Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19911127HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of November 27, 1991 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Karen Day and Martha Madsen present. Excused were Les Holst and Glenn Rappaport. MINOR DEVELOPMENT - 315 E. HYMAN, WHEELER SQUARE AWNINGS Roxanne: Staff reviewed the application according to the guidelines and we are recommending that you grant minor development approval for the awnings subject to a revision to the north elevation LeOpera facade awning in order to appear more compatible with the arched window. Don Fleisher, applicant: There are different people looking at the different spaces and the only concern that I have is that we have a door in an arched opening at Le Opera. In 1986 when we took over the building we redid the doors and tried to build a custom door to fit in the opening and it filed due to a self closing device. In the Hub we went to a square opening and put in a standard commercial door with side lights. It has worked very well. A curved awning creates numerous problems. The other issue is color. Don: Are the awnings going to be retractable or fixed? Don Fleisher: They are going to be fixed and are on private property. Roger: Were you thinking of one color for all the awnings? Don Fleisher: I thought that each store could be different but the code says all one color and one style. Roger: Why can't you have a curved awning in the LeOpera space? Don Fleisher: We don't know what kind of door we are going to put in. Don: I have a comment to Staff recommendation that arched or curved awnings be used. I think that they would prove to be more awkward because they would have to be set so high that it would be an arched opening and another arched thing on top of it which is not the usual way of dealing with an architectural element. I tend to agree with the applicant that a horizontal awning would be more appropriate. Martha: Are these fixed awnings and in place all the time? Don Fleisher: Yes, because they are on private property and by code do not have to be retractable. Joe: In the context of not making the awnings a predominant Historic Preservation committee Minutes of November 2?, 1991 element I would recommend that they be consistently all one color no matter what that color may be. Roger: I would recommend that the lettering be white. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant minor development approval for 315 E. Hyman, the Wheeler Square building with awnings as presented by the applicant and color as presented by the applicant (dark turquoise). All awnings be the same color; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries. CASTLE CREEK POWER PLANT (CITY SHOP) 1080 POWER PLANT ROAD LANDMARK DESIGNATION Roxanne: Notice was made and the building was posted. We find that all of the six standards for landmark designation are met. We are processing this application at this time because the are rezoning this property to public and this is a zoning overlay. Our policy in the Planning office is to consolidate steps and this is the opportunity to do that. The Blue Ribbon Capital Improvement Committee is looking at all the property owned by the City. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC recommend landmark designation to Castle Creek Power Plant also known as the City Shop at 1080 Power Plant Road; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries. 316 E. HOPKINS MINOR DEVELOPMENT LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bill Poss stepped down. Joe stepped down. Karen and Martha seated. Bill Poss appointed Donnelley to chair meeting. Jake Vickery: I do sub-contract work for Poss and Associates but am not involved in this project and do not feel there is a conflict. David Rybeck from Bill Poss and Associates presented the applicant. Donnelley: This is a two part application, the landmark designation which is a public hearing and the minor development approval for the demolition of a non-historic outbuilding and redevelopment to include three parking spaces. The applicant is requesting exemption from Demolition Standards (Ord. 9, 1991). No changes are proposed to the c.1885 cottage which is the principal structure on the parcel. Exemption from the Demolition Standards Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 27, 1991 means an applicant is not required to meet the Standards for Demolition, but still requires HPC approval for the demolition and redevelopment. Brook Peterson, attorney represented Mrs. Johnson owner of property. Roxanne: Affidavit presented. I received two letters from adjacent neighbors, La Cocina and Bank of Aspen. Both are supporting the application. Landmark: We have reviewed the six standards and we find that the application does meet the majority of them. It meets A,B, E, F, and does not meet C or D. The outbuilding that is being requested for approval for demolition through the exemption clause we consider to not be a contribution structure to the character of the parcel. The important building is the main cottage. The applicant has made a compelling argument for the need to demolish the outbuilding to make the cottage more economically viable. Donnelley: I feel that the entire proposal could be done at once. Roxanne: Regarding the minor development this has been a building which clearly has little architectural merit or historic integrity. It still has been a cottage that has had cottage businesses in it in the commercial core. The question to HPC is: Does that contribute to the character of the neighborhood or the character of the district? Staff does not support maintaining this out- builing just for the sake of maintaining it. One of the conditions to approve the minor development which is the redevelopment of the parcel is a better site plan indicating trees and landscaping etc. We are recommending landmark designation and demolition approval for the non-historic building according to the exemption clause and that minor development be granted subject to a submittal of a detailed site plan. We cannot tie a condition to a zoning application. In other words we cannot require that the clapboard siding on the cottage be restored as a condition of landmark designation but we can encourage it. David Rybeck: The new owners would like to put as much assets into the miners cottage as possible and the best way to do that is by creating parking on the back end of the parcel for any tenant that would be in the cottage. The option of keeping the outbuilding and maintaining a tenant would draw too much income away from the main cottage. It has problems with encroachments on the next door neighbors side and the alley side which would require demolition on two faces so by the time they were done there would be nothing left historic. The outbuilding has no plumbing so we are requesting an exemption for demolition. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 27, 1991 Peter Rizutto, owner of the hair salon which is presently in the building: Parking would be a great asset and I would like to continue to keep my business here. Brook Peterson: I represent Mrs. Johnson the present owner of the property. They have owned the property since 1965 and she enlightened me that since that time they had rebuilt two walls twice since they had been run into on the outside and they extended the porch out from the front and they did all the improvements and the materials were from the 60's and 70's. When they purchased the property the wood shed was literally falling down and at the present time we are under an obligation from the LaCocina to move that building at their request because it is encroaching on their property. From an historic standpoint the cottage is what is important and I would ask for Mrs. Johnsons sake as this represents her retirement and has had three major eye operations and I would ask the commission to take that into consideration when reviewing the application. Karen: Why is this non-historic? Roxanne: The applicant is referring to it as non-historic. It is not on an inventory. I don't consider it historic even though the footprint shows up on old Sanborn maps. We are not sure how much of the original building is actually there because it has been modified so many times. David: We have a survey done in 1972 by Jim Reser that shows just a small square footprint and as the maps were updated it has two additional additions put on to it. The roof pitch for an outbuilding that has been classified as historic is normally 12 x 12 and this does not meet that standard. The exterior materials were from the 60's and 70's and to the west face is plywood with batten trips. It also has non-historic fenestration on it. Roxanne: There is some original siding but that is all. Karen: As this ever been occupied as a residence or has it been commercial all along? Brooke Peterson: When Mrs. a wood shed and an outhouse. residential. Johnson bought the house the shed was It was not occupied at that time as Don: If the Reser survey in 1972 is correct there is an indication that the entire building that stood there must have been removed because that building being square was cranked at an angle and that positioning on the site is very distinctive because it has no bearing to the rectangular grid and is not reflected in any aspect Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 27, 1991 of the new survey. Does anybody know anything about this? Roxanne: I noticed that as well. David: We noticed that also and have not verified with Jim Reser why it is like that. Don: The building was either moved, as it wasn't on any kind of permanent foundation, and shifted back to better align with the property lines. And of course altered in its form so considerably that it is hard to recognize the footprints. Roxanne: Or that the survey is incorrect. Karen: What will be the use of the primary building when it is renovated? David: It will remain a commercial use by the same people who lease it now, Peter Rizutto. Karen: Will the parking spaces be reserved for the salon's customers? Peter Rizutto: It will be mainly for our customers. Jake: Some of the materials support keeping the cottage due to the alley scape. Roxanne: This is the first exemption that you have had to deal with of a building that is marginally old. The other two exemptions that you have made are buildings that are clearly non- contributing. This one is a gray area and that is why the issues were brought up in the memo. If you feel this building has any integrity at all and is contributing to the neighborhood then you might not want to vote in favor of the applicant for an exemption. On the other hand there is a certain amount of logic that goes along with this. The primary goal is to preserve the cottage. I think the Bank of Aspen needs more parking and they might be using the spaces also. Peter: We have a combination on the parking. Jake: I can support the goals but am looking at this as a policy point of view. We exempt parking spaces so that we can leave this building there, like the reverse of this. What happens if this is a policy are we looking at having a lot of parking off the alleys? Roxanne: We can have policy but everything has to be looked at site specifically. Historic Preservation committee Minutes of November 2?, 1991 Martha: I would not want to see over night parking in those spaces. I can see employees parking there during the day. Peter: The main goal is for customers and there would be no parking overnight. You are not going to see the parking either due to the trees. David: This is a small out building in the commercial core and normally there aren't any because the zone is encouraging growth of the buildings to the property line. Keeping out buildings in a residential zone would be viable but this is the commercial core and the primary cottage could be built out to the property line. Roxanne: The counter to your statement is that this is unique because this is a residential cottage. Staff received two months age an application on this property with an addition to the rear of the parcel and the out building would go anyway. That application was withdrawn. If the out building goes for parking or an two story addition to the cottage I am thinking this might be an alternative to keep this small. Peter: We are going to do everything we can to keep the cottage as it is and I am encouraging you to help small businesses. Don: What do members of the Board feel about the more explicit site plan that was submitted at this meeting? Roger: Historically the Johnsons lived two doors down the street and what they did was buy the little house. They were artists and made jewelry and object and decided that they could rent the little house instead of using it as their gallery. Then when their daughter Tina grew up they decided they didn't want to stay in Aspen so they created the one thing we love the little building in the alley that creates more life in the core of town. That was a natural occurrence. The philosophy of the City is to have less automobiles. The argument about it being hidden from trees and the Mrs. Johnson needs money offends me. Those aren't valid, what is valid is what can we do for Aspen to maintain its historic integrity and deal with the parking and look at a generation or two down the Road. I am absolutely appalled that we have to put parking spaces behind here and employees are going to park there and the car will sit all day. The bank employees will park there. I will vote for this and it is not reasonable not to. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC recommend landmark designation for the parcel at 316 E. Hopkins and grant demolition approval and grant minor development approval as per the design received at this meeting. We encourage that the owner maintain the Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 27, 1991 cottage as best they can; second by Martha. Jake: I will support the motion because it is in the best interest of the bigger miners cottage. I would be supportive of something being put on the back of the rear whether it was a total revamping because of its contribution of activity and scale to the overall alley scape and texture of small and large buildings. Karen: I am opposed to the demolition of the shed and am also sympathetic to Peter's and Margaret's needs. In the long range all of our barns and sheds are the last resource of our victorian heritage. I am in favor of saving every one that we can. I am also in favor of saving employee housing downtown also. The parking garage was a big investment in this town and is only three blocks away. The purpose of this Board is to protect the history of this town. It is not our purpose to provide parking and that is what we are being asked to provide. I cannot give up part of our history in trade for three parking spots that are going to be used for private use. Don: There is a lot of ambivalence on the board due to the fact that we are loosing something that has to do with the grain of the city. Were this in a residential district we would probably deny the demolition or require a more thorough investigation as to where the original portions were. Motion carries 4-1. In favor, Don, Jake, Roger, Martha. Karen was opposed. Roxanne: This would be a different application entirely if the commercial core was not in the historic district and this was an isolated case. COMMUNICATIONS 215 W. HALLAM Roxanne: The property has been purchased and work will start immediately. Roxanne: We have received a bond on 824 E. Cooper. Roxanne: Red Brick School is on hold. The City will not pay utilities for December. They are interested in getting someone in there on a short term lease provided they pay enough to cover the utilities. The City is interested in the first right of refusal. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 27, 1991 MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn; favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. second by Don. Ail in Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk