Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19930728Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 28, 1993 COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS . 311 NORTH STREET 232 E. HALLAM STREET - DISCUSSION . 935 E. HYMAN - LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF U.S.L.M. UTE #4 1 1 2 3 5 HISTORIC PRESERVAT?ON COI~ITTEE M'rNUTES OF JULY 28j, L99:3 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Jake Vickery, Don Erdman, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Karen Day, Joe Krabacher, Linda Smisek and Les Holst present. Amy: We need a monitor for the Cantina at 411 E. Main. Martha: I'll volunteer to monitor the lighting. Don: I'll be the alternate. CO)fl~ITTEE ~ ~T~F Bill: We need to make sure that the city goes through the proper channels for review of the parking meters as they are proposed in the historic district. Martha: What is the status of the street sign project? Kathy: CCLC is working with the school of mines in Boulder to get a mold that can be modified to fit all the street poles. Some of the members are divided. Martha: Also when Glenn Rappaport was on the Board it was suggested that we change Garmisch back to Center Street or at least identify the original name on the sign. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mary Martin: This was tongue and cheek on the Wink and Mary show. You have just purchased a piece of the promised legend the planted Aspen, this precious box of dirt, sand and gravel represent 1/8 of a piece of land just removed from Galena Street to be replaced by an uncontrollable dangerous species varmet called the mad eating parking meter varmet. ' Save those curbs and gutters realestate values immeasurable, this land is on the national historic trust and cannot be touched. The city is committed to crime and pollution is a national crime, contact your representative at once as these animals are contagious and spread like rats. Do not feed them and call the authorities at once. That was tongue and cheek but had a serious overtone to it. We have an historic house and people who had them and were willing to go on the historic trust register cannot touch the exterior of their house without a special approval and many times that hinders the sale of a house and it is the preservation motive to keep America what it was and particularly the west. When I was on the Board I wanted the river to river mountain to mountain all called historic and be in the register but that didn't happen. You have certain streets in the core and this ugly parking meter would so detract from anything historic in the core and absolutely cannot be allowed. Roger: We have asked the city to go through the proper channels Historic Preservation committee Minutes of July 28, 1993 as any applicant would do. They should come to us with their designs. Martha: They came to us and said they were having parking meters and we don't particuiarly like any of the them. Mary: It is like the newspaper racks, they are inappropriate for the core area and should be addressed. 311 NORTH STREET Jake stepped down. Amy: This is a project that you have reviewed recently at conceptual and final development level. Because of the total number of bedrooms that exist on the site now at six there are six onsite parking spaces required. At this point the Block's are here to request that the HPC grant a variance of the two parking spaces in the front. Mr. Block: I will re-paraphrase the letter. You already designated our house as an historic landmark. The building permit issued required six parking spaces to be divided with four in the front and two in the back yard. The net effect is to turn the back yard into a parking lot. This in our opinion is contrary to the spirit of keeping the Historic Designation intact. In essence what this does is create a potential eye-sore where there was complete architectural integrity in the original plan. Therefore, we request a variance that allows us to eliminate the two parking spaces in the back yard. We feel that the extra greenery would enhance the neighborhood much more than the extra asphalt. Karen: Would the large cottonwood stay and why did you decide to take the two parking spaces in the back rather than the front? Mr. Block: The back yard is limited if you look at the site plan and the parking spaces are never accessible in the winter in the first place through the alley. The snow piles up and there is no way in. They are not practical. The front has ample space and plenty of room there for the four spaces. Amy: I recommended two in front and two in back and although I agree it is a shame to put a lot of parking in the back yard part of the reason you do not have a big back yard is because you have a large deck space. There is a character issue from the front of the street also. Mr. Block: We want four in the front and leave the back free. R£storic Preserva2~on Conunittee ~nutes of ~ul~ 28, 1993 Mrs. Block: We already have the four in the front. Mr. Block: I do not want to cut up the back yard. Why take green space away. Roger: P&Z had a problem with this. Mr. Block:. Six spaces were approved by P&Z and it turned out that there was a cottonwood tree there and six cannot be put' in the front. The Eng. Dept. brought up the statement of the cottonwood and said you cannot take that tree down and therefore you cannot have all six spaces up front. Since we can't have all up front we agreed to get a permit on the basis of two in the rear. My request to this committee is clear and hope approval that the parking spaces in the rear be eliminated because they will cut up the land. Amy: P&Z did care where the spaces were; there concern is the shortage of parking in Aspen. The site was approved with six spaces. Martha: How many cars are you dealing with? Mrs. Block: We have a 1951 jeep and a car. Roger: They are required this many spaces due to the bedrooms. Bill: Four cars in my opinion would be adequate. MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC approve the request for deletion of two parking spaces in the rear with four to remain in the front of the house as requested by the applicant for 311 North Street; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. 232 E. HALL~M STREET - DISCUSSION Amy: HPC granted final significant development approval on April 14, 1993 and during the plan check it was discovered that the new addition caused the site to exceed their site coverage allowance. The applicant approached the Board of Adjustment and the discussion was tabled. Wayne Stryker is here to discuss HPC's view on this. Wayne Stryker: The design that was created is over the site coverage. I realized I made an error to the tune of 190 square feet. I went back to the drawing board and re-thought this. The site carries the ability to be a free market duplex. It is a 20,000 square foot site and an unusual size in that neighborhood. It is an historic house and the alternative to doing the plan as HPC has reviewed is to do a second story on the existing portion of ~he house because there is enough FAR ~o achieve ~he duglex. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of ~uly 28, 1993 In ter~ns of the Aspen Community Plan "less bulk, less height" we would prefer that. But the only alternative is to go to two stories. Doing so creates a larger building. The Board of Adjustment asked if the HPC had seen the alternative and you had not seen this alternative. That is why it was a continued meeting. Does the HPC feel that the design as is has merit compared to the alternative. Karen: You would have to take off at least 9 feet in the living room if you had to take off the 190 sq. ft. It would be about one third out of the living room. Wayne: In terms of area yes. The livingroom would become a stairway to the space on top of the garage. Karen: Your alternative is to build on top. Joe: You could build the second floor bigger to take up the lost space. Wayne: If the unit now downstairs becomes the unit upstairs we couldn't go any larger. Bill: There is precedence for site coverage on historic structures when you want to save the integrity of the historic structure and keep a lower smaller building you might go into site coverage but not exceed FAR. Joe: If our intent is to not have a second story then I would be inclined to say grant them a site coverage variance but to say they couldn't build a second story. Bill: This Board would have to give a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment before they can grant a variance. Don: I feel it is a big issue to not have a second story as it would compromise the historic structure with regard to the issue of scale. Going up two stories makes it a very awkward structure. Roger: I concur with Don. Bill: We have always discussed the contemporary addition to the house and I have yet to see anyone wanting the contemporary addition expanded. There was a lot of discussion on that at the last meeting. The hardship would be that we find that forcing a second story would be incompatible with the historic structure on the site. This Board is attempting to keep any additions secondary and lower in nature. H~stor~c Preserv&t~on Committee ~nutes of ~ul~ 28~ ~993 Don: It burdens the historic building. Joe: I would urge the committee to have a restriction that they couldn't later come in and request a second floor. Bill: They would have to come to us for the 500 sq. ft. variance and prove to us that it is more compatible. NOTION: Roger made the motion to direct Staff to communicate with the Board of Adjustment stating that the HPC requests that they grant the variance of 189 sq. ft. and that we feel any second story addition would be a burden to the historic structure and would not be compatible to the historic structure. It would be a hardship to the existing historic structure; second ~y Don. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: The second story addition would be incompatible to the historic addition. Bill: We won't let them go up so that is the hardship and they are forced to go out. You will have to make a strong argument. Joe: They will say make it smaller. Is it a hardship to make it smaller and make it fit within the site coverage? Karen: I feel it is a hardship to whomever lives in this space if you have to take 9 feet off the livingroom. Wayne: If this lot was a standard size lot this addition would pass and not require a variance. Bill: We are giving you a hardship and asking you to add on out not up. Joe: Your argument is that there is a hardship because the HPC will not approve a second story. Jake: Which means they cannot build up to their allowable FAR. Bill: We are creating a hardship because we will not to go two stories. He is allowed or would like to go FAR and he can't do it due to his site coverage. allow them out to his 935 E. HYI~N - L~ND~RK DESIGNATION OF U.S.L.H. UTE ~4 Les and Linda were not seated to vote. Amy: This is an application that has been initiated by the Planning Dept. and the Board is to determine if there is enough H~storic Preservation committee M~nutes of Jul~ 28, 199~ evidence for designation. The monument is not currently included on Aspen's inventory of historic sites and structures and is threatened with demolition. The Planning office is recommending designation finding that it meets standard A, historic significance; E, neighborhood character; F, community character. I will establish how this monument came to be. In 1879 some prospectors came from Leadville into the valley and started establishing a camp site called Ute city. Some stayed through the winter and in the spring of 1880 B. Clark Wheeler came to town and began the process of changing the campsite into an official town that included survey work. By that summer U. S. Location marker Ute #4 in Sept. of 1880 was established so that mineral claims could be measured and surveyed and recorded. It was Gunnision county at that time. By that fall B. Clark Wheeler's survey was submitted to the County and citizens took a vote to become a city. A location monument is usually established when there is no official survey within two miles. This location monument was established because Aspen was not officially Aspen yet. Mineral claims were tied from Smuggler Mountain and Aspen Mountain to the Location monument Ute #4. It is essential that this monument stay in place because it was the original point from which all claim took place. This rock is directly tied to mining history which is the essence of Aspen. The Planning Dept. hired Lou Beutner to do some surveying work for us. Descriptions from 1880, 1886 and also from more recent times in the 50's and plotted them onto a current aerial map. This information established the fact that the rock has never moved since 1880. The physical description describes U.S.L M. Ute #4 in 1880 as a gray granite boulder 20 by 12 by 10 feet high at the east end of Aspen. ON the South side their are chisel marks U. S. L. M. Ute #4 and that is there with a cross on top and actually there is another cross there also. The reason why I am telling you this is because I have a field not that says the rock was destroyed by blasting. On talking to the BLM it fits the physical description and they are continuing to use it. As far as the drill holes in the side of it the folk lore is that they were part of miners competition but I have not been able to verify that although I have talked to the national mining museum in Leadville and they have photographs from the 1900's of similar activities happening, so it was something that went on. Joe asked what Ute #4 means. It was apparently what the mineral surveyor chose to name it. As far as its significance this was Ute city. The previous winter before this rock was established this was Ute Indian territory. There were established boundaries for that territory. The number four is arbitrary and there is no Ute number one, two or three. Joe: Are there other rocks that have been designated like this? Amy: The Colo. State Historic Society stated this is the sort of H~stor~c Preservation Con~nittee ~nutes of ~ul~ 28~ ~993 designation that is appropriate for Aspen because of its connection to mining history. In Colo. there are only 15 National historic landmarks. Of the 15 two are geographical markers, Pikes Peak and Reton Pass. From a distance people navigated by them. Understand, this'rock before all of us were here, could be seen from miles. As' far as I know there are no others in Aspen. A U.S. Location Monument was established when there was nothing else to work by. Martha: What is the rock doing to the lot split or the design of the house? Amy: I do not know that they are at a design stage right now. I think the applicant felt it a hardship to deal with the rock. Martha: Would the city have to buy the property? Amy: BLM has abandoned the claim to ownership. They still use the monument but it is private property. Lennie Oates, attorney: I speak for Metropolis and from our position we aren't crazy about it but we are willi'ng to go along with it. One of the benefits is the incentives that you have with landmark designation and that is of interest to us, also setbacks. My question to Amy if we got designation of the rock alone as opposed to the entire site would we be entitled to those benefits and she got back with me and the answer is no. I guess I am concerned about ten years from now. Amy: If the rock alone is designated then incentives are not possible for the parcel because you only have authority over something that has an historic overlay. Something that we have a legal description for. We would have that for the rock if we only did the rock. I feel we should go to the front lot line to prevent someone in the future from building something that would obstruct the view. If the parcel is designated we can give incentives. By designation we would have to take a two step review. Roger: Would you all object to the review over the parcel just being one of mass and scale. Lennie: Yes we would object and if the planning office wants to preserve the rock in its current position I don't want to agree that the development of the remainder of the site which has nothing historic about it. Bill: We are really interested in the protection of the visibility of the rock so we can record the history of it. We want to provide the public access to the historic resource. In the interest of compromise if we can offer the incentives to the applicant for Historic Prese~vatio~ committee ~inutss of ~ul~ ~S~ ~993 parking variations, FAR, to preserve the historic resource its own integrity and identity that is what we want. We are concerned about how the building relates to the rock but not to the other buildings in the area. We want to preserve space between the building and the rock so it doesn't over shadow it. Lennie: You are still taking 25% of the land area of the lot for this designation. Bill: So you get the incentives for taking that. Lennie: I also feel the visibility aspects are important. Jake: In principle I have no problem trading incentives for a landmark and the visibility of the rock. Les: Lennie needs to leave hear today with clear cut options and one would be that we designate the rock. Everyone wins on that. Out of that will come some of the scale we are looking for. Then we give him all the options of further designation and he and his client can look at that. MOTION~ Don made the motion that HPC recommend landmark designation for the entire site at 935 E. Hyman Ave. with the conditions that the historic rock be protected by not allowing any construction closer than l0 feet of any portion of the rock and no construction between the north edge of the rock and to the street; second by Les. Don: We are going to be presented at some time with a site plan and at this time do we guarantee the foot print out to the maximum allowable plus any variances. Lennie: I would be willing to commit to an ongoing moratorium until we get this resolved. We will not damage the rock or move it. Let us come back with something that we know will work. Joe: What if we put the whole thing on hold and the rock will not be touched and we will start the landmark designation process when they know what they are going. Don withdrew his motion and Les withdrew the second. Joe: I would make a motion to table action on the resolution to go to city council subject on the condition that the applicant agree not to affect the rock in any way and when the applicant has developed their plans that they come back. Jake: It is difficult to give them incentives when they don't know M~stor~c Preservation Committee M~nutes of ~ul~ 28~ L993 what they are asking for. Roger: We need to determine whether the Board wants to proceed with information on the rock. Jake: We need to determine if there is enough significant evidence to proceed. Roger: This was passed over in the inventory which was a mistake and now it is being picked up. We do not want to put the person in an adverse situation. Bill opened the public hearing. Bill: We are here to determine if there is significant evidence to proceed with landmark designation. MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC recommend landmark designation of U.S. Location Monument Ute #4 finding that it meets standard A. and further that we direct Staff to postpone pursuit of the process to give the applicant additional time to come back to the Board with their development; second by Martha. Jake withdrew his motion. MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC make the finding of fact that their is sufficient evidence of historical significance to justify landmark designation of U.S. Location Monument Ute #4 and the site that it is on which is Lot D & E Block 35. That an area of ten feet on the south and east be maintained and that there he no obstruction in front of the rock to the Street. Dies for lack of a second. MOTION: Joe made the motion that the HPC make a finding that their is significant evidence that the rock itself has historic characteristic or qualities but that the HPC table the application for recommendation of landmark designation on the condition that the applicant agree to maintain the status quo with respect to the rock and that the applicant come back to the HPC with a site plan and a proposal as to the incentives that the applicant is seeking. The reason for the incentives is to provide space around the rock and to protect its visibility to the north; Roger second. Roger: We want to give the developer a chance to work with us. Lennie: We are out of this building season with this project. Roger withdrew his second, motion dies for lack of second. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of ~ul~ 28, 1993 MOTIONs Roger made the motion that the HPC determines there is sufficient evidence of historic significance to justify landmark designation of U.S. Monument Ute #4; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. MOTIONs Joe made the motion that HPC continue the public hearing of 935 E. Hyman to August 11th in order to give the owner and purchaser of the property adequate time to show us a plan and that they agree not to do anything to the rock; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. Amy: In two weeks when they come back at that point are we taking a vote on the landmark designation? Bill: Yes, we will determine that at that time. MOTION~ Martha made the motion to adjourn; second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk