Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20230614 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14TH, 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, Barb Pitchford, Jeffery Halferty and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the minutes from 5/10/23 and 5/24/23 with a revision to the 5/24/23 set. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0; motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs reiterated his request for HPC to hold hybrid meetings. He said he had met with four Council members, and they all supported hybrid meetings for HPC. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Pitchford again asked that models be provided on projects to better understand the context and mass and scale. Mr. Moyer agreed. He then commented about the No Problem Joe site. There was some discussion about this, and staff said it would be coming before the board in the future. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon mentioned she needed to reach out to Mr. Halferty about 134 E. Bleeker. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon noted that they had hired another Historic Planner to take Ms. Yoon’s position. She also mentioned that there were two new HPC members appointed by City Council recently. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. 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: 205 W. Main Street- Minor Development and Relocation, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM APRIL 26, 2023 Applicant Presentation: Mitch Haas – Haas Land Planning Ms. Thompson noted for the record that Ms. Pitchford had read the minutes and listened to the recording of the last meeting. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14TH, 2023 Mr. Haas started with an overview of the project and its history and relocation to the current site. He then reviewed the Relocation Standards for a historic property and 100% affordable housing projects. He stated that the best way to accommodate the standards regarding the historic resource it as far away from the new construction, namely to the setback lines. Next, he showed a site plan that highlighted the proposed relocation of the historic resource and remaining area for the rest of the property. He also went over the total allowable floor area by right for the site and noted the mixed-use minimum setbacks and the proposed location of the historic resource in relation to them. He then explained the difference between the building and perceived setbacks related to the building itself and the porch. He then showed the results of their Main Street Setback Study. He noted that the average front yard setback from the curb line in the Main Street historic district is 24’ 9”. He said their plan would have the porch of the historic resource 23’ 10’ inches from the curb and the building at 29’ 6”. He shared some setback details of neighboring structures and district. He said that they believe the context study supports the proposed relocation. He also showed a few context photos of the site and highlighted where in the photos the relocated structure would sit. He then detailed the proposed restoration actions the applicant plans to take. Next, he showed pictures of the current non-historic additions that are planned to be removed in the restoration of the historic structure. He detailed the landscape plan and noted that it was simplified to avoid blocking the view of the historic asset. He then noted some additional commitments, including enhancing the recognition of the historic asset so that it will be easily differentiated from the new construction by using different color palettes and maintaining the required 10-foot separation on all sides. He then addressed their preliminary stormwater management plans. He also responded to prior comments that this project includes an addition to the historic structure. He said that no matter how your look at it there is no addition to the historic structure and there is actually a reduction in the net livable area. He also described the proposed lightwells. He recapped a few things including the Council goal of affordable housing, the preservation of the historic resource and that the relocation fits within the district and delivers the resource to more prominence than it’s ever had. He also noted that they are not asking for any variances. Mr. Fornell asked about the floor area ratio of 1.25:1 and said he thought it was 1:1 and increasable to 1.25:1. Mr. Haas said that it is 1.25:1 for 100% affordable housing projects under the new code. Ms. Pitchford asked for clarification about the potential placement of the potential new development structure and said it has an impact on the siting of the historic resource. Mr. Haas said that they can’t answer that yet as they do not have a definitive site plan for the new structure. He said the closet it could be would be 10 feet from the front property line. Mr. Halferty asked if there were any elevations or pictures of the context of the district. Mr. Haas showed a previous picture of the context. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14TH, 2023 Mr. Moyer said he believed they did not have the information to make a decision on where the historic resource should sit on the property. They know the new structure will sit behind the porch of the historic, but the new structure will be twice as tall. Mr. Haas noted that since variances cannot be granted, the max height of the new structure would be 28 feet. Mr. Moyer asked about the height of the historic resource. Mr. Hass did not have the number in front of him, but said they are not changing it. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon - Planning Director Ms. Simon began by going over some details of the minor development and relocation standards that were in front of the board. She noted that there are four criteria for relocation review and that HPC needs to find that one of them are met to allow relocation. She went over details of the criteria that staff finds is most applicable and has been met. It talks about what is proposed is an acceptable preservation method and if it has any adverse effect on the surrounding properties or district. She went over some of the findings in the staff memo to support that criteria. She also said that currently only about 22 of the 223 landmarked residential structures in town have been preserved in a way that staff is confident that they will not be expanded in the future. She showed pictures of a few examples and expressed the importance of this. She said that staff recommends approval with conditions. She then went over each of the conditions. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Simon noted that there were three public comment emails that staff had received (Exhibit E). Ms. Thompson asked for confirmation from all members that they had received the comments. All members confirmed that they had received and read the emails. Mr. David Scruggs handed out an overview of his comments (Exhibit F) to the HPC members. He then reviewed his comments and reasons why he and neighbors oppose this proposal. Juliet Shield-Taylor said she was concerned about the potential size of the new structure in relationship to the historic resource and setbacks. She agreed that not knowing what the new structure would look like, it would be hard to determine where the resource should be located. Ms. Simon responded to the public comments by showing a conceptual site plan that was included in the agenda packet that showed a draft of what might be proposed on the site. Mr. Haas responded to the public comments, noting that there was a conceptual site plan included in the packet, but cautioned the members from relying on it as it has not gone through the administrative review and may have to be changed. He stressed that the more the resource gets pulled into the property the more the applicant has to squeeze their allowable development rights into a smaller area. He noted that the code is clear that the remaining development rights need to be accommodated. He also stated that they are not cramming the resource into the corner yet are placing it at the zone setbacks, complying with the code. He also restated that there was not an addition to the resource planned, but rather the non-historic additions were being removed, thus shrinking it above grade. The additional square footage is beneath the resource. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson noted that this is a completely new process for them. She thought it unfortunate that City Council had taken away HPC’s purview to review the mass and scale of additions. She told the board that she planned to address this at a future meeting when it would be appropriate to discuss code. She REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14TH, 2023 reminded the board that this application was legally submitted under the current Land Use Code, and it is their obligation to review this under the code in front of them and that it would be unfair to the applicant to do anything else. Their purview is the minor development review and relocation. Mr. Halferty thanked the applicant for providing the context that was requested at the last meeting. He then said he thought that this does comply with the guidelines. He said he had some concerns at the first few meetings not knowing what was to come, but it was not in his purview to guess what the applicant is proposing to do. He agreed with Ms. Thompson that the process is something to be discussed further with staff. He again said that from what he had seen this complies with the two-step process. He also appreciated the restoration of the historic resource and the prominent siting of it. He said that he would support this based on the guidelines in front of him and not what is suggested in the future. Ms. Surfas also thanked the applicant for providing the diagrams, and while she realizes that they are validly considering the porch as non-livable space, she noted that she had walked the area and said that she believed that the porch should be pulled back in line with the other porches on the block. She said the diagram presented showed her this and that to be in context to the other Victorian homes, it needs to be pulled back to align with them. She said she could agree with pulling it forward, but not as much. Ms. Thompson said in her opinion, she would argue that the Main St. district extends further than the block and compared to the other side of the street and the rest of the district this is in context but said that Ms. Surfas was intitled to her opinion. Mr. Fornell said that for the members who are concerned about the visibility of the historic asset, both today and in the future, he suggested that they consider allowing the porch to sit inside the front setback and setting the home on the 10-foot setback line, thus increasing the amount of rear yard, and increasing the likelihood of the new development occurring behind the asset and not beside. He asked if they would be able to grant a variance for this. Ms. Johnson reminded the board that in this type of review, they cannot grant any variances. She read the code section regarding variances in this review process. Ms. Simon said that the language does say they could let the historic resource to move forward but it must be done through a variation process that the applicant has not requested, nor have they noticed for. Mr. Fornell said that he is satisfied with their application as it is but thought it might be an idea for the prominence of the property if it was ok with the other members of the board. Ms. Thompson said she agreed with Mr. Halferty and Mr. Fornell that this meets their design guidelines and would disagree with Ms. Surfas in that from the context diagram it does meet the development pattern of the area. While she has some comments on the stormwater and HVAC systems, she thought they met the qualification for relocation because this structure was not originally on this site. She thought it important to understand that if this was two separate lots like in many other instances, there could be a new building right next to this that could be three stories, given the Land Use Code. She thought the most important thing is that they are preserving this structure independent from any addition and that the new siting of the structure makes it as visible as possible from the street. While her personal opinion would be to preserve it in its current condition, that’s not realistic and not based on the code and guideline criteria in front of them. With that she said she was in support of this. She told the rest of the board that since the code states that Ms. Simon and herself have to sign off on the addition, she would absolutely not sign off on a structure that extends past the front building line. She REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14TH, 2023 said she had also conveyed to Ms. Simon that she would not sign off on a ridgeline that is higher than the historic resource. This has always been her opinion, even in the previous review process. Mr. Moyer stated that they were really in a quagmire. He said that he agreed with Ms. Surfas about the porch and had an issue with the measurements from the curb. He thought the prior applicants were disrespectful, deceiving, and discourteous to the board. Ms. Thompson reminded him that that was the previous application. Mr. Moyer said that now they are stuck with this. He referenced Ms. Thompson’s point that they are preserving this independent from future conditions. He said he didn’t see it that way because they don’t know what the future condition will be. He did say that what Ms. Thompson said about what she would not allow was great and gave him relief. He then said he thought they should table this, because of Mr. Fornell’s idea, giving the applicant something to consider. He questioned what might happen if they don’t vote for this. He said that no matter what happened the neighbor to the rear will be faced with a monstrous wall regardless. Ms. Johnson said that while she understood Mr. Moyer’s comments, she wanted to make clear that under no circumstances can they direct an applicant to amend their application or table an item for that purpose unless they are requested to do so. Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Moyer that the whole project is a conundrum, as it is a case of preserving the historic resource versus employee housing and with the two-step process that has been taking out of their purview. She is still concerned with the preservation of the historic resource. She agreed with Ms. Surfas that it needs to be pulled back so that the porch is in line with the others in the district. She also disagreed with putting it in the NE corner, based on guideline 9.3 that states that a forward movement rather than a lateral movement is preferred. She also understood, based on what Mr. Haas said, the potential consequences of this siting on the building around it. She said based on that guideline, she would be voting no. MOTION: Mr. Fornell moved to approve the next resolution in the series as presented by staff. Ms. Thompson seconded. Ms. Thompson asked to amend condition #6 to state that no visible stormwater features, including rain gardens and grates will be permitted in front of the historic resource. Also, grading around the resource and exposure of the foundation needs to be appropriate for the resource and the stormwater system needs to be designed around that. She also asked that condition #8 to be amended to add language stating that all effort will be made to minimize all ground equipment around the resource, instead to be located on a secondary structure. Mr. Fornell amended his motion to include the edits made to conditions #6 and #8. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, no; Ms. Pitchford, no; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-3 vote, no action. Ms. Thompson wanted to make clear that Ms. Surfas wanted to see the resource moved back and Ms. Pitchford wanted it to only move forward. Mr. Moyer agreed that, like Ms. Pitchford, he would like to see a forward movement and not a lateral one. Mr. Halferty wanted to ensure, as this was new waters they were treading in, that the board was sticking to legal protocols in their decisions. Ms. Pitchford said she was basing her decision on guideline 9.3. Mr. Moyer said the same. Ms. Johnson clarified that the board, with the vote, has not denied relocation, but rather have provided direction on what they have deemed to be an appropriate siting of the resource, which is within their purview. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14TH, 2023 After clarifying Ms. Surfas’ recommendation to move the resource back the depth of the porch, Ms. Thompson asked the applicant if that was something they would be amenable to. The applicant responded that that would be a move back of approximately 5’ 7’ and did not believe that the site would continue to accommodate the full entitled affordable housing and would leave the project infeasible. Ms. Thompson then asked the applicant about the suggestion of just a forward movement. The applicant said they thought that would potentially be even more restraining. Mr. Scruggs asked to make a comment to which Ms. Thompson said that it was not appropriate at this time. She was asking the applicant a question in order to continue their discussion. Mr. Moyer said he would be interested in hearing Mr. Scruggs’ comment. Mr. Scruggs noted the other historic properties on the block and said they are all set back 15-16 feet from the property line. He said that is what the board should do. Ms. Johnson mentioned to the board that were new members that would be coming on soon and one option would be to continue the item until they have a full board of seven members, avoiding the possibility of a split vote. Ms. Pitchford asked if a 3-3 vote, like they have here, would go to City Council to which Ms. Thompson said they cannot be stuck and need to continue discussion until they are not. Mr. Moyer was not sure about brining in two new members that have not dealt with the process and on something that is so complicated. He did not think it would be fair to the new members or the current members. Ms. Thompson thought that with the meeting recorded that the new members could get up to speed. She said that at 3-3 they need to come up with another vote and the only one she saw was to continue. Ms. Johnson said that the board could continue to deliberate if they thought it would produce a different vote or they could continue the meeting. Mr. Fornell asked what options the applicant would have if the resolution failed to which Ms. Johnson said they could first appeal to City Council for review and at some point it could go up to the district court. She also reminded members that if someone were to change their vote, it would have to be based on their review of the criteria in the code, as they were on record in the first vote. Mr. Fornell said he was ready to send this to City Council as they were the ones that changed the Land Use Code. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant if they would like a short recess to discussion things amongst themselves to which they said yes. The meeting took a short recess. Mr. Fornell addressed the other members and noted that he thought they all were making a value opinion about what they want to have happen here based on a presumed new development. Ms. Surfas said she didn’t appreciate Mr. Fornell telling her how or why she is making her decision. Mr. Fornell went on to state that there is no new development in front of them and that they are using information that was gained, whether they like it or not, from a prior application and meetings. He realized it was hard to not have that in their heads, but they cannot use this information and need to look at the application in front of them now. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14TH, 2023 Ms. Thompson said that they need to trust that the other members are doing that. She also said that they have an obligation to the applicant to move this forward. Mr. Moyer stated that they do not have to say yes and that they do not have to approve everything that comes before them. He said that in the past when the board has said no, they eventually tended to get a better project out of it. He said they are not obligated to give the applicant whatever they want but are obligated to preserve the historic resource. Ms. Thompson clarified that she did not mean that they have to say yes but must be able to give the applicant feedback in order to not just repeat this meeting in two weeks. Mr. Haas said that after conferring with the rest of the applicant team, moving the historic asset straight forward with no lateral movement does not work and does not allow the realization of the development rights on the rest of the property. It could result in something the board does not want, namely something on all sides of the resource. He pointed out that the context here is the entire Main St. historic district and not just four cherry picked buildings. He asked them to consider the whole district, which was what they presented and has an average setback. He said they did not measure from property lines and did not know how Mr. Scruggs knew the setbacks of those four buildings without hiring a surveyor. They measured from the curb line so the actual distance from the buildings to the street could be known, giving the full context. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Haas how the applicant would like to proceed here. Mr. Haas responded that they would like the board to consider the context of the entire district and discuss whether that gets anyone off fixating on a small piece of the district. Ms. Thompson asked the board if anyone would change their opinion if they considered the whole district. Ms. Surfas and Ms. Thompson both said no. Mr. Haas then said that if that was the case then they would prefer to continue to have a fuller board. Ms. Johnson said that it is common to have new members appointed. They would review all the materials the rest of the board has reviewed and will participate in the public hearing where the applicant will get to present information and staff will present their report and from a legal perspective, they would have sufficient information to weigh in on the topic. Ms. Thompson motioned to continue the meeting to June 28th, 2023. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, no; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, no; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-2 vote, motion passes. NEW BUSINESS: Presentation of past preservation work - Kirsten Armstrong Staff Presentation: Kirsten Armstrong - Principal Planner Historic Preservation Ms. Armstrong presented her previous preservation work and experiences in Turkey. ADJOURN: Mr. Fornell motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk