Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibitB HPCResolution&MeetingMinutes.227 E Bleeker.20201209RECEPTION* 672632, R: $18.00, D: $0.00 DOC CODE: RESOLUTION Pg 1 of 2, 01/1512021 at 11:27:36 AM Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION #26, SERIES OF 2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, RELOCATION, SETBACK VARIATIONS AND A FLOOR AREA BONUS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 277 EAST BLEEKER STREET, LOT 2, EAST BLEEKER HISTORIC LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT THEREOF FILED ON RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 78 AT PAGE 5 AS RECEPTION NO.521939, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737- 073-20-014 WHEREAS, the applicant, 227 East Bleeker LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects + Interiors, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and a Floor Area Bonus for the property located at 227 East Bleeker Street, Lot 2, East Bleeker Historic Lot Split, according to the Final Plat Book 78 at Page 5 as Reception No. 521939, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. As a historic landmark, the site is exempt from Residential Design Standards review; 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, 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 26.415.110.17, 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 December 9, 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. HPC Resolution #26, Series of 2020 Page 1 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and Floor Area Bonus for 227 East Bleeker Street, Lot 2, East Bleeker Historic Lot Split, according to the Final Plat Book 78 at Page 5 as Reception No. 521939, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows: Section 1• Conceptual Major 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.) Proposed secondary walkway and door is not approved. Investigate the historic framing for any evidence of historic material and openings. Fenestration changes to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor before proceeding. 2.) Provide a reduction plate height for the new addition. 3.) Provide a more detailed storm water mitigation plan following discussion with relevant City Departments for Final Review. No visible stormwater infrastructure to be seen in the foreground of the historic resource. 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. 5.) Work closely with all relevant City Departments to meet all requirements regarding the transformer, existing utility easement and parking requirements for Final Review. 6.) Lightwell curb heights to be 6" or less in height. 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 permit submission. 8.) A 250 sf floor area bonus is granted for the approved design. 9.) The following setback variation for the proposed addition is granted: a. 3'-3" rear yard setback reduction for the addition above and below grade, as represented in the approved application b. 2'-0" front yard setback reduction for the roof feature over the historic window 10.) 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. HPC Resolution #26, Series of 2020 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 91h day of December, 2020. Approved as to Form: Katharine Johns Assistant City Attorney ATJEST: Pesraham, Deputy City Clerk Approved as to Content: Kara "- AAAhom son, Vice Chair HPC Resolution #26, Series of 2020 Page 3 of 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 9 2020 Vice Chairperson Thompson opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Roger Moyer, Sherri Sanzone. Commissioners not in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor. PUBLIC COMMENT: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty shared his condolences for the passing of Art Daily. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: None PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon stated that there has been a lot of communication about setting up meetings with the monitors about the 517 E. Hopkins. 105 E. Hallam more information and updates to come to the monitors. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said that there will be back-to-back HPC meetings due to the Christmas holiday. She stated the next meeting will be Ms. Greenwoods last meeting since she will be moving Down Valley and that the election of Chair and Vice-Chair will take place at the first meeting of January. CALL UPS: Ms. Simon stated that Council called up 211 West Hopkins. Council passed this item at first reading and will discuss in more detail about the project in the new year. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 227 E. Bleeker Street - Conceptual Major Development. Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors Ms. Raymond stated that the historic cabin has been neglected for many years. She said through the years there have been elements added but there are clues to what is historic and what is not historic. Ms. Raymond stated that this building has unique features that have not been seen before, pointing out the flat roof porch that has been enclosed. She showed a survey map that indicated that the bay window hangs over a bit of the setback line. She indicated that they will be seeking a variance for this issue. Ms. Raymond stated that the building is slightly squid on the property and when the new foundation is placed, they will take that opportunity to straighten the structure. Ms. Raymond showed the floor plan of the resource and pointed the non-historic additions that were added at some point like the enclosed porch area, a storage closest, and the deck in the back of the building. Ms. Raymond showed the proposed site plane and stated that the historic resource will remain in its original footprint with the one-degree correction. She explained that with a simple shift adjustment to the new addition the transformer will not be in the way while maintaining the full parking space next to the garage. Ms. Raymond stated that the historic resource is 1,120 sq. ft. and the new addition will be 694 sq. ft. with a connecting element of 84 sq. ft. She showed a rendering of the three levels and how they would connect. Ms. Raymond stated that this lot is allowed 1,800 SF and is hoping with the historic preservation REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 9 2020 efforts they will be awarded the addition of 250 SF bringing the total to 2,050 SF. Ms. Raymond said that the variance setbacks that are being requested are the bay window in front of the building, and a deck on the second floor of the new addition that lines up with the garage that is 1.9 ft back from the 5 ft setback however, the deck is 3ft 3in over the living area setback. She said that the plan is to be as respectful as they can be to keep breathing room in the alley. Ms. Raymond said that the final variance they are seeking is in the basement to align the basement foundation to the garage. She explained that this is below grade and will not be visible to anyone. She stated that they did receive a letter from a neighbor concerned about alley space and that they feel they have met those concerns. Ms. Raymond pointed out the smaller size of the addition in relation to the resource. She pointed out that on the back wall of the historic cabin there are 2ft of historic cabin exposed on the east and 14 ft exposed on the west side, there will be 8 ft taken for the connecting element. She explained that the new addition is 4 ½ ft smaller in width than the historic cabin giving more breathing room to the side yard. Ms. Raymond showed the proposed elevation map showcasing the unknown historic door. She explained that at this point they don’t know much until they are able to start the careful deconstruction. Ms. Raymond said that the shape of the new addition is matching the resource with a modern twist. She pointed out the shallow gable roofline on both buildings and the partial matching ridgeline. Ms. Raymond said that the window shape of the new addition will match the historic cabin windows, tall and narrow. Both respecting the form and fenestration. Ms. Raymond stated that the linking element will be glass on the east side and will slide right under the eve of the historic cabin. Ms. Raymond showed pictures of the neglected interior and pointed out that the floorboards run in one direction to a thresh hold then change direction leading them to believe that this once was the original door that was enclosed. Mr. Moyer asked if the new addition will be setback further than the Hayes garage which is a few lots down. Ms. Raymond stated that yes it will be set back 6ft 9in back from the property line. Ms. Thompson stated that in the memo there was a comment from the Engineering dept. that the historic resource will need to change pitch for positive drainage. Ms. Raymond stated that an updated letter that did not make it into the HPC packet, stated that their engineer can make the positive drainage work without altering the pitch. She further said that there will be details presented at the next meeting. Ms. Thompson asked what the height of the linking element is. Ms. Raymond stated that it is 8 ½ ft. Ms. Thompson asked about the height of the rain garden Ms. Raymond stated that will come at the final review, the engineer is still working out the details. Ms. Sanzone asked what is their plan to keep the trees protected while putting in the basement. Ms. Raymond said that they have not reached that level of design yet. She explained that they have worked in tight spaces before and know how to work around the trees and roots. Ms. Sanzone asked what the plan is for the stormwater collection and if it would be subgrade. Ms. Raymond stated that they have not gotten to those details yet. Ms. Sanzone stated that from an HPC point of view that the devices or grates should not be visible from the street. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon stated that there is a lot of preservation potential for this project. She said that the staff recognizes that there have been additions added towards the front of the cabin. Ms. Yoon said that the applicant is asking for major development, relocation REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 9 2020 because of the full basement, setback variations, and floor area bonus. Ms. Yoon showed the Sanborn of the historic cabin and stated that staff believes that the cabin is in its original lot. Ms. Yoon stated that staff agrees with the applicant about the level of unknow with this project regarding certain changes that have taken place on the cabin. She said that adding of any non- historic doors is discouraged especially when dealing with a front façade. Ms. Yoon explained that there will have to be a lot of exploratory demolition and investigation to fully understand what that condition was historically. She stated that staff is recommending the door and secondary walkway be removed until documentation shows more evidence and at this point, it does not meet Design Guidelines 4.5 and 10.4. Ms. Yoon said that regarding the new addition staff finds it modest in size. She said the applicant has addressed a staff concern about a full parking spot with the revised plan. Ms. Yoon stated that the new addition is connected by a one- story connector and the new addition sits 10ft back from the historic resource meeting Design Guidelines. Ms. Yoon reviewed the site plan and stated that the stormwater system will need further study. She reviewed the setback variation request for the rear yard setback reduction of 3’-3” above and below grade and in the front yard setback reduction of the 2’ for the roof extension above the historic window. Ms. Yoon stated that all the criteria have been met for the 250sf floor area bonus that the primary historic entry is maintained, and the visual integrity is preserved. Ms. Yoon stated that staff recommends approval with amended conditions attached to the resolution. PUBLIC COMMENT: Nora Berko submitted a letter. Letter attached. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer asked regarding Ms. Berko’s letter and the applicant's garage placement if the applicant would consider shortening the connector element. Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees with Mr. Moyer and that the alley is very constrictive. Ms. Thompson said that what they are approving is the deck on top of the garage and subgrade extension. She explained that the garage could be 2ft closer to the alley and still be within code however, the deck and subgrade are over the livability setback. Mr. Moyer said he has no problems with the setbacks being requested. Ms. Thompson stated that she likes the length of the connector element and that it gives a relief between the two. Mr. Halferty stated that he echoes the board's comments. Due to technical difficulties, Mr. Halferty’s comments were inaudible. Ms. Thompson said that this is an excellent historic preservation project and that the bonus should be awarded. She stated that she has a concern about the plate height of the new addition. Ms. Thompson explained that she understands that the project is under the height limit, but given the resource is so small the plate height should come down a bit to be more appropriate to the resource. Mr. Moyer stated he agrees with Ms. Thompson. Mr. Kendrick said that he agrees with the plate height comment. He said that when there is a two-story new addition against a one-story resource there is always a situation between livability and relation. Mr. Halferty agreed with Ms. Thompson. Ms. Sanzone stated that she has some concerns about the site's drainage plan and that it does not work as submitted. She said that there is still a lot of work to do. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Sanzone what would be the worst-case scenario if there was a problem with the drainage. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 9 2020 Ms. Sanzone stated that there could be alterations to the buildings, could change the location of the parking spot, and we don’t want to see the stormwater collection placed in the front. Mr. Moyer asked if the parking spot be a hard surface or premeal pavers. Ms. Raymond stated that it will be premeal pavers. She addressed Ms. Sanzone’s concerns stating that there is enough space on the side yards to contain water and there will be no collection in front. Ms. Thompson stated that this can be added as a condition. Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #026-2020 with added conditions; Mr. Moyer seconded. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Thompson, Yes; Ms. Sanzone, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Moyer stated HPC needs to be more mindful of what is being approved, regarding rear lot setbacks, plate height, and massing. Mr. Kendrick stated he agrees with Mr. Moyer and that some of these masses that sit on the lot line make it feel impassable. Mr. Moyer said that the board needs to be self-critical at points. It can be helpful to HPC and the community. Ms. Thompson stated that she agrees with Mr. Moyer and said that HPC should be a bit more thoughtful when approving alley variations. Ms. Thompson stated that she would like to see a bit more context in relation to the resource so HPC can make better decisions. ADJOURN: All in favor.