Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibitB.HPC Resolution and Meeting Minutes.20210922EXHIBIT B - HPC RESOLUTION AND MINUTES NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and Floor Area Bonus for 135 W. Francis Street, Lot A and the West One -Half of Lot B, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows: Section 1: Conceptual Maior Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and a Floor Area Bonus. HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and Floor Area Bonus as proposed with the following conditions: 1. Continue to work with the relevant City Departments regarding the preliminary stormwater mitigation and drainage plans for the site and clarify the anticipated visual impacts for the plan for Final Review. Minimize visible impacts of stormwater features in the foreground of the historic resource. 2. Provide detailed roof plan showing the location of gutters, downspouts, snow clips and vents, for Final Review. 3. Lightwell curb heights to be 6" or less in height. Provide curb height information for lightwell adjacent to the historic resource and appropriate screening will be required. 4. Provide a detailed Preservation Plan including existing conditions documenting investigation of historic framing and proposed treatment, to be reviewed by staff and monitor prior to building permit submission. Special attention is required for the front entry porch as part of this plan. 5. A 60 s.f. floor area bonus is granted for the approved design. 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 variation for the proposed addition is granted: • 2'-8" rear yard setback reduction for the proposed garage, as represented in the approved application • 7'-4" rear yard setback reduction for the living spaces on the upper level and below grade, as represented in the approved application • 1'-0" west side yard setback reduction for extruded architectural features on the west elevation of the new addition • 1'-0" combined side yard setback reduction 7. Provide financial assurances of $30,000 for the relocation of the historic home onto a new basement foundation, to be provided prior to building pen -nit submission. 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 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 HPC Resolution #13, Series of 2021 Page 2 of 3 Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if filly 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 September, 2021. Approved as to Form: Katharine Jo on, Assistant City Attorney A'I" FEST: Nicole •Henning, City Clerk Approved as to Content: HPC Resolution #13, Series of 2021 Page 3 of 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 Vice Chair Halferty opened the meeting at 4:30pm Commissioners in attendance: Jeffery Halferty, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell. Absent were Kara Thompson and Sheri Sanzone. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Natalie Feinburg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Nicole Henning, City Clerk Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve three sets of minutes from 6/23/21, 7/14/21, and 8/11/21; Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; 4-0, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty said he’s been watching the Boomerang deteriorate all summer and feels it is unprotected and open to the elements with winter coming. He would like an update. Ms. Lopez said she went over there with a representative from the Building Department, and the roof and foundation are in great shape. The worst is in the alleyway because of the trash that is being dumped. We are being proactive and working with Mark Hunt on this. Mr. Moyer asked about Main St. Bakery. Ms. Lopez said she isn’t sure where we are with it. Ms. Yoon said there have been communications with the applicant team trying to get their approvals in line for permit submittal. Mr. Halferty reiterated that he just wants to make sure the Boomerang resource is protected throughout this winter. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Yoon has been reaching out to board members for project monitoring meetings. She said she appreciates everyone’s patience. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Lopez introduced Mr. Sear, the new Deputy City Clerk, to the commission. She said the meeting on October 13th is canceled so they will reconvene on the 27th. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Yoon said there were a few applications in review, but nothing to report. CALL UP REPORTS: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Johnson said yes, these were submitted with the original applications. OLD BUSINESS: 135 W. Francis Street – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations, and Floor Area Bonuses – Continued REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 Ms. Yoon asked Ms. Johnson to go over the vote for tonight. Ms. Johnson said there are four commissioners tonight, which is sufficient for a quorum. At least three members will have to vote consistently in order to take action. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Kim Raymond and Patricia Weber of Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors Ms. Raymond showed the site plan on screen and pointed out the non-historic addition that they will be removing. She said they will be lifting the house straight up about 7 inches to fix drainage which is allowed by historic preservation codes. They will be setting the resource down straight back onto the lot and are not changing the historic location at all. They have shortened the link to 10 ft wide from the previous 14ft. to meet the needs of the family and after working with HPC. They made it a slightly wider from east to west, yet it still leaves almost 8ft. of the historic building showing on the west side and 2ft. on the east corner. They will be adding a one car garage and stated that they are not demolishing more that 40% of the building, so are not triggering the need for two parking spaces. She shared some slides of the historic aspects that will be restored, including the chimney and historic side porch. The front porch will be cleaned up, which is still in great shape. The new addition is on the backside of the home and is not even 12 inches taller than the historic building. She pointed out that the gables on the new addition are compatible with the historic building. The fence starts at the connector and wraps around the addition without touching the historic resource. They are planning to save the cottonwood trees and will work around the evergreens. She showed the storm water management plan which they will continue to work with the engineering department on. She showed the demo calculations. Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Raymond to go over the requests for setback variances. Ms. Raymond said that they moved the garage back into the rear yard setback to be able to fit a car in. They are asking for a 2ft 8in. rear yard setback for the garage and below grade space. They are also asking for a 1 ft. side yard setback on the west side to accommodate the wing wall feature on the gable. STAFF PRESENTATION: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Ms. Yoon said the applicant is requesting conceptual major development, relocation, setback variations and floor area bonus. This was before us once before and now back with some changes to location and the connecting element. She stated that after several discussions about the site planning, the applicant has returned with a revised application that maintains the historic location, in line with Chapter 9 of the historic guidelines. Staff is in support of a portion of the new addition encroaching into the rear yard setback. She stated that staff will be working closely with the applicant on the preservation plan to ensure restoration work will comply with guidelines. She showed the revised north and west elevations on screen and said they are more compatible with the historic resource which maintains its visual dominance. She had two things she wanted to open up for HPC discussion. First, the roof configuration of the new addition including the gable forms and flat roof portion. Second, the wing walls on the new addition that require a side yead setback variation of 1ft. They are requesting a rear yard setback and a side yard setback which staff is in support of. They are also requesting a 60 sq. ft. bonus, and they do meet these criteria. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Continue to work with city departments on stormwater mitigation and drainage plans. 2. Provide detailed roof plan. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 3. Lightwell curb heights to be 6” or less in height. Provide curb height information for lightwell adjacent to historic resource and appropriate screening will be required. 4. Provide a detailed preservation plan. Special attention is required for the front entry porch as part of this plan. 5. A 60 sq. ft. floor area bonus is granted for the approved design. 6. The following setback variation for the proposed addition is granted: 2’-8” rear yard setback reduction for the proposed garage, as represented in the approved application 7’-4” rear yard setback reduction for the living spaces on the upper level and below grade, as represented in the approved application. 1’-0” west side yard setback reduction for extruded architectural features on the west elevation of the new addition. 1’-0” combined side yard setback reduction Ms. Raymond clarified that the upper-level deck space is only a 5 ft variance. Only the below grade space is looking for the 7’-4” variance. Mr. Fornell clarified that staff is recommending approval and not continuation since there was a mistake shown on the slide. Mr. Halferty asked for clarification on the parking spaces allowed. Ms. Yoon said because of the existing non-conformity that this site has; the parking requirement is triggered when demolition is triggered by 40%. The applicant demonstrated that they are not triggering 40% demo. They are allowing for one car and bettering the situation. Ms. Surfas was looking at attachment 3 – page 64 of packet. The attachment shows the proposed amount of demo is 40%. It also shows “on-site parking” as “Existing: 2 Required: 2 Proposed: 2”. She asked if this needs to be updated. Ms. Yoon mentioned that the information in the packet regarding these numbers is correct and that the form has not been updated. Ms. Raymond said that they would update that information and get it back to Ms. Yoon. Mr. Halferty asked staff to clarify comments regarding the wing walls and related setbacks. Ms. Yoon said that in terms of the criteria, staff does not see it creates a direct impact to the historic resource but wanted HPC to discuss this further. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Mr. Fornell complemented Ms. Raymond and her team for work done and changes made to satisfy guidelines. He stated support for their floor area bonus and overall project. Ms. Surfas mentioned how the roofline and elevations will be perceived from the street. This is her only issue. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 Mr. Moyer said they’ve done a good job at removing a cumbersome addition. He has no problem with either setback or granting the 60 sf bonus. He concurs with staff recommendations and conditions and will vote for approval. Mr. Halferty commended the applicant for coming back with changes that are within the guidelines. Excellent presentation and very clear and thorough. He’s ok with setback variances including the southside variance which helps create better distance from the historic resource and the gable trim wingwalls setbacks. It’s definitely a product of its own time. He’d like to discuss the glass meeting the sloped gable and wants it to be well thought out. The landscape plan is significant. He appreciates the resource staying in the same location. He’s ok with the conditions. He would move to approve, like his fellow commissioners. Ms. Surfas said the flat roof meeting the connector is different than the flat roof meeting the gable on the new addition and said they are talking about two different things. Mr. Halferty said we can discuss both of these with the project monitor. Mr. Fornell commented on the gable to the west of the flat roof on the new addition. He thought it shows to be well thought out for privacy and negative visibility from the public. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve Resolution #13 along with conditions from staff; Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Fornell, yes; 4-0, motion carried. Mr. Fornell brought up the $30,000 financial assurances for the relocation of historic assets. He said the amount hasn’t changed in about 15 years and doesn’t sound like a deterrent to doing the right thing anymore. Ms. Johnson said this would be a discussion for council. Ms. Simon said the number is not specified in the municipal code and other penalties exist. It’s mainly a gesture for any repairs that may be needed. Escalating that number isn’t helpful in being a partner to the contractor. Mr. Fornell asked that it’s not the limits of their liability. Ms. Simon said that is correct – it’s been at 30,000 for the past 30 years or so. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn; Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote: All in favor. Motion carried. Ms. Simon reminded commissioners that the next meeting will be cancelled. Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk