Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19930825Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 935 E. HYMAN - U.S.L.M. UTE #4 - LANDMARK DESIGNATION 1 314 S. GALENA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT VOLK BLDG - AWNING 2 234 W. FRANCIS, 2 702 W. MAIN HEARING 6 420 E. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING . 13 AMENDMENT TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT - P.H. - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of ~ugust 25, 1993 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Donnelley Erdman, Linda Smisek, Jake Vickery, Martha Madsen, Roger Moyer and Karen Day present. Joe Krabacher and Les Holst were absent. 935 E. HYMAN - U.S.L.M. UTE %4 - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Amy: We can talk about incentives but this has not been filed as a formal application yet. Alice Horn: The applicant likes the incentives of the 500 foot bonus on FAR. We may not need the side yard setbacks. I have shown you the maximum which is what they will probably need. Jake: This is currently RMF and you are allowed 3,600 sq. ft. plus the 500 additional feet. Will you need the setbacks? Alice: Right now it is only the side yard setback. Jake: At the last meeting we talked about a ten foot space around the rock. Amy: I had concerns about the entry way and feel it is too narrow. Jake: I feel the side yard on the east side should be reduced. Don: The form of the house does not develop because the rock is there. Some amount of space needs to be around the rock. Dick Fallin, architect: ~rnat does the Board want in terms of the rock. Amy: Visible to some extent but with the trees you wouldn't see it that much anyway. Dick Fallin: We were trying to see if we were able to put a bedroom on the front of the house. If we move one of the units it will be hard to come up for the appropriate amount of square footage. Bill: With the appropriate design we might be able to give you some side yard variations by moving one unit forward and one back a little. Alice Horn: The City Attorney said we need to designate the entire site in order to accrue benefits. Bill: Possibly we could get a code amendment which would allow site coverage variance and height variances which would allow more exposure of the rock. 0 • • Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 south side of the building. They are keeping the trellis which you allowed them to demolish. I felt this change had a significant effect on the character of the building. I have suggested that HPC deny this amendment finding that review standard one has not been met. John Schenk, Cunniffe & Assoc: The addition is to the south side which is the street side. The owner requested this because he desires to make a nicer unit more secluded from the occupant. We tried to accommodate this as minimal as possible. On the historic map it shows the original entrance of the cottage on the north side which we are not exactly replicating however it does give some precedence to it. To give the occupant more privacy we wanted to place a new gate at the street entrance, keeping the renter out of the yard for the owner. The map indicates that there were additions to the back. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Clinton Vidor, owner: After living in the house several weeks I want more privacy and want the carriage house oriented that it fronts the street and away from the back yard. I don't want people looking in the back yard. It is a question of privacy. There will be no changes made to the main house. Amy: Do you have to have the windows on the bathroom and if they are eliminated that would give privacy. John: I suppose but that wasn't the choice that we had made. Clinton Vidor: It is also the question of space and having the L shape come right into the yard. John: There were also doors to the back and how there are windows on the new plan. Amy: Are you close to the front setback. Bill : Can you demonstrate that the variation if granted is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than it would be if you were to development in accord with dimensional requirements. John: We are not increasing the non-conformity and also it is more appropriate to have their addition on the end of the setback. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS 3 9 0 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC approve the amendment to the final of 234 W. Francis finding that it meets all the standards; second by Karen. Motion failed 5-2 . DISCUSSION Amy: I feel this is a change as to what was approved earlier. I thought the ideas was to tuck additions to the back of buildings and it changes the entire character of the building having the entrance on the side. It does not seem like an outbuilding anymore, but a separate structure. Don: I agree that this is a change on the street elevation and does not meet standard number one. John: This was a separate building and there was an entrance on the east side. Amy: Obviously they are separate buildings but I was referring to how they relate to each other. Roger: Possibly do a walkway off Francis and try to work a compromise. • Amy: We try to do additions to the rear and not dominate the structure. Roger: Is there room on the east end of the building for the bathroom so that it is on neither side. Clinton Vidor: Move the building toward the main house and put the bathroom on the back and keep the entry. Roger: In that way you will still have your yard and could landscape and maintain the same historic character. John: I don't know if that will work due to the chimney. Amy: The chimney is a major element. Clinton Vidor: That would not work because I like the space between the house. I will think about it but I am confused about what is compatible. Amy: You will notice throughout town that changes are not made to the primary elevation and in this building are the south and the west. That was why it was approved to put it on the back side of the building. • 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 Bill: The building now has its own character. Clinton Vidor: It is not functional to me as it stands. I could compromise on the basement window well. Erin Hazen, attorney for applicant: I would ask that this be tabled instead of denied so we can come back with revisions. The applicant has a new idea on the yard and what his needs are since he has been living there. Bill: The addition of the bathroom on the front of the building makes a large statement. If the bathroom remained on the back and you did something to the windows of the side for privacy we might be willing to consider the entrance if it was understated. It does not meet standard number one. A simple overhang is appropriate. Roger: Our job is to maintain the historical significance of the landmark. Clinton Vidor: I could perhaps have the bathroom to the back tucked in and no windows looking out at my back yard assuming we get the entrance. Bill : That is basically what we had approved before so you are only amending the entrance on the west elevation to the south elevation. Roger: That would work. Clinton: Could we leave the door and not use it. Amy: I would prefer that. MOTION: Don made the motion that the HPC approve an amendment to the final development of 234 W. Francis and that the bathroom lean- to remain where it was under the original proposal and a primary entrance be added to the south facade and such entrance be a very minor addition to that facade requiring either a shed or small gable covered roof over the opening kept as small as possible. This revision be monitored by Staff and appointed monitor; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Don: The window well could remain as long as it does not project. Donnelley will be the monitor. Chairman Bill Poss closed the public hearing. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 MOTION: Don made the motion that HPC recommends approval of landmark designation of the proposed Lot 1, Sund lot split East Aspen Addition also know as lots D & E Block 35 finding this site and the rock thereon meets local designation standards A, E and F; second by Roger. AMENDED MOTION: Don amended the motion that HPC encourage other boards to consider incentives if deemed necessary during the HPC approval process; second by Roger. Ail in favor of motion and amended motion except Jake, motion carries. Karen: I also feel there should be a plaque in front of the rock which states the historic significance. Jake: I feel the 500 feet that we are proposing does not work with the rock. The duplex could be placed on the lot without the rock and let this be a single family house. Alice Horn: There is a multi-family project next to the duplex lot and that is his major reason for not wanting the single family on that site. Chairman Bill Poss closed the public hearing. 314 S. GALENA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT VOLK BLDG - AWNING Amy: The application involves windows that swing out on the second level of the building and also awnings. Scott Lindenau, architect: None of the windows currently are operable and I am designing offices on the second floor and a large conference room on the third level and need air circulation. We will keep the windows the same design and the same color just make them operable. The awnings on the second floor are arched and we would like to make them the same color as the first floor. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minor development for 314 S. Galena as submitted with details to be worked out with applicant and Staff such as the awnings being operable; second by Martha. Ail in favor, motion carries. Amy will be the monitor. 234 W. FRANCIS, AMENDMENT TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT - P.H. Amy: The applicant forgot the affidavit of mailing but will drop it off. It is a public hearing because you are reviewing a side yard setback variance. The change involves moving a shed addition to the carriage house from the north side of the building to the 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 702 W. M~IN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Amy: The applicants are proposing to demolish a building which exists on the lot and has not been determined historically significant and is not on the inventory. They would like to construct a new office building with would include affordable housing. They are applying for GMQS allotment and some figures are withheld. Karen: I felt it unfortunate that Joe Krabacher's property is impacted severely and he was not properly noticed. Since he is not here we all need to pay close attention to this development. Amy: I spoke to the City Attorney and we do not need to delay the hearing as the notice was put in the paper and was put on the building. Since Joe has made his comments before the hearing he did know about it. We also have one more meeting before the GMQS deadline if it is needed. Joe Well, representing Don and David Stapleton owners of the property. Applicant is seeking to build a new office building and relocate the insurance business to the site. Dick Fallin is the architect. Erin Fernandez presented the affidavit of notice by posting. Erin: Referencing Joe Krabacher's letter there is only one tax record that comes out once a year. Carol Foot gave me an affidavit stating that it is only done once a year. I also have a letter from Vince Higgens who did the mailing list and a letter from Joe Wells stating when he posted the property. The City Attorney stated that we have complied.with the noticing procedures. Dick Fallin, architect: We have a two story building, wood frame that is set on stone that is 30 inches above grade. We tried to be sensitive to scale on the entrance and kept the gable back 8 feet from the porch to give a step relief of the facade. We have also recessed the windows on the upper roof balcony. A cross gable was placed about a third back on the side street elevation. We will have a stone base and wood columns, shingled gabled and bevelled lap siding on the first floor of the building. We haven't decided trim colors. We are within heights and setbacks and not asking for any variances on the structure. Amy: What is the foundation? Dick: Concrete foundation with a stone veneer with a ceil cap to separate the siding from the stone. It will be a sandstone. H~storic Preservation co~ittee ~nutes of ~uc~lst 25, ~99~ Bill: Amy's concern is that it will look like a true foundation. Jake: At final you will need a street scape model in order for the Board to address height and massing to adjacent structures. Dick: We are building to the setbacks on this building and there is quite a distance between the buildings 16 feet. Our front setback is ten feet and the porch is on that setback. We have a step facade that we feel is very compatible in scale and massing of the street. Karen: Will you address the west side as it is a solid wall without breaks. Dick: The east side is the side street side and has a cross gable and it us has a lot of relief. On the opposite side facing Krabacher's building there is a broken pattern to the building itself. There is a cross gable and height in a three dimension. We have lowered the plate six feet so it isn't exactly a true two story on that side. We have tried to balance and maintain the square footage on the floors that the owner is requiring. Karen: What is the height of your building? Dick: 24'6" to the midpoint and 29'6" to the roof. Don: What are the two side yard setbacks? Joe: 6.7 on 6th Street that is required. Five is required on the other side. Roger: Possibly do a break on the side that faces Joe. Joe: We need to meet the needs of the Stapleton's with onsite housing etc. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Joe Edwards, attorney: I am here to represent Joe Krabacher and we feel there is a dispute about what the code requires in the way of noticing. Reading from the code it says names and addresses of property owners shall be those in the current tax record of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The notice that Erin showed the tax records as they stood in January 1 of this year and the letter from the treasurer pointed out that she gets her information from the assessor's office and then transcribes it to the tax role. We went to the assessors office since her information was back in January and I have a certification from the Assessors Office which shows 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 25, 1993 for the 60 day period prior to this hearing as well as the Board of Adjustment hearing that the tax records in the assessors office show that Joe's address for this property is in fact at his office which is 201 N. Mill Ste 201. and of course no notice was sent. We submit that compliance with this 60 day requirement requires the applicant to check with the assessor since the treasurer has 8th month old information and to get the current information on the addresses. We submit that thee notice was defective and that there was not compliance. The case law is very clear in Colorado that while you all have a lot of discretion on the merits of the case you do not have any discretion on procedural notice requirements. They could have checked with the assessor for the latest information. Joe Krabacher actually found out about this Friday and was leaving town that evening for Russia. He did not have enough time in that one day period to effectively speak of this. Meaningful notice was not obtained. I feel we have good grounds to have it over turned and we will be litigating about this. With respects to the merits of the application we do not feel it meets the standards for approval for development in an historic overlay district nor does it meet standards for demolition not the standards for exception from a right of demolition in the historic district as put forth in the code. In dealing with those standards on a case by case basis I would point out that you must make all four findings beginning with 7-601D-1 the standards for review; no approval may be granted unless all standards are met (4). The first standards requires that you make a finding that it is compatible in character with designated historic structures that are adjacent to it. If it is proposed that it exceeds the allowed flow area you must find that the increase in floor area is more compatible in character with the historic landmark next door than would be development in accordance with the normal standard, the normal FAR. You must make a finding that increasing the size of this building makes it more compatible with the historic house than if they just built it along with normal floor area which is allowed in that zone. I submit that is an absurd finding because it totally eclipses Joe's house. We also submit that the second find, consistent with the character of the neighborhood does not apply. It is not compatible with the landmark next door. The third finding is that the proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of the designated historic structures on the adjacent parcel. No reasonable person can make the finding that this huge structure which goes to the maximum height allowed and presents a wall along the side with structures up to the lot line can be said does not detract from the value of the designated historic structure next door. To make a finding is inconsistent with reasonable logic. The last finding is that the proposed development enhances but does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of the designated historic structure. 8 H~s2or~c Prese~v&t~on Committee 14~nut~es of ~.ugust 25, ~993 The expanse of glass is totally incompatible with the structure next door. Looking at the proposed facade we have stone and grecian columns and mixed hip roofs, cross beam mass which appears in the front of the building. We submit that it is impossible acting reasonable to make a finding that this does not diminish and detract from the architectural integrity of the designated structure. The code states that no demolition within an historic overlay shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by HPC and meets the following standards: That the building is not sound and that the structure cannot be used. Also impacts to the neighborhood and to the historic importance of the adjacent structure and impacts on the architectural integrity of the adjacent structures. Clearly this proposal could not meet those standards. The exception would be that it does not impact the character of the historic district and it is necessary to do this. I ask you to take a look at the definition of necessary which means there is no other way to do it, it is imperative and no subject to any choice. Clearly the demolition of this residence is not necessary. It may be desirable to maximumize their profits and floor area and make the biggest possible building they can make on a substandard lot of 4,000 rather than 6,000 for this zone district. They could remodel or add on. I submit that you cannot make the necessary findings sufficient to grant them an exemption from their requirement that they get a demolition permit. Does the proposed character effect the historic building. The characteristic of the historic landmark is simple, one story small building. The historic building will be sitting back behind that west facing huge wall thirty feet high and no one will see that the historic landmark ever existed. We request that the application be denied because the findings cannot be made. Amy: As far as the noticing I had conferred with the attorney and the fact that you are here tonight, at this point you knew about the case and have given up your right to protest. Joe Edwards: I understand he told you that but disagree. You are entitled to notice and our first statement says we object to the notice and if you appear you don't waive your objection. 60 days prior to this hearing the only place you could have checked would be the assessors office. Amy: Regarding the section of the code on demolition this is not identified as an historic structure and that was the intent of having the exemption clause. Roger: On floor area we cannot restrict what they are entitled to. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: The City attorney states that we did comply with the letter of the law. The applicant is moving his H~stor~o Preservation Con~ktee H~nutes oE &ugust 25, ~993 business which has had longevity in this town. The are not asking for variations and we believe the Board can make the appropriate findings. We need to go forward and compete in the growth management program. Amy: For the records I received a letter from Rynco in opposition of the proposal stating that it virtually has inadequate parking and the height taken to the maximum is inadequate and that a model be presented. Also that it be tabled in order for him to attend. Bill: I also received a letter from the Kempner's and they stated they reviewed the drawings and feel it will be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. Other letters have been entered into the records and read by Staff. Don: In terms of styling choosing the shingle style is an appropriate way to incorporate the neighborhood character. I have reservations about the east and west elevations. The first half of the east L as it projects back from Main Street is appropriate but I agree with Staff that the rear or northerly portion is heavily fenestrated and quite inappropriate. As far as the west L I find that it does not meet standards either. The Board observes the proper ratio of fenestrated areas to the facades. The west L is generally closed and has a large cross gable which is terribly inappropriate and needs scaled down. On the northerly portion of the west L once again I find it to be a difficult situation and needs breaks in the planes that definitely impact the historical building. I would not recommend a pure cross gable but a smaller one. Martha: Will you address the encroachments. Don: The new structure will not encroach. Karen: The design of the front is appropriate but I will have to go back to the guidelines standard #3 that the proposed development cannot detract the cultural value of the adjacent parcel. No matter what you do to the glass or gables or any of the other detailing this building overwhelms the adjacent landmark and the only way I would vote for this is if the building was half its proposed size. If we are here to preserve the history of our town and the entrance to town part of our preservation is to preserve the Krabacher house. Roger: With all respect to Joe and Susie I would like to deal with the architectural considerations as per the standards. Whatever happens with litigation happens.. I would concur with Donnelley. The plane of the side of the building needs broken up and the other plane is the roof plane which also needs broken up. The west side 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of l~ugust 25, 1993 needs broken up. In regards to standard one I feel that elements of the building are quite good but others fail. In regards to standard three a large building would detract from the historic structure as it presently stands but that building will change someday and it will be built to the rear. In regards to parking we have no say as this is not a landmark. Linda: I want to ask about the demolition of the existing building. Joe: We discovered that the standards in place several years ago prohibited the demolition of any structure what-so-ever associated with landmarks in districts if it structurally sound. That included a concrete block building in the cc zone. We went through a lengthy discussion to establish criteria that in the event a structure was considered to be non-contributing you could grant an exemption to allow the structure to be demolished. Under the regulations that were adopted which Roxanne brought to you a demolition of a structure is allowed. Linda: What is the date of the existing structure on the parcel? Joe: The principal residence is actually an old barn that was moved to the site and converted to a residence back in the 40's. The two other buildings on the site one was built as a garage in the 50's and the second building was added in the 70's. Staff has always taken the position that they are non-contributing structures and no eligible for designation. Jed Caswall, city attorney: Regarding the mailing issue the fact that Joe Krabacher is represented by an attorney waives any defects of notice and case law in Colorado is very clear on that. Also the property was posted and reasonable steps were taken to comply. That is why we have more than one type of notice. Linda: My concern is the building of value to us due to the ski history. Amy: The building was evaluated this past year and I feel we should adhere. It has been extremely altered and is not on the inventory. Joe Edwards: The exemption application still requires you to make five findings. Two of them which I mentioned was demolition and does this have to be done for redevelopment. I submit it doesn't have to be done, it is not necessary. The other finding is that demolition of the building doesn't impact the character of the historic district. That is your judgment of what character is. We submit that it does effect the character of the historic 11 Historic Preserv&tion Cemmittee M~nutes of ~u~st 25, 1993 building, therefore the findings have not been met. Amy: Those standards were meant to address things that are contributing or significant to the historic district. This is not a contributing building. Joe Edwards: It doesn't say that. Amy: That is why the exemption clause was added. Joe Edwards: The language says demolition is necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel not the particular building they want to build. Jake: In the past we have granted conceptual with numerous conditions and that makes it difficult to get anything accomplished. I would strongly remind the board about that issue. Bill: I tend to agree with Jake and try to table to a worksession. Jake: I would like to see the applicant address the issue of impacts on the historical resource in some way maybe by breaking it down into modules. Bill: I agree with the other members on the Board regarding the wall plane on both the east and west facade. I think if studies were done the massing could be broken up. We also need to see a streetscape plan of some sort so we can relate to the landmark structure that is to the west. Dave Stapleton: Our business is 38 years old right now and we employ 18 people and one of the reasons for the size of the building is because of the employment factor. We are required by growth management to provide 5 beds for employee housing and 8 parking spaces. I talk all your comments on massing and the windows seriously. The building is leased to employees right now and at least once a month we bring in an electrician and a plumber in to work on the house. We want to bring offices to the west end and there are numerous owners in the west end who are seriously thinking of putting office spaces in the west end. The way Aspen has grown downtown there is nothing available for office space. MOTION: Roger made the motion to table conceptual development of 702 W. Main to a date certain September 8, and to continue the public hearing until that date; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Bill: A worksession is scheduled for September 2 at 5:00 p.m. 12 · ~ H~stor~c Preserv&tion Commi2tee N[nu2es of August 25, 1993 420 E. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Bill Poss stepped down Don chaired Amy: This is an application to extend the existing building at 420 E. Main and is a non-historic office building in the commercial core historic district. This application will also follow under GMQS allotment approval and again they also need conceptual by September 15th. I have recommended approval. Kim Weil, architect: We are only dealing with the little building that the phone company used to use. Then the bank used it and the temporary tenant is Mr. Hines. We are expanding it to the north and to the east and proposing a third floor which is actually a second floor above grade for office and retail use. We would reface the existing building. I have also presented the affidavit of mailing. We wanted to step up a little to bring in the relationship to the court house and are under the height limit. We are around 30 feet. We got traditional with the window proportions. Don opened the public hearing. No comments from the public. Amy: What color are the metal store fronts going to be? Kim: We have not determined that but it will be in the color palate associated with the core. We are looking at steel store fronts. Sunny Vann: The property is being condominiumized. The apartment building will be used for affordable housing. We will do cash in lieu for parking. Karen: What is the height of the parapet? Kim: 3 feet and have the ability to enlarge it if we have too for the sole purpose of hiding equipment. Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. NOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant conceptual approval for 420 E. Main Street as submitted and proposed; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Don made the motion to adjourn; second by Karen. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13