Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20011128ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMIsSIoN MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 28~ 2001 REVIEW OF CHANGES TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, DESIGNATION CRITERIA, AND BENEFITS L ~LI~ HEARING~.~.~,~'~..'~ ................................................. 1 233 W. MAIN, INNSBRUCK INN - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW - PUBLIC I~ARING ................ ".....8 735 W. BLEEKER - FINAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING .............................................................. 10 409 E. HYMAN AVE. - MINOR REVIEW - PUBLIC I-IE~NG .......... ~....,......'~....~ ...................... 13 317 N. FOURTH STREET - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES .......................................................... 15 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 28, 200i Chairperson, Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners present: Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Lisa Markalunas, Rally Dupps, Neill Hirst, Teresa Melville and Suzannah Reid. Melanie Roschko was excused. Staff present: Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie. Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland Senior Planner, Chris Bendon MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the minutes of Oct. 24, 2001; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. Rally will recuse himself on 735 W. Bleeker Suzannah will recuse herself on 317 N. Fourth Street - work session Staff comments: Amy said City Council heard the appeal on the 629 W. Smuggler project and they did not uphold the decision of the HPC. The applicant made a presentation that the review became confusing to them because it dragged out over so many meetings and they felt at each meeting they got different direction. Council basically agreed with that. The applicant still has to come back to HPC for final. They will have to make a case that the review standards and guidelines have been met. When HPC denies a project the board clearly has tO state the reasons why or make findings why the project failed for the record. A work session will be scheduled with the assistant city attorney. Review of changes to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Designation Criteria, and Benefits - PUblic Hearing Amy said the intent is to have someone reid the ordinance and understand what the entire process is about. Definitions were added and a more defined process as to how properties are designated and how the designation can be rescinded. The design guidelines will be the basis for a review. There is a more clear statement of the city's intent to grant benefits for historic properties. Regarding the development review process, there are more things that staff will be able to sign off on if there is no negative impact to the historic resource. Minor review will basically be the same. Major ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt NOVEMBER 28,~ 200i review w/ll be our two-step conceptual and final process. During conceptual you will be bound to some specifics of the project that you cannot question again at final review, which is an improvement for both sides. There will be a clear process as to how approved plans can be amended including more information how project monitoring works. Demolition of properties is consistent with what we have now. Temporary restraint of demolition is a process whereby when you begin consideration ora group of properties or'specific property we can enact a temporary stay on any demolition permits. Economic hardship will be like any other land use process when someone gets denied they can make a claim of takings and that would be heard by a third party and HPC will not be involved in the discussion. Relocation of properties is consistent with what we have now. Demolition by neglect has been improved and has a laid out step-by-step process. Appeal is the same language we have now. Variances are the same with an additional statement that consideration of any adjacent historically designated property be reviewed if it is negatively affected by the variance. Regarding penalties there is up to a ten-year moratorium of building permits for an illegal demolition and also the ability to revoke variances etc. has been added. Benefits package: At council review we need to discuss in actuality how many of the suggestions that we can actually take on. The waiver of the city portion of the property tax would be about a half million dollars. That reduction would have impacts on our operations. Grants and loans would have to have some source of funding. Historic markers were also brought up. For the Twentieth Century Resources it is proposed to have the properties go through a worksheet to access their role in the history of the community. If it survives the two-point worksheet then possibly a public hearing could occur if the commission felt it should be pursued. Amy said regarding the lot splits it is proposed to be adopted in more zones then it is currently in. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 28~ ~200i Gilbert asked if the worksheet had been tested on properties to see if it actually works and Amy replied yes and the worksheet is tied to the criteria that are in the ordinance. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Jasmine Depagter commented on the Postwar I1 buildings. She feels a discussion with Council should occur to see if the Postwar II buildings should be included. The uproar a year ago was about the Postwar II buildings, Rustic. Amy said the ordinance includes the framework for the discussion in which we have to create. Council has the ultimate decision as to whether a property qualifies or not. Jasmine said she is questioning whether the community is truly behind this. She would like to see this go to a vote. She feels the Butcher Block and the Holland House are commercial buildings and should be looked at differently. 500 square feet bonus in a commercial building is a joke. Commercial buildings are different than a 1,500 square foot cottage where 500 square feet is perfect for them. Amy said the reason it was not changed is that there are other mechanisms in which lodges can get more FAR. John Kelly asked for an explanation of the worksheet. Amy said you have to get two out of three categories, which is the majority of the areas. John said on a general basis you could always meet the requirement on two categories: Development of American Tourism in the 20th Century and the Automobile's Influence on Postwar America. Every building in town represents the ski industry. Amy said they are development better language for the explanation of the two categories. If it associated with the ski industry that needs to be something like a ski co. building. John also asked about the appeal process. John feels the council should be able to look at the entire project, like P&Z does. John said with' the 20th century buildings they are much more controversial and council should be able to have a full look at them. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER'2g, 2001 Suzannah said on the designation aspect Council does review the entire thing. HPC has the final say on development applications. Jackie De Angelo said she agreed with John Kelly on the first two categories. At first glance every building in this town qualifies. That needs really worked out because it is certainly vague. Jackie also had concerns about the question whether the property clearly has distinctive physical characteristics. What does this question mean? Are you saying is the property a lodge, institutional building, ski building or are you saying it has integrity. Amy said the question is whether the property is of a certain style or by a certain architect or a high style architecture. This is how we tried to identify what are the styles in Aspen that could be important on the types of buildings. Amy said in the guidelines it indicates the styles that we have and one would refer to those guidelines. There is no percentage or number indicated. Jackie stated that it needs to be very clear why a property is designated. Perry Hall said the form rates the doors and window twice and he feels door and windows can break the property. Amy said the doors and windows show up twice because you are looking at different aspects of them. Perry feels there is too much weight put on the windows and doors. Scott McDonald said years ago they put forward to council preservation of use for commercial buildings. The idea was after you had gone through P&Z and the mitigations that you would have flexibility for using that property for a lesser use. When it was proposed to the city there was a control concern that the city would loose control of the use of the property. This is something that is applicable especially for the Main Street properties and should be an incentive for historic properties. This is one of the reasons the town is becoming "homogenized". Amy said for clarification Scott is saying we need to make it easier for people to switch around after they have gone through a conditional use once instead of going through the process again. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 Scott also mentioned trees. As the trees grow they block the sun to the roofs of older buildings, which are not insulated well. If you insulated well the snow load could not be held by the trusses. Allowing trees to be removed or looked at in the context o£maintenance on the historic house should be looked at. If an historic property is used as commercial the economic viability of that building should be looked at. You can have a small building on a relatively large lot and since a small building can only generate so much revenue per square foot you need to find out if the commercial is justifiable. If you have a building that is 900 square feet on a lot and a half, that lot is assessed commercially 3 times higher than residential. A spreadsheet or something is needed when you want to have commercial in historic buildings. The tax incentive needs to match up realistically. Kathy Welgos, 1295 Riverside Drive asked about lot splits. If you are offering lot splits as a benefit there is no guarantee that you will get that benefit? Amy said the criteria that are mentioned are very straightforward. Is the lot at least 9,000 square feet and is it located in one of the zone districts that allow lot splits. John Kelly, attorney said it was his understanding that the 6,000 square foot lots would get the same benefits as the 9,000' square foot lots? Amy said the diagrams are up and the HPC needs to make that decision. John said it should be simple, let the 6,000 square foot lots be able to do lot splits. Kathy WelgOs said she is going to go over and visualize two houses on 6,000 square foot lots. That would be very crowded. Amy said there is no more mass allowed in the lot split, itjust allows you to do two detached dwellings. Caroline McDonald said they are being caught in limbo and if the ordinance goes through they would be able to do a lot split. They intend to go to council and ask for a reconsideration for the code amendment that they proposed. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 28~ 200~ Perry Hall said some subdivisions have deed restriction and would this lot split over ride the covenants. John Kelly said they would be enforCed by the homeowners association and the city wouldn't have anything to do with it. It would be a protective covenant and override the zoning. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: The board thanked all the individuals who participated in the discussions over the years and without their input leaps and bounds could not be accomplished. Jeffrey said he could support the study of the 6,000 square foot lot split. There needs to be discussion on parking mitigation and those impacts. Gilbert said the ordinance provides more clarity and definition. The work sheet needs clarified and further defining of the categories. Gilbert said two check marks no matter where they fall needs discussed and reviewed further. He feels the check marks need to be in different categories. The lot split has been the most successful in the past and will be in the future and should be extended to 6,000 square foot lots and into the other zoning districts. Gilbert said he agrees with Jasmine Depagter that there has not been a completion of the discussion on what is important to the community (Post War buildings). Rally said he agrees with Gilbert that the worksheet needs more tweaking. He also agreed with John Kelly that you are allowed two buildings on a 6,000 square foot lot and why put the applicant through the hardship of having it condominiumized when you can do a lot split. Rally said he feels Aspen is under zoned. Rally also said the AACP is the master plan. Neill said education of the community and the community coming to a consensus of what we want to preserve and what we want Aspen to be in the future is the fundamental of this entire process. Neill said P&Z is more qualified to discuss lot splits. Regarding an appeal Neill suggested that the 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 28~ 2001 chairperson of HPC appear before council and give in formal terms the reasoning for the denial by HPC. Lisa said the 20th century checklist needs more definitions. If a lot split were allowed on 6,000 square feet it should not be by right but through a conditional use. Lot splits should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. She also would have concerns if two historic related houses were on one lot were split. Carriage houses are significant buildings that should be treated differently. Teresa said she felt the addition of the Hall of Fame members appropriate. She also felt that a lot split of 6,000 square feet to be too dense. Suzannah said she is in favor conceptually the lot split on a 6,000 square feet lot. She also feels that commercial issues need to be focused on. MOTION: Gilbert moved to forward an endorsement of a new historic preservation program to P&Z and CitY Council. That the HPC recommend an endorsement of extending the lot split to 6, 000 square foot lots and to additional zone districts under the same criteria that we have now, a conditional us; second by Rally. Neill suggested that we have a separate motion on the lot split. Gilbert withdrew his motion. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve Resolution 53, 2001 to endorse a new historic preservation program and forward it to P&Z and CitY Council; motion second by Rally. Motion carried 6-1. Yes vote: Teresa, Neill, Rally, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah No vote: Lisa, Suzannah suggested that the HPC make a motion supporting or denying the 6000 square foot lot split. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER28; 200i MOTION: Suzannah made the motion that HPC recommends extending the lot splits to different zone districts and to allow lot splits on 6000 square foot lots', resolution #54, 200; rally second. Motion carried 4-3. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Suzannah No vote: Neill, Lisa, 233 W. Main, Innsbruck Inn - Conceptual Review - Public Hearing Chris Bendon, Senior Planner relayed that 233 W. Main is a continued public hearing from Oct. 10, 2001. The application is to consider conceptual development and exemption from partial demolition standards. The Innsbruck Inn is within the Main Street Historic District but is not a designated historic resource. The proposal is for an additional four lodge units and one affordable housing unit. There are two floors above grade and a basement with an affordable housing unit. There are no changes proposed on the east side. HPC's role is to consider the general massing and the design approach to the project. The project then goes to P&Z in which FAR and parking is treated and the number of units and density. P&Z is in the position of granting growth management allotments and making a recommendation on the PUD to City Council. The plan will Come back to HPC for final approval and that is where you get into the details of the architecture. Staff feels the proposal is consistent with the existing architecture and meets all of the standards for conceptual approval and for the exemption from partial demolition and is consistent with the historic guidelines. Mike Haisfield is present who is a member of the Innsbruck LLC, which is the owner of the property. The designated person to represent the LLC is Audrey Haisfield and she has designated representatives to speak on her behalf. Mike is not that person although he is a member of the LLC. What that means, if Mike makes a representation staff will ask that Audrey confirm alter on in writing that she confirm with the representation or that the HPC turn that into a condition. Michael Haisfield was sworn in. Mike said the presentation was clear and covered everything. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTEs OF, NOVEMBER 28~ 2001 Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. James Newcomb, 211 W. Main relayed that he lives next door to the Innsbruck Inn. The proposal is a great improvement from the last meeting. The only issue for him is parking which will be reviewed by P&Z. On the east side there is an employee unit in which managers live and there is an alleyway and not much space and there is a lot of noise. There is a lot of storage in that alley and possibly a fire hazard that should be looked at. James said he conversed with Audrey and she referred him to the manager in which he never got a call back. Chairperson, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Teresa stated the proposal seems like a fine project and parking will be addressed at P&Z. Lisa agreed with Teresa that this is a modest addition. Neill said this a remarkable resolution to the project and possibly the neighbors and owners can come to an amicable solutions. Rally relayed that the project meets all of the guidelines of Chapter 12 and he supports lodge preservation projects. Gilbert relayed that he agrees with his colleagues and staff recommendation, Jeffrey stated that the project will help the small lodges and this is a modest proposal. Suzannah concurred with the rest of the board members. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve Resolution #55, conceptual development, and exemption from partial demolition to the Innsbruck Inn expansion, 233 ~. Main St. Lots A,B, C, D and E Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen finding that the review standards are met; second by Rally. Motion carries 7-0. 9 ASPEN ItlSTORIC p~SERvATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 28~ 200i Yes vote: Teresa, Lisa, Neill, Rally, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah 735 W. Bleeker - Final ReView - Public Hearing Randall Bone, owner was sworn in. Affidavit of posting was submitted to the Chief Deputy Clerk as Exhibit II. Amy informed the board that all of the review standards have been met. Re- opening the front porch has always been a representation but it is not shown on the plans and should be a condition of approval. Without a design of the fence we might have to continue the variance, Staff supports the setbacks and the variance for the light well that will be in front of the historic house but is of no consequence and is very small. Randall said there was a pre-existing chimney that was cut offand we would like to add the chimney back on which ties into the living room design as a corner gas fireplace. The second change is on the back addition with the addition of two side windows facing the alley. There is a six-foot fence existing on 7th Street and the desire is to take it along the front of the property line. Dropping the fence down is acceptable. Regarding the front porch a good compromise would be to open the front porch back up with the window and do low wainscoting and glass so you get the look of the open porch and the faqade of the house stepping back. That would open it up visually. Gilbert cautioned Randall about the flashing details of the chimney as it is down in a valley on the roof and will be a challenge to fix. Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Jeffrey said the site is very challenging and he appreciates the proposal. He is also interested in the fence concept. The two new windows are OK. Opening the porch is a good idea. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 28, 2001 Gilbert said the drawings are a great solution for the s~te. He could accept reconfiguring the front porch exterior so that there is some expression of the historic quality of the original porch. Regarding the fence Randall said he would comply with the Residential Design Guidelines. Neill inquired about the guidelines of a fence and Amy responded that in all areas forward of the front facade you have to drop the fence to 42 inches. The side facing the street does not have to be dropped. The front of the house faces Bleeker Street. Neill said he is not in favor of the fence but it meets the guidelines. Lisa said the addition is much more preferable than what we have seen in the past. She is interested in seeing some expression of the historic porch. She has some concerns over the fence on 7th Street because that is a high traffic area. Teresa said she had no problem with the fence and would support preserving the porch. Suzannah said the plans are a good solution for this tight site. She mentions that there is an Engineering requirement regarding fences on a corner lot and that should be explored. Regarding the porch it would be preferable to have a restoration with a weather enclosure in glass. Randall stated that a nice detail all the way around the fence could be looked into. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve resolution #56, 2001for the final development and variances for 735 W. Bleeker with the following conditions: 1. Reconfigure the porch enclosure to express the historical quality of the original porch and the design shall be approved by staff and monitor. 2. The fence shall comply with the residential design standards and the design approved bp' staff and monitor. 3. HPC hereby grant a 3-foot east side yard setback variance for the new addition and a variance from the "Lighwell" standard in the Residential Design Standards. 11 ASPEN HISTO~C P~SERVATION cOMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 4. Provide a structural report demonstrating that the miner's cottage can be moved and information about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover. 5. Provide a bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure. 6. Provide a relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored during construction. Measures must be taken to fence around t,% building, cover windows with plywood, and otherwise protect it from damage. Any off-site storage location will have to be approved by HPC and the applicant will need to monitor the building on a regUlar basis. 7. Information on all venting locations and meter locations for the miner's cottage shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 8. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas, of the historic house are to be removed. 9. Submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage. 1 O.No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 11.HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 12.HPC staff and monitor must approve a landscape plan. Trees and large shrubs cannot be planted in locations that block views of the house from the street or in locations that could damage the house. 13. There shall be no deViations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 14. The preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the buiMing permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of constructiOn. 15. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must ASPEN HISTO~C p~SERv~TION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 28~ 2001 submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part o/the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood andmust meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 16. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 17. The HPC monitors for this project will be Teresa and Jeffrey. Motion second by Neill. Motion carried 6-0. Amy clarified #l that the porch can be reconfigured to express the original open character without actually be open. It can be an enclosed porch. Yes vote: Teresa, Lisa, Neill, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah 409 E. Hyman Ave. - Minor Review - Public Hearing Amy reiterated the recommendations from the last meeting to the applicant. There was discussion to restudy the storefront and include some heavier framing elements to make it more like a typical historic store. The entry doors needed to be parallel to the street and the upper wall shall be predominantly a flat masonry surface and the columns carried to the ground. Although the design does not technically meet some of the direction you had given previously w/th regard to altering the storefront the upper floor design is strong enough that all the other elements are in place to allow for the more modem storefront. Interpretation. Staff recommends approval with one condition that the exterior light fixture design, if any, be presented to staff and monitor for approval. Randy Wedum was sworn in. Randy said he lowered the faqade from the top due to the concern of the height. The window area was reduced and now there is 50% of the glass area that he started with on the upper floor to give the punched whole look in the facade. The intent is to copy materials from the Wheeler Opera House using the pitched faced stone on the columns to the side and the cut 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 28~ 2001 stone above the windows for the decorative cap piece and the keystone is all cut stone. The stone is all the same color. Randy said the logo would be letters on the glass. Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Gilbert said he could accept the proposal due to the different elements. Jeffrey suggested a horizontal member to help pick up some of the interpretative guidelines such as the kick plate and he supports the project. Rally said his concerns are the comer brackets on the pediments and where the historic precedence for those brackets came from. 13.9 guidelines ask for a two-story scale sidewalk elevation and possibly the upper part of the pediment is still too tall for approval of that guideline. Possibly a kick plate should be included in the design. He also felt that the two lines on either side of the display windows be carried up which is more ora traditional storefront configuration. Neill said the building to the immediate right is not like the proposed building. This is a good result in this particular situation. Lisa said she also agrees that a horizontal element on the first floor could be a positive addition. She also agreed that the vertical elements should be carried up. Teresa agreed that a kick plate should be added but can accept the design with all of the improvements. Suzannah said due to the smallness of the building she could accept the contemporary nature of the first floor. The proportions of the upper windows helps the faqade. MOTION: Neill moved that Resolution #57, 2001 of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission approving a minor development located at 409 E. Hyman Avenue, the West 16' of Lot C, Block 89, City and Townsite of 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ NOVEMBER 28i 200! Aspen, Colorado be approved with the condition stated by Staff that any exterior light fixtures must be approved by' staff and H?C monitor. Neill volunteered to be the monitor; motion second by Rally. Motion carried 6-1. Yes vote: Neill, Teresa, Lisa, Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah No vote: Rally 317 N. Fourth Street - work session - no minutes MOTION: deffrey moved to adjourn; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 15