Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20090408MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, Jay Maytin, Ann Mullins and Nora Berko. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION.• Michael moved to approve the minutes of March 11 `h and March 25`" second by ,lay. All in favor, motion carried. Toni Kronberg said the last time she was here she talked about the fire station. A lot of people asked me how it got so big. What was presented to the public doesn't seem to be what was built and it over towers the historic Isis. Toni asked the board to research the fire station elevations. Sarah requested the HPC drawings for the next meeting. Sarah disclosed that she will recuse herself for the Wheeler Opera House. 1291 Riverside Ave. -Major Development (Final) and Residential Design Standards Variances. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton chaired 1291 Riverside Ave. Scott Lindeneau, Studio B architects Amy said this is final development for a new house that was created through an historic landmark lot split. This vacant lot Lot B was allocated 2,408 square feet of FAR. Conceptual was granted two months ago and there were a couple of things that the HPC asked the architect to study for final; the height of the building and the dimensions of the fascia at the front of the building. The intent is to be as sensitive in scale and height to the chalet next door. We also need to address a residential design standard. The height of the roof was reduced ten inches. The fascia seemed heavy in relationship to the detail of the chalet next door. It turns out that they are exactly the same dimension. The fascia width is 18 inches. Staff feels the fascia treatment is acceptable. It is different than the chalet because the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009 chalet has layers applied and decorative wood detailing. Staff finds overall this project really is an appropriate and a contemporary response to the character of the 1960 chalet next door. Regarding the landscape there is a row of new conifers on the west side of the property and it is recommended that staff and monitor look at that to soften the design. It doesn't seem to be particularly characteristic of the neighborhood. On the residential design standard variance it states that a window should not be within a certain range above the finished floor of the house. The intent was to not have large glazed walls that make the building seem out of scale. We do not think that is the case here. There is an upper floor window that runs from floor to ceiling screened by a deck railing. Staff totally supports a variance here. Staff recommends approval of the project with the restudy of the landscape plan. Scott Lindeneau, architect for the project said the height was reduced by ten inches and the fascia is the same depth as the chalet next door. On the landscape plan we are open to ideas. At the last meeting one of the neighbors asked us to look at the driveway so that it was not just all asphalt so we added grassy areas and some architectural concrete to break it up. The garage doors will be stained. Noah Czech, Studio B said they are using standard aluminum trim for the windows. Hardy panel will be used which is a cement base but visually a lot lighter than cement. Brian asked for clarification on the garage doors. Noah said there is a garage door window and the material will be hardy panel. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Affidavit of posting Exhibit I Ann said her only concern is the landscape plan. A less regimented pattern of conifers would be preferable. Brian said the driveway is a good proposal and is more uniform in appearance. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009 Michael said he is comfortable with staff and monitor reviewing the landscape plan. In terms of the residential design variances the window size is broken up by the railing on the balcony. Jay and Nora thanked the owners for compromising the roof height. Sarah said a looser grouping of conifers would be well suited for the context of the neighborhood. MOTION.• Brian moved to approve Resolution #11 for 1291 Riverside Drive Lot B of Lot 20 of 1295 Riverside Drive Subdivision as drafted by staff with the condition that the residential design standard is approved,• motion second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Ann, yes; Nora, yes; Jay, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. Brian -monitor on the project. Wheeler Opera House addition -work session with Planning & Zoning - no minutes Planning and Zoning members present: Stan Gibbs, L. J. Erspamer, Michael Wampler Code amendments -HPC jurisdiction in rights-of--ways Code amendment DeNovo review by Council on appeals of HPC decisions Sara said staff feels the purview over changes in the right of ways in the historic districts could be clearer. The Community Development Department thought the best way to address it was to do a code amendment clarifying the language. The code amendment would clarify the boundaries of the historic district and the second thing would be to clarify the review process so that everyone in the City is on the same page as to what is exempt and what goes to HPC. Our overall goal is to ensure a cohesive uninterrupted historic district that really conveys a sense of space of the defined significant time periods that we have for the two historic districts. Many meetings were arranged with the Parks, Parking, Engineering, Water, Utilities etc. and they all have seen the proposed amendments and all seem to be supportive. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009 Boundaries: Sara said the first part clears up the 1970's language. In all the research done historic districts are one cohesive district. We aren't adding any properties we are just clarifying that HPC has jurisdiction as to what happens between the parameters identified. Brian asked if the historic district would go out to the center of the right-of- way. It would be better if it spanned across the street. Sara said the map can be changed. HPC suggested a map be attached to the ordinance as an exhibit. Amy said we need to discuss what the outside boundaries are of these districts such as alleys. Jim True said in the historic district it is different, we did not include the alleyways behind. Sara said it was defined within one half block of Main Street which would terminate at the end of the parcel. Amy asked why in the core it goes halfway into the surrounding right-of- way. Chris said the street is the formal public street and you could do a street furniture design. Sara said for Main Street the district is a half block off Main Street into the side street so it doesn't include the alley, it terminates at the end of the parcel. Brian said maybe there are issues that might come up in the future such as alley life etc. Maybe we should include the alleys on Main Street. Michael said he feels Main Street should include the alleys. There are structures that extend up to the alley. Jay inquired about the past if HPC was ever interested in the alleys. Ann said alleys contribute to the character of historic resources. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009 Brian said maybe in future proposals from Engineering or Streets they might want to pave the alleys and we as a commission might not want to see that. HPC unanimously requested that alleys be added in the historic boundaries. Sara said the rest of the code amendment talks about the review processes. We will follow the existing types of review that HPC already has and then we would add subsections for within the right-of--way. Section #3 was amended to add object or landscape. Ann requested that temporary structures be added to the language. HPC members all agreed. Section #4 new paragraph added indicating what is exempt from review by staff or HPC. Section #5 is for Certificate of no negative effect. Three sections are added. j. Alterations of ditches, streetscape and/or landscaping such that there is a minimal impact on the historic character of the historic district. k. Installation of street furniture (i.e. benches, playgrounds, trash cans, bike racks) such that there is a minimal impact on the historic character of the historic district. 1. Installation of general roadway signage not including safety signage required by MUTCD, installation of visible mechanical equipment or utilities (i.e. solar panels) such that there is minimal impact of the historic character of the historic district. Section 6 minor development. Section f added. Installation of new safety improvements to right of way within the historic district of a magnitude or ion numbers such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect. Sara said basically there are tiers of reviews. Michael inquired if the code amendment captured all of the things that might happen in the right of way. Sara said all of the departments gave her lists of everything that they do in the right-of--way. Section 7 major development. Sara pointed out that major development is anything that doesn't qualify as minor development. The main street corridor would be considered major. Section (7) added. A proposal involving State owned or controlled property requires a written consent from the Colo. Dept. of Transportation. Main Street is a state highway. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009 Jay asked if CDOT wanted to make major changes would they come before the HPC. Jim True, Special Counsel said theoretically the state highway would be the applicant and if they came before the HPC requesting median strips for a safety issue and HPC said no we would have somewhat of a dilemma. Chances are they would have the power to go ahead and do it when it involves a safety issue but in general the State would defer to local governments. Sara said in general HPC made two changes; to include alleys in the Main Street Historic District and to add the term temporary structure to Section 3. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing section of the agenda item was closed. MOTION: Ann made the motion to accept the changes proposed by HPC as Sara has documented; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. De Novo Review by Council on Appeals of HPC Decision. Sara said this code amendment has to deal with the call up procedures that we currently have. Right now City Council can call up design decisions by HPC or P&Z such as major development and commercial design review. Right now when it is called up it is based on the record. They would be looking for a finding as to whether the review board denied due process, exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. Council directed staff to propose a code amendment that would change the type of review that council can use when they call up a design project. They want to change it to be a content based review which we call a De Novo review. De Novo means basically that you would start from the beginning; such as what is the height, what type of windows etc. They would not be just looking at whether or not the correct proceeding was followed in the hearing. Boulder and Telluride use this system. On one hand it provides another layer of checks and balances but on the other hand the Community Development staff feels it creates just another level of uncertainty to applicants such as is my project going to get called up and will I have to change all the work that I did with HPC already. We are concerned how that conflicts with the goals 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009 of the AACP to have a clear review process and the goals of the community. Major Development and Commercial Design review would be effected. Michael asked what is the problem that this language is solving. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director: From time to time projects get called up to City Council and it is usually because the owner didn't like the decision of HPC or P&Z. Their review is strictly limited to procedural review. An example would be Council looks at the project and agrees that HI'C made the wrong decision but HPC did not exceed its jurisdiction. Council would have to say that HPC did their job incorrectly and that is tough for Council to do. The opposite extreme would be the De Novo review which means anything can go up to city council. Staff feels there could be a lot more callups. My fear is that council becomes the pseudo P&Z and HPC in addition to their normal council responsibilities. We agree at some level but feel there should be discussion about the merits of the board's decision at some level. This might be a little too strong of a delegation. We do feel that the delegation ought to be something with an oversite such that if there is a call up that their review would be a little less. First they would review the merits of their decision. Instead of taking on the decision authority they should remand it back to HPC with direction. This might not be the most palatable thing council wants to hear but this is what we are proposing to them. Sarah said she is 100% in favor of Chris's recommendation. It is unfair of Council to take on a review of a project without the background that we have. It is also putting them in a precarious situation where it will allow every vocal person in our community to be the direct line to them and the pressure to call up every item. It should go back to the commission for restudy based on certain criteria. Michael said that is not the language we have now. Chris said we need to eliminate certain sections in 26.412.040 B. There should be a venue to talk about the merits of the decision and the remand. Jay said he is concerned about the integrity of the HPC. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009 Ann said it doesn't take away our integrity. We are appointed by council and if they disagree with what we are doing we need to hear back from them. Brian said the Wheeler is a great example. If we make a decision that the community is against the decision then can sit on the elected official's shoulders. Sarah explained that most projects do go to city council that are affecting dimensional requirements and there is a process in place. What Chris suggested is a good medium respecting city council. Jay said by meeting them half way is a good recommendation. MOTION.• Ann moved to support the changes suggested by Chris Bendon with the deletion of b and c; second by Brian. Ann and Brian withdrew their motion. Amy said HPC should not underestimate their authority with a review process of multiple layers. Nora said with the code revision an applicant will says it doesn't matter what HPC says we'll just go back to city council. Jay said the code should say that HPC is final unless there is a procedural issue. Michael said as it stands right now the call up review is a review of the record. If we make a mistake council will correct it. The new proposal is to create a ping pong effect. Amy said possibly the call back should be eliminated to commercial and public projects rather than single family home projects. Chris said if a project goes off its rails it will go to city council. Michael said in reality projects get called up for political reasons such as the Bidwell project. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009 Chris said he is trying to avoid that the basis is a political reason to get called up. I want the basis of the criticism to be a political basis and then remand it back to the board that has the authority, respect and knowledge of the history to take a second look at their decision. They need to be really sure about their decision. Jay said he will only support the way it is now. You can't keep sending back things until HPC changes its vote. How many call ups can a project have. Nora said why wouldn't something come back to us to fix. Michael said he can agree with the pink pong effect. Sarah said this could open a can of worms and it sits in the hands of city council. Brian said HPC is very thoughtful in the way they make their decisions. Chris said you might make a motion to not change the code at all and see how that goes and then if the code is going to change which of these suggestions does council prefer. Jay said he would be open to the idea that a call up is a joint public meeting with council and the appropriate board. HPC members agreed. Jay said that way the sensitivity of historic preservation is at the meeting and our voice is being heard. Sarah asked if other cities have seen more call ups. Sara said Boulder has not seen many. Chris said if it was a joint meeting council would be in the appeal position and that might not work procedurally. Amy said you are also making them the decision makers which are what we were trying to avoid making it remanded back to HPC. Chris said he likes the remand. MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009 Sarah pointed out that council doesn't have to do the remand; they can stick with an HPC decision. Ann said her motion was to support what Chris Bendon discussed. Chris said was written there are 5 options for city council. I am proposing that we leave 1, remove 2 and 3 and leave 4 and 5. Sarah said for clarification we are removing 2 and 3 and b and c. MOTION: Ann made the motion to delete 2 and 3 of 26.412.0408 and leave 4 and S. Also delete b, c of section 2. Motion second by Sarah. Sarah said if we say the language is OK the way it is and we like the review process the way it is, does it matter and are we hurting ourselves. Chris said this language and the ability to remand it is a more appealing option and an easier out than what we have now. Ann said she feels it appropriate that council work with the I-IPC and our decisions and support our decisions. Sarah said her concern is the cyclical burecratic cycle process that gets expensive and time consuming. Is the change creating a new cycle? Michael said that is his concern also. Chris said there is no way to write a code that you get out of those things. Every now and then there will be a project that gets under the citizens skin. Sarah asked if there is a way to state that the remand needs to go with clear direction to the appropriate board. Chris said he thinks the board will get it one way or another. Jim said if council remands with a direction then the board would have to think about it. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009 Amy said we used to have an annual work session with council and maybe the boards should talk to council and determine everyone's concerns. Jay said if changes are going to be made I would like to have a say in it and be a part of the change. I would be in favor of getting rid of b, c. Roll call vote on the motion: Brian, yes; Nora, yes; Ann, yes; Jay, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. Discussion of Ordinance #48 process Amy said the parameters that we have now which is a demolition delay process where at least we have the ability to say here are some important properties and in the past we had no authority over them and now we can either say they are important or not important, can we talk and figure out a solution so we don't lose the historic resource. Sara said a permit comes in for a property on the list and we review it and determine if it is going to compromise or have an adverse impact on what we think are the character defining features. If it does then it will go through the negotiation process. If it is a re-roof with the same material they can go forward with the permit. There wouldn't be anything to discuss. Jim True said theoretically HPC would want the property preserved or not. The decision of HPC goes to council. Brian said the question of H PC is should we be looking at the incentives or look at the resource with blinders on. Amy said during the ordinance #48 process you have given up control. Ann said that is why things are getting muddled because we are scared about what council may give. We don't know how to give council the message such as the property is important but not important enough to grant all of the incentives the applicant is asking for. Jim said you can say that in your motion. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009 Chris Bendon said you need to give council as much guidance as you can. If it feels there are too many requests of the applicant then break it up into smaller pieces and rank them. Amy said you can give all kind of detail in your motions to council. HPC needs to be comfortable with your decision. The property is before you because we may or may not lose the resource. Jay said it is difficult when the applicant wants a lot. Chris said if you identify each request and rate it that gives Council a lot to go on and they know where HPC stands. Michael said for example the request is fora 500 square foot bonus. The problem is that we don't know how that bonus is going to be used. Jim said under ordinance #48 you can rank the importance or analyze it by detail. I feel council wants you to do more. Michael said it would be helpful if staff gave us the range of benefits being considered in a particular application. Sarah said she doesn't feel comfortable and possibly we don't have all the information. It is hard to rank a property whether it should be land marked and we need to keep it as objective as possible. We need to say why it is a particular rating. Jay said I like the fact that we have the ability to make a decision. Sara said for Modern Chalet we don't have a context paper but we have criteria. Amy said up until ordinance #48 we had no protection on these properties. You are seeing the middle scoring properties coming before you not the # 10's. Jay said we as a board should determine whether or not the property is worth talking about in a motion. Then out of the long list we can go through each item. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2009 Nora said by the time the applicant gets their 16 things and we have compromised, where is the integrity of what we started? How do we know or not know that the 16 things will affect the integrity of the historic property. Ann said it is also the fear of picking and choosing and you don't know the combination. Chris said for example you can say you are unsure about the 500 square feet unless you show us how you are going to add it because we don't know where it is going. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Kathlee J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ~~~~ 13