Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20190213Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 1 Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2 Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2 Conflicts of Interest ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Certificates of No Negative Effect ................................................................................................................ 2 Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 333 W. Bleeker St – Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations ............................................ 2 Wireless 5G Update and Check In ................................................................................................................ 5 Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Gretchen Greenwood called the regular meeting to order with Commission Members Bob Blaich, Jeffery Halferty, and Richard Lai present. Roger Moyer arrived late. Also present were Andrea Bryan and Linda Manning. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. Commission Comments None. Conflicts of Interest None. Project Monitoring Amy Simon, community development, stated she has one for Richard. She gave it to him to take home. He will get back with Amy on it regarding the affordable housing project on Main Street project. Staff Comments Ms. Simon attended the CPI conference and it was great. Roger had a great time and went to a number of things. Keep us up to date on dates you may miss meetings. Richard said he enjoyed the conference session on drones. Legal difficulty on drone flying over the city and asked about the possibility of having a drone map the city. The moderator said it is possible to have a drone fly over it we asked for permission. Certificates of No Negative Effect 447 E Cooper. Chalet portion of the building and the salmon color addition. On the salmon color piece there is a request to change the doors and windows and install a mechanical piece. Minutes Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes from December 12, 2018; seconded by Mr. Blaich. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Blaich moved to approve the minutes from January 9, 2019; seconded by Mr. Lai. All in favor, motion carried. 333 W. Bleeker St – Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations Sarah Yoon, community development, said the property is located on the corner of Bleeker and 3rd. It is in the R6 zone. The review is for a major development. The property is a 6,000 square foot lot. A lot split was approved in 2002. The existing floor area is 2,435 over the allotted amount due to a miscalculation of garage space. This will bring it back in to compliance. She showed an image from 1963. The applicant is proposing to relocate the house and rotate the outbuilding. There is a one story connecting element on the rear of the resource connecting to a one story addition. There are also changes in fenestration on the landmark. From the Sandborn map we can tell the outbuilding was moved to this location. In the 1968 map the outbuilding was moved to the location. Staff is concerned with the relocation of the historic home. Parks determined removal of the trees is acceptable with mitigation. The Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 3 house is no longer being proposed to be moved forward by 5 feet. There are large spruce trees at the Bleeker Street elevation. We are concerned the resource will partially have a visual impact. The applicant proposes skylights on the east side yard. They are not minimal. We are requesting study for stormwater mitigation. There are three specific fenestration changes. The removal of non historic sliding doors on the east elevation. For the south elevation the change of the non historic French doors to two windows. Staff recommends exploration of the west and south elevations. We want to figure out if the existing windows are original and to investigate if there are original openings for the openings. On the proposal to remove the enclosed porch area we came across conflicting information. The Sandborn map indicates the feature was not there but a later map shows the feature is. Staff finds it difficult for the feature to remain. With it removed the connector would join the addition. Staff is concerned with the design of the secondary entrance on 3rd street. The addition is subordinate but doesn’t meet the design guidelines as to how it relates to the resource with form, materials and fenestration. The guidelines also state the roof form must be compatible with the historic building. Staff finds the proposed design contrasts between the old and new and doesn’t achieve the visual compatibility. The applicant is requesting setback variations for the out building. Staff is in support of the request since it supports the neighborhood pattern of alley access for the garage spaces. Staff would like to revisit the setback variation request for the rear addition. Staff is recommending continuation until March 13th for restudy. Mr. Lai asked Ms. Yoon to highlight the conditions. Ms. Yoon replied to restudy the eastward relocation of the historic house, restudy the skylights along the east side yard, preliminary stormwater mitigation information, restudy the proposed secondary walkway, investigate the historic framing, and restudy the new addition. Applicant presentation Mitch Haas, representing the owner, stated prior to submitting the application we went through two or three major design revisions. We submitted the application and made more revisions. The main one is not moving the house forward at all. Parks has agreed to allow us to remove the trees along the alley. Not moving forward five feet changed the plan. The new addition becomes barely visible from the 3rd Street side. Rally Dupps, architect, stated the garage hides the addition. The garage roof is taller than the roof of the addition. Mr. Haas said with the addition we are consistent with the resource in terms of form. It is a rectangle. We felt it was inappropriate to use any other roof pitch. The roof form is a simple form. Is it different than what you find traditionally, yes. It is all hidden by the garage structure. We feel the addition is consistent with the form. It will be consistent with the materials. We don’t feel the additional requires any restudy. Another concern was moving the house 3.7 feet to the east would change the appearance of the house. The house is roughly centered between the spruce trees today. We need to move it to the east. The house is so constrained by the trees there is nowhere else to work with. We need room for the new basement and over dig for the foundation walls. By not moving forward we are not getting any closer to the drip lines than we already are. Moving to the east also helps to further hide the sky light that staff brought up. It sits more than 51.5 feet from the edge of the street. No one will ever see the sky light. Our feeling is it is not problematic. He showed views of the sketch up. We lost almost 200 square feet of floor area. We did that by turning the garage, internal configuration and removing the rear porch addition. The only place you see much of the addition is right from the alley. We will remove the sky lights from both pitches of the garage roof. We have no issue with studying the framing. On the conditions we feel the relocation of the house is appropriate. No one will see the sky light along the east side. We don’t feel it needs a restudy. On stormwater all the guidelines say at final review. Roger entered at 5:08. It is not appropriate to start that at this level. The walkway to the connecter is landscaping and we are fine with restudying it. We are happy to restudy the historic framing. The only thing it leaves is the addition at the back. We feel it is appropriate and obscured. Mr. Lai said page 21, staff is concerned with the relocation of the historic home that it will compromise the resource being so close to the dripline. Ms. Yoon stated the memo was released prior to the revision. Our concern about the relocation still stands. Half the front façade will still be in the dripline. Ms. Simon Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 4 said the house is still being moved eastward behind one of the large trees. Mr. Haas said it is not a concern. We have to pick the house up anyway to put a new foundation under it. Ms. Greenwood said the three foot move is due to the basement not the resource. Ms. Simon said that is part of our concern. Relocating a historic building is not generally an accepted best preservation practice. We have not seen any concern that this is the best thing for the historic building. It is allowing their basement. Ms. Greenwood said the word preservation hasn’t been mentioned once. Mr. Haas said we don’t have anywhere else to add on. Ms. Greenwood replied that is the nature of the property. Mr. Haas said a move to the east is not as negligible and allows that. Mr. Blaich said the trees on the alley, Parks doesn’t want them removed. Mr. Haas said now they said we can, but they want us to plant back three new spruce trees in that area. They won’t fit. Under no condition will we do that. Ms. Simon said when Parks took the position that the trees had to stay and they were going to move the house forward we said it created another set of problems they reconsidered. Mr. Halferty said the memo described the roofline of the addition potentially not conforming. Was there any discussion on the glazing versus wall mass. Ms. Yoon replied it touches briefly on the fact the fenestration doesn’t refer back. The materials can get there. When it gets to fenestration and form we see a departure. Mr. Halferty said the neighbor is in support but concerned with the setback of the garage. Ms. Yoon replied correct. Mr. Halferty said the relocation of the resource is not a preservation point but to maximize the footprint of the subgrade area. Mr. Dupps replied we have a limited amount of room above grade and would like to put most of the addition in the basement. We want to move the house 3.7 feet so we don’t disturb the trees. Mr. Moyer said he agrees with staff. Ms. Greenwood asked to see the floor plan of the lower level. What are the setback variances you are asking for. Mr. Haas replied they are all rear yard. The original request was for the relocated garage. Today it is less than a foot from the alley and on the west property line. It will turn 90 degrees and move one foot off of each property line. It needs a rear and side yard setback variance. We need combined side yard variations because of the same structure and where it sits on the property line. The addition would also require a rear yard variation of 7.10 feet because the back of the chimney and the wall and the alley. The letter about the structure on the alley, I understand but there will be less structure on the alley than before. Ms. Greenwood asked are there any bonus ask. Mr. Haas replied we are losing 200 feet. Ms. Greenwood asked how many trees will be removed. Mr. Dupps stated he does not know of the top of his head. Six from the back. Parks asked us to remove some spruce trees that are competing with the cottonwoods. Ms. Greenwood opened the public comment. There was none. Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment. Mr. Haas addressed the letter that was submitted earlier. Ms. Yoon said the letter addressed the initial application. Mr. Haas said today there is 25 feet of building structure and trash right against the alley. Once rotated it will only be 13 feet. We feel we are making it much better. The letter issue is the ability of cars to back out of the alley and the maneuvering of cars. There are fences along the alley on the property lines. That is what is constricting the alley, not the garage. Board discussion. Ms. Greenwood said she would like to discuss the setback of the new addition as well. There are six items to discuss. One of the main ones is the restudy of the new addition to meet the design guidelines. The applicants have said that they meet the form. Staff doesn’t feel they do. In the last week they have decided not to move the house forward five feet but to move it to the east three feet. I still don’t understand the reason for that. It is not a preservation technique and that is our purview here. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 5 Mr. Halferty said it is an interesting historic resource. He commends the applicants on their preservation plan and the modest addition that is proposed. On the relocation of the house, when we move structures many times it has to do with better preservation. I understand the square footage and the subgrade space and the less of an impact on the ground level. To me, I also think it needs some restudy. I’m not sure it is the best preservation effort to move it to the east. Concerning the guidelines and the addition, two of the three should be met. I think the roof and the amount of glazing is in competition with the historic resource, even with the one story link. I understand what the applicant is saying regarding stormwater but I also think it should be restudied. I appreciate them filling in the skylights on the resource but the new openings also need additional clarification and study. The lightwells are indicated to be less visual, but we are starting to see more and more of these and I’m not so sure how successful they are. I think they could also use restudy. The new addition also needs additional study. It is definitely modern and contemporary. It may be too much in competition with the resource. I’m ok with the relocated outbuilding as a garage. I think it is a logical place. I’m fine with the setback request. The roof form is modest, simple and small scale but it might be in too much competition with the main building. I think with some modifications and simple suggestions I could see this comply with the guidelines and could support it. I would support the recommendation for continuation. Mr. Blaich said Jeff covered all the points very well. My main issue from a visual point of view is the restudy of the new addition. I think there is a lot of room for modification. Item number six is a major question for me as it exists. Mr. Lai commended the applicant for being below the allowed FAR. His main concern is the impact of trees on the integrity of the resource. Second is he agrees with Jeff’s comments on the roof of the addition. It should have more compatibility with the existing buildings. On the auxiliary building, looking at it from 3rd Street he prefers the gable projected on to 3rd Street. Mr. Moyer said applicants should come firstly with a preservation plan and that should be predominant in their mind. We have an issue with trees and it is all the more reason to have discussion with Parks. Moving the house, I’m not in favor of. We need to spend some time on window wells. Turning the out building is a very valid move and I’m not opposed to it in the least. I concur with staff that we need to restudy. Drainage can be dealt with between engineering. The walkway can also be easily dealt with. The addition is close but not quite. The glazing is a bit overwhelming and the compatibility is a little off. Ms. Greenwood said the board is generally in favor of staff’s recommendation. I didn’t get a clear direction from the board on moving the house to the east. I would say the building should not be moved over. Mr. Moyer agreed. Ms. Greenwood said she is a little concerned that you made a statement that you worked a lot with staff. It feels like this project has a long way to go for approval. There are new guidelines. The addition does not meet the guidelines. It has a low pitched roof. It is a complete departure from the vernacular of a historic resource in the City of Aspen. I think we all agree it is not compatible. Regarding the setbacks, I think turning the building is a good solution that allows an addition to be put on this building. To me it is a very busy site. I’m having a problem with the entire project. The addition needs to be restudied. I find in favor of the setbacks in the back and for the garage but not moving the building to the east. Mr. Blaich moved to continue 333W Bleeker Street to March 13, 2019 with staff recommendation; seconded by Mr. Moyer. All in favor, motion carried. Wireless 5G Update and Check In Jessica Garrow, community development, introduced the team working on the wireless code amendments including Paul Schultz with the Information Technology department and Andrea Bryan, assistant city attorney. Mr. Schultz said wireless technology is changing and driving smaller and more installations in communities. This is happening everywhere and Aspen is getting ahead of this to ensure we have the best wireless technology for our community while minimizing the visual and construction impacts of that technology. He showed images of unsightly small cell installations. Work is often performed by the lowest out of state contractors. He showed examples of building mounted and light/flag pole mounted equipment. For very small applications they can even be located underground on man hole covers. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 13, 2019 6 Ms. Bryan said what is driving the code changes is a result of changes in both state and federal law. The new Colorado law creates a use by right for small cell facilities in any zone district. It shortens the time frame in which the city has to act on applications to generally 90 days. It also gives providers the right to locate on city light poles, traffic signals and other infrastructure in our right of way. Federal law also recently changed. The FCC approved rules imposing new deadlines for processing applications to 90 days for new stand alone facilities but 60 days for ones collocated on city infrastructure. It also limits the fees we can charge. It also limits our allowable aesthetic requirements. They have to be reasonable, no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure and must be published in advanced. We have until April 11th to have some design guidelines finalized. Ms. Garrow said knowing that we have to allow this new type of infrastructure how do we manage this that it meets our small town character and doesn’t conflict with our pretty strict rules we have related to design. From a historic preservation perspective, we like to have things be what they are and new look different from old. When we had this conversation with P&Z, they thought fake chimneys are weird and we should use some of our regulations related to other mechanical equipment, requiring setbacks and screening. Treat these types of facilities the same as we would anything else. Mr. Halferty asked how is it done now. Mr. Schultz replied today uses different frequency. There is some equipment on the top of the St. Regis. There is a fake tree near the water plant. Mr. Halferty said like P&Z fake things wouldn’t be appropriate. Mr. Moyer said this technology is changing will the equipment ultimately become smaller. Mr. Schultz replied yes. Mr. Moyer asked if the folks in Washington have looked at this from a historic resource perspective. Ms. Garrow replied no. We are really responding to federal rules and making sure they are treated like any other type of infrastructure. Ms. Greenwood said you said the city can’t regulate where they go. Ms. Bryan replied they can be put in any zone district. If someone were to come in and located one on a publicly owned historic building it can be subject to certain review criteria and heightened review. We would still have to act within the timeframe. In some circumstances you can say no as long as our design guidelines are objective and reasonable and as long as we are not materially inhibiting them from providing their wireless service. Ms. Greenwood said it is really a concealment issue. Ms. Garrow said one of the things we are interested in getting feedback on is the light pole issue. There is a manufacturer in Colorado Springs that can design any pole you want. Is this something you are comfortable with. Mr. Moyer said it is very difficult to attach anything to public historic buildings no matter what it is. Mr. Halferty asked if we have identified how many locations could be affected. Mr. Schultz said currently we have around half a dozen sites. We have been approached by two of the large carriers and they have shown maps with 12 to 15 around town. It is hard to predict. The trend is smaller and more of them. Mr. Lai said they should be expressive of what they are but tasteful and honest of what they are. Ms. Greenwood said disguising is not the way to go. Ms. Garrow asked about having a level of review where you may have to say yes. P&Z said they would rather it be an administrative process unless it is incredibly offensive they don’t want to see it. Ms. Greenwood said it could be handled administratively but one of the issues that come up with historic buildings is there is not enough information given to us for most of the mechanical systems you see on a building. Staff is starting to zero in on that. Mr. Halferty suggested a monitor process for review. At 6:35 p.m. Mr. Moyer moved to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Halferty. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk