Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910626HISTORIC PRSERVATION CONMITTEE M~nu~es of ~une R6~ L99L Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Jake Vickery, Karen Day and Martha Madsen present. Les Holst, Glenn Rappaport and Roger Moyer were excused. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to table the minutes of May 22 until the next meeting; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. Charles Cunniffe was presented a plaque in appreciation for work done while serving on the Preservation Committee. 716 W. FP~%NCIS - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: Changes have occurred in site coverage and side yard variations. Cinderella Norris will explain those changes. We are recommending that Final be granted finding that all the applicable standards have been met and finding that the combined front yard, rear yard setback variations are more compatible with the historic resource. We are also requesting that the applicant post a bond prior to the issuance of a building permit. We are recommending that the original windows and doors shall be preserved and the plans be revised to indicate the preservation of these elements. That the west boundary fence shall be reduced in length and shall not exceed past the front edge of the facade. That all trees and shrubs located within the proposed building footprint shall be relocated within the parcel. And further that the new combined side yard setback variation be considered carefully and the Board needs to make a finding for compatibility. There have been a number of revisions made to the overall footprint. There is still a non-conformity that the Board needs to consider and it is a combined six foot variation that is needed for the sideyard. The front yard combined setback is a six foot variation and the side yard as well. Karen: Is the site coverage less or more? Roxanne: The proposed site coverage will be at what is allowed 2, 625. The existing site coverage is 2, 583. She is increasing the site coverage but is not going over what is allowed in the code. The HPC cannot grant a variation for site coverage only for variations and FAR. Cinderella Norris: Regarding the site coverage I had to decrease the design by 208 sq. ft. and the way that I did that was that I decreased the size of the ADU from 520 to 380 sq. ft. and decreased a closet. In doing that I also decreased the variance for the combined side yard setback that I was asking for by pulling back the light well as the encroachment on the side yard is due to that light well. I have provided a structural engineers report. Historic Preservation C~mm~ttee Minutes of June 26, 1991 Should the amount of the bond be for the area that is being demolished or the entire structure? Roxanne: The amount should be to replace the historic structure if there is a complete failure and or repair in case it is slightly damaged during the excavation process. The contractor should determine that bond amount. What we have done in the past was to have the bond reviewed by the City Attorney, Project Monitor and Staff. Cinderella: The window width is the same as the existing window widths that are in the house. It is more appropriate to replace the windows than put in storm windows on the inside. Some of the existing windows are inoperable. On the south facade there is a very large double hung window in the existing livingroom and that window can be replicated. Roxanne: If that window glass is original it should be looked at with the project monitor as well. Cinderella: We plan to save the exterior doors and reuse those and any solid core panel doors of the interior will be reused as we can. Regarding demolition we are keeping all the columns that are on the porch and reuse those. The chimneys and foundation will be faced with brick and we will match what is there and it is a red tone brick. We have no problem with stopping the fence. The shed is not historic and will probably be removed. The neighbors shed that is attached as well as the exisitng fence will be moved off the property line. The front setback remains the same and the original house went to the property line and we are coming back five feet at the garage and 16 feet at the ADU. Even though this does not meet what the code requires it is an improvement upon what is there and it is up to you to decide whether we get the six feet or not. Karen: Would the other doors inside the house be copies or will they be historically accurate as your windows. Cinderella: They will look like the doors that were originally there only new and we hope they will be accurate. Karen: Will you be keeping the wooden walkway. Cinderella: We would like to put pavers in. Joe: I have no problem with the variations and would like the applicant to try and retain the original windows if possible. The wood walkway may become an issue although I do not feel they work very well on commercial properties but they do work on residential Historic Preservation Committee ~nutes of ~uns 26, 1991 and I would be in favor of retaining that feature. Martha: I did visit this site and made some observations and personally I feel the windows are a key issue to the approval. Don: I have always been impressed at the way this project has been handled and also the fact that the mitigations proposed to deal with the earlier complaints of the neighbors not only took care of their demands but made it a better project. There have been reductions in the size of the ADU also. With the condition that all the windows and doors that can be maintained and restored will be, I feel this is going to be a good project. Georgeann: I concur with Don. Jake: Jake: I concur. Karen: This is an outstanding project and looks really good. I like the changes. The discussion of setbacks is new to me but I am in favor of giving as large a light well as possible because basement spaces are difficult to utilize. Roxanne: Possibly the Board should discuss the wood walkway. Cinderella: The walkway that is there cannot be historic it was put there as a solution to a mud problem. Martha: Personally I do not know which is more historic wood or flagstone walkways. Delia Bellina, owner: I have been looking at walkways throughout town and the walkway being that it comes into the home is an important consideration but I have no been able to find a house that has been restored with a walkway that is historic. If you all could find out what is appropriate we would be more than happy to take a look at it. I just have not been able to find anything that I think goes with the house and the project. Roxanne: Either approach would be appropriate in this case. I feel wood would work better but flagstone was for walks with some spacing in between. Martha: Flagstone is definately native to the area. Cinderella: Wooden sidewalks and walkways were developed basically because there were no paved streets and there were horses and carriages and it was the only way to have some interum space between mud and the house to get to the house. Obviously we want to retain as many historic elements as we can. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 2~ 1991 Joe: Where I have noticed wooden walkways is across irrigation ditches. Don: The project monitor and owner could best decide the materials without debating it at this time. Also tapography and change in elevation between the front door to where you are going has a lot to do with that decision. Bill: I feel the walk and materials should be the owners decision to be worked out with monitor and Staff. I am also in support of preserving the windows and doors that are historic and are existing and that also can be worked out with Staff and monitor. For the benefit of the new members light wells are usually discouraged by the committee when they deal with the historic structures but this being on the back and in the alley and fully hidden from the street I have no problem with and am in support. I could also support the variations based on the information presented here. Cinderella: We are going to relocate all the trees in the parcel. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC grant Final Development for 716 W. Francis St. finding that all applicable standards have been met and that the combined front/rear setback and combined side yard setback variation is more compatible with the historic resource than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. The applicant shall post a bond or provide financial security prior to the issuance of any building permit, in a form and amount acceptable to the City Attorney, project Monitor and Staff, to mitigate against failure or less related to basement excavation and foundation repairs. In addition the following conditions shall be met prior to the issuance of any building permit: a) Original windows and doors shall be preserved; the plans shall be revised to indicate the preservation of these elements and be determined by Monitor and Staff. b) The west boundary line fence shall be reduced in length and shall not extend past the front edge of the facade. c) Walkway materials signed off by Staff and Monitor. Georgeann second the motion. Ail in favor, motion carries. Jake Vickery is the monitor and Karen Day the alternate. 204 S. GALENAt SPORTSTALKER VESTED RIGHTS - PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: State statue in Colo. allows for a three year vested 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 26, 1991 rights to occur on any site specific development plan. This needs to occur by the Body that approves that plan and by resolution. In fact you cannot deny this because they are allowed this by State statue. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. No comments. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Bill made the motion that HPC approve reso. 3, 1991 granting vested rights approval for three years for the site specific development plan located at 204 S. Galena project know as the Sportstalker project. Don: I so move; second by Georgeann. Ail in favor, motion carries. 601 W. HALL~M - VICENZI COTTAGE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Bill Poss opened the continued public hearing. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting that the HPC remove 601 W. Hallam from the inventory of historic sites and structures. Their arguement is that it no longer has historic value. Since you last reviewed this the applicant has continued to move the materials from the cottage, specifically the historic element of the structure, the clapboard and bay window are now gone. It is important that the HPC review this under the finding of historic value whether or not it has it. In Staff's opinion it still has historic value even though the clapboard has been removed because it can be replaced and as the applicant has stated needed replaced anyway. The bay window can be rebuilt unless it still is existing then it can be reattached. Gary Lyman from the Buildilng Dept. has gone out and visited the site and has determined that his demolition permit is still valid, that partial demolition has been going on. Under that demolition permit the applicant is able to continue to demolish up to 49% of that building. Once 50% demolition has been reached then he is required to receive HPC approval under our demolition standards and a redevelopment plan is required at that time. We find that it continues to have historic values and therefore we are recommending that HPC deny the applicant's request to remove it from the inventory. We further recommend for a number of precedent setting reasons that the HPC review the historic value and inventory issue within the context of the entire inventory re-evaluation. As you know we are going through that process right now and it is my goal to have that completed by next summer. At that time this cottage and all other cottages with this much integrity less or more can be evaluated together. One of our main concerns is the proximinity to the Wheeler Stallard house. It is the responsibililty of the HPC to Historio Preservation committee Minutes of June 26, 1991 protect the cultural and historic value of that parcel and by removing this structure from the inventory then the HPC will no longer have any ability by code to review the redevelopment. The applicant is suggesting perhaps that the HPC be able to review mass and scale. Don: Since the historic portion has been removed as of today, what is the relationship of keeping something on the inventory that does not have any historic value and removing it from the inventory. George's objective is to remove it from the inventory and he has proceeded with something that he is legally entitiled to do. Do we now have a parcel that is historic significance? Roxanne: You are talking about the scale of the building and the original form of the original part of the cottage. This parcel has been relocated here and the original parcel went along with the Wheeler Stallard house. In my opinion this is an architectural issue, scale issue and compatibility with other small venacular cottages throughout the west end. The issue is whether or not the structure still has hsitoric value and you feel warranted in removing it from the inventory because it no longer has historic value. Because of its representative architecture, scale, character in historic association with the community I am recommending that the HPC deny the request. Georgeann: The main reason we want to keep this on the inventory is so that we can review it in relationship to the historic Wheeler Stallard house. Is there no way that we could let them demolish it and still have full review? Roxanne: They would have to make an application for full demolition and the Board would have to find that it meets the standards for demolition and one of those standards is that the redevelopment plan be approved by HPC. Georgeann: This is the house that George has been working with the HPC on and it seems to me that the rules have been changed half way through. Roxanne: Code language changes all the time. George vicenzi, owner: I had intended to build a house on that lot for 20 years and got a valid demolition permit with no HPC review to it. Roxanne called me to request that we work together to relocate the cottage and not to demolish it. We worked for 1 1/2 years and during that time we had to get extensions on the demolition permit. The HPC cooperated with that and the Planning Dept. and two city Attorney's and the Building Dept. said that the extensions were valid until last Oct. when we got a new City 6 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of June 26, 1991 Attorney who said the extensions were not valid and that they were subject to all the city reviews of new ordinances. That means I would have to go through HPC review and could not demolish the entire structure. I thought this unfair. At that point I said lets try and still work together and I did not get the cooperation from Staff that I was getting before. My feeling was when Staff found out that they had a legal technicality that they didn't have to work with me, they didn't. I would assume that the HPC would work with us and do the right thing. I have shown that the permit is valid and have regretfully demolished the historic portion of the cottage. Keep in mind fairness, integrity and creditability. Gary Lyman inspected the demolition and signed off saying that the permit is valid. Jed Caswall, city Attorney: I agree that he has a valid demolition permit but the scope of the permit is what is in question. I think George is under the mistaken belief that he can go ahead and demolish the entire structure and it is clear to me that he can only demolish 49%. George: I disagree. I have taken off the bay window and all the siding. I did this regretfully. To keep my permit alive I had to demolish it. All that is left is the shell of the original structure. You can demolish 49% in any way that you want. The Board needs to make a decision on fact not fiction. The memo states that after 50% demolition that HPC would have full review. I disagree with that because my demo permit is 100% valid and I can take down 100% of the building and all of my rights are still valid under that original permit and would not have any review of HPC. Jeremy Bernstein, attorney for applicant: On April 5, 1989 George Vicenzi had a demolition permit to demolish 100% of this structure and to rebuild without any HPC review. Roxanne approached George rquesting that he work with Staff and he agreed to. The applicant has worked with Staff trying to find a home for this structure. Case law is very clear that the city has to act fairly with its citizens. Roxanne approached George. The applicant has been forced to do demolition and he would very much like to put the siding back on and reconstruct but he cannot work under these conditions. If you cannot work with George you are sending a very clear message that the City cannot be trusted. All of George's rights under the original permit to demolish 100% of this building and to rebuild without HPC review are entact. George is offering you the opportunity to delist this structure and he will work with you on mass and scale which is more than he has to do because of his concern for the Wheeler Stallard house. George: We have established that the permit is alive and well and I could demolish 100% but Jed's opinion is 49% review. The house 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 26, 1991 was moved there in 1960 and has no historic value to the nieghborhood. Only 29% had historic value and now the bay window, molding and siding are demolished leaving only the shell which will be demolished if we cannot work out a solution. I am willing to consent to bulk and scale review which is in my letter I presented to you. Considering the facts you are more than justified in granting the request. Also you would avoid litigation and it would be a negative image to the Board and to the City. The only penalty I get is that I cannot build for five years and I will take the five years. Roxanne: This application is for your consideration of a finding whether or not it stays or goes off the inventory. There is historic value of this parcel. It does have historic association in the west end. This is a precedent setting situation and should be considered within the context of the entire inventory evaluation. You need to look at the rest of what is going on in town. Don: It is hard to deal with regulations on an extension of a permit as opposed to a new one. Jed: The records show that on the eve of the adoption of the ordinance which prohibits the demolition of historic structures beyond 50% without HPC review George got the permit. It is clear that he got the permit to escape the impact of that ordinance. There is no difference between a demolition permit and a building permit. A demolition permit is a form of a building permit. Like any building permit if you want to immunize yourself from subsequent changes in the laws you have to act on the permit. The courts have interpreted that to mean, not just obtain the permit but to take substantial acts in reliance upon that permit. Physically act on the permit. Fail to do that you have not vested your rights under the permit. When George got his it was good for 120 or 180 days. If he had acted on that permit within that time he would be vested and immunized from subsequent changes in the law. If he failed to do that the law is clear that he would have to conform to the changes in the law particularly in a situation where the permit has expired. At the time when George sent in to get an extension of the permit the municipal code of Aspen had no provision in the building code to extend permits. Apparently there was confusion in the Bldg. Dept. as the county does allow bldg. permits to be extended but the City does not. George's permit was extended even though there was no provision in the code to do so. Last fall several other people were in the same situation as George's. No City official is allowed to amend the City code. Everyone who deals with government is presumed by law to know the limits of the authority of the Staff person that they are working with. Public employees work for the public at large and spend the 8 Historlo Preservation Committee Minutes of June 26, 1991 public's money and the public isn't there every day to watch what its public servants do so as a matter of public policy the courts have held that if the city or governmental employee screws up the people who really suffer are the public at large, the tax payer. It has been stated in the records that George had been cautioned by attorney Sandy Stuller. In the letter George asked whether or not it was possibly to codify his exemption so that there would be some official action by the City of Aspen authorizing the continuance of the demolition permit. Sandy stated that an ordinance would be needed to try and maintain the viability of the permit. It is clear that George has not been misled. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Joe: I think George should be allowed to demolish it and I would take him up on the offer to allow us to review mass and scale. But I am not sure this is the way to take it off the inventory. I do not want to encourage other people to take this unique approach. Georgeann: This situation falls into no other category. He can tear down 49% of it so that means he can take down everything that is historical. From that point of view there is no reason to have it on the inventory. Karen Day: This site has numerous dense trees surrounding the house. If that could remain it would be shielded from the Wheeler Stallard house. Possibly the cottage could be moved onto to the Stallard property and used for storage. Don: Scale has to deal with the thickness of the fascia and thickness of window mullion. If we limit it to what is defined in George's letter, I do not believe that is scale. George: I do not want to get into specifics, this is what I am willing to do. Bill: In working with George in allowing him to demolish this structure that is almost demolished now I don't think this is the correct vehicle. I had stated that to George when we were working together only because at that time you were not willing to allow some review. You did not want to submit a development plan. George: Everyone makes a deal all the time. Jed: What I hear, if you take it off the inventory George is willing to enter into an agreement by a way of a deed restriction or some other document that would allow you a review in terms of mass and scale. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 26, 1991 Jeremy Bernstein: The letter presented to the Board indicating mass and scale is part of our application. The bottom line is you are trying to protect the Wheeler Stallard property. Don: We are more concerned with scale of other structures within the block. Dimensions should be consistent with scale of other structures within the block. Karen Day; What about the cabin that is there now? George: I do not intend to remove it and would put the siding back on and will not put the bay window back on. I would put in a double hung to fit in with the style. When I decide to demolish I will check with the HPC to see if there is a relocation spot. Jeremy: George will continue to work with you and if a location can be found, he'll do that and at that point of time it could be moved. Roxanne: So in a year if someone calls me and says I'm ready to take this structure you are ready to have it go! George: It will go when I am ready to demolish. I am not going to agree to cooperate except totally on my terms. When I am ready to demolish I will come to members of the HPC and will work with you. MOTION: Joe made the motion that the HPC approves the applicants request for removal of 601 E. Hallam from the inventory of historic structures finding that the structure no longer continues to have historic value based upon the facts that have come forward in this hearing with the following conditions: That the HPC as volunteered by the applicant would have a binding review authority over mass and over the scale and that the scale would be consistent with the scale of other buildings on the block and that the applicant will retain to the extent possible the existing trees that shield it from the Wheeler Stallard house. That we would incorporate those restrictions in a deed restriction on the proeprty. That the applicant would notify the HPC and Staff when a decision is made to demolish the structure and provide whatever opportunity is available for the HPC or some other private citizen to relocate the building. That the applicant will put the siding back on and put a double hung window in where the bay window was. An additional finding or caviot is that our decision in this has no precident for other applicants who may be trying to remove their properties from the inventory of historic structures due to the unique facts and background that has been amply recited in the record today; second by Georgeann. 10 H~storic Preservation Con~n~ttee ~inutee of ~une 25~ ~99L Roxanne: I will put this in a resolution to come back to the HPC for approval. The reso. would reiterate the motion. There is no deadline as to when the deed restriction should be submitted for City Attorney review? Jeremy: 90 days from the date of approval of the resolution we would submit a full deed restriction to the City Attorney for his review and then to be brought to the HPC. Joe: The intent of the motion is that it would not officially be removed from the inventory until that has been complied with. Roxanne: There are three amendments: That HPC direct Staff to bring this back in the form of a resolution. That the deed restriction document shall be submitted for City Attorney review within 90 days of the date of the resolution approval by HPC. That the recording of the deed restriction should occur preceding the withdrawl of the property from the inventory. Jeremy: What about timing of the replacment of the siding and double hung window. Joe: I would think you would want it back on so you wouldn't have further deferred maintenance problems with the building. Jeremy: 30 days after the 90 days that gives him 120 and shows your good faith. AMENDED MOTION: Joe amended his motion to delete the reference to Staff and have George work with the montior and HPC through the public comment period regarding the relocation. That Staff bring back the motion in a form of a resolution for approval by the HPC. That the deed restriction document shall be submitted for City Attorney review within 90 days of the date of the resolution approval by HPC. That the recording of the deed restriction should occur preceding the withdrawl of the property from the inventory; second by Georgeann. All approved of motion and amended motion except Jake and Karen, motion carries. Jake: There has been an effort to avoid the HPC process and I object to the vigilantism of taking the window out and am uncomfortable making deals that allow people to circumvent the proper process and I see this situation continuing where there is no clear definition and therefore will vote against this. Joe: My feeling is that we got into an difference of opinion on what the code requires because all these changes took place and I feel if he hadn't worked with us in trying to relocate it in the 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 26, X99X first place he would have demolished it. 334 W. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL AND VESTED RIGHTS Joe stepped down Bill stepped down MOTION: Bill made the motion to nominate Don Erdman to chair the meeting; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Roxanne: This project has been going on for 3 1/2 years as they phased the project. There 18 months is up July 10th and they have a set of building plans in for a building permit. They also want to get vested. Chairman Don Erdman opened the public hearing. Chairman Don Erdman closed the public hearing closed. Kim Weil, architect: Phase one has been completed and we are ready for phase two which includes the renovation of the old home. Roxanne: This building is eligible for the national register. The only concern I have is the actual connecting of the carriage house to the main house. Don: No changes had occurred from conceptual to final. We do have to go through the process. MOTION: Don made the motion that conceptual development approval be granted to the property of 334 W. Hallam; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Don made the motion that final development approval be granted for 334 W. Hallam; second by Georgeann. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve Resolution #4, 1991 pertaining to vested rights for 334 W. Hallam be approved at this time; second by Georgeann. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Jake made the motion to adjourn; second by Georgeann. in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Ail Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 12 Historic P~eservation Committee ~inu~s o£ ~un~ ~$~ 199L 13