HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.201707121
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JULY 12, 2017
Acting Chairperson Mr. DeFrancia called the meeting to order at 4:37 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jim DeFrancia, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Richard Lai, Roger Moyer. Absent
were Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Willis Pember and John Whipple.
Staff Present:
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Linda Manning, City Clerk
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
Approval of minutes from May 10th and May 24th. Mr. Moyer motioned to approve, Mr. Blaich
seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko commented about the landscape at the Wheeler parcel and
said it is lovely and a nice addition and thinks the view planes are amazing. Mr. Moyer commented on
the discussion from the last meeting regarding landscaping around the historic resources and the
sprinkler heads being too close to the structure and said it is a matter of education.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
STAFF COMMENT: Ms. Simon said she needs to take her daughter to Boulder so she will be leaving after
the first item. Ms. Simon thanked Mr. DeFrancia for his service and mentioned that this will be his last
meeting and Mr. Whipple will not attend any more and she thanked him for his time as well. They will
be giving exiting members gift certificates and announced that Scott Kendrick will be joining HPC in
August.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
PUBLIC NOTICES: Ms. Bryan said one is being continued and the other one is good.
CALL UPS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: 210 W. Main continued to July 26th. Motion to continue by Mr. Blaich, seconded by Mr.
Moyer. All in favor, motion carried.
Ms. Simon noted that at the last meeting, she asked HPC to continue 209 E Bleeker to July 28th, which is
a Friday and should have been July 26th so she needs a motion to reconsider. Motion to reconsider by
Mr. Moyer, seconded by Mr. Blaich. Mr. Moyer motioned to continue to July 26th, seconded by Mr.
Blaich. All in favor, motion carried.
2
NEW BUSINESS: 305-307 S. Mill St.
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon stated this is a substantial amendment to the review process. This property is in the core
across from the Wheeler and is where Jimmy’s Bodega, Grey lady and the Popcorn Wagon are currently
located. This is in the historic district, but it is not historic. This initially came in as a scrape and replace,
then was modified to become a remodel. Portions of the existing building would remain, they would
infill in the center with an addition where the wagon sits now. This project went through HPC review
successfully with design, public amenity, affordable housing mitigation and transportation all being
considered. A view plane review has also been conducted on this site. It is in the Wheeler view plane
with a low height, front edge at 7 feet and exits at 10 feet. We are trying to determine what can and
should be built on this site. Conceptual approval was granted and went through council call up, but was
not remanded and was then returned to HPC for final and approved with minimal conditions for
windows and lighting. As the applicant prepared for a building permit they were concerned with how to
prepare for the basement. Approval was granted for a free-standing basement. The request tonight is
to demolish all of the building and build back exactly as approved. This project was applied for prior to
the moratorium so we need to decide if it’s being reviewed under the new code or the old code. It was
decided that it can remain under the old code, but since it is a substantial amendment, HPC needs to
consider if it is in conformance with the standards and guidelines. One main item that needs to be
discussed is the view plane mentioned earlier. The building was already over 13 feet tall and what was
being added, was lower that what is there already. If they demolish the entire structure, it ruins the
basis for HPC’s original decision. At that point, we should be talking about something between 7 feet
and 10 feet. Staff wants that to be a concern and we don’t feel it complies with the spirit of that
discussion. We feel that keeping some of the building will keep the spirit. We think there is a hang up of
the view plane review and we recommend denial.
Mr. Moyer asked how staff justifies having a building for 20 years, which exceeds the height and now
says they can’t have a building that doesn’t exceed that height. Ms. Simon said the view planes came in
during the 70’s so it’s grandfathered and allowed, but if you want to expand, it must meet today’s rules
and it does that by being lower. What is proposed to be built is not taller that what exists. Mr. Moyer
asked if the original application was done before the new rules and Ms. Simon said that is correct and it
was done before the new code. We feel the applicant should build exactly what was approved or
adhere to the new code.
Applicant presentation:
Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams and Dwayne Romero of Romero Management representing Mark Hunt.
Chris stated that they are here with a very simple ask as they want to build the same building that was
approved. There has been quite a bit of discussion about the building itself not having any historic
relevance. The conceptual approval did allow for demolition and the thought at the time was there
probably would be over 40%. There was no discussion as to what walls would need to stay. There is
zero difference in the proposal and what is different is the technique and a 3-4-month quicker
construction period. We think it is the same project that was approved with a simpler quicker process
and a better end product. It was a full scrape and replace originally and HPC pretty much punched it in
the face. It was a full 2 stories in front of the Wheeler so it was rejected, but not around the demolition,
but the end product. We did a complete pivot to the revised product keeping the arch and the same
feeling of the building. The Wheeler view plane is pretty severe. Obviously, a building that is 7 feet tall
doesn’t enable any kind of useful purpose. The city has some expectation about what spaces look and
feel like on the inside and have guidelines on that interior height dimension. We didn’t achieve the 13
3
to 15-foot height dimension that are in the guidelines. When this came in for final, it talked about a
building addition in the courtyard and corner. We are here to try to simplify the construction and build
the same building in front of you. We are not changing the project in any way. We did reach out to the
neighbor and they do not share our same opinion. We do feel that allowing a full demo on day one,
simplifies the project and makes a lot of sense.
Dwayne Romero reminded everyone that as they have moved through the design development, they
realized this was an inefficient way to attack construction. They think from a community perspective, a
shorter construction at that site is beneficial. The concept of demo was on the table and discussed and
in the conceptual and final approvals. Yes, they were attempting to save pieces but there was never the
requirement to save specific pieces, but they do intend to keep the arch.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
1 Gideon Kaufman said he is speaking on behalf of himself and the six commercial spaces at
the Wheeler Square. He thanked Mr. Bendon for reaching out and speaking with them. He
also reminded HPC that they participated in all the previous reviews and approvals. The
preservation and remodeling of the existing structure is what led to the HPC approvals and
what led them from dropping their opposition. The proposed additions are lower than the
current structure and created minimal impact and did not infringe on the view plane. This is
much different than a completely new building. What is before you is proposed as an
amendment and also an amendment to the view plane review. The extent of the demo is
unclear and they are trying to make it about how much is to be demolished and not the view
plane. The proper view plane should not be questioned and ignores a big piece of your prior
approval. This project was submitted as a scrape and replace and start with a clean slate
and council made a different decision. The view plane decision is not subject to council call
up. This proposed demo requires new HPC conceptual review as the basic premise has
changed. A new review would trigger council call up ability. It should be looked at as a new
application. He feels that HPC should discourage a scrape and replace and encourage
remodels. Council’s call up assumed the retention of most of the original structure. Staff’s
recommendation, he believes, should be followed. They respectfully request this
amendment be denied. He then stated that John Whipple agreed with their position and
that of staff.
Mr. DeFrancia closed public comment.
Mr. Bendon said that they see this as a simple ask. They see the demolition as a way to simplify and
quicken the process and see it as a benefit to the community and hoped to see it as a benefit to
neighbors as a quicker process. Mr. Kaufman is right that the new view plane regulations are a bit more
liberal and they acknowledge that a building that is this close and impacted by the view plane should
have a right to develop and has a height limit of 15 feet. He pointed out, they are not asking for that
and mentioned the Innsbruck Lodge project on Main Street. They originally approached it as a remodel
and applied for a building permit and then asked staff why can’t we just demolish it so staff said they
applied for the wrong thing. They ended up propping up the roof and it took longer and paid more and
there was disappointment around the end product. In that light, our recommendation to Mr. Hunt was
if it is not historic, go back in and ask for the demolition.
Mr. Moyer asked Mr. Kaufman if he objects to the building design. Mr. Kaufman said no, our point is the
process and the playing field is different. If they were to start the process from scratch, there may be
4
something better out there. We would like to see this go through a process where you aren’t tied to a
building that may not be there. Mr. Moyer then asked Ms. Simon why she is recommending denial and
Ms. Simon answered that it is the principal and many reasons that Mr. Kaufman mentioned. She thinks
what HPC originally approved should not be reversed. The original approval was told to city council and
represented in the drawings and is all over the minutes. They could start over under the new code and
reapply, but would be a substantial delay. Mr. Moyer asked who was present when the original view
planes were installed in 1976 besides himself and there was no one. The purpose of those were so that
people could stand in front of the Wheeler and there would not be a tall building in front of it, he said.
Ms. Berko said she supports staffs position because of the process and noted that they spent a lot of
time on this and came to a great solution. She understands economically why a scrape and replace
works and she understands why a remodel is more complicated. She felt they came to a really good
solution that went through council and was not remanded. She said it was a really fair process and to
have it change, it leaves things wide open for her. It is either a great solution or a new application.
Mr. Blaich said he didn’t know how many variations came in front of them, but they finally agreed on
something. If we must go back to ground zero on this is, thereis a good possibility, based on the view
plane, they are going to have to move the whole building back to stay within the view plane. Mr.
Bendon said they haven’t gone through that design discussion yet and they can’t build at 7 feet tall so
they would look at what they could do up to the 15 and produce a building that has good function and
treats the corner well and meets the guidelines. Mr. Blaich said he is trying to envision what they will be
dealing with when they come back with a new design. One of the issues particularly with this location, it
is highly visible and there is a possibility that a framing network can be put up to show what was
approved, like story poles. It is going to be a long process and their argument of time and mess, he buys
as it is a benefit for them and the community. He says he’s not hung up on that, but feels they are
getting into an issue of principle versus expediency. I’m trying to imagine where we will be if we follow
staff’s recommendation and wait for you to come back with a new proposal. Mr. Bendon said they are
not sure they would come back with a new proposal, frankly, because starting over is not a very
palatable option. He thinks they would be in a position of identifying the portions of walls that need to
be suspended in air and worked around. Mr. Blaich asked if there is potential to have something other
than the actual walls in place, as in a fake wall per se. Ms. Simon said they are not looking for working
around the regulation as retaining pieces of the existing building was a fundamental agreement.
Ms. Berko said she also felt the whole process is important because they have recently seen slippery
slope stuff. She is concerned with their integrity of the process.
Mr. Lai said he was not party to any of this and this is all new to him. He said he would tend to agree
with Ms. Berko and staff. He feels the process is important to him and to tear everything down and
replicate it is really starting from the beginning. The applicant may be able to come up with a better
solution and he is not sure if that is the best way to initiate a development.
Mr. DeFrancia said there is a distinct difference between scrape and replace and remodel and there is
merit to that argument regarding the process.
MOTION: Ms. Berko moved to support staff’s recommendation to deny the amendment, seconded by
Mr. Moyer.
5
Roll call vote: Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes. 5-0
motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS: 834 W Hallam
Justin Barker
Mr. Barker said this project received conceptual approval from HPC in August 2016 and is a 100%
affordable housing project proposal. This includes demolition of non- historic additions and is a
landmark property. This also includes relocation of the historic structure and the construction of two
new buildings on the property as well. The application for tonight is for the final design approvals and
growth management approval and request for certificates of affordable housing credit. Staff comments
apply to fenestration first off and staff would like to see more of a rectangular proportion of the
windows on new construction to have a stronger distinction. In terms of the historic construction, there
are a number of non-historic additions on the north and east facades and they won’t know what they
are until we get in them. He said they would like to see a preservation plan of where they will be
identified. The other item is related to the dormer on the west side of the structure as a casement
window currently and is not historic and would like to see that changed. In terms of materials, they are
proposing a horizontal wood siding and he feels this is appropriate, but want to see it varied. They
expect to see the historic materials retained. The chimney will need restored as well as the porch and in
terms of the roof, it is currently asphalt, but they would like something with a thicker profile for the new
construction. In terms of landscaping, staff believes the design is too complex. Staff recommends
removal of shrubs and trees in zones A and B. Staff is including a condition to reduce overall size and
design of planting beds. There isn’t currently a front walkway and there is none proposed from street to
structure so we have asked for them to look at a way to create one. There was one condition from
conceptual around the porch to make it a similar one to the historic porch which was there before. The
proposed option includes a partially inset porch and this is not an ideal situation, but staff is comfortable
with the proposal.
In terms of the growth management review, APCHA reviewed it twice the first time for category two and
three sale units so the applicant revised that to category three and four rental units to convert to for
sale in the future. APCHA was comfortable with this as long as they were changed to category four units.
The total number of FTE’s established would be 18.75 at the category four rate. Overall, staff is
recommending approval with conditions and would like the applicant to match what was historically
done with the original building. They are also recommending one minor amendment to a resolution in
Section 2, in the second paragraph and they are adding in “or as specifically recommended by APCHA”.
There are two units that fall just below the minimum reduction, but APCHA has expressed that they are
comfortable with the unit sizes.
Ms. Berko asked Mr. Barker, that given recent history, if there wasn’t something stronger they could do
with the preservation requirements making sure everything is where it needs to be. Mr. Barker said
there is a condition for the applicant to submit the preservation plan prior to permit.
Mr. Moyer asked if they have been looking at separating the resource from the addition.
Applicant
Patrick Rawley of Stan Clauson Assoc., Stephen May of Forum Phi and Matt Brown
Mr. Rawley addressed Mr. Moyer’s question and he said they have been told to make it more similar
instead of differentiating. They have chosen fenestration as their differentiating quality for the new
construction.
6
As an overview, this is a 600K lot and the zoning is mixed use. They are limited to 5400 square feet of
floor area for 100% affordable housing project. They meet that with a proposed floor area of 5,352 and
that provides 7 units and 18 bed rooms. FAR is proposed at .9 to 1 with max height met at 28 feet.
Initially they are rental units with the future option for sale and all units will be a category four. There
were a couple of conditions at conceptual, which includes restudy of the porch and work with the SI
ditch company and the agreement has been signed and recorded. They received a parking reduction of
1 space for a total of 6 and the reduction on the east side yard setback went from 5 to 3 feet. The
distance between buildings was varied from 10 to 7 feet.
Mr. May talked about the elevations and said they are keeping the existing materials. He asked to use a
more durable material on the roof and he is fine with the casement window and chimney that staff
wants.
Mr. Rawley talked about the landscape plan and said it is durable and low maintenance. There are
entrance walkways that terminate to a central court that will provide access to parking, storage and
trash enclosure. He said he is fine with simplifying the landscaping details which Mr. Barker pointed out.
They have provided some blue spruce with a tight growth characteristic to provide screening to the bus
stop and would like to keep it in place. Staff has requested to remove the conifers adjacent to the
parking area and he says they have done that. As far as materials and lighting, the landscape lighting
will have a brushed nickel finish, not copper. Mr. May said they have proposed a more modern exterior
lighting.
Mr. Rawley said they are happy to work with a preservation plan. If it is existing, it will remain and if it
needs to be repaired, it will be. The west facing dormer will be repaired and they agree with roof
materials but would like a more durable one. He agreed that the siding material will be approved by
staff and monitor. He said the applicant will review the landscaping plan and has asked HPC to think
about the walkway from the front door to the sidewalk. Mr. Rawley suggested a different paving
material and mentioned that the storm water feature shall not be placed on the south or west façade of
the Victorian and asked it be removed. He is fine with protecting the cottonwoods on 8th St.
Regarding the condition of the transformer being placed on the property, he is requesting that it not be
placed on property but maintained on the existing location. Regarding the historic structural elements
on the perimeter of the Victorian, they will be preserved in place and will be part of the preservation
plan.
Ms. Berko asked if they have storm water mitigation somewhere and Mr. Rawley said no and will be
accomplished by a drywell or something similar and is not a big issue. She then asked if there is an
alternative to the spruce trees and Mr. Rawley said those species are dwarfs, but if there is a suitable
alternative that is ok with them.
Mr. Moyer said he noticed on the landscape plan that it shows vegetation against the structure and they
are looking seriously at that and the implications. The sprinkler heads really need to be 2 to 3 feet away
from the structure.
Mr. Lai asked how many parking spaces will be included and Mr. Rawley answered six.
Mr. DeFrancia said that staff has recommended a number of conditions and asked Mr. Rawley to run
through the list and tell him which he agrees with and which he does not. Mr. Rawley said he agrees
with 1 and 2. They would like to have a discussion with staff and monitor about 3 regarding the roofing
7
material as they do not want to do wood, but Davinci or something similar. 4. Siding is acceptable to
them. 5. The landscape plan, the shrubs they are fine with reducing or eliminating, but they are not ok
with the spruce trees on the northwest and southeast. They are not married to the spruce tree concept,
but need some kind of screening. They would like a simple walk way and prefer not having 3 walk ways,
but if it comes down to it, they will work with staff and monitor to have a central walk with a different
material. Regarding the storm water features, they would like that removed because there are no storm
water features in that location. Excavation within 15 feet of the cottonwoods is completely fine.
Excavation within the ditch easement, they are fine with. Regarding the new transformer, there is
simply no space, but if they require one, they would like it to remain where it is currently. The building
permit shall label all historic elements and they are completely fine with that.
Ms. Berko said her understanding on the transformer is that it is required by the electric company and
she believes that it is out of their purview.
Mr. Moyer asked regarding the transformers, if it is an Engineering department implication and Mr.
Barker said yes, it is a requirement and there is really no ability to change it, but there may be some
flexibility to say the location is approved by the utility department.
Mr. DeFrancia opened public comment
1. Charlie Eckhart – president of Sagewood Condo HOA, chairman of open space and trails board.
He stated that he likes the project and is in support, but is concerned with the site plan and
whether or not it is reflective of the new entrance and bike pedway. Mr. Rawley said that is
correct and they have worked with Hailey in Engineering and have coordinated the site plan.
The main entrance ways must meet the sidewalk.
Mr. Moyer asked if the existing siding is in good condition and Mr. May answered that they haven’t
done the research yet.
Mr. Barker added an email to the record from Teresa Wyatt stating opposition to affordable housing
units in town and specifically to historic properties.
Mr. DeFrancia closed the public comment.
Mr. Barker gave clarification on the transformer saying they would like to include the staff and monitor
in the discussion with utilities to avoid adverse effects. Staff is supportive in keeping the preventative
condition related to storm water features (5D). to ensure as the project progresses, this is a clear
condition moving forward.
Mr. Lai congratulated the applicant on having an affordable and historic project in one. He said it’s not
very often we have historic preservation as well as affordable housing together. It’s a good project and
is needed in Aspen.
Mr. Blaich was supportive conceptually and is very positive about it. The evergreens should be allowed
and is a good solution.
Ms. Berko is in support and does think we have the guidelines around the resource advocate condition
regarding condition 3 and 5C for the siding and sidewalk.
8
Mr. Moyer said he can go right off of staff recommendation. He would like to see the sprinklers placed
away from the structure and vegetation not placed next to the structure. He said he has no problem
with the screening.
MOTION: Mr. Lai motioned to accept with recommendations as stated with amendment to #8 regarding
the transformer location to be determined by utilities, staff and monitor. Adding in a clause to section 2
under affordable housing requirements that states “or as specifically accepted by APCHA.” Add to
section 5B regarding sprinklers being located away from the structure. #4 siding materials to be
determined by staff and monitor, seconded by Mr. Blaich.
Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes.
5-0 motion carried.
Mr. Blaich gave recognition for Mr. DeFrancia and Mr. Whipple and wished Mr. Whipple had been in
attendance. He said both have done an excellent job and that Mr. DeFrancia has been a mentor to him.
Thanked him so much for your service.
Mr. DeFrancia moved to adjourn at 6:46 p.m.
__________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk