Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20230823 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23RD, 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, Jeffrey Halferty, Barb Pitchford, Riley Warwick and Kara Thompson. Absent was Kim Raymond. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner - Historic Preservation Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson, Deputy Director - Community Development Jim True, City Attorney Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the draft minutes from July 26th, 2023. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Mr. Halferty, abstained; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 with one member abstaining, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Thompson noted that she was conflicted on the first agenda item and would leave for that item. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Armstrong reminded the members of HPC’s September 5th joint work session with City Council. She also mentioned that the September 27th HPC meeting would be cancelled. She noted that the applicant for the 820 E Cooper project that was continued until the September 13th meeting, is requesting that HPC attend a site visit at noon that day. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Armstrong noted that she had approved two certificates of no negative effect. One for 308 E Hopkins for replacement of south façade windows, doors, and some materials. She had also amened a certificate at 627 E Hopkins, which is a non-historic building on a historic lot that would be replacing a front door and lighting sconces. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon noted that two notices of call up went before City Council the previous night. One was for 205 W Main St, for which Council upheld HPC’s approval, the other was for the Rubey Park charging stations project, which was also upheld. Ms. Thompson asked if City Council had any comments about the 205 W Main St notice. Ms. Simon said they commented about the new process in general and recognition of the upcoming work session with HPC. She also noted that Council indicated that HPC had properly executed the authority they had under REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23RD, 2023 the new process. As for the Rubey Park project. Ms. Simon said that Council had asked a few questions about the charging equipment. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. True said that he reviewed public notice, and that notice was provided per the code for the agenda item. Ms. Thompson left the meeting. Vice Chair Halferty took over the meeting for the first agenda item. NEW BUSINESS: 517 E. Hopkins Avenue – Substantial Amendment to Major Development and Growth Management, PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Simon first noted that this is a fairly unusual situation as it deals with a condition of approval that HPC established as part of a 2018 discussion. Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams started her presentation by introducing herself, Mr. Mark Hunt, and Dr. Johnathan Leary. She then went over some history of the approved commercial project and noted that it was in for a building permit. She noted that the existing building is about three floors of mixed use and includes 4 affordable housing units on the upper floor. She said that they are requesting HPC to consider the new proposed use for the second floor. She noted that in 2018 HPC included a condition of approval that the second floor be co-working space or another use to be approved by HPC. The proposed use would be described by Dr. Leary. She said they are also asking HPC to affirm affordable housing credits for mitigation of the 4 affordable housing units as they had done previously on this project. She then went over the history of the building and how things got to the 2018 HPC approval of co-working space on the second floor in order to retain the use of affordable housing credits as mitigation for the 4 units. She said that there is no change to the net leasable floor area or the approved exterior of the building and that it is just about the proposed use of the upper floor space and the 2018 condition of approval, which she read in its entirety. As for growth management, she noted that in 2018, HPC had decided that having onsite housing was an inappropriate solution in the downtown core and found that housing credits were acceptable in this situation when tied to the co-working condition of approval. She turned the presentation over to Dr. Leary to describe the proposed use of the space by Remedy Place. He said his background is in sports medicine and that he wanted to create a different concept of wellness and bringing people together. He said they are not a spa or gym, but rather they are about self- care with a social twist. He presented slides going over the concept and described other locations in Los Angeles and New York. He said that the idea provides not only a place to go to feel better and connect, but also is a new environment to work in. He then talked about the global trends in wellness, the evolution of work environments and work culture and how the Remedy Place concept addresses these. He showed the proposed floor plan of the second-floor space and described the layout of the workspaces and other amenities. He noted that most of the wellness amenities would be located in the basement of the building, and he described some of these offerings, including Cryo and Hyperbaric chambers and IV treatments. Mr. Hunt then spoke to the benefits of Remedy Place and why it would be a great addition to Aspen. He said that they believe it fits the idea of a co-working place. He talked about the current and developing REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23RD, 2023 idea of work environments and thought that this concept was very dynamic and that the health and wellness aspect blends well with the core values of town. Mr. Moyer asked if there was anyone interested in the space with the “old” model of co-working. Mr. Hunt said that it would not be a problem to just go in and do multiple businesses with shared space if HPC did not go with the new concept of Remedy Place. Mr. Warwick asked if this was an application to consider this concept as a co-work space or is it to change the previous approval of a new use of the space. Mr. Hunt said they took the approach that this is co-workspace, but that the City has taken the position that it is not. He said that if they do not see it as a co-workspace, then they are asking HPC to approve the new use. Ms. Adams clarified that HPC is not deciding if it is co-working or not, but rather considering approving another use of the space. Mr. Halferty asked if the use of the space was a zoning issue. Ms. Adams said that in the staff memo the City considers this a spa, while the applicant believes that the concept aligns with the intent of the previous condition of approval as co-working. She noted that, according to the floor plans that were presented, about 83% of the second floor would be office space. Dr. Leary described some of the different types of working spaces that would be created. Mr. Halferty then asked about the pricing model of the services or available working spaces. Dr. Leary described the pricing model, noting that the use of workspace is free, and the other services or treatments are an add-ons. Mr. Moyer asked if this is only related to the second floor, to which Ms. Adams said yes. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon, Planning Director Ms. Simon started her presentation by noting that this is a discussion about language and not design. She showed the site plan of the upper floor of the building that was presented at the 2018 HPC meeting. She went over the history of and what led up to the 2018 HPC meeting and what came from that. She also noted that when this came to HPC in 2018, the applicant was very passionate about the co-working space as a meaningful way to offset the displacement of the affordable housing offsite by the way of credits. She said that there is no representation in the Land use Code of what “co-working” space is, but that many representations were made in the 2018 meeting to what it was. Ms. Simon said that they are not here tonight for HPC to determine whether Remedy Place is co- working or not as staff, after interpreting the Code, has already determined it is not. She noted that there is an appeal process if the applicant does not agree with staff’s findings. She did reiterate that HPC can decide if the use, whether it is co-working or not, is allowed. Ms. Simon noted that in 2018, in order for HPC to not insist that affordable housing be rebuilt on the site, they needed to find that to do so would be in conflict with zoning or an inappropriate solution. She noted that the HPC members in 2018 did make that finding based on the strong representation of a co- working space that would have public benefit. She said that staff wants to reinforce that affordable housing in this building is the code requirement and to not insist on that happening would be an exception. She said that if the members move past the importance of the space being co-working and approve the proposed new use, staff would like them to explain why another use is still fitting the criteria to allow for the affordable housing to be mitigated offsite. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23RD, 2023 Ms. Simon went over the three options that HPC had on this. One is to retain the previous condition of approval and not entertain a new use. Another option is for HPC to entertain that they go back to having affordable housing in the building as is required by code. The third option would be that if HPC decides to allow another use, that the language about co-working be struck from the condition. This would eliminate the need to continue coming back to HPC with any future change in tenant or use. Ms. Simon stated that staff’s recommendation is to hold tight to the previous condition of approval and not flex on it at this time. Mr. Moyer asked why in staff’s memo they did not just say that affordable housing should be the use of the space. Ms. Simon said they could not insist on that at this point because HPC in 2018 deemed that co-working space could be substituted for affordable housing and included it in the conditions of approval. Ms. Pitchford asked who would monitor the use of the space. She said that she had done some research on Remedy Place and thought it seemed like a spa that one might decide to talk business in. Ms. Simon said that the City would monitor the use of the space through the issuance of building permits and or business licenses. Mr. Halferty asked if staff had had conversations with the applicant about finding a compromise between affordable housing and what the applicant needed. Ms. Simon said she did not think that it was staff’s job to identify a compromise, rather that would be a discussion for HPC. Mr. Fornell asked if the applicant did build affordable housing on site, would they be able to do so and mitigate any parking by fee-in-lieu. Ms. Simon said yes. Mr. Moyer asked if the current affordable housing units were rentals. Ms. Adams said yes. Ms. Adams asked if Mr. Hunt could comment on the affordable housing aspect of this. The board agreed. Mr. Hunt commented that they take affordable housing very seriously and realize that it is a big problem. He said they are not here to determine if they are going to be putting affordable housing units back into the building. He said they are not going to do that, as they have a valid approval and would just put in traditional co-working spaces if necessary. He noted that his company had already completed 17 affordable units around town so far and are on their way to 54 units. Ms. Surfas asked for some clarification on how Remedy Place works for non-members. Could she, as a non-member, rent office space. Ms. Adams said yes. Ms. Simon noted that since a development agreement, reiterating the approval and terms of the previous HPC decision in 2018, was signed by the Mayor, on behalf of Council, if HPC were to accept another use of the space at this meeting, it would have to go to City Council for their acceptance. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Jimmy Marcus said he was the owner of a neighboring property at 533 E Hopkins and stated his thoughts on the project. He said that his property has been the main one affected by this project and the varying potential uses proposed over the years. He believed in the proposed use of the space by Remedy Place and thought it met the spirit of the previous HPC decision of a co-working space. He mentioned his tenant’s main complaint is the lack of foot traffic due to the building next door and he did not know why they would make it harder for Mr. Hunt to get this property redeveloped. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23RD, 2023 Ms. Simon mentioned that the HPC members had received a public comment letter from Alexandra George (Exhibit J) and she paraphrased it into the record. She then noted two public comment letters (Exhibit J) that had been received just before the meeting and read them into the record. Dr. Leary responded to the public comments. He said that at a few of their other locations he had been surprised by the amount of people wanted to stick around and work from Remedy Place. He said that the Aspen location would be an evolution of the brand and concept. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Halferty went over HPC’s purview here and described their three options, as described by Ms. Simon earlier. Ms. Surfas commented that the New York Times article about Remedy Place that Dr. Leary referenced, noted another similar business that changed their business model to include co-working space. She said Remedy Place could likewise change their business model as proposed for the Aspen location and that she would be able to rent a workspace. Mr. Fornell commented that he thought the sections of the Land Use Code that speak to having affordable housing on site were outdated and should be removed. He noted that the applicant would be providing affordable housing regardless of it being on site or off and that 1,000 square feet of net leasable floor area produces a lot more in taxes than the same amount of affordable housing on site. He said that affordable housing in a community like area outside of the core is much more attractive than something in the core off an alley. He agreed with Ms. Surfas that this concept is a co-workspace amended for a new decade. He said he was in support of allowing the new use of the space. Mr. Warwick noted that it was clear that the applicant was not going to build affordable housing on site and that this really was about whether this new concept was considered co-workspace. He mentioned that there are several traditional co-working spaces in town and more where being developed. He did not see this concept as co-working, but thought it was a good concept and use for the space and if it made the project feasible and activated the block he was in support. Mr. Moyer referenced HPC’s decision in 2018 and agreed that the new concept would bring vitality to the block, and he would be ok with the different use of the space. Mr. Halferty said that commercial space is always a challenge when HPC reviews new buildings. He acknowledged that, as Mr. Fornell and the applicant have stated, there are always other avenues for affordable housing mitigation as permitted by the Land Use Code. He also acknowledged the evolution of workspaces and work environments, but wondered about the hypothetical of the new concept going out of business and what happens then with the space and would it have to come back to HPC. He noted that Zoning officers would have to somehow confirm that the co-working element stays and is inclusive. He thought that Dr. Leary had an interesting concept and seemed to be embracing the public. He thought that as long as there is enforcement of the concept that includes a certain amount of co- working space and related office amenities that are available to everyone and that there is a community benefit, he could be in support of the project. He also noted that this is another topic that could be discussed with City Council, as it is outside HPC’s normal purview and review. Mr. True went over HPC’s best way to move forward regarding their decision as there seemed to be four members who were in support of the new use. Knowing that staff has already made the determination REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23RD, 2023 that the concept is not co-working, Mr. True said that if HPC decides that the new use is appropriate and want to allow it, that the language in the Resolution regarding co-working space be struck and it be allowed to be permitted uses. He thought it would be best to delete the existing provision that requires this to come back to HPC if another use is proposed in the future and that any uses permitted in the zone district be allowed. There was some discussion between the members about whether the co-working space language should be stricken from section 11 of the Resolution. Ms. Surfas did not want it stricken because it would allow the co-working spaces to potentially become treatment rooms or some other non-co-working spaces over time. She thought it was presented as a mixed use of the second floor with some co-working spaces and some treatment areas. She suggested that they make sure a certain percentage of the space stay as co-working. Mr. Warwick mentioned a hypothetical situation where there is a certain amount of the space that gets dedicated to co-working and then no one from the public ends up using it to work. He said that they could be forcing the space to have an amount of square footage that sits empty. There was more discussion on how to handle this situation of potentially requiring certain permitted uses and not others. Mr. Fornell did not think they should be limiting what potential future uses could occur in the space or not and favored striking the language requiring co-working space. Mr. Warwick agreed. Ms. Pitchford disagreed. Mr. True acknowledged this as a tricky situation, because as he saw it, two members were in support of some type of restrictions on the use that two other members were not in support of. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the Resolution as proposed, leaving the language in section 11, but striking the portion that talks about the co-working use of the space and adding the language presented to allow the second floor to be occupied by any use permitted in the zone district. As requested by staff, Mr. Fornell then stated that his reasoning for the motion was based on the fact that the requirement for onsite affordable housing in the core predates the downzoning and height requirements as well as the creation of the affordable housing certificate program and he believed that City Council should revisit this requirement in the Land Use Code. He stated that in 2018, HPC determined that it was ok to have the affordable housing be developed off site and he was asking the current HPC to determine the same. Mr. Warwick seconded Mr. Fornell’s motion. Mr. True noted that the motion as made, did not include any of the conditions that two of the supporters of the project had suggested, related to specific use requirements or enforcement. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, no; Ms. Pitchford, no; Mr. Warwick, yes; Mr. Halferty, no. 2-4 vote, motion does not pass. Ms. Surfas believed they need to include language that states that a certain percentage of the space needs to stay as co-working. She said that the representation that was made in 2018 was that it was affordable co-workspace. She believed that this was a community benefit. She did not want to see the co-working spaces in the new concept, as represented by the applicant, have the opportunity to be reduced or changed to another use over time. She said that if the concept does not work out, the applicant should have to come back to HPC for approval of another use. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23RD, 2023 There was some discussion about whether HPC could just refer this matter to City Council. Mr. True made an attempt to craft draft language for a condition that would leave the provision that if the applicant changes what was represented at today’s meeting and approved by HPC, that they would have to come back to the board. He noted that there was representation, made by the applicant, of the amount of co-workspace. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to deny the Resolution which is written to amended section 11 of HPC Resolution #19, of 2018. Ms. Pitchford seconded. After Ms. Pitchford’s second, Ms. Adams asked for a pause for some time for the applicant team to convene and discuss if they would like to request a continuance. Mr. True noted that since there was a motion on the table it would need to be voted on after the pause or it would need to be withdrawn. Mr. Moyer withdrew his motion. Ms. Pitchford did not withdraw her second. Ms. Adams asked if the applicant had the opportunity to withdraw the application or ask for a continuance. Mr. True said yes, they had that right, but since there was still a motion on the table, it needed to be voted on at some point. Ms. Pitchford then withdrew her second. Mr. Halferty noted that they would take a five-minute break to allow the applicant team to discuss things. When the meeting resumed Ms. Adams explained why they were requesting a continuance. She said they just wanted some time to be thoughtful about percentages and to define what co-working means in order to come to an agreement about the conditions of approval. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to continue this hearing to September 13th, 2023. Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Warwick, no; Mr. Halferty, yes. 5-1 vote, motion passes. Ms. Simon wanted to set a deadline of September 6th for the applicant to provide their response to give staff enough time to address it. Mr. True left the meeting and Ms. Berne took over as counsel. Ms. Thompson re-entered the meeting. Ms. Simon noted that they were going to skip the staff presentation on historic preservation and affordable housing as it is practiced around the State and would schedule it for another time. They would move on to HPC’s preparation for the joint work session with City Council. NEW BUSINESS: Preparation for September 5th Joint HPC/City Council Work Session Ms. Simon mentioned that there had been a request to come to the meeting with an agenda to work with. Ms. Thompson started the board’s preparation discussion for their joint work session with Council. The board members contributed to the conversation with some of their ideas and potential questions they had for Council. One point of conversation to have with City Council was the perceived conflict between the desire for more density with affordable housing project and the Historic Preservation Guidelines. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 23RD, 2023 The members wanted to get more clarity on City Council’s intentions with the new code updates and two step process, to better guide their efforts based on Council’s goals. Mr. Moyer also wanted to ask Council whether they think additions to historic assets in the last 20 years or so are overwhelming those assets. Another concern of Mr. Moyer was in the new process, HPC is not able to get a full picture of what is planned for the rest of an affordable housing project outside of the historic asset and he noted that HPC may make a decision about the historic asset, but that there could be unintended consequences for the surrounding neighborhood. At 7:00pm, Ms. Thompson moved to extend the meeting until 7:15pm. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motions passed. They continued their discussion. Ms. Simon wrote down the main thoughts and questions in an agenda to present to Council ahead of the meeting. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Fornell seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk