HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibitB.HPC Resolution and Minutes.20210526RECEPTION#: 677590, R: $23.00, D: $0.00
DOC CODE: RESOLUTION
Pg 1 of 3, 06/14/2021 at 11:46: 08 AM
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
RESOLUTION #10, SERIES OF 2021
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPQ
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, RELOCATION,
DIMENSIONAL VARIATIONS AND A FLOOR AREA BONUS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 121 WEST BLEEKER STREET, THE EAST ''/2 OF LOT C, ALL OF LOT
D, AND THE WEST''% OF LOT E, BLOCK 58, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-39-003
WHEREAS, the applicant, 121 W Bleeker LLC, represented by 1 Friday Design, has requested
HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and a Floor
Area Bonus for the property located at 121 W. Bleeker Street, the East %2 of Lot C, all of Lot D, and
the West %2 of Lot E, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; 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. As a
historic landmark, the site is exempt from Residential Design Standards review. 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, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 26.415.090, Relocation; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of
Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Floor Area Bonus, the application shall meet the requirements of
Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F, Floor Area Bonus; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with applicable review standards and recommends approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on March 24, 2021 and May 26, 2021. HPC considered
the application, the staff memo and public comment, and found the osal consistent with the
review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote o 7-0. -
HPC Resolution 410, Series of 2021
Page I of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Dimensional Variations
and Floor Area Bonus for 121 W. Sleeker Street, the East %2 of Lot C, all of Lot D, and the West '/2 of
Lot E, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows:
Section 1: Conceptual Major Develo ment Relocation Dimensional Variations and a Floor
Area Bonus.
HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Dimensional Variations and
Floor Area Bonus as proposed with the following conditions:
1. Work with relevant City Departments regarding comments related to the transformer, new
water line and the stormwater mitigation plan. Minimize visual impact of stormwater features
in the foreground of the historic resource.
2. The lightwell abutting the historic resource must have a curb height of 6" or less.
3. The front walkway material must be concrete, brick, or red sandstone pavers, and no more than
3' in width.
4. Provide a detailed roof plan showing the location of gutters, downspouts, snow clips and vents,
for Final review.
5. A 205 s.f. floor area bonus is granted for the approved design as represented. All calculations
will be confirmed during building permit review. Bonus floor area not used for this project will
be forfeited and must be earned through a future request.
6. The following setback variations for the proposed addition are granted:
5' rear yard setback reduction for the addition above and below grade, as represented in
the approved application
3'-10" east side yard setback reduction for the proposed mechanical equipment
8'-9" combined side yard setback reduction for the new addition and the mechanical
equipment as represented in the approved application
7. As part of the approval to relocate the historic house on the site, the applicant will be required
to provide a financial security of $30,000 until the house is set on the new foundation. The
financial security is to be provided with the building permit application, along with a detailed
description of the house relocation approach.
8. 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 anapplicationwithinthistimeperiodshallrendernullandvoidtheapprovaloftheConceptual
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 ConceptualDevelopmentPlanapprovalforuptosix (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 PreservationCommission, 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.
HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2021
Page 2 of 3
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 261h day of May, 2021.
Approved as to Form:
Katharine Johrso i. Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
es Graham, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to Content:
K ra homps i, Chair
HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2021
Page 3 of 3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 26 2021
Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Roger Moyer, Jeff Halferty, Jodi
Surfas, Peter Fornell, Sheri Sanzone.
Commissioners not in attendance: n/a
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Planning Director
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Fornell moved to approve the March 12th minutes. Mr. Kendrick seconded.
Roll Call: Mr. Kendrick; Yes, Mr. Moyer; Yes, Mr. Halferty; Yes, Mr. Fornell; Yes, Ms.
Surface; Yes Ms. Thompson; Yes. 6-0, motion passes.
Ms. Sanzone joined the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson stated that there was a discussion about
meeting in person and an HPC Work Session.
Ms. Simon stated that on June 1st all City of Aspen employees will be back in the office. She
added there has been a discussion happening about bringing the boards back together in person.
The staff liaisons will be reaching out to each board chair to discuss options and requirements.
Ms. Simon said as far as a work session staff will put together a list of topics and maybe plan a
retreat.
Ms. Sanzone said she watched the HPC awards at the last council meeting. She said that the
Mayor did an excellent job describing each project and that Councilwoman Mullins was very
surprised and honored by her award.
Ms. Simon said that staff is aiming for the August 10th council meeting to present the awards in
person.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Yoon stated that the most current project monitoring list was
attached to the agenda.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon introduced Natalie Feinberg Lopez, as the city’s new
Historic Preservation Officer.
Ms. Lopez said that she is thrilled to join the city team.
OLD BUSINESS: 121 W. Bleeker Street - Conceptual Major Development. Derek Skalko with
1st Friday Design representing the owner.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 26 2021
Mr. Skalko said that they would like to focus on the refinement of the project and property. He
reminded the board that the majority of the mass is the addition on the back and is non-historic.
Mr. Skalko showed a historic photo of the structure and said that the plan is to bring the resource
back to its pure form. He showed a rendering of the proposed plan where the new addition
massing is pushed to the alley creating a clean space of 12 feet with a connecting element
between the resource and the addition. Mr. Skalko said that the outside staircase that was
proposed has been taken out of the plans and the massing of the additions has been reduced by 6
feet on the west side. He added that the grill that was proposed has been removed as well. Mr.
Skalko said that on the east side they have decided to forgo the open-aired court-well and went
with a simple skylight. The skylight will sit 13 feet 7 inches from the resource. He added that
there will be a 5-foot fence along the alley, so the public will not be able to read this element.
Mr. Skalko said that the area that was proposed for the outside staircase will now be shifted and
used to create a wraparound porch for the master bedroom. He stated that now that the outside
staircase and the open-aired court-well have been removed, they are asking for a smaller
variance. Mr. Skalko said that there has been concern about the outside patio, which bumps up to
the resource. He explained that the patio will sit 2 to 3 inches above grade and there will be a
fence so no public view of this patio.
Ms. Thompson asked if the shed roof mass that has shifted will hang over the skylights more so
than the last iteration.
Mr. Skalko said that is correct.
Mr. Halferty asked what the distance is between the resource and the two-story addition.
Mr. Skalko said 12 feet.
Mr. Fornell asked the applicant to explain the patio detail further.
Mr. Skalko said that the east and west patio will be utilized as a part of the kitchen and dining
experience with an open-air concept. He explained that the patio will be stone only 2 to 3 inches
above grade, for all intents and purposes they are grade-level conditions. Mr. Skalko said that
there were conversations about pulling the patio away from the resource wall, he said that doing
this one is creating a precarious detail for waterproofing failure.
Mr. Fornell asked if the fence will be kept or recreated.
Mr. Skalko said there have been many iterations of the fence through the decades and at certain
points, there was no fence. He said that they intend to have a fence with wood construction
referencing a historic photo.
Mr. Fornell asked if the staff has an opinion on the fence.
Ms. Yoon stated that this is a detail that they will cover in the final review as it relates to the
landscape plan.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon reviewed the history and the list of approvals that are being
requested for this project. She stated that staff supports the removal of the non-historic addition
and the restoration that goes along with the removal. Ms. Yoon said that the applicant is seeking
a full basement and will pick up the resource and place it back in the original space. She said that
the connecting element is wider than normal, however, and staff is in support of this in this case.
The resource is taller than the addition and there is a loss of historic integrity due to the addition
that is there now. Ms. Yoon said that the applicant has reduced the massing of the addition as it
is viewed from Bleeker Street. She said that the side yard setback request has been removed
since the applicant is no longer seeking the outside staircase. Ms. Yoon stated that staff would
like HPC to discuss the paved patio condition. She explained that typically the resource needs to
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 26 2021
meet grade and not a paved material like the patios. Ms. Yoon said that staff supports the mass
reduction on the second floor of the addition and that the addition is now more in line with the
resource. She said that the height variation is no longer being requested since the large lightwell
is not being pursued. The skylight that is now being proposed for natural light for the subgrade
living area is a bit larger than typically seen, staff would like to see a slight reduction. Ms. Yoon
said that there is a rear yard setback variation being asked for. She explained that the deck on top
of the garage is considered a livable space. She added that the mechanical equipment will also
need a setback variation.
Mr. Fornell asked staff’s opinion on connecting elements.
Ms. Yoon stated that the purpose of the connecting element is to distance the new development
from the historic resource and to reduce the physical impact that it may undergo during
construction.
Mr. Kendrick stated that the ideal situation would be that there is no connecting element. He said
that it is unique in the city building code that there is an option for a connecting element.
Mr. Fornell said that his concern is that some individuals get them, and some don’t. He added
that he wants to be fair to all applicants.
Ms. Thompson stated that it is written into the code and HPC does not get to diced one way or
another.
Mr. Halferty said just take a look at this project where the applicant wants to take off an addition
that is smashed up against a historic resource and this is why a connector is needed and works.
Ms. Sanzone stated that she supports the proposed patios and that the applicant is doing a great
job restoring and being sensitive to the resource.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson stated that the removal of the staircase and
reduction of the massing is a great improvement. She said there is concern about the overhang
above the skylight.
Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Thompson why she’s concerned about the overhang.
Ms. Thompson said it is just a concern in elevation and the consistency of the plane along the
resource and alley side. She explained that before it gave the illusion of a longer connecting
element with more space between the addition and resource.
Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Thompson why she thinks it was changed.
Ms. Thompson stated that she does not have the old plans in front of her but to her best guess,
the master suite was re-laid out.
Mr. Fornell asked if the skylight would be used as egress.
Mr. Skalko said no.
Mr. Fornell asked if there were no bedrooms in the basement then.
Mr. Skalko stated there is no need for egress from that room and that there are bedrooms in the
basement, and they all have egress.
Mr. Fornell asked if the egress is at grade and if you push up or have a railing.
Mr. Kendrick said it’s on grade.
Mr. Halferty said as far as massing, the connecting element is larger than typically seen. He
added that the shed form that is on top of the link makes the link seem bigger. Mr. Halferty said
that he agrees with Ms. Thompson’s statement about the overhang.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 26 2021
Mr. Kendrick asked if the height is below the resource then the applicant does not need to
maintain that 10-foot distance.
Ms. Yoon said that is correct.
Mr. Kendrick said that this fits into the guidelines. He said he appreciates that the addition is
below the resource. Mr. Kendrick said that he agrees with fellow board members that there are
areas that could be cleaned up a bit.
Ms. Thompson stated that she does not have a problem with the width of the linking element,
and it was a lot cleaner when the shed roof element lined up with the linking elements.
Mr. Moyer stated that he agrees with the staff’s comments and is ready to approve.
Ms. Sanzone said she agrees with staff on the massing and that there are a lot of details being
shown that will be discussed at the final. She added that she does not mind the width of the
linking element. She reiterated her support for the patios.
Ms. Thompson said that she agrees with Ms. Sanzone about the patios. She added that she is ok
with the skylight as proposed and supports approval.
Ms. Surfas stated that she is in support of the project.
Mr. Fornell said that the applicant did a great job addressing the concerns from HPC. He raised
concerns about the setback variations being granted.
Ms. Thompson said that the setback conversation was extensively discussed at the first meeting.
She explained that the garage variance is for a railing on top of the garage and adding
mechanical equipment under the garage. She added that this will not change the footprint. She
further added that there is mechanical equipment shown in the side yard and this will grant them
to sit on grade.
Ms. Thompson said that she is good to approve the project and asked the applicant to consider
the massing above the linking element.
Mr. Fornell moved to approve Resolution #10, Series of 2021; Mr. Kendrick seconded.
Ms. Sanzone asked why the square footage was changed from 250 to 205.
Mr. Halferty said that they did not need all 250.
Ms. Sanzone asked if the applicant needed more could they come and request and be granted
that.
Mr. Kendrick stated no that would change the mass and scale.
Ms. Sanzone said that she wants to make sure the applicant is aware of the 45-sf difference.
Roll Call: Mr. Kendrick; Yes, Mr. Moyer; Yes, Mr. Halferty; Yes, Mr. Fornell; Yes, Ms.
Surface; Yes Ms. Thompson; Yes, Ms. Sanzone; Yes. 7-0, motion passes.
NEW BUSINESS: Report on Colorado Preservation, Inc. conference.
Ms. Yoon stated that the city was awarded a scholarship for some of the HPC members to attend
the virtual CPI Conference. She said that this conference is about preservation and focuses on
Colorado.
Each commissioner discussed the seminars they attended and their experience.
Mr. Halferty motioned to adjourn; Mr. Moyer Seconded
Roll Call: Mr. Kendrick; Yes, Mr. Moyer; Yes, Mr. Halferty; Yes, Mr. Fornell; Yes, Ms.
Surface; Yes Ms. Thompson; Yes, Ms. Sanzone; Yes. 7-0, motion passes.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 26 2021
_________________________
Wes Graham, Deputy Clerk