Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20240124.worksessionAGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 24, 2024 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers - 3rd Floor 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 I.Work Session I.A Project Monitoring Procedures I.B Meeting Procedures WORK SESSION Project Monitoring and Meeting Procedure Memo.20240124.pdf Exhibit A. Amendments, insubstantial and substantial.pdf Exhibit B. Proposed Project Monitoring Form.pdf Project Monitoring and Meeting Procedure Memo.20240124.pdf Exhibit C. Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings, November 15, 2021.pdf 1 1 Page 1 of 2 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation and Stuart Hayden, Planner II Historic Preservation MEETING DATE: January 24, 2024 RE: Project Monitoring and Meeting Procedure Work Session Project Monitoring Background: As new HP staff work on getting up to speed, they have been reviewing the Municipal Land Use Code. It appears that the project monitoring process has evolved over the years, and staff is looking to realign the process with the code, as well as implement a more thorough tracking process. Please see the Subsection (26.415.070.e) on Amendments, insubstantial and substantial in Exhibit A. The code prescribes certain activities that may be reviewed by staff and HPC Project Monitor. Those activities are encompassed under the umbrella of Insubstantial Amendments which include minor modifications that: 1. Address circumstances discovered in the course of construction that could not have been reasonably anticipated during the approval process or 2. Are necessary for conformance with building safety or accessibility codes and do not materially change the approved plans or 3. Approve specific building materials, finishes, design of ornamental trim and other such detail not provided in the HPC approved plans or 4. Change the shape, location or material of a building element or feature but maintains the same quality and approximate appearance of that found in the approved plans. Substantial Amendments require an application and a public hearing with the HPC. Substantial Amendments are defined as modifications including: • All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted The code also requires that approval of insubstantial amendments are reported to the HPC at their regularly scheduled meetings. Staff has started to present slides reporting on project monitoring decisions during HPC meetings, and have further edited a Project Monitoring Form (Exhibit B) that is being proposed for use, in order to fulfill this requirement and make tracking easier throughout the permitting and construction process. Goals: • Realign process with the code • Create a better tracking and reporting system • Propose Project Monitoring Form. 2 Page 2 of 2 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Questions to answer: 1. Does the current Project Monitoring and Certificate of No Negative Effect Report PowerPoint setup suffice for a summary of the actions taken between HPC meetings? 2. Would HPC like to implement the proposed Project Monitoring Forms? As is, or are edits needed? a. Should a form be submitted for each individual update to work items, or can the requests be combined? 3. Would HPC like to see the project monitoring form packets attached to the agenda under project monitoring each week? Meeting Procedure Background: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings was updated on November 15, 2021, and has been included in each HPC agenda since the update (Exhibit C). Staff has recently clarified for an applicant that as part of meeting procedure, staff will introduce the applicant and their team for presentation, during which staff will yield the dais to the applicant. Staff asks that after the applicant presentation and question and answer, the applicant yield the dais to staff. After staff presentation and question and answer, is applicant rebuttal/clarification and staff rebuttal/clarification, where the applicant will be invited back up to the dais. During deliberation, two options are provided below, or staff is happy to entertain a variation of such: 1. Invite one representative from the applicant team back to the dais to sit with staff while HPC deliberates, with the understanding that no further input should be received from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. 2. Leave the dais empty while HPC deliberates, unless HPC requests information from either the staff or applicant. Staff finds it important for the applicant and staff to yield the dais during the opposite presentation in order to provide a respectful and distraction-free atmosphere. Goals: • Boundary setting for dais procedure. • Gain direction on who should sit at the dais during HPC deliberation, if anyone. Questions to answer: 1. Does HPC agree with staff’s interpretation of meeting procedure? 2. Would HPC like staff and one representative from the applicant team to both be present at the dais during deliberation, would HPC like to see the dais empty, or is there an alternative HPC would prefer? 3. Does HPC feel direction is needed at the beginning of deliberation to remind those present that neither staff nor the applicant should interject during deliberation unless asked? Exhibits Exhibit A: 26.415.070.e Development involving designated historic property or property within a historic district, subsection - Amendments, insubstantial and substantial Exhibit B: Proposed Project Monitoring Form Exhibit C: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings, November 15, 2021. 3 (e) Amendments, insubstantial and substantial. There are two (2) processes for amending plans approved pursuant to a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness. All requests for amendments, insubstantial or substantial, must be in writing and accompanied by drawing(s) and elevations as specified below. (1) Insubstantial amendments. a. Insubstantial amendments are minor modifications to HPC approved plans that: 1. Address circumstances discovered in the course of construction that could not have been reasonably anticipated during the approval process or 2. Are necessary for conformance with building safety or accessibility codes and do not materially change the approved plans or 3. Approve specific building materials, finishes, design of ornamental trim and other such detail not provided in the HPC approved plans or 4. Change the shape, location or material of a building element or feature but maintains the same quality and approximate appearance of that found in the approved plans. b. The Community Development Director may authorize insubstantial amendments to approved plans. c. Monitoring committees established by the HPC, composed of up to two (2) members of the Commission and the Historic Preservation Officer or assign, may also authorize insubstantial amendments. d. Decisions of the Community Development Director or monitoring committee are binding. The Community Development Director or monitoring committee may determine that the proposed changes qualify as a substantial amendment and remand the matter to the HPC. e. Disapproval of a request for an insubstantial amendment may be appealed to the HPC to be considered in accordance with the procedures for substantial amendments. f. Approval of insubstantial amendments of plans will be reported to the HPC at their regularly scheduled meetings. (2) Substantial amendments. a. All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment. b. An application for a substantial amendment shall include the following materials, as determined appropriate by the Community Development Director: 1. A revised site plan. 2. Revised scaled elevations and drawings. 3. Representations of building materials and finishes. 4. Photographs and other exhibits to illustrate the proposed changes. c. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for approval of a substantial amendment and waive any submittals not considered necessary for consideration. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. 4 d. Notice for the review of an application for a substantial amendment will include publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060(e)(3) Paragraphs a, b and c. e. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the extent of the changes relative to the approved plans and how the proposed revisions affect the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Us e Codes. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed revisions and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. f. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditio ns or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 5 Historic Preservation Project Monitor Review Request Form REQUEST NUMBER (Year, Number): Submittal Items for Staff & Monitor Review: Staff & Monitor Determination: APPROVED DISAPPROVED day of 2024 Disclaimer: Issuance of this approval is specific to the design review and based on the information provided by the applicant. It will be the applicant’s responsibility to update permit information for re-review and approval by all relevant review agencies. Please upload Staff and Monitor signed Project Monitoring Review Request form to permit application in Salesforce. Material specification sheets, as necessary Narrative describing how changes meet the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Proposed drawings o Include side-by-side elevations, site plan, details, etc. o Include clearly marked call-outs. REMAND TO HPC HPC Meeting Minutes HPC Approved Drawing Set HPC Resolution Monitor 1 Signature:Staff Signature: Determination provided this Monitor 2 Signature: STAFF USE ONLY DO NOT FILL IN BELOW THIS LINE DATE: PERMIT NUMBER: ADDRESS: APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE: PHONE NUMBER & EMAIL: Does the request constitute an Insubstantial Amendment per Section 26.415.070.e.1.a. 1-4? If no, contact the historic preservation planner for more information regarding substantial amendments. Written description of request: 6 STAFF COMMENTS: MONITOR COMMENTS: (ATTACH RELEVANT SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS WITH A STAMP OF APPROVAL BY STAFF & MONITOR) Disclaimer: Issuance of this approval is specific to the design review and based on the information provided by the applicant. It will be the applicant’s responsibility to update permit information for re-review and approval by all relevant review agencies. Please upload Staff and Monitor signed Project Monitoring Review Request form to permit application in Salesforce. REQUEST NUMBER (Year, Number): PERMIT NUMBER: 7 Page 1 of 2 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation and Stuart Hayden, Planner II Historic Preservation MEETING DATE: January 24, 2024 RE: Project Monitoring and Meeting Procedure Work Session Project Monitoring Background: As new HP staff work on getting up to speed, they have been reviewing the Municipal Land Use Code. It appears that the project monitoring process has evolved over the years, and staff is looking to realign the process with the code, as well as implement a more thorough tracking process. Please see the Subsection (26.415.070.e) on Amendments, insubstantial and substantial in Exhibit A. The code prescribes certain activities that may be reviewed by staff and HPC Project Monitor. Those activities are encompassed under the umbrella of Insubstantial Amendments which include minor modifications that: 1. Address circumstances discovered in the course of construction that could not have been reasonably anticipated during the approval process or 2. Are necessary for conformance with building safety or accessibility codes and do not materially change the approved plans or 3. Approve specific building materials, finishes, design of ornamental trim and other such detail not provided in the HPC approved plans or 4. Change the shape, location or material of a building element or feature but maintains the same quality and approximate appearance of that found in the approved plans. Substantial Amendments require an application and a public hearing with the HPC. Substantial Amendments are defined as modifications including: • All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted The code also requires that approval of insubstantial amendments are reported to the HPC at their regularly scheduled meetings. Staff has started to present slides reporting on project monitoring decisions during HPC meetings, and have further edited a Project Monitoring Form (Exhibit B) that is being proposed for use, in order to fulfill this requirement and make tracking easier throughout the permitting and construction process. Goals: • Realign process with the code • Create a better tracking and reporting system • Propose Project Monitoring Form. 8 Page 2 of 2 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Questions to answer: 1. Does the current Project Monitoring and Certificate of No Negative Effect Report PowerPoint setup suffice for a summary of the actions taken between HPC meetings? 2. Would HPC like to implement the proposed Project Monitoring Forms? As is, or are edits needed? a. Should a form be submitted for each individual update to work items, or can the requests be combined? 3. Would HPC like to see the project monitoring form packets attached to the agenda under project monitoring each week? Meeting Procedure Background: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings was updated on November 15, 2021, and has been included in each HPC agenda since the update (Exhibit C). Staff has recently clarified for an applicant that as part of meeting procedure, staff will introduce the applicant and their team for presentation, during which staff will yield the dais to the applicant. Staff asks that after the applicant presentation and question and answer, the applicant yield the dais to staff. After staff presentation and question and answer, is applicant rebuttal/clarification and staff rebuttal/clarification, where the applicant will be invited back up to the dais. During deliberation, two options are provided below, or staff is happy to entertain a variation of such: 1. Invite one representative from the applicant team back to the dais to sit with staff while HPC deliberates, with the understanding that no further input should be received from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. 2. Leave the dais empty while HPC deliberates, unless HPC requests information from either the staff or applicant. Staff finds it important for the applicant and staff to yield the dais during the opposite presentation in order to provide a respectful and distraction-free atmosphere. Goals: • Boundary setting for dais procedure. • Gain direction on who should sit at the dais during HPC deliberation, if anyone. Questions to answer: 1. Does HPC agree with staff’s interpretation of meeting procedure? 2. Would HPC like staff and one representative from the applicant team to both be present at the dais during deliberation, would HPC like to see the dais empty, or is there an alternative HPC would prefer? 3. Does HPC feel direction is needed at the beginning of deliberation to remind those present that neither staff nor the applicant should interject during deliberation unless asked? Exhibits Exhibit A: 26.415.070.e Development involving designated historic property or property within a historic district, subsection - Amendments, insubstantial and substantial Exhibit B: Proposed Project Monitoring Form Exhibit C: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings, November 15, 2021. 9 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings (1 hour, 10 minutes for Major Agenda Item) 1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (at beginning of agenda) 2. Presentation of proof of legal notice (at beginning of agenda) 3. Applicant presentation (20 minutes) 4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes) 5. Staff presentation (5 minutes) 6. Board questions and clarifications of staff (5 minutes) 7. Public comments (5 minutes total, or 3 minutes/ person or as determined by the Chair) 8. Close public comment portion of hearing 9. Applicant rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) 10. Staff rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) End of fact finding. Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed. 11. Deliberation by the commission and findings based on criteria commences. No further input from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. (20 minutes) 12. Motion Updated: November 15, 2021 10