Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20080611ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 Red Butte Cemetery - 808 Cemetery Lane .................................................... 2 300 South Spring Street -Minor Development .............................................. 9 Isis Notch - 406 E. Hopkins .........................................................................12 Red Onion interior features - disucssion .......................................................13 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin and Nora Berko and Sarah Broughton. Brian McNellis was excused. Staff present: John Worcester, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve the minutes of May 14' 2008; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carved. Chairperson Michael Hoffman read a poem in memory of David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney who recently passed away. Disclosure: Nora will recuse herself on the Red Butte Cemetery Michael will recuse himself on 300 S. Spring and the Red Onion Sarah will recuse herself the Red Onion John Worcester asked the board members to state their reasons for recusing themselves. The board has an obligation to vote on every matter that comes before them. Michael said on 300 S. Spring he did work on that particular project with the current owner. The Red Onion is being represented by his current employer. Nora said she received a public notice on the Red Butte Cemetery case. Red Butte Cemetery - 808 Cemetery Lane Nora recused herself. Exhibit I -letters and a-mails Amy stated that a site visit was conducted at NOON to look at the stakes for the proposed building and look at the historic cottage on the site. The project for review is conceptual review and on-site relocation for a small Victorian outhouse on the site. As background information this property is zoned park which allows for a maintenance accessory building. A residential building is not an allowed use. As the application goes forward 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 the association could go forward with some kind of rezoning that encompasses all of their program on the property. Transfer development rights might be something that could happen in the future. There are 2,800 grave markers as opposed to Ute Cemetery which has about 100. The maintenance and caretaking of this property is extensive. HPC's role is to make sure the project complies with the guidelines. At the last meeting HPC recommended that the maintenance facility and caretaker unit be physically separated. A single 3,000 square foot building in the meadow is perhaps too large as there is nothing else in the meadow. From the site visit staff still feels there could be a small unit in the miners cabin with some kind of addition but that is something that the association does not want to entertain. The applicant would like to focus on what is the best site plan and best location for the facility on the property. In the staff memo we talked about two ways that this could be accommodated; one, build a structure with a vernacular out building barn type style perhaps that feels like a natural fit on the property. Another would be to conceal the new building by lowering it in the grade and use vegetation. Staff feels the building should be built to scale. We are still of the opinion that the building needs to be a smaller size and the architecture needs further refinement to be appropriate under the historic guidelines. Staff recommends continuation of the hearing. Alan Richmond, planner for the project. Alan pointed out that five members of the association are here tonight. Grame Means is the project architect. Alan said once the applicant gets through conceptual development they will prepare a land use application for Planning & Zoning and Council and we will address the zoning issues. The cemetery is designated historic because it is an historic landscape. The question first is should any development be allowed in the cemetery and if so where on the property should it occur. The cemetery is green and the water is flowing in the ditches and the sites are well manicured. All of that requires on-going maintenance. In the last several years the association has increased its focus on taking care of the cemetery and they have acquired additional equipment. The equipment is stored in the depilated shed which has no heat. The association prepared the application because it needs a modern facility to keep the cemetery maintained in a healthy status and maintain the historic landscape. The association needs housing to maintain an employee long term. The position requires knowledge and experience of where the plots are etc. It was suggested that equipment be stored at the Parks Department and that we 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 go to the housing authority to house the employee. The Parks Department has no space for the equipment and Tom McCabe from the Housing Department said there would be no priority for the association in the housing lottery system. If the HPC agrees with the proposal then we need to decide whether the placement is appropriate on the property. Alan explained that the cemetery is more than 1200 feet in length and it is about 6 or 700 feet in width. The entire site is 17 acres. The building is proposed to be located about 1000 feet from the front entrance. It is rather hard to see the proposed site from the front of the property. There are very few places within the cemetery that you would see the building. We feel the site chosen is the preferred location that respects the historic landscape. The facilities were intended to be temporary and they need to be replaced. The rear portion of the property is about half the property and it is over 8 acres in size which translates to 360 thousand square feet. We are talking about a building that would be less than 3,000 square feet. 3,000 square feet on 360 thousand square feet is a floor area ratio less than 0.01. The last statement that supports this location is that the location is already disturbed. It is not pristine. Graeme Means, architect pointed out that the property is rectangular and it is approximately 18 acres and the entrance is off Cemetery Lane. The southern portion of the site is occupied by burial sites and the northern portion is undeveloped and does not have significant vegetation on it. On the north is where the temporary piles of dirt are located. That area has been disturbed. In determining the facility we wanted the development in the disturbed part and we desire to keep it as far from the neighbors. The building is over 200 feet from the northern neighbors and over 300 feet from the western neighbors. The same landscape of cottonwoods and grave sites would move north over time. The shop facility is 45 feet wide and 28 feet deep. The caretaker unit has a very small office inside. There are two shed roof shaped structures with a flat roof on the living unit. There is also a spoils pile and we will save the sage meadow as it provides a buffer. When the site issue is figured out we will get a landscape architect. The proposal for screening is to use the native materials that are present; cotton woods, sage and service berry bushes. By using the natural vegetation we can screen parts of the building. We are trying to keep the building as low as possible. On the southeast corner there is an existing cabin. We will restore the cabin and keep it in the same location. There is also an existing out house that sits within six feet of plotted grave sites that is proposed to be move slightly. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 Jay asked if the people who purchased the plots around the proposed area where notified. John Thorp said the plots are reserved but they are not purchased. They purchase them as they can afford it. Alison asked if the original maps show the continuation of the cemetery. John Thorp said the northern portion does not show the continuation of the plots. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Michael pointed out to the public that the HPC is not involved with the rezoning issues of the property. Joe Porter, 1270 Snowbunny Lane. Joe said he is a landscape architect and owned Design Workshop then sold it. I have worked on these kinds of issues in the community for a long time. We appreciate the stewardship of the cemetery and they have done a wonderful job in maintaining the cemetery. The proposed solution is out of scale with the problem. Having a single family residence in a cemetery is not consistent with the historic character of the cemetery. The next issue is what is historic. The entire cemetery property is designated an historic landmark site. City staff is in the process of writing landscape guidelines. In our cultural landscape it is very difficult to identify guidelines that cover a particular area because they are all different areas. In the proposed guidelines they have an area called cultural landscapes. The meadow is very important as it is the connection to the Aspen Meadows and Castle Creek. HPC should take the time and have the area inventoried and develop appropriate standards for the management of that area. The maintenance facility is a need. The issue is location, size and the design. I would suggest that it not be any larger than it has to be. Putting the facility in the corner would keep it from sprawling. Whatever is here needs to be approved in the overall context of a plan that recognized cultural landscape resources. The package should include a landscape, restoration management plan. This is a community resource and the community should help and participate with the association. Don Erdman, architect said he has two issues. I need to know what the cemetery is going to look like in the future. The vehicular tracks in the Red 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 Butte Cemetery are basically vegetated and not hard cape. I am worried about any kind of structure involving housing in the interior of the cemetery. Eventually it will require hard cape and that is not appropriate. I think further exploration of the southeast corner should happen. If it becomes inevitable that a dwelling has to be built this cemetery has a lot of land that is on a slope. Aspen is building structures every day on deep slopes. If something has to be built in a smaller footprint it should occur at the edge of the bank. If you dropped five feet in an area one would only see a small portion of the roof. Exhibit F Tara's summary was attached to Amy Guthrie's memo. Tara Shaw, architect presented an ecological summary on behalf of the neighbors detailing the cultural ecological characteristics that distinguish the Red Butte Cemetery as an historic landscape. Tara said she is concerned about the lack of care on the north portion, the meadows. The size proposed for the maintenance facility needs to be reduced. It is highly recommended that a land management plan for the north meadow be implemented prior to making any decisions for the location of a maintenance facility. Tony Vagneur, member of the cemetery board. Tony pointed out that four generations are buried at that cemetery. The cemetery is a living breathing place. It provides historical and cultural perspectives and a quiet atmosphere. The main purpose is to house deceased people. Full time care is necessary and proper in order to take care of the cemetery and the 2,800 markers. A maintenance facility and caretaker unit is necessary to continue to take care of this property for the next 100 years. Maryann Altfeld said she lives on the boarder of the cemetery and has a direct view. The shed has a pickup truck in it, not cemetery equipment and two pieces of equipment parked outside. I have seen no more than two pieces of equipment. I have doubts about the amount of storage that is needed at the cemetery. Jane Harris said she is a native aspenite and went to school with Shay Stutzman who came back to Aspen to help run his father's company. I am curious to see if anyone has asked if they are going to continue servicing the cemetery. Pip Porter who also resides at 1270 Snowbunny Lane said she has two issues; one, the necessity of the impact of the housing and the disconnect 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 between the north and south portion of the cemetery. The northern part of the cemetery is a decimation. It was a beautiful meadow with sage and now it is a junk pile. The northern meadow deserves as much recognition as the southern meadow. They are both historic and they are only different in how they have been developed. Pip also pointed out that those who live in the proposed housing will have BBQ's, and children's playground equipment etc. Housing on the site is not appropriate. Leo Baraby, neighbor. Leo pointed out that the association has been great neighbors over the years and we want to stand behind the proposal 100%. If the employee has a party some time I hope they invite me to it. Stony Davis pointed out that the natives who built near the cemetery tore up the native sage brush which is just as historic as the cemetery grounds. John Thorp explained what entails with regard to the maintenance of the cemetery. He also said their employee is emotionally involved with the cemetery and this application is predicated on the housing component. Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan closed the public hearing. Alison said as a suggestion we might want to require a management plan for the cemetery that outlines circulation and future vegetation. Sarah said we need to apply our guidelines as best we can. Michael said the first question is do we want any development on this site. Ann said the property is historic because of the age of the property but it also moves into the cultural aspect. Historically cemeteries have been used or designed as public open spaces. I see Red Butte as a community asset. Building any kind of structure other than a maintenance facility would have enormous impacts such as traffic and the uses associated with a residence. The fact that the location is at the end of the cemetery any deliveries or services would have to drive through the cemetery to get there. The landscape plan around the residence would be an impact. Alison said the community around the cemetery has changed and therefore the issue of maintenance has changed. Alison said she does not support the 3,000 square foot structure as proposed. If the association board where 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 willing to look at putting a structure at the south east comer she could support that. A small caretaker unit could be put at that south east corner as there was activity there before. Sarah concurred with Alison's comments. The issue comes down to the access and how that relates back to our guidelines. As the access is pushed back and there are daily trips to the development it would be hard to tie that into our guidelines. Sarah said she could support development in the south east corner. Historically that is where the activity was. Other cemeteries do not have access to their housing through the main cemetery. If we could come to some sort of solution in the south east comer and keep the development tied in with the already established neighborhood where historically there has been that type of development it would be more appropriate. Jay pointed out that the residence in that part of the cemetery will deteriorate the cemetery at the proposed location. Michael said he agrees that the applicant doesn't address the basic issues. The HPC might approve development but clearly not in the proposed location. Alan asked for clarification on the maintenance building and residence. Alison said she does not support a 3,000 square foot footprint in that area. She is not certain about the maintenance facility. If it could be a lot let obtrusive in the proposed area she might be in favor but then there are the traffic issues. If the caretaker unit was part of the front that would be where the auto traffic was coming in and out. Alan asked for clarification if all the development should go to the south east comer. Michael said the HPC will address the maintenance facility. Jay said if it was just the maintenance facility the HPC could hash it out but since there is a residential component into this location it has created a lot of issues. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 Sarah said in terms of the maintenance facility being located to the north of the site I would be open to a revised application as it pertains to Chapter 11 in terms of the architectural character particularly guideline 11.3 and 11.5. Michael said the access issues are a big concern as it relates to the proposed housing unit and a large number of individuals in the community have the same concerns. The board is prepared to deny the application with the proposed affordable housing unit. Alan said he heard that some of the commissioners are interested in moving the housing unit to the front comer in which we have said we have no interest. We need to talk as a team and determine whether it is appropriate to go forward with the maintenance facility or have the commission deny the application etc. Ann said if they build a residential unit then the property does need to be rezoned to conservation which will allow more adaptive uses in the zoning. That is another reason why I feel there should be no residential unit because the zoning should not be changed. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on the Red Butte Cemetery, 808 Cemetery Lane until August 27`n; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. 300 South Spring Street -Minor Development Michael recused himself. Sarah Broughton chaired. Nora was seated. Exhibit I -public notice Sara said the request is to rotate the existing stairway 90 degrees and reconstruct the stairway. They want to re-orient the stairs. Staff is opposed to the application because it will compromise a potential landmark. The proposal obscures significant architectural features. This building has a spacial relationship. When you walk into the building right now you are forced to interact with the architecture. You also have repeated architectural elements. They are shifting the stairway to the south and you start to loose a lot of the original building. The proposal to shorten the walkways obscures the original features. Guideline 10.10 is not met. In the application the 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 purpose of the stairway is for protection from inclement weather as it is open to the sky. In looking at the plans you can still enter the building into the interior courtyard spaces. Staff feels covering the stairway due to weather conditions is not enough a reason to demolish an existing stairway that greatly contributes to the architectural significance of the building when there are other options. Staff finds that guideline 1.9 and 6.1 are not met but 10.3 and 10.4 are met. Stan Clauson, Clauson and Associates represented the applicant. Stan pointed out that modification where made previously when Ordinance #30 was in place. Under that situation we voluntarily came to the HPC. Ordinance #48 then passed which has certain provisions under section E which is titled 90 day negotiation period. It states that the properties identified (Hannah Dustin is listed) on the list that building permits and land use applications that alter the potential historic resource shall be accepted by the Community Development department. Stan wanted to point out that this property is subject to Ordinance #48. This building was constructed in 1969 but the latest exterior remodeling on the records was 1996. At that time the stairway and porches where rebuilt. We don't have any evidence that they where rebuilt in a different way. With the new drawings there still remains openness. A pedestrian entering the building under the changed condition would still have a similar sequence from the public space to asemi-public space then private space. The semi enclosed stairway would be more sheltered from the elements and more likely be used. The improvements would allow greater use by the existing building and its tenants. Larry Yaw, architect. Larry said we believe changing the staircase 90 degrees makes more sense functionally and aesthetically. It does a better job enhancing the importance of the existing building. The building is an eclectic style and has its own character. We are adding 15 to 20 people onto that end of the building which makes this stair critically important. Being protected and safe is important. Exhibit II -elevations. Larry also pointed out that he feels the entry is confusing. Architecture has to answer to purpose and function first. Having the stair covered and accessible to existing tenants and another 15 tenants makes it an important 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 difference. The building is basically a heavy timber building surrounded by brick. Alison asked if the applicant has entered with City Council on the 90 day negotiation period. Stan said that was correct. Amy said that is not staff's interpretation. The applicant has voluntarily chosen to work with the HPC. John Worcester, City Attorney said he read the ordinance and does not feel he should overfull staff's interpretation. Stan said there was nothing in the application that said this is a voluntary review. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There where no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Nora asked if any modifications could occur to the existing stair to address some of the safety concerns. Larry Yaw said he didn't think so. Larry went over the two different elevations with the HPC. Commissioner comments: Ann thanked Sara for the complete report in the packet. When we first discussed this project we talked about the bookends. The new design begins to encroach on the historic resource to the point where it is difficult to interpret what it was. The style is very eclectic but it was a very important period in Aspen and they add to the character of town. I am not convinced about the safety issue because it is facing west. The north facing staircase I can agree on. Jay said the proposal does not meet guideline 2.1 and 6.1. Due to the past discussion about the bookends of the building etc. I would not support changing the stairway. Jay said it was brought up that possibly the brick inside might become an interior element itself and that lends to preserving the structure as it stands. Nora said too much of the new addition on the stairwell overwhelms what was originally there. Alison said this is an exciting addition and it broadens the Hannah Dustin building. The new staircase overwhelms the building but I fully understand 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 the functionality. The inner play in and out of the building has had much thought in the design and I would hate to change it. Sarah disagreed with the comments. This proposed elevation is more in line with our guidelines in terms of the addition being sympathetic to the historic resource if it is an historic property. Sarah pointed out that this building has been destroyed and the stair juts out in front of the building. The proposal tonight is an appropriate addition to the existing structure. Sara Adams pointed out that the addition that was approved could be reversible. Sarah also said we are facing these kinds of decisions with buildings all the time. You see sensitive additions to historic resources where pieces have been taken away for the betterment of the building. Jay pointed out that we need to preserve the original building materials. Larry said we are all finding ourselves in a box here. In the evolution of townscapes we are moving from a view point that says how do we relate to the existing scale and character. Some of that is important but we are also in the process of creating context. Buildings do run out of use functionally and they deteriorate and they need replaced. Ann reminded the HPC that we are here to help preserve some of the history of town. The closed in elevator is eating into that history. MOTION.• Ann moved to approve Resolution #12 which is a denial of the application. Guideline 6.1 has not been met. Motion second by Alison. Roll call vote: Alison, yes; Jay,yes; Nora ,yes; Ann, yes; Sarah, no. Motion carried 4-1. Isis Notch - 406 E. Hopkins MOTION.• Jay moved to continue the public hearing on 406 E. Hopkins to June 25`"; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 Red Onion interior features - disucssion Sarah recused herself, owner of Junk are her clients. Michael was recused. Sara said the Red Onion is part of Ordinance #51 regarding interior changes. The Secretary of Interior Standards where used. Connie Woods from Poss and Associates discussed the interior restoration said they are going to restore the bar so that it stands out as the principle piece. Dan Corson, Intergovernmental Services Director Dan presented an overview on certified local governments. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Chief Deputy City Clerk 13 Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.