Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibitB_HPCResolution15-2020_HPCMinutes_2020_07_22HPC Resolution 15, Series of 2020 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION #15, SERIES OF 2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 NEALE AVENUE, LOT 2 AS SHOWN ON THE SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT OF 114 NEALE/17 QUEEN HISTORIC LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MAY 29, 1998 IN PLAT BOOK 45 AT PAGE 17, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-073-83-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, 17 Queen LLC, represented by Forum Phi Architecture, LLC, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development for the property located at 110 Neale Avenue, Lot 2 as shown on the Subdivision Exemption Plat of 114 Neale/17 Queen Historic Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The project has received administrative approval of compliance with the Residential Design Standards; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with applicable review standards and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on June 24th, 2020 and July 22nd, 2020. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comment, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of 5 - 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development for 110 Neale Avenue, Lot 2, as shown on the Subdivision Exemption Plat of 114 Neale/17 Queen Historic Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows: Section 1: Conceptual Major Development Review HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development as proposed with the following conditions: 1.) Continue to work with all relevant City Departments including Engineering, Parks, and Zoning to ensure all requirements are met, including but not limited to the proposed right-of-way configuration. EXHIBIT B - HPC RESOLUTION AND MEETING MINUTES HPC Resolution 15, Series of 2020 Page 2 of 2 2.) A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Section 2: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 3: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of July, 2020. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ______________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 22, 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Roger Moyer, Scott Kendrick, Sherri Sanzone, Gretchen Greenwood. Commissioners not in attendance: Bob Blaich, Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes from June 24th,2020. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor. Motion carried 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None CONFLICTS: Ms. Thompson has a conflict of interest with 110 Neal ave. and will not participate in the conversation. Mr. Halferty has a conflict of interest with 500 W main and will not participate in the conversation. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that at this point there is no project motoring, call up reports, or certificates of negative effects. Ms. Thompson left the meeting OLD BUSINESS: 110 Neale Avenue – Conceptual Major Development Review. Steve Wilson with Forumphi representing owners. Mr. Wilson reminded the commission that this project is a historic lot split and the historic resource is on the lot above the project. He showed updated renderings of the proposed plan and stated that the revised design reduces the roof mass at the center of the structure to create a lower connector element. Mr. Wilson stated at the last hearing HPC had a question about what trees were staying and which were going to be lost. He showed a map of trees that will not be affected and the ones that will be lost. Mr. Wilson stated that they have been working with the Parks Dept. on this tree issue. Mr. Wilson showed the new proposal renderings from all sides to showcase the elevation, he pointed out that there is no obstruction in the view plane of the historic resource on the hill. Mr. Wilson reiterated that the redesign was significantly smaller and without adding unneeded complexity. Mr. Kendrick asked how much was the roof lowered. Mr. Wilson stated that they diminished the roof by 4 feet. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon reminded the commission that this was a historic lot split and the historic resource does not sit on this lot. She further explained that they will be looking at the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 22, 2020 connecting element to the new addition which is next to the historic resource. Ms. Yoon stated that staff had concerns with the relatability with mass and scale of the new addition as it related to the historic lot. Ms. Yoon stated that the new iteration respects 11.3 in creating a scale and proportion in relation to the historic resource. She said that the staff is in favor of the updated plan. Ms. Yoon stated that other City departments have submitted comments and concerns to the commission. Ms. Yoon reviewed the conditions for this project, that the applicant needs to work with city staff and departments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ann Short neighbor of the project submitted a letter. Attached to the minutes. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood stated that she like the redesign of the massing and is in favor of moving this project forward. Ms. Sanzone agreed with Ms. Greenwood's comments. Mr. Halferty stated that he was not at the first meeting but supports this project moving forward. Mr. Moyer asked about the covenants the neighbors agreed to. Ms. Bryan stated that the city does not get involved in these kinds of issues. Mr. Moyer stated that he agrees with everyone's comments and would like to see this move forward. Mr. Kendrick stated no comment. Mr. Halferty moved to approve Resolution #15-2020. Ms. Sanzone seconded. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Mr. Kendrick Yes; Ms. Sanzone, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Halferty left the meeting Ms. Thompson joined the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 500 W. Main Street – Conceptual Major Development and Residential Design Standards Review. John Broughton of Rowland + Broughton representing the project. Mr. Rowland stated that this property was a lot split on one half there sits the historic storefront and the other is a garden where the new addition will be located. Mr. Rowland stated that their mission was to build a cute single-family home on the adjacent lot. Mr. Rowland showed historic photos and Sanborn maps of what the lot looked like and then he showed new renderings of the proposed project. Mr. Broughton stated that the lot is thirty feet wide and one hundred thirty feet deep, he added that there will be ten-foot setbacks on the front and back with five-foot setbacks on the sides. Mr. Broughton stated that the structure will be twenty-five feet tall with a carved out front entry with a gable form. He explained that the carved-out portion will be placed on the back of the building. Mr. Broughton showed models to showcase the mass and scale of the proposed project next to the historic resource. Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant could discuss the porch and garage design. Mr. Broughton stated that the porch has a significant amount of planter boxes built-in and said by code they will need to extend it by one foot. He said the garage door will be designed to reflect a more historic feel. Mr. Broughton said that the garage door will be a signal panel. Ms. Greenwood asked about the residential design and standards and if there was another vernation being asked for.