HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19950403AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 3, 1995 SPECIAL MEETING SISTER CITIES ROOM - SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Roll Call and approval of January 11, 1995 minutes. II. Commission and Staff comments III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:05 A. 232 E. Main, Amoco- Minor 5:30 V. ADJOURN Tonight's meeting was originally requested by the Langley's for final approval of 939 E. Cooper. Their materials are not ready to review. We will have a brief meeting to discuss the proposed satellite dish at Amoco. City Attorney John Worcester will attend to explain issues related to FCC, and communication. The satellite dish will be reviewed at P&Z on April 4th, so this meeting is needed to keep their review process going.
4 HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Proiect Donnelley Erdman The Meadows Collins Block/Alley 624 E. Hopkins (CD:3-8-95) 220 W. Main- European Flower 930 King Street- Cunningham 330 Gillespie Jake Vickery The Meadows 130 S. Galena- City Hall 520 Walnut- Greenwood 205 W. Main- Chisolm 610 W. Hallam- Iglehart Leslie Holst Holden/Marolt Aspen Historic Trust 303 E. Main- Kuhn 930 King- Cunningham 939 E. Cooper- Langley Entrance to Aspen Roger Moyer 409 E. Hopkins Holden/Marolt 303 E. Main- Kuhn 420 E. Main 107 Juan Martha Madsen 132 W. Main- Asia 435 W. Main-L'Auberge 706 W. Main (CD:4-27-94) 702 W. Main- Stapleton Linda Smisek 229 W. Hallam- Pinnington 316 E. Hopkins- Howling Wolf 939 E. Cooper- Langley 801 E. Hyman- Elmore Sven Alstrom Susan Doddington Melanie Roshko Jeff McMenimen
03/30/95 05:03 FAX 303 369 7182 AntennaPro Inc Id]001/002 037 APITEMMAPRO, IMC. 121**Fie:I 2452 South Trenton Way, Unit I Denver, Colorado 80231 (303) 369-5666 Fax (303) 369-7182 PLEASE I]ELIVER'mE FOLmWING TEWaECEAL Toe rWAL Anly Am/DON CCMPANY Apc. 70,0,6 0 F ASPEN FE€*A CASEY £00=aow DATE 3 ~393 )95 FAX NO: 3023-9620-59.39 'ICIAL le{EiER OF PAGES 2 ( ]NCIDDING UIE COVER IErIER) CCedENTS: - S/•,ALGE,E. tn-SM /3 61 0-7- POSS/ELE . ,- 4/HY SAyELU712 = muciw e,4 /5,4,06,3 7$294 6UEAL 7 202-PHONE LJ AJES - + CNC-LOS EZ> Z.EJTE,~et %,ROM Aly}OCD 0/L 7 k PLEASE cA U_ 2 7-WA414(AS EY 42% 276 44
03/30/95 05:03 FAX 303 369 7182 AntennaPro Inc 411002/002 M". 30. 1995 2 J 55 PM REGRES KETRORK SYS No. 8332 P. 2/2 Amoco Pet,Num Products Marketing Business Group 200 Eat Handoloh Drive Pc,3[ Offee Box 87707 Chicago, 11[in,iq 6069>0707 March 13. 1995 Arnoco Service Stations New Yal Maket Imiallnhun.Qf.Batellite. Terminal Equ;pmetit Io Whom it may Concern. Amoco Oil Company is in the process of updating the communications equipment in our service stations nationwide. As of March 15, 1995 the mesent commimic,dions system in the service stations will no longer be in use, The VSAT ngtwodg is the new replacement System for our service Stations- IT- is required to provide the busin¢33 transaccions for our stallons. Si.nocrely, ou 9,142 Kurt I. Peckns 03/30/95 04:53 TX/RX NO.2277 P.002 m
11-1 r- .1=M-1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation officer Re: 232 E. Main Street, Amoco station- Minor Date: March 22,1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for the installation of a satellite dish at the Amoco station. This building is not historic, but it lies within the Main Street Historic District. APPLICANT: Amoco Oil, represented by Antenna Pro, Inc. LOCATION: 232 E. Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen. OTHER REVIEWS: This development will also require special review at Planning and Zoning Commission. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: Amoco wishes to install a satellite dish of approximately 3' 6" in diameter at the rear of the building. The dish will be 4'0" above the eaveline, but will still be below the ridge and therefore will not be visible from Main Street. The applicant has represented that this is the smallest dish that can be used. Any reflective metal on the unit should be painted out. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The dish has been sited so as to have the least visibility from Main Street. There is a historic structure on the opposite side of the alley, but there will not be any negative impacts on the resource. 1~1
3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: This proposal has no impact on the cultural value of any adjacent historic structures. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal has no impact on the architectural integrity of any historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any Of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the Minor Development application as submitted, with the condition that any reflective metal on the dish or mounting pole be painted out. Additional Comments: j "/:r
ATIJAILHZ,ENT 1 IAND USE* APPIICATICN REM . - -A 'Rrsts£11*ma . A,Pt-DOo i *7Ed--LETE CDMMugr, 6M71DNS FISASelk-~'L~:2~-, 73 1- E . MA-14 57r- Al Ptz# 1 co. 21 6/ / B LPOk- 7 3 , L pT A- + 5 (iniicate street 'aMress, lot & blade mloter, legal description,here · aiurnpriate) 3) present Zoning 044 0€ ~4 lik ~a L D' r 90' ~ .. DAVE 5/Alkus -' q *Ai,iEY,It>s'Bassa, 18/,Dess k/MIa# >4-Ptc> do pu- 65,2\ 95-4-4475· J - 1-0 D E-( le*"ADLPH -DR.. 2,*1 e.*GD ; 1-LL &.DAeD -0-7b3 6) Represent:ative's Name, AddIEss & Ehone # /4/4/7-»0 /4,37. sh,2 - ~0*PA>.09 7,64 7451 5. 1%18-gybg W Y *T -; -DE#wek; C.a. 9D'23 ) (3_03~369-5-1.4 4 7) gypd of 4plication (please check all that apply): . 1 . Conditional Use - Conceptinl SEA oor•¥Titital Historic Dev. Special. Review Final SEA -Ill- Fi.al Nic:teric Dev. 8040 Greenline O<n~eptlal ED ~ Mimr wigtcric Dev. . Stream Margin - · Final ]?[ID -Ill-/- Historic Demolition remt·min View Pl,ne · Subdivisicn Historic Designaticn rr,-,ninillmi zal-len TAY'-/Map Amendment . 02*13 ANotment Int Split/Iot line GlaS Ehoeuption Adjustment ~ 8) Description of R,cisting Uses · (I,=ber and f type of existing struct]Ires; apprcocimate sq. ft.; mi)er of bedroans; anor previous approvals granted to the prriperty) U . - 9 E-kul CE 6 7-» 7-7 p R .. u 9 ) Description of DevelcinElt Applicaticin ) M'5'714 LE_. ATI D•l Di:- 15 145/,65-99 '5;47-Ed_ L.)71£ COMMR/Vpfnjks 5 95 7-15»~ ~9 LE Al-T*e.*€-0 BVEEREA·f Aus ELE-VwrrDN . 56'PEL € Pit·&40 ,AL G A 0) Have you atta£:hed the following? Respanse to Attadmient 2, Minilm= Slitmission Coatents Response to Attadmart 3, Specific Submissirn Contents Response to Attadmerrt 4, Review Stanlards for Your Application I'lilli.
)4MGOD O/L f U M A'Y Tr 1 1 1 lili 1 1) 481 NESS 5 41 -a LU T € 111+1 , ! 1 1 \ \53/47-E.#1 )Nl»4£-LATiON 70* PE*}54 )4710% 1362-4.22 i /60* ¢,=1 ,eoff : i { 1 2 : i 1 : t 1 1 1 1 0 ;jj~'.. ij.. 1 1 -- 1 1 1 ' ' : Q 1 11 k'1111 1 1 0 1 -4 1 , . 11 i ? 1 i ~V j 1 1 1 1 , I ; ! 11 i , Iii 1 j 1 , 1 1 Iii , 1 lilli 1 i' 1 1 t! li i 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1 1 1 1 1 : i . 1 1 i i i j. . 1 1 1 1 !1· 1 I J i lilli 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.t .1 1 : 1 1 i i!:1 1 + il 1 1 1 ill 1 1 ! i 4 1 1 1 1 11 i , % 1 1 1 1 i . ; 1 : 1 1 1 1 3 1 1. '1:1 .. .1 , i! ·i 1 1 1 1 . 1 i--l l-I' i - i ~ ~ ~ i ~ i .ill 11 11 11 : 1 1 1 1 1 ! , ' · i
/4),1000- DjL 8115/NE-55 5 A-TELL /7-E 3-31.- - 14 6/ 4 1,1-/ 45'rS1--Et'-t 1/67*1-L~:Tion 1 ATELL 1 TE 6 1 5 14 1L 1 1 1 III Itt , 5 2. 1 j f.1 li jifff 11 1. / f 1 1 .... --- r - - I--1-.j*-- t . j _1 -- 2--1-1-1-- -1- 1- -,133 24 - i 1 r I 'MDAFF-CH 1
FSB 1134A BACKGROUND HNS now offers a "No-Hole Poleantenoa mount as shown in figure 1. The no-hole pole mount is suitable for the 0.75M, 1.OM an4.1.2M,dritennas only. The no-hole pole mount is intended as an easy-to-install mount that takes &89:Nage of building strength without interfering with the building roof. The no-hole pole includes a bracket assembly which attaches to a building wall and a mounting plate which attaches to a deck, sidewalk, concrete drive, or other suitable surface. The installation subcontractor supplies the mast pipe. The no-hole pole is available in two versions: standard or offset. The standard version has a straight mast which is typically positioned just outside the eaves of the roof (up to 58" away from the building wall). The offset version permits the straight mast to be positioned under the eaves and close to the wall (from 6" to 12") by the- addition of an offset mast extension that supports the antenna. /7 - - ~- ROOF - EXTENSION-~4 - OFFSET -x 4 /7 2 6 m 2/12 ... 3221 .i 1 L ./ 3 0 € L\>.6/ t MAST PIPE-•4N 9 (SUPPLIED BY ~ : INSTALLER) ~ :% 1/ ¢844 WALL i 8 9 / M .- i MOUNTING PLATE a € 3 4 -¥ ........ ........... ... X.:-:Ce{GBG{K-=-3-.-.0.=. ........ ...... ............................. ............................. .............................. STANDARD OFFSET (HNS 9200347-0001) (HNS 9200347-0001 and 9200347-0002) PS31665 Figure 1. No-Hole Pole Versions: Standard and Offset 2
4096-348 PRODELIN CORPORATION 1.2M Ku-BAND Rx/Tx SERIES 1123 /- - 77 f /, 2 k M ETER 1 + l 4 149 f L L[NG E.1 [F FEE[} R[D ,--- »41 1 DETAIL D t FEa S~RT~ _~~3~~ .JZ - I- - -Ii- Ill--I - - --I-. 9.)-7 - - S}{RT EN] OF FEED R[I]- 2 h Figure 5 14
MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Stan Clauson, City C.D. Director 29-4 DATE: 3 April 1995 RE: Satellite Antenna--232 E. Main Street A recent article in Municipal Attorney points out that a municipal code can establish reasonable regulations for satellite dishes, but cannot prohibit them or deny applications. Reasonable regulations might include conditions with respect to location on the property, painting out bright metal parts, or requiring some parapet wall screening. It would appear that, since these appurtenances are controlled by other regulatory levels, our review prerogatives are limited. In this sense, these antennas present a similar situation to accessibility improvements: we have some control over the manner and methods, but not as to whether they can be permitted. Please see the attached article which refers to damages being awarded to an applicant whose request for an antenna was denied.
U, U . oroc. ing of the Fair Housing Act, as it applie.> ._ - k this case, would prohibit Charlotte from distinguishing between residential uses and - ining healthcare institutional uses for zoning pur- ients Not poses in a manner not intended by the fed- eral statute. 7 Home" 7'. Section 1983 Action .ourt of Appeals )y the Charlotte Sanctioned to Enforce . --6 /--2.&9.-53.9.1 - 4.- -9.4 14:-T- . 5 --2 k 4-Af.-itthateffectively Antenna Installation 7 - I -Lin. ce of a building for persons diag- The Court of Appeals for the Sixth )S in a residential Circuit has determined that municipalities ily housing. The are potentially liable for damages under 42 inedanordinance U.S.C. § 1983 and attornevs fees under 42 o locate in single U.S.C.§ 1988 fordenying azoning variance ing permit appli- forthe construction of asatellite dish thatdid )posed residence not conform to local zoning requirements in i the City s ordi- the face of Federal Communications Com- -ial home .for mission (FCC) regulations that allow for :d living condi- „ reasonable' local regulations. The court )wever. the Zon- determined thatplaintiffs. who had installed i that since the a satellite antenna that was 10 feet in diam- .iot people who ~ eter atop a 20-foot mast in their back yard in irmal lives, the violation ofDearborn. Michigan zoning reizu- & 1 primarily for lations. were the intended beneficiaries of ,otagroup home. the FCC rule that was adopted to preempt all .aordinarily wide such regulations that do not have reaconable ive and medicallv- ~ health/safety/aesthetic objectives or impose . by the occupants unreasonable limitations on satellite equip- sed facility more ment. The court also reasoned that the FCC ing home or health - rule imposes a binding obligation on the - hich was permitted City not to enforce zoning ordinances that ial areas. The court impose unreasonable limitations on the use at the Zoning Board. of satellite antennas. and that the FCC rules s assertion. had not were sufficiently unambiguous to provide ·pressively. nor did it grounds for a judicial interpretation o f rea- w by interpreting the sonableness. Thecourtconcludedthatplain- f to require that such tiffs were entitled to bring a Section 1983 .marily for rehabilita- action against the City to enforce their right Home v. Ciry ofChar- to install a receive-only satellite antenna for ,N.C.App. 1994). private viewing of satellite programming. 3 a new federal case Loschiavo v. Cio' of Dearborn. 33 F.3d 548 tioned parties is now (6th Cir. 1994). r 23. 1994. the U.S. (DOJ) filed a fair 1 the City of Char- 101 1 L U 0 l Li P 10-za ,~¢96 2-2€7 January/February 1995 vol 36 no. 1 23