Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19951129ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 29, 1995 634 W. MAIN STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT .... INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURE .... 820 E. COOPER - AMENDMENT TO CONCEPTUAL .... 610 W. HALLAM -RESCIND LANDMARK DESIGNATION ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER. 29, 1995 Second Vice-Chairman Jake Vickery called the meeting 5:07 with Moyer, Smisek, Madsen and Alstrom present. Erdman, Holst, Dodington and Roschko. to order at Excused were MOTION: Martha moved to approve the minutes of October 25, 1995; second by Linda. Roll call vote; Vickery, yes; Moyer, yes; Madsen, yes; Alstrom, yes; Smisek, no. Motion carries. Sven: Is Staff forwarding a memo to P&Z on the ISIS? Amy: Yes, and I will supply them with a copy of the minutes in addition to a cover memo. Linda: I have amendments to the minutes. Amy: Kathy can incorporate the corrections in the minutes. If it is substance they will come back to the board. MOTION: Martha moved to approve the minutes of November 8, 1995; second by Sven. Roll call vote; Vickery, yes; Moyer, yes; Madsen, yes; Alstrom, yes; Smisek, no. Motion carries. Sven: Some of the text was watered down between the Board and Charles Cunniffe regarding the Isis Theatre but I also do not feel that some of it was substantive. Martha: At one point an applicant used the minutes as an argument and I am wondering if we should not tighten up on them? Sven: The only thing I worry about is if we would cut off comments made by the public or an applicant. Jake: I feel the minutes are important because they build the discussion and often issues are not in the motion but referred to in the minutes. I feel it is important that the members read the minutes for context. Martha: Amy has had to bring back minutes and motions before us and we have not had a problem. Amy: Minutes are almost verbatim and it may sound awkward on the page because you are speaking instead of writing. Sven: In that case we should bring it up under old business. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney: Minutes should be amended at the time of approval. I agree that minutes should reflect accurately what was said. Some expletives might not have to be in the minutes and it might be best to just say expletives deleted. Minutes are the public record. Jake: What are your concerns about the minutes Linda? ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 29, 1995 Linda: If you read them and try to make heads and tails they get very confused. Sven: I would like to request that the motion be bolded. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Martha: I have handed out to the members a couple examples of roof tops for the Board to review. Amy: As a reminder when we have site visits please meet at the back entrance to city hall. Amy: As a reminder ex-parte-communication, that is discussion about an application outside the meeting area is forbidden. MOTION: Roger moved to add 634 W. Main Street to the agenda; second by Sven. All in favor, motion carries. 634 W. MAIN STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: The proposal is to add glass in the gable end and this actually doesn't violate our ordinance #30 standard. The glass goes all the way down to the floor level so it is not in the no window zone. My only comment was that I suggest clapboard between the two windows but there is a very high fence and you can't read much of the house. Peg Manson, owner: The wall has an air conditioner in it right now. Sven: I have been in some of the units and they can certainly use more light. I would definitely be in favor of allowing her to do this. Possibly use a more traditional window casing. Make the opening look more traditional. I would like to see some divided light. Sven: I would volunteer to be the monitor on this project. MOTION: Roger moved to allow the applicant to proceed with the application as applied for at 634 W. Main; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. DISCUSSION Peg: The window is a Crestline thermopane with tempered glass in the bottom. Sven: The casing around the window is my only concern. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 29, 1995 Amy: We can get a photograph of the window proposed. Linda: Was this area an attic space? Peg: It was made into a bedroom. 240 LAKE AVENUE - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES 918 E. COOPER - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES 500 W. BLEEKER - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES 925 KING STREET COLORADO MIDLAND RIGHT-OF-WAY WORKSESSION Amy: 925 King Street has an historic house on it. I do not have a legal description right now and I am not sure if they are two separate properties and if they are the one with the historic house and barn show stay on the inventory and the other part shouldn't. If it is all one legal description then I guess it should all stay on the inventory. Roger: At the site visit today we looked at all the buildings and it was obvious that at one time there was an historic cottage. The cottage has an addition to the rear and a porch to the front that was put on. The barn has historic significance. The other buildings, there is nothing historic about them. We told the person that most probably all the buildings could be taken away and they would keep the two. His understanding at this time would be that he would keep the two buildings that are historic. We didn't know and the owner didn't know if it was one parcel or two. We did tell him this was not the opinion of the entire board. Sven: I would not recommend getting rid of this site. Amy: I will bring this back at the next meeting with the complete information you need in order to make a determination. The owner wants clarification as to what is historic and what is no. Jake: The midland Right-of-way will be discussed and a letter has been entered into the records from Stanford Johnson. Amy: I visited the Shadow Mountain Property a month ago with Stanford Johnson. He protests calling that area the historic Colorado Midland Right-of-way. We all did a site visit and there are maps of the right-of-way. I have spoken with the Parks Dept. and they haven't had the intention of having a trail through that area. Maybe we need verification of what went on in that specific ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 29, 1995 area. Hans Gramiger, neighbor in the vicinity of the Colorado Midland: You want to make something historic that is around 100 feet long and 15 feet wide approximately. To me if you want to preserve the Colorado Midland that has not been disturbed go to the Marolt property. It is there and stands out and right now we are working on the Entrance to Aspen and we respect that and are going around it. With the rock, surveyors came in and said it was significant. A surveyor can take that point in his office and transfer it to the top of Red Mountain if he wants to. To me, it would have been better if the rock was lifted out and moved toward the sidewalk in the setback of the property or taken to the historic museum. On the Midland railroad my house is in the Midland and my neighbor's house is also. I destroyed the former railroad bed and now all of a sudden someone finds a little piece and I feel you are diminishing your clout in the community of the historic preservation when you go out after these things. Roger: The Midland used to go through the north portion of your property and is that still your land or the Midland Right-of-way. Hans: You have a grantor and grantee and I am the grantee; however, in my case I had to fight because Judge Shaw was claiming the right-of-way. I own the property clean and free. If a right- of-way has been deeded or in fee then it is a separate real estate action. Roger: That is what I am asking is it or is it not a separate piece of real estate. You own that portion of the Midland. Do other people own part of the right-of-way. Hans: Johnson owns his property in fee. Roger: The Midland right-of-way came across the river on a bridge and it went along the base of Shadow Mountain and it pulled away from the base and came down to what is now Dean and dropped into Durant and into the base of Aspen Mountain later on. For all of us is that entire right-of-way still one long right-of-way or are their only increments of it left. Amy: There are only portions of the right-of-way left. Sven: Mr. Johnson's letter contests that this parcel was part of the right-of-way. Roger: Mr. Johnson is wrong because he is talking about where the Parlor Car used to sit. The Parlor Car did not sit on the right- of-way. The right-of-way was up behind the Parlor Car. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 29, 1995 Hans: The brought rails in just for the Parlor Car to sit on. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney: There are a lot of federal cases that dealt with that issue that are now saying because railroad right-of-way is becoming important they are basically supporting the public entity to use that land. Beyond that in Johnson's letter he is talking about Dolan case which is an issue that is totally different than this case. He is claiming that this would be condemnation but it arguably not. In terms of compensation and legal arguments you always proceed cautiously but I feel they are incorrect and based on a loose interpretation of the law. Sven: I read the thing about takings and just like other zoning HPC has restrictions on property and just because it changed from a right-of-way to a new deed that doesn't mean that the right-of- way as historic designated that we shouldn't go ahead and acknowledge that. We aren't taking the parcel it is a restriction on it and in fact the public entity that wanted to reinstate that right-of-way could come in and.do a huge taking. We are not doing that. We are just acknowledging that this was at one time a right- of-way. Amy: We did a site visit before and everyone agreed that it should be on the inventory. What I brought before you tonight was the protest letter that could not necessarily respond to because I was not here at the time the Parlor Car was here. What we had talked about was that we would like the right-of-way to remain open space and usable as part of the trail system and recognize that it is part of an historic resource that is gone. Roger: Historically we had two trains in Aspen and hypothetically we could have one train come in on the Midland through town and exits on the Rio-Grande. My question is does Hans own the Midland right-of-way or is it in fact a right-of-way across his property? Hans: When people own property in fee regardless whether there is a railroad that goes through it or not, it is wiped out. David Hoefer: Not necessarily. Amy: Our next step would be to go to City Council with our recommendation to keep it on the inventory. Linda: I am in full agreement with that recommendation. Straw Poll: Keep the railroad right-of-way on the inventory. 820 E. COOPER - AMENDMENT TO CONCEPTUAL ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 29, 1995 Jake: I would like to be added to the Dec. 13th agenda. Amy: We do not have to take a vote because this is not a public hearing. 610 W. HALLAM -RESCIND LANDMARK DESIGNATION Amy: At the last meeting the Board indicated that they would like the historic landmark designation removed as it no longer meets the designation standards. You also had suggested that it stay on the historic inventory. From here it goes to P&Z as a public hearing then to City Council to be adopted by ordinance. Sven: Earlier I was going to rescind designation if it had impacts, somewhat like a penalty on the building. But I do not like to remove a parcel from designation. In spite of what has occurred I feel we should keep the parcel designated. Amy: I understand that you want to keep the review authority over the property but they are maxing out the site and nothing else can occur on the site. I feel we are trying to have an historic preservation program that has integrity and I would like to be able to say we have 200 landmarks. Sven: For example what if there is a fire and then the parcel would not longer be in our purview. Amy: The code doesn't exactly say anything about an historic structure being destroyed by an act of God and does HPC review the structure. Sven: Not if the land has been released. Roger: What does the owner want? Amy: I am sure he would be delighted if we took the landmark away as he didn't want it in the first place. Martha: He didn't get a fine? Amy: The approval took one meeting for conceptual and one for final and the problem is that we didn't go into the depth about the framing plan etc. City Council has the decision as to whether other actions should be taken. He got $10,000 for preservation incentives and it is council's decision as to whether that should be taken away. There were also variances that were given. Roger: My next question would be what does the attorney's office feel should happen? Should we also give recommendations to City Council or let it be. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 29, 1995 Sven: I feel we should just leave it alone and have it designated. Roger: I feel we should leave it alone also. We made mistakes and they cannot be corrected. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney: That certainly is an acceptable approach that you send it on to council with no recommendations. Amy: Explain why you want to keep this on the inventory? Martha: I feel he should be fined as he did not live up to his agreement. Amy: If you do demolition that you do not have approval HPC there is a 5 year moratorium on your property. It serious. for from is very Linda: I also feel it should not be taken off the inventory. Amy: I do not see any benefit to leaving it on the inventory as there will not be any more significant development on the site. I would rather not call a new building an historic landmark. Jake: As a board all through our review process this should not happen again. Sven: I got into this issue with McCoy and I thought his contractor license should have been suspended as there was two levels of responsibility. In the future in addition to the permit moratorium maybe there should be a specific penalty against the contractor. David Hoefer: On this subject I would suggest tabling until the next meeting until we can look at this closer. Sven: I feel there should be a contractor penalty because what if an out of town owner says they didn't approve that project. Amy: We can table and give a lengthier memo at the next meeting. David Hoefer: If things are done in violation of a building code or restrictions that are placed on a project there is usually a criminal penalty attached to it. In all probability there could be a civil case also. Jake: I want clarification on whose responsibility it is to represent to the board on what they plan on doing. The bottom line on all of this is that there was vague information and it wasn't ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 29, 1995 thoroughly documented. There are conflicting graphics and it all kind of vague. David Hoefer: That is a problem with any board and when you approve something you need to be as specific as possible otherwise you leave the door open for legal interpretation. It is useful to have the resolutions reviewed by the attorney. The City Attorney and myself are preparing a packet of information for the Boards that explains things in more detail. MOTION: Jake moved to adjourn; second by Sven. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk