Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740625 """ --- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ C. F. ~OECKEl B. B. a: L. co. Specia,l Meeting P & Z a,nd H,P,C. June 25, 1974 The special meeting was ca,lled to order by P & Z Chairma,n Spence Schiffer with Planning and Zoning Commission members Bryan JOhnson, Ja,net Landry, Jack Jenkins, and Robert Barnard; Historic Preservation Committee Acting Chairwoman Judy Ferrenberg, and members LaryGroen, Florence Glidden, Norman Burns, Mona Frost, and Bob Marsh, at 5:04 P.M. Also present was City/County Planner Herb Bartel, and Assistant Planner John Stanford. Joint Public Hearing; Historic Overlay District Chairman Schiffer noted that there was a quorum present from both boards. Schiffer opened the public hearing. P & Z member Robert Barnard stated that he would like to disqualify himself as he had a conflict of interest, but would sit in the audience for the remainder of the public hearing. Collins arrived. Assistant Planner John Stanford was present to repre- sent the position of the Historic Preservation Committee and the Planning Office. Stanford stated that first, he wanted to trace the history of public actions which deal with historic preservation in the City of Aspen; then he wanted to discuss what the planning on the Historic Preser- vation Plan has been to date, followed by comments by the Historic Preservation Committee. The history of Historic Preservation in the City with respect to public actions began with the development of goals and objectives by the Goals Task Force, a citizen's committee. In July 6, 1971, this committee came up with tentative objectives. In August of 1971, the P & Z adopted a resolution accepting these ten- tative objectives. Then, in September of the same year, the Goals Task Force adopted a goal which stated that they would like to protect and preserve the historic heritage in Aspen. In 1972, the his- toric section to the zoning code was adopted. Since this time, three buildings have gone through the processes of being adopted as historic structures - these within the district being the Wheeler Opera House, the pitkin County Courthouse, and, penolng action by City Council, City Hall. In regard to the Historic Overlay District, the P & Z in August 10, 1973 made a recommendation to the H.P.C. to evaluate the commercial core for a historic district. In the following October, the H.P.C. made a recommendation to the P & Z to establish the com- mercial core as a historic overlay district, the boundaries being the alley behind the Hotel Jerome on the north, Durant on the south, Monarch on the weRt, and Hunter on the east. The intent of designating the historic district, Stanford continued, was that it was the primary way in which future development guarantees the visual image that represents Aspen as a victorian mining town. It also maintains the unique situation for a U.S. ski resort, where the recreation base is a live, functioning town with a colorful history and an authentic historic character. This district could help to develop an environment where the re- -1- r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOR"''' C.F.HOECKELB.e.&L.CO. Special Meeting P & Z and H.P,C, June 25, 1974 . Joint Public Hearing; Historic Overlay District, continued suIting effect would be greater than the sum total effect of individual buildings, In addition, the district would promote an urban design concept whereby the commercial core will re- sult in a visually pleasing environment for the tourists. Planning considerations were that historic preser- vation is an integral part of the comprehensive planning process for a town. This should be per- ceived as an urban development program, where the valuable assets in the district are protected, and new development is encouraged to create a designed and coordinated environment. Stanford stated that there were various aspects of the urban design plan - (1) Public buildings and public acquisitions of land. Open space should be increased around public buildings; (2) View cor- ridors; (3) Pedestrian trail systems and pedestrian links within the core itself; (4) The open space system which links Aspen Mountain with the river and the Rio Grande property; (5) The historic district, providing a visual unity to the area. Stanford noted that the Planning Office and the H.P.C. had been working on a Historic Preservation Plan, and though it was not yet completed, he re- viewed the elements that were completed at that point. There was the Historic Buildings Inventory, including some forty buildings. There were three categories, (1) exceptional, which were buildings which remained in tact; (2) excellent, basically in tact, the integrity of the original architecture is present, but they have been altered; (3) notable, where there has been extensive change to the original structure, and the structure itself has no great historical significance. They then described various areas, utilizing the inventory map, which have different degrees of historic character. Then an inventory of land use was done in the downtown area, to identify where there was vacant land, and where future development opportunities exist. There was then done a study on massing, predominant facade materials, (masonry, wood, both could be painted), and design objectives, where the predominant historical character should be maintained, A high degree of visual unity should also be developed in the mall areas, and the ped- estrian corridor which links the Rio Grande property with the transportation center and Little Nell lift. The parks would serve as a transition area between the high density lodge area and the historic district. Stanford stated that with additional analysis, the Committee would develop the review criteria by which new construction would be evaluated. Stanford then presented a slide show which identified the H.P.C.'s level of thinking in regard to the review criteria. P & Z member Geri Vagneur arrived. -2- .~._.--I.._.. ,.... \,~,/ /-.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \~ C. F. H OECKEL B. a. II L. CO. Spec!al Meeb.n5f .. P &2: and H,p,C, June 25, 1974 Joint Public Hea,ring; Historic Overlay District, continued Stanford then stated that, in closing, the Committee did not feel that the establishment of the district would deter growth in the commercial core, The economic activity in other cities have often been stimulated by environmental protections. Also, with the increase in building costs, the rehabilita- tion of older buildings is more viable economically than building new structures. The criteria which would be established would function within the zoning code, were guidelines within which architects could function and design contemporary structures. New construction was not expected to duplicate the historic buildings in the city. Criteria would be available before the next public hearing with City Council. Ferrenberg stated that the Historic Preservation Committee would comment after the public reaction. Schiffer asked what effect the district would have on the surrounding neighborhood outside the district. Stanford stated that the district should develop as a prestige area, and there should be no adverse effect on neighboring areas. Schiffer the opened the meeting to public comment. Leonard Oates Attorney Leonard Oates, representing Helen White, owner of the Bank of Aspen and the Aspen Lumber and Supply Co. (lots P,Q,R,S of Block 80 and lots D through I, Block 81), stated that the reason for the ownership of the property where the lumber com- pany was located is for the possible expansion in the future of the Bank of Aspen. This expansion could take the form of an additional structure sup- plementary to the existing Bank of Aspen building, or the abandonment of the existing Bank of Aspen facility and the building of a new facility on the southwest corner of the street. Mr. Oates requested, on behalf of his client, that nothing be done that would preclude the plans which may be in the offing for the Bank of Aspen. He further stated that bank planning was very sophisti- cated, which required certain things to be integrated within the building. He stated that his clients wished not to be restricted in the planning aspects by severely limiting controls with respect to arch- itecture. He further stated that if they wanted to use both corners for a facility, they would like the architecture to be compatible with the existing structure. Mr. Oates also stated that he would not want the number of lots to affect the size of the building he could build on that corner. Patrick Henry Mr, Henry asked that the letter, submitted to the Mayor and the Planning and Zoning Commission be entered into the record of the public hearing. "Dear Mayor Standley; We have received a letter dated May 28, 1974 reo the designation of a certain part of the business dis- trict of Aspen as an "H, Historic Overlay District." -3- r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 'I C.F.HOECKELB.B.llL.CD. Special Meetin~ P & Z and H,P,C, June 25, 1974 Patrick Henry, continued "The letter states that the Aspen H.istoric Preserva- tion Committee was established to identify and preserve historic sites and structures in the City of Aspen. We suggest that tha,t group devote their energies toward that aim, We do not quarrel with their efforts to protect individual buildings and structures having historic significance. "However, the designation of an entire area of the City as having historic significance, or as contain- ing objects with historic significance and the re- quiring of approval of yet another agency or bureau in order to remodel, paint or change an existing building or erect a new structure impresses us and our attorneys as being counterproductive and uncon~ stitutional. To subject every structure or proposed structure within a large district to the caprice or whim of a committee operating without criteria or standards, other than their own, and without com- pensating property owners for loss occasioned by these arbitrary designations would certainly be in- equitable and our attorneys feel that it would fall short of the due process requirements of the Federal and State Constitutions. "We are opposed to more governmental bureaucratic committees and controls and especially of this whimsical nature. "Respectfully, Dr. Robert Barnard; Patrick Henry, Jr.; W.C. Gibbs; Ruth Little; Jessie Maddalone; Richard E. Long; Virginia H. Henry; Guido Meyer; Werner Kuster; Fritz Lindner; Curt Baar; F.P. Stone; Ruth D. Stone; Claude M. Conner; Hod Nicholson; Bert Bidwell." Joe Berger, Elks The spokesman for the Aspen Lodge No. 224, Benevolent Protective Order of Elks was present, stating that the Elks must respectfully oppose the designation of the property as historic due to the following reasons: (1) Proper legal notification has not been given to the legal ownership; (2) Under Sec. 24-9.1 the Historic Preservation Committee had no authority to designate an empty lot historic; (3) The addition of such a review board would add another bureaucratic hurdle to the renovation of the building; (4) Full disclosure had not been received of the effects of historic designation, which was not in keeping with the ordinance requiring full and complete information, (5) until such time as clear declaration is issued, spelling out the details, the Elks must oppose; (6) The proposal of color control and renovation is in violation of the statutes of the constitution as well as the Bill of Rights, Bob Sproull Bob Sproull, owner of the building of Jake's restau- rant, asked the number of opposing and consenting letters received. Ferrenberg stated that 81 letters were sent out, 34 replied, with 9 consents, 24 opposing, and three without a statement. Sproull stated that a non-response could be construed as a negative response. -4- --,,---,,~,'~^"- -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM,. C.F.HOECKELB.B.8:L.CO. ~ecial Meetin<;J P & Z a,nd H,P,C, . , JUne 25, 1974 Block 82, submitted Planning a,nd zoning Robert Barnard Dr, Barnard, owner of lots H,I on the following letter to the Aspen Commission: "I wish to introduce this letter into the record of the public hearing today to express my opposition to the imposition of a,n historica,l district upon the zoning map of Aspen. 1, First, many buildings within this district are not historical and some are very poor examples of gay nineties architecture. 2. Second, many buildings in the district were built after World War II and do not lend themselves to the victorian motif. 3. Three, over a period of the last 15 years we have allowed our freedom and liberty to be eroded away to practically nothing, all in the name of pro- tecting this and saving that. I submit that in following this path of submission, we have been turned into a bunch of zoned puppets who have lost the very life style that we came here to enjoy in the beginning. "The fact that this particular project is being tout- ed by kindly, wellmeaning people, which it is, is beside the point. The real point is that this would just be another shackle around our collective necks, another loop of red tape to entangle us in. Iron- ically, this type of thing gets political and all manner of weird injustices and inequities will come to pass over the years. "In closing, I say this, let's get back to the old values of freedom and liberty and let's cut out all this foolishness of letting Big Brother protect us from ourselves while enslaving us in the name of zoning. There is a better way!" Jim Moran Mr. Moran asked John Stanford, in the Historic Buildings Inventory, who rated the structures, what was the procedure by which the structures were rated, and what was the criteria used to differen- tiate the differences in the categories. Stanford replied that the committee looked at the historic significance of the structures (whether it had national, state, or local significance), arch- tectural significance a,nd integrity, and the ex- ternal conditions, the structure itself, the grounds around it and the neighborhood. Moran stated that this implied to him that there was no set down criteria, where someone could pick up a printed outline of the material and come up with the same designation of a buildinq (exceptional, excellent, or notable), as the Committee and Planning Office had. ' Mr, Moran also asked if the criteria, when developed, would be part of the ordinance, Stanford replied that they would not, but would be adopted official -5- - ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.IIL.CO. Special Meetin;J . ~ P& Z a,nd H,P ,C , June 25, 1974 Jim Moran, continued guidelines to be used by the Historic Preservation Committee, Stanford further stated that it was feasible that they could be adopted in the ordinance. Moran stated that if the criteria were part of the ordinance, if the criteria were to be changed, the amending process must include a public hearing. If they were simply guidelines and by-laws of an ind- ependent committee, the Commission should be con- cerned how these would be changed without subjecting them to the public hearing process. Hans Gramiger Mr. Gramiger stated that he was representing two property owners in the district, as well as himself as a citizen of Aspen. Mr. Gramiger stated that the biggest objection he had to the district was the review process and the additional hassles one had to go through in the bureaucratic process. Also, it was not clear and written down what this historic district would mean. Gramiger also stated that he felt that it was unwise to hold such a public hearing without a criteria. He felt that this public hearing was possibly just a meeting to arrive at some criteria, which could be watered down to appease the public and get the district passed. After the district is passed how- ever, the criteria would gain strength again. Gramiger stated that of course those historic build- ings do provide an economic incentive for restoration and he felt that those few historic buildings in town would be restored. He also stated that he had more faith in the developer that he would respect the victorian building next to him in design. Robert Sproull Mrs. Markalunas was present at the public hearing representing the Aspen Historical Society. She stated that she wished to speak to the historic aspect of the district. Mrs. Markalunas gave a brief description of the planning history of Aspen and it's development. Mrs. Marknlunas stated that the Aspen Historical Society asked that every effort to help Aspen retain its individual character and distinctive atmosphere be made; and that consenting to the district would help maintain some of the character of Aspen. Sproull stated that he was also interested in main- taining the character of Aspen. He stated that this district seemed to be the ultimate hassle, in that an owner can't do anything to the outside of their building. He further stated that he may be more willing to go along with the district if he could paint the building the colors he wanted; if making an external improvement less than some monetary amount, you could do this without going through re- view; if you did not have to give up every right you have with your own building. Ramona Markalunas Schiffer noted that in the ordinance, there is men- tioned an exemption for minor repairs and changes. Robert Barnard Barnard stated he also agreed with Mrs. Markalunas' statement, but he felt that a better route would be -6- -" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.8:L.CO. ~e?ia,l Meebng P & Z a,nd H,!',C, , ~ June 25, 1974 Robert Barnard individual designation for restoration, Hans Gramiger Mr. Gramiger noted that the only legal remedy was to Court. He stated that he felt there should be an appeal. Leonard Oates Mr. Oates stated that he felt that it was appropria,te to classify this session as a work session rather than a strictly legal proceeding. This session was simply to show everyone what it was a,ll about. Schiffer replied that this was hearing with notice published, this hearing, the P & Z was to to City Council. a legal public Within 30 days of make a recommendation Bill Zordel Mr. Zordel was representing the Fraternal Order of Eagles. Mr. Zordel stated that if the establish- ment of the district would give the Eagles any more hassles than they already have over building or remodeling, the Eagles would have to object to the establishment of the district. Jim Moran Moran asked the relationship between the establish- ment of the district and Ordinance 9. Schiffer replied that any recommendation that the P & Z made, either for or against, would have the effect of prohibiting anybody from doing anything contrary to what that recommendation is for a period of 1 year, or at such time as the City Council take ac- tion. Leonard Oates Mr. Oates stated that since the criteria would con- tain not only procedural but also substantive mat- ter, the P & Z should take no action until these have been submitted. The public should be allowed to respond to these, and also Mr. Oates suggested that these be put into ordinance form. Historic Preservation Committee Response Ferrenberg, Acting Chairwoman of the Historic Preservation Committee, stated that the reasons the H.P.C. had brought the meeting to the P & Z at this time was due to the development pressures in the downtown core area. Ferrenberg stated that after the committee had P & Z support and feedback from the public, criteria would be written. Ferrenberg wanted to make clear that the Council would never act on the proposal without definite criteria. Burns stated that in response to Leonard Oates con- cern with massing, a building could be massed in such a way that would break up a massive facade so that the building would not overpower the other historic buildings nearby. Vagneur left the meeting. Groen, in response to Mr. and Mrs. Henry's concern about criteria, stated that the Committee hoped to base the criteria on present building and zoning regulations, so that the committee would not seem capricious. Groen further stated that color was a difficult subject, and that the Committee would like to establish a broad pallet of colors for owners to choose from. -7- ",.- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOR"''' C.f.HOECKE\.B.B.&L.CO. June 25, 1974 Special Meebn<;J.. Historic Preservation committee Responses, continued Planning and Zoning Commission Responses P& Z and H,P,C, , , Ferrenberg stated she would also like to address the question of why a district, and not individual buildings. Ferrenberg stated that the simplest statement for this was that the sum is greater than it's parts. Burns noted that when an owner approached the Building Department with a set of plans, the Building Inspector was required to send the building to the H.P.C. for review before a building permit was issued. In response to paint colors, unless a building permit were required for other work, the H.P.C. would not be aware that it was happening, The H.P.C. has no review powers unless a building permit were required, as the ordinance was now written. It was also noted that the reason the H.P.C. was setting down the criteria was that the Committee could not be accused of individual tastes. Ferrenberg then stated that she would like John Stanford to address the constitutionality of the historic district. He stated that in 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act was passed which states that it's the federal policy to preserve the nation's historic resources. The National Register listed the Wheeler Opera House, and Stanford noted that areas are allowed to be designated. The National Register states that the building or an area is protected from demolition or damage by any development which is federally financed or licensed. House Bill 1034 provided that any local government may plan for and regulate the use of land by pre- serving areas of historical and archeological im- portance. This house bill gave the City ordinance more legitimacy, and should make the ordinance more acceptable to any court which may review it. There were also a number of case laws supporting historic districts. Jenkins stated that the pure economic application of materials and land had produced buildings which were not compatible with the historic character of Aspen. Consideration should be given to this. He further stated that they continue the meeting until the criteria be presented, and that the criteria be put in the form of law; the appeal should be through normal channels of the P & Z, Board of Adjustment, and the City Council; and that the H.P.C. should function as staff to the P & Z, rather than an independent body. Johnson stated that he felt the H.P.C. needed to do much more work to gain the public support they desired, and further noted that the criteria should be formulated and put in ordinance form, with a valid rating system. Johnson further noted that a historic overlay district is important. Johnson stated again that another public hearing would be held before the City Council would act on the district. Landry stated she strongly supported the idea of -8- . -- ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM 50 C.f.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Special Meetin~ ., ' P& z and H,P,C, ~ ~ . June 25, 1974 Planning and zoning Commission Responses, continued a historic district, but the question what was to be done with the historic district, She stated that there was a possibility that a historic over- lay in the core area is restrictive. The other towns she knew of that had a district had desig- nated the entire town historic. A historic dis- trict seems to imply a large city, where there is an alternative, and where the land use gives you a alternative place to build a store if you didn't want to be in the historic district. Also, she wanted to further consider architectural criteria. Collins had no comment at this time. Schiffer stated that he agreed with the idea of an historic overlay district; that the problems that had been pointed out were basically problems with the existing ordinance, in establishing criteria after forming the district which had been based on vague criteria. The H.P.C. members themselves had indicated that the criteria in the ordinance were insufficient. He was in favor of the district, but his feeling at this point was that most of the ob- jections regarding the criteria was valid. Schiffer stated that the hearing should be" closed & suggested that another date be set to take action after the letters have been read. Johnson stated that the primary thing that had come out of the public hearing was the need for criteria. Schiffer stated that he felt this item should be put on the agenda for July 2, and a decision made at this time. Before this time, Schiffer suggested that the Commission study Chapter 24 of the zoning code with respect to the district to find out ex- actly what was going to be done. Schiffer then closed the public hearing. Johnson made a motion that set the time to take action for July 2. Landry seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Johnson made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. Collins seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. {}f~4r~/ . Secretary