Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20230913 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13TH, 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, Jeffrey Halferty and Kara Thompson. Absent was Kim Raymond and Riley Warwick. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Nicole Henning, City Clerk Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the draft minutes from August 9th, 2023. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, abstained; Mr. Halferty, abstained; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-0 with two abstaining, motion passes. Ms. Surfas entered the meeting at 4:33pm. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon what was going on at the Gorsuch House at Lift 1A. Ms. Simon said that there were building permits submitted and in review. Ms. Pitchford asked about the old Johnny McGuire’s building, to which Ms. Simon mentioned it too had building permits submitted and in review but were moving very slowly. Mr. Halferty said it was good to see some activity at the old Main Street Bakery building. Mr. Moyer asked about maximum square footages for commercial spaces. Ms. Simon said there used to be a max commercial business size but that that was replaced with what is called Formula Use Standards. She described those. Ms. Surfas mentioned that she was recently in Louis, Delaware which is a beautiful town with many historic structures. She thought that town had butchered some of those structures and she commented that Aspen has done a great job. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Thompson noted that she was conflicted on the second agenda item and would leave the meeting for that item. Mr. Halferty would take over as Vice-Chair. Mr. Halferty stated that he had worked on the property to the west of the project, but it will not affect his ability to review this application. Ms. Johnson confirmed that she and Mr. Halferty had discussed this, and she did not believe it constituted a conflict of interest under the Municipal Code. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Armstrong noted that the 9/27 HPC meeting would be cancelled. Ms. Simon mentioned that there is a tour at the Aspen Institute on Friday of the Herbert Bayer Kaleidoscreen. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2023 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 both agenda items. Ms. Thompson left the meeting. Vice Chair Halferty took over the meeting for the first agenda item. OLD BUSINESS: 517 E. Hopkins Avenue – Substantial Amendment/GMQS, CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO 10/25 MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to continue this hearing to October 25th, 2023. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 5-0 vote, motion passes. OLD BUSINESS: 820 E. Cooper Avenue - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Variation, TDRs - PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 9, 2023 Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams introduced herself and the applicants and stated that they were back to present some revisions made to the project based on HPC comments at the last meeting. She thanked everyone that attended the site visit. She then let the applicants Lauren and Anton say a few words about themselves and the reasoning for the project. Ms. Adams went over the requests for major conceptual development, including digging a full basement, adding a small rear addition and one car garage. The resource would be lifted to dig the basement and then placed back in its original location, and they would also be demolishing the non- historic rear addition. She noted that based on HPC comments at the August meeting, they are no longer requesting the rear yard setback variation and have reduced the massing of the second floor. They are still requesting the 6.5-inch side yard variation in order to keep the historic resource in its original location. She also noted that in August they had requested HPC’s recommendation of 2 TDRs, but with the reduced massing they have enough square footage and are now requesting 3 TDRS. She moved on and showed a few pictures of similar properties in the area to provide some context. She also showed a rendering of their proposed project with the revision to the roof form. She then went over the proposed restoration efforts to occur. She showed and compared the proposed site plan that was presented at the August meeting and the revised one that they are presenting tonight. She detailed the revisions that had been made based on previous HPC comments. These included the front entry landing and the relocation of a lightwell. She detailed the site plan and floor plans, highlighting many elements of the project and went over the revisions to the rear addition that reduced the massing on the second floor to meet the 10-foot setback requirement. She then went over the changes to the gable roof form that was presented in August to respond to HPC comments. This still allows the stairway access but reduces the plat height and massing. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2023 She noted that, based on the updated renderings, the new addition is almost entirely hidden behind the historic resource. She presented the relevant design guidelines and noted that staff now finds that they have all been met. She said that they feel that they have responded to HPC comments from the last meeting related to the height and massing. She then went over the request for 3 TDRs. Mr. Fornell was glad to hear that they are no longer requesting a rear yard setback variation. Mr. Halferty asked about the shorter link and wondered if there was any discussion about this and the overhanging roof. He also asked about the proposed location of the lightwell on the east side and if it was to accommodate a bedroom. Ms. Adams said that since the building department now requires railings instead of grates on lightwells it seemed better to have them all on one side of the building. Ms. Pitchford asked if the outside stairway would be visible from in front of the historic resource. The applicant’s architect said it would be very difficult to see due to being tucked behind the historic resource and blocked by a few trees. Mr. Halferty asked what type of railing was proposed for the exterior stairs. The architect said a very simple metal railing to potentially match the guard rails on the lightwells. Staff Presentation: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Ms. Armstrong started by describing the property and lot and went over the applicant’s proposal of the relocation of the historic resource in order to dig a full basement, the demolition of a non-historic addition, the construction of a connector and new addition on the north side of the property and some small landscaping updates. With this they are requesting approval of major conceptual development, relocation, a west side yard setback variation and HPC’s recommendation to City Council for 3 TDRs. She went over current details of the historic resource and the recent restoration efforts by the applicants. She then described the details of the roof form of the proposed rear addition, the proposed 6’ 1” connector and the lightwells grouped on the east side. She noted that due to the elimination of grates from building code, guard rails are being proposed. She said the staff supports grouping the lightwells on the east side to minimize the visual impact. Next, she noted that the proposed addition is a product of its own time while some design elements are sympathetic to the historic resource per design guideline 10.6. She went over the reasoning to support this. She said that while the proposed addition is taller than the historic resource, the massing is deferential and does not fully mimic the historic resource as a larger copy. She said it is staff’s opinion that the updates to the addition from the last meeting have brought it in line with design guidelines 10.3, 10.4 and 10.8. While the proposed addition does not fully meet guideline 10.9 in providing a full 10-foot connector, staff feels the design provides a compromise in meeting the site constraints and the design guidelines. Staff recommends approval of the conceptual major development but does recommend it as a point of discussion. She showed the north elevation and noted that with the redesign, it now meets the setbacks of 5 feet for the garage and 10 feet for the second story. Regarding relocation, she said that the historic resource will be temporarily relocated while the basement is excavated, and it will then be placed back in its historic location. She said the staff finds the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2023 criteria for relocation to be met conditioned on a letter from an engineer stating that the building can withstand relocation. Next, she went over the details of the west side yard setback variation request that is triggered by the relocation and said the staff supports the requested variation as it preserves the resource’s original location. She then went over details of the request of a recommendation to City Council for approval of 3 TDRs that would sever 750 square feet from the site. She noted the total allowable development rights for the lot and said that from the applicant’s representation there will be enough floor area remaining for this request. She said that staff finds the criteria for establishing the TDRs to be met. She noted that staff is recommending some conditions of approval that include details that they would like to see at final review, but overall, staff recommends HPC approval of the Land Use Review with conditions. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Halferty to confirm he was not present at the August 9th meeting. Mr. Halferty said he was not but had reviewed the minutes. Ms. Johnson said that she believed he could still act as chair but that he was not in a position to vote as he did not have all the same information as the other members or what the applicant presented at the August 9th meeting. Ms. Pitchford mentioned that she too was not present at the August 9th meeting but had read the minutes and had attended the site visit. Ms. Johnson said that historically they ask that members listen to the recording of the meeting, but since she herself was not present at the August 9th meeting, she was not aware of the two members absence. Ms. Simon noted that the applicant did not have any objections to their participation. Ms. Johnson said she would like to stay consistent with what has been done in the past but would wait to see how things played out to see if they were or were not able to take action. Mr. Halferty and Ms. Pitchford noted that they had both reviewed the packet from the August 9th meeting in addition to reading the minutes. Knowing that Ms. Johnson said she felt both Mr. Halferty and Ms. Pitchford could vote as they both had the same information as the other members. Mr. Fornell noted that it seemed that the first eight conditions of approval related to things that would come up at final review. Ms. Armstrong confirmed that and said they are there to provide direction for things staff would like to see at final review. Mr. Fornell asked if they had to be included in this conceptual major development resolution. Ms. Armstrong said not necessarily. Ms. Johnson went over how this resolution process would go in relation to the final major development resolution. Mr. Fornell said he was satisfied. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Halferty listed the items for board discussion, being the relocation, setback variation, recommendation of TDRs, mass and form, conditions of approval and the various design guidelines. Mr. Fornell started by commending the applicant for leaving 750 square feet of allowable floor area off this lot as it respects the historic resource and is great example of the use of TDRs. He noted the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2023 property to the east that was the same size lot yet went to the full use of their floor area ratio and ended up being significantly larger and stood over the historic resource. He said he would be supporting this. Ms. Pitchford complemented the applicant as well and appreciated that it would be lived in. She agreed with Mr. Fornell about the TDRs in this case. She believed that the design of the addition still preserves the feel of the miner’s cabin visually from the street. She said she would be in support as well. Ms. Surfas thanked the applicant for taking what was said at the last hearing and making updates to the plans. She said that with the changes to the roof form and the overall updated design, they have a great house. She also appreciated that locals will be living in the house and raising their family. She was in support of the project and what had been done. Mr. Moyer said that many times when a project comes back to HPC with updates based on feedback from the members, that they end up getting a better project. He congratulated the applicants and said that he was in support of the project. Mr. Halferty thought the applicant and staff had done an excellent job getting the project to conform to the guidelines. He was in support of the TDRs and appreciated the restoration efforts made by the applicants. He thought the design and roof form of the addition complimented the historic resource. He was in support of the project. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the resolution as presented by staff. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Mr. Moyer commented to staff about the TDRs. He wanted to make sure the letter to City Council regarding HPC’s recommendation of the TDRs stated that this was an excellent example of the use of TDRs. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 5-0 vote, motion passes. NEW BUSINESS: Follow up discussion: Joint HPC/City Council Work Session Ms. Simon started the discussion by recapping the joint work session with City Council. She said that one of her takeaways was that City Council members generally expressed a strong desire to maximize affordable housing and did not want to abandon the new process that has been adopted. She mentioned a few other discussion items from the meeting including the design guidelines and TDRs. Ms. Pitchford said she did not feel that all Council members were as adamant about maximizing affordable housing by sacrificing a historic resource. Ms. Thompson did not believe anyone said “sacrifice” the resource, rather that there is a different balance that should be expected around historic resources for affordable housing projects. She did think that a few council members wanted the HPC to potentially have more input on how the massing gets balanced. She said that while any Land Use Code amendments would be a very complicated and long process, the HPC could amend design guidelines and application requirements. Ms. Johnson said that amending the design guidelines could be done by resolution, which is a somewhat simpler process. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2023 Ms. Thompson said that she only felt that Councilor Guth was potentially in favor of Land Use Code amendments and that she was not in favor of that route. She went over some of her reasoning for this. She believed that the new process was put in place for a reason, and she referenced the 1020 E Cooper project that, under the previous public hearing process took 18 months to get through HPC review and that was not fair to any applicant. She also believed that the new process had not been in place long enough to make a good judgement on it. Mr. Fornell noted that he felt that Council members knew that historic resources were in the R6 district when they made affordable housing projects a use by right in all zone districts. Ms. Pitchford asked what the next steps would be from Council and Mr. Fornell said he believed that the Council members would discuss HPC’s comments amongst themselves either in an executive session or a work session and get back to HPC. Ms. Thompson said she felt Council wanted more information from staff on a few items and that the HPC members would discuss what they would propose to them as far as potential adjustments to guidelines and things that might help this new process. She said she would like HPC to discuss the conceptual site plan, which is already a requirement and potentially requiring more detail on the presented footprint detailing where any additional structures would be. She also wanted to discuss potentially adding massing guidelines for affordable housing projects to be added to the current process. Ms. Simon presented and read the section of the Land Use Code that was being discussed and highlighted the language that a conceptual site plan must be provided to assist in HPC’s review. She noted that in the last project, the applicant provided a site plan that included the footprint of the new construction, and that the footprint would be a binding representation and the applicant could not come to the staff and monitor review step with anything different that was originally seen by HPC. She also mentioned that the City still has not seen an application for the next review step and that it would not be an easy process. She said that staff and HPC Chair would not necessarily accept what was presented and asked for the board members to have some faith in them to represent the entire HPC board. Mr. Fornell asked when a project is in the staff and HPC chair review step if the Chair could consult with the other HPC board members if they felt struck on something. Ms. Simon said that the process was created to fast track a good project that met certain criteria and that if the staff member and HPC Chair does not approve something, the applicant could pull the application and apply under the previous process of a full HPC review. Ms. Thompson brought the discussion back to getting some agreement on some guidelines for affordable housing projects that are in dense zone districts as the current guidelines tend to deal mostly with less dense residential zones. Ms. Simon said that staff could look at and review the current Historic Preservation design guideline book to see if there are any holes. Ms. Thompson said the idea would be to add guidelines to this type of project that would make the HPC members more confident in staff and monitor applying them to the additional structure. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2023 Mr. Moyer brought up the idea of the total allowable floor area on a lot and thought that maybe there could be a way that HPC could control that. He expressed his thoughts that many historic resources are preserved but end up having an overwhelming structure behind them. Ms. Pitchford said that the allowable floor area lies within the Land Use Code and if you wanted to change the it, you would have to change the Land Use Code. Ms. Simon said that the total allowable floor area amounts per zone district were developed back in the 60’s or 70’s and have been so engrained in the community that it would be impossible to take them back. There was some discussion on this idea. Mr. Moyer thought it would be a good idea if some type of informational guide be put together going over all the good things the HPC has done over the years in an effort to better overall preservation. This could act as a guide for new developers, architects, realtors, etc. There was some discussion about what this might look like and what it might contain. Ms. Thompson suggested looking into requesting an applicant provide “story poles” on major development projects as they can be a big help. Ms. Simon said she was not sure if HPC could require them but that they could ask for anything that helps with their review. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Pitchford seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk