Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20080115ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2008 Dylan Johns opened the regular meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30 pm. Commissioners Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, Dina Bloom, Jim DeFrancia, LJ Erspamer, Dylan Johns and Brian Speck were present. Michael Wampler was excused. Staff in attendance included Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Sara Adams, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS: Cliff Weiss asked if they could get a heads up when packets are so large. Jennifer Phelan replied that she would email the staff memos when the packets were large. Jennifer Phelan stated there was an issue with the public notice for 300 Puppy Smith Street; she requested a special meeting for the re-noticed Puppy Smith. The commissioners agreed to meet on February 26`h in the Library for Puppy Smith; Jim DeFrancia and Michael Wampler will be excused on the 26"' The commissioners discussed having special meetings and/or longer meetings. MINUTES Dina Bloom made corrections to the minutes on page 3. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to approve the meeting with corrections; seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: HISTORIC INTERIORS CODE AMENDMENT Dylan Johns opened the public hearing for Historic Interiors Code Amendment. Sara Adams provided the notice and Jim True said that the notice met the requirements. Adams said that the resolution was attached and highlighted for P&Z review. Adams stated that City Council requested a recommendation from HPC and after tonight's recommendation she will go to the task force, which should be formulated in the beginning of February. They will go back to City Council in late April; the moratorium expires on June 12`h and it takes 30 days for an ordinance to go into effect. Cliff Weiss said that the information that Sara attached was illuminating. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2008 Sara Adams began on page 2 of the resolution adding definitions of interior, interior designated landmark and interior finishes. Adams said there were about 278 landmarked buildings plus the historic district and overlay. A consultant would come in and inventory the historic interiors. Page 3 Criteria number 2 Sara Adams discussed the public benefit "as the public is customarily invited". The commission discussed hotel rooms as part of the public benefit or not. Dylan Johns suggested tightening up the language regarding hotel rooms and restaurants. Jennifer Phelan said that P&Z could make a recommendation with clarifications. Jim True asked if P&Z would want to exclude hotel rooms or include them. Cliff Weiss said that hotel rooms were his concern also and the element of floor plans and historic spatial relationships worried him because back in the 1880s hotel rooms were small and doesn't necessarily fit with today's demand. Weiss said in order to keep the Aspen lodging competitive we need to be more flexible on their behalf rather than limiting them and their floor plans; a lot of hotels are putting in spas. Adams said that she understood Cliff's point but the reason for the interior designation was to explain the spaces and educate people about what it was like in the period that the building was built. LJ Erspamer asked if there was a process to go through to apply for a variance from this restriction or was the restriction hard and fast. Adams replied that she would go through changes to an interior; obviously you are allowed to develop the landmark but it is case by case and hard to generalize preservation. Each building is different and explains a different time period. Jim True asked if the recommendation to City Council would include hotel rooms or not; he has not heard the direction. Stan Gibbs said that someone would have some judgment down the road of what "customarily invited" means. Gibbs said that you have to trust that process. True noted that P&Z should have a right to express an opinion on that; if you think that hotel rooms and membership restaurants should be included in the recommendation. Adams thought it should remain broad because you don't know what will be designated in 20 or 30 years and it has to have a sense of place for someone to walk in and understand what was there previously, which was the point of the preservation program. Adams explained that the criteria used for historic designation was modeled almost directly off the National Register Criteria. Jim DePrancia said that this is necessarily an ambiguous field all the time; it's not hard and fast. DePrancia said that this will involve individual buildings, individual spaces within buildings, subjective judgments and the best that we, the City, can do is can create some broad boundary around it. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2008 Adams stated that on page 3, Criteria #3, that this was standard language and HPC would be looking at language. The idea of the score sheet was what the task force would also be looking at. On page 4 E Adams noted this was the process for designation. Page 5 under Sec.26.415.060 B Design Guidelines; Adams stated there were not guidelines for changing interior landmark but we want people to be able to change their interiors. On page 6 Certificate of no negative effect was an administrative approval that could be granted for exterior landmarks. C. The Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development would be for people who just want to change their interior not their exterior. Adams said on page 7 Demolition by neglect was already in the code for exterior landmarks; it relates to reasonably caring and upkeep for your property. DeFrancia suggested recommending the Resolution as written and adding the commentary rather than trying to re-write the resolution. Erspamer asked about historic graffiti. Adams stated that her master's degree was in historic graffiti. Johns asked if they want to make a recommendation to specifically say may include hotel rooms, members dining facilities and whatever else. Gibbs said if a wall was taken down and they find the last will and testament written on the wall; the questions was if you believe in preservation and the public having an authority to say something that is significant to the community it (the wall) needs to be preserved, which is what this is all about. Gibbs said he thought it's really hard to start trying to put too fine a point on every little piece so you have to trust the process and the intent that it has to be historic property, it has to have some value to the public. Gibbs noted it was a space by space thing so you don't have to worry about one room being designated doesn't mean all the rooms will be designated. Gibbs said the language was clear enough and this was a case by case piece meal approach and to go with the spirit of the resolution. DeFrancia shared Stan's sentiment and it would be better to be all encompassing and broadly defined. Weiss asked how far back these interiors go back. DeFrancia said Council and the public process would ascertain the number for that designation and this language would incorporate the interior within that definition. Johns said this topic of years was a different ordinance. Adams said P&Z will get to make a recommendation on that ordinance. Erspamer asked if they were going to designate the rooms or not. Johns said his personal feeling was when you make things too vague you can open a pretty big door sometimes for people to come into with a certain idea of what that might ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2008 cover and then find out that is was completely counter from what they thought it might have been. Johns said if it is too specific then certain other things are going to go past it but he felt there should be more specificity about the types of things that this may apply to so if there is a historic suite it would be preserved. True said there was a difficulty in narrowing and figuring out what you were really recommending. Erspamer said to use words "but not included". Adams replied "include but not limited to" was in the interior finishes section. Erspamer summarized that we have the parameters and narrows down to some specifics that gives the decision makers the criteria and then they have an appeal process. Erspamer asked if furnishings were included. Adams responded that it was not because it was movable. Bloom asked if a bar was removable could it be moved around the room. Adams answered that the applicant could always go to HPC; the way that interior finishes were defined was that most of those features were not movable. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to include the recommended language to the resolution; seconded by LJErspamer. All in favor, approved. Johns asked about the score sheet. Adams said the score sheet was not included in the resolution but it was in the code. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approved Resolution #003-08 including the recommendations as follows: 1. HPC has the ability to add significant elements to the designation report that are discovered during construction, rehabilitation, or restoration, and are not otherwise identified in the designation report through the adoption of a resolution. 2. Proposed Section 26.415.030. C.2 will be changed to include the following: "The interior is customarily open or accessible to the public, or to which the public is customarily invited, which may include but is not limited to hotel rooms and members only dining clubs; and, "; seconded by Stan Gibbs. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Bloom, yes; Weiss, yes; Erspamer, yes; Gibbs, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Johns, yes. All in favor approved 7-0. Adjourned at 6:20 pm. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 4