HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibitB HPC Resolution & Meeting Minutes.20191009RESOLUTION #18,SERIES OF 2019
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, RELOCATION,SETBACK
VARIATION,AND FLOOR AREA BONUS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 202 EAST
MAIN STREET, LOT 1, MAIN STREET VICTORIANS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED
NOVEMBER 9, 2012 IN PLAT BOOK 10o AT PAGE 92, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-99-001
WHEREAS, the applicant, Rocking Lazy J Properties, LLC, represented by Jake Vickery, has
requested HPC approval for Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations, and Floor
Area Bonus for the property located at 202 East Main Street, Lot 1, Main Street Victorians
Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption According to the Plat thereof recorded
November 9, 2012 in Plat Book loo at Page 92, 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.
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.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; 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 26.415.11o.F, Floor Area Bonus; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review standards and recommends approval with conditions;
and
I IIIIII Hill IIIIIIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIIIIIII III IIIIIIII IN Hill 1111111111111
HPC Resolution #,8 Series of 201
RECEPTION#: 659920, R: $23.00, D: $0.00 9
DOC CODE: RESOLUTION Page 1 of 3
Pg 1 of 3, 10/25/2019 at 10:11:41 AM
Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County,CO
EXHIBIT B - HPC RESOLUTION
& MEETING MINUTES
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on August 28, 2019 and October 9, 2019. HPC
considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal
consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of 6 to
0.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations, and
Floor Area Bonus for 202 E. Main Street, Lot 1, Main Street Victorians Historic Landmark Lot Split
Subdivision Exemption, according to the Plat thereof recorded November 9, 2012 in Plat Book
loo at Page 92, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows:
Section 1: Conceptual Major_ Development Review, Relocation, Setback Variations, and Floor
Area Bonus.
HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, and Setback Variations, and a
Floor Area Bonus as proposed with the with the following conditions:
1.) HPC herby grants a 500 sq. ft. Floor Area Bonus for the approved design presented
at the HPC meeting with a revised garage, but not including the new dormer.
2.) Design curb heights around the lightwells to be 6" or less, and work with the Building
Department and staff to discuss a flat grate option around the lightwells.
3.) The following setback variations are approved:
2' setback reduction on the west and east sideyard above and below grade, for
the addition
5' setback reduction on the east sideyard above and below grade, for historic
house and basement
2' setback reduction on the west sideyard above and below grade, for the
historic house and basement
Up to a 5' west sideyard setback reduction for the lightwells
5' setback reduction on the west and rear sideyard, for the proposed trash
enclosure
4.) Continue to discuss the design of the storm water mitigation system with all relevant
City Departments for compliance. Final design to be reviewed by HPC at Final Design
Review.
5.) Work closely with staff and monitor regarding the preservation plan and identifying
areas for additional documentation and investigative demolition, to be reviewed and
approved by staff and monitor.
6.) Provide necessary agreements from neighboring properties for site excavation
stabilization prior to submission of Building permit.
7.) Provide details of the relocation plan, outlined by a structural engineer and
housemover, at Final. 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.
HPC Resolution #18, Series of 2019
Page 2 of 3
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 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 91h day of October,2019.
Approved as t orm: Approved as to Content:
ncle ryan, Assistant City Attorn y retchen Gr ood, Chair
T T:
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Cler
HPC Resolution #18, Series of 2019
Page 3 of 3
2
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 2019
Ms. Yoon apologized for missing the last meeting and said she was in London for a week. It was nice and
the weather was ok. The architecture is fabulous.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Simon said Ms. Bryan has the notice on the first and last items and Mr. Larimer will
be bringing the notice down for his item.
Ms. Sanzone exited the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS: 229 W. Smuggler
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon said this project received an HPC award last year. It’s a really nice Victorian era home with a
detached new house built next to it as a duplex. During HPC approval, there was a small deck allowed
on the east side of the historic resource. The little deck provides an area off the kitchen for a barbecue
grill and has steps that descend towards the east. It’s fairly undersized and the owner would like
something larger and would like to replace with larger platform and stairs which descend towards the
north. This requires a setback variation. Staff supports the project.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: John Schenck and Evan Barrett of CCY architects.
Mr. Schenck said that Ms. Simon did a great job of summarizing the proposal. One thing to add, is that
the original design was meant not to look like a secondary entrance. What we’ve done, is taken the
footprint of the existing deck and shifted it to the south and reoriented the stairs to the north. So, now,
the owner/occupant can walk out and go towards the patio instead of walking out to the east and going
down steps. He showed a couple of views of what it looked like in the spring and the existing condition.
The front is not a competing entrance and raising the deck is a benefit to the owners for sure. He said
he thinks the building department will be happy to see this change.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
MOTION: Mr. Blaich moved to approve resolution #17, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion
carried.
Ms. Sanzone reentered the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS: 202 E. Main
Sarah Yoon
Ms. Yoon said this property is currently the consignment shop on Main street and is located in the
mixed-use zone district. The applicant is proposing for a single-family use. The application was
accepted before the code changes were adopted. Ms. Yoon showed a historic photograph of the
miner’s cottage on screen. At the last meeting, the applicant took HPC’s comments into consideration
for the redesign of the new addition. Compatibility was pointed out with the historic resource. They
have moved the lightwell that was in question. Staff supports the removal of the spruce tree. We
recommend the applicant coordinate discussions with the relevant city departments regarding
stormwater mitigation and site excavation. Staff is not in support of the new dormer addition. There is
a five-foot connecting element, which is one story and tucks under the historic eave. Staff supports the
request for setback variations because it meets the criteria. There is also a request for a parking
reduction. The applicant has revised this to accommodate two parking spaces. It was provided
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 2019
yesterday in an email. The revised design changes the design of the rear elosia. It now fully
accommodates for the rear entrance and for the full space of two parking spaces for this residence.
Staff is in support of the redesign. In terms of a floor area bonus request, this application is being
reviewed under the old benefits requirements. Staff feels they meet all criteria for the floor area bonus
and are in support of it. The applicant is also taking a floor area reduction with the change in use.
Condition #1 can be removed, and staff is recommending approval with the following conditions:
2. removal of new dormer
3. flat grate and lightwells with a curb cut of less than six inches
4. variations – trash enclosure added
5. staff continue discussion with city departments regarding storm water mitigation
6. work with staff and monitor on details
7. excavation discussion with engineering
8. relocation, securities and monies
9. submit for final review within one year within conceptual approval
Ms. Greenwood asked them to clarify the granting of the 500 square foot bonus when a new roof has
been added. Ms. Yoon said the bonus is granted without the proposed dormer. The roof wasn’t
presented in the previous application.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jake Vickery, architect and owner
Mr. Vickery said he has a detailed preservation plan at this point. All the historic surfaces stay in place
and even the window on the back is staying in place and there is nothing being disturbed. All of our
windows, including the corner windows, are all proportioned on the proportion of the existing windows.
The elevation has been revised and it became six feet instead of eight feet deep. We recessed the
second-floor area. The idea in his mind, is that next door is the historic shed and he felt like this one-
story element gestured to that shed. He’s personally conflicted about the dormer. He’d like to keep the
original form of the resource intact, and he respects that, but he believes this dormer, is minimally
intrusive with the benefit of additional space and light.
Ms. Sanzone asked, regarding storm water concept, if they need to depress that to hold the water in the
front yard and Mr. Vickery said the conversation with engineering didn’t get into it that far.
Ms. Greenwood asked what the width of the connecting element is and Mr. Vickery said 16’8”.
Ms. Thompson asked how far the connector element is set back and Mr. Vickery said 7’4”.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Della Pegolotti, Co-owner. Mr. Vickery has put a lot of hard work and time into this
to make it right. She has had her store there for over 20 years.
Ms. Greenwood said we have recommendations, but the 500 ft. bonus isn’t part of the approval. It’s a
really excellent restoration except for the dormer, in her opinion. That is wrong for the preservation
and not deserving of the bonus. She is in favor of everything except for this. She is in favor of approving
the 500 ft. bonus with no dormer. That needs to be written differently in the resolution.
Mr. Halferty agrees and although lovely from the space and not very visible, it’s taking away some of the
historic record, so he is not in favor of the dormer.
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 2019
Ms. Greenwood said she likes that the windows pay respect to the historic windows on the resource.
Mr. Blaich said that no one is taking a stance on approving the project without the 500 ft. bonus. Other
than that, he shares opinions that have already been stated.
Ms. Greenwood said it’s a little jewel, that house, the way it is.
Ms. Thompson is in favor of approving the 500 sq. ft bonus without the dormer and she said this is a
much better project than what was presented before. She said it’s much more developed and she
thanked Mr. Vickery for his hard work.
Ms. Greenwood said this is exactly the kind of project we want to see. You might be the last to get a 500
sq. foot bonus. Without the dormer, it’s perfect preservation. She thinks it’s well done. She asked the
board if they are in agreement about the dormer and everyone said yes.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the project to include a 500 sq. ft. bonus, a 2 ft. setback
reduction, a 5 ft. setback reduction, a 2 ft. setback reduction and up to a 5 ft. side yard setback
reduction, which involves the lightwells and trash enclosure and with the following conditions: 2, 3 5, 6,
7, 8, 9.
It might be clearer to write in a separate bullet point for the trash enclosure because that requires a rear
setback variation.
Ms. Bryan said it would be easier to say they are approving resolution #18 as proposed with the
following deletions or additions.
Ms. Sanzone made an amendment to #5. She would like the storm water design to come back to us for
approval instead of being approved by staff and monitor.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve resolution #18, allowing a 500 sq. foot bonus and with the five
following variations regarding setbacks as listed in item #4 to include the trash enclosure. Along with
the following conditions: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and #5 coming back to HPC for final review, Mr. Blaich
seconded.
Roll call vote: Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson,
yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes. 6-0 roll call vote. Motion carried.
Ms. Sanzone exited the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS: 314 w. Main St.
Garrett Larimer
Mr. Larimer said this is a special review for a parking waiver. It is located in the mixed-use zone district.
The requests include a minor development review for an amendment to a site wall, a special review for
a parking waiver, and a historic preservation benefit review for a waiver of the cash in lieu fee for the
parking requirement. This is a historic carriage house associated with the Smith Elijah house located on
west Main. A historic lot split was approved in 2002, which created two 4500 sq. ft. lots. During the lot
split approval, 314 W. Main was a mixed-use building with a residential unit on the upper level. More
recently, it has been used as a single-family residence. A change in use application was submitted to be
a single-family home. Compliance with parking for a single-family residence in the mixed-use zone
district is required. Two onsite parking spaces are required. The applicant submitted a potential parking