Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19950614ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 301 E. 706 W. 303 E. ENTRANCE TO ASPEN .......... 1 210 W. MAIN - MINOR ......... 10 HYMAN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ...... 11 MAIN - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL ..... 13 MAIN STREET - FINAL DEVELOPMENT .... 14 123 W. FR31NCIS - WORKSESSION ........ 20 939 E. COOPER - WORKSESSION ....... 23 2--6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION J-JNE 14, 1995 Meeting was called to order by 2nd vice-chairman Jake Vickery with Martha Madsen, Susan Dodington, Roger Moyer, Melanie Roschko and Sven Alstrom present. Sven Alstrom was seated around 7:00 p.m. Excused were Donnelley Erdman, Les Holst and Jeff McMenimen. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Linda: We need to schedule a site visit at the Habitat gallery. Linda: Also the north side of Main by the gas station the green space is destroyed and it needs replanted. MOTION: Jake moved to add 939 E. Cooper to the agenda; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. ENTRANCE TO ASPEN Ralph Trappani, Mount Sopris Project Manager of the Colorado CDOT: Joe Kracum, CDOT, EIS TEAM representative: Barry Schultz, CDOT, EIS TEAM representative: Ralph Trappani, Mount Sopris Project Manager of the CDOT: In preparing the EIS that has historic property we ask for an effect determination from the SHIPO prior to the release of the draft. SHIPO means State Historic Preservation Officer. SHIPO has asked us to obtain information from Aspen which is a certified local government to help them to focus their official comments. The Colo. Preservation office has adopted this informally. 4F is the required section of any EIS documents and it documents considerations and alternatives for a determination that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the use of park land, historic properties etc. For historic sites we get into the 106 review and that is handled through the state historic preservation officer. We need comments on findings of local designations. We have an objective related to community based planning and we recognize the Aspen Area Community Plan and some of the other documents. We need to know they relate to historic properties. We have broken the corridor up into two chunks the Buttermilk to Maroon Creek area and Maroon Creek to 7th and Main. From Buttermilk to Maroon we have the historic Maroon Creek bridge. We have two alignment alternatives one that goes on the north side of the Maroon Creek bridge and one on the south side of the bridge. The second corridor has the Maroon Creek Bridge; The Old Midland Railroad; Holden Smelting and Mining Complex; Castle Creek Power Plant 920 Hallam; 834 Hallam; 730 W. Main and also the Berger house. I would like to spend some time on the alternatives and how they all work. Ralph: The first sheet is an improved two lane state Hwy 82 and we took a look at widening out the S curves. Around the bend to Main Street we would effect the property at 734 which is the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 Christian Science Readying Room. Even just a widening improvement an historic resource would be effected. Alternative 2 and 3 go either side of Maroon Creek. When you get to Maroon Creek to 7th and Main there are more impacted alternatives. Alternative B has four lanes into the S curve and does not impact 920 Hallam and 834 Hallam or the Castle Creek Power Plant. Stan Clauson, Community Development Director: If you have a 20 mile an hour speed limit for two lanes it allows that building to remain in place but in fact some of the land will be impacted. Ralph: The modified direct alignment is a four lane alignment but impacts the Berger property but leaves the other untouched. It does come close to the Holden site. Fundamentally the impact to the historic resources is all he same. Our review indicates that the Marolt ditch has some historic potential. SHIPO has asked us to look into moving the alignment away from the Marolt area slightly but it then gets a little closer to the villas. That is some of the trade off that we will have to make. Ralph: There is another alternative that we are looking at G. This alternative gives you potential to have a separated existing two way entrance into Aspen and a separated transit way. The split alignment would allow you to leave your highway on the existing S curve and the new couplet that would swing across Marolt would be a transit way. Barry: From a traffic operations point of view a split alignment is hard to do whereas a couplet works better. Ralph: This is the first time we have ever been involved with an EIS solution that involves a certified local government with both National and Local Registered resources in the proximity. Joe: We have talked about the alternatives and the package marked preliminary defines the properties in detail and described the kind of impact in detail. Ralph: We have turned the document into SHIPO and they will begin their review tomorrow. Linda: Does no action mean no action on the entire system or just portions. Ralph: No action alternative is an alternative that National Environmental Protection Act requires and it is a base line requirement. It mean no action of any kind and everything would stay as it is now. There are impacts associated with leaving it as is. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 Susan: The second one, the existing alignment does that mean just leaving it the way it is and making it four lane and making the curbs wider. Ralph: Yes, that existing alignment involves two additional lanes on top of the two additional lanes we have now which would give you a four lane platform. That shows as alternative B. Susan: You would take out the Christian Science bldg. Barry: You would need to widen the area and put up a retaining wall especially in front of 920 Hallam. Melanie: In looking at the split alignment vs a couplet does the couplet allow a yield and the split alignment necessitate a signal? Ralph: The couplet would not require any There wouldn't really be a yield either. need a signal. signalization at all. If you do a split you Susan: On the existing corner there are two lanes coming in right now and one lane going out and there is a lot of space on that intersection. It seems to me that the entire thing could be moved over toward the west. Ralph: That is a 90 degree corner now and if you need to try to improve the curvature that is when you start getting into some of the issues that we talked about. We are still talking with the city about what could happen to the Main Street; could some of the parking be eliminated; could a boulevard soft scape solution be looked at. Those are some of the design issues. Barry: We can look at lower speeds. Martha: It is my understanding that you have to make the existing area wider no matter what. Ralph: If you wanted to go to a four lane platform on the existing alignment there is certainly more widening necessary. We have not gotten into the final design detail. You would need some turn lanes at Cemetery Lane. Jake: Are there any options to moving the 7th street alignment over to the west as opposed to coming right down 7th. Barry: Then you would be taking the properties on the left side. Jake: Those are not historical properties. Amy: I have never heard of an accident on the S curves and do you ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 have information on that? Barry: You have a rate about 150% higher through the S curve than the state urban average. Stan Clauson: Tom Stephenson the chief was asked to give a survey on the City of Aspen. The draft EIS indicates that it is higher than the national rural average for accidents. In fact an analysis was done by the police chief which suggest that the S curve accident rate is no higher than that of other intersections for Colorado 82 as it passes through the City of Aspen. There is a high rate of accidents in the sense that it is higher than the rural average but it is consistent with the passage of 82 through Aspen's various intersection. Ralph Trappani: We would greatly appreciate that information. I did not know that the city was doing independent accident analysis. Stan Clauson: That was produced two months ago and I will supply you with that information. Ralph Trappani: Over a three year period of April 91 to March of 94 Cemetery Lane, 7th and Main which are the S curves had an accident rate of 4.4 accidents per million vehicle miles. The urban average nationally is 3 accidents per million miles and the rural average is 1.16. According to these figures there were 12 injury accidents during that time and 38 property damage accidents. Susan: I have always been interested in the S curves because I have been through countless towns across the midwest and so many of them have this system. To me I thought it meant slow down the traffic. Some of these towns were built before cars. Barry: I do believe part of the curves were due to surveying section lines. The section lines were usually at the town boundaries. Ralph Trappani: At one time Main Street extended across the Marolt open space to a plat from old Holden Road. Melanie: Would you define a transit envelope. Barry: Throughout the document we have tried not to preclude any options. When we talk about lineage we talk about two unrestricted lanes and two dedicated vehicle and or transit lanes. We aren't sure what will happen on the two dedicated vehicle lanes, possibly fixed guide way or even a bus HOV lane. It will be a restricted lane. What we are saying is that CDOT has made the commitment that we are going to look at this transit envelope. Lets say the preferred is HOV or lightrail and 15 years down the road it occurs ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 with preserving what we call the transit envelope. Unfortunately in the evaluation that transit envelope is additional right-of- ways and open space which causes additional impacts. Jake: I would like to know what would be useful for CDOT, what kind of focus do you need from the HPC? Ralph: I would suggest that the commission take the preliminary 4F statement and basically mark it up and put comments in related to your local experiences with the various properties. Another approach would be to prepare a memorandum or letter giving the state historic preservation officer some of your comments as to how you relate to the properties and that way you would not be using the 4F statement. We need to know how the various alternatives and options would impact the various historic resources. The other issue of value would be what possible mitigation you might suggest for some of these alternatives. We would like you to focus on the local and national historic resources. Stan Clauson: At the city council meeting which included the BOCC and CDOT, issues would brought up regarding the draft EIS and alternatives 1 through 3 and A through F. At the transportation symposium held in March the determination from that symposium was not clearly incorporated into the draft EIS in council's belief. An agreement on the part of CDOT was to bring forward alternative G which does incorporate those elements from the symposium. In the absence of G and its components I think makes it difficult for the commission to comment on the various alternatives because one is clearly missing. I can detail the components briefly. Ralph Trappani: presented as G. It would be easier to use the diagram I have Stan Clauson: On the first day of the symposium we heard from a number of experts and the second day breaking into small groups. Consensus was that it was important to have an emphasis on traffic man management which would try to maintain the automobile trips into town consistent to what it is now when we get to the year 2015. We do not want to provide for automobile related improvement which would induce additional traffic. With respect to the S curves they are the historical entrance into Aspen and had from a community character standpoint substantial value. It was believed that the S curves have a traffic calming effect. That is with the reduction of speed and introducing into the consciousness of the driver that he has come into an urban area with pedestrian impacts as opposed to an area with high speed environment. They believe the S curves have those very important functions and recommend that the S curves be maintained with modest improvements to enhance safety and smooth the traffic flow. From a standpoint of designed detail no one every mentioned the speed limit as to whether it ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 should be 15 or 20 or 25 miles. The impression that was developed was modest improvements toward enhancing safety flow. No one reacted with the idea that the development of the S curve should incorporate substantial removal of existing properties although some of the grounds around the properties might be impacted. Stan Clauson: While the highway would come in on a two lane alignment through the S curve there would be a separate transit alignment and in general people focused on coming directly off Main Street. There would be intercept areas and the Marolt Thomas property was discussed. Possibly a parking lot that was depressed and a restored surface placed over the parking lot so that it remained as open space. A fixed guideway system and the trolley was discussed. It was also mentioned to look at the midland railroad alignment. The separate alignment would be for a fixed rail system only and that there would be other kinds of traffic enhancement devices. The idea of all of these things taking together, traffic man management, two lane entrance enhanced and a separate transit way for a fixed rail did not appear with those components placed together as an alternative. Council feels those components need to be placed together to see how they interact as a viable option. Option G is a little greener and it still brings traffic by the historic properties and transit through the Marolt Thomas open space. Melanie: How would the two systems interact? Stan: No one got to the detail design. We have scheduled July 25th and 26th for a group of designers to look at all of the options and come up with details. Stan: On the fixed rail you have a center median area of Main Street or on the outside of Main Street or all on one side and all on the other side. Amy: We have been asked to provide comments and it is federal law. This meeting was not noticed to the public and we should keep that in mind. MOTION: Roger: Based on our site inspection I would move that HPC recommend denial of any new four lane or any new two lane highway into Aspen for the following reasons: 1) Any disruption of existing National Historic Sites is not warranted ie. Marolt. 2) Any disruption of Local Historic Sites are not warranted ie. 834 Hallam, Main & 7th corner 734 W. Main. 3) Any disruption of the West End Historic Neighborhoods is not ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 warranted. ( Aspen is a composite of may neighborhoods although it has landmarks and historic sites neighborhoods are also of historic significance). HPC feels that the future negative auto impacts on the life styles to the community of Aspen is not warranted by any new four lane or two lane highway. 5) We encourage CDOT to look at all alternatives to move people by means other than automobiles into Aspen. With this in mind we would encourage looking at other solutions as discussed by the Transportation Design Symposium such as keep existing highway and add a separate transit alignment. second by Linda. DISCUSSION Martha: In concept I do not have a problem with the motion but could not vote for it tonight as I need to do more research and give more thought to the information presented today. Amy: We are supposed to try and separate our feelings about what alternative we feel is appropriate from the actual impacts on the historic resources. I am not sure your motion is clear enough about what impacts we think are unacceptable. We need to focus on the historic resources. AMENDED MOTION: Roger moved that there would be impacts on the historic resources. Disruption of existing National Historic Sites; disruption of the ditch location to the existing Marolt Museum; possible disruption and degradation to an existing archeological site. Disruption to local historic sites i.e. possibly the historic ditch and trees in front of 834 Hallam. The removal of an historic house at Main and 7th and our policy is that we do not allow people even renovating to move a historic landmark site. The disruption of historic neighborhoods such as Main Street historic district. Disruption of the curb itself. Also if a road were added there would be disruption of the Berger house neighborhood. Lifestyle to the community past, present and future as historians we have to recognize that this all works together and the impacts historically would change and what happens in the future we do not know; second by Linda. DISCUSSION Martha: I personally feel there is not enough representation on the board to make a vote. Melanie: I also agree. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 Susan: I would vote for it. Linda: I would vote for it. Roger: I would vote. Melanie: I would like to see the rest of the committee vote. Roger: Les would vote for it if he were here. Jake: It is clear to me that the modified straight shot has less impact on the historic resources than the S curve. I also feel if you modify the S curve you get a real different situation and it is disruptive to that neighborhood. Linda: With the modified straight shot the Marolt property is effected. Jake: As a general citizen I support what Roger is saying but I am trying to weed out what the Board is saying and we need to be very specific. It is hard for me to support the S curve if it is going to be so modified that it becomes a four lane. Stan: The symposium recommended a very modified S curve with two lanes slightly improved. Ralph: One of the reasons you don't see this G as a full blown alternative is because the EIS team and the community meeting we developed earlier felt clearly you are still going to have all the vehicle traffic and possibly an increased vehicle traffic going around the S curve particularly 734 W. Main because the proximity is too close. One of the advantages to something coming across the Marolt is that it cleans up the west end neighborhood but the Berger house will be impacted. I did not realize the west end was an historic neighborhood. Roger: As historians we have to ask ourselves do we want to see four lanes coming into Aspen or two lanes that would disrupt an historic site or resource be it a state, local, or national. Melanie: Ralph made the comment that two lanes coming into Aspen will impact the Christian Science bldg. and I do not see why that has to occur. Ralph : I think that it will and it may not take the structure but it will get onto the property. It doesn't seem tight out there but it really is. Alternative G would involve doing something to smooth the flow of traffic so that we don't end up with the break in the flow and the drag race down Main Street. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 Linda: Les emphasized before he left to remind the board of the number of european towns that are going to a totally car-less community. There used to be one or two towns in Europe and now there are six or seven. He stresses the impact of the car on our economics and the quality of life here as more and more cars come. We should discourage the movement of cars into town. Ralph: We are not proposing an unrestrictive four lane. That is off the table. When you hear the term four lane it means two unrestrictive lanes and the other two lanes can represent a variety of solutions whether it is a dedicated transit way with a rail system or whether it is buses or buses plus vans etc. I wanted to clarify that. Ralph: One of the reasons G wasn't discussed thoroughly was the island effect that it makes for that neighborhood. Roger, would your motion be supportive of a transit way. Roger: I said denial of any four or two lane highway into Aspen. Then I mentioned about looking at other solutions as discussed by the transportation symposium such as keeping the existing highway and add separate transit alignment. I am dealing with historic perspective only. I do not know how to design a transit system. I am offering the option to do something else but don't build more roads. Linda: We are here to discuss this and vote on it and to table it until more members can come should not occur. They can add their thoughts later and we have a quorum and we should act with the people that have shown up here for this meeting. Amy: I feel the Board should determine how they feel about the Holden Marolt cut and cover as it will destroy that site. Roger: I feel we do not have enough information about that. Jake: The cut and cover reunites both sides of the Marolt property. Roger: Why can't you use the other side of the Marolt property. VOTE ON MOTION: Motion passes five to one. Martha voted no. Roger: Does this give you enough information. Ralph: I doubt it as my sense was that they wanted specific information on specific properties. They want local information about the properties. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COM1HISSION JUNE 14, 1995 Roger: Amy can get more specific. Roger: Is CDOT looking at other kinds of solutions other than the automobile. Ralph: We are looking at options that are realistic and that we feel will work but I feel the Dept. feels that we are going to have the automobile to live with for many years and that the Dept. feels that we need to accommodate that automobile from a perspective of not only pedestrian and transit riding safety but also for automobile safety. Roger: In our expertise are new things coming up to move me that may not work but might in the future. Ralph: In 15 or 20 years we hope there is a potential for America to really understand a rail transit system that works for them. We do not have that unfortunately, except for freight. I do not feel we have a vision like that in this country, however we need to strategically plan for a corridor for those types of solutions. I feel the problem is that people drive their cars and they do not use transit. I will continue our efforts for transportation management measures to try and get people out of their cars. The problem is not government in my opinion. Three out of four trips coming in and out of this town are local trips, it is not the worker bees. In order to get G to work it is going to take a massive effort to take all of these local trips out of Aspen. In 1993 there were 44,000 one person trips coming in and out of town and right now 54% of those are in single occupancy vehicles 27% are two or more people and the rest is transit. No matter what our system looks like in the year 2000 that will be 71,000 person trips. If you want to keep the traffic as is many of these person trips are going to have to be on something else. I feel G is a worthy goal but realistically feel it will be difficult to attain. We are working on it. MOTION: Jake moved to invite everyone to go through Amy's memo and the presentation distributed by Ralph and make comments to Amy in order for her to respond to SHIPO; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. Ralph: That second motion will help SHIPO. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 210 W. MAIN - MINOR Amy: This is an application to add an air lock entrance to the rear of the existing structure. There will also be two parking spaces added. I have recommended approval with the condition that the new construction match in materials with the existing structure. We need to discuss the parking space as it is not our first preference to have parking coming off Main Street and interacting with pedestrians on the sidewalk. Ted Guy: I have no problems with the recommendations. Susan: Is this next to the European Flower Shop. Ted: Yes and there is a 2 1/2 story box and we are adding to the older one story building in the back and it has a shed. We want to build the back out and match the existing shed to make an airlock entry of the north side. We are redoing the bathroom. MOTION: Martha moved to approve the minor development application for 210 W. Main with the condition that it confirm to the existing qualities of the building. This includes matching exterior materials that maintain the log cabin character of the structure. If possible, only one new parking space should be added along with screening; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. 301 E. HYMAN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: This is not an historic structure but is in the commercial core historic district. I believe it was built in the 50's or 60's. They have a maintenance problem with the wood siding. In this case I do not think it would be a compatibility problem as it is right on the edge of the commercial core and I do not think people would perceive a big difference in it and we are relieving a maintenance problem. Roger: Aluminum siding does require repainting. In this environment where you have a temperature difference and ultraviolet if it is a good regular paint job it should last with minor maintenance five or six years. Aluminum siding will probably discolor in two to three years and then significantly and will have to be repainted. There is very little aluminum siding up here. Susan: Can you give us an example of aluminum siding here in town. Roger: I can give you an example of vinyl siding in which the color is all the way through the material~ It is an apartment building and the siding faded within a year. Vinyl siding also ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 moves and I do not know if aluminum siding moves. The issue is do we want to allow those kinds of materials into the community. In some environments it holds up very well such as in Florida. Linda: They may think this is a quick fix and if they had issues pointed out they might reconsider. Melanie: They could replace the siding. Martha: There are numerous choices on this pamphlet. Roger: It would be interesting to spend some time researching this. It is a prominent corner and across from Wagner Park. Roger: and the them. The original application of material was not done very well maintenance over the years has always been a problem for Amy: We would have to make a finding and our design guidelines do not say one way or another if we want or don't want synthetic materials. Maybe we should tell they need to investigate a little more the cost of putting on better wood siding and painting. We could recommend that they replace the wood siding and stain it. Melanie: I feel we should suggest to them that this process might not be to their advantage. Linda: I would deny this and request a restudy as it is not in keeping with the historic district. Susan: This might set a precedence throughout town. MOTION: Martha moved to approve the minor development application for 301 E. Hyman with the condition that they do a thorough research on the kind and quality of vinyl or aluminum siding that they use; second by Susan. DISCUSSION Roger: When you deal with vinyl and aluminum you have an existing window frame and the materials meets that and it has to be secured and sometimes there is an unsightly trim piece that they have to put on. Roger: I would recommend tabling. Melanie: I would recommend denial. Motion dies for lack of vote. 1--2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 MOTION: Melanie moved to deny the application and request they restudy and come back with a sample of the exact material and fastening system. Possibly wood siding would be a better solution. Motion died for lack of second. Susan: We have not seen this work at this altitude. MOTION: Roger moved to table 301 E. Hyman, Prospector Lodge with the request to the applicant look at all alternatives including wood and give us samples of materials, fastening method and any references of those materials being used in our environment and longevity; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. 706 W. MAIN - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL Sven was seated. Amy: It has been one year since the application was approved and there was discussion previously about the project. It is my feeling that there was a substantial time and effort spent in the discussion and for that reason we should extend the conceptual until Sept. 30, 1995 as requested. From the street facade this project is very well done but I do feel the east and west facades do not have a very strong connection in terms of mass and form to the historic house. Joe Krabacher, owner: I did not realize the time had lapsed and usually Amy calls the applicant but I was in Hawaii. I also had a lengthy process at P&Z. HPC granted us an FAR bonus and P&Z didn't like that so we didn't go through special review. Jake: There has been changes and do the plans reflect that? Joe Krabacher: I am not sure as Dick isn't here but if there are concerns we can talk about them today and I would like them addressed at final. The plans from P&Z are about 400 sqft. smaller. There was a struggle when we went through this approval as to whether you should have something bigger behind and we kept the maximum height to 23 feet which is the ridge line. The flat portion is probably estimating 21 ft. The building next door is the same size as my building above grade but there's is 1000 sqft. more. In any case that is what propagated this design as we are squeezed in between the hickory house. We tried to create a courtyard and break up the massing of the new building. It is true that it is massive in the back but we tried to keep it as low as possible. Melanie: I have a few problems with the east and west elevations in the way the back flat piece ties into the rest of the building 1--3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 I find very objectionable. restudy. Is there anything we can ask for a Amy: You can put that as a condition as part of the extension of conceptual. Melanie: That flat area does not relate to the rest of the building. It looks like it will just fall off into no where. Joe: You have to put the mass somewhere and we moved it back away from the historic house. The stapleton bldg. is right next to it. If we take it off the back and put it on the front it will overpower the historic house. It was kind of like a trade off that we struggled with. Linda: Is to make it structure? there anyway that roof line could be changed somewhat more compatible with the roof line look of the entire Joe: The roof would then have to go up. We could do a dormer or cross gable. Linda: Something to tie the building as a whole. Jake: I am more concerned with the alley scape and the impact of this elevation on the alley. Is there a way to break that down with architectural elements on the back. The east wall will be buried. I do not mean give up space. I mean breaking it up a little. Sven: One thing that the board should keep in mind is that the design protects the rear entry. There is severe ice buildup on the north and the overhang helps the rear entrance. The front of the building has columns and possibly the back could have brackets to make it a little more attractive. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the extension for five months to September 30, 1995 for 706 W. Main; second by Martha. Ail in favor, motion carries. Jake: Joe, make sure Amy has the revised plans from P&Z. Roger: At final the design changes such as a gable will be addressed. Joe: When we come back your concern is the west and east elevations i.e. the relationship of the roof line. Melanie: Yes, that flat relationship does not fit to the rest of the building. Detailing should occur around the back. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 303 E. MAIN STREET - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Jake stepped down. Roger chaired the meeting. Amy: The applicant attached a list of the elements of the project that have been revised from conceptual. On the north there is now a stairwell which is part of the egress and in connection with that the entrance way has been revised to become more of a porch to shield the stairwell. Staff recommends that this solution is acceptable. On the south side the lightwell has been reduced in size. At conceptual HPC recommended a grate over the lightwell rather than a railing. On the tower a second deck has been added on the top level. I am a little concerned that it adds bulk to the building although we want to encourage things like that. The applicant is proposing that the first two stories of the tower be in brick. It is my opinion that brick wall is only appropriate for the first level. I do think it is an interesting element at the first level. Brick is also being proposed for a portion of the new addition due to maintenance issues and this is an interesting contract with the historic building. On the south elevation of the new construction there is a decorative hood over one of the second story windows and in a way it ties into the old building as Jake calls it the father son relationship but it might be too imitative of the historic resource. I have recommended four conditions that are detailed. I want to make it clear that HPC said the historic house could not be moved even temporarily. Roger: Do they have samples of the wood? Amy: The drawings have details of the materials. Linda: What kind of brick? Amy: We looked at the samples once but I am sure we would want to see them again as it has been some time ago. Roget Kuhn: We were thinking of doing something that was compatible with what is in the commercial core, a reddish brick. Roger: Are the windows pella clad or painted and we would need a sample of the window. Amy: It is my understanding that the windows are pella wooden window, not clad. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 Roger: The roof is standing seam and we need a sample of the roofing material. Susan: On the east elevation there are blanked windows are those real windows behind the brick or what? Roget Kuhn: There are no windows, it is just a design in the brick to break up the wall. Amy: Those are blind windows and the architect wanted to articulate that side of the building instead of having two blank walls. Windows are not needed there. Roget Kuhn: I want to clarify a few things. The steps that we have going down the west side from the porch are indicated with a landing and we want to go straight down. Niklaus Kuhn, owner: We just saw that today and want to go directly down. Roget Kuhn: On the drainage it is not drawn north and south of the building and we aren't elevations we just don't want any dead spots together and leak. all the way to the changing any of the where it would come Amy: That is an issue that can be worked out with the monitor. Roget: The reason we brought the brick up to the our architect thought that was a good architecturally. skirt is because stopping point Susan: What was the reason for the window on the south elevation? Roget: It is the Aspen Mountain View so we wanted a window. Roget: On the east side there is a closet and we don't need the window and I would like to move it around to the other side. It would be on the alley side but three feet in which is the south. Susan: It might look unbalanced. Roget: We have compromised at every avenue and on the east wall of the historic house it will become an interior wall and you do not have jurisdiction over what we do with it unless we agree at this time that any alternations have to be revised by the HPC. At this time we have no plans of altering that wall but in the future we may. We are not going to agree to something that you don't have authority over just so our project passes. I do not want to go through this process if I want to expand my store. 1--6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 Roger: Regarding that wall you said you might want to expand and if you did that you could come from the east to the middle space and might want to put a doorway in. Amy: Th~ idea here was to eliminate demolition as much as possible so the entire historic structure is remaining intact. The new addition will just abut it or it will lean onto it but you are not to demolish this wall. I am suggesting that wall should not be demolished in the future either even though it will not be visible to the public. It is in the National Register of Historic Resources and one of the standards is that all work that is done to a building should be reversible in theory. Roger: In the store itself do you feel that wall left as is will interfere with whatever you want to do with that space? Roget: You don't know what will happen in the future. If you aren't going to let me touch the wall now there is no way this board will let me touch it in a few years. If it was a residence I can totally understand it but this is commercial and it has to be functional. Roger: If the wall were left and covered with sheet rock and it is noted is that a problem. Amy: I believe the opposite of Roget if it were a residence no one would see it but it is a commercial bldg. and that is all the more reason to interpret it as an historic building. Covering over destroys the visibility. Roger: Suppose in the future they want to connect the new leasable space to some of the space inside the original building and they wanted to go through that wall, how could they do that? Could they go through one of the historic windows. Amy: I would say probably go through one of the historic windows. I am not suggesting that we would not let them go through that wall all I am suggesting is that we would like to look at it. Sven: There is a distinction between a minor and major development application. What he is talking about could be considered minor depending upon its scope. Sven: I have detail questions. On the arched portion of the windows where the brick is I have seen where plywood is put on to cover up the header and it really can look awkward. I would alert the committee to that detail. I would rather see these windows have curved tops or specifically require that wood not be plywood. Roger: You are asking that the material filler below the arched 1_/7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 windows on the west elevation not be plywood so we would need to know what that wood would be that wouldn't deteriorate. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Melanie: Regarding the interior wall does that mean you cannot cover it with drywall? Amy: It is a unique situation how important this site is. I would not say that this is not in our purview what I said in the memo is that this was not our typical discussion. Typically we do not review interior walls but it is within our purview to place any applicable condition on the project. At present we do not know if this wall will be abutted or not. Seeing the original wall is a pleasure for a customer and if he needs a window or wall in the future we need to know what it is. Sven: I feel this is a good project and I have always liked the tower. It might be nice to have antique windows in the window locations of the historic wall. Linda: I am in support of keeping the interior wall intact as it is part of the historic appreciation of this building. I wanted to comment on the brick and I do not find it objectionable going up to the apron especially when there is a foundation base showing. It would be very hard to break it up any other way. I also appreciate the comments that Sven has made on the area between the arch and the window. I have seen that area done before with plywood and it really detracts from the building. I feel the wood shudders should entirely cover the arch. Martha: What is below grade? Amy: Almost a full basement. Roger: I would concur with staff that we grant final approval and I find that the brick is fine as designed. I would recommend that the wall would not be demolished or covered in any way. This is an unique situation and it would seem from the historical perspective that actually from a marketing perspective that the wall could be used within whatever the store is to enhance that space and it would not take away the freedom of the applicant. If the applicant wants to move next door to enlarge the space and open up an historical window to a door a minor development application takes very little cost or time. I also agree that the historical house cannot be relocated. On item #4 eliminate the hood I would prefer to leave all the design elements up to the architect and would concur with the architect. I would like to add to the motion four items that deal with materials: 1) Stone veneer, what does it look like and what is the color. 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COM~ISSION JUNE 14, 1995 2) Brick sample to make sure the two work together. 3) Roof sample that ties it all together. 4) Material between the window and the brick mold as drawn be dealt with and that plywood not be used. 5) Clarify the roof drainage problem with staff and monitor. 6) The applicant mentioned moving a window and stairs and that is appropriate. Also there is a door for an exit that may or may not have to be there and that is fine. Niklaus Kuhn: The historical house is not on one lot it is on 1 1/2 lots and you have to realize you would have to let us do something on that 1/2 lot. Ail that we are really asking is 600 sqft. additional commercial space. Rogers comment of an outside wall becoming an interior wall. If it is such a big thing then why aren't you granting us an opening so that we do not have to go through the entire process again. If we are going to leave the outside wall and then on the interior we grant them an opening. Roger: Whoever makes the motion should add that condition. Amy: Part of the standards would be that they need that opening and they do not. Roget: I want to add it. You all have been in one store and you can feed off to a business in another store. Now I realize that we are going to have to have windows to see through between the two stores. It would be great to go between the two stores. Roger: Say the windows were left and you didn't want to have any visual impact to the store you could literally paint the glass as it is removable and would not take away from the historic structure. Niklaus Kuhn: Asia has three openings with victorian trim and it looks beautiful. Amy: The historic windows should stay and they could put in a door anywhere they want as a condition that could be reviewed by Staff and monitor. Melanie: That way they wouldn't have to go through the process again. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant final development approval to 303 E. Main Street with the following conditions: 1) The east wall of the historic house will become an interior wall cannot be demolished or covered in any way. The applicant has permission to install a new opening, the design of which will be approved by ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JTJNE 14, 1995 staff and or project monitor. 2) The historic house cannot be relocated even temporarily. HPC, Staff and monitor will need to look at samples of stone veneer, brick and roofing materials. The material between the window and the brick mold will be of a substantial materials so that it will not deteriorate and can be approved by Staff and monitor. Clarify roof drainage problem with staff and monitor. If an elevation or design changes are necessary applicant must return to HPC. Applicant may be allowed to remove the window on the south side and replace it as he asked. Applicant may be allowed to move the stairs as he has asked on the west porch. Applicant may be allowed to have or not have a door on the south side to be determined by code. Motion second by Melanie; all in favor, motion carries. 123 W. FP. kNCIS - WORKSESSION Jake: At conceptual there was a condition that I could not remove the tree and I am interested in moving it. A lot of the front property line is obscured by trees. I had an expert look at this tree and it will take the biggest caliber in the area and possibly I will have to rent one from Denver. He assures me it can be moved and will be out of the ground 20 minutes. Sven: Where and why do you want it moved? Jake: I was thinking of between the two houses to buffer them. The reason I am moving it is not to put it somewhere else it is to get it out of the position it is. It blocks a portion of the front and forms a barrier to the street which is neither good for the streetscape or the house. We want houses to have a direct connection to the street. We have gone to links to connect porch elements to the street. One of the thoughts was that the trees would mitigate the building but I feel the building will be a good one and the tree is a barrier. I have to be able to anticipate moving the tree in order to design the house. If the tree stays there I have to design the house in a different configuration. 2--0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 Roger: You need to sell the lot and have someone pick up the design. In this situation and any situation is the life in the house going to orientate toward the street or orientate toward the view of Aspen mountain which is to the south and east. Realistically it will not orientate to the street. Jake: I am already using the south L to sell this house and it is an inverted house with the decks up above. I still do not want the house to turn its back on the street. The tree is dead center in the middle of the site. I truly love this site and the corner and I want this house to have the relationship to the great intersection that is there. Melanie: Moving it over will allow you to do more with the front of the house. I would hate to see it moved off the street though but can see where it is impacting the house. It is making the house dark. Roger: What about the far corner where the garage is. Amy: The Parks Dept. will make him bond the tree to make sure it will not die. Roger: You want us to state that the tree can be moved. Amy: I feel this is important as the house is not participating in the street scape as is and you are denying the person of the view of that wonderful neighborhood. Martha: I have trees that are 35 years old now and if I could move some I would and it is a problem if you don't look a head 35 years from now. I am not sure if it is fair to lay down these hard rules. Jake: I can give the board more information. Roger: A straw poll was taken and the board is in favor of moving the tree. Jake: The second issue is I am trying to crete more of a side yard and to do that I have to destroy a portion of the historic house. It is old but what is the historical value of the shed. Linda: I feel it is really unique. Sven: It makes the house what is a cross gable on a little victorian as opposed to a little miners cottage and that is why I would hate to get rid of it. Linda: You could do something real creative with that. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 I agree that something fun could be done. Susan: Roger: I could be a double porch. Jake: It is a very strange deal. It doesn't line up and the windows are different. Roger: It doesn't line with the cross gable. The porch is in front of this piece which is 8 feet wide. Jake: Amy: The front wall is historic but the other walls are changed. Roger: I would prefer that you left that and remove some of the rear. Jake: By not having that piece I can move the house over and create a nice sideyard condition with regard to relationships. Melanie: If you take the piece off can you have a larger side yard setback. Jake: I could and it would give me five feet. I would ten have the total separation between the two structures of 15 feet. Even if I moved it over 2 1/2 feet I could have 12 feet separating it. Roger: Is anyone in favor of removing the addition. Straw poll taken and board is not in favor of removing the addition. 939 E. COOPER - WORKSESSION Bob Langley: I want to talk about moving the barn on E. Cooper court project. I have a letter from Bill Bailey the house mover and essentially it says in order to move the barn intact it would require extensive bracing and even when it was moved because there aren't right angles in there that when we put it on the foundation to try and build inside of it there is a chance of collapsing. The south wall is shorter than the north wall. When you put it on the foundation it would tilt. We would like to move it a wall at a time which will give us the opportunity to replace boards one at a time and it would be much safer and cost efficient and preserve the integrity of the structure. We would like to have your approval to move it in sections. Marsha Goshorn: Even if it stays on the same site it has the same problems. It was built with scrap lumber. One corner is held up by a tree stump. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 Amy: Previously it was said that the barn would be taken apart and that the materials would be used to reside the new structure. Now you are actually talking about taking it apart one wall at a time and would you construct the new unit and the walls would go around it. Roger: What happens with the roof. Bob: We will take the roof off and set it somewhere and it go back on. Amy: I feel moving it wall by wall will preserve the integrity. Melanie: And the walls would stay intact. Roger: The bldg. is uneven and could you maintain the uneven character by adjusting your foundation. Bob: I can't answer that but I feel that is what will have to be done. We would like to preserve it. There are boards all over that don't connect. We have to bring it up to code on the interior. Sven: I was one of the supporters of not dismantling it. I think your proposal here is better. We don't just want the materials to be used as a sheathing. You are now talking about doing a new structure and applying the old wood to it. Bob: On the inside you will have to have drywall interior walls. Sven: We do not want to see you use the existing exterior materials as applied siding to a new building but we would entertain reusing the entire wall surface area as is applied to a framing. Martha: Can't you brace it in place before you move it? Bob: It would be extensive bracing. Bob: We would use insulation and a drywall on the inside. Melanie: You would have to build a viable structure then attach the new structure. Sven: Applying the wall is good as long as we are assured of the final result for the pedestrian walking by. Amy: They are also applying a corrugated metal skirt to the building which will help resolve the issue of the wall. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 Melanie: You will have to have something on the inside and what happens if a board splits. Bob: The guy took scrap lumber from the mines and built it. Roger: Are they going to keep the roof intact and brace or are they going to dismantle it. Roger: Straw poll for moving the structure one wall at a time, consensus was that the board said it was OK. Roger: What about the roof. It should be removed in one piece. Linda: I am taking myself off as project monitor and I am opposed to removing the walls. Les can decide what he wants to do. Roger: The majority says they can move it wall by wall and the roof can be moved off and set down. If they move it wall by wall what about maintaining the character that one side is higher than the other and should they comply with that and if so do we need a motion. Amy: I think it should be replaced to look as much as possible as it does now. Linda: We recommended moving it intact and the mover said he didn't want to be responsible and it got into an argument. Both monitors opposed taking it a part piece by piece. Roger: At the last meeting the applicant was to come back with specifics as to cost to brace it and move it, how much would it cost for other solutions, what are the real specifics here. We have not been given those answers. Bob: The cost estimate to brace it on the inside was between $15,000 to $20,000. I respect that HPC has a spectrum of opinions from very conservative to not so conservative. Roger: What is the cost to set the roof off and put it back on and remove each wall individually? Bob: I do not have those numbers but I can get them. The movers parameters were $15,000 to $25,000. Sven: That is more than the cost of framing a building. Roger: You need hard and fast numbers and we need to consider this is employee house and if you sit down with Les things can be figured out. 2--4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995 MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Linda. motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Ail in favor,