Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20180110 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 10, 2018 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. 12:00 SITE VISITS A. None II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of Minutes C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. OLD BUSINESS A. None IV. 4:40 NEW BUSINESS A. 4:40 Election of Chair and Vice Chair B. 4:50 Update on Miscellaneous Code Amendments C. 5:20 HPC Policy Discussion, Benefits V. 6:50 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\BD27B542-F91E- 4E9F-9840-07279062F688\13179.doc 1/4/2018 HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 1102 Waters 417/421 W. Hallam 602 E. Hyman 61 Meadows Road 210 S. First 530 W. Hallam ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision 232 E. Bleeker 609 W. Smuggler 209 E. Bleeker 300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace 128 E. Main, Sardy House ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove 135 E. Cooper 1280 Ute 211 E. Hallam 124 W. Hallam 411 E. Hyman 300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace 101 W. Main, Molly Gibson Lodge 201 E. Main ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Willis Pember 229 W. Smuggler 305/307 S. Mill 534 E. Cooper Jeff Halferty 540 E. Main and Holden-Marolt 980 Gibson 845 Meadows, Aspen Meadows Reception Center 232 E. Main 541 Race Alley 310/330 E. Main (Hotel Jerome) 201 E. Hyman 208 E. Main Roger Moyer 517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s) 500 W. Main 406 S. Mill 223 E. Hallam __________________________________ Richard Lai 122 W. Main ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Scott Kendrick Need to assign: 333 W. Bleeker 134 W. Hopkins 517 E. Hopkins 422/434 E. Cooper 529-535 E. Cooper, Stein Building 420 E. Hyman 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen 301 Lake 208 E. Main 122 W. Main P1 II.F. Miscellaneous Code Update – HPC Check-In January 10, 2017 Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: January 10, 2018 RE: Miscellaneous Code Amendment REQUEST OF HPC: The purpose of this discussion is to update and solicit feedback from the Commission regarding the process to amend the Miscellaneous Regulations, Definitions, and Parking and Mobility sections of the Land Use Code. SUMMARY: The focus of the proposed amendment is on Section 26.575.020, Calculations and Measures, which includes the standards for calculating a wide range of development metrics, including building height, floor area, deck exemptions, and more. The proposed amendments will have to include some amendments to the Definitions included in Part 100, and other sections of code to ensure coordination between various regulations and standards. The Parking and Mobility section will undergo targeted amendments to make sure the regulations deliver the policy objectives identified during the 2016-2017 AACP-LUC coordination process. Periodically, the Planning staff amends the Miscellaneous Regulations section of the Land Use Code to improve ease of use, clarify regulations, better coordinate various sections of the Code, and adjust regulations to align with Council goals and new development practices. The last miscellaneous code amendment was conducted in 2015. Every few years this section of the Code requires updating to remain relevant to current building practice, to create more predictability in zoning review, and to ensure that the purpose of the requirement is met. Most of the changes are clarifications and slight adjustments, as well as formatting and organization of the section. Since last November, Planning staff has met biweekly with a focus group of 11 design and development industry professionals to discuss specific topics within the amendment process, including representatives from P&Z (Rally Dupps and Jasmine Tygre) and HPC (Gretchen Greenwood). The over-arching goal of the amendment process is to improve the utility, interpretation, formatting and appearance of the standards in 26.575.020 Calculations and Measures, while not significantly changing the development rights provided to commercial and residential properties by the regulations in the Land Use Code. Between focus group meetings, staff discusses the concepts developed by the focus group and further refines the amendments being proposed. All this input will be used to produce revised code language in January and February, following check-in meetings with HPC, P&Z and City Council. P2 IV.B. Miscellaneous Code Update – HPC Check-In January 10, 2017 Page 2 of 4 To date, the focus group has discussed three major topic areas: exterior features calculations, grade and height calculations, and formatting. Each of these discussions has resulted in conceptual frameworks for the amendments to the Land Use Code. The following memo outlines those frameworks and identifies additional topics and goals to be considered by the focus group in the coming months. HPC is encouraged to provide ideas for additional discussion or specific amendments and improvements to the sections of the LUC open for amendment. PROPOSED CHANGES/TOPIC AREAS: The focus of this Miscellaneous Code Amendment is on the Calculations and Measures standards in Section 26.575.020. The standards in this section are used to assess metrics like floor area, height, setback standards and the location and extent of various building features and appurtenances. The code amendments seek to clarify and simplify those sections. The following is a summary of the frameworks developed for the topics listed above. Exterior Features Calculations The current code treats these features, including decks, patios, walls, large eaves and overhangs, entry features, and other appendages as elements which contribute to floor area unless explicitly excepted. For example, the current code allows for decks which occupy up to 15% of floor area to be exempted from floor area calculations. All deck area above 15% counts toward floor area. This standard, with its explicit, specific references to deck, leads staff and applicants to have regular discussions about what constitutes a deck, and whether this or that example should count or not. The proposed amendment is intended to eliminate those discussion by including all appended, exterior features in one category with a square footage cap. In an effort to simplify understanding of and compliance with the regulations regarding these features, and to facilitate quality, flexible design, the focus group developed three categories for treating mass on a development site. The primary mass is that portion of the building that is within the “thermal envelope” (enclosed space). The ancillary mass are those elements attached to the primary mass but not within the “thermal envelope” (e.g. a deck, loggia or large overhang). The ground plane includes those features below a specific height and outside of the primary and ancillary mass. (See the drawings in Exhibit A for illustrations of the three feature categories.) Each of the three categories would contribute to floor area in specific ways. The outcome of the proposed framework is a simplification of the regulations for features in each category, while not increasing the square footage available for each feature type. The proposed framework is intended to eliminate the frequent conversations between staff, applicants and boards as to what constitutes a “deck” or “loggia” or “fence.” Additionally, the proposed framework would make clearer the way those features are calculated as part of floor area. Finally, the proposed framework would simplify the calculation of how various features in yards and setbacks, which are not attached to the building, may or may not be included in floor area. All of this is underpinned by the goal of not significantly impacting development rights for properties. Grade and Height The current code relies on different definitions of existing, natural, and finished grade to assist in the determination of grade for development, the measurement of height from grade. The three definitions are applied in different ways and to measure different aspects of a development plan. This leads to confusion and the misapplication of some standards. Amendments to these regulations are intended to P3 IV.B. Miscellaneous Code Update – HPC Check-In January 10, 2017 Page 3 of 4 simplify the standards for designers and staff, while not increasing building heights or incentivizing excessive site grading. This topic area presented some challenges to achieving the dual goals of simplification and maintenance of current development rights. The framework that emerged from the discussion was the idea of establishing one grade to measure height based on the existing grade of the site. That established grade would then be projected up to the maximum height limit in the zone district to set the height limit for the property. To simplify the measurement of height and the establishment of grade, a cap may be placed on the amount (depth or height) of grading from existing grade that can be conducted on a site. The intent of this cap is to reduce the desire to significantly modify existing grade in order to gain the benefit of measurement from various points in the design and development review process. Formatting The discussion regarding formatting yielded several concepts to improve navigation through the section and ease of use. The most significant recommendation from the focus group was to break out the standards in 26.575.020 into their own section. The group recommended having the calculations and measures standards in close proximity to the setback and use standards in 26.710. Also, giving those standards their own section allows more space to separate the regulations from one another and simplifies referencing those standards. The group also discussed using simple formatting changes, such as more paragraphs, more numbered subsections and separating individual standards from one another to achieve a more user-friendly code. Adding subsection headers which clearly identify the contents of that subsection would improve navigation and understanding. These changes would make the section longer without necessarily adding language, so breaking out 26.575.020 into its own section would allow for that expansion without lengthening Chapter 26. Additional Concepts The focus group suggested the addition of intent statements to the various sections of Calculations and Measures. These statements would clarify what the code is attempting to regulate and why. For example, an intent statement regarding regulation of features in yards above the ground plane might include discussion of the effect on the over-all mass of development by significant detached structures like a built-in grill and above grade patio features. Additional graphics will be added and current graphics updated to improve ease-of-use and interpretation of regulations throughout 26.575.020. Those graphics will include charts, tables, and sketches to illustrate examples of specific standards. As part of the amendment process, staff also plans to make minor changes to the parking standards in section 26.515. The parking section of the Land Use Code was rewritten in 2017 as part of the AACP- Land Use Code coordination process. Staff has worked with those standards through a few projects since they were adopted. A handful of the standards, as well as some of the wording in the regulations, are confusing and require a second look to ensure they deliver the outcomes intended through the original amendments. Staff requests feedback from HPC on the following questions: P4 IV.B. Miscellaneous Code Update – HPC Check-In January 10, 2017 Page 4 of 4 a. Does HPC support the conceptual frameworks developed for the topic areas discussed in the memo? b. What additional topics or regulations should the focus group consider in the coming weeks? c. Where in Section 26.575.020 would the introduction or redesign of graphics aid in ease of use of the section? NEXT STEPS: Staff is working with the advisory group, as well as HPC and P&Z, in January and February to develop draft code language. Following additional focus group meetings and a meeting with P&Z in the coming weeks, staff will work with Council to develop a policy resolution and draft ordinance for consideration in March. If staff is unable to schedule a meeting to discuss specific code language, the proposed language will be provided to HPC by email for individual feedback prior to Council review. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Mass Sketches P5 IV.B. HPC Benefits Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: HPC Benefits DATE: January 10, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________ REQUEST OF HPC: HPC is asked to provide formal comments on the current benefits for preservation projects. This recommendation will be included in the staff memo and discussion at the January 29, 2018 Council work session on that topic. The following memo is primarily focused on the floor area bonus HPC can award, however staff is interested in comments HPC may have on any existing or new preservation benefits. This meeting builds on a discussion initiated with HPC at a special meeting on December 7, 2017. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY: Since the adoption of the preservation ordinance in 1972 by Aspen City Council, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) was created and two historic districts were established shortly thereafter. With the guidance of HPC and Staff, Council developed the “City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures” listing significant historic resources that meet the criteria for historic designation and protection. The Inventory contains 300 properties from both Victorian and Modern eras, which are subject to a heightened level of review by the City for any proposed alterations. During a design review process, HPC can grant certain benefits for designated properties for maintaining, preserving, and enhancing the historic resource. The benefits have evolved over the years, and are intended to encourage good historic preservation practices. Benefits allow the City to act as a partner in preservation by being “committed to provide support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties” (Municipal Code Section 26.415.110). The following is a complete list of preservation benefits as outlined in the Municipal Code. As HPC is aware, property owners volunteering for Aspen Modern designation may request these benefits and other incentives as needed on a site specific basis. A. Historic Lot Split B. Increased Density C. Variations D. Parking reduction/fee waiver E. Conditional Uses F. Floor Area Bonus G. Growth Management quota system Exemption H. Waiver of impact fees I. Rehabilitation Loan Fund J. Conservation easement program K. City-Owned Building Rehabilitation fund L. Transferable Development Rights (TDR) M. Tax credit applications P6 IV.C. HPC Benefits Page 2 of 4 N. Community-initiated development O. Building Codes P. Contractor Training Q. Cultural Heritage Tourism R. Preservation Honor Awards S. Historic Markers T. Work Sessions The main benefits that are utilized are explained in more detail below. Staff is prepared to answer any questions about other benefits at the January 10th meeting. A. Historic Lot Split: Allows approval of a subdivision of property to create two lots, often smaller lots than would be allowed if the parcel was not designated. B. Increased Density: Allows, by right, two detached single-family dwelling units or a duplex on a smaller lot than would be allowed if the parcel was not designated historic. C. Variations: HPC may elect to grant variations that would allow development in side, rear and front setbacks, development that does not meet the minimum distance between buildings, up to 5% additional site coverage, and less pedestrian amenity for commercial historic properties. HPC, and P&Z, can also provide variations from the Residential Design Standards. D. Parking: HPC may reduce on-site parking or cash-in-lieu fees on sites unable to accommodate parking due to the preservation of a historic resource. E. Floor Area Bonus: HPC may grant up to 500 sq. ft. for projects that demonstrate exemplary HP practices. (The floor area bonus may also be awarded as part of a lot split review). Projects must demonstrate the following criteria: 1. Design of project meets all applicable design guidelines; 2. Historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; 3. Work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; 4. New construction reflects proportional patterns found in the historic building’s form, materials or openings; 5. Construction materials are of the highest quality; 6. Appropriate transition defines the old and new; 7. Project retains historic outbuildings; and/or 8. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. F. Growth Management quota system Exemption: Certain projects have fewer or different requirements in Growth Management because the property is historic. For instance, there is reduced affordable housing mitigation for commercial development in a historic building than in a non-historic building. As an example, the recently approved remodel of the former Main Street Bakery property involved a modest addition of 231 square feet of net leasable space. A non-historic property would have to mitigate for the 0.5 FTEs (full time equivalent employees) generated by the addition by providing an affordable housing credits or a cash-in-lieu payment of approximately $110,000. As a landmark, the property was fully exempt from this requirement. P7 IV.C. HPC Benefits Page 3 of 4 G. Waiver of impact fees: Certain impact fees are not assessed on the historic structure when it is expanded. This waiver is “by-right” and does not require HPC to grant approval. H. Transferable Development Rights (TDR): HPC and City Council may approve the creation of TDRs, which allows undeveloped floor area to be severed from the historic property and sold, to be landed and developed on a different non-historic property within the city. I. Building Codes: The Building Department applies flexibility in adopted Building Codes related to historic buildings when appropriate and without compromise to life/safety. For instance, on a historic commercial building with a pair of original entry doors, neither leaf of which meets the minimum clearance for an entry, Building has allowed the doors to remain in use if an automatic door opener opens both doors at once. Historic buildings also receive relief from aspects of the Energy Code. DISCUSSION: The benefits most frequently granted to applicants appearing before HPC in 2016 and 2017 were: 1.) Setback Variations. 2.) Part or Entire 500 sq. ft. FAR Bonus. 3.) Specific exemptions from Residential Design Standards (RDS). 4.) Parking reduction Members of the HPC board have voiced the need to address the floor area bonus benefit because of its impact on mass and scale towards proposed additions for residential projects. Many historic homes are located on smaller lot sizes where the allowed floor area is arguably already disproportionally large. For example, a 3,000 square foot lot in the West End is allowed 2,400 square feet of floor area (a floor area ratio of 0.8:1). A 6,000 square foot lot in the same neighborhood is allowed 3,240 square feet, only a 35% increase on a lot that is twice as large (a floor area ratio of 0.54:1.). Concerns with the phenomenon of large above grade additions attached to modest historic homes led to recent revisions to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. HPC has indicated that above-grade additions should be similar in massing and scale to the historic resource and be either completely detached or connected with a connecting element that maintains a respectable distance from the historic resource. While the bonus has motivated some excellent historic preservation projects over the years, the criteria for the bonus are not weighted, suggesting that using high quality construction materials (one of the criterion, and probably a given) is as valuable as undertaking restoration of the historic resource. Created over 30 years ago at a time when preservation was a newer concept and often viewed as a burden by long-time property owners on whom it had been imposed, the bonus was an important incentive. The extra square footage has now achieved a monetary value to the property owner that is perhaps in excess of the community benefit that may be achieved in some cases. Many projects are being submitted for HPC Design Review with the assumption of receiving the 500 sq. ft. FAR Bonus and reducing the impacts of the extra area becomes an uphill battle for HPC. Staff would not want to see the bonus eliminated but does believe that it must be more directly tied to achieving excellent historic preservation results and not just rewarding work P8 IV.C. HPC Benefits Page 4 of 4 that a property owner would have done regardless. It should not be allowed to exacerbate the problem of overwhelmingly sized additions that arguably conflict with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. During the December 7th HPC Special Meeting the following topics were brought up for further discussion: - Consider limiting number of incentives a single property can receive. - Address the fact that awarding extra density and additional floor area on one parcel is “double dipping”. HPC and City Council have recently expressed concerns with projects they have reviewed where a developer chooses to build a duplex on a historic site, receiving an automatic increase in allowed floor area of approximately 12% or 350- 400 square feet of floor area depending on lot size, and then asks for the 500 square foot floor area bonus as well. - Raise the bar on criterion for floor area bonus (eg. Bonus only for detached or very slightly connected additions) - Consider a sliding scale for the floor area bonus related to lot size - Consider the addition of incentives that do not physically impact the property (eg. expedited permit review, fee waivers, etc.) - Consider a sliding scale requiring property owners to return a percentage of financial incentives for each year less than five that they hold on the property (Incentive against flipping property). See Ordinance #14, Series of 2015, the Berko family voluntary AspenModern landmark designation. Questions for HPC: 1. What changes does HPC recommend to the floor area bonus? 2. Are there other benefits that HPC recommends changes to? 3. Are there any specific comments related to benefits HPC would like staff to highlight for City Council as either being of critical importance, or needing to be changed? 4. The term generally used in the Municipal Code is “Benefit,” which is an advantage to be gained and may be considered to be an expectation. Is there any value in considering redefining the benefits as “Incentives” which are given/earned to motivate or encourage certain outcomes? STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends a focused discussion on the 500 sq. ft. FAR Bonus and clarification of the criterion for granting this benefit, and a general discussion of the other topics addressed above. P9 IV.C.