Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibitB_HPCResolution&MeetingMinutes_02.12.20RESOLUTION #5, SERIES OF 2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, SETBACK VARIATIONS, AND FLOOR AREA BONUS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, LOTS K, L AND M, BLOCK 48, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-17-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, 234 West Francis LLC, represented by BendonAdams, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variations, and Floor Area Bonus for the property located at 234 West Francis Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 48, 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 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 applicable review standards and recommends approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on November 13, 2019 and February 12, 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 6 - 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variations and Floor Area Bonus for 234 West Francis Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows: HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2020 Page 1 of 3 Section 7 Conceptual Major Development Review Setback Variations. and Floor Area Bonus. HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Setback Variations, and a Floor Area Bonus as proposed with the following conditions: i.) Restudy the overhang feature located above the secondary entrance which is accessed from Second Street for Final Review. 2.) Work closely with all relevant City Departments to provide a better -defined stormwater mitigation plan that minimizes features in highly visible areas for Final Review. 3.) Design curb heights around the lightwells to be 6" or less in height. 4.) Investigate historic framing and historic documents before restoration/reconstruction changes are approved, to be reviewed by staff and monitor. 5.) Obtain a permanent encroachment license from the Engineering Department to maintain the existing location of the historic Herbert Bayer fence prior to Building Permit submission. 6.) A 472 sf floor area bonus is granted for this proposal. 7.) The following setback variations for the proposed garage addition and subgrade level are granted: a. 5' rear yard setback reduction, above and below grade b. 2'-7" west side yard setback reduction, above and below grade C. 22'-7" combined side yard setback reduction, above and below grade 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 HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2020 Page 2 of 3 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 ts'h day of February, solo. Approved as o Form: A r Bry n, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: t Nicole Henning, City r Approved as to Content: Gret n Gre nwood, Chair HPC Resolution tt5, Series of 2020 Page 3 of 3 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Bob Blaich, Nora Berko, Scott Kendrick, Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Absent were: Kara Thompson, Sheri Sanzone Staff present: Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney MINUTES: Mr. Kendrick motioned to approve the minutes from January 22nd, 2020. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None CONFLICTS: None. PROJECT MONITORING: 300 W. Main Ms. Simon stated that she will discuss this project with Mr. Moyer at the end of the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that staff are canceling the March 25th meeting and replacing it with a meeting on March 18th. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: Ms. Simon stated that 1020 E Cooper was called up by Council for further discussion. They will decide whether to uphold HPC’s conceptual approval or remand that project for further discussion. Ms. Yoon stated that she, Ms. Simon, and three board members attended the CPI conference. It was a good meeting. Ms. Simon presented on the permit process related to historic preservation and held a roundtable with other small jurisdictions. OLD BUSINESS: 234 W Francis Ms. Yoon introduced herself as the Historic Preservation Planner with the City of Aspen. She stated that this is a continuation. They are here for conceptual major development review. 234 W Francis is a special property because it has layers of historical significance. It’s a Victorian structure and is associated with Herbert Bayer. It’s both on the local inventory and the national register for historic places. The property has two historic resources. It’s on a 9,000 square foot lot in the R6 Zone District. The commissioners did a site visit earlier today. Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant is here to request conceptual major development, setback variations, and a floor area bonus in the amount of 472 square feet. She showed the bird’s eye view map and the Sandborn map showing the resources in their current location. The design guidelines relevant to this project are those related to site planning and design compatibility related to the proposed addition. At the last meeting, there were concerns related to open space on the site planning side of things and design compatibility regarding mass and form. The applicant was asked to restudy. The new application before the Commission today has taken those comments into consideration. It’s important to note that 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 this is a corner lot so there are more stringent design guidelines related to design compatibility. It has to be recognized as a product of its own time, but the addition should be subordinate. She showed a comparison of the previous site plan and the one before the Commission today. The Parks Department has made it clear that the spruce trees on the northeast must remain. The historic resources are remaining in their existing location. These both contribute to where the applicants can build. The new location for the garage structure in the proposed design simplifies the mass and the relationship along Second Street. The new mass for the living space is a one-story element that has been pushed into grade. The massing relationship along Francis for this element is seen to be very respectful and remains respectful to the historic resources and the site. Open space around the historic structures are improved and the new structure is designed to be respectful in scale. Ms. Yoon showed the south elevation on the slide. She stated that the applicant proposes to remove the non-historic elements on both historic structures and proposes a design that shows a gable end. It is significantly set back from Francis Street and subordinate in massing. Ms. Yoon showed the west elevation as seen from Second Street. The two-story addition contains the garage which is now aligned with the west elevation. The one-story elements of the proposed additions all read subordinate to the historic resource. The applicant is requesting setback variations for the two- story above-grade addition and the sub-grade level that follows the structure down to the basement level. The west side yard setback request will align that garage addition to the historic Victorian’s west elevation and the rear yard request for the structure so that it sits five feet from the property line. The resolution also goes into detail about the combined yard setback request that they’ll need, related to the other resource. The setback request to the west is also included, so to combined yard setback request is also in the resolution. Staff finds that the setback variation criteria are met with this application. The applicant has reached out to the Engineering Department since the staff memo has been released and they’ve been in communication with the engineering comments related to this revised design. Out of the ten comments, six have been resolved and they’re working on the other four. Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant is requesting a floor area bonus. With the changes made, the 9,000 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum floor area of up to 500 square feet. The applicant is requesting for 472 square feet for this project. There is a preservation scope associated with the project. They are taking away non-historic additions and restoring the historic resources on both the one-story historic resource and the two-story Victorian. The designed addition is also seen to be compatible with form and material with the re-design. It reads as subordinate and the site-specific conditions related to the trees is a factor to take into consideration. Staff finds that the criteria for this is met and requests that HPC further discuss the criteria and the request for 472 square feet. In conclusion, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: the applicant should better define the stormwater mitigation plan and bring those back for final review. The applicant is already working with the relevant departments. Design the curb-heights for the lightwells to be fewer than 6 inches in height. There is some investigation of historic framing and historic documentation before restoration, to be reviewed by staff and monitor. At the appropriate time, obtain a permanent encroachment license from the Engineering Department. This is related to the historic Herbert Bayer fence. The Commission found out last time that it is not sitting on the property boundaries. Staff is recommending the bonus for 472 square feet. The setback variations that will be needed for the proposed garage addition are included in the packet. Final development plan should be submitted to HPC review within the year. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams introduced herself as being from BendonAdams. She is representing Steve Ells, the owner. She introduced Derek Skalko as the local architect helping Selldorf Architects who are based in New York and were here in November. She thanked the Commission for the feedback in November. They went back to the drawing board and really looked at the design guidelines, listened to the Commission’s direction, and wanted to come back with a really great project. Ms. Adams stated that they are resting conceptual approval, setback variations, and they are requesting a portion of the FAR bonus. She is going to touch on the changes that have been made instead of going through the whole project. She stated that this is a 9,000 square foot lot and has two landmarks on the site. They are both in their original locations and the applicants think that is very important. They are not proposing to move them. It’s also important to remember the residential context of the neighborhood. The applicants did a lot of historic analysis including looking at maps, old pictures from archives, and Selldorf did a lot of different visual analyses. The applicants have another physical model and digital models. One of the key things that Mr. Ells wanted to do was bring back the simple style of the 19th Century Victorians. In the 1990’s there were a lot of decisions made that started to confuse what was and was not historic. They are proposing to remove all of those non-historic additions. She showed the existing site plan on the slide. It’s very faux-Victorian and that’s not acceptable. There was a lot of area for improvement. One of the changes will be shifting the garage to be aligned with the landmark in an effort to highlight the landmark. Ms. Adams stated that the feedback that they heard from HPC in November included to restudy the two-story flat roof addition and increase porosity on site. She showed a comparison of what was proposed in November and what is being proposed at this hearing. They moved the mass from the east wing on top of the garage and re-worked that form. The proposed addition to the east is set back 60 feet from the property line. She showed a comparison of the site plans. She stated that the applicants pushed the garage in so that it’s now aligned with the landmark. They shortened the wing and sunk it. They moved the bedroom to on top of the garage. They took away the pergola and they moved as much below-grade square footage as they could. They now have a full basement that’s proposed. She stated that the applicants took the design guidelines literally and tried to meet every design guideline that they possibly could. Ms. Adams stated that feedback from the last meeting included “remove trees from the rear of the property line.” They met with the Parks Department after the hearing to see if there was going to be any flexibility at the rear. They’ve had four site visits with the Parks Department, so they are very familiar with this property. They are very clear that the spruce trees cannot be removed. They are able to thin out a few of the aspen trees. There are some sight constraints including the landmarks in their original locations. They are not proposing to move them. Feedback also included restudying the roof forms. They have moved the mass on top of the garage. This simple form is much more complimentary and more subordinate to the landmark than what was previously proposed. A gable building on an alley is typical of a historic property. She thinks it allows the landmark to shine. Ms. Adams showed the physical model. She stated that they’ve simplified the roof forms, pushed everything back and down within the site constraints that they have. They’ve removed a lot of the 1990’s stuff that got added. She thanked the commissioners for their feedback in November and stated that she feels it created a better design. Ms. Berko asked how far down it is sunken. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Mr. Skalko stated that it is sunken eighteen inches into the grade. He stated that the story poles were situated at eleven feet six inches from the grade line. Ms. Greenwood asked if the solar panels are flat on the roof. Mr. Skalko stated that they are. They opted for the flat system even though it’s a little less efficient. They figured it’s more respectful to the neighborhood and historic resources surrounding it. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. David Dowler introduced himself. He stated that he is looking forward to having Mr. Ells as his neighbor. He lives at 229 W Smuggler and 429 N Second. He discussed the project with Tom and Suzie Phillipe, who are his next-door neighbors. They concur with his comments. He thanked Ms. Adams for forwarding him the revisions they are presenting at this meeting. He appreciates efforts to make the redevelopment appropriate to the neighborhood. Some of his comments refer back to the November meeting. At that meeting, he stated that all projects should develop the historic development pattern of the block, which has not been discussed today, and allow for some porosity on the site, which has been mentioned. He appreciates the reduction in the mass and scale of the new portion, but it seems to him that the living room building proposed still interferes with the rhythm of the block, which he described in more detail at the meeting in November. It is shown clearly on the second page that he sent to the commissioners. He is still concerned about that. He has struggled in prior years to solve development problems regarding the historic structure of his property and he empathizes with the new owner. With regard to other aspects of the plan, he understands what Ms. Adams described in terms of moving the garage. If you don’t move it, it’s an advantage as to leaving more open space internally, which does affect the porosity. He does not think the existing garage location detracts from the western elevation at all and it’s not significant from the north elevation. His stated that a one bay garage with two levels would be a great solution. He appreciates the improvements made in this plan. If there’s some sort of view through the property, his concern would dissipate. Mr. Halferty stated that he wasn’t at the first meeting. He thinks that this is an interesting proposal. He hears the neighbor’s comment. He was wondering how appropriate the copper canopy is. He appreciates the restoration of the carriage house and feels that the garage location complies with guidelines. He appreciates the reduction in mass from the first proposal. He appreciates all the restorations of the historic resource and the main house. With the changes, he could approve this project. It does comply with guidelines. Ms. Greenwood stated that the project has improved enormously. There isn’t a lot of ability to develop this in modern times and live on the property in a modern way. This is a good solution. It does remove the porosity on the site, but that’s not necessarily in the guidelines. A lot of the square footage is below-grade. It’s an enormous restoration project and she would be in favor of it. She agrees with staff comments. She agrees with the 472 square foot bonus. It’s as quiet as it can be for a modern addition on a Victorian building. They’ve brought a lot of things into compliance. This tells a beautiful story of then and now. She would like to see the project move forward. Mr. Kendrick stated that this is night and day from where it started. It really highlights the historic buildings on the property. He hears what the neighbors say about the porosity, but given the site- constraints, this is a good middle ground that addresses that issue. Overall, this is a fantastic project. He would agree with moving forward. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Ms. Greenwood asked if they changed the ridgeline of the garage from the last hearing. Ms. Adams stated that they did. Ms. Greenwood stated that that is successful. It’s more harmonious with the two outer buildings on either side. Ms. Berko stated that she likes the project. She hears the neighbor’s comments about the porosity. She feels that the addition is now nestled into the trees, so she will defer to the Park’s Department’s decision. Her only concern is garage setbacks. Mr. Moyer stated that this is a much better project. He would like to see the Commission have a work session on alleys. He feels that there needs to be more discussion on how to deal with alley setbacks. He does not really oppose putting so much square footage underground. It allows the applicant to have space for the modern world but not interrupt the existing historic structure. This is ready for conceptual. He is interested in what Mr. Halferty had to say about the copper canopy, but the Commission can deal with it at final. He agrees with staff’s recommendations and would vote to approve. Ms. Greenwood asked Mr. Halferty what he was referring to in his comment. Mr. Halferty stated that he does not think the copper should not be attaching to the historic resource. It seems foreign. Ms. Greenwood recommended that it be restudied. She asked if there are stairs. Mr. Skalko stated that there is one platform up to a step. Ms. Greenwood stated that the living addition is clean. She recommended that they maintain that look for continuity. She wants to see less stuff on the historic resource. She wants to add it to their conditions to either eliminate that or figure out an alternative. She wants it to be quieter and simpler. Ms. Adams stated that they will figure out something for final. Mr. Blaich is in agreements with the comments that have been made. It’s a huge improvement over the original proposal. Mr. Kendrick stated that he does not necessarily have a problem with the overhang. He asked if everyone else wants to see that removed. Ms. Berko stated that she does. Ms. Greenwood stated that it feels like an add-on. Ms. Yoon asked if the language for the condition they wanted to add was to remove or to simplify. Ms. Adams asked if they can restudy it. Ms. Greenwood stated that she would be fine with that. Ms. Yoon asked if they want the language for the condition to be: restudy the overhang on the secondary entrance from Second Street, to be reviewed at final review. 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Ms. Greenwood stated yes. Mr. Moyer motioned to approve Resolution Five with the conditions. Mr. Halferty seconded. VOTE: roll call vote: Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes. NEW BUSINESS: 227 E Main Street Ms. Simon stated that this is a 3,000 square foot lot on Main Street. It’s one of the older miner’s cottages left in Aspen since the town developed from the center out. This one is in the core of town. It was built in 1886. This building is very deteriorated. In fact, staff have had internal conversations about demolition by neglect being a concern. The Moore family has owned the building for a very long time. It was occupied by a retail store for many years. Mark Friedland has purchased it. Staff are very happy to see the project come in and see some restoration on the building. The plan is to convert it to a single family home. When you do that in the mixed-use zone district, you take a 20% floor area penalty because that isn’t necessarily the preferred use in that commercial area, but it is an allowed use. The total floor area permitted is 1,920 square feet. That’s what’s proposed and a bonus is requested. The applicant plans to excavate a basement under the miner’s cottage and lift it approximately six inches. They will be doing restoration on the house. An addition is proposed behind the house. It’s separated from the building with a ten-foot connector. The connector splays out, which isn’t what normally happens but it isn’t prohibited. It only touches the historic resource in a minimal way, which is really the goal. The addition is two stories in the center and drops to one in the back for a single-stall garage. The applicant needs two on-site parking spaces. One is in the garage and one is uncovered on the site. They are pushing the whole addition towards the east property line, consistent with how the historic resource is placed. There is discussion needed about whether that creates conditions that are a problem in terms of drainage or maintenance. They mentioned that the center two-story piece of the addition has some form elements to it that aren’t necessarily in compliance with the guidelines, particularly the long slope that runs over to the staircase. It will probably have some limited visibility but it does appear to peep up over the top of the historic resource. Compatibility is important. Roof pitches on the addition should match what’s on the historic resource. Staff is recommending continuation. The constructability of this is a concern. The Commission is being asked to approve relocation to lift the building and build a basement. The house is as wide as the site. It can’t move forward off the property because of the historic trees and the right-of-way. It can’t move into the alley. It can’t be temporarily be moved somewhere else, there’s no way to maneuver it. They might want to discuss if this is really viable. Staff are also concerned about future maintenance alongside the structures. The applicant is having trouble getting a civil engineer on to their project in the early phase. They’ve done what they could do estimate a stormwater plan. The Engineering Department has responded by saying that drywells won’t be particularly reasonable on this property because you have to stay ten feet from all property lines. Transformers seem to be triggered by the next project that comes in over and over again as each alley reaches capacity. They need a pretty big footprint of about ten by ten. This site plan wouldn’t accommodate that without some adjustment to the walkway and the parking space in the back. Ms. Simon stated that there are trees on the Explore Bookseller’s property that are right on the common property line and appear to impact the ability to excavate a basement under the miner’s cottage. That doesn’t really have an above-grade impact. They want the applicant to continue to talk to the Park’s Department. At final and during permit review, everyone is going to need to work together to