Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20230426 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Jeffery Halferty and Kara Thompson. Commissioners not in attendance: Ms. Pitchford Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director PJ Murray, Civil Engineer I Sarah Roy, Red Brick Council of the Arts Director Ben Anderson, Deputy Director of Community Development Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs commented on his repeated requests for HPC to hold hybrid meetings. He noted that there were many other people who would appreciate the ability to attend virtually or in person. He mentioned that he had appeared in front of City Council with this request and will continue to do so. He said that the City Council holds fully hybrid meetings and has complete transparency. Ms. Marsha Dowler supported Mr. Scruggs comments and request for hybrid meetings. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson said she didn’t believe there was a member of HPC that didn’t support having hybrid meetings. Mr. Moyer agreed with Mr. Scruggs and thought in the modern age holding hybrid meetings should be possible. Mr. Halferty echoed some of the concerns regarding holding hybrid meetings, but acknowledged it was a staffing issue. He saw why it could be frustrating, as City Council holds hybrids meetings, but he recognized that it was the board’s current protocol, and he stands by staff’s direction on it. He also noted that it was nice to see some construction happening on the Main St. Bakery site. Mr. Fornell addressed the public comments and hoped that they hesitate to use the word transparency when speaking to City Council and staff as he did not believe that this Board is trying to do anything that is less than transparent. He thought it was more of a topic of public comment availability rather than transparency. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon if they needed to reassign any of Ms. Sanzone’s project, as she had resigned from the Commission. Ms. Simon said she would need to reassign REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 a few projects that Ms. Sanzone was the sole monitor on but would be reaching out to Commissioners soon. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon stated that she had approved two certificates of no negative effect. One for 530 W. Hallam where a lightwell was requested on the interior of the property. The other was for 332 W. Main to add a new ADA ramp onto the porch. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Johnson wanted to commend Ms. Simon as today marks her 30th year with the City of Aspen. There was a big round of applause. Ms. Simon reiterated that Ms. Sanzone had resigned her seat on HPC due to too many commitments. She then noted that on May 5th there will be a site visit to 835 W. Main St. as it is being considered for the National Registry of Historic Places. She also wanted to make sure HPC was aware that staff is getting close to issuing permits for a number of projects along Cooper Avenue from the Restoration Hardware building, to the other end of the block. The entire length of the block besides Aspen Sports is about to go under renovation. Since there is limited access to the sites, construction fencing will be installed on the length of the north side of the mall to allow construction vehicles access. Summary of City Council approval for Temporary Art downtown: Ms. Roy started by introducing herself and Ms. Murray and described the project itself. It is a public art project set to be installed in June and is a partnership with the Aspen Ideas Festival. It will be a pavement art mural. Similar projects have been shown to improve pedestrian safety and can enhance the neighborhood. It will also be a community-based project, with members of the public invited to help create the mural. She then went over the details of the installation at Mill and Hyman. Mr. Halferty asked about the project’s duration. Ms. Roy said the expectation is for it to last into the winter, but it is based on traffic and snowplow activity. Ms. Murray stated that the proposed paint is low toxicity and lead free. Ms. Surfas said she thought it was a great idea and was excited to see it. Mr. Fornell said he didn’t buy into it and while they say it will add to pedestrian safety, they are creating something for a driver of a vehicle to look at instead of traffic and for pedestrians to stop in the middle of the road and get their picture taken. He thought this would actually be a traffic generator. He then asked how long the impact to parking spaces and pedestrian access would be during the installation. Ms. Roy said it should be about 4-5 hours on Saturday, June 24th and then from about 8am to 6pm on Sunday, June 25th. 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 agenda item. NEW BUSINESS: 205 W. Main Street- Minor Development and Relocation, PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Johnson went over the history regarding this project. She noted that an application came before HPC for this property several months ago. That particular application has been withdrawn. She wanted REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 to advise the members that now there is a new application and their decisions should be based on the information presented in the new application and public comment related to the new application. She cautioned against using information that may have been gained in a prior application to make decisions regarding the new application. She noted that the new application was submitted under a new provision in the Land Use Code and the applicant is entitled to request a review under those procedures. Applicant Presentation: Stan Clauson, Clauson Rawley Associates Mr. Clauson began by going over some of the background of the project including the original location of the building and the relocation to its current location in 1949. He noted that it sits on an approximately 7,500 square foot a lot which is effectively 2.5 townsite lots. It was purchased in 2021 in order to pursue an affordable housing project. He also noted that one of City Council’s goals is affordable housing. Next, he went over the details of the relocation of the historic asset on the lot and noted that no variances are required, and it is fully in compliance with setback requirements. He then showed site plans showing the current location and then the proposed relocation to the NE corner of the property. The relocation will reduce the asset’s footprint to one historic townsite lot. He detailed the removal of non-historic additions and sheds on the property and noted that no additional floor area is part of this request. He stated that all Historic Preservation Guidelines are met, and all Zoning setback requirements are met. He went over the floor plan detailing the non-historic additions that are planned to be removed. He showed a few pictures of the non-historic shed and trash enclosure that will also be removed. Next, he went over in detail the conditions included in the resolution and the applicant’s responses to each of the conditions. In this he detailed dividing the proposed lightwell on the Northwest corner of the historic resource and he described the landscape plan. He finished by stating they believe that they have met all the conditions of approval and that this would be a benefit to the City and the community by supporting an eventual affordable housing application and by the restoration of a historic Victorian in a highly visible location. Ms. Thompson asked about the location of the proposed fence and if the intent was for it to be on the property line, to which Mr. Clauson said yes, it would be on the property line. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon - Planning Director Ms. Simon started by reviewing the process that is in front of HPC. She went over the new section of Growth Management Code that facilitated this review. For this project to come before HPC staff had to make sure that the historic resource would be fully detached from any new construction, that all non- historic additions on the resource would be removed and no new additions would be added to the resource. The historic structure would also need a 10-foot buffer around it. She said it was important to note that under the new Land Use Code HPC, in their review of the relocation, may not deny the relocation, but shall determine the location of the historic resource that best meets the City’s Historic Preservation Design Guidelines while accommodating the allowed development rights of the property. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 She then went over the two review steps in the process. This hearing is the first step, and the second step is an administrative review of another application that would go over transportation mitigation, affordable housing credits, zoning requirements with no variance requests, and a limited design review conducted by herself and Ms. Thompson. She noted one of the successes of this project and why it was created is that it places the historic resource as a free-standing building, prominently located at the corner of the site. The are few examples in town where the preservation of a historic resource with no future additions has been secured. Next, she went over the details of each condition included in the resolution. She said that staff supports the project and find that the scope of work meets the guidelines and criteria in front of HPC. Ms. Thompson asked why a full preservation plan was not required or included. Ms. Simon mentioned it is usually something that HPC requires, and it could be added to the resolution. Mr. Halferty asked about the guidelines related to the relocation that staff is looking at in their recommendation. Ms. Simon detailed the criteria needed to be met, highlighting Criteria #4 and went over staff’s reasoning. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. David Scruggs asked if the basement was proposed to be expanded. Ms. Simon said that the existing basement will be fully demolished and new basement, limited to the footprint of the historic resource is proposed. Mr. Clauson said that the new basement would be structurally necessary to be under the entire footprint but was not sure if that would be an expansion. Mr. Scruggs said he asked the question because the new procedure does not allow any additions to be added. He claimed that the new basement would expand the square footage and thus be an addition. Next, he provided each of the HPC members a few handouts (added to packet as Exhibit C) that provide an overview of his comments. He then spoke to the idea of balance. Balance between the preservation of a historic resource and affordable housing. He said that he thought the reason for the relocation of the historic resource was to build nine affordable housing units, consisting of 22 bedrooms and 7 parking spaces. He said he wanted any affordable housing to be livable and to respect the historic resource. He did not think this project accomplishes those things. He asked that the proposed movement of the historic resource to 10 feet from the property line be adjusted to 17 feet from the property line. He also commented on other historic resources surrounding this project and their relative setback distances. He expressed his concerns about the drainage on the site. Ms. Marsha Dowler asked for the slide showing the site plan of the current location and proposed relocation of the historic resource be displayed again. She then went on to comment that the historic is being shoehorned with the relocation. She asked that this project be focused on protecting the historic resource and the proposed relocation of the resource contradicts this. She also noted the traditional setbacks that exist on neighboring historic properties. Mr. Clauson responded to the public comments by addressing the proposed location and clarified distances from the sidewalks and setbacks. He said that bringing the resource forward to the front setback is in line with the concept of build to lines. He invited Mr. Brian Beasley from DJ architects to address the comments regarding the proposed new basement. Mr. Beasley noted that the removal of the non-historic additions would be about a wash with any additional square footage of the new basement. Mr. Clauson said the clear intent was that there would not be a visible addition that affected the historic resource. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 Mr. Fornell asked if there was additional City right of way space between the edge of the sidewalk and the lot line. Mr. Clauson said yes. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon if in their review of the foundation that any below grade work must conform with the code whether it expands the basement or not. Ms. Simon said there is a section of the design guidelines that addresses additions, and it is very directed to above grade construction. Ms. Johnson further clarified the design guideline regarding additions and noted the language talks about additions and not additional square footage. Mr. Fornell asked that if any additions, above or below grade are proposed in the future that are conforming to setbacks that HPC would not see it. Ms. Simon stated that there will not be an opportunity to make an addition to this structure in the future which is what facilitated this process. Mr. Halferty asked about the additional floor area created in the basement and if it complies with the new code changes in this application. Ms. Simon again stated that in the design guidelines it was never the intent to consider a basement as an addition in this process. She further explained that if there was some way to add loft space inside the existing structure it would not be considered an addition, even though it is adding floor area. Ms. Thompson invited Mr. Scruggs to provide additional comments. Mr. Scruggs read the section of the new code related to this process, noting that all non-historic additions must be removed, and that no new addition will be made to the historic resource. He again claimed that the additional basement space is an addition. Mr. Clauson responded saying that the foundation being proposed is not the historic resource. The historic resource is what is visible above grade, and the resource is what HPC is charged with protecting. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson started the board discussion by reviewing the items before the Board. She went on to provide her thoughts. She wanted the requirement of a full preservation plan be added to the resolution and she thought the front lightwell should not be on the same plane as the front wall of the resource. She also thought that more information regarding floor area and the basement will need to be addressed during the staff review to verify conformance with the Land Use Code. She believed that this does meet their criteria for relocation because this is not the original location of the resource, and she is ok with the relocation. She then clarified her thoughts regarding the lightwell location. Mr. Fornell noted that he was ok with the relocation and Ms. Thompson’s request that a full preservation plan be included in the resolution. Ms. Surfas commented that while the resource was moved to this lot and is not in its historic location, it has been in the current location for approximately 70 years. She was not in support of the relocation. She was ok with it moving, but thought it was going too far in both directions. She did think they should have a full preservation plan. Mr. Halferty said he was fully in favor of affordable housing. He said he understood the new code provisions and that HPC needs to comply with what is in front of them. He understood the applicants’ and neighbors’ concerns and hoped that there was a happy medium to be reached. He referenced the relocation guidelines and agreed with Ms. Surfas that they can approve the movement, but it depends REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 on how far. He agreed that a preservation plan should be required and with Ms. Thompson’s thoughts on the lightwell location. He also said that adding housing will always have an effect on open space and transportation and parking and that there is some room for give and take on this. He also agreed with Ms. Surfas again and thought there could be a compromise on the relocation. Mr. Moyer started by reviewing some of the history of other projects, some that included the addition of affordable housing. In this he described the Paepcke estate and 834 W. Hallam. He admitted that he voted in favor of the affordable housing project at 834 W. Hallam but thought that once complete HPC totally blew it with the Poppies project at that address. He went on to explain more of his thoughts on that project and the loss, in his mind, of the historic resource there. He noted the dilemma between historic preservation and affordable housing. He thought that the applicant and the City staff have deceived and been disrespectful to this board. He was disappointed that a two-person administrative review can take place here and said that he was very disappointed in the City government and staff. He thought they might as well dissolve the HPC. He said they should vote no on this and throw it in Council’s face. He wanted to know if employee housing is going to take precedence over historic preservation. Ms. Thompson responded to Mr. Moyer’s comments saying that she had participated in almost every meeting related to this code adjustment and was the only HPC member present. City Council’s direction to staff was to remove HPC’s purview on most of these items. Mr. Anderson asked Chairperson Thompson to address some commissioner comments. He said he respected the commissioner’s position on this but reminded them that they had a very robust and open conversation with HPC about this exact process and why they were doing it. He said they would not have gone to City Council without a recommendation from HPC about the process. He wanted to put on the record that they had received support from HPC on this. Mr. Moyer wanted to note that in those meetings he had commented that conceptually he liked the idea and was mainly thinking of a situation regarding a historic piece of land and not a historic piece of land with a historic house on it. He stated that Council needs to look at this as it is a very distressing situation. Mr. Fornell said he had paid very close attention to all the discussions preceding the new code adoption. He reminded the members that they have, in the past, approved the relocation of a historic resource from its original location to the setback lines in order to facilitate affordable housing, setting a precedent here. He thought the applicant has an appropriate relocation plan that gives the historic resource prominence next to the street but not in the setbacks and urged the board to approve the relocation as proposed. Ms. Thompson said she heard Mr. Moyer’s comments, but they cannot relitigate the code with this application. She did think there was an opportunity to discuss it further with Council. She wanted to confirm that Ms. Surfas and Mr. Halferty did not support the proposed relocation and wanted to understand what they would be in support of. Mr. Halferty said he hadn’t seen the streetscape or contextual information and just thought it was pushed as a chess move to plan for the next move. Mr. Moyer concurred with Mr. Halferty. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 Ms. Thompson said, knowing that three members agree that the relocation is too far forward, she wanted to be able to provide the applicant with some specific information on what they would like to see to move forward. MOTION: Mr. Fornell moved to approve the resolution with the addition of the preservation plan to the existing conditions. Ms. Thompson seconded with the addition of the movement of the lightwell. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, no; Mr. Halferty, no; Ms. Thompson, yes. 2-3 vote, motion does not pass. Ms. Johnson reminded the members that HPC cannot deny relocation but can determine an appropriate setting for the historic structure that best meets the historic preservation guidelines. Ms. Thompson said she had heard and could support Mr. Halferty’s request to see more context. There was further discussion about the request of the applicant to restudy the siting of the relocation and present it in relation to the context of Main St. Mr. Halferty agreed with the request for a restudy and said the siting needs to be consistent with the Main St. district, not just this historic lot. Ms. Surfas agreed with Mr. Halferty regarding the context of the district. Ms. Johnson asked if the board was suggesting a motion for continuance. Mr. Clauson said he was not clear what the point of a continuance was. He asked if the board was planning on deliberating on the question of what they would accept. Ms. Johnson said she understood that the board was requesting more information to better understand what the context is and maybe some reconsideration based upon the comments that have been heard. Ms. Thompson tried to clarify what she had heard from some of the members. She said they are looking for contextual studies of the neighborhood and the Main St. historic district showing the relationships to surrounding structures. She thought it was an appropriate ask for more context to be provided to help make their decisions. Mr. Clauson said they could provide more context. He also wanted to point out that zoning provides for a 10-foot setback and any non-historic building on Main St. could be built at this 10-foot setback. He said that if this historic resource were to be pushed back further for some reason it could find itself setback further than the surrounding buildings and receding in prominence and character. Mr. Fornell stated that the farther they push the resource back the less prominence it has. Mr. Halferty motioned to continue this item to May 24th at 4:30pm to provide more contextual language as far as the Main St. historic district that helps the board understand the relocation and addressing Ms. Thompson’s concerns regarding the placement of the lightwell. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, no; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-2 vote, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk