Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19930714Historic Preservation Committee M~nutes of July 14~ 1993 RESO. 304 E. HOPKINS - RENAISSANCE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT 3 - RECOMMENDING LANDMARK DESIGNATION UTE #4 706 W. MAIN - FENCE 1 3 9 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of July 14, 1993 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Donnelley Erdman, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer and Karen Day present. Linda Smisek and Martha Madsen were excused. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minutes of June 23, 1993; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS Amy Amidon, Preservationist: I received a call on the Vidor house at 232 E. Hallam regarding the carriage house. There was a lean- too addition on the back and the owner would like to move it to the front. Do you want the project monitors to handle this or have the HPC Board review it. Jake: I feel the review should come back to the board. Don: I also feel it is more than just a sign off. Roger: I had a call on 617 W. Main regarding some confusion about what was supposed to be done. ID Interior's are one of the tenants in the building and they have concerns. Joe: I will be the monitor and go to the site. Bill: I have had several calls on the new parking meters. Amy: There has been discussion on a custom made meter but that would increase the cost. Presently each one costs $10,000. Joe: I am here as the public and would like to be added to the agenda to discuss my fence at 706 W. Main. MOTION: Don made the motion to add 706 W. Main to the agenda; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. 304 E. HOPKINS - RENAISSANCE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: The applicant desires to cover an enclosed staircase with a glass and steel structure and the windows are to be the same as existing. They are also going to create a double door entrance on the terrace level and will not be obvious from the street level. Arion Ocean, architect: There is a door that leads to the restaurant at this time and behind which would be the new door is an existing stairway so the idea is to connect the two spaces and have an enclosure for the winter season that would allow people to come into a foyer that is in existence already and that would allow the people to go into the restaurant downstairs or upstairs. We would like to take the double glass doors to that element shown on Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 14, 1993 the plan. There are four key elements that we would like to have approval for and that is the two double doors for the entry; metal free standing architectural element that mimics the arches that is a part of the design. The green house glass to cover the stairs. We are also requesting the change of existing mullions that had glass down to the floor to put doors in to open the terrace up to the interior of the restaurant. Roger: Are the radian heaters there now? Arion: No, above the doors there is an existing green house glass structure and we are emulating the materials and we are adding radian heaters above and we would like to have the operable doors instead of the fixed glass in order to allow the terrace to open. From the street there is little view of any of the changes that are back in the restaurant spaces. We intent to have the radian heaters matching in terms of existing. Bill: How would they be mounted and are they the typical heaters that have brackets. Arion: Within six inches of the existing mullion. Joe: Is the element visible as it is not on the plan? Arion: The heaters are adjustable. Bill: We need to make sure everything is on the plans for approval. Karen: What is the design of the doors? Arion: They are designed to be natural existing mullions in terms of the spacing and material. Les: This proposal is OK but I feel you are missing some opportunity to have some fun with this building. Jake: Being more playful with the mullions would be a suggestion. Joe: Since this is a non-historic building apply historic standards too and my view "disappear". it is a tough one to would be to make it Don: The lights have a strong architectural element and perhaps we should look at the location and detailing and their punctuation at night. Roger: If the door was changed to a wooden door you would have a Historic Presel:vation Committee Minu~es of ~ul~ ~4, ~993 lot of problems unless you set it in three feet because the southern exposure would deteriorate the door and it would only last a year. Possibly some kind of etched glass work would be more practical. MOTIONs Roger made the motion to approve the minor development for 304 E. Hopkins Ave. Lot L Block 80 Aspen, Colorado with the stipulation that the radiant heaters on the second level are such with the monitors approval that they blend in with the existing structure; second by Les. Karen: The scale of this building is in keeping with the white victorian next door and there is so much contrast between the styles of architecture that you truly see one then see the other. Don: I would like Roger to add to the motion something about the lights and signage that they be approved by Monitor and Staff. AF~NDED MOTION: Roger amended the motion to include that the lighting and signage be approved by monitor and Staff; second by Les. All in favor of motion and amended motion. Motion carries. Karen and Don are the monitors. RESO. 3 - RECOMMENDING L~D~K DESIgNaTION UTE #4 Amy: After the motion of the meeting in June followed up was given to research the historic significance of this monument. This is not the public hearing to determine the landmark designation but you need the background before you can pass a resolution. The purpose of the resolution is to provide protection to the monument from demolition. As it stands now it is unprotected. Until such time as all the hearings are complete and the determination has been made whether it should be landmark or not. I have been in contact with Alice Horn who represents the potential purchaser of this land and we have talked about potential possibilities for this rock. The proposal originally, which you will hear in two weeks is to landmark the entire parcel, the new proposed lot. But there is a possibility that we would only landmark the rock if that was preferable to the applicant and to the HPC members. That way we would not have review over their new building. We would determine the radius around the rock so it would not be obstructed from public view. Les: Could they still derive benefits? Amy: That is why I suggested that we would landmark the entire parcel because I believe they would want the benefits of FAR bonus but it has not been decided. Alice indicated to me that they were Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 14, 1993 not interested. Alice Horn: Partly because we thought we could get them through a hardship process if this was put on us against our will. But also I would venture to argue that benefits could accrue to the parcel with the rock on it as well. Something to think about. Amy: I have found out that this rock is a U.S. Location Monument Ute #4. On the south side of the rock it is carved into it. It was established in 1880 before Aspen was surveyed. A brief description: "When a survey is situated in a district where there are no corners of the public survey and no other monuments within two miles a location monument is established. It should be some prominent point visible from every direction where the permanency of the monument will not be endangered by snow, rock or land or other natural causes". This was established because there was no other government survey of Aspen. I have a description of the location in survey terms and also a physical description of this boulder from 1880. The rock perfectly fits the description and location at this point. Leu Beutner was hired by the Planning Dept. to do bearings and I have a letter from him. All information will be provided for the public hearing. He wrote that he has spotted the location of Ute #4 using the following documents; field notes from 1880, 1888, official map of the City of Aspen 1959 and notes for 77 and notes from 1954. Amy: Bearings were taken and from two documents he landed exactly on the rock and from the 1880 description he landed 10 feet off from the rock and describes the inaccuracy of surveying at that time. He is absolutely certain that the rock fits the description. It is in its original location. A far as historic significance of this monument I have some mining claims including one signed by David Hyman on May 1886 and it describes one of his mineral claims, Little Maggie and is tied into ute #4. Most of the claims on Aspen Mountain are connected to Ute #4. This is the basis that I am suggesting we pursue landmark designation because this monument is extremely significant to mining history in Aspen and existed before Aspen was even laid out. There are two x's or crosses on the top with holes. I do not know if they were folk lore or sites of competition but they are there. They are in a real specific pattern like a little grid. By approving this resolution or not approving it you are not making your determination of the significance of this rock but this resolution is to be forwarded to city council. You need to make a decision. Jake: What is section 24-7 11057 AMy: It is a section of the code that states once an application is underway no negative impact could happen to that property or 4 Historic Preservation Committee Hinutes of ~ul~ L4, site or structure or whatever it is until the determination being considered has been made. Due to public noticing you could not hear landmark designation until the end of July and that is three or four weeks that the rock would not have protection. Jake: There was an application for subdivision that was approved by city council. Amy: The two issues are being considered separately. Kim Johnson worked on the lot split and a graphic was made which shows the footprint of the potential building. There is no negative impact on the FAR as the applicant can fully build a duplex. Bill: Have any of the surveyors been notified? Amy: It can be tied out and Alice has suggested that that has already been done. Alice: Technically from a survey point of view there are other points to use. Amy: It is important from a surveyors point of view to not destroy a monument because they go back to them and take measurements. It is important to still have your points in place. Alice: You were asking about 7-1105 the temporary suspension of a building permit; in the past that has been interpreted to me by the Planning & Zoning Commission that has taken affirmative action on something then it is effectively law until the council acts or reacts otherwise. Amy: An excavation permit would be required to blow the rock up but no permit is required to go out and jack hammer it. Alice: My point being, I do not think that your committee, or rather that this applies to your committee. Everywhere else in the code the commission means P&Z. I understand what you are trying to do. From the clients point of view who is the potential purchaser and I am working with the owner as well, they have agreed to be amenable. Technically I do not think this applies. Also my main question is the process initiated and can you decide tonight that you do not want to proceed with the designation process. My understanding is that the Board directed Amy to do the research to see if there was historical significance. Is it correct to say that you may find that there is no historical significance tonight and it is over and if you do not pass this resolution does not process not continue? Bill: That is correct, we are here to decide whether we want to 5 Historic Preservation Co~ttee ~inutes of ~ul¥ ~4, ~993 proceed. Amy: You are welcome to make a statement and your extended explanations can be made at the public hearings. Jake: This is just a motion for an interim stop act thing until the public hearings. Amy: This is not your determination tonight as to whether the rock is significant. That will happen when we have public comment. Joe: Based on this resolution we would have to reword it. We need to change it to potential historic resource. Also it states whereas the HPC wishes to declare its support for landmark designation and to forward recommendation to city council to provide protection for the resource. The board recommends preservation of the monument through landmark designation. I do not feel this is the proper wording for this resolution. Amy: We need to mention the sections in the code. Joe: I have no problem with that. Alice: The question is whether this resolution is to stop a building permit at the permit stage and prevent us from destroying the rock. I do not really have a problem with that but feel you do not have the ability to do that. Is this supposed to be recommending it as an historic resource to council. Can we stop the process tonight or is it initiated it anyway. Bill: If there is not support to proceed and get information to make a conclusion. Joe: When we do landmark designation we do a public hearing and P&Z and council do a public hearing. This has not been noticed as a public hearing today. Amy: At the bottom of the resolution it states that this committee is reserving final determination after the presentation of all information. You are declaring your support of designation. Joe: We should state support investigation landmark designation. Bill: Does the Board feel there is enough support? Our charge is to protect sites, buildings and we need to know the information. Jake: In my mind there has been enough information presented to warrant taking this to the next step which is a public hearing. Potentially this is an historic resource. Historio Preservation committee Minutes of July 14, 1993 Les: What I heard is that it has been confirmed that truly all of Aspen originated from a rock in 1880. To me she did the research. Alice: If it is a no go tonight it saves my client a headache and time of three months for designation. Frank Loushin and the client strongly oppose landmark designation. It has been the committees policy to not designate if the owner does not wish it. It behooves you to think about the fact that you are breaking policy for a rock. I have had several calls against this. Amy: This object, rock should have been on the inventory since day one. I talked to Frank Loushin and he does not support the landmark designation because he felt it might be a burden on the new landowner. There is some conflict between his story and mine as far as the significance of the rock. I do have a video tape of him two years ago of him and Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservationist at the site and explaining the significance of the rock. Mr. Loushin did state his personal affection for the rock when I talked to him. Alice: Frank made it very clear to me and I talked to him after you do that in no way at all did he know he was being video taped. Amy: There was also a camera man present at the video session. Alice: He does not support designation and feels the video should not be used in this case. Roxanne and Frank have total different views of what went on that day. Amy: There was another person present and we can talk to him. Bill: We are here to decide whether this is an historic site. Alice: My other major comment is why does it have historic significance when I as an outsider look at this differently. It barely falls on standard a the way I read it and none of the other apply at all. I feel you are stretching it. There are survey points everywhere. It is hard for me to feel that the rock changed the community. It is a survey marker not a mining history. Bill: I have let this get out of format. comments that are factual. Does anyone have other Alice: My purpose in being here is in hopes that it is not important enough. I don't think Frank Loushin or the buying have been treated fairly. The perception is that he is not being treated fairly. Today was the first time Any did talk to Frank Loushin. You said at the last meeting the intent to research but Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 14, 1993 we didn't know about that meeting till after it happened and Amy says the process is irreversible without being notified. We have not seen the landmark application. DOn: Where does the rock sit on the site? Amy: Five feet from the front lot line on the western edge. Don: This rock has the same importance to the City as a major tree does. The Parks Dept. would not let you remove a tree. I historically equate it to an 800 year old tree. Developers do not want anything that stands in their way of free enterprise. We cannot take that position here. Trees have been a sore subject for a long time. It has markings and other elements. Amy: This is of geological interest and other cities and towns in Colorado are considering designating rocks etc. How did the rock get to this site as it is a 180 ton rock. Alice: My guess is that the owner will keep the rock but he doesn't want to go through the four months of designation, review process. Joe: If the whole problem is going through the process then he should agree to the designation then he doesn't have to go through the process. Amy: City council's second readying is August 23rd. Roger: If the owner agrees and he knows he has the rock, the architect starts the drawings and the process is underway and he doesn't' have to wait two months. Alice: The applicant doesn't' want you to tell him what to do. Amy: The application states that he intends to demolish the rock and that is what started all of this. Alice: We could have not mentioned it. Joe: But you have to submit a site plan and it would show on it. ALice: It was not on there and is not required. part of the survey of this property. Ute #4 is not Les: I know if we incorporated the rock we would have a better project. Joe: I have not made up my mind as to whether this thing is 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 14, 1993 historic or not. If this is Ute #4 where are two and three. There are a lot of rocks marked on and cut on to use as survey monuments. That would influence my decision on the historic significance. It is a difficult argument to make to come to the HPC and argue that the HPC has no authority to do what it is trying to do. In the pre-application summary they noted that the applicant was told that there was an HPC issue. I am not so convinced about Frank Loushin being treated unfairly; what about the city being treated unfairly. I need to see the hardship issues, is it possible to incorporate the rock or not. I would support it if we are saying we want to have a public hearing to decide whether or not the rock is historic. I do not have enough information today to make that decision. I would be in favor of doing a resolution so that nothing happens in the mean time. Roger: I would support a resolution and more information is required regarding the number #4; what does that mean. Possibly have a letter from all parties that were at the interview with Loushin as to what their statements were. Alice Horn: Loushin truly believes that an historic designation was not mentioned. The two marks from BLM were put there in the 60's and he said the spike he put there when the kids were playing on the rock. I do feel the rock can be very well incorporated in some plan. We don't intend to demolish the rock. Roger: We also need to check with our local Historical Society. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adopt the resolution with changes on the fourth whereas: wishes to declare its support for investigating at a public hearing Landmark Designation of U.S. Monument Ute NO. #4 and to forward its recommendation from that public hearing. Also amending the last paragraph : The board recommends holding a public hearing regarding possible landmark designation of U.S. Location Monument Ute #4; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. 706 W. MAIN - FENCE Joe: There was an existing chain link fence with a cottonwood tree on the corner and the hole where they took out the old fence encroaches into the city right-of-way. He put the new posts in the old holes which creates a problem because it encroaches into the right-of-way and I will have to get an encroachment license. I wanted to ask the HPC if they would support that. If we dug a hole where the property line was it would have gone through the root of the tree and I felt that was a bigger problem than getting an encroachment license. The tree is two to three feet across and is over 100 years old. Historlo Preservation committee Minutes of July 14, 1993 MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC supports the new fence to be placed exactly where the previous fence was and noted that this is not a permanent structure; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Jake made the motion to favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. adjourn; second by Les. Ail in Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk