guards. She did not have an issue with the vertical railings. Mr. Fornell stated that they usually asked that lightwell guards not be visible. Ms. Thompson believed that the building department was changing their requirements, going to vertical rails. There was some discussion on the life safety reasoning for the change in requirements. The other commissioners were all ok with the proposed horizontal bars on the vertical railings. Ms. Thompson spoke about the proposed siding materials and thought that there were too many different materials on an already complicated structure. She asked if the applicant would be ok with using the same siding on the new garage as the north side of the main structure. This would keep anything new the same. There was some discussion about this. Mr. Fornell asked if the applicant had found the floor area numbers he was asking about earlier. Mr. Rybak said the allowable is 3,240 square feet, existing is 3,227 and the proposed after demolition would be 2,447. Mr. Fornell asked if they would be eligible to request historic TDRs, to which Ms. Simon said yes. Ms. Raymond stated that the variation request for the new garage was consistent with where the existing building is, just making it straight, and consistent with other historic buildings, so she was ok with the request. Ms. Thompson did not believe she had enough context to approve the setback variation at this time. She said that when she visited the site, she could not tell how close some of the neighboring structures were to property lines. She would need more information about the setbacks of the surrounding structures along the alley on that block. Mr. Rybak responded, stating that their proposed siting was based on the existing conifer trees on the west property line. They are placing their new foundation in the east west direction so that they are not disturbing the roots of those trees and in the north south direction to meet the required 5-foot separation between buildings, which is something that does not exist currently. He stated that if they do not get the rear setback variation, they do not have a garage. Ms. Thompson argued that they could flip or mirror the orientation of the garage and meet the separation requirements. Mr. Rybak responded that a flip would not work, again because of the neighboring trees and the foundation. As it was approaching 7:00pm, Ms. Thompson moved to extend the meeting until 7:15pm. Mr. Fornell seconded. All in favor, motion passes. Ms. Thompson moved on to discuss the landscape plan and agreed with staff that the proposal for three walkways in the front of the house was a little overwhelming but was fine with keeping the four-foot front walkway. Ms. Raymond agreed that there was too much hardscape in the front yard because it is not historic. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 Mr. Moyer agreed about the hardscape and walkways but noted that people would still walk around the house regardless and he would be ok with a dirt path. Ms. Thompson was also ok with the proposed tree. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with the following edits. To remove condition #2 and to amend current condition #3 to remove the language requiring the removal of the rocky mountain maple from the landscape plan. Also, to simplify the landscape plan in zones A and B to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Pitchford and Mr. Warwick were assigned as monitors for 420 W. Francis St. and Ms. Raymond was assigned monitor for 205 W. Main St. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk