Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19881011HIS~ORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall October 11, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was brought to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Charles Cunniffe, Charlie Knight and Joe Krabacher present. Nick Pasquarella and Zoe Compton were excused. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the minutes of September 27, 1988. Second by Joe. All approved. Motion carries. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: 120 N. Spring is up on skids and will be moved tomorrow morning and will come straight down Spring St. to Hopkins and straight west on Hopkins to its new site at 134 W. Hopkins. Georgeann: Did you know that they aren't developing that project now, the project that we are moving the house for. Roxanne: 700 E. Main isn't being built at the moment. Charles: Not by that developer. Kathy: Chris Darakis and Donnelley Erdman have been appointed to the HPC board. CHAIRMAN REPORT Bill Poss: As our image and integrity of this Committee comes under purview in light of our last actions with the Berko bldg. I think it is important to reiterate what we are doing here and how we should conduct ourselves. It is the integrity and image of this Board that is really important. It is one of the reasons I got on the Board to try and strengthen the Board and have a better image. This Committee should have effective guidance and leadership before the community and even if we make a decision that the majority has ruled on the Board should take the guidance as with the Berko bldg. to keep the momentum going towards preservation. I think our guidance and review procedures have to be good. One of the things we are learning with this is that any of our decisions can be appealed and have a hearing. Those decisions will probably, based on the code, be reviewed on the records. It is important that the committee members review with specifics, with regards to the guidelines and the code because our actions will be reviewed on the record. When you speak for the record you should really have the intent of what your thoughts were. When you read the minutes several weeks after a decision it doesn't quite read as clearly as we know our thoughts HPC.MINUTES. OCTOBER.II.1988 were. When we review applications I think everybody should come well prepared to these meetings. The professionals on the Board should be available on the weekends and the days before the meeting for members of the Board that have problems reading the drawings because I don't think we make effective decisions when we review it right in front of us. That doesn't say that you might not change your decisions once you have heard other members speak but some of the decisions I have seen come through this Board were not that well thought out. I would like to see a little more preparedness. Bill: We need to discuss the small victorians. They have been real problems in the past. The ones that we have reviewed we have had problems with the addition, how big does the addition get before we find that it destroys the integrity of the little structure and if the community would not be better served if we allow these victorians to be enlarged and maybe the integrity would be sacrificed but we keep the image of the victorians which I think the public is coming back to us and saying they want to do. Bill: Another statement may have to deal with commercial core infill. We may want to prepare a summary statement for the Berko review and decision. It is time for the Board to step out and say what we really did. I would like to compliment the Board and I feel we handled ourselves with integrity under the "fire" that we have been taking from the public and the Council. We may want to start doing some PR work with the newspaper also on issues. Bill: We will take comment from the public at this time. Michael Lipkin: I am representing the Art Museum and we have a minor development review and I would like to be added to the agenda in order to get an approval of the project. Over the entrance of the museum on the sloping roof there is a skylight and we would like to remove it. MOTION: Aspen Art carries. Charles made the motion to hear the presentation on the Museum. Georgeann second. All approved. Motion ASPEN ART MUSEUM Roxanne: The Aspen Art Museum is an exceptional landmark designated structure within the City limits. The proposal is to take out the skylight before winter. A lot of ultraviolet light comes into the lobby area and as a result they can't hang any art there and the skylight also leaks. The location is the very front section, the front door area, the new addition that has been put on. If the Board takes any action today it would have HPC.MINUTES. OCTOBER. ii.1988 to be conditional on a complete application presented with the Planning Office. Michael Lipkin: The museum needs to remove the skylight between the next two shows as there is only a ten day break. The arched curve around the skylight pushes the snow and water to the east side of the building and into the adjacent brick wall which constantly absorbs the moisture as it heats up during the day. They have tried various approaches but nothing has really worked out. The skylight over heats the entry space also. Charles: Are you contemplating any "real" entrance to the building. Michael: There has been some discussion. One of the longer range plans is to close off the parking lot and use it for handicapped and dropoff, then do an actual entry piece kind of in front of the doors now that might work as an enlarged vestibule. Presently there is not a budget for that. The desire of the museum is to use the new parking structure and encourage parking there. The museum is undergoing a major fund driving campaign and hopefully with the funds generated next year we will be able to look into some of the needed changes. Charles: we might think of this as just a temporary measure. Michael: It would be considered temporary as we want to do a real entry. Bill: Does the Board concur that this would be a minor application and could Roxanne sign off. Georgeann: I think it could be done in-house. Charles: Could we approve this as a minor development and let Roxanne handle the details about the application. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the Aspen Art Museum as a minor development application subject to the completed application being submitted to Roxanne in the Planning Office. Charles second. All favored. Motion carries. Roxanne: It is important that you also review the development standards to make sure your approval meets those standards. In my review of all four of those standards I find that it does meet them. I find that the proposed development is compatible in character with the designated historic structures and certainly a skylight would not be compatible with the historic structure. This skylight is not on the historic part of the building, it is on the new part. I don't know how long the skylight has been on. HPC.MINUTES. OCTOBER.Ii.1988 Michael: Since around 1977. Roxanne: The proposal is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, certainly removing the skylight would meet that standard. Enhances or does not detract from the cultural value, I find it also meets that standard and enhances or does not diminish or detract the architectural integrity of the designated structure. Georgeann: It also will protect the original building from damage. Joe: The guidelines generally discourage skylights in historic structures and if they would have come before us for approval of a skylight we probably wouldn't have approved that. WORK SESSION Bill: I did take the liberty of reviewing the McDonald application on file at 300 W. Main. In light of the actions of Caroline and Scott everyone knows that they were quite displeased on the way things were handled by the Board. After reviewing I found some interesting facts that we may want to look at and change in our process, if in fact that can be. The McDonalds came before HPC seven times for action and that included both conceptual approval, designation, both of which required public hearings. A letter from us was generated to the Board of Adjustment that we were in support of their actions so that they could receive a variance and that happens to be only one or two times more then several of the other landmark issues that came before us. On an average landmarks have come before us five and six times to receive action. I don't find the McDonald case too far out of line but it did take almost five months to go through and that has always been a problem when the code was rewritten. I'm not sure if that can be shortened up some. Roxanne: I don't think the public hearing and the noticing were the problems with the McDonald case. We can dovetail public hearings. 212 E. Hopkins had to be landmark designated and also be noticed for conceptual. We did that in one notice and at one meeting. The McDonald's case was extremely special. When you look at everything involved we were very responsive to their needs and really worked with and helped them get a better project. Bill: it. There were no changes, I just thought we could learn from Charles: We went to an inordinate amount of degree to accommodate them and unfortunately they have continued to get HPC.MINUTES. OCTOBER.ii.1988 good press coverage about their side of the story without it every seeming to be balanced. I think it is unfortunate in terms of image and done us more harm than good. It is unfair and unfortunate that HPC has had to suffer from individuals who felt that they had a difficult time when they won't take credit on how difficult they made it upon themselves. Roxanne: I have always invited any member of the public to review the files in my office at anytime so that they could really understand what staff and the HPC had to go through with regard to finally getting them an approval which was quite incredible. Joe: I recall that the consensus was we would probably deny their application and we were accommodating them and extending additional periods of time. The city attorney came and said deny it if you don't like it and we accommodated them in order to give them some more time. I had in my mind to preserve the cabin and not discourage these people with their plans but to encourage them. Maybe it takes a little more time but it is better than turning them down and maybe they would decide to demolish the cabin. Roxanne: That was threatened on a number of occasions by the applicant as well which is an unfortunate situation which HPC is always under that pressure. Georgeann: The absolute minimum that application could probably have taken would be three months no matter what the project was and we were only over two months and I don't think that is unreasonable. We are a Board that votes on peoples lives and their homes and we can't expect everybody to walk out saying that is exactly what I wanted them to say and we have had very few people who have gotten upset with us. Charles: It is also on Main St. and the only other controversial project was Elli's. You can't come before HPC and have an historic property on Main St. that you want to quadruple the size and expect it to fly through without any hitches. Bill: I think the Board acted properly. Charles: I think we went out of our way. Bill: At the end of a review process Roxanne will write a summary on the case and it will be available to the public. Bill: I got a letter from the Historical Society reporting to us on the funds that are required for their restoration on the 5 HPC.MINUTES. OCTOBER. ii.1988 Wheeler Stallard House and they request that we write a letter and support them. Roxanne: I'll be drafting a letter in support of their efforts for a grant from the City. Charles: I'm doing the architecture for the renovation of the Stallard House on a voluntary basis, should I step down. Georgeann: As a volunteer he is still involved and should step down. Bill: You should step down. Roxanne: Council unanimously voted to schedule an appeal hearing on the Berko Bldg. scheduled for Nov. 9, 1988 5:00 p.m. I don't know what to expect as far as preparation. I do feel that a summary statement is needed from the HPC. Charles: Does anyone know how the appeal process will be handled and conducted. Joe: In a typical appeal you review based on the records and the record consists of the minutes and documents. Then Council determines on the basis of that record without any additional testimony or other evidence. The problem is, there are no procedures on how this happens. Andy Bigford, Daily News: The appeal stems from the Nov. 10th 1987 mtg. where Charles asked if the Board might discuss the Berko before there was an official application. Roxanne: The Nov. 10th mtg. minutes reflect that HPC thought maybe a relocation might not be as bad an idea as an addition to it. That was not a direction for action it was strictly a comment. Andy: You mentioned this was the first appeal in 16 years, what about the Amato. Roxanne: I stated the first City Council appeal, the Amato was an appeal on the rating. Georgeann: The inconvenience to Amato and the changes he had to make on the design were comparable to what the McDonald's had to go through. Charles: Elli's also. 6 HPC.MINUTES. OCTOBER.ii.1988 Bill: It is merely coincidental that I reviewed the McDonald report and I sensed there was a connection between them and the appeal process but I did want to see if there was a problem on our Board in regard to process. Roxanne: The Wheeler will not be doing the brackets/banners as there is concern about the brackets going into the mortar. HPC voted for the banners to celebrate preservation. By attaching the brackets into the mortar would require some type of epoxy into the drilled holes because the brackets are large. If the epoxy works it would be difficult to remove the brackets at the end of the year. There is the possibility while pulling the brackets out more mortar would come out also and possibly damage the stone. The are going in the direction of attaching the banners to the light poles. Roxanne: Charlie Knight brought up at the last meeting to change the times of the HPC meeting. Joe would not be able to attend later meetings on Tuesday. One of the reasons we had the Tuesday meetings was to allow for public hearing notices. Since I have been here we have not had to respond to that. Wednesday would be the day from 4:30 to 5:00 for a work session and from 5:00 to 7:00 for the meeting. If we change the day we will need an ordinance amendment. Charles: We should also try to keep the meetings to two hours. Charlie: Having another day to do site studying would be better. Zoe is in favor of moving the meeting to a latter time. MOTION: Bill made the motion to direct staff to repair an information memo to City Council requesting an ordinance revision for our meetings to be moved to the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of the month and that our meeting times would be from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. We will meet at 4:30 for work sessions if need be. Charles second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. Joe: In the memo to Council this is not only for our convenience but also for an extra day to prepare. Roxanne: Plus responsive to the public needs as well. Roxanne: Conflicts of Interest issues: I am preparing a memo for Ron Mitchell regarding the conflicts of interest issues. I reviewed preservation ordinances in Boulder, Denver Manitou Springs and Telluride. I am recommending scheduling regular work sessions between City Council, P&Z and HPC. I primarily see this as a lack of communication issue. My second recommendation would be something similar to what Boulder has in their ordinance which provides a soft method for Council to call up 7 HPC.MINUTES. OCTOBER.ii.1988 information. Ail the basic procedures are provided. It basically is a request for information. Also another recommendation would be to discourage board or commission members from accepting none controversial projects which may damage or diminish the integrity of the appointees position on the board or commission the employee serves on. The HPC has length of time in the community, collective knowledge and integrity. If we loose those things I feel we are just not responsive in meeting the needs of the community or are serving very well as HPC. Charles: A lot of the time you don't know if it is controversial and then people up and tell you their opinions. Bill: Mission statements would be published and we could get feedback. It is important for this Board to know how the public is feeling. Joe: When you step down and project is there a conflict of to that. one of your employees presents a interest, I don't know the answer Georgeann: It appears that is the publics impression. Joe: Does the public really know the facts. On the other hand where do you draw the line: my partner can't present this project, my employee can't present the project, I can't be a consultant etc. Roxanne: We have operated under the state and city laws. Bill: Andy can you state why the conflict of interest issues is being raised. Andy: It is the appearance of a conflict of interest and people don't know what is going on. Charles is a successful preservation architect and I feel it is all aimed at him. You have such a small pool of projects and the need to have architects on the board that magnifies it. I don't know what the answer is. The ideal would be to have preservation architects who worked in different communities that happen to live in Aspen. It hasn't happened on P&Z because it is so infrequent and Charles is successful and will continue to have projects. People think he is serving on HPC so he will know, he is here as an education for his profession also and increase his business. All our successful planners and designers are former P&Z members, staff members etc. Bill: Has it come up at the Aspen Times. HPC.MINUTES. OCTOBER. ii.1988 Madeline: It has come up but we haven't approached it the same way. I think Charles working on the Elisha project will raise some eyebrows. Charles: The problem is when you are doing a lot of work some of them will be controversial and if some people like the McDonalds will want to "stir the pot" and that isn't necessarily fair to other members of the HPC. Roxanne: What do you think of a written notice. Bill: A written notice is fine but a lot of people will not want it to be known too early publicly that they are going to have a project such as the GMP. Roxanne: It works well in Manitou Springs and Boulder. Charles: A lot of people are thinking projects are controversial because of members on the board but actually they are controversial because of the project such as Elli's and the Log Cabin. Joe: You never know if it is going to be controversial. Maybe with the Berko situation we will create realistic incentives other than $2000. to help us save some of the cabins. Charles: You have to make it viable. Roxanne: Incentives: Use tax refund on materials for renovation. Boulder gets all of it as long as 30% of those materials are used for exterior renovation. Ours is 50%. Georgeann: 50% of the sales tax on the materials that go into it. Bill: The majority of materials are brought outside the city limits. Bill: On the Berko project, the process was a problem and we had to address zoning. They couldn't reduce the size because they had to have employee housing on site and we didn't have the tools. Joe: It was decided that we had to have a code amendment and it would be put off too long. Bill: Besides incentives we have to revaluate the process. Roxanne: I see HPC not having enough variations that we can choose from. HPC.MINUTES. OCTOBER.ii.1988 Charlie: Council is going to continue to penalize this board without providing anything for us to work with unless they get to alternate incentives for us to work with. With Elli's they got out of employee housing because of historic things and the community back lashed us, we turned around and said the restoration was not that well thought out. We tried to become sensitive to the communities issues of parking and employee housing and do all these things and when we became aware of all those things then the Berko issues comes about and backfires. I don't have a problem with the appeal process but the process by which Council is attacking the board for its integrity is inappropriate and if council continues on this track they will see a number of people not on this board. Charles: The City could make preservation and attractive by not charging people the costs charges. People would line up to save victorians. renovation so that the city Joe: Waiving park dedication fees would be one and impact fees for employee housing. Georgeann: We have a situation of saying if a person only makes his building 1/2 again larger then the existing building he gets advantage of all the exactions. More exactions are allowed the smaller he gets his building. Joe: Also purchase of development rights and transfer rights. Bonus density, if you do a smaller one had have smaller units and you get an exemption from GMP or something like that. Roxanne: Monitoring: Augie was assigned 513 W. Bleeker, Barnett residence, and 516 E. Hyman the mouse house. Three others have not yet been assigned: 200 E. Main next to Gracy's, 514 E. Hyman Mason & Morse plaza, 715 W. Smuggler which is Miller house presented by Jenny Lang. Joe was assigned 200 E. Main Bill was assigned 715 W. Smuggler Charlie was assigned 516 E. Hyman and 514 E. Hyman Roxanne: Subcommittee: The Aspen Historic Trust has had four meetings. Since there is such an interest in preserving onsite maybe the Trust can actually become the bank for purchased development rights. Roxanne: Telluride wants to do a HPC ski swap. Adjourned 5:00 10