Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20230809 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9TH, 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, Kim Raymond, and Kara Thompson. Absent was Jeffrey Halferty, Barb Pitchford and Riley Warwick. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Haley Hart, Long Range Planner Sophie Varga, Planner I Ben Anderson, Deputy Jim True, City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer mentioned the “No Problem Joe” house and said he was riding by and noticed that watering system was drenching the outside of the house. He also commented on a garage door entrance to the Police department on the alley behind the Concept 600 building that he said was only supposed to be used in an emergency. He has seen it being used constantly this summer. Ms. Surfas entered the meeting. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Thompson noted that herself and Ms. Raymond were both conflicted on the first agenda item and would be leaving the meeting when they got to it. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon went over a few monitoring items that she had been working with Ms. Thompson on. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Armstrong noted that both herself and Ms. Simon would be absent for the 9/27 meeting and because of that they would be cancelling it. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Armstrong noted that a stream margin review and certificate of no negative effect had been approved for 1008 E Hopkins. She went over the planned work at the site. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon noted a few items that would be going before City Council at their next regular meeting. Ms. Simon then brought up some issues with the order of agenda items for today’s meeting due to some members being conflicted and the applicant’s and staff’s schedules and timeframes. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9TH, 2023 SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. True said that he reviewed public notice, and that notice was provided per the code for both the agenda items. Knowing that Ms. Thompson was recusing herself for the first agenda item, the board designated Mr. Moyer as acting chair for this item. Ms. Thompson and Ms. Raymond left the meeting. Mr. Moyer expressed his thoughts about applications that come in front of HPC in which the applicant should be told by staff that they would not fly. He said some applications go completely against what HPC is working towards. He thought staff needed to be firmer with applicants to not come in with applications that are totally unacceptable. Ms. Simon said that they try to coach applicants, but they are not the decision maker, and the applicant has the right to appear in front of the Board. NEW BUSINESS: 820 E. Cooper Avenue - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Variations, TDRs - PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams started her presentation and introduced the owners of the property and the architect. She then went over their requests for this property. They are looking to lift the house in order to add a basement under the existing house and also to add a small addition including a one car garage to the rear of the historic resource. They would be asking to temporarily relocate the historic resource to dig the basement, to demolish a non-historic rear addition and they were also asking for setback variations for the historic resource and the new addition and also the establishment of two TDRs. She then let the owners introduce themselves and go over some of their background and reasoning for their requests. Ms. Adams went on to describe details of the lot, property, and the context of the neighborhood, showing a few pictures of other surrounding properties, some being similar to this project. She then moved on to describe the previous restoration efforts that have already occurred on the historic asset. She then showed the existing and proposed site plans and went over the current conditions. Next, she detailed the proposed changes to the historic resource and a few items that would be considered at final review. She also detailed the proposed lightwells and discussed staff’s request to put them all on one side of the house. She said that because of existing tree roots, they did not propose to do this. They are requesting to leave the lightwells as designed. She then highlighted the non-historic addition that they plan to remove. She then showed the proposed floor plans and pointed out the historic resource in these plans. She also pointed out the proposed new addition highlighting the set of stairs that would lead down to the basement and a set that would lead up to the second floor of the addition. She detailed some of the existing distances on the lot, including the front setback and the historic resource and noted that you get over halfway back into the lot before you have space for any new additions. She said that these conditions are the reason for the configuration of the proposed new addition and connector. She went on to go over the proposed connecting element and the reasons for why it is staggered. She noted that the proposed connector is about 17 feet on the more visible west side and about 6 feet on the less visible east side. She wanted to note, in context of the lot, how far back the new addition would be. The addition would be 67’ 6” feet for the front property line. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9TH, 2023 In response to the staff memo, they had come up with an option B that creates a full 10-foot connector but noted that in this option everything gets pushed back into the rear setback and the garage gets shortened. She noted that this is not the preferred option for the applicant. She moved on to detailing the height of the addition and windows as they were concerns of staff. The first-floor garage was proposed to be the minimum height. The tallest point of the addition, as measured at the alley would be 22’ 6”, compared to the maximum allowable height for the zone of 25’. She then went over some details of the proposed roof form, materials and fenestration of the new addition and noted that they, in reference to the guidelines, were relating the roof form and materials to the historic resource and diverting on the fenestration. Referencing the design guidelines, Ms. Adams highlighted a few of them and noted that they believe the project complies with the intent of the guidelines overall. She also noted that the floor area of the historic resource would be 260 square feet more that the new addition floor area above grade. Next, she went over their setback variation requests. One was for the historic location of the resource and the other for a 2-foot rear yard variation for the upper level of the addition. She then noted that because the total proposed square footage would be about 740 square feet under the allowable floor area, they are also requesting 2 TDRs to help fund the project. She went over a few of the conditions included in the resolution and their plans related to them. Ms. Adams finished up by reviewing the project and their proposals. Staff Presentation: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Ms. Armstrong began her presentation by going over some background of the property and details of the applicant’s proposals and requests. Next, she showed a few historical pictures of the property and described the history of the historic resource and previous restoration efforts taken. She then showed the existing elevations and conditions. She moved on to the major development request and the details of the proposed new addition referencing the applicable historic preservation guidelines. She went over staff’s concerns with guidelines 10.3, 10.4, and 10.8, especially related to the size and scale of the addition and noted that staff believes this warrants additional consideration. She also noted staff’s concerns with the configuration of the connecting element. She then stated that the applicant had provided an option B which she said answered one of staff’s concerns, as it provides a full 10-foot connecting element, meeting guideline 10.9. Due to the overall size and scale of the addition, she noted that staff maintains concerns that the addition does not meet design guidelines 10.3, 10.4 and 10.8. Staff is asking for a continuance to refine option B to provide more context study and to better understand the overall picture. She showed elevations of both options, pointing out a line 10-feet from the historic resource to highlight how small the connecting element is in option A on the east elevation. She moved on to the relocation request to dig the proposed basement and noted that the historic resource would be placed back in its historic location once the basement is finished. She said that staff finds the relocation criteria to be met. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9TH, 2023 She then went over the applicant’s setback variation requests on the site, referencing the related guidelines. Staff supports the requested west side yard variation but does not support the rear setback variation. She then talked about the two requested TDRs that would total 500 square feet and noted that in both options the applicant has shown that there is enough remaining floor area to accommodate the requested TDRs. Staff finds the criteria for the TDR establishment is met. She finished by going over the four requests and noted that staff recommends continuation for further study of option B for the major development and the rear yard setback variation request but finds the criteria to be met for the relocation, west side yard setback request and the TDRs. Mr. Fornell asked if any HPC members who are not present at this meeting, would be recused at a continued meeting. It was mentioned that a few additional HPC members, not present today, would be able to participate in the future meeting. He then asked about the difference in the variation requests between both option A and option B. Ms. Armstrong and Ms. Adams said that option A would still need a variation, but just less than option B. Mr. Moyer asked about the current width of the connector and if it could be widened. The applicant’s architect said it was 7’ 10” wide and he did not believe it could be widened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Moyer opened the board discussion by asking the other members about the lifting and relocation of the historic resource. All members were in support of the relocation. He then moved on to discussing the front walkway and landing. Mr. Fornell said that he would support staff’s recommendations. There was then some discussion about the proposed lightwells and their proximity to some tree roots and Mr. Moyer asked if that was something that would be handled by the Parks Department. Ms. Armstrong said yes, but the Parks Department did not reference these in their referral comments. Mr. Moyer agreed with staff on the lightwells that they should be restudied. Ms. Adams said they had met with Parks and that the trees in question are on the neighboring property and the Parks staff wanted to keep them. She noted that the roots of the trees extend into where the lightwell would have to go. Mr. Moyer moved on to discussing the connecting element on commented that he agreed with staff and was opposed to any outside stairs on the connector. He was ok with the proposed deck on the roof of it. Mr. Fornell said he did not have a problem with an exterior stair on the connector, its overall length and configuration or the use of the roof as a deck space. Ms. Surfas noted that she did not think you would be able to see the connector from the side of the house and was ok with the configuration as proposed. Mr. Moyer then brought up the size and scale of the new addition. Mr. Fornell said he would be ok with the 6-and-a-half-foot connector if the second story of the addition did not need a variation on the rear. Mr. Moyer said he thought the new addition was overwhelming. Ms. Surfas agreed and thought that pulling the addition back another 4 feet, as in option B, would not make a difference in the mass. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9TH, 2023 The members then talked about the requested TDRs and Mr. Fornell asked how many remaining square feet would be left over if two TDRs are spun off. Ms. Adams said about 240 square feet. Mr. Fornell asked if the shorter connector was approved but the new addition was reduced so that the rear setback variation was not required, if they would then have enough remaining square footage to ask for another TDR. Ms. Adams said the main point of the project is not about making money, and while the applicants would potentially be ok with a two-foot reduction of the addition and the resulting potential ability to request another TDR, the most important thing is having some amount of second floor living space. Mr. Fornell saw similarities in previously approved projects to give this project his approval, subject to the rear yard variation. The members all agreed with the recommendation of TDRs. There was then some discussion about the mass and scale of the new addition for potential restudy and Ms. Adams asked for more specifics and direction about what HPC would be looking for in a restudy. Ms. Surfas said it was the height for her. Mr. Moyer thought the renderings presented seemed to skew the appearance and size of the new addition behind the historic resource. Ms. Adams said all the renderings are accurate and represent what the realistic view would be from the vantage point of where they were created from. Mr. Fornell commented that in the members consideration of size and scale they also have to be cognizant of the property owners’ rights and that they are leaving 750 square feet of allowable floor area off the table. Ms. Surfas said that if they are going to allow a shorter connector, she would like to see a restudy of the mass and scale. Ms. Adams again asked for more clarification of what Ms. Surfas would like to see and noted that the only way to bring the height down on a two-story addition would be to change the roof form which as proposed matches the historic resource. Ms. Surfas said that from the rendering taken from the west side, the addition looked large. She thought maybe it was the form of the windows that made it look much bigger than the small historic resource in front. Mr. Fornell said he thought the perspective of the rendering was from a higher height and it did not represent the view someone would have from the sidewalk. He thought the size of the rear addition would not be as noticeable. There was some discussion about direction for the applicant and Ms. Simon summed up the aspects of the project that she had heard consensus on from the board regarding the connecter and rear yard set back and thought that was the direction for restudy. There was then some discussion about a date to continue the meeting until. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to continue this hearing to September 13th, 2023. Ms. Surfas seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes. 3-0 vote, motion passes. NEW BUSINESS: Resolution #12, Series of 2023 - Outdoor Lighting Code Amendment Staff Presentation: Ben Anderson – Deputy Director - Community Development Mr. Anderson introduced himself, Haley Hart, Long Range Planner and Sophie Varga, Planner I. He also mentioned Clanton & Associates who are the City’s consultants on this project. He went over some REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9TH, 2023 history of this topic and went over the timing of bringing this to City Council. He then turned it over to Ms. Hart and noted that this will just be a recommendation to Council from HPC. Ms. Hart began by going over where staff is in the process and highlighted what steps have already occurred, including meeting with the Commercial Core & Lodging Commission and Planning & Zoning Commission, and holding public outreach meetings. She then went over the review criteria for the recommendation. She noted that this only applies to outdoor lighting on private property and does not apply to the right of way. She went over the issues with the current code, which was last updated in 2003. She said it is out of out of date and it has the same prescriptive requirements for all use types. It also does not address light trespass coming from within a building. She showed a picture of a residence as an example of what they are trying to address and move away from. Next, she went over staff’s proposed guiding principles for the code changes as well as the overall goals for the updated code. The first major change is shifting from the current prescriptive based model to a more performance based one. She talked about the idea of lighting zones, which are similar to zone districts and she listed the different proposed zones and went over some of the reasoning behind creating them. She described some details of the proposed ordinance related to the amount of lumens that would be allowed per property in the different lighting zones. She showed a chart of these amounts and detailed how the allowable amounts would be calculated. She also noted that they have an input / output Excel spreadsheet that was created by Clanton Associates to be used by staff and designers when evaluating a property. She went over a real-world example of how a property could adjust their lighting plan, using the spreadsheet, to meet the proposed new code requirements. Next, she described the idea of light quality that would be in the updated code. This included lighting moving to softer tones and intensity. She also described light performance, related to the type of shielding light fixtures would be allowed. She moved on to the concept of light trespass which is the amount of light emitting from the interior of a building and how it is spilling past a property line. This is an area where the City sees many complaints. The amount of light trespass that Clanton Associates recommended was based on code adopted by Fort Collins. The updated code would set a curfew in the residential zones of 10pm – 7am for lights to be dimmed. Non-residential areas would be the same timeframe unless a business is open after the curfew. The business would have an hour after closing before needing to dim lights. She then went over the amount of dimming that would be required in each lighting zone. Then she talked about holiday lighting and proposed timeframes and requirements in the proposed new code. Holiday lighting is also proposed to have a similar curfew as the light trespass. Enforcement on this and light trespass would still be complaint based. The proposed new code would have a carve out for landmarked historic properties to have lighting that enhances architectural features. She mentioned that they have proposed a five-year legacy exemption for existing lighting that may not meet the new proposed code. They would however be able to enforce on the proposed curfews and light trespass immediately upon passage of the ordinance, again being complaint based. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 9TH, 2023 Mr. Anderson posed a few related questions to the members of HPC to gather thoughts. He asked if the five-year exemption was appropriate. Ms. Raymond said it was appropriate, but asked how someone with existing lights would know if they were compliant or not. Mr. Anderson said they are going to do their best to get this information out to the public in a number of different formats. There was some discussion about the process of enforcement after the five-year period was up. Ms. Raymond asked if staff receives a complaint after the ordinance is passed that a neighbor’s light are too bright, does that person have to wait five years before anything can happen. Ms. Hart reminded her that light trespass and holiday lighting will be effective immediately. There was general agreement on the five-year exemption. There was then some discussion about the difference between the total amount of lumens allowed on a property and the light trespass coming from inside the building. They then discussed holiday lighting and the proposed curfew hours. There was general agreement on the proposals for holiday lighting and the curfew hours. Mr. Anderson asked about the current prohibition on neon and neon looking lighting. There was general support for continuing this. Ms. Raymond brought up architectural lighting and Mr. Anderson said architectural and or façade lighting would be part of the overall amount a property is allowed. Mr. Anderson admitted that the light trespass parts of the code is going to be a bit of an experiment and a work in progress. He said it is an issue all over the country and some places like Fort Collins have done something about it. He said the topic was born from the amount of complaints received and more modern architecture. Ms. Thompson said she believed they would be happy to recommend this to Council but said she would like to see it be audited in five years to see if it is doing what was intended. MOTION: Mr. Fornell moved to approve the next resolution in the series. Ms. Thompson seconded Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Raymond seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk