Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19941012ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 RESO 94-2 409 520 WALNUT STREET .......... RE-EVALUATION OF INVENTORY - ROUND II E. HYMAN AVE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ..... HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 Meeting was called to order by chairman Joe Krabacher with Les Holst, Roger Moyer, Tom Williams Linda Smisek, Martha Madsen and Jake Vickery present. Donnelley was excused. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of September 1st and the 13th; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. 520 WALNUT STREET Amy: Last night council tabled landmark designation due to the neighborhood comments disturbing them. They also wanted to see more information. The applicant has decided to withdraw the application temporary. I also feel this is unfortunate. Angie Griffith, neighbor: Jon Busch was concerned about the traffic in that area if it was an office use. I am under the impression that if it is designated as historical she does not have to have a setback. Amy: If she needs some variation because of the historic structure the committee can give it to her. Angie Griffith: I am concerned about the setbacks and I was born and raised on that property. Amy: What is to be involved tonight is taking the historic building so that it is in conformance on the one side and moving it forward to Walnut Street somewhat. There were concerns about the trees and I talked with the Parks Department and they feel the trees may collapse. Angie Griffith: I am concerned about having no sun all day long and I do not know how high she is going with that building. It is on the property line right now. Amy: She is moving it off the property line five feet. Angie Griffith: For the past 70 years it has been a shed and you are claiming that it was a cottage. The rest of the house was flat and was attached to the east side and it collapsed. That is why the siding is different. Angie Griffit's friend: If anyone knows the history for the past 70 years its is Angie. It is going to disturb Angie's quality of live and she has been in Aspen for over 70 years. The way it was put to me was that the green house on the property is going to be completely raised and a new 2,700 sqft. home will be built on this property which is already a small property. I know that property and I know if a house that big is built on that property that the wall will come right in front of her kitchen window and that concerns me. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 Amy: If landmark designation goes through then review, a public hearing and you continue to be doesn't go through none of us are involved. there is design involved. If it Roger: If the historic structure is moved as proposed is she moving it away from the north property line to the south property line? Amy: Right now it is into the neighbors property to the north. Roger: We could do a site visit and show you where the cabin is to be moved to. When the cabin is moved it will not block your light. The cottonwood trees are a real danger to anyone if someone starts to live there so I think those need to be addressed if they are to be removed or not. Long ago there probably was a ditch. Even if we grant historic designation to the cottage that doesn't effect the house. She has to build the house within the setbacks. MOTION: Roger made the motion to table 520 Walnut Street to a date certain January 11, 1995; second by Tom. All in favor, motion carries. RESO 94-2 RE-EVALUATION OF INVENTORY - ROUND II Amy: This is the follow-up of the meeting of Sept. 13, 1994. I have deleted the properties that you have agreed on and we might discuss two of them. Amy: 205 W. Bleeker the red and white house did request to be removed from the inventory. I do not recommend removing it and your vote was split. I did not show it removed on the attached resolution. It was a victorian house and has been completely changed but represents a new era, a ski architecture.or artistic interpretation. Tom: It is Lou Willie's studio. Amy: The whole property is on the inventory. Roger: We need to decide whether or not we want to maintain some of the earlier ski architecture and if we let it go and someone tears it down they can conceivably build another large house. Les: Everytime we take something off the inventory we damage the neighborhood because everyone suffers on down the line. Our inventory is basically all we have for historic preservation and as far as I am concerned you can't let anything go. Chairman Joe Krabacher did a straw poll and the consensus was that ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 205 W. Bleeker the Tyrolean Lodge stays on the inventory. Amy: 990 E. Hyman has the siding and windows changed. Joan Sparling, home owner in the back of the duplex. I live in half of the duplex that was built in 1978 and it is cute but not historical. For clarification it is my understanding that the HPC is to keep control on the inventory, demolition or relocation of historical structures built prior to 1910 which continue to have historic value. They evaluate based on recommendations of the Planning Director and I got this all from the code. The last two directors had advanced educational degrees in historical buildings and in preservation. Roxanne Eflin was very stringent and she recommended that this property be dropped. Amy Amidon is also recommending that the property be dropped as quote "it's historical integrity has been compromised due to substantial modifications". We have three very strong qualified recommendations that it be dropped and it would have been dropped if it was kept on schedule. The property itself is 4200 sqft. and 3000 sqft. of that was built in 1978 and that is the duplex that is not historical. The 1200 sqft. front house is the one documented. The changes that have occurred include a huge addition with a cathedral ceiling, diamond light at the attic, a east three sided bay window that sticks out that is contemporary and it has new siding not the old and all new modern windows. It has a new roof and there was an old shed that was gone. It had an added two bedroom, master bath and master closet. Barbara Gameroff, owner: The original house consisted of a livingroom, kitchen which is now the livingroom and the laundry and the shed roof which was there when Perry Harvey bought the house in 1975 was off on the north west side of the house was falling down and was located where the back bedroom is located presently. He used that as a garage and it was removed and two bedrooms etc. were added. The house has more than doubled in size. The original house had lap fur and was covered with aluminum siding. When they took off the siding all the original wood was completely rotten and replaced with redwood. Apparently the scale on a victorian is one to four for the siding and this is eight inches. It has all new windows and a kitchen addition and is now a condominium with a duplex in the back yard. Why and what are you basing your decisions on. Joan Sparling: Is it retrievable and I maintain it is not. It states with substantial effort could be considered contributing. Substantial effort, like what, tearing down the back duplex. Where do we draw the line in maintaining historical integrity and I would like you to consider the expertise of the past historians and drop it off the list. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 Roger: Would you describe your fear and your concerns of being left on the inventory. Joan Sparling: I feel it would add another layer and I have done some remodeling and went through the Planning Dept. in three days. I feel the laws and rules should apply where it is deserved and where it is a benefit. I feel my home doesn't benefit and I should not have to go through another layer of government. Roger: Do you have any FAR left? Joan Sparling: We aren't maxed but as far as the back duplex where we both live we are. Les: You mentioned Roxanne Eflin and do you have something in writing which states that it should be taken off the inventory.. Joan Sparling: I have the report that was done by the independent consultants that were hired by the City to go over every house on the inventory in 1991 and she recommended taking it off. Roger: The reason we left it on was that the house was some type of historic resource and it could be retrievable, you could take out the windows. If it isn't on the inventory then someone can tear the entire thing down. I had a thought on the newer condominium portion; if they want to do anything just go to Staff and tell them you are going to do it. Barbara Gameroff: If you don't do the clapboards and roof and don't take down the new additions you are not retrieving the property by putting a few old windows in the new building. I would like to know why it is on the inventory. Les: In our attempt the maintain scale and massing in the neighborhood we have left buildings like this deviate from their historic clarity. We let windows come out and siding change as long as they can go back and what we have done is save the historic scale for the neighborhood. Joan Sparling: There are three separate owners living there on one property. We have condominium restrictions which we all have to approve. Roger: If that is the case why take it off as it is an historic resource. It is the only defense we have to save the scale of the neighborhood. Joan Sparling: You couldn't build anything bigger than that anyway even if you tore it down. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 Tom: Yes you could because there would be no review. Joan Sparling: We have very restrict covenants and why would I ever approve a home in front of me to block out all the views. Amy: What if only condo A which has the historic house was designated. Barbara Gameroff: I feel that is not fair. Jake: What has changed on the historic house? Barbara: It has new siding, all new windows, new roof and a bay window and french doors added. It has an extension on the back of the building for the addition to the kitchen. The porch has been enclosed on the north. I went to the historical society to look for a pictures but nothing was found. Barbara Gameroff: What does retrievable mean? Jake: That the integrity of the historical character can be restored. Linda: You can bring the little cabin back to what it was. Jake: The overall shape and elements are there even though they are covered. Roger: Amy, do you feel that the historic resource is retrievable? Amy: Retrievable means that it would be possible to bring the building back to its original character. Joe: I feel the property contributes by scale in the grain of the neighborhood and just because you change the roof or siding the form and scale still retains the old mining scale. If the property burns down my concern would be that a second story could be built on top of the two structures or that the entire structure gets torn down and then we would have no control over that. Covenants among the owners can always be changed. I feel being on the inventory and going through the process is something that you contribute to the community. Joan Sparling: Why should I have to do that? Joe: Your duplex has to be in character and compatible with the historic resource that is on the property which is the house in front. Whatever you do to your building it has a relationship to the historic building and that is where our concerns come in. We have review over new additions to historic buildings. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 Jake: No one is saying that the duplex is historical. Joan Sparling: But you are making me go through the same process as though it were. Joe: If you had a lot and an historic building on it and we had no control over what else was built on that property we would have no way to control the impact of a new structure on the historic building so we look not only at what happens to the historic buildings themselves we also look at the context of the neighborhood and how can a building next to an historic building be non-historic by virtue of the impact it has, because it is too big or overpowering. Under the city code we have the right and obligation to review additions. Joan Sparling: LeGs talk about Amy's recommendation of listing only the historic building and Roger's comments about Staff review only and Barbara would not have to pay the fees and go through the bureaucracy unless it is a massive change to the property. What if I had to sell my place and a buyer finds out it is listed historic then it hurts the market value. We are asking that you be fair about that and if it takes rewriting or some adjusting then lets be fair. Joe: That is fine if you want to rewrite the code but currently it is one ownership even though it is condominiumized. Under our existing code we cannot say part of the property will not be subject to review. Amy: Your review process is only with a degree of demolition. This does not cover your interiors. Barbara: What about a window well. Amy: I do not think digging a hole requires a review. reworking the demolition review and possibly it can signoff. We will be be a Staff Les: We will work with you to make it easier and leaving it on the inventory you will be better off. I feel it will work for you in the long run. Martha: Personally if you sold your unit possibly a new owner would want it to match the back section and then we would loose the architectural features. Barbara: In terms of a two story I doubt that it would happen because the back people would not allow it. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 Roger: To specifically address your concerns I kept it on because it is an historic structure and it is retrievable. The next concern about the realestate community perception will change because much of the town is historic. Had their not been controls in the 70's people would have bulldozed down all the houses. When Paepcke came he wanted an intercept lot and to restore houses. Joan Sparling: Is there anything you can suggest to make the process easier for us. I can understand a buyer taking B over A regarding a duplex because there are less loop holes to go through. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve Resolution 94-2 Re- evaluation of the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, Round II as presented; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Joe: 205 W. Bleeker and 990 E. Hyman Tyrolean stay on the inventory. 409 E. HYMAN AVE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Joe: This is an application for an awning and a fixed glass area into a door. Amy: This is a building that has the T-shirt shop on the first floor and a shared entranceway up to New York Pizza. They would like to define their store better and put an awning up and door so that there is a direct entrance to the mall. I recommended approval with the condition that the new door match the existing and that the new awning should align with the adjacent awning. It does need to be a retractable awning. Manager: The color would match. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC approve the minor development application for 409 E. Hyman with the conditions that the new door match the one existing on the building and that the new awning align with the adjacent awnings and that the intensity of the color be minimal; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Tom. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7;00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk