Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20220511 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 11TH, 2022 Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Sheri Sanzone and Barb Pitchford. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant II MINUTES: Ms. Thompson motioned to approval the minutes from 4/13/22 with the grammatical revision on page 7 made. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, abstained; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, with one member abstaining, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty thanked everyone for the work session two weeks ago and for the many great concepts that were brought up. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Yoon said there was one item to bring before the HPC board for project monitoring. 930 King St. which was approved by the board through a minor development hearing is being brought forward because of a slight massing change from what was approved. The project monitors for this project reviewed the application and agreed that it was acceptable, but because it a slight floor area and massing change, staff thought it was important for the board to see it in its entirety. She introduced Wheeler Clancy who is representing the applicant. Mr. Clancy showed some images of the project and described the proposed changes. The initial Floor Area Ratio calculations were around 75 square feet and during the permitting process it was determined that they were entitled to about 85 square feet. He then described the slight changes to the west side expansion, increasing the area by 10 square feet, showing images of the original and proposed layouts. Ms. Yoon mentioned that this does not constitute a new approval or resolution, it is just a modification of the original approval. Ms. Thompson said that her and Mr. Fornell are the project monitors on this project and that they reviewed the proposed changes and said that from the rendering that the massing changes are insignificant. Both Ms. Thompson and Mr. Fornell were satisfied with the changes after having their questions answered. Ms. Johnson then went over the board’s options, which were to, after review, accept the changes or to bring it back to a public hearing. Mr. Halferty, Mr. Moyer, Ms. Surfas, Ms. Pitchford and Ms. Sanzone were all ok with the changes. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Feinberg Lopez mentioned that her and staff have set up the schedule so that the second meeting of each month will be in person and that it will include a work session. She REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 11TH, 2022 requested that potential work session topics be emailed to her. She then mentioned that May is Preservation month and that a progressive bike tour is scheduled for the 31st of May. She then went over the details of the tour. Ms. Yoon mentioned that she would be leaving the meeting a bit early. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Feinberg Lopez went over a number of these including: • 706 W. Main – basement addition that is within the setbacks. • 400 E. Cooper – change in doors and siding. • 520 E. Hyman – addition of a side and alleyway door. • 305 & 307 S. Mill – interior changes. • Temporary structure at Aspen Tap. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice and that notice was provided per the code for the agenda item. OLD BUSINESS: 949 W. Smuggler – AspenModern Historic Designation and Benefits, Conceptual and Final Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, TDR, Subdivision, Growth Management – PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM APRIL 27th SITE VISIT Applicant Presentation: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning LLC & Derek Skalko, 1 Friday Design Collaborative Mr. Haas provided a summary of the project, including some of the history of the property, the previous lot split and showed the existing conditions. He described the historic chalet, surrounding fence, a “chicken coop” structure and an outbuilding that is proposed to be demolished. He noted that most of the surrounding fence can go away because it lies within the property line or is in the alley. He then showed a few historic pictures of the chalet from the 1940s. He showed a comparison of the existing and the proposed site plans, highlighting the new proposed lot line separating the historic “Chalet” lot (10,000 square feet) and the new vacant lot (8,000 square feet), the new detached structure to be built behind the historic chalet, and the repositioning of the “chicken coop”. He then went on to describe the proposed front setbacks of the vacant lot. He mentioned that to the best of his memory, the HPC members present at the last meeting did not have any real issues or concerns with what is proposed on the “Chalet” lot. He said that the vacant lot was the main focus at the last meeting, including concerns about potential massing issues because of the reduced building envelope and the proposal of the vacant lot not being landmarked and not subject to HPC review. He also went over a few other topics of discussion from the last meeting. He reminded the members that the applicant was proposing that the vacant lot be limited to the allowable floor area for a 6,000 square foot lot, reducing the floor area by 280 square feet compared to an 8,000 square foot lot. In exchange for this the applicant is asking for a 250 square foot Transferable Development Right (TDR). Mr. Haas said that since the last meeting he had been working with Ms. Simon and that they are fully ok with the resolution as written, which he said seems to address most if not all the concerns raised. He REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 11TH, 2022 then went over in some detail the staff conditions included in the Resolution, noting that he hoped that these would all be written as recommendations to City Council from HPC because this is ultimately a negotiated process. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon, Planning Director Ms. Simon started by focusing on the Resolution and reviewing each condition in detail with the HPC members. She then opened her presentation to questions. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon to review and confirm the math in condition #9 regarding the allowable floor area on the vacant lot be set at 3,240 square feet. Ms. Simon confirmed this and noted that the recommendation also states that only a single-family home is allowed unless the condition is amended by City Council. There was then some discussion on the details and intentions of condition #11. Mr. Fornell asked for clarity on why in this case HPC is a “recommending” body and not the deciding body. Ms. Simon described how the AspenModern is a very different program, being a negotiated process and that the final decision is in City Council’s court. There are also many processes that are part of this proposal that are never in HPC’s purview. There was some discussion around the reason and importance of preserving this historic property and since this is currently not designated a historic property what could happen to the property if this AspenModern designation does not go through. Ms. Surfas asked about what HPC would have say over if the vacant lot is designated historic. Ms. Simon explained that it would be the same as any other historically designated property that was under HPC review. Mr. Moyer asked if the City purchased the vacant lot, what could they or could they not out on the lot. Ms. Thompson said that her understanding was that whatever was proposed would come before HPC for review. Ms. Sanzone did not understand where the potential for a multiple unit project could show up on the lot and if it was a possibility of the major subdivision process. Ms. Simon said a lot would have to happen to allow anything more than a duplex on the lot, but it was up to City Council. Ms. Sanzone asked a few questions about grading, drainage and utilities plans in regard to their impact on existing trees. Mr. Haas said that they had been on the property with the Parks department and most of the trees that could be impacted do not require mitigation and are either in bad health, a hazard or too small to be City regulated. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Halferty complimented the project and its importance to Aspen history. He emphasized the importance of the HPC’s recommendation to City Council. He brought up some concerns over the proposed “right of first refusal” for the vacant lot, but said if the City’s legal team was ok with it he was as well from a consistency stand point. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 11TH, 2022 Ms. Thompson thought that the applicant had addressed every concern since the first meeting, and she fully supports this resolution. Mr. Fornell agreed that this is a good project. He strongly objected to condition #12 in the Resolution regarding the 30-day option for the City. He did not think what was proposed was legal, ethical, or proper. He went on to explain his thoughts. Ms. Thompson asked if Mr. Fornell would be comfortable deferring that to City Council. Mr. Fornell said no and would like to see condition #12 removed. Ms. Thompson said that she would like to defer this to City Council. Ms. Johnson went over some of the legal aspects of the topic and mentioned that if the rest of the board is in agreement, then you can move to strike it or state that HPC takes no position and refer it to Council. Ms. Thompson stressed the importance of HPC’s unanimous support of this to Council and if removing condition #12 means that Mr. Fornell will support it, she would be ok with that. Ms. Sanzone agreed that it should be removed. Ms. Pitchford agreed as well. Mr. Moyer did not care whether it was included or not but agreed that HPC needs to be all in agreement on their recommendations to avoid making things more complicated for Council to allow this to happen. Ms. Sanzone thought that the original lot split was a huge incentive to the applicant and was really struggling with the creation of the additional lot and how it will affect the context of the lot including the existing sage brush. She did not agree with staff’s comments that this application is meeting the criteria for a major subdivision. Mr. Haas expressed his concerns with saddling the vacant lot with too many restrictions, which could lead to the whole thing falling apart by losing the value that makes this all possible. Ms. Thompson wanted to make sure the project is viable for the applicant and Mr. Fornell did not want HPC to do something that makes the applicant walk away for their effort. HPC members then worked with Ms. Simon to make suggested edits to the language of the Resolutions and the conditions therein. These included better emphasizing HPC’s recommendation of approval and clarifying the difference between the two lots, as well as other clarifying details. Condition #12 was also removed as part of the edits to conditions. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the Resolution with the edits made. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, no; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-1, motion passes. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Sanzone why she objected. Ms. Johnson mentioned that a member does not need to disclose why they voted the way they voted but can if they choose. Ms. Sanzone did not prefer to answer now. Mr. Fornell wondered if there was a threshold by which that vote may change for the benefit of moving to City Council. Ms. Sanzone wondered if she could change her vote to abstained. Ms. Johnson said someone could call for a reconsideration and another vote. Mr. Moyer called for reconsideration. Ms. Thompson seconded. Ms. Sanzone explained that it was hard for her to vote yes on this, and it is inappropriate because she didn’t attend the first meeting or the site visit. She fundamentally had a problem with the subdivision, in REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 11TH, 2022 the fact that this lot is getting divided up further. She said we lost the context on the west side with the original lot split a few years ago, and now were losing the rest of it. She had hoped her vote wouldn’t count as the alternate member so that she could say that and feel good about her values and what she feels is important. Ms. Johnson said that if Ms. Sanzone felt that she did not have sufficient information to vote on this, she could always abstain. She said that someone would have to make another motion to approve the Resolution as amended, because things had somewhat reset. Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the Resolution as amended. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, abstain; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, with one abstention. Motion passes. NEW BUSINESS: HPC AWARDS 2022 Ms. Feinberg Lopez started by introducing the Awards program and the candidates, which included 834 W. Hallam, 128 E. Main, 232 E. Main and the Marble Garden, briefly describing each one. She then went over the different available awards that can be bestowed on projects and each’s point scoring criteria. Ms. Thompson mentioned she had to abstain from any voting on 834 W. Hallam, but the only project she would want to award is the Marble Garden for its conservation efforts. Mr. Halferty agreed on the Marble Garden for its conservation. Ms. Sanzone and Ms. Pitchford both agreed as well. Mr. Fornell said the only project he would support for an award was the Marble Garden and stated his reasons for not choosing any of the other projects. Ms. Thompson mentioned that last year the board gave the Elizabeth Paepcke Award to Ann Mullins and was wondering if the board may give that award this year to Ms. Simon. The rest of board members agreed and thought it was a fantastic idea. The board also agreed to keep it a secret from Ms. Simon until the Awards were given out at the Council meeting. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that she thought this award was a great idea and stated that Ms. Simon had been with the City for 27 years and hadn’t really received anything for her preservation efforts. Ms. Johnson said she would have to double check the legality of a City employee receiving this award, but would let the board know. There was consensus that the marble Garden would be awarded the Restoration / Rehabilitation award and Ms. Simon would be awarded the Elizabeth Paepcke Award. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn. Mr. Fornell seconded. All in favor; motion passed. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk