Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19881011AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE October 11, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes - September 27, 1988 III. Committee Member & Staff Comments IV. Chairman Report V. Public Comment VI. NO BUSINESS Ab ill/c /1 J,Ti- Jluisrupn - h, i n e r ¢)1,1.i ti 0 9~;2523~~'~' A ~Jd. d VII. COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Berko Project Update 2. Wheeler Project Update C » 3. HPC meeting times and day 4. Conflicts of Interest Issue 5. Preservation Incentives 6. Committee Monitoring Reports-reassign Augie's 7. Subcommittee report - Aspen Historic Trust 8. Staff Report: CPI Statewide Preservation Conf. 9. Boulder's Landmark Commission PR brochure 10.-New-Phone ·-numbers- for City-Hall/Planning--Office 11. Berko appeal $ 9 ATTACHMENT 1 IAND USE APPLICATION FURM .. project Name Aspen Art Museum Project location (idicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zaning 4) Iot Size 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Michael Lipkin-Chairman Building & Grounds Committee Trustee of Aspen Museum Box 3004 Aspen, O0 81612 920-1142 6) Representative's Name, Address & 1?hone # Michael T,ipkin Lipkin-Warner Architects Box 3004 Aspen, CO 81612 920-1142 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Corditional Use Conceptual SPA Oonceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Concentlial POD X Minor Historic Dev. .1 Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition , Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Co~aminiumization - Text/Map Amendment - (NOS Allotment i Iat Split/Iat line - 0433 E,oemption Adjustment 8) Description of Elisting Uses (rnmber and type of eodsting structures; approximate sq. ft.; Ilmber of bedrocms; any previous approvals granted to the property). Museum 9) Description of Development Application Removal of existing skylight - as contemplated as a minor development in Division 6 Section 7 - 601 E. 2.b of Land Use Code of the City of Aspen. Skylight will be replaced with corrugated galvanized metal roof ing to match existing roof ing. The gutter. and aownspout will be of similar galvanized metal. 10) Have you attached the following? 4 NA Response to Attadmiant 2, Minimim Sukmission Cbntents - see 9 Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents NA Response to Attadment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 6- J 3. . . 41 6. 'Ct · e MINOR HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT Application Package Contents Attached is a Development Application package for submission of your application. Included in this package are the following attachments: 1. Application Form 2. Description of Minimum Contents of Development Application 3. Description of Specific Contents for Submission of your Application 4. Copy of Review Standards for Your Application 5. Public Hearing Notice Requirements Summary 6. General Summary of Your Application Process Generally, to suL, t a complete application, you should fill in the application fr and attach to it that written and mapped - information identi ed in Attachments 2 and 3. Please note that all applications I t.,qui:re responses to the review standards for that particular development type. The standards for your s application are listed in Attachment 4. / You can determine if your application requires that public notice ~ be given by reviewing Attachment 5. Table 1 of that attachment will tell you whether or not your application requires notice and the form the notice should take. Your responsibilities in this regard are summarized in the cover explanation to the table. We strongly encourage all applicants to hold a pre-application conference with a Planning Office staff person so that the requirements for submitting a complete application can be fully described to you. Please also recognize that review of these materials does not substitute for a complete review of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. While this application package attempts to summarize the key provisions of the Code as they apply to your type of development, it cannot possibly replicate the detail or the scope of the Code. If you have questions which are not answered by the materials in this package, we suggest that you contact the staff member assigned to your case or consult the applicable sections of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. appcover . . -4 ./ I . 1 3 1 ' 1 2 1 .1 I IS , It:$ t 1 1 i 1 1 / 1---~MVIV P IVEA¥804' CBM OV G 0100, 6 Mff¥ - 44%4- i *g i 1 0.1 t. iii - I . 1-3-1---6>(I•*fl 16 PIVS# 70# *-1 / lit i i i 1 1 / 2, 1 4 - /1- 1 , „ Ll -a- _-_ 56 Mo d 0%70, 4wYL 110/--74 7 1 MEW 60 +rEg- l Pov,/11*0,JT + L WI *MON &4(.10 78 - 9=9#»-4 - --0 / lilil %\11 -G 7(TCHD DE¥01.12 -- ,2, 1 '\1 1-14 61-triLY 'k i:·:i \/ t. - - Tt "- lt-0 . - - te..1 GON" 9* F 0% IVA 6 ~,H*Q b E.AME 1 _f_liGW . E M TRY E le VA 1-1138 2 evetz GMT G H 1-0. ¥ BLEVA TISH 1_ cle g i - 0 _ \10 : C - 0 I /. The kidsbazaar, Inc. :1 .. i. 2 ocr- ASPEN'5 UNIQUE CHILDREN'S STORE E-' 1,·-h 517 East Hopkins, Suite, #201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ph. 303-920-1723 1 r>, etro pt.-1.C-' 4/ / 9 EY 467*16 Jut All 0-1 -3 n Er-U Ago / 1366- L Veleg 5 rN·04 LE-~ *60~21-T- 71·Ft Pit 9% 61(-AJ )«6*-74 0-P i--lt e 66«j<-O il-1--9 & L- /rlu n TWA-f- t r 914--nx L. 0 2-6MA-1 4 1 » ru-'L 3/blit PL/to 6-, - Tut il Goto 1 -tru 11 (- 6 5 j->6 2-7/\1-- A--f.3 0 i U G i ,L'i .it 9-A/1 6 A-19 77+t 47-/ L 664-192-AC FEAL i-3 71 f-t /06--0 (1_/C-, 6-3/1641, /K-- U.~ 71+/-1-C 5 113 5- 0-73 T-it-U bi--11 6 e i o I /4 LNFild Crf· Th E lt_(u ¢ E-,9 { b E-Af tli~'1(·(LA/i~J C p fil AA ej \ /0 6 1¥UALL VECT--6 A,lA--Afs , 04 LEI 7# r U Ll A-- rk,fLiv 7741 4 - 13 L o U< 1 /4 4 10 G i + 2 A 1 + 1 A- 6 /4 6 134 Al- 6.] liu b O bt L (1614 iA-?U (30 73 l-i--19-u~» I ,- A&1944 / 5. -9-15 -AJ 66-66 T--6 84- TN-g Me J i J C -70 1,4 -r 811 14124 6 /3 {z-6-4 A-0 ojetsli :U C .< Aff>cr- DJ-1 LL. 66 L A- trc- i '94- ,«f.3 7-ki. lu 86 r.67 (47-US C- 0 g 7-Pi 441-TriA./ 0- fl. , 02-0 0 96 9·1%-1 0 3 c) lat/4-0 7?ft 4/74-0 6 6- f-21674 / S CE-,0/6-0-7- »0,8 d i J JErt /300-UC' l 1 tu %-T-k- A E- 4 - 71+~104 (=- A-TE» A F~6-112 2..6 A/fi-1 4// ''UG FL 4 4% 2 (LAtu Fl 4· S }tou LA 9.24 Aj Gb-11 jax-1 4-03 : i <-3 7,4-40» 01«. 77*7 b / Stite (b-: J A- 0 01 -iut AL % 4,1 CD,\// /Y.jilA~>R.t S F (2 C)'W ;14122_CLA\/ ly-1 ··C \10 /3'43 l -U 6-% f 9 0-4 7k -6711 5 , I / ·4_} 1 /01/1./ buf .3 ft,aj Cd_-_ 4 ·1/5 4 1 11 11--6-kiL , Mrs. Sandor J. Kallai 1720 SOUTH FAIRFAX STREET • DENVER, COLORADO 80222 September 26, 1988 Ms. Joanne Ditmer The Denver Post 650-15th St. Denver, CO 80202 Dear Ms. Ditmer: Thank you for your statements on Aspen in yesterday's Contemporary. I have wished for several years that someone with a public voice would state this position. My trips to Aspen are mainly to attend the Music Festival (which has its own status problems), and for a number of years have enjoyed walking through neighborhoods enjoying the old architecture, the unmanicured gardens, the flavor of small-town living, and the skill with which some people were reclaiming the more dilapidated structures, returning them to a charming and functional status. However, I too feel that one can hardly find an old structure. Everything is double-digit in size with inflation to match, expensive and boring. It is obvious that image- and status-conscious "pac-men" are consuming those values which beckoned visitors and the history conscious to the town. Thank you for saying, "ENOUGH!" for so many of US. I hope some people in a policy making position will take heed. With kind r.egards, 6 '. < . 4,<I#AL \1 . Mfub Mar-cia A. Kallai MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Update on Wheeler Opera House Banners Date: October 11, 1988 At the last meeting, HPC approved with conditions the promotional banners and brackets for the exterior of the Wheeler Opera House in recognition of its centennial. King Woodward, application, was requested to bring before the HPC at this meeting an exact drawing of the banners to be used, and he offered to bring exact samples of the fabric to be used. When King went before Council to request approval, they tabled the item, referring the project to the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment has sent them back to Council, taking no action, stating that they felt Council should make the decision as the Wheeler is a City owned building. King will be again meeting with Council to present the information the HPC has requested as well. At this time no new information has been submitted to the Planning Office for HPC's review, however, King informed Staff that by the October 25 meeting, HPC will be reviewing additional information. Staff has met with Kurt Whitney, the building maintenance manager, to discuss the bracket installation and banners. Kurt is concerned that to securely anchor the brackets into the mortar an epoxy will need to be utilized. The banners, in his words, "act as a sail, and in a large gust could rip the brackets out of the mortar, pulling off some sandstone with it." He is also concerned that upon removal of the brackets, the epoxy, if it works correctly, will prevent easy removal. The risk is high to damage the sandstone immediately surrounding the drill hole. Staff presented this information to King Woodward, who shares the concern. He will investigating all this, and will present to the HPC his findings at the next meeting. Update to the update: Did you all read Bill Dunaway's Editorial in last Thursday's Times? Staff is preparing a letter of clarification in response to the Editorial and Bill Poss as Chairman will sign it. King Woodward contacted Staff to say that in the last Wheeler Opera House Association meeting (October 6) that the board is very sensitive to the issues of potential building damage, even slight damage, and may have come up with a new plan, which they will present to the HPC within the next month. They may be able to incorporated banners attached to the light standards directly in front of the building as opposed to attached to the building itself. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Change in HPC meeting times and day Date: October 11, 1988 At the last HPC meeting, member Charlie Knight brought up in discussion his desire to change the HPC meeting time from 2:30 in the afternoon to later in the day. His concerns revolve around the amount of volunteer time necessary to serve on the committee, and that valuable office/business hour time was being lost by holding HPC meetings at the current time. Alternate member Joe Krabacher stated he would be unable to attend any Tuesday evening meetings due to his teaching commitment at this time. Staff wishes to present the following alternatives to the committee for discussion: BACKGROUND: The Historic Preservation Committee was formed by ordinance in 1972. Rules of Procedure/By-Laws were created at that time, which stated that meetings would be held the first and third Tuesdays of every month. This was quickly amended to the second and fourth Tuesdays of every month, and has remained the same ever since. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Any change of meeting day would require an ordinance revision by Council and subsequent public hearings. One of the reasons for the Tuesday meeting date is due to the deadline requirement for public hearing notices by the newspaper. An associated scenario would be: A Minor Development application would be presented before the HPC which the committee finds to be Significant, requiring both Conceptual and Final approvals. Conceptual requires a public hearing; staff would be required to make proper notice to allow for a timely review by HPC. However, current Code requirements are for a 15 day minimum notice period, which would prevent a public hearing at the following meeting anyway, so a change in day may not adversely effect HPC's responsiveness. TIME AND DAY OF MEETINGS: The time of the meeting directly ties into the day of the meetings. The time has been chosen to coordinate with the many other Boards and Commissions. Council meets Mondays at 5:00. Planning and Zoning meets the 1st and 3rd Tuesday at 4:30. They also meet following the HPC meeting on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday when special meetings are required. Staff meets with all three of these boards. If a later time is chosen by the committee, the meeting day will need to change. One alternative which staff has discussed with the deputy City Clerk, Kathy Strickland, (HPC's secretary who is required to record the meetings), is Wednesday. This day may work well, with a worksession scheduled for 4:30 and the meeting beginning at 5:00. Kathy lives in Basalt and rides the bus, which should be taken into consideration by the committee. Planning Office staff is fairly flexible, however, a break between the end of the work day (5:00 p.m.) and the meeting time (suggested to begin at 6:30) is not recommended due to the break in continuity between the work day and the meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff suggests the committee use this opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of a change in meeting day and time. Should the HPC decide to make any changes, staff should be directed to prepare an informational memo to City Council; or memo Council requesting an ordinance revision if the day of the meetings are to change. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Response to Council's request: HPC conflicts of Interest issue Date: October 11, 1988 SUMMARY: Staff is in the process now of preparing a memo for Ron Mitchell to present to Council, per their request by motion, addressing the issue of "Conflicts of Interest" within the HPC. The memo will also provide background on the CLG certification and requirements associated with that, and will analyze other's community's methods in managing professionals serving on their Commissions. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Attached are copies Of both the "Requirements" and the "Professional Qualifications" sections of the CLG Manual for your review. The memo to Mitchell will include these as well. As you can see, the requirements are specific for professionals, however, the emphasis is on a balanced board, made up of lay people as well. Should Aspen find itself in a position of noncompliance with regarding to the percentage of professionals serving on the HPC, we are in danger of losing our certification. Certification as a CLG provides funding, technical assistance and guidance to staff and the HPC. Our FY '88-89 grant contract alone is funding a large portion of staff's position. During the Statewide Preservation Conference held in Durango, staff met with Frank Gilbert, Counsel to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. Mr. Gilbert was in Durango on contract, consulting with them in their initial attempt to draft their first preservation ordinance. Staff presented Aspen's current situation to Mr. Gilbert, who offered the following information: "Aspen, in its capacity as a world class resort recognized for its historic character, should be as careful as would be Boston or New York City, in risking the integrity of its very committee designed to protect that character. Conflicts of interest are volatile situations which should be avoided at all costs." He went on to say that with smaller towns requiring professionals to volunteer on boards and commissions, difficult situations can easily arise, and that the three primary assets an HPC has are its length of time serving the community, its collective knowledge and most of all, its integrity. ALTERNATIVES: Staff is currently developing a list of alternatives to present to Mitchell and Council, some of which we bring forward to you today for discussion. Staff has researched provisions in the preservation ordinances of Boulder, Denver, Manitou Springs, and Telluride, and has contacted each of those Planning Offices for further information. They all have similar provisions, allowing member/applicants to present before their own boards or commissions, with varying degrees of requirements. None of them have had the problems were are currently faced with. Two require written notice from the member/applicant of any interest they have established in a potential project coming before the particular board or commission. Staff is researching now a few recommendation which may be made to Council, such as scheduling regular worksessions between City Council, P&Z and the HPC, with the goal to have each body discuss controversial work items and consider future planning endeavors. Another interesting provision in Boulder's preservation ordinance is a "Council Call Up", which provides Council an avenue to request additional information on a particular project/decision from the HPC. In effect, Council "Called Up" the Berko project from HPC, however, as no procedures were in effect to do so in a soft manner, HPC members perceived the action somewhat negatively, which resulted in one resignation from the Committee. Another recommendation may be to discourage board or commission members from accepting known controversial projects which may damage or diminish the integrity of the appointee's position on the board or commission the appointee serves on. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office would like to see HPC use this worksession to discuss the pros and cons of this issue and develop suggestions for Council action. 2 III. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN COLORADO The National Historic Preservation Amendments Act of 1980 contains five broad standards, all of which must be met by a local government seeking certification. The federal standards are defined below and amplified to describe more fully the specific requisites that a local government in Colorado must fulfill to be certified. A. The local government must enforce appropriate state or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties. 1. Local legislation must meet the statutory requirements of the Colorado Land Use Act, CRS 24-65.1, or the Local Government Fund Use Control Enabling Act, CRS 29-20-101, which authorizes local governments to designate and protect historical and archaeological resources (Appendix A). 2. There shall be a local ordinance that substantially achieves the purpose of preserving and rehabilitating buildings and districts of historic and architectural significance. 3. Minimum requirements for local legislation for the designa- tion and protection of historic properties are as follows: a. A Statement of Purpose. b. Establishment of an Historic Preservation Commission including membership, duties, and terms of appointment. c. Criteria and procedures for designation of structures, sites, and districts. d. Definition of actions that merit prior review by the Historic Preservation Commission. e. Standards, criteria, and procedures for review of alterations, demolitions, or new construction in the jurisdiction of the Certified Local Government. Such criteria must be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. B. The local government must establish an adequate and qualified Historic Preservation Commission established by local ordinance. 1. Each CLG shall have a commission with a minimum of five % members whose geographic area of authority is co- terminous with the boundaries of that local government's i jurisdiction. 3 2. The commission shall be composed of both professional and lay members, all of whom have demonstrated interest, knowledge, or training in fields closely related to historic preservation, such as history, architecture, landscape architecture, architectural history, archaeology, planning, or other historic preservation related disciplines such as the building trades, cultural geography, cultural anthro- pology, real estate or law. Information on the credentials of the commission members must be kept on file and avail- able to the public. 3. At least two members of a five-member commission shall be professionals in preservation related disciplines such as architecture, architectural history, archaeology, history, planning, or other historic preservation related disciplines such as urban planning, American studies, American civilization, cultural geography or cultural anthropology. For commissions with a larger membership, the required ratio of professionals shall not be less than 40 percent. If the professionals are not available in the community, and if the local government can demonstrate that it made a good faith effort to locate and appoint such profes- sionals, this requirement can be waived. The local government will be required to demonstrate, however, that it is capable of carrying out the commission responsi- bilities assigned to it. 4. When the discipline of architecture, history, architectural history or archaeology is not represented in the commission membership, the commission shall seek additional expertise in the appropriate area when considering National Register nominations and any other delegated actions that will effect properties that are normally evaluated by a professional in that discipline. Local governments are required to adopt professional standards for each discipline as general guidelines for National Register review. These standards are set by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and are found in Appendix 2. Obtaining additional expertise in the above-mentioned fields can be accomplished through consultations with professionals and with written reports of the results of such consultations submitted with the National Register nomination or other report of action. The commission can also work with the SHPO to explore other ways of obtaining additional expertise. 5. Terms of office of commission members shall be staggered and shall consist of at least one year of duration. 6. The commission shall adopt rules of procedure or by-laws which shall be made available to the public. 4 . 7. All meetings of the commission shall be open to the public. Minutes shall be kept of each meeting and shall be available for public inspection. 8. A copy of the minutes of each meeting shall be sent to the OAHP at the same time that copies are distributed to com- mission members. 9. Commission meetings shall be held at regular intervals at least four times a year. 10. An annual report of the activities of the commission shall be submitted to the OAHP. The report shall be due August 1 and shall cover the period July 1 to June 30. Such reports shall include at a minimum the number and types of cases reviewed and their disposition, new designations made, progress on survey activities, educational activities, and credentials of new commission members and staff (if any). 11. The SHPO shall make available to local commissions orienta- ' tion materials and training workshops designed to provide a working knowledge of the roles and operations of federal, state, and local preservation programs. At least one commission representative must attend an informational or educational meeting each year, approved by the SHPO, pertaining to historic preservation. 12. All survey and planning activities as well as other preser- vation responsibilities shall be carried out by the CLG in a manner consistent with the state's comprehensive historic preservation planning process. C. The local government must maintain a system for the survey and inven- tory of historic properties. A county- or city-wide survey of historic properties is the ongoing process of locating and describing districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects related to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture of potential local, state or national importance. A countf- or city-wide inventory of historic properties is an organized, accessible, up-to-date, and useable compilation of information about districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects related to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture of potential local, state, or national importance. 1. The local government shall initiate and/or continue a process for survey and inventory of properties and districts within the local jurisdiction. The local survey and inventory system shall be compatible with federal and state established methods, criteria, and format, and shall be consistent with the statewide comprehensive historic preservation planning process. 5 2. The certified local government must maintain a detailed in- ventory of the districts, sites, or structures it has designated. 3. The local government will be provided with state survey and inventory guidelines, instructions, and -forms by the SHPO to ensure that survey data produced can be readily integrated into the statewide cultural resources data bank. All surveys shall be conducted according to the Historic Survey Manual produced by the Colorado Historical Society. 4. Duplicate copies of materials from all survey efforts con- ducted by the local government shall be provided to the OAHP unless already in the files of that office. Duplicate copies shall be submitted with original 3" x 5" black and white photographs. 5. All inventory materials shall be updated periodically to reflect alterations and demolitions. 6. All inventory materials shall be accessible to the public (excluding restrictions on locations of archaeological sites). D. The local government shall provide for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation programs including the process of recommending properties for nomination to the National Register. 1. Public participation shall be encouraged in all facets of the CLG's preservation program. 2. All meetings of the commission shall adhere to the provisions of the Colorado Open Meetings Law (C.R.S. 24-6-401 et seq.). 3. Reasonably detailed minutes of all decisions and actions of the commission, including the reasons for making those decisions, must be kept on file and available for public inspection. 4. All decisions by the commission shall be made in a public forum and applicants shall be given written notification of decisions of the commission. 5. Local governments and preservation commissions are encouraged to develop educational programs to ensure public awareness of their historic·preservation functions. E. Local Governments must satisfactorily perform the responsibilities listed in points A through D and those others specifically delegated to them under the Act by the SHPO. 6 The state does not require CLGs to assume any or all of the responsibilities which can be delegated as a basis for certi- fication, except for participation in the process of nominating properties to the National Register (see Section VII) which must be assumed. However, CLGs may assume additional responsi- bilities as agreed to with the SHPO. Where CLGs have requested ~ delegated responsibilities, the state must ensure that they are being carried out satisfactorily by means of monitoring and reviewing the responsibilities delegated. 7 APPENDIX 2 Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications In the following definitions, a year of full-time professional experience need not consist of a continuous year of full-time work but may be made up of discontinuous periods of full-time or part-time work adding up to the equivalent of a year of full-time experience. 1. History. The minimum professional qualifications in history are a graduate degree in history or closely related field; or a bachelor's degree in history or closely related field plus one of the following: a. at least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, teaching, interpretaton or other demonstrable professional activity with an academic institution, historical organization or agency, museum, or other professional institution; or b. substantial contribution through research and publication to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of history. 2. Archaeology. The minimum professional qualifications in archaeology are a graduate degree in archaeology, anthropology, or closely related field plus: a. at least one year of full-time professional experience or equivalent specialized training in archaeological research, administration or management; b. at least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American archaeology; and c. demonstrated ability to carry research to completion. In addition, to these minimum qualifications, a professional in prehistoric archaeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of archaeological resources of the prehistoric period. A professional in historic archaeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of archaeological resources of the historic period. 3. Architectural history. The minimum professional qualifications in architectural history are a graduate degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation, or closely related field, with coursework in American architectural history; or a bachelor's degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation, or closely related field, plus one of the following: a. at least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, or teaching in American archiectural history or restoration architecture with an academic intitution, historical organization or agency, museum, or other professional institution; or 27 b. substantial contribution through research and publication to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of American architectural history. 4. Architecture. The minimum professional qualifications in architecture are a professional degree in architecture plus at least two years of full-tme professional experience in architecture; or a State license to practice architecture. 5. Historic Architecture. The minimum professional qualifications in historic architecture are a professional degree in architecture or State license to practice architecture, plus one of the following: a. at least one year of graduate study in architectural preservation, American architectural history, preservation planning, or closely related field; or b. at least one year of full-time professional experience on historic preservation projects. Such graduate study or experience shall include detailed investigations of historic structures, prepara- tion of historic structures research reports, and preparation of plans and specifications for preservation projects. 28 MEMORANDUM To: Alan Richman CC: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin Re: Historic Preservation Incentives Date: October 4, 1988 I have attached a copy of the incentives section from the Manitou Springs Preservation Ordinance. The Manitou Springs provision has only been in place one year and I don't believe anyone has taken advantage of the use tax refund. Boulder has a very similar provision that allows a waiver of sales tax on construction materials at the time of the building permit if at least 30% of the value of the material is for the building's exterior. Would either of these two incentives be worth looking into for Aspen? Thanks. ORDINANCE NO. 0987 PAGE 11 the circumstances of a particular application requires Inore time for additional study and information than can be obtained within the aforesaid period of thirty (30) days, then the Commission shall have a period of up to an additional thirty (30) days within which to act upon such an application. G. There shall be a final inspection and approval by the City Planning Office prior to final inspection by other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, e.g., Regional Building Department. The final approval certifies that the work is in compliance with the Historic Preservation Commission approval. i H. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent ordinary maintenance or repair of any structure within an historic district where such maintenance or repair does not involve a material change of appearance. 2.52.080 Incentive Awards When a proposed material change of appearance has received HPC approval, has been completed, and has passed final inspection by the City of Manitou Springs, the property owner (whether conmercial or residential) shall be entitled to the following incentive awards: A. Value Added Incentive Award Any owner who constructs improvements to a landmark or a building within an historic preservation district shall be entitled to claim an incentive award in an amount equal to fifty percent of the City's share of income from ad valorem taxes so paid by said owner upon increased assessed valuation resulting from the improvements. The amount of this claim shall be determined by applying the City mill rate levied in the year of the improvements to the difference between the assessed value before and after the improvements. ORDINANCE NO. 0987 PAGE 12 Said owner may make annual claims for this award in the same amount in each of the five years imnediately following the year in which the assessor has increased the assessed value of the improvements. The annual claim is to be made on a form to be designed by the Finance Director and accompanied by the County Treasurer's tax bill for the year before and the year after the improvements. B. Use Tax Refund Incentive Award Any person who constructs improvements to a landmark or a building within an historic preservation district shall be entitled to claim a refund of fifty percent of the Use Tax collected on the actual price paid for building materials and fixtures incorporated in the improvements. The term "actual price" is defined to mean the net result of reconciling the estimated Use Tax paid upon issuance of the improvements. A claim for this refund of fifty percent shall be made by filing a Reconciliation of the Use Tax Payments for Remodeling Project form No. 3132A with the Finance Director. Properties which have exercised the option of withdrawal are not eligible for the incentive awards. 2.52.090 Appeals Appeals from the decision or actions of the Historic Preservation Commission may be taken to the City Council for review and shall be reviewed on the basis of the record of the HPC meeting and whether or not the guidelines were adhered to. 2.52.100 Violation - Penalty It is unlawful for any person to make any material change in or upon any property within any local historic preservation district without first applying for and receiving the approval of the Historic Preservation Commission. It is also unlawful for any person to make any such material change other than is MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Sub-Committee Report: Aspen Historic Trust Date: October 11, 1988 BACKGROUND: On July 12, Staff invited Rebecca Waugh, the Administrative Director of the Summit County Historical Society, to speak before the committee regarding the work she has been able to accomplish in Breckenridge, to demonstrate what a local non-profit ("Trust") may be capable of. The development of a Trust in Aspen has been discussed as a possibility by the Planning Office and HPC for a couple years, and is referred to in the Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Following a presentation to the HPC on July 26 by staff on the "Trust" feasibility report being prepared in compliance with the CLG contract, Chairman Bill Poss suggested three HPC members volunteer to serve on the interim committee. Charles Cunniffe, Zoe Compton and Nick Pasquarella volunteered. Staff contacted Carl Bergman, President of the Aspen Historical Society, requesting that the AHS also appoint three volunteers from their board to serve. Those individuals were Mark Fowler, John Moore and Fran Davies. The first meeting was held at Zoe's house, and was more or less a brainstorming session, identifying key individuals and organizations throughout the community which may be of assistance to the Trust's goals, and potential projects which the Trust may able to positively affect. Following that meeting, Fran Davies notified Staff stating she was supportive of the effort, but would be unable to volunteer additional time this fall. The committee chose to form an interim committee structure for ease in delegating responsibilities, electing as Chairman (Charles Cunniffe), Treasurer (Nick Pasquarella), Special Projects Manager (Mark Fowler) and Secretary/Staff (Roxanne Eflin). The committee is also seeking to round out the group by adding three "at-large" members from the community, in particular an attorney. A total of four meetings have been held, the results of which are recorded in the Feasibility Report sent to the CLG contract administrator. I have attached the "Introduction" and "Concluding Recommendations" sections for your review. The entire report is available for review upon request. What is obvious is the need for such a non-profit organization in the community. With the current community focus of on-site preservation, the Trust's focus may shift from being the network organization for assisting in the relocation of orphaned and/or endangered historic structures, to one of which assists to preserve on-site. The Trust may even become the "bank" to hold "Purchased Development Rights". Any number of possibilities exist for the Trust to become extremely active in preservation issues in Aspen. The group will be meeting again sometime in late November or early December. Staff has invited the Assistant Director of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Regional Office (Barb Pahl) to attend and lead a focus group discussion. The entire HPC is invited and encouraged to attend that meeting, notice of which will be made to you at a later date. Staff encourages any and all comments from HPC to assist the Trust in establishing itself and developing a plan of action for the future. hpc.memo.aht.2 2 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the procedures followed to evaluate the need for a local non-profit preservation organization, or "Trust" as it shall be called, and gives final recommendations. The report is in response to the criteria required in the current FY '87-88 Certified Local Government grant contract between the Colorado Historical Society and the City of Aspen. The report has been taken one step further: an actual interim committee has met four times to discuss potential issues and strategize the organization's actual development. Included in this report are minutes from those meetings, copies of correspondence, organizational briefs, and press coverage. The formation of a local non-profit Trust has been discussed by the Planning Office, City Council and the Historic Preservation Committee during the last one and a half years, as an alternative organization to bridge the gap between the two preservation groups. Certainly, Aspen demonstrates the capabilities to establish such a Trust, yet, as the report demonstrates, may be lacking in critical areas problematic throughout the community. Agreeing on a primary mission statement and identifying core needs has proven to be an extremely difficult task, and critical for the Trust's future. The Trust may find itself in a position to help foster an understanding of preservation within the development process, the classic them vs. us syndrome in communities experiencing boom cycles as Aspen is. Selective preservation, concentrating efforts in clearly defined spaces particularly in the Commercial Core Zone District, may become a role the Trust may become intricately involved in through advocacy. Aspen may be becoming a community where only one element of her ~ history will be represented for future generations. The large, flamboyant Victorians representing early Wealth appear protected < this time. Will the historical representations of the at 1 working class be obliterated due to their "lesser" value economically and historically? The question of scale seems to dominate development discussions throughout the community, and the Trust is no less interested than others in protecting the historic scale of this city. Becoming a placement service for orphaned and endangered historic structures may be a very important role the Trust may play. As cities and towns constantly evolve, a "survival of the fittest" historic preservation philosophy appears to have entered into the dynamics of this community. If real estate transactions become a necessary function of the Trust, to save endangered historic structures by placing options on them, the organization will need to specialize in real estate. What is apparent after four interim meetings is that the need for a Trust exists, and that the vision is developing. What is also apparent is the critical need for expert consulting and community interfacing once the committee feels strong enough in its focus to "meet the press" and introduce itself to the community. Pivotal is the Planning Office's position as staff for the organization at this time, something which is necessary now, but something that must be supplemental, not end-all. With time as the Trust develops, it should manage its own staff and be autonomous to the City. This feasibility report has been prepared in a three-ring loose leaf binder for good reason. As the organization evolves more information will be forthcoming to add to the report. Equally as important, the Trust is anxious to receive any assistance to help direct its efforts. 0 - CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS It is my opinion and that of the interim committee, that a non- profit historic trust may indeed be feasible in Aspen. With the proper enthusiasm, agreed upon mission and focus and non-wavering leadership, the Trust has a tremendous chance of developing into a respected force in the Community. All of the elements are here. Forward thinking leaders, funding and need. The other issues of consistency and community respect are untried. Unlike economically-starved communities, rallied together by financial or social crisis, Aspenites rally together on issues of community character. The community seems to be struggling right now to preserve a sense of smaller, more human scale. The Trust may find it to be very worthwhile to work within the planning system to initiate a closer look at issues. Critical Need Areas: Developing the Mission Statement: The Mission Statement, or clearly defined and agreed upon goals, has not yet been accomplished. The problem appears to be larger than what the interim committee is able to grasp. Other groups have apparently identified this as a community-wide problem, evidenced by the week long workshop scheduled this fall focusing on the "Coming Home/Healthy Cities" program, which will be focusing on precisely the core problems the Trust has identified. The Trust must work very hard with its interim committee and the community to examine all the issues and embrace a Mission Statement that makes sense and Will serve to carry the organization into the future. Assistance is obviously needed in this area, either through paid consultant or through the National Trust. l Legal Structure: The committee is in need of an attorney to < assist in establishing the legal structure and non-profit status ( for the Trust. A few local land use attorneys have been identified by members of the committee as possible resources, however, none as yet have come forward to offer their assistance. Funding sources may need to be identified and funds received to pay for legal services to establish to organization's structure. Volunteer legal services are still being sought. Funding: SO far, the City Of Aspen has offered funding assistance in the way of planning office staff support to help organize and coordinate the interim meetings. 501-C-3 non-profit status is critical to receive funding from other tax exempt non profit foundations and organizations. The Aspen Historical Society should be requested to assist in funding as well, possibly a $1,000 start up seed fund. Consultant: Guidance is needed to organize the committee's efforts and approach the commun-ity for funding and technical assistance. The Denver Regional office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation may be a resource for consulting assistance. The consultant should be able to provide training for committee members and staff. Training: The committee members of the Trust should undergo training on a regular basis. This expertise would also assist the two organizations feeding the Trust with members: The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee and the Aspen Historical Society. Experts should be brought in for workshops and lectures, and funding should be made available to provide for transportation and fees for training. --------- --------- C MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: New Phones for City Hall! Date: October 11, 1988 City Hall has a brand new phone system, effective October 3. Each person may be reached by calling them directly now. The Planning Office may be reached at 920-5090, and I may be reached at my direct line, 920-5099. Please make a note of these changes and let me know if you need additional department numbers. Not: kilk j Atiti_Ut A"-CL f·t »k«_ 0 960 -586 1 * 1 # 613 1 it) 1 N ~ lil]- l,]9 -13 9 61-Lul .. 1 11 FL, '1€51 . , 44#54 11 Ij * 2 Effitt# i f dy %* f. 4, .44 :4:498( 4 -dj~,« 2. . / r : 1 6 i - - 0-r kf , Ne gil;mwil Pmt ini=' / 1 - : E- i- b lit~ 1 1; rl 7 1 1 -14 ' 1.4, ' , 2 - -1 1 * . 0: 916 . 1 J-7 W , 1 1 r . - -Li'. -4 - 'Kw• . .... "Do voll ser-ve meals hi,re, or is this nat (1 611!lize? CITY 3PEN 13 0 huu ·,r.,66••%•J""p Jree t aspen**colora *83%81611 303=:92532020 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 5, 1988 TO: city Council FROM: City Attorney's Office RE: HPC Appeal Process In response to Council's request for an analysis of the appeal process from a Historic Preservation Committee decision, I have examined the Municipal Code with respect to the following issues (1) the appeal process; (2) the scope of appeal; (3) the stan- dards for appeal; (4) issues for appeal, and find the following: BRIEF SUMMARY The scope of the appeal in the Berko matter is limited to the record, which includes a transcript of any HPC meeting with respect to the Berko application, and any material submitted in furtherance of that application. The standard for appeals from the HPC are "abuse of discretion" and "denial of due process", which are interpreted to mean whether a reasonable person could have reached the same con- clusion based on the same materials, and whether the applicant had an opportunity to be heard in an administrative proceeding. The issues of appeal are (1) whether the HPC followed the standards and guidelines set out in Section 7-602, subsection (a) and (b) (1) through (3), in reaching its determination. 1. THE APPEAL PROCESS. Section 7-604 of the Aspen Municipal Code states that "Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a development order for develop- ment or demolition or suspending action on a demolition applica- tion or in rating a structure on the inventory of historic structures may be appealed to the City Council within sixty (60) days of the decision. The reasons for the appeal shall be stated in writing. (I have examined the letter dated September 26, 1988, addressed to the Aspen City Council with respect to the location of the Berko Victorian home. The aforementioned Memorandum to City Council October 5, 1988 Page 2 letter asks the City Council to think of the HPC's approval of the Berko relocation as "inappropriate" and to appeal their [HPC1 decision. I construe this letter to be a request for an appeal, and believe that it meets the minimum requirements described hereinabove; that is. a written instrument filed within sixty days of this HPC decision and having stated a reason for the appeal in writing.) 2. SCOPE OF APPEAL. Section 7-604 of the Municipal Code, subsection (b), sets forth the scope of appeal from an action of the HPC. Subsection (b) stated, "The City Council shall also consider the application on the record established before the HPC." (I interpret this clause to mean that the scope of appeal is limited to the transcribed record of the HPC meetings, including all other materials submitted in furtherance of the application.) 3. STANDARDS FOR APPEAL. Section 7-604(b) sets forth the standard for appeal with respect to an HPC action. Section (b) states as follows: "The 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. (Abuse of discretion is interpreted to mean whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision based on the same information. Due process has been interpreted to mean "an orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has had an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before an administrative body having power to hear and determine the matter before it" .) 4. ISSUES FOR APPEAL. In determining whether an abuse of discretion or denial of due process took place, Council should compare the transcribed record, complete with all supplements thereto, against Section 6-7, Section 7-602, subsections (a) , (b) and (c), to determine whether or not the HPC adequately reviewed, processed and evaluated the Berko application against the standards contained in these sections. Section 7-602, Demolition of Historic Landmark, subsection (a), states that no demolition or total removal of an historic landmark or of any structure within an "H" overly district or any structure rated as a "4" or "5" by the HPC in its evaluation of the inventory of historic sites and structures of the City of Aspen ... shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(b)(1) through (3)." . Memorandum to City Council October 5, 1988 Page 3 Section 7-602(b)(1) through (3) reads has follows: "(1) The structure proposed for demolition is not struc- turally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure; and (2) The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property; and (3) The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen;" (I construe this section to mean that any application involving the removal of a historic landmark, or any structure designated as a "4" or "5", must be evaluated against the standards set forth in subsection (b)(1) through (3). However, subsection (b), Standards for Review of Demolition, state that no approval for demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards have been met. Notwithstanding the apparent contradiction between subsections (a) and (b), Council should review the transcribed record and all additional materials submitted thereto, with respect to whether standards for review have been met. (Inasmuch as the Berko application requested a total removal of the affected structure, subsections (b) (1) through (3) are the appropriate standards bv which the review should be measured, even if the HPC also reviewed the application against subsections 4-6.) /mc A brief review of other HPC board composition Prepared by Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office September 22, 1988 Manitou Springs, Colorado 7 members, Council appointed "Should possess expertise in architecture, law, construction, building rehabilitation, city planning or preservation in general. City of New York 11 members, Mayor appointed At least 3 architects, one qualified historian, one city planner or landscape architect, one Realtor and at least one member from each of the five boroughs. Note: Before the appointment of an architect, historian or planner, the mayor may consult with the Fine Arts Federation of New York or other similar organization. Miami Beach, Florida 11 members There shall be one rehab. specialist architect, one landscape architect, one builder, developer or general contractor, one architectural historian, and five other members consisting of the following: a licensed Realtor, professional engineer, rep. from the Local Historic trust, a rep. from the Local Preservation League, a lender and two commercial at-large property owners in the district. Sausalito, California 5 members, mayor appointed "Shall, when possible, consist of 2 architects, one or more planners, landscape architect, graphic designer, or have a broad knowledge of plant material." Seattle, Washington (Market Historic Commission) 12 members, mayor appointed with consent of council 2 reps. from Friends of the Market, 2 reps from the Allied Arts of Seattle, 2 architects, 2 property owners in the district, 2 merchants, 2 residents Lexington, Kentucky 5 members: 2 architects and 3 from the general public Tuscan, Arizona unclear, however, at least 1/3 must consist of an architect, architectural historian, planner, landscape architect or "related field"