Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19901219HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of December 19, 1990 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Les Holst, Glenn Rappaport, Charles Cunniffe and Roger Moyer present. Jake Vickery was absent. PRESERVATION LAW/HPC PROCEDURAL ISSUES - A'I"~ORNEY JED CASWAT~, Jed: I came from Arapaho County where I was in charge of litigation for two years. Prior to that I was in Greeley for three years in charge of their litigation. Prior to that I was in private practice in Ohio. This is my sixth year working with a government. It is important for you to know that I do not have any background in historical preservation and in my view I have a great interest in that and have an historical vein. The City Attorney's office has hired an assistant which will start February 1st. One of my goals will be to provide on a regular basis one of us present at all board meetings. From my experience in the past there was always an attorney at all citizen advisory boards. We both would like to see how the Boards operate. I feel it is important that if the Board needs legal advice that it be readily available to you and if that means at all meetings then we will try to do that. My goal tonight is to inform you of what the law has in mind when the Board sits, broad parameters. HPC is 18 years old and is not identified in the city charter. Council adopted the Board; as a Board created by the City Council your authority in jurisdiction is established by City Council through the ordinances that set up your authority. Latest revision was 1989 and is in the landuse code. You have the procedures that you utilize when a project comes before you that will impact of effect an historically designated landmark or is in an historic district. Most of the cases that you will find have to do when somebody is dissatisfied with a decision that you may or may not have made. You do not sit here and pass legislation, you can suggest legislation to City Council to adopt but you are not a legislative body. Your role is a quasi judicial function; people come to you and make an application to develop a piece of property that has historical implications involved and using a set of criteria as established in our code you examine and evaluate the applicants proposal. You are similar to a judge listening to evidence or a jury why a certain project should be allowed, facts etc. You then weigh all of that and deny or approve etc. with conditions. Because you act in a quasi function the courts review your decision in approving or denying a particular project will judge your procedures in the same way that if it came out of our lower court. The court will review your decision only based on the record produced here in front of you and try to determine whether rationally and reasonably you interpreted and implied the facts to the regulations which we have in our code book. Where a citizens board finds themselves in trouble is when they slip out of there quasi judicial role and succumb to the kind of pressures Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 lets say, city Council is subjected to on a regular basis and should be subjected to because their central function is legislative although they will perform quasi judicial functions when certain decisions that you make may go to them for an appeal or when the Planning & Zoning Commission go to them and put on their quasi judicial hats and act as judges to. In smaller communities people do not recognize that you are performing a quasi judicial function and that they have no hesitation to bring all kind of political pressures upon you that I don't think frankly should be brought to bear. For instance I'll use an attorney; when you perform a function you are like a judge or jury hearing a case and a lawyer involved in that case representing a client would not never dare approach a juror or judge listening to the case that he was trying on behalf of the client. That same standard applies when you sit as a quasi judicial body. I am troubled by the fact that lawyers who are representing applicants that are before you to have their case tried will approach you outside the context of your formal hearing and try to provide you information or lobby you. That is wholly inappropriate. Roxanne: If in fact that occurs, which it does all the time, when these people (Board) are reviewing a project should they disclose that, so and so talked to me on the street about this project? Jed: There is also the reality, living in a small town that you will run into people. To disclose these things is important because when and if a decision leaves here and goes to a court of law for review the Judge is bound to only review the information that is in the official record. If you are relying on information that has been provided to you outside the hearing that you have on the development application, the judge cannot review that as he doesn't know that. I've been involved in a case (landuse issue) the attorney came in and said that judge what the board considered in making this determination is not reflected in the official record. I know that this board member had a conversation and took him out to the site etc ..... you should consider that whether or not the Board used its discretion in rendering the decision. I had to fight that to the Judge to only consider what was in the record. The lawyer made a very strong argument. That is the most common problem that I have seen with citizen boards such as yourself. They tend to get lobbied very heavily; communications are made to them in their official capacity on matters officially before the Board outside the context of the form that you are to consider. I just point that out because that is one area of the law that has had litigation. It seems a very common practice here in Aspen to Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 lobby you folks on issues before you. guidance on that I am available. If you need assistance or Glenn: One seemingly direct violation to what you are saying is project monitoring. Revisions made by the project monitor have no way of getting back into the official record. A lot of what we do after a certain point after a project is approved depends on the decisions of monitor or monitors. That is a gray area. Roxanne: I don't see that as a gray area at all. At the end of every meeting we have communications and the role of the project monitor is not to make decisions on the field that would allow changes to an already approved development application. It is to monitor to make sure they are doing it appropriately. They are to inform the board of things that are coming up and if an revised application needs submitted. Jed: What I am referring to is only when you are considering the initial application and you make the decision to allow the application to proceed. Things that happen after that are basically thought outside the realm of the function that you perform as a quasi judicial body. You have already made your quasi judicial determination of denying or approving. The City Council can alter what you do as they see fit. The Board can often recommend changes in the code. Roxanne: The code is really clear that all approvals shall meet the development approvals but often the motions are not tied to findings. Can you talk to us about the importance of findings? Jed: When you are granting or denying development approval you should keep in mind that it is possible that whatever you do a judge could be reviewing it in the future. When the judge reviews his or her review will be limited to what is in the records. If motions are made and granted and the findings are not in there the judge doesn't know what it is you intended so they will vacate the decision and send it back as they cannot tell what basis this decision was made. It is important to set fort the facts upon which you rendered your determination. When I was on the liquor board we developed a form. Perhaps you could devise that here. You need to hit all the bases when you make your findings. Roxanne: This Board struggles a lot when an applicant brings in an application that is difficult to review for any number of reasons and finally we are able to get to a conceptual approval. The conceptual has a number of conditions on it and a lot of them say "restudy", that is a very broad word that is used in conditions. The applicant continues to return and return and I 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 feel this Board feels very obligated to grant final development based upon this applicant's restudy of conditions whether or not they feel they have been adequately studied. What is it about conceptual to final, do these people need to feel obligated to grant a final development approval if they grant conceptual? If they grant conceptual does that mean the applicant feels that he has approval and has the rubber stamp. Jed: My recollection of the ordinance is that it is very clear. Conceptual approval is just that, conceptual approval and does not contain within it a guarantee of any kind that if final development approval is granted that it will be identical to the conditions of whatever was granted at conceptual. Roxanne: What if new things come up and the plan is altered and the Board is looking at a plan that is different from conceptual or if the Board missed something in the motion and the applicant says you granted me conceptual with these conditions and I met them, therefore you should grant me final approval. Charles: Especially if the a lawyer is present. Jed: Giving conceptual approval does not mean you are getting final. You have to be reasonable also. The whole purpose of conceptual is to allow the applicant to proceed along some basic assumptions of how that project is going to look. The applicant does get upset if you vary too much and all of a sudden what the board has in mind for final is 180 away from what was approved at conceptual. It is my understanding that conceptual is just to draw the outline of the project or scope of the project trying to get everybody on the same wave length and final is used to work out details. The system is designed while conceptual doesn't guarantee what will happen at final but conceptual has the parameters of what the board and applicant will be acting within when they get to final. If you have been attending the council meetings regarding the Meadows it is a classic example. There are certain things that are going to be at conceptual and even before that but all those things technically are not binding but everybody is operating on good faith and that what is approved at conceptual essentially is what final will look like. Conceptual in no way vests the applicant with the particulars that were approved at conceptual. Charles: If we have an application that was approved at conceptual with a great degree of conditions and that applicant doesn't seem to make that much progress in meeting those conditions there is no obligation by this Board to grant Final approval. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 Jed: That is correct. When you set forth your conditions you expect to see certain things happen and if they are not there or the applicant doesn't come forward within a certain period of time they start all over again potentially. Charles: Lets say the applicant had ten conditions and met nine and one condition that we felt strongly that they didn't meet. We wouldn't have to grant final. Jed: Right, you have to maintain all the conditions that you initially set down at conceptual. It works both ways. Charles: We are uncertain about that. We get badgered by applicants to go along with project even though we don't entirely agree with it. Jed: When I first came I was contacted by an attorney stating that a staff person told them that they had approval and that his client relied upon what the staff person had said. My understanding is whatever was said by staff doesn't bind the final decision making authority that is going to rule on that. If your client relied upon that they did so at their own risk. Joe: Even if it is an interpretation of the code. Jed: There is only one person at staff level that can make an interpretation of the code and that is the Planning Director and the Planning Director's interpretation is subject to review. Charles: What happens in a situation that we grant conceptual approval because we felt that it was justified at the time and by the time the applicant comes back in for final some things change, attitudes change or there is a shift in the feeling about a project, how do you defend a change of heart? Roxanne: Like a demolition that was approved at conceptual and a year later they come in for final. Charles: The climate of the city has are different than they once were and that conceptual approval for final. changed and the sentiments they come back to rely on Jed: Whatever you do in granting or denying a development is subject at some point for judicial review. The standard that the court looks at is whether or not your decision is arbitrary capricious and totally unsupported by the facts before you when you made the decision. For example a conceptual was granted and it went to final and some of the conditions were changed at final Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 and the applicant was dissatisfied and brought an action to have the court review what the final decision body did. What the court wants to see is that you have reasonably stated the facts and set forth the facts which will support your decision to effectively change your mind. As long as there is some reasonable creditable evidence in the record of facts to support your decision the courts will leave it alone. Charles: New evidence and new information can justify change and conditions at final. Jed: Yes that is my interpretation. That is why you have conceptual and final. Bill: Do you see anything into the code that might need changed as you review it? Jed: I have listed some but have not reviewed all of them. Bill: I think it would be appropriate to have you or your assistant at the meetings. Sometimes we don't act within the code and it would be easier to make those decisions if we did. A lot of times personal philosophy's come out on how a project should go to keep it moving. Jed: It will be good for the applicant also. Joe: When people read the standards they have questions like what does compatible in character mean, what is the cultural value of a building etc. Roxanne: That language is used all over the country and if we are struggling with those then I need to know how to refine those better. Charles: If we rely on our guidelines whenever we get into a debate about what the character is. Jed: When you see language like that, that is what you make your factual findings on. Your hearing, when you determine what is the character of the neighborhood. You have some facts going into the record as to what is the character of the neighborhood. You can establish that factually. You don't have to have standards as to what the character of a particular neighborhood is. That is a factual determination that you make. For example the character is that on this house there are six out of 8 residence victorian within the year ... and they present a certain type of style etc. That is a factual determination and then you evaluate as to whether the project presented comes 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 within the character of the neighborhood. You establish the character and then determine whether the project is consistent with the neighborhood. Don: We have a real problem with standard #2 is the proposed development consistent with the character of the neighborhood because in many instances if that is strictly interpreted it means that somebody is going to come in with a mock victorian building automatically in a victorian neighborhood. Charles: That standard can be tempered. Don: We may want to revise standard #2 in essence because if I was reading this I would do a mock. Roxanne: I would recommend that the Board look at the code and make comments to me. We will be having a retreat in January. Jed: You can read the code but you have to sit down and hear a case and see the facts come before you. Joe: You can read the standards but they don't actually mean anything until you see something presented. It make it very difficult for applicants. FINAL DEVELOPMENT - SPORTSTALKER 204 S. GAleNA Roxanne: I have taken in all the review comments, thoughts and conditions and added my professional opinion to the development review standards and I am recommending denial. In your attempt to keep this project alive numerous restudy conditions have been placed which the applicant did not meet. The Planning office cannot recommend that HPC grant approval on something that hasn't met the conditions that you placed at the last meeting. I went back to the basic development review standards and applied them accordingly. No development shall be permitted in the historic district unless the development is approved by the HPC. The first standard discusses compatibility and character to adjacent parcels. We have consistently found that this proposal is incompatible with adjacent parcels: The Brand Building and the Weber Block. Standard two talks about the consistency of character to the neighborhood and we find again that this project bears no reference to the architectural character that is predominant in the commercial core historic district. We have found that your review comments and conditions of approval you have put on this have not resulted in a satisfactory design that meets the standards. Our core district is comprised of two and three story brick structures that anchor key blocks and corners and one and two story narrow clapboard structures are found 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 scattered throughout creating a small scale balance to the district. We find that the proposed three story massing, scale and materials are inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and standard two has not been met. Standard three deals with cultural value and we feel that the cultural value of the core district is primarily found in the abundance of a significant style brick and stone 19 century structures and small vernacular clapboard buildings and that the proposal competes with the established pattern and may in turn diminish the cultural value of the adjacent parcels three of which are listed on the National Register. Standard #4 deals with architectural integrity and it deals directly with a designated parcel. This parcel is not designated and therefore does not apply; however, the existing one story commercial building does not really promote any architectural statement; however, just in its one story small scale may have value in that it provides relief to the commercial core. Alternatives are attached in records (see memo dated Dec. 19, 1990). Welton Anderson, architect: This submission which is displayed on the wall incorporates all the conditions that were noted in the minutes of Nov. 28th meeting. Most of the changes are minor and were already incorporated one way or another in the submission of Nov. 28th. The reason why Roxanne is recommending denial is because when I got back from vacation and found out that this was tabled not to a date certain I asked her when the next possible date was. She said, Dec. 19th and that I needed a full application, revised drawings by this afternoon. I had already discussed with Roxanne over the telephone that the conditions by in large at the time were acceptable however I couldn't produce the drawings in one hour time so I said reprocess the application that I had presented on Nov. 28th. It was simply a way of not delaying this project anymore. We met on this project 7 times so far and covered everything. I have heard what you suggested and everything to date is incorporated in the drawings. The first condition was the restudy of the awnings. The awnings are open specific but wider than the openings to read as if it is a continuous awning. The barrel awnings were discussed at the sub-committee and were approved at that time as one of the items that was approved at conceptual. It was not an item that was left open for discussion. I feel the barrel awnings are particularly important with the door that we added in the corner at your request because they define the three entries to the building. The sloping awnings define where windows are. The second condition was to eliminate the second floor line, that is done. Restudy the west elevation mid-block recess. From my reading of the minutes of Nov. 20th option C was the one chosen by HPC because the corners mostly iterated the theme. The major materials are essentially what is already Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 there. The siding is the same S-4-S double siding, the trim is a smooth finish and the window details are the same. The new windows upstairs in the employee housing unit and the free market unit are standard clad marvin windows. The recess on the west side and on the corners are the conventional aluminum tube system. As we have said all along, the colors will stay the same, the window trim will be very much the same and the new awnings will pick up the same color of the barrel awnings, right now they are wood with copper sheathing. The last item on Roxanne's list was restudy the cross section of the band above the ground floor store fronts which we have done. The band will be hidden by the awning. In conclusion I would hope that you could finally give us the final approval for this project. We have met every condition and suggestion that you all have given US. CLARIFICATIONS Glenn: You said the barrel awnings were approved at the sub- committee meeting. Welton: Yes, that sub-committee meeting in which conceptual was approved. I am not in favor of going to the sub-committee meeting again because there were no minutes taken at that meeting. It is much peoples memory. Roxanne: Conceptual was not granted and could not be granted at a sub-committee meeting. Conceptual was granted at the regular meeting after the meeting with the sub-committee and the barrel awnings were not approved. Glenn: I concur. Don: What about coloring on the recess etc.? Welton: I have always talked about the recess areas being blue to blend in with the sky. What value of blue is an area that other people have more expertise that I do in selecting the final colors. Charles: Roxanne, time to review the no formally? do feel comfortable that you have had enough information that has just been presented and Roxanne: No. Charles: I feel strongly that this application has no been completed in that regard. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Charles: Are the existing a~rnings remaining? Welton: They will have to be removed and will have new ones as there is no way to use them. The barrel awnings are a simple framework with canvas. Charles: Will the ground floor remain unchanged? Welton: The intent is to leave the $750,000 improvements that were done to the ground floor three years ago. The walls are 12 to 16 concrete masonry block and the structural system is steel. The ceiling is suspended dropping panels which can be easily dismantled and reconstructed. The store will probably be out of commission for one off season. The entire second floor is employee housing and there is one employee housing and one free market on the third floor. Les: My specific problem is the barrel awnings and the color rendering is not complete. Welton: Roxanne had the drawings, the only thing different is the addition of the rendering which you requested and the deletion of the line on the second story window. Georgeann: There is a large improvement and I feel we have had communication problems between the last meeting and this meeting. For clarification the awnings will be non-retractable with metal frames and canvas over them. I cannot say that the three barrel awnings alone destroy the character of the downtown core. He has responded to the conditions and has come forward with specific conditions that he wants to do. The building is reasonably in character with the standards. Don: I find a discrepancy between the drawings. The barrel awnings on the west and north facades are drawn in the elevations as higher than the other awnings and the barrel awning on the corner is lower. I find them all to be too vertical. We asked for restudy of the awnings. Glenn: Since the beginning I have had some basic problems with the scale of the building in relations to its parts and itself and the appropriateness. Specifically the size of the first floor in relationship to the other floors. Does a one story building necessarily become a three story building when you put two more floors on top of it. 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 Joe: I like the final design that we have here today and do not have strong feelings about the awnings. I like the fact that the awnings do differentiate where the entrance of the building is. I also like the elimination of the second floor horizontal line as it makes the building read as a two story building. On the mid-block recess it gives you the feel that it is two buildings side by side on the west elevation. Charles: This project has not met the spirit and intent of the Board's request to restudy this building. The building has always been a big wooden box. I feel it is a little bit of a lack of effort on the applicants part to try to meet the spirit and intent of the Board's request to restudy the entire project, not just the awnings. I think this Board is doing the community a dis-service allowing a final development approval for a project where the drawings are incomplete and the model is inadequate to see the full scope and character in relationship to its neighbors. The entire project needs further thinking and we should not approve final plans that were not submitted before hand to review. Harley Baldwin: The massing is inappropriate for the downtown. Bill: Since the beginning I have always felt uncomfortable with the character of the building and that is because of the materials that were proposed. I feel uncomfortable with the character that is represented by a three story clapboard building. I find that it would not meet standard #2 and #3 which deal with the character of the neighborhood. Because it is three story clapboard I find that it is an incompatible character. I also find that it would not meet standard #4 because it does not enhance the architectural integrity because it is a three story clapboard building. I am not in support of this application. Sven Alstrom: There seems to be allot of back tracking by the committee. Earlier changes on the third floor windows were suggestions that Bill made. Urban design and massing issues can be met regardless of the material. Glenn: I don't necessarily thing every new building has to be smaller than all the old buildings. As far as back tracking, you should take that as a signal that the plans are wrong and it doesn't have to do with the banding under the window. Most of us are uncomfortable for the broad strokes of the project. Don: I think everything I had spoken about the building I 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Dec-mher 19, 1990 thought that I gave you the feeling that it was not a distinguished enough building for the site. Charles: We were letting the project stay alive through conceptual in the hopes that you were picking up on the conditions that were offered then. One of those conditions was that the entire building needs rethought. Welton: The very first issue was the concern if this building should be masonry and the HPC agreed with the guidelines that in some cases wooden buildings are appropriate in the downtown area. That threshold was agreed upon otherwise we would have not continued without that being agreed upon. Over the course of the next seven months we got conceptual which implied along with it alliance that once you have gotten past this point that there is legal reliance upon the part of the applicant that they have reached a point close to approval. Final is to hammer out details. I feel it is outrageous that we could get this far and do everything that is asked by the HPC to do and to come at final and get denied, I feel it is unprecedented and unfair. Jed: I will direct your attention to the code which sets forth what the effect of approval of conceptual development is: "Section 7-601 F3B - Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval of significant development or permission to proceed with development. Such approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with the development application for final development plan." If you have interpreted this section to mean something more than what it says as I interpret it on the plain face of it then that is unfortunate. What the Board has in front of them for final approval, again referring to the code, at final development plan a hearing for HPC the board shall consider the recommendation of the Planning Director which I interpret to be Roxanne's memo. Determine if the final development plan is consistent with the conceptual development plan and determine if the final development plan meets the standards as set for in 7601D, most if not all of the members of the Board have referred to those standards which are the compatibility, character of the building and whether the building proposal reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Whether the development enhances or detracts from the cultural value in the historic structures. Whether the proposed development enhances and does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of the historic designated structures. It is my position that the conceptual development is simply that, a conceptual development plan. If specifics were arrived and the Board wishes to vary from that they have to make findings to demonstrate why they had changed their minds. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 Welton: Most people dealing with HPC believe that there is a certain reliance given at conceptual. We need to set a dialogue as to whether tabling or denial is appropriate. Sven: There is an area of law called administrative law that also has due process requirements and by extending the direction of approvals given during conceptual you do establish a precedence which qualifies for conceptual approval. Jed: That was an interpretation as I understood it and certainly there is a process available to appeal whatever decision is made tonight. Charles: The main issue is whether or not the main building is OK as it is. The applicant keeps focusing on windows and awnings which has misdirected the board from the main building. Bill: You are the applicant, you can withdraw, table or get denied. Glenn: You still have a floor plan and I feel most of the problems could be handled within the envelope of the facade. Welton: I would go along with tabling if there is some direction that I can be given other than the kind of direction that has been based on every different direction under the sun. Charles: We can't design the building but we need a better building. Bill: You constantly ask us to design the building, you are the applicant and you should build a building. You submitted a building and some of the commission find that it does not meet the standards. Welton: Does the committee feel that it is possible to redesign this at final development and keep the approval process on track? I wanted direction and will design my own building. I am not getting clear direction. Roxanne: I would recommend a revised conceptual as it appears to me that it is going to be revised substantially in order to get through the review standards. Charles: I would recommend to keep the project alive to table the project to reconsider the design of the building and to reconsider his program, and general scale and massing of the building and materials. 13 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 Georgeann: Under those circumstances is tabling any harder than starting over again? Charles: I wouldn't want to put limits on it by saying you have to keep the floor plan because then we will get into the old game of you said I have to do this. It is the applicants design, do something good for the project. Welton: The remedy is to appeal to City Council. In order to do that do I have to have a denial from HPC or whether withdraw and then go to City Council is in order? Roxanne: Section 7-604 appeal provisions are specifically laid out. It basically states that any action by HPC in approving or approving with condition or disapproving a development or demolition ...may be appealed to City Council. The reasons for appeal shall be stated in writing and the people that can appeal are the property owners, the applicant, or landowner within 300 feet of the subject property. The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC and it says specifically that City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless the City Council shall determine that there was an abuse of discretion or a denial of due process by the HPC. It goes on further. Bill: Does that answer your question? Welton: Yes it does. I would request that we be tabled. MOTION: Charles made the motion to table the application finding that the application does not meet standard 1, 2, and 4 and in order to give the applicant sufficient time to restudy his application and submit a complete application; second by Joe. All favored except Georgeann, motion carries. 6-1 DISCUSSION Joe: I'm concerned if we aren't tabling to a date certain... Roxanne: It is not a public hearing so you don't have to table to a date certain. Joe: Even though they are going to resubmit a conceptual. Roxanne: We don't know what they are going to do. He has already received conceptual development. You are tabling final indefinitely. If they substantially revise conceptual then it requires a new public hearing. 14 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 Glenn: If it is tabled should we give general direction? Bill: I am also looking at the tabling to get a meeting to work this out if Welton wants to do that or a work session. COMMUNICATIONS Georgeann stepped down. Les stepped down. Gazebo report: Glenn Rappaport and Frank Ross. Glenn: The project is getting done nicely and the new location is working out. I would like to make comments on the ways we work with certain City Projects. We set up a vague process, the Parks Dept. hired a drafts person to do a drawing of the gazebo and that it is. There is no follow-up as far as the designer is concerned on what is going to get done. So what has happened is all of a sudden it becomes my project. There were allot of things that needed to be worked out on the site. It isn't fair to let the decisions fall on the contractor. Frank Ross: We were given a hand drawing that George Robinson did. We were told from day one to take this thing down 100%. We were told by Bill Efting that our only boss was the Parks Dept. We did measurements and turned them into the Bldg. Dept. and they were willing to give us a permit based on that piece of paper. There was information attached to the Bldg. Permit that said we were going to dismantle the entire thing. Nobody wanted to do it. I'll probably eat $4,000 on the thing and they changed the entire structure that creates more time and expense. Somehow the citizens need to know that we were not the responsible party. Everybody thinks that HPC wants our license taken away because that is what came out of last Wednesday. I have been asked to be quiet and it was discussed last week and Staff should have said this is not the way it happened. Les who chose not to be here today came over yesterday and was upset because there is plywood on the thing. There was plywood underneath originally. I was hoping HPC would do something on their own and make things right for us and apparently that is not going to happen. If it isn't positive I will call my own press conference. Bill: When we discussed the gazebo we also discussed it in general of the problem that we have with communications. It was not directed specifically at you. We directed Roxanne to look into the specific matter so that we can learn about it. Frank Ross: What came out of your meeting was that the Bldg. Dept. was directed to determine whether Aspen Custom Builders Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 should be brought in front of the Board of Appeals. reputation put back in place. I want our Jed Caswall, attorney: The Bldg. Dept. head indicated to me that there was not enough sufficient evidence to do anything. Roxanne: Gary's specific question is what was supposed to be salvaged that wasn't. I don't have that answer. Jed: There is a lack of definition as to what we are dealing with here. Also I wanted to inform you that the Bldg. Dept. has ordered new software that will be used in getting out the building permits. This is not just isolated to HPC it involves the Planning Dept. also. The permit will have all conditions issued on it. Pioneer Park Jed Caswall: I have been dealing with the attorney for the Weavers and they are in the process of suing the City. The dispute as to whether the HPC has mandatory jurisdiction over Lot 2 of the subdivision. Bob Hughes is the attorney for the Weavers. Essentially it is a legal issue. As an alternative to litigation; there is some thought that Les Kaplan the purchaser and developer of Lot 2 is concerned that he will not be allowed to develop the property in the fashion that he thinks he needs to develop it if the City takes a position of mandatory review by HPC. There is a covenant on the property that say HPC review as it was then constituted was advisory. In 1982 the designation said 422 W. Bleeker. The applicant says it only went to the structure and we are saying it doesn't make any sense to designate the structure without the property. After the designation the owners came in a asked for a lot line adjustment and the staff at that time made the decision that there was no HPC review over any of Lot 2. My argument is that you take an HPC off designation by granting a lot split. There is a specific procedure. Possibly we can provide a plan as to what will be advisory and if the HPC is amenable. There are five issues that need discussed. Don: It is a process that would be involved. The applicant needs a strong commitment. Jed: This is something for the Board to think about. MOTION: Don made the motion to adjourn; second by Bill. Ail approved, motion carries. 16 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 19, 1990 Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk