Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20220209 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2022 Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Jodi Surfas, Kara Thompson, Peter Fornell and Roger Moyer. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the minutes from January 12th, 2022; Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor; motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer commented on an article in the newspaper about two unfinished buildings in town owned by Mark Hunt. They are the Main Street Bakery and the old Crystal Palace. He asked if anyone knew what was going on with these buildings that have been sitting for many years now and if there is anything they can do about it. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said there has been a fair amount of movement with the Main Street Bakery building and that Ms. Yoon has received an application that they are reviewing, but there are several things that have to be reviewed to get anything moving forward. She has had conversations on The Crystal Palace all week and there are several issues that they have with respect to the wall that has been saved with the mural. They related to how to deal with the building around it and make sure to keep the wall intact. Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Feinberg Lopez if they removed more of the wall than they were supposed to. She said no. Ms. Surfas asked what was supposed to be preserved on that building. Ms. Simon said the review process was lengthy on that project and that it wasn’t what it appeared to be architecturally. What we knew as the dinner theatre was actually built I in the 1970s and there was a Victorian era structure there before that partially collapsed. She mentioned that HPC went back and forth on whether the 1970s structure was historic or nothing was historic and what to do. The decision was to keep the that portion of the west wall as it was considered to have the most integrity. Ms. Thompson proposed that HPC do an in-person work session in the next month or two to review some items that have been raised at previous meetings and the project monitoring process. She also wanted to talk about how Aspen modern projects fit into the guidelines that are more intended for Victorian era structures. The rest of the board supported that. Ms. Thompson asked about what Council has been discussing regarding preservation benefits. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2022 Ms. Simon said there hasn’t been anything specifically discussed, just a general sense that additions are larger than Council would like. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Thompson said that she is conflicted and will be turning the meeting over to Mr. Halferty as Vice Chair for the first agenda item. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: None. 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 the agenda item. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 925 King Street – Demolition Review, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams stated that they are requesting demolition of a cabin on the property. They were before HPC in 2021 to redefine the preservation boundaries of this property and to request a lot split. The cabin was included in the application, but after site visits with staff it was decided to try to get more information because of questions about the cabin’s history. She stated that there was no mention of the cabin on the Historic Inventory forms, but there is a 1995 notarized letter that mentions that the cabin was originally located on Hwy 82 in the Stillwater neighborhood and then was moved to Waters Ave. in 1957. It was then moved up to King St. Ms. Adams then showed the only historic photo that was found which is of Sparky’s Cabins and Trailer Court located in Stillwater. It seemed to be a landing ground for many random buildings. She showed the existing conditions at King St. and pointed out the miner’s cottage that is on the property. There is no development of this cottage that is part of this application. They had removed the T1-11 siding in the hopes of revealing something interesting, but rather it gave more questions. What was found was a lot of haphazard construction, including lots of seams, and cut logs. She then showed a few pictures of the cabin highlighting the construction issues and also described the roof framing, confirming the rebuild. She went over the Purpose and Intent section of the HP guidelines and said that the program is not about preserving every old building but finding a reasonable balance. She stated that if the cabin were to stay it would require a full restoration and they would be guessing to what it looked like. She then went over the demolition criteria that is being reviewed tonight and said they find criteria D is met, that there is not documentation to support that the property has historic significance. She finished by stating that the reason they are requesting demolition is to avoid guessing at history. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2022 Mr. Fornell asked who does the scoring for demolition. Ms. Adams said that the scores in the application was from her calculations. Mr. Halferty asked what the use was in the cabin. Ms. Adams said that it was a residential rental. Mr. Halferty asked about what was found in the attic space upon inspection. Ms. Adams said that all the rafters were cut and there was a new ridge beam. It seemed to all have been rebuilt once it was moved from Waters to King St. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that it was all new truss work that was haphazard. Staff Presentation: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Ms. Feinberg Lopez Showed the North and West elevations and described the details of the lot and zoning. She said her and Ms. Yoon had been to the property many times to make sure they feel comfortable with the proposal. She went over some of the alterations done over time between 1945 and today. She pointed out an addition on the south elevation and showed the east elevation, pointing out the damage to the log structure and the haphazard way the logs were put back together. She pointed out several new penetrations on the east and west elevations. She then showed some interior photos. Ms. Feinberg Lopez then went over the items staff is asking to be looked at for demolition and stated that staff feels that we have lost the integrity and is recommending demolition. Staff finds the current log structure to have significant loss of original materials, form and character defining features, such that demolition is a viable option. Mr. Fornell asked if staff agreed with the determination of the scoring that was provided by the applicant. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that she found that Ms. Adams did an excellent job in the research and scoring. Mr. Fornell thought that blatantly missing from the application is the requirement for the property owner and applicant to provide affordable housing mitigation for the demolition. He stated that per Land Use Code, if it can be demonstrated that the parcel provided workforce housing that the requirement for affordable housing mitigation is absolute. He is confused as to why it is not mentioned or being satisfied. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that this is just one of many reviews that will occur related to this property. Mr. Fornell said that the construction of a new addition to the historic resource will kick in affordable housing, but that it is separate to the employee housing replacement when you have a demolition. Ms. Adams stated that Mr. Fornell is talking about the multi-family replacement section of the code and that this property is not considered multi-family. It had a lot of bandit units on it with people living in them, but was never a legally established multi-family property, therefore does not trigger replacement with the demolition. Mr. Fornell mentioned that the fathering parcel had four units on it and asked if the lot split that occurred was by design to avoid the multi-family replacement. Ms. Adams said the City never recognized this as multi-family, so they never required replacement and that it was not the reason for the lot split. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2022 Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that this structure is considered by staff to be the same as “sheds” or “out buildings”. Mr. Fornell said that it could be easily demonstrated that the bandit units were all occupied over time. He asked if there was any affordable housing replacement required with the lot split. Ms. Johnson noted from the Land Use Code that affordable housing replacement would be required if you demolished a multi-family resident housing. She then quoted the definition of multi-family residence. She said that there were no mitigation requirements associated with the lot split. She said she did not believe it applies in this instance but said that if further development were to take place on the property it would likely trigger affordable housing mitigation requirements. Mr. Fornell said that he is not prepared to vote on this until he received a legal opinion on this. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that they are following code here and that is her job. Mr. Fornell said that he thought it was an awful loophole in the affordable housing requirement. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Halferty went over the criteria in front of the board. Mr. Fornell made a motion to continue until they got a legal response from the attorney’s office regarding the housing mitigation. No second made. Ms. Johnson mentioned that the resolution in the packet had some errors. She said that if the Board wishes to consider passage of the resolution, that they consider the amended resolution that Ms. Feinberg Lopez set to members today. She went over some of the identifying information that was corrected. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the demolition as per the amended resolution. Ms. Surfas seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, abstained; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; 3-0 in favor, motion passes. Mr. Moyer referred to a walk around that HPC and staff did on the property approximately 2 years ago and mentioned that there was no discussion of affordable housing. He asked Ms. Feinberg Lopez and Ms. Johnson if employee housing something HPC is supposed to consider. Ms. Johnson agreed that Mr. Fornell is right, that there are issues with the code that they hope to correct. That affordable housing credits are not doing what they were designed to do. That said, every project before HPC, we are going to look to the code to determine what the affordable housing mitigation requirements are. Mr. Halferty said he understood Mr. Fornell’s point but voted the way he did because of the criteria in front of them. Mr. Fornell said that he was not going to let this go and had talked with the mayor and Community Development about the matter. He said it is a problem loophole that needs to be closed. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2022 Mr. Moyer asked if when the miner’s cabin development comes before HPC in the future can they make affordable housing mitigation part of their demands. Ms. Johnson said it would depend on how it comes to them. If the land use approval is submitted after the moratorium, it would be subject to any new terms. It would be subject to review for those issues and HPC would be asked, as part of their conditions of approval, if those requirements had been met. ADJOURN: Mr. Moyer moved to adjourn. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor; motion passed. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk