Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20241023REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2024 Vice - Chairperson Raymond opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford, Kim Raymond, Dakota Severe, Jodi Surfas and Riley Warwick. Absent were Peter Fornell and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Charlie Tarver thanked HPC for their service and recognized that it was not an easy job because he felt in this town you cannot do the right thing without someone objecting. He asked the members to do what they each thought was right. Mr. David Scruggs echoed Mr. Tarver’s comments and asked that the members also use common sense. He then gave the board members and Ms. Johnson a letter (entered into the record). He then moved on to addressing the members regarding his points contained in his letter. He asked the HPC to waive their attorney client privilege and make the contents the 10/9 executive session public and to also reverse their decision on the 205 W. Main approvals and revoke the permission to demolish. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Pitchford addressed her fellow HPC members stating that while she did not agree with the decision HPC made regarding the Crystal Palace, the west wall of 300 E. Hyman is designated as a historic resource. She noted that the applicant in their presentation and application had argued the building was not historic. She felt that four HPC members accepted those arguments and treated the designated property as not historic. She also noted that the applicant had not applied to delist the property and told HPC that they were not interested in delisting it. She felt the four members did not allow City staff to guide HPC though the process of determining whether it continued to be historic or not. Ms. Johnson let the members know that at the previous evening’s City Council meeting, the Crystal Palace project was asked to be noticed for call up. She then cautioned the members of engaging in ex parte communications outside of a public meeting. She explained ex parte communications. There was some discussion about the possibility of the item being called up and sent back to HPC and how any ex parte communication could impact things. Ms. Johnson also went over some basics of open meetings law as well. Mr. Moyer spoke to his experience over the 20 years he had been on and off this commission. He felt that he had always had competent staff advising HPC and he always deferred to their suggestions, unless there was something he felt they missed. He felt that all HPC members should adhere to staff and follow their guidance. He said that in his years of experience, he learned to listen to all sides, but not to let the applicant run over you and be very persuasive. He said that they should not be dealing with any applicant’s desires for a property, but rather they are there for the historic resource. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2024 Ms. Raymond agreed that the City staff are amazing for all the hard work they do, but she cautioned against having the idea that the City is on their side and the applicant is not. She felt it was not a them versus us mentality. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. White commented on the previous discussion. She said that City staff and the applicant each bring evidence forward and that it was up to HPC to determine how they would like to interpret that. She suggested members take a broad look at all evidence presented and not just put staff above everything else. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with open meetings law for the action item. ACTION ITEMS: Consideration of Chair’s proposed letter to City Council Re: the Armory Building project located at 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. Ms. Johnson passed out a paper copy of the Chair’s draft letter and introduced the item, noting that at the last HPC meeting there were a few commissioner member comments related to the Armory Building remodel. She said that while Ms. Thompson was not present, if the board collectively approved the letter as to form, it would be appropriate for there to be a motion to authorize the chair to sign the letter or that changes could be made to the letter through discussion. Ms. Surfas felt it was a very well written letter but had some small grammatical edits. She then went over her suggestions. Ms. Raymond asked Mr. Anderson to refresh the members on the difference between the Public Projects process and the Planned Development process. Mr. Anderson noted that this project as described has uses that require a Planned Development which is one of the reviews under the Public Projects process. He said that if this was just a Planned Development and not a Public Project, HPC would still be just a recommending body on the first step of that review. After City Council approval it would then come back to HPC for a final review of the details. The Public Projects process, which he noted has been used fairly regularly, basically combines those two reviews into a single step and HPC is a recommending body. He also noted that the Public Projects process does not take away any of the review criteria that HPC would normally be considering. All criteria need to be submitted, discussed and considered, both in HPC’s recommendation and City Council’s ultimate decision. He then described a few other projects that were reviewed under the Public Projects process, including the new City Hall, the Ambulance building at the hospital and the addition to the County administrative building. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2024 Ms. Raymond then asked what criteria are used to deem something a Public Projects review. Mr. Anderson said that the Land Use Code spells out three or four criteria that would qualify a project for that type of review, including that the project is of significant public interest. Ms. Johnson noted that in this case the City of Aspen is the applicant, and they have say in what they seek as far as an application process. There was then some discussion about the differences between this project and the Wheeler remodel and their associated review processes. Ms. Raymond wondered if there was a possibility to clarify the section of the letter asking to schedule a work session with City Council. She wondered if they could add a specific timeframe to scheduling it. There was discussion about the possibility of scheduling a work session before a Land use Application was submitted. Ms. White made the final grammatical edits to the letter. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to have the Chair to sign the letter as revised. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. Realizing that Ms. Thompson was currently out of the country, Mr. Moyer motioned to have Ms. Raymond, as Vice Chair, sign the letter. Ms. Severe seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Johnson noted that the letter would be sent to each individual Council member and the City Manager would be copied. She also mentioned that staff would work on the potential for a work session and what dates might work. After checking the Land Use Code, Mr. Anderson wanted to clarify that the determination of pursuing the Public Projects process was up to the City Council’s discretion. ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk