Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20090422ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Sarah Broughton, Nora Berko and Jay Maytin. Ann Mullins and Brian McNellis were excused. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 765 Meadows Road -Ord. #48 negotiation Amy explained that both properties are owned by the same person. The first property is 765 Meadows Road. City council need to hear from the HPC if this is a building that should seek designation and at what extent they should attempt to seek designation. 765 is a building that was built in 1960 to 1961 by a family from Denver and this was their second home. They owned it up to 2005 when the current property owner bought it. It was built from a log kit that was purchased from a lumber yard in Denver and it is categorized in the rustic style architecture. What is interesting about this one, not only is it a log kit with a modernized log cabin romanticized western system that it was built with, on top of that was applied chalet treatments and details. There are very detailed fascia boards and shutters and cut out railings on the deck. Culturally and architecturally this building is a good example of important patterns in our history and was also built as a vacation home. It has five bedrooms with a big open common area. It was scored 96 out of 100 and is pretty much unaltered. There are no records in the building permit files for any kind of changes made to it. There are no apparent additions, only painting was done and a new roof. We feel there is great value in designation that is not being offered by the owner. It is up to HPC to make some kind of recommendation to council. Michael said at the last meeting the decision making process was is this a style that we recognize as historically significant and is this a good example of that style and the next step is what incentives do we want to recommend to council that they consider offering to this applicant. We have recognized rustic as a style that we want to preserve. Marty Slumberger, builder, representing the owner. Mr. Goldsbury is very into preservation. He does a lot of it around the country but he feels these 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 2009 two properties do not warrant the type of investment it would take to bring them up to code and make them safe and anon-liability for the owner. Most of these houses that are 30 to 40 years old need to be brought up to the energy code, lighting code etc. If you put the numbers together it is difficult to convince an owner to keep pumping money into these types of houses. When owners look at this situation it is very difficult to renovate them. I feel that is the situation in both of these two houses. In 765 the stairs, egress, heating system and wiring system needs reworked. I Jay said he would ask Council to use every idea they have to preserve this property with the owner. This property is in such original shape. Sarah said the integrity score is good and a lot of that is because the house is not altered and its location. Part of the character of this house is its setting. Nora commented that part of the value in this house is its neighborhood. Rustic is something that we have already identified as important. 26.420.020 -Benefits for properties listed on the inventory. Rehabilitation loan up to $25,000. The board members felt that the loan should be higher for this property. Conservation easement: Tax deduction. Sarah suggested the City work with the applicant on what kind of easement could be developed. Dimensional variances. Amy said there could be a lot split and we could move the building forward and allow for development behind it. Marty Slumberger said if you leave the house where it is and build around it you would compromise it. The best tool to save some of these historic projects would be a 20 or 30 year vested rights so they aren't panicking when ordinance 48 goes away. Everyone is concerned that they will lose the value of their property. Jay said possibly we can give the owner a tax free loan to bring the house up to code with vested rights. Sarah said the vested rights needs to be specific. Marty said people are worried about their investments and a number of them want to stay in their houses and live there. If you have a Victorian you can 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 2009 invest because the investment is there. Some of these transitional buildings it is difficult. ,Marty said the owner doesn't really have a development plan. Michael said there might be the opportunity to re-subdivide the property to create lots that would make sense for the preservation of these structures either in place or moved closer together and create lots that would bring move value to the land. That would be a huge benefit. Marty said there is a demand for duplexes in town and we might be able to do something like that. You couldn't bring the house too much forward because that is the appeal of that area. The applicant feels demolition is appropriate. Michael said if you called your client and talked about re-subdividing the property and creating a little project that would meet your needs and the City's interest in preserving these structures it would be worth a conversation. Sarah we are talking about an overlay zone etc. and have its own dimensional requirements. Jay pointed out that the owner could end up saving both the properties and still meets the goals. Michael said the owner wants to pass on the value of the property to his children. Marty said money is as cheap as you can get it right now and this is an ideal time in a long range program to build some houses that fit with the chalet look. Possibly take one of the buildings down. Michael said it would be his recommendation to council that they take a PUD approach toward this land because the client owns so much of it. Marty said maybe the log house sets the tone and we get rid of the other house. 745 Meadows Ave. Amy said in terms of this house it was built in 1961 and similarly there is very little information in the Building Dept. files. In 1969 a remodel permit ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 2009 was pulled for a bedroom with the architect being Fritz Benedict. I have been trying to find out if Fritz was the original architect. We have made a distinction here whether it is critically important or not between buildings that we have termed modern and modern chalets. Modern chalets are very similar except that they have a pitched roof on them and most modern buildings have flat roofs on them. We did not do an integrity scoring assessment because we are calling it modern chalet and we don't have a system for that. We have provided the board with photographs, background and a context paper. Similar to the other building it has a high level of integrity and there are no records of alterations being made to it other than the Benedict addition. From the visual inspection the building has been unaltered. Our recommendation is not quite as insistent as 765 because its history is less defined. It is worth preserving but if one had to rate the value we would prioritize 765 Meadows. Jay agreed with staff and would like to see the building preserved but if choosing for negotiations he would choose 765 Meadows. Nora said in this circumstance 765 is more important but there are also better examples of a Benedict addition in town. We have lost a lot of good ones already. Sarah said this building has modern chalet characteristics; however, there are better examples in town. I would not put everything in the negotiation of this building. Michael said this structure is marginal as a modern chalet. It is reflective of a period of Aspen history. If it can be saved with the other structure that maximizes and promotes the value of the owners property as a whole it would be useful to preserve it. I would like to see council work toward preserving both of these structures as part of a PUD that could be master planned by the owner. Marty said if you could move the chalet and restore it as the signature home at one end or the other of the property and the rest of them fit in as similarity. If we did a PUD as 765 as the signature house and work off that and possibly demolish 745. We could give council several options. Jay said that is exactly what this process is to create. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 2009 Nora said both buildings provide a context of that era together. MOTION: Michael moved that the HPC feels these structures are worthy of historic preservation. Michael also moved that HPC recommend to City Council that they use as a basis of negotiation the idea that the land owned by this owner be re-subdivided, created into a PUD and that the parameters of the PUD be established cooperatively between the city and the owner. It is our recommendation that both structures be preserved as part of that PUD. Failing that we would prefer to see 765 preserved while 745 is demolished. Our least favorite alternative would be the demolition of 765 and the preservation of 745. An extended vested rights period should be considered by council. Motion second by Jay. Motion carried 4-0. The HPC commented that this is a good process. MOTION.• Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. at 7:00 p.m. l~ ~ Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk