Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160810ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Gretchen Greenwood, Bob Blaich and Jeffrey Halferty. Absent were Michael Brown, and John Whipple. Jim DeFrancia was seated at 5:30. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of July 27 th. Nora second and amended the minutes stating that she is philosophically opposed to setbacks but listened to the comments of the commission and will vote for 232 E. Main. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: 134 W. Hopkins, Gretchen will recuse herself. Willis said at the last meeting it was brought up to have a hard stopping point for the meeting and then make a motion to extend it similar to what P&Z does. Jim True suggested the board direct the attorney’s office to draft something for the next meeting. The board directed staff to draw up a resolution. 834 W. Hallam – Conceptual Historic Major Development, Growth Management, Residential Design Standard Review, Special Review, Variances, Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits, Public Hearing continued from June 22nd Amy said Jeffrey wasn’t a member of HPC for the previous hearing of this project but he was provided with drawings, minutes and staff memos for those hearings. Amy said Jeffrey reviewed them and would like to participate. Jeffrey said he is comfortable proceeding with this hearing and he reviewed the documents for 834 W. Hallam. He also stated that he read the staff memos and feels it is appropriate for him to participate and he understands the design reiterations. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 2 Amy said this is a 6,000 square foot lot that is landmark designated. It has special conditions associated with it. It used to be zoned R-6 residential like the surrounding area. When Poppie’s Restaurant was in business that owner came forward and asked city council to rezone it to Mixed Use to make their use confirming. Council did so but placed a cap of 4,000 square feet as the maximum development for the property. This is a 100% affordable housing proposal to create affordable housing credits that can offset requirements of commercial development elsewhere. You have several steps to consider tonight; Major Development Conceptual Review, Demolition of non-historic additions to the home on the site, relocation of the home toward the front corner on Hallam and 8th Street. A setback variance on the east side facing the forest service property, five feet is required and three feet is proposed. You are asked to reduce the minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot, ten feet is required and 7 feet is proposed in some locations. You are also asked to look at residential design standard variances and you are asked to look at a parking reduction of one of the required spaces that is created by the affordable housing unit. Amy said at this time the proposal is for 7 units which would normally require 7 parking spaces and 6 are proposed. At the last meeting HPC continued the hearing after a debate about the parking reduction and some discussion about the roof forms on the development. Staff’s suggestion was that the new structures running down the east side of the property and the one at the north west corner have steeper roofs more in character of the Victorian style. That has been accomplished for tonight. Staff recommen ds approval of the project with conditions that the east side yard setback be approved and the reduction of the distance between buildings be approved. Staff recommends the approval of the one waiver of a parking space. This is consistent with other similar projects. There is on-street parking and other options available. There is a bus stop and We-cycle is available. Amy said with regard to the design we support the steeper roof pitch that has been presented. There are a few things that need to be focused on mostly about the Residential Design Standards. Each building on the property is required to have a street oriented entrance. That technically means toward Hallam. One of the new buildings on the north-west corner has its doorway facing 8th Street, which is the side street. That is something staff supports as it is how you would access the building, not walking through the middle of the property but it requires a RDS variance. Condition 3a is in the resolution. Condition 3b has to do with porches. All new buildings in this development ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 3 are required to have an entry porch. The RDS’s say the porch should be a minimum of 6 feet deep and 50 square feet. The porch on the historic structure is not that large and we don’t want that to be altered. The porches on the new structure are also not that large. Staff recommends a depth of 4’6” inches which is the same as the historic porch and a total square footage of 37 square feet. There is some language in the RDS’s that suggest the project only needs a total of two compliant porches. The new structures needs a street facing principle window and a variance is needed. On the back building that principle window is facing the side street instead of facing Hallam but we find that is appropriate because that is how you access the building. The two new structures are required to have a first story element. In this case there is an issue because they don’t have a qualifying one story element. In both of the new structures the porches are inset just as they are on the Victorian so they aren’t technically qualifying but they are relating to the historic structure so we feel that is acceptable but the overall size of the one story element is not as big as it should be. The first story element and the porch are somewhat tied together. Staff recommends that HPC grant a small reduction. There is a ditch running down the west side of the property and then clipping the northwest corner. The applicant is required to stay a certain distance away from that with all aspects of their development above and below grade. There has been a lot of discussion with the Water Dept. and other interested groups trying to make sure everyone is comfortable with the solution. At this point condition #4 should be worked out with council. Condition #5 is standard language about the historical home being lifted up and we would need appropriate financial assurance, which is a letter or check for $30,000. and that the applicant will ensure that the technique used is appropriate. Final development plan is required within one year. If approved the applicant will go onto city council to discuss their floor area. With the proposal in front of you they are over the 4,000 and are at 5,300 square feet. They need council to accept this in order to move forward with final. Questions Gretchen asked about the building separation. Amy said it is a zoning requirement under Mixed Use. They are under the old RDS’s. Nora asked for clarification on the square footage. Amy said 4,000 is specific to this property. Normally they would be allowed 2-1 or 12,000 square feet. R-6 would be 3, 240 square feet. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 4 Nora asked what the compelling justification is for the 1,300 square feet. Amy said council wanted to provide some assurance that they we ren’t opening the gates for something enormous on a landmark property. 4,000 square feet might be arbitrary and we believe it was specifically for the expansion of the restaurant which was on the table at that moment. Stan Clausen, Clausen and Associates Matt Brown, project owner Stephen May, Kate Fox, Forum Phi Architects Stan said the floor area proposed is 5,317 and there is a floor area restriction that relates to the Poppies expansion of the restaurant which never took place. The restriction would need to be removed by City Council. Mixed Use would allow 12,000 square feet. The proposed floor area is 1.13 to 1. Stan said the key issue from the last meeting was to change the roof lines of the new development into congruence to the roof line of the existing Victorian which is a 12x12 pitch. (power point presented). The shed dormer on the new building adjacent to the Victorian has been eliminated. Along the 8th Street façade it is also a 12 x 12 pitch. Parking was discussed and there is a request for a cash-in-lieu for one space which is permitted in the Mixed Use zone and is supported by staff. We have looked at this very closely and there is no way to put in an additional parking space. We need the 7 units to develop a viable project. We feel waiving one parking space at this location is appropriate. This location is very close to town and we feel it is quite possible that people will not have the need for a vehicle. Condition 3d is regarding the front porch that would be a minimum of 37 square feet and the minimum depth of 4’6” which will be covered in the final design. The proposed AH units include two units in the existing Victorian and 5 in the new 2 detached structures. They have also been endorsed by APCHA. All units comply with the APCHA guidelines of 2015 and the new 2016 guidelines. This project will generate 18.5 FTE’s Matt Brown said they were pleased to have staff’s support and restoring the site and providing 7 new homes for local residents. Regarding the parking waiver this site clearly has access to the bus, We-cycle, shuttles and walking. The waiver is a deal breaker. This is our 30th month of ownership of the site trying to put forth an 100% affordable housing application. We ask that you vote favorably and allow us to restore the resource and move forward with ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 5 the plan that bests sustain and supports the community which is affordable housing. Jeffrey asked if there was a consideration of swapping the storage subgrade and moving an AH unit upstairs. Stephen said they tried to do that but with the accessibility requirements and the need for an elevator it took up too much space. Nora asked about the pedestrian bike connector platform and is there enough room because you are moving the house forward. Stan said the house has a ten foot setback from the property line. The right - of-way has been determined by the Engineering Dept. to be sufficient enough to handle the changes they want to make. Matt said they are actually widening the sidewalk that runs along our property line along Hallam and the cottonwoods that are street facing will be removed and that is how it is getting wider. Gretchen pointed out that the We-cycle is a critical part of this project and critical for the site. Matt said he offered his property for the placement of a We-cycle site which was over ridden by Parks and problematic for them. We-cycle is now stationed on 8th Street as another location of theirs. We will also have bike racks on our property. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Hausen Daggar: I moved back to Aspen a few months ago and found housing. I lived here between 2003 and 2007 and I lived at the corner of Hallam and 7th Street. It is a fantastic location and the buses are right there and you don’t need a car. I went back to school and became an MD am going to be looking for affordable housing. We need more affordable housing. To have any kind of extra availability in town is going to open things up and give people like me an opportunity to find a spot long term. Peter Fornell: I just went through this at 518 W. Main where we put in 11 affordable housing units. The people that won those units absolutely love ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 6 them. There are only 8 parking spaces there. The plan was for 12 units and this board reduced me down to 11 over that one parking space and a family in Aspen lost the opportunity for a place to live because of that. We have no parking problems. There is plenty of room on the side of the streets. Not all the unit owners at 518 own vehicles. You are focusing heavily on this one parking space and I hope I can encourage you based on past performance that it is a lot more important for that extra unit to get put on this property than it is for that extra parking space. Any owner who wins an affordable housing is not going to change their level of excitement about winning their opportunity to have home ownership in Aspen. They don’t mind parking on the street once. I am positive after you grant approval tonight you will never see a parking issue over there. Next Generation Advisory Commission Christine Benedetti, Kimbobrown Schiratto, Matt Evans Christine said we represent the Next Gen advisory Commission and we are here to talk about allowing private developers to develop housing in Aspen using the housing credit program. We believe there is a need for affordable housing and private developers should be involved. Kimbobrown said Barry Crook made a statement that the city is reaching their limits on affordable housing capacity and what they are building and we really encourage proposals like the one Matt has brought forward. We are here to show our support for the project. Matt said our town lottery system shows that projects like this need to exist. We have had over 50 applicants apply when something comes up. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comments. Stan said there is nothing to rebut and it is very clear that we all are in agreement that affordable housing is a need in our community. Commissioners Willis said the total FAR will be up to city council to decide. Issues are setbacks, a parking space waiver with cash-in-lieu, RDS’s and mass and scale. Jeffrey said the project is an excellent stride in the designs and iterations. I fully support the application as proposed and it meets our design standards. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 7 Jeffrey said the variance is justified based on the existing vegetation. There is plenty of parking and the variance should be approved. On the 8 th street side as far as the porch entry conforms to our guidelines. Maybe make the front porch comply a little better off Hallam Street for the residential design standards as far as the square footage and depth of the porch. The affordable housing is an essential need in this community. All of the requirement s set forth in section 26.410 are fully complied with. With a restudy of the front porch entry I could support this application as presented with a few tweaks for final. Gretchen said she supported this project at the last meeting and the applicants have made a valiant effort to change the roof line and it is definitely an improvement. I like this project and it doesn’t have the density that you see with employee housing projects. This project is a win for the City and HPC having the Poppie’s building be a standalone building. The ultimate goal is to preserve historic buildings in their most primitive state. The massing is excellent and I support the east side yard setback. I also like the fact that you maintained the ten foot setback along the street as we have in the residential district. This project has residential quality and it is a bonus that it is employee housing. I also agree with the reduction of one parking space. I have a new generation daughter and they don’t have cars and they have different ways of getting around. Regarding the RDS’s I support varying everything that staff is recommending. I don’t see a problem with the porch on the Hallam side. I would support this project 100% per staff’s recommendations. The work that you have put into this project is commendable and the quality of the site planning in concept is excellent. Willis said we need affordable housing for a livable community where you can live and walk to your place of employment. Our goal and our mission is to look at architectural relationships between new and old. I commend the applicant for bringing in a fully AH project. The site is the gateway to downtown Aspen. Architecturally it really is an important corner. The 12 x 12 pitch is great. The windows on the new buildings are smaller and show no understanding of the scale of the Victorian and should be addressed for final. Also the northwest corner of the building with the front door on 8 th street has no architectural conceptual explanation for skeletal exp ression of the porches and decks. The greatest feature of the historic resource is the recessed porch. That is what is coming back to life and it is great. Going with a wood skeletal feature needs restudied. The porch entries need ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 8 restudied. I would support the application with a restudy of the porches on the northwest unit. Bob said a lot has been said regarding this project. I was a long time fan of Poppies and I have been disturbed over the past few years about what was happening with this property. I am totally in favor of this project. Tweaking of the windows and porch should be addressed at final. I also support all the other variances and the expansion of the porch to 37 feet on Hallam Street. Nora said she is glad that life and vibrancy is coming back to this corner of the block and I can support it all. I am not a variance person but in this case I think it is an important one and the trees are a nice buffer. Regarding the parking since it is so close to the bus and bike access I am comfortable with that variance. The porches should all meet the Residential design standards and I am glad to have this project move forward. Willis said he would add condition e to eliminate skeletal expression on the northwest block. Gretchen said she is not sure she can agree with that if it is going to affect the livability. We could have them look at it but it shouldn’t be a condition. Willis also said at final separating new from old should be achieved through cladding or subtle miliputation of surfaces that depart from Victorian character. I am looking for a little more consistency in the new buildings. MOTION: Jeffrey made the motion to approve resolution #24, 2016 for 834 W. Hallam granting demolition, relocation, conceptual major development, RDS’s, as presented with the following conditions outlined in the resolution. Additional condition 3.e Restudy of the 8th street facing porches to be more similar to the Hallam Street porch. Amy said the resolution says both porches need to be a little bigger. The applicant would like to know if the approval from the Si Johnson ditch Co. has to be resolved before city council. Jim True said it is important for the Si Johnson ditch issues to be resolved before it goes to city council. Motion second by Bob. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 9 Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Bob, yes; Gretchen, yes; Jeffrey, yes; Willis, yes Motion carried 5-0. 134 w. Hopkins – Final Major Development, Public Hearing Gretchen recued herself Jim DeFrancia was seated Affidavit of posting – Exhibit I Additional elevations Exhibit II Amy said this is a corner lot and HPC granted conceptual approval to demolish non-historic additions, pick the house up and move it toward the corner and build a new addition. The applicant hired Suzannah Reid to write an historic structure report researching the house over time which is well beyond what most applicants do. The same family owned the house for about 90 years. There was an addition that removed the back side of the house and altered a few features. Suzannah’s report suggests that there might be unusual conditions that would be exposed once they go under construction. It is possible that the clapboard siding could be on top of older siding. This terrific research helps us review this project. A few variances were granted at conceptual and are listed in the staff’s recommendation. The historic house is allowed to be 8 inches closer to the lot line. The HPC also granted an FAR bonus of 116.4 square feet. A few changes have been made since you saw the project the last time. A deck was proposed for on top of the connector between the new and the old building. The applicant has chosen to remove that deck. At the last meeting it was requested the design of the proposed fence be submitted at final. Some more information about a skylight and some clarification how one enters this building. You also requested more information about the proposed foundation. A wood picket fence proposed at the front of the property. The architect can talk about the at grade skylight which is located between the new and old on the street facing side of the project. Right now there is a nice red sandstone foundation under the house and that will be salvaged and applied as a veneer on the new structure. Staff recommends final be granted. Amy said regarding the skylight we asked that it be pulled slightly away from the north façade of the Victorian because it is such a contemporary feature and it will glow with light when the basement was being used. The application also includes skylights on the Victorian. HPC has been typically ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 10 conservative about allowing any skylights on a Victorian building. Typically you don’t allow them. Staff’s recommendation is that they be removed. The landscape plan includes path lights that are leading to the front door of the Victorian and HPC has typically steered away from approving them and they are out of character with the landscape. We recommend those be deleted. We also recommend a slight reduction in the number of shrubs that are around the street facing sides of the Victorian to not make it so dense like a hedge. Regarding the Suzannah Reid’s report there are certain features on the front porch that don’t appear to be historic and we would like to see that reflected in the drawings for the building permit. We also need more information on how the foundation store will be reused and more information on the gutters, flashing and snow clips. The permit drawings should reflect the detailing that is on the Victorian house right now. Regarding condition #7 the applicant would like to move the house off the site during basement construction and they have the opportunity to move it two blocks from the site. Amy said the new elevations showed the north elevation and how you enter the house. All of the connector and part of the back of the historic house have operable doors. Chris Touchette, CCY architects Jody Edwards, Attorney Chris said we have been working on the west elevation and the relationship of the siding material and choice of siding material, windows etc. It is the owner’s intent to entering off Hopkins. First Street is a very informal connection. We are using steeping stones with 8 inches of grass between them to make it less formal and casual entry point to the terrace. Yo u enter the house from Hopkins go through and wind up on the terrace. The street trees are laid out per city standards. We are preserving the existing spruce trees. We are going to ask that the HPC allow us to finalize the landscape plan once the construction is underway. The connector deck was removed. The owner would like to have a patio door that connects from the living space to the terrace and have a skylight that allows lights to that space as well. On the north side of the resource there is nothing historical other than a 15 inch piece of siding that is on the corner which is being preserved. Jody said in 1986 the addition was put on the north side and since then it has been something completely different. The spruce trees along the northern ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 11 part of First Street are enormous. The only angle you can look at the north side of the house from on First Street is from the end of it and you won’t see it any time of the year. There are skylights on the flat part of the mansard roof which are not visible from anyplace. Chris went over the recommended conditions from staff. Chris said on condition #1 we are proposing a 30 inch separation between the courtyard glass floor and the resource. We would like to keep the skylights on the Victorian. Regarding the pathway lights we have safety concerns with the pathway being quite icy in the winter time partially because its south facing. The snow melts then it freezes and creates a very slick surface. Pathway lights would be helpful and allow people to have a better visual of what is going on. The lights would also help to reinforce the entrance. We are open to discussion on the lights themselves. With the landscape plan #4 we can address that during construction. We also accept condition #5. In Suzannah Reid’s report there is a shed dormer on the east side of the resource that is not indicated on the drawings but it should be included in the project and be an element on the building. The dormer is not shown on the roof plan but would be on t he south east corner of the resource and it will be rebuilt. Regarding conditions #6 and #7 they are consistent with what was approved at conceptual. Jody addressed condition #8 and stated that there are no plats or agreements and the sentence should be pulled. Amy said #8 is new language used for vested rights. Jim True said if specified herein can be added to #8 condition. Willis said we need a presentation on the materials. Chris said the new addition is largely clad and wood siding, four inch course and 8 inch course. The stair tower is a contemporary glass façade system with a matt finish to it. In the course of reconstructing the Victorian we will put a new shingled roof on. Jim DeFrancia said condition #2 is the removal of the skylights on the Victorian. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 12 Chris said we would like to keep them on the Victorian as it is in an obscure location and you wouldn’t see the skylight given the configuration of the existing mature trees. Willis said there are two skylights one facing north and one is flat on the Victorian. Jim DeFrancia said the shrubs will be dealt with when the project is under construction. Willis said they are proposing two ballards in the front walkway. Jeffrey asked about the glass panel non-reflective mat and if is transparent or translucent. Chris said it will be translucent in the sense that it is etched. You may get some spill light bleeding out through the sides. Conventional windows will bring in clear glass in some spaces indicated. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment was closed. Willis said he is in favor of the landscape plan being addressed during construction. Willis said he doesn’t know how he feels about the path lights and will wait till other commissioners speak. The flat skylight on the Victorian is ok but the one facing north should be removed. Willis commented that this is a lovely project. Jim DeFrancis said the applicants have done a good project. I could support the flat skylight but not the one facing north on the Victorian. I also support the path lights and they can be done tastefully and can be low light and effective. They would also enhance the main entrance. On the landscaping and shrubs we are looking at staff and monitor to review the plan during construction. Nora thanked the applicant for taking off the connector deck. Nora said she cannot support skylights on the historic resource. At one point we had a long discussion on an application about path lights and in that case it was a crooked path with trees and an exception was made but in this case it is right ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 13 in the middle of town and I would support staff’s recommendation to eliminate them. Bob said living in an historic house with a skylight and having path lights with the same kind of conditions that the applicant is conce rned with I have no problems with the path lights and they should be a simple as possible. There needs to be some kind of recognition of that condition for safety purposes. I am in favor of this project and cannot object to the skylights. Jeffrey said he can support staff’s recommendations. The path lights can be small and screened with landscaping. The skylights on the Victorian roof typically we don’t allow them. The applicant made a good point of not being able to see it. I ‘m convinced a little more by the screened vegetation that I could approve the skylights. I appreciate the restoration of the historic dormer. Willis commented that there is plenty of light and the skylight facing north on the Victorian isn’t needed. MOTION: Willis made the motion to approve resolution #25 with the following conditions: Condition #1 can be eliminated. Condition #2, remove the north skylight on the Victorian roof. Eliminate condition #3 and allow them to do two path lights as presented. Condition #4 should be reworded to add staff and monitor Condition #8 change as to if Condition #5 historic east dormer is to be reconstructed Condition #7 a backup plan for the offsite relocation, the buil ding cannot be moved out of town. Motion second by Jim. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; Jim, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-0. Jody Edwards asked for a reconsideration of the north skylight. MOTION: Willis made the motion to reconsider condition #2; second by Jim. Jeffrey, no; Willis, no, Jim, no Nora, no. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2016 14 MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk