Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160622ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, Bob Blaich, John Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood and Jim DeFrancia. Absent were Nora Berko and Michael Brown. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Bob made the motion to approve the minutes of May 25, 2016, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. John will recuse himself on 627 W. Main. John said he discussed 834 W. Hopkins with the assistant attorney and at one point years ago we looked at possibly purchasing it. John said he can be fair and impartial. Amy said Michael was noticed on both items and cannot participate. 627 W. Main Street Debbie said one affidavit was appropriately provided and the second one will be submitted to the clerk’s office tomorrow. A few members of the public contacted Amy regarding the second notice - Exhibit I Amy said the proposal is for a substantial amendment to a previously approval that was granted in 2008. This is a Victorian Era brick house that is on the far west end of Main Street. In 2008 HPC approved an addition behind the building and two TDR’s were sold off the site and they received a FAR bonus and had a total of 2,400 square feet that could be developed. The owner went ahead a built the ground floor and they also did some restoration work that they represented primarily removing paint to expose the brick. The upper floor addition was never built. Now you are being asked to review three possible versions for the upper floor. In the approval one could walk from the upper floor of the Victorian into the new addition. In this project the connector piece is gone so the south façade will remain exposed to view and there won’t be anything destroying that. The second floor addition is more free standing. There is only one change to the ground ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 2 floor which is a mechanical room on the east side of the one story addition that exists now. Staff has concerns with all three versions mostly because the addition that was approved was discrete and it would be hard to see from the street. The pitch of the roof followed the shape of the historic resource and there were advantages to the design that got HPC approval. All three designs are more visible from the front of the property which is a concern. We are excited about the elimination of the link to the back of the Victorian house. Options 2 and 3 have the best merits and with some alternations could be approved. Staff recommends continuation until all the issues are ironed out. The project is within the allowed square footage. This is mostly about roof shapes on the upper floor of the addition. Stev Wilson, Forum Phi We are looking at three options for the upper floor, primarily the roof forms. We are looking at the corner of 6th Street and Main Street. On the previous approval we used to have a basement that went down underneath the project but that has since been eliminated. We are adding a small wall for the mechanical room totally hidden behind the historic resource. Other than that the main floor level will remain the same. Stev said on the previous design there was a deck and we had a den which is now a bedroom and a connector through another bedroom with a sitting room. There was a roof form that tucked in and you couldn’t see it from the street and then hit the larger roof form at the back and then a wrap-around deck. Steve said looking at the revision the mechanical room is accessed from the exterior and the garage being the only change on the lower level. As you come up there is a segregated bedroom and Mother in law suite. It has a connecting deck to the main house and the historic resource would be exposed and then limiting the deck to a smaller space and have stairs come up to access the bedroom and bathroom. Stev said regarding the roof options it is a single shed roof and the low side being toward the historic property and then letting the roof rise as it goes toward the alley which faces south toward Aspen Mountain. One of the perks for the first roof option is that the shed roof stays below the peak of the historic resource. We are looking at stucco for the base and a vertical wood siding above. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 3 Stev said the next option the floor plan remains the same. We are chasing a sloping ridge which creates a lower roof height between the historic resource and what we are proposing. We have a little higher roof than the existing. Because the roof isn’t flat it doesn’t read quite as massively. Stev said we are looking at a shed roof that goes from the low side up across and it is a simple roof form with a little more coverage on the entry area. We are still lower than the ridge of the historic structure. Any of these options are a good direction for us to proceed with. Amy said nothing on the ground floor changes except the mechanical room. The connector is the same. Gretchen asked what is not built. Stev said the entire first floor is constructed. The upper floor is not constructed. Willis asked what the width of the mechanical room is. Stev said 2 x 6 wide. Willis said we are looking at fenestration, materials etc. Stev said we have a 4 inch horizontal wood siding that is intended to be painted. Above would be an increased width wood done vertical also painted. Standing seam roof. Rather than emulating the double hung windows from the historic house we have gone to casement windows with awning windows below. We will have a fixed panel on either side of the operable door with a wedge shaped window above. The soffit material would match the siding material which would be a painted six inch wood. The lighting is minimal at the exit doors. Chairperson, Willis opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Mass and scale Materials Fenestration ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 4 Lighting Landscape plan Jim said he would favor staff’s recommendation and study options #2 and #3 more closely. Willis also agreed. The applicant needs to submit a lighting plan, material samples and lighting cut sheets. Gretchen said the clean simple building looks like there is a 70’s additi on on the back with all different kinds of windows. There is no sensitivity to this clean pristine building and to me it doesn’t meet the guidelines. The roof lines detract from the historic building. I also have a problem with all the different kind of windows from vertical to horizontal, to sloping, to square, to punched out openings. I would agree with staff that it needs a lot more study. I could not in good conscience vote for any of the designs. Jim commented that he feels the addition is scattered and busy. Patrick said the windows should be more of a Victorian style and more vertical to fit in and more uniform to continue the flow of the historic resource. All three roof designs do not fit. We also need material samples and a lighting plan. Willis and Bob said everything has been stated. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 627 W. Main to July 27 th; secondo by Gretchen. Will said he sees a lack of a dialogue between the new and existing. Gretchen said when you walk down the street and see a Victorian you are looking up at these buildings and I don’t have a problem with the addition being taller if it a sensitive addition to the Victorian and doesn’t overwhelm it. The roof line needs to be more sympathetic to the Victorian. Willis said he doesn’t mind the exploration of a roof form of a gable. I wouldn’t ask the applicant to come back with a gable the same as the historic resource but to come back with a better dialogue between the two if they are going to depart from the gable. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 5 Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; Willis, yes. 834 W. Hallam – Major Development, Conceptual Demolition, Relocation, Residential Design Standard Review, Setback Variances, Public Hearing John was seated. Debbie said the public notice has been appropriately provided – Exhibit I Stan Clausen, Clausen and Associates Matt Brown, owner Justin stated that the property is at the northeast corner of the intersection of Hallam and 8th Street. This is a landmark lot, 6,000 square feet in size and is zoned as Mixed Use. The underlying zoning for a normal property for Mixed Use outside of the Main Street historic district would be 12,000 square feet. For this particular property there is an allowable FAR of 4,000 square feet. That was set by an ordinance in 1994 in which the property was rezoned from R-6 to the office zone district which was later turned into Mixed Use. The purpose for that was to legalize the restaurant use that was in the building at the time as well as to obtain additional FAR for a proposed residential addition on the building. HPC said the project was reviewed by HPC in March of 2015 and that project included 11 affordable housing units and two detached structures similar to this proposal and 7,180 square f eet of FAR with 7 parking spaces. At that meeting direction was given to reduce the mass and scale of the project as well as to restudy the parking and try to accommodate the parking onsite. Several designs were submitted to the Community development to relate the architecture to the historic landmark. The proposed project is to remove the non-historic additions on the existing building, relocate the historic structure from the middle of the lot toward the southwest corner and construct two new buildings. It is entirely an affordable housing project. We are down to 9 affordable housing units which would house 18.75 FTE’s and there approximately 5,300 square feet of FAR proposed and six parking spaces. There are two variances being requested one for the east side yard setback, 5 feet is required and 3 feet are being proposed. This is to accommodate a large setback for the large cottonwood trees along 8th street and their root structure. The other variance is for the distance between buildings. There is a ten foot required by the zone district and 7 feet proposed. The applicant is also requesting special ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 6 review. There are 7 parking spaces required one space per unit and the applicant is proposing 6 spaces onsite along the back alley of the property. This application also requires residential design standard review for a multi- family development. Overall staff is supportive of the demolition of the non-historic additions and bringing the historic house back to its original design. The relocation of the historic structure to the southwest corner of the site and the side yard variance are a benefit to the site. Regarding the parking this is similar to a project that was done by Peter Fornell in which a special review was granted for the parking for that project. This is following the precedence of that. Staff is also supportive of the residential design standards variations for the historic structure in order to maintain the integrity of the structure. Staff is recommending that the applicant restudy the several aspects of the design. The new construction should reflect the scale and form of the historic resource in a development pattern. Currently the design includes a longer structure along Hallam that stretches from the front to the back of the property and a smaller structure on the 8th street side. Staff is recommending to go back to what was reviewed in March which is two smaller structures up at the front of the property with the larger one along the alley. This is more in line with the development pattern and what was originally on the site. Staff is also recommending a restudy of the distance between the buildings to comply with the ten foot requirement. Staff feels this might be accomplished through the redevelopment of the layout. Staff is also recommending a restudy of the roof pitches on the new construction in order to relate to the historic structure. There are several different roof pitches proposed on the design and very few of them match up with the historic resource so staff is recommending that those be adjust to similarly line up with the existing development. Also to eliminate the RDS’s requirements for the front porch and first story element for the two new structure as well. Overall staff’s recommendation is for a continuation. Willis asked for an explanation of the RDS’s variations requested. Justin said the ones the design standard do not comply with are the front porch in which 50 square feet is required with a minimum depth of six feet and it must be 20% of the width of the façade. Neither meet that design requirement. Staff is requesting they comply with that standard completely. Stan Clausen presesnted Stan pointed out that there are some improvement proposed for Hallam Street and the bikeway. The living lab is going on at the bridge right now. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 7 Basically that corridor will be improved as a bikeway which will be a benefit to this project. The subject site is 6,000 square feet and the zoning is Mixed Use. There is a 4,000 FAR restriction currently which would need to be presented to council to have that lifted. When the 4,000 square foot restructure was implemented it largely related to the concern of having a restaurant use in the midst of a residential zone. The actual floor area for the zone district is 2-1 which would allow 12,000 square feet. This particular project is proposing 5188 square feet or a FAR of .86 to 1. Less than half of the allowable floor area in the Mixed Use district. The proposal is to remove the non-historic additions to the historic resource. Relocation of the historic structure closer to the southwest corner keeping the same orientation. Constructing two new detached structures that allow views through the site. Restoration of the Victorian building as affordable housing . Create 7 affordable housing units requesting certain unit size reductions supported unanimously by APCHA. None of the units are fully 20% reduction. APCHA allows up to 20% if certain standards are met and the unanimously approved those reduction in size. If you have a multi-family building and are providing higher density of affordable housing that is considered very highly in the reduction of unit size. The proposed AH units include two units in the existing Victorian, 5 units in new detached structures and the AH development features dedicated external secure units which average about 49 square feet; good internal storage, decks provided on four of the 7 units and trash and bear proof trash enclosure off the alley. Large and abundant window surfaces, multi-level living spaces, good ceiling heights. Some units have more than one bathroom and many of the units have their own private entrances which function much like townhouses. Some of the amenities surround the area are direct access to the bus st op. WE-cycle station and garden areas are provided throughout the site. Excellent proximity to open space and trails. The proposed AH units are 7. Taking together they generate 18.75 total FTE’s. Those would allow for the generation of affordable housing credits as well. Regarding the outdoor space there are resident gathering areas proposed. An onsite water feature which is an irrigation ditch that runs through the property but is a nice amenity for the property. Opportunities for a small scale gardening and a Victorian inspired landscape. It is close to Parks and their amenities. The new buildings relate to the Victorian in footprint, materials and fenestration and they reflect Hallam Street by reflecting the traditional ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 8 development patterns. The site plan allows an unobstructed view through Hallam Street as the original site plan did. The roof pitch relates to the landmark a gable roof form. The 12 to 12 roof pitch of the historic house can be mirrored on the adjacent structure and the roof of the new structure would be nine inches lower than the historic roof. Alternately the new structure could have a 10 to 12 pitch roof which lowers the peak 2.9” lower than the adjacent historic structure. If HPC feels mirroring the historic structure is better that is something the applicant would comply with and that could be a condition of approval. The owner could accept either roof pitch. There is the ability to see through the property. There is no traditional development pattern on 8th Street. It is a 100 foot deep lot. The restoration of the side porch is important and right now it is filled in. The porch proposed for the adjacent building mirrors that condition but with contemporary forms. It is our feeling to insist that the new structu re confirm to the RDS’s standards and have a 6 foot 50 square foot porch would disrupt the appearance and compatibility of the two buildings one to another. The inset porch on the new building is effectively that of the historic condition. There is ten feet required between buildings and we are providing 7 feet and that has been coordinated with the Building Dept. relative to fire safety and IRC requirements. Six parking spaces are onsite and 7 are required. One would be cash-in-lieu at $30,000. One space is considered an ADA space. Screening will be provided for the parking through landscaping. The Si Johnson ditch runs through the property and we would be working with Water and Engineering Depts. to make sure any construction meets their requirements. Summary The overall mass and scale has been continually reduced with this project. The project involves the restoration of an historic resource and would provide an important viable use. There would be affordable housing provided and future residents would have an opportunity for a highly livable environment. Matt Brown, owner Matt said he bought Poppie’s in February of 2014. I have been in front of this board several times. We bought the property because we knew it had the flexibility of being a multi-use zone which supports most every use. Placing affordable housing here seemed like a no brainer. 2 ½ years ago our conceptual plan began. We are scaled down to 5100 FAR. We scaled down from 40 credits to 25 to 18. We have scaled down as we incorporated ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 9 feedback for each department every step of the way. This plan may not meet everyone’s definition of perfection but it is a combo tapestry of different departmental feedback and significant site constraints. Along the way we have had offers for a pot shop and free market residential developers. We remain with affordable housing and continue to attempt to provide this community with housing that it can be proud of and enjoy. Per the Aspen Times article of Nov. 2015 the 2012 housing study determined that 657 new affordable employee housing units were need by this community by the year 2022. That is an average of 65.7 new units to be created per year. Since 2012 we have seen approximately 100 units created and that is about 25 per year. That is a short fall of 41 units per year. It is projects like these that help. The number of employees living in aspen was 65% 20 years ago and today it is less than 20%. This is a site begging for life. It is visibly one of the most prominent sites in town and has been d ilapidating for over 8 years. Lets’ give this site new life and 7 families new homes and move on. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Michael Kosnitsky I reside at 918 W. Hallam nearby the property. I also sent an e -mail for the record. This is the first corner you see when you come into town. The density of this project is not in character with the nature of the West End nor is the structure itself in character with the West End. We would like to see Poppies furbished and put back to its appropriate use not the scale that has been suggested here. We ask you to reject the project and not allow any variances particularly parking. Parking is difficult on that street and this project will put a tremendous burden on the community based upon the scale of the project. It is too large for a very small space. This project shouldn’t be before you. What the applicant wants to do is leverage your approval before the City Council. They should go to City Council first to get approval for the size they want. Barb Pitchford I live in the Villas across the street from the proposed property. I am representing the Villas homeowners association. We did send an e-mail to Justin for the record. This property and this historic building are one o f the first things a person sees crossing Castle Creek bridge coming into Aspen. For many years as Poppie’s restaurant the building set back from the street, the fence, front courtyard with seating and trees which gave a leisurely and welcoming sense. The Victorian look was defining. This proposal would ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 10 lose that entirely jamming the historic building closer to the street and crowding it with closely placed buildings of a larger scale. This commission should guard against this potential change by insist ing further reduction in square footage down to the permissible square footage of 4,000 square feet. The application would also have negative aspects to the neighboring community. I am acutely aware of safety and parking concerns for our neighborhood. The Villas has concerns about parking because parking in the immediate area is at a premium. We provide one space per unit for our lower units on Hallam and this also serves for parking for the neighboring Red House which is affordable house at one space per unit. There is no guest parking and all overflow parking parks on 8th Street. There is also a lot of seasonal pressure for these spots. In the winter people use 8 th Street for temporary parking when they take buses to ski both in town and out of town to the other mountains. In the summer the We-cycle limits the amount of parking on the east side of 8th Street. The statement by the applicant that there is enough parking on the street is simply incorrect. Since every adjoining community provides off street spaces for all its residence this project should be compelled to do the same. No variance should be granted for parking and the project should be scaled back to accommodate all parking on the property. A payment in lieu for compliance does nothin g for our community. The proposal seeks to move the historic house toward Hallam and build an adjoining building facing the street. That will cause significantly problems with pedestrian flow. The proposed bike ped way will move the crosswalk to the eas t side of 8th street directly in front of the buildings. The bus stop will be adjacent to the proposed walkway. Given the trees the sidewalk is already very narrow. When the pedestrian walkway project is completed the north east corner of Hallam and 8th will have a crosswalk and an illuminated crossing sign and bus stop. Putting an historic building closer to the street potentially illuminated by a signaling cross walk, is that how we want to present our Victorians. The house should remain where it is. This proposal is a step forward given the reduction in size but it is a backway step because safety and parking issues remain ignored. The applicant should be required to revise the project based on the deficiencies noted. Peter Fornell I support this project tremendously. It is something the community needs. He has turned this into something that fits the mass and scale of the zone district. He lives within the usable FAR of the mixed use zone district. Mixed use zone district is 1 to 1 increasable to 1.25 by special review. It is a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 11 6,000 square foot lot and they have 5100 square feet of FAR above grade and they are well within their limitations of the zone district. They are at .86 to 1 with their lot size. I was approved at .92 to 1 at 518 Ma in Street. The relative density of this project is in line with our goals. I have done three projects and of those three I averaged about 12 to 1 applicants to available units. So for this board to be interested in paring down a development project when it suits the needs of the community is I think irresponsible. Next is the parking issue. I built 11 units at 518 Main Street and I only had 8 parking spaces. HPC and P&Z granted me a waiver of the parking requirement because it was determined that it was more important to have the units available than the three parking spaces. Those three parking spaces as a deficit have no impact what-so-ever on the neighborhood at all. We don’t hear complaints and we don’t see complaints. One parking space of a variance is not an issue. Most of these people will bike to work. We need this project. The community needs this project. We need it to the extent that we can have it so long as it lives within the goal of the land use code and it does. We went through a grueling process to get where we got to create the product that we did. This project is actually smaller than the overall FAR of my project at 518 Main. I welcome competition. We as a community decided that the affordable housing certificate program is now the newest and best for employee housing mitigation for development. We need to support that. The subtleties, roof line are far less important than our community goal of providing work force housing. There are very few zone districts that permit affordable housing within their zone districts. You can’t go to R-6 or R-15 and build 10 front doors. This is going to be a micro community sitting on the edge of town. It is not going to be affordable housing in the minds of people who don’t live here. It is just going to be another multi-family development. These people are going to live there and have their HOA fees and they are going to keep this product up for our community and that is super important. We are living within the uses of the zone district and we need to let this project go forward. Charlie Eckart President of the Sagewood Condominium Association directly West across the street of 8th Street. We have 11 units and 8 parking spaces. We probably have a total of 15 cars for 8 spots that get blead out on 8th Street. All in all our association is in favor of the project and it is a well thought out affordable housing project and it couldn’t be in a better location with the public transportation right there and access to the core and ski areas. It is a fabulous place to live. The scale and mass is about there. If you reduced the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 12 project by one unit that would give more livable area in the units. The winding stairs don’t meet code. I think its pre-mature to approve this project due to the current bike pedway plan. The pedway plan is going to be on the south side of the cottonwood trees which gives more space in between. The site plan and illustrations should accurately reflect the current bike pedway. Another concern is the turnaround space for the parking and can you get in and turn your SUV around. How does the trash work with the parking spaces. I’m also concerned about the west elevation that has posts coming down that support the cantilevered bedroom above. The first floor plan has no indication of the posts and how does that work. Also has there been communication with the city forester when digging down to the basement level and the impact on the cottonwood trees. Curt Sanders, attorney I represent St. George investments which is the owner of Lot 1 & 2 of the Forest Subdivision which is the area to the north of this property. St. George appreciates that the applicant is no longer proposing a single large structure in addition to the historic structure. This is a substantial step forward. St. George’s concern is the density of the project looking at an additional 1,238 square feet over the 4,000 square foot allowable. 11.5 of the HPC guidelines requires the use of building forms be similar to that of the historic property recognizing one of the two building forms is similar to the existing structure. When I look at the view from West Hallam it almost looks like a duplex in that the new unit is competing with the Poppie’s historic structure in terms of size and proximity. There is a lot on a relatively small space 6,000 square foot lot. From St. George’s perspective what is proposed isn’t conforming with section 11.5 regarding building forms. St. Geroge isn’t concerned about the aesthetics of the project in terms of the roof lines as it is with the respect of the density of the project. A reduction in size would lessen the density and more confirm to the HPC guidelines. The other concern is the requested parking waiver. There will be no parking on Hallam St. in front and most properties with street frontage will have some on street parking. The waiver will exacerbate the existing parking problems. It seems to me that the applicant has designed its way into a constraint site as a result of its proposed density increase. The staff memo said the neighborhood seems to be able to support additional on-street parking. Since there has been no analysis from the applicant or staff regarding the projects likely traffic generation or its impacts from the surrounding neighborhood HPC should require some sort of formal study on traffic generation and what are the impacts on the on-street parking in the neighborhood. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 13 Alisha Burn representing Aspen Dragon Fly properties who owns one of the neighboring lots on the Forests Service property. They are concerned with the size, density and the vehicle variance proposed for the parking. Even with all seven parking spaces there will likely be overflow parking on an everyday basis happening in the neighborhood. To start with a deficit would put an excess burden on the neighborhood. Most of these will be occupied by multiple people likely resulting in multiple cars per unit. We are also concerned with the current plans don’t reflect the historic nature of the building existing and they also appear to dwarf Poppies. Skippy Meisrow I am unique tonight because I don’t live adjacent or close to the property and perhaps I can provide you with a little broader community opinion. Affordable housing is the single biggest challenge we face as a community. In the next two years it is projected that 25% of our existing stock will no longer be inhabited by workers. What happens to a town when it fails to live in its town. What happens to our sense of community? This should be a priority for us and I can think of no better way to honor an historic structure that once served a full a vital town then by placing the people who actually allow this town to be that today there. You can deal with the minutia of the code. It honors the tradition of historic structures. What could be better coming into town than to see the actual community that lives there. This is a good project and we need housing. Bob Boden I am a minority partner in this project. I understand NIMBY as I am a developer. I have lived here 34 years and raised 4 kids. I have seen all aspects. Every time there development of any sort there is always a concern. Affordable housing like this is going to be a compromise and there is always going to be one person not completely happy. I have watched Matt navigate this with his team of professionals and I think they have done a good job coming up with the spirit of compromise. There is a greater good cause which is the Community Plan that we have adopted. We have stated that affordable housing is a huge concern and we are way behind. When Peter Fornell says there is a 12/1 ratio of people asking for housing that is a concern. This is where it takes courage on your part and is the greater good worth some of these small compromises where 1 out of 7 parking spaces is being requested for cash-in-lieu. This is one parking space we are discussing. Other projects have been approved with greater requests. We feel we are following the process that we were told to do and I feel this is a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 14 lovely project and I am proud of the team for putting this together and I hope HPC looks favorably on the project. We can change a roof pitch issue. I am concerned about losing our workers. Justin entered 5 e-mails or letters into the record – Exhibit II Michael Kosnitsky Lizzie Talenfeld Christine and Peter Markey Bill Schaffer Neil Siegel Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Applicant rebuttal Stan pointed out that the bike pedplan is not shown because it is not definitive yet. The parking spots shown are conforming 8.5 feet by 18 feet and there are no posts into them and no issues. Trash is handled from the alley and the alley is a dedicated right-of-way. We have approval from the Engineering Dept. and it provides the turning radius necessary to enter and exit from the parking spaces. The TIA, transportation impact analysis is required by the Engineering Dept. as part of the final approval. The variance requested allows the project to move east to protect the trees. The Parks Dept. has identified a 15 foot setback for the cottonwood trees along 8 th Street. Some of the comments are not unusual for an affordable housing project and in some respects it is amazing because many of these comments are coming from projects that have a density that is equal to or greater than this particular project. Willis asked what is the allowable FAR on a R-6 lot as it was before it became a restaurant. Stan said an R-6 would be 3,240 for a single family and 3,600 for a duplex. A 3,600 square foot duplex given the way the FAR is counted for would build a substantially larger project in terms of livable space because the basement space is generally not counted and there are various other exclusions. Gretchen pointed out in addition to the 3,600 you are allowed 250 square feet of garage on a duplex which is 500 and you can add 500 square feet of TDR onto the duplex property as well which puts you at 4,640 square feet. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 15 John commented that he doesn’t think you can have two TDR’s on this property. The applicant is going to ask council for a variance to increase the FAR above the 4,000 square feet to go to 5,300 square feet. Stan said we are asking for a re-evaluation of the imposition of the 4,000 square foot limit. It is not a variance as such. Willis identified the issues: FAR going beyond 4,000 square feet. Setback on the east side going from 5 feet to 3 feet. A request to reduce the distance between buildings from 10 to 7 feet. The parking variation of one parking space. Six are provided and seven are required. Residential Design Standard variations for the front porches and single story elements. Demolition of the non-historic additions and the relocation of the historic structure. Willis commented that regarding development and what the board needs to address includes the political dimension of what is good for the community and what the community plan requires and asks us to deliver upon but it also has to do with the design and design standards. All issues carry equal weight in our discussions. Patrick recommended that there be at least ten feet between the buildings where there are only 7 feet proposed. I am not sure ten feet from the street is sufficient to exhibit the historic resource in a proper perspective. Parking is a major consideration and this is a unique location and a high traffic location. Maybe we can suggest to City Council that the people who occupy the spaces can’t own cars or that each bedroom has to be occupied. We are seeing the graying of Aspen and the rooms aren’t full for employee housing. The project is close and a continuance is recommended to get a little bit closer. If it ends up being a duplex there wouldn’t be as many cars but it wouldn’t be as beneficial to the community but on this site the crowding of vehicles is a major consideration. I am not sure a 4 bedroom is necessary or desirable. Gretchen said the changes from the March 25th meeting is a huge improvement and you can see through t he buildings. It is very successful and does meet our historic guidelines by repeating the historic pattern of ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 16 development in Aspen on Main Street. I am not in favor of a continuance. Some good points were brought up about this being the entrance to Asp en. This is not changing and this entrance is just getting improve and the Victorian building is still there. It is the perfect location for employee housing and the historic building is intact and nothing is being added onto it. It also has space around it. You still see the historic building in its context as it always was and we can’t ask for anything better than that. If the applicant sold and the historic building had a huge addition we be sitting her bemoaning the fact that there are additions on this building. I don’t see that the FAR is an issue. You are only using 5,100 square feet of FAR and still providing a smaller breakdown of scale. I can’t agree with staff’s assessment that they aren’t meeting the design guidelines in terms of 11.3. Guideline 11.3 is 100% met with the simplicity of the form. I can see the roof lines in the back on the third building could be made a lot simpler. Building forms that are similar to those of the historic property have been met. The 12 x 12 pitch is favorable. As a preservationist I would like to see the ten feet between the buildings but I don’t want to sacrifice the livability of employee housing and I could be in favor of the 7 feet because it is a very successful project. The ten foot setback in front is the standard in an R-6 zone and you can’t do any better than that. I see zero conflict with whatever is going to happen with the bike pedestrian way. Regarding parking, I live next door to a free market development and live next door to a 7 bedroom house and they have two parking spaces for the 7 bedroom house. Parking is a problem with every single development that you live in in Aspen. You have 7 units and 6 parking spaces that is better than a free market development so I don’t have any problem with the parking waiver. I would like to see this project move forward tonight and there isn’t much improvement needed. I am not in favor of a design change or continuance. John said he largely agrees with the comments made by Gretchen and Patrick that were brought up. I don’t agree with the APCHA 20% reduction to occur to generate more FTE’s. There have been so many wrong turns in APCHA regarding affordable housing for so many years and if we continue to put 10 pounds in a 5 pound sack there is no bet terment in this community. I am in favor of the elimination of one unit or more and we should not mitigate the waiver of the parking space. These project are needed and I like the project but to settle for the status quo which is what affordable housing has done for a long time I am not in favor of. I am in favor of more net livable units. A four bedroom unit at 1,100 square feet is very small rooms to fit a family in. You need to reallocate that square footage and then I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 17 would be in favor of the increased FAR on the site. Give up a few FTE’s in order to have a better small micro-community. Seven parking spaces should be provided. Jim said the applicant has done a good job and fundamentally it is a good project. I appreciate John’s comments about the livability in the units. Parking is a problem every place and 1 parking space is not going to make a significant difference. I essentially support the project. Bob said he turns at that location all the time when coming into town from that direction because it is an easier way to get in. One of the things that bothers me as soon as you get beyond Poppies you have an array of different vehicles parking there. There are cars parked there in the winter with broken windows etc. As part of our recommendation that entire street should be looked at in terms of parking and see what can be done to improve that area. I want this project to go ahead and I strongly believe in affordable housing. I love in the West End and there are a lot of houses that are not lived in and it is a dark community. Anything we can do to liven this area up and solve some of the affordable housing problems that we have in this community I am in favor of. Willis said we all support affordable housing. The site line through Hall am Street is good but I find the dialogue a little lacking. The roof forms are overly complicated and the historic house has no eave line disruption . We could have a more relaxed, simpler compelling dialogue between the two. The massive shed dormers have nothing to do with the 12 x 12 dialogue. The only way to not have a parking variance would be to reduce a unit as I understand it. You would have to reduce it to 6 units to get 6 spaces. If you reduced the amount of bedrooms in a few of the units you would still have the parking variance issue. The neighbors tend to support it except for the variances which can easily be complied with. Gretchen said she would hate to see a unit go away for a parking space. Willis said it is not going to break the goals of the affordable housing program if we went from 7 to 6 nor would it affect the rate at which we are producing them which admittedly is slow. This is a very vital space and I like the fact that the ditch is exposed. I don’t see the mass and scale and the roof form articulation approvable tonight. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 18 Jim said this project is greatly improved and there is no need to go back to March 25th design. All agreed. John said he is good on everything except the net livability and the parking space, other than that it is a successful project. Willis said the parking space hinges on the number of units. Gretchen said she has no problem with the units and the parking space. They wouldn’t come back to final without a simpler roof. Jim also agreed with Gretchen and the roof could be a condition of approval. MOTION: Gretchen moved to approve the project at 834 W. Hallam as presented with the condition that the roof line on the rear building be simplified and the second condition is that the roof lines maintain a 12 x 12 pitch and that the building on the east side does not have the shed dormer detail that it remain a simple 12 x12 pitch , motion second by Jim. Willis pointed out that the ridge line would have to go up to get head height. All these things are tied together and we don’t know what the implications are. Gretchen said she thinks the applicant would be very happy and take those conditions and come back. John said we are so close and if there is a spot in 6 weeks it should be continued. There are a few things that are sticking points. Stan said the people that came here didn’t come here in opposition of the roof line they came in opposition to talk about the affordable housing and density being at that location. This will certainly be argued out at City Council and the sooner we can move to City Council the better we will be in terms of resolving the political dimensions. I believe that a restudy can be achieved in a way that will satisfy the HPC. John said I am fine with the roof line. My concern is the parking and net livability of these units. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 19 Debbie said there needs to be a condition added regarding the Si Johnson ditch Company approving the development prior to the City Council hearing. Justin said the typical conditions should also be added regarding the structural engineer, $30,000 assurance bond, setback variances and parking reduction and increase in the square footage and RDS’s. Gretchen agreed on the conditions and Jim second. Roll call vote: Gretchen, yes; John, no; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; Patrick, no; Willis, no; Motion failed 3-3. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 834 W. Hallam to August 10th; second by Patrick. Gretchen asked where the problem is here with the no votes. John said he is in favor of recommending that they increase the FAR to 5,300 but I am not in favor of that being allocated in 7 units. It can be allocated in 6 units so that they are more livable and nicer, not four bedrooms in 1,100 square feet and that would deal with the parking situation. Patrick and Willis agreed. Willis said we need to go back to our guidelines and what kind of dialogue these buildings are presenting to the historic resource. Gretchen said we have done that and they need to get to City Council to hash out issues that we do not have purview over. John said the parking has been overlooked too many times by this board and other boards. Increasing the net livability of the units and making a quality product is needed. We are looking at 3.5 to 4 million in FTE credits and we should get good housing for that and we can achieve that with 6 units. Jim said our guidance with the continuance is that we don’t have a problem with the building layout. They should study the roof pitches and RDS’s. Roll call vote on the continuance: Patrick, yes; Gretchen, no; John, yes; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 20 MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk