Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20241009REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford, Peter Fornell, Kim Raymond, Dakota Severe, Jodi Surfas, Riley Warwick and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: David Scruggs gave the board members and Ms. Johnson a letter (entered into the record) and he went over the letter which dealt with the board going into Executive Session. He felt HPC should seriously think about not going into Executive Session. He questioned why they needed to have a secret meeting and continued to go over his thoughts contained in the letter. Mr. Moyer asked if they could discuss this in the meeting and if so when. Ms. Johnson replied that they will be voting to go into executive session to get legal counsel that she will provide. She noted that the Executive Session was being requested due to numerous questions from board members about the project at 205 W Main St. which she felt required a legal analysis. She confirmed that after the Executive Session, if the board wanted to waive their privilege with respect to any pieces of information, they could discuss that at that time. She also clarified that no decisions are allowed to be made in Executive Session. Ms. Pitchford asked if they vote to go into Executive Session, if she could disseminate the information received as an individual and Ms. Johnson replied no, the privilege to release information resides with the board as a whole. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for the two agenda items. OLD BUSINESS: 300-312 E. Hyman Ave, formerly known as Crystal Palace Discussion Ms. Johnson noted that at the end of the public hearing on this item at the October 2nd meeting she reported that a written Resolution would be brought back to the HPC. She said that after a review of the approval and application by the Attorney’s office it was determined that a Resolution was not required in this situation by the Land Use Code. Ms. Thompson acknowledged that it had been a long meeting and a difficult discussion and that she was disappointed in the outcome. She felt they had made a mistake and did not have enough information to REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 make a decision. Going forward she wanted to make sure they give applications the attention they deserve. Mr. Moyer asked if they could bring that item back up. Ms. Johnson noted that a member who voted in favor of the approval could ask for reconsideration of the approval. Mr. Moyer requested that someone who voted in favor of this item make a new motion to take back this approval. He said that he was very disappointed and didn’t sleep that night. He wondered how they should deal with a new member who can vote at their first meeting without, in his mind, proper training. Ms. Pitchford also said that she had sleepless nights over this. She had prepared a statement and was concerned and disappointed in how the board conducted themselves at the last meeting. She said her concern stemmed from their disregard of the guidelines and inconsistencies of their decisions. She continued with her prepared statement, noting that since the building is still listed as Historic, the guidelines for demolition still apply. Mr. Moyer agreed and asked again for a member who voted in favor to change their vote. Ms. Thompson noted that she believed that City Council could vote to call this item up. She said that she would be writing a letter to them to ask that they call this up and remand it back to HPC to be reconsidered. Ms. Raymond felt that as the last meeting was getting late into the night and members were all making comments, the discussion got a little confusing and members may not have known what was being voted on. She wanted to make sure in the future that members were not talking over each other and letting everyone finish their comments. Ms. Thompson and Ms. Pitchford agreed. Ms. Severe felt that it was a hard topic but thought they did do the right thing because all that was there was a wall that was such a hodgepodge. She felt what was presented by the applicant did do homage to the historic nature of the mural even though it was not the original mural or original wall. OLD BUSINESS: 117 N. Sixth St. - Minor Development – PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Hayden said that the applicants have struggled to find a different material to propose and asked for a continuance. He said that staff agreed with a continuance to December 11th, 2024. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to continue the hearing to the December, 11th, 2024 meeting. Ms. Raymond seconded. Mr. Fornell wanted to clarify that HPC had already given the applicant a few material options that would be acceptable. Ms. Thompson said yes. Ms. Johnson noted that in this case one continuance must be granted, but any further requests for continuance would be at the discretion of the board. Mr. Hayden clarified that the applicant’s representatives had told him that they could not get ahold of the landowner to verify with them what material they were comfortable with. Ms. Thompson agreed to give them one more continuance. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0, motion passes. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 NEW BUSINESS: Response to Colorado HB23-1255 Staff Presentation: Haley Hart, Long Range Planner & Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Ms. Hart gave an overview of the House Bill (Exhibit C in the agenda packet). She noted the request is to review the code amendments as redlined (Exhibits A & B in the agenda packet) and make a formal recommendation to council as prescribed by the Land Use Code. She said this is a discussion in response to HB23- 1255 - Regulating Local Housing Growth Restrictions. She then gave some history of the bill’s passage and its goals as detailed in the staff memo. She noted that this bill only addresses residential development. She said that the City of Aspen uses the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) as a regulatory tool to measure growth and development which is tied to the Affordable Housing Mitigation System. She handed the presentation over to Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson gave a brief history of GMQS as outlined in the staff memo. He noted that while the system was originally being developed, there was discussion regarding what growth meant and that it wasn’t just about population but also about the impacts of residential, lodging and commercial development. He described the “allotments” that were developed as part of the system and noted the total allotments and their usage over time. He noted that since Aspen is mostly already built out, especially on the residential side, the allotments haven’t been being used, by in large. He noted that this new state law has forced staff to ask questions about how we use the allotment system. He said that staff is concerned about the new law because so many other things are built on our allotment system, most notably affordable housing. He then listed a few other City policies and programs that are connected. He reiterated that this Bill only targets residential development. He noted that staff really only focused on responding to the areas in the Land Use Code required to keep us in compliance with HB23-1255. This meant eliminating the 13 residential allotments specified in the Code and leaving the rest of the system untouched. Mr. Moyer noted that this was pushed by the Governor, and it was his belief that it was put on hold until more studies were completed on how it would affect certain communities. Mr. Anderson said that this Bill is a very targeted aspect of a whole series of proposals from the Governor and affordable housing advocates. Ms. Pitchford noted that it seemed like the City had to respond to this. Mr. Anderson said that we were able to decide how we responded, but that ultimately, we had to do something to bring our Code into compliance. Ms. Hart continued staff’s presentation by going over the process by which staff got to where they are today. This included a subsection-by-subsection thorough review of the GMQS system and what areas would be in conflict with the Bill. She described staff’s process for this review. She noted that it was important to make sure the edits would not affect any of the other areas of GMQS. She noted that after the review staff identified Section 26.470 (Growth Management Quota System (GMQS)) and Section 26.212.010 (Planning and Zoning Commission – Powers and Duties) as sections that need to be brought into compliance. She went over the changes / edits made to the sections as outlined in the staff memo and detailed in Exhibit A and B in the agenda packet. Ms. Hart concluded by stating that staff recommends HPC approval of the Resolution to bring the two sections into compliance with the House Bill. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 Mr. Fornell asked what might happen if Aspen did not act on this to change our Land Use Code to conform with the House Bill. Ms. Johnson said that if someone was seeking to develop and GMQS was used to limit that development, the City could be challenged on it as it would violate State law. Mr. Moyer asked if this would affect any of Aspen’s historic land or resources. Ms. Hart said she did not believe so. She noted that HPC gets a subdivision by right, so no allotments are being used when a historic landmark subdivision occurs. Mr. Warwick asked how, in layman’s terms, this will affect Aspen. Mr. Anderson said that in practical terms, he did not think that it would affect the community. Ms. Hart added that in staff’s reading of the House Bill and in their opinion, they are responding in the best way to bring our Code into compliance. Ms. Pitchford gave staff kudos for all their work on this. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next Resolution in the series of 2024. Mr. Moyer seconded. Ms. Raymond and Mr. Fornell also commended staff for their work on this. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0 vote, motion passes. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Fornell commented that he had attended the City Council meeting the previous evening and noticed that an Action Item was on their agenda of the review and preliminary approval of the Armory remodel. He handed out a packet with historical pictures of the Armory and renderings of the proposed remodel to the other HPC members. He commented that the changes that are being proposed are sweeping and, in his opinion, inconsistent with HPC’s mission. He continued by noting that per the pictures in the packet he handed out, the proposal conflicts with several sections of Chapter 10 in the Historic Preservation Guidelines. Ms. Johnson wanted to add some context to the conversation and noted that what was in front of City Council was the design team seeking feedback on certain designs in order to submit a land use application that would come before HPC. She cautioned HPC members of making decisions outside of that public process once that application comes to HPC. Mr. Fornell continued by saying that during public comment he asked the City Manager when this would come before HPC. He said the City Manager’s response was that HPC would only be a referring body on this. Mr. Fornell then stated that HPC’s job was to review and be the final determining body on historic assets. He felt that for the City to circumvent HPC on this was a big disappointment. Ms. Thompson said that in her understanding, this is not yet an application submitted to Council and that it was just on their agenda to give direction to staff, but she confirmed that the intent is to have HPC only be a referring body. Mr. Anderson said that this project has had a lot of community interest and talk at Council about what the building’s future uses and programming should be. He noted that staff had been working with an architecture firm on the potential programming and designs. He confirmed that no land use application had been submitted yet and he described a provision / process in the Land Use Code called “Public Projects Review”. He said that the only real difference between a Planned Development Review and this REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 Public Projects Review is that the conceptual and final review phases are combined into a single review with City Council being the ultimate decider. Ms. Thompson felt it preposterous that a historic structure in a historic district would not have to go through the standard process with HPC. Mr. Anderson said that there is specific language in the “Public Projects” section of the Land Use Code that spells out HPC’s role in the review. Ms. Pitchford asked if the Wheeler went through HPC review when it was remodeled. Mr. Anderson said yes and then noted that there was a big distinction with what is eventually going to happen at the Armory. He said because of the multitude of issues and uses that are associated with project, in his mind it was not a choice between HPC major review and Public Projects review, it was between Public Projects review and Planned Development review. Mr. Warwick asked that because of the scale of the projects and planned changes that it was vastly different to the Wheeler remodel. Mr. Anderson said, in his opinion, yes. Mr. Fornell said that if the architects had read any of the Historic Preservation Guidelines, they would not have shown the pictures to Council. Mr. Anderson said that once a land use application was submitted, staff would bring forward review criteria and their findings on those criteria whether from the Land Use Code or the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Ms. Raymond wanted to know whose decision it was to utilize the Public Projects review. She noted that the architects on this were very talented and had worked on other historic projects, yet it seemed they were told from the beginning that they did not need to follow historic preservation guidelines. She felt the rendering were ridiculous. Ms. Thompson agreed and said that it was a slap in the face. Mr. Anderson said HPC’s decision to write a letter reflecting the board’s position on this was well within their jurisdiction. Ms. Surfas noted that she had heard the term “community interest” on two projects recently and said that it seemed the City was willing to really twist the rules for their own projects that they want to push through when it benefits the community. She didn’t understand why the City was able to do whatever they want while others in the general public have to follow the rules and come before HPC for review. Mr. Anderson disagreed with Ms. Surfas’ basic framing and noted that the Public Projects portion of the Code had been in existence for, to his knowledge, many decades and is used as a path. He stressed that it does not waive any of the rules and all the review criteria are still there. He noted that the renderings that Mr. Fornell handed out are not a land use application, but rather a move towards a schematic design and have not gone through any formal review. Ms. Johnson clarified that the Community Development staff in front of them tonight are not the staff leading the project team and that this would come before HPC in a public hearing for a recommendation of approval with conditions or a denial to City Council. She noted that the Community Development staff would be reviewing the application and may not find that it is in compliance with all the relevant criteria. She also noted that it was in HPC’s purview to write a letter to City Council stating their concerns about their involvement in the process, but she cautioned them from making a decision before the actual application comes before them as it may end up disqualifying them as a board member. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 There was more discussion about how this process would play out and what HPC’s recommending role would be. The Public Project Review section of the Land Use Code was displayed for reference. The conversation included discussion of the differences between this Public Project Review and a Planned Development Review using specific and hypothetical examples. Ms. Thompson stated that, in her view it seemed that the City Manager’s office had decided to pursue the Public Projects Review approach and what HPC could request of City Council is that they use the Planned Development process. Because of the flexibility he saw would be necessary on this project, Mr. Anderson suggested that the two potential options would be either the Public Projects or Planned Development process. Ms. Thompson said she would like to revise the draft letter to City Council and have staff include it at the next meeting for the board’s review and vote. Ms. Severe asked why the Public Projects process was chosen, to which Mr. Anderson explained the many aspects and circumstances that existed in this project that lent it to that process. He noted that in his belief the normal HPC major project review process does not have the capacity to respond to these issues and the areas of flexibility that this project will need. Mr. Moyer suggested that the letter be sent directly to all Council members as well as the City Manager. Mr. Fornell asked Mr. Moyer if, in his many years in town, had he seen something like this before. Mr. Moyer said nothing before Sara Ott. There was some discussion about the process of reviewing the letter at the next meeting and submitting it to City Council. Ms. Thompson suggested they also send it to the newspapers in a letter to the editor. The HPC members and staff discussed the scheduling of when the letter review would happen. It was decided to request the item be included on the October 23rd, 2024 meeting agenda. Mr. Moyer commented that it was very disappointing that architects in the area have total disregard for what HPC does and for historic buildings. He further commented about the size of additions and how they can be so much bigger than the historic resources they are built behind. He realized that it is out of their hands as it was part of the Land Use Code and allowable square footage. He noted that Pitkin County had made big changes to their Land Use Code and suggested that HPC could do the same and ask to reduce the huge amount of square footage that is allowed to be built behind or next to historic resources. Mr. Moyer then reiterated his belief that if an HPC member is listening to and basing their decisions on the comments and information provided by an applicant’s team and supporters then that member should not be on the board. Ms. Johnson clarified to the members that neither staff or the applicant should be given greater weight under the code. Members need to consider all the evidence presented and make an informed decision based on the criteria before them. Mr. Warwick commented that in many of their decisions it is a balance of “bricks & mortar” and the fabric of the community. He thought it very important to take into account public comments on projects, be them from neighbors, consultants, business owners, or other members of the community. Ms. Pitchford said that she was very disappointed in the process that happened at the previous meeting, where they basically de-listed a property because the action they took disregarded the historic REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 preservation guidelines. She felt the board needed to come to a common understanding of the guidelines and the board’s general purpose, as she felt they were very disconnected. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Thompson noted that there were a number of projects that were still assigned to a previous HPC member and that she wanted to go through them and assign new monitors. She went through each of them and made suggestions of who should take them on. All members agreed with her suggestions. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None CALL UP REPORTS: None STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Hayden updated the board regarding Ms. Pitchford’s question at a previous meeting of the material finishes of the Pan Abode on Main St. as well as a question from Mr. Moyer about the removal of paint on a brick structure that was done without approval, causing damage to the brick. Mr. Anderson responded to questions from Mr. Moyer about the status of a few other non-historic projects. Ms. Pitchford left the meeting at 6:30pm. Ms. Thomspon then moved on to the Executive Session and noted as Ms. Johnson had explained that the board would have to vote to go into executive session. MOTION: Ms. Thompson then moved to go into executive session for the discussion of approvals given to 205 E. Main St. Ms. Severe seconded. Mr. Fornell commented that if he knew what they would be discussing he could make a better informed decision about voting to go into executive session. Ms. Thompson noted that there was nothing prepared in writing for this discussion and that they could decide afterwards if the discussion should be made public. Ms. Johnson explained that there were questions raised by HPC and specifically the monitor on the project about the approved resolution and other information that had come to light since. She noted that the discussion would be about the legal implications of the new information on the approvals and HPC’s legal options. She further explained the general purposes of an executive session. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, abstain; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, no; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-2-1 vote. Motion fails as two thirds of the members must vote yes to go into executive session. Ms. Johnson noted that this item was not noticed for a public discussion and that staff was not prepared for that. Mr. Moyer asked about the status of the rear addition to the property. Ms. Johnson reminded HPC that Resolution #09, Series of 2023 very clearly stated that the “non-historic” addition can be removed. She noted that the questions raised related to whether that addition was historic or not. MOTION: Ms. Severe made a new motion to go into executive session. Ms. Thompson seconded. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 Ms. Raymond noted that she had accompanied Mr. Hayden to the site and did not believe a final determination had been made on whether the addition was historic or not, which is why she believed they needed to talk about it. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-1 vote, motion passes. Mr. Scruggs took issue with the procedure of the last motion to go into Executive Session. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to go into Executive Session. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-1 vote, motion passes. The board moved into Executive Session. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to exit the Executive Session. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes. 7-0 vote, motion passes. The board exited Executive Session. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk