Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19900411Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 11, 1990 FINAL DEVELOPMENT-LANE PARCEL-204 S. MILL LANDMARK DESIGNATION - 132 W. MAIN - ASIA ANNUAL PRESERVATION HONOR AWARDS NOMINATIONS . WEST END ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITES . HOLDEN-MAROLT SITE EARTH DAY IMPROVEMENTS NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, FRANK GILBERT LANE ITTELSON, STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER 1 4 8 9 10 11 13 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 11, 1990 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe, Les Holst, Glenn Rappaport and Jake Vickery present. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the minutes of Feb. 14, 28th and March 14, 1990. Second by Les with all in favor. FINAL DEVELOPMENT-LANE PARCEL-204 S. MILL Bill Poss stepped down. Jake Vickery was seated. Roxanne presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (memo dated April 11, 1990). Conceptual approval was granted on February 14th with conditions: a) exact materials be presented at final. b) that a brick form or concrete block be used. c) a restudy of the elevations be done. d) that a restudy of the south elevation fenestration ground floor doors be completed. e) information be submitted to the planning office as to why the structure proposed for demolition should be exempt from the criteria for approval. Roxanne: Staff finds that the material that they are proposing (dark gray block) does not meet the intent of the HPC's condition at conceptual and we are recommending that the Board decide exactly what those materials should be. Significant changes have been made to the south elevation, (alley elevation). The window changes from an arched form that matched very closely the Collins Block have been changed dramatically. Study is necessary to reach a middle ground. We are continuing to prepare a code amendment to address exemptions under the demolition section and we feel that this particular structure would be eligible for that. Staff is recommending approval of final development with the condition that the applicant restudy the south elevation and materials. Joe Wells: This is a structure proposed for an eleven hundred square foot parcel on the alley surrounded on three sides by private land. We have been through 8 review procedures to seek an approval for this building which is really an accessory building to the Collins Block structure. It has affordable housing, trash area service, parking and is being proposed to simply provide affordable housing for the primary structure. We have now received all those approvals and City Council has encouraged us to work with the buyer of the Alpine Bank building. Harley Baldwin is attempting to do so. If that happenes we will resubmit. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 11, 1990 Wayne Paulson, architect: The material is colored concrete block with a common bond. A banding technique would be used. Roxanne: The issue is whether or not they have met the conditions of conceptual. There were discussions on materials and the use of more brick banding. Georgeann: Direction was to restudy the south elevation and materials. Possibly a more vertical feeling in the windows perhaps with more mullions, at least in the upper stories. Don: A metal cap or something needs to be added. Harley Baldwin: At the last meeting the Board was very interested in an alley vernacular. Georgeann: The feeling that I got from the last meeting was that you didn't need to go into the classic vernacular of the Collins Block with the fenestration on the window. It could be a contemporary building with some sort of treatment against the sky to reflect the historic building. Don: The steel lintel could be painted a contrasting color. Georgeann: I think the windows in general do meet the conditions but I have concern about the main window. The scale is massive and horizontal. Georgeann: The monitor and staff can work out the cornice detail and color of the block. Glenn: I also feel on the south elevation that the windows need more verticality, an added casement. I would also support a strong cornice cap. I would prefer to see gray concrete block. Les: The cornice needs a powerful statement. Joe: I feel comfortable having the monitor review the concrete block etc. and I have no problem with the south elevation fenestration as modified. I approve of the demolition of the existing structure finding that it was built in the 1960's. Charles: I would suggest the addition of a mullion to increase verticality of the windows. I am torn with the materials. Glenn: I like the ordinary color of the concrete block. The steel spandrels are recessed and there is color in the window frames and I find an ordinary block building more appropriate. 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 11, 1990 Georgeann: I was thinking of a charcoal color block. Roxanne: Add to the motion that demolition is subject to a code amendment allowing exemptions under the historic demolition section of the code. Joe Wells: I tried to address and give you enough room for demolition under the standards presently in the code. I realize you need a code amendment. Roxanne: We don't have an exemption clause in the code to allow you to exempt yourself from going through the full demolition procedure. We all agree that the exemption clause was inadvertently left out and this would apply. Georgeann: How long would that hold Joe up? Joe: A code amendment is 6 months. Charles: it. In the motion we can ask the Planning Office to exempt Joe: The Board needs to make a finding that we have complied with the four points necessary to demolish. Condition one requires a finding that the building is not structurally sound. The building is not structurally sound to accommodate reuse for these changes. Georgeann: In this case I would say Joe's points are valid. MOTION: Charles made the motion to grant final development approval and demolition approval for the non-historic structure located on the Lane Parcel subject to the following conditions: 1) Applicant restudy the cornice treatment and bring that study to the Staff member and Monitor. 2) That the final choice of exterior materials must be approved by Monitor and Staff. The darker of the two concrete block samples that were shown at the meeting exhibit A. The FINAL selection would be by the Monitor and Staff. 3) The addition of a mullion at the large windows on the south elevation to increase verticality. An additional vertical casement window in the large windows on the south elevation. Demolition would be granted as provided for in Section 7- 602B of the code to comply with 2, 3, 4 of that section. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 11, 1990 Joe second with all in favor. Joe Wells: The demolition requires that you make a finding that we comply with all the conditions. AMENDED MOTION: Charles amended the motion to include all (4) demolition standards. Joe second with all in favor. Don: We aren't taking a residential structure to start with and reusing it as a residential structure. If it was presently a habitable structure it would be impossible for us to say that we have satisfied condition #1 but it is not a habitable structure. Charles: I also feel it is valid in this case. Roxanne: I have met with the Staff attorney and this would clearly fall under the exemption clause. LANDM3%RK DESIGNATION - 132 W. MAIN - ASIA Bill reseated. Charles stepped down. Jake remained seated. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting landmark designation for the entire parcel that includes the vacant lot adjacent to the two cottages. HPC has given final development approval for the new infill building. They are seeking landmark designation for the entire parcel so that they will be exempt from growth management and also for timing. We find that the proposal does not include information as to the standards as to whether or not any are met. We find that the standards have not been met for a vacant parcel for landmark designation. We are very supportive of the infill project but landmark designation is not the correct procedure. We are recommending that if landmark designation be granted, it be granted for the remaining historic structure and that the applicant define the legal description of the lots associated with that historic cottage complex and submit them to the Planning office prior to scheduling with the Planning & Zoning Commission. In 1978 the stand alone cottage received landmark designation. When the cottages were added together in 1981 or 1982 landmark designation was not applied for the one cottage. Since that time the owner owns 4 1/2 lots, 15,000 sq. ft. and therefore we are recommending that a portion of the parcel is eligible for designation and should receive designation and part should not. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 11, 1990 Dennis Green, attorney: We have information to substantiate that the entire parcel should be designated. The 1904 map exhibit E(see records) indicates on Block 58 where the property is located. It indicates that on each site that there was an historic structure as of 1904 and possibly 1888. Lots K & L indicate a structure which was the George Moser house. On lot M we have a frame house as of 1904 and on lot N and half of 0 we have another house which was the Jason Freeman house, 1888. If you look at this there is historic evidence that the entire site K,L, M, N and half of 0 should receive historic designation. The house on K & L is the same that is presently there now. The house on N and half of O was combined with our existing structure. This was not a vacant parcel in 1888. Roxanne: The one cottage was relocated to the site in the late 60's or early 70's and it was relocated again to add on. This in fact is not the cottage that we see here. We don't designate ghost structures. Roxanne: The applicant is discouraged because Gracy's parcel was three lots, two of which had structures on them, one vacant and the entire parcel was owned by one person in 1976 when the entire parcel was designated. The Board needs to review the standards and determine whether or not the entire parcel should receive designation. Dennis: My point is, that lot was not vacant in 1888. The lot became vacant when the buildings were moved together. Roxanne: Dennis' issue is defining site. Dennis: We plan to make significant improvements to the building in terms of preservation and upkeep. Therefore you should consider that as well as the site. Don: In 1974 I acquired lots and we built our house and those lots had structures on them. These are not historic parcels that I built my house on. Almost every lot in the City had structures on them. Joe: The only standards that might apply are E & F and only the first part of E unless they were preserving the vacant lot in order to preserve the character of that whole parcel. Standard F states that the site is critical to the preservation of the other structures that are included within the site. I don't feel here it is critical in preserving the other structures given the fact that there will be a new office building built on it. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 11, 1990 Joe: Regarding the Lily Reid parcel it was critical to preserve the historic house to designate the whole parcel. On 17 Queen street where we didn't designate the whole parcel it was not critical to preserve the whole site. Les: Designation of the two houses on site meets the criteria. On the vacant lot possibly moving an historical building on that lot would apply but presently I would not approve the designation of the site. Glenn: This site is in our purview because it is on the Main Street corridor. I would not be in favor of designating the new house. Don: The reason the applicant wishes to have historic designation for the vacant portion of the parcel is something that has to be addressed for all of Main Street. Almost all of the owners that have potential viable commercial property on Main Street are having to deal with this problem of getting exemption from growth management. The method by which they do it should not be through historic designation unless the designation is a clear cut manner prescribed. Brian Busch: Alan Richman from the P&Z department suggested that I try the historic exemption process for this particular site. He mentioned that there was precedent with Gracy's etc. Last year City Council exempted historic structures and felt all the growth had been accomplished through exemptions and therefore the quota was not necessary for last year. In other words historic structures override all other structures in town when involved with the exemption process. My client is trying to keep in character with the older days and keep the victorian mode which we have the design approval on. It seems the Council, HPC and the Planning Department do not coordinate very well. I'm being told different things in each department in the meantime my client spends thousands of dollars on attorney and architect fees. Bill: It is imperative that HPC follow our standards in order that all applicants get the benefit of the standards. The Board is finding that the site does not meet A,B,C and D. Possibly it meets E or F. Dennis: In our proposal we talk about all but one of the criteria and I feel it does meet four of the five criteria. There wasn't a vacant lot in 1888 nor 1904. We were prepared to go through growth management but due to Gracy's there wasn't any growth management to apply for. Our proposal is no different than Gracy's. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 11, 1990 Glenn: I review each project on an individual basis and what our guidelines are all about. If you were moving the existing building into the center of those lots to give it more prominence and make an open area around the building and therefore asking to have the whole parcel designated to me that would be a very different situation. To me you are saying anyone in town who looks on a map and finds that there was an existing house on their lot 100 years ago can build a neo-victorian or a miners cottage and can get it designated to be an historic structure. I disagree with that. Brian Busch: I don't understand what the difference is between being designated if it is in the overlay district anyway. There is nothing we can do without the HPC approving it. What is the difference between the two? Bill: Overlay allows us to review projects within that district. A designated structure is one that is historic and has a different set of standards so it is reviewed differently. Brian Busch: This parcel cannot be divided and I would think it would be to the parcels best interest to be a complete historic designation. Georgeann: We have set a precedent that when a lot is part of a whole parcel that it gets designation. In the case of the Berko the building is getting moved and a building is being put behind it and it enhances the Berko structure but basically it is one whole site. In the case of Gracy's it was one vacant lot owned by one person and we allowed a building to go in there that was designated. In this case we have the property that is the same owner; it cannot be separated and has a designated house on it and it is part of the designated parcel. This is the way our precedent has stated it. Roxanne: How does it meet the standards? Joe: When we did the Lily Reid, the whole site was critical to preserving the building. In this case the whole site is not critical to preserving those historic buildings. Why is it critical to build a new office building in order to preserve a structure that has already been preserved. Dennis: This office building, the money and income that comes in from this will help take care of the building. You have not heard what we are going to do to the old building. We have design plans for that. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 11, 1990 Bill: We do not have that information before us. Dennis: We would prefer to table. Georgeann: parcel. On 18 Queen street we did not designate the entire Glenn: This design is more positive then what was presented before. Les: I voted against the Lily Reid and I don't feel this has enough criteria to pass. Dennis: Could I get a sense of what the Board feels if we found an historic house and moved it onto the site. Bill: I remind the Board in order to do that it must meet the criteria in the same sense, it must meet the standards. Dennis: The building would meet the standards and would be compatible with the other building on the site. Roxanne: I was in on suggested that HPC take would meet the criteria. that meeting with Alan Richman and he a look at this. He did not say that it MOTION: Joe made the landmark designation for with all in favor. motion to table the application for 132 W. Main to May 9, 1990. Don second ANNUAL PRESERVATION HONOR AWARDS NOMINATIONS Roxanne: There are six different categories that we decided to retain for the third annual awards. Nominations: Commercial Renovation, Commercial New Infill, Residential Renovation, Residential New Infill, Cottage Infill and Other: People, Special Effort MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to nominated Shadow Mountain Bldg. 600 block West Main (Commercial Infill). Glenn second. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to nominate the Elisha House for Commercial Renovation, Don second. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to nominate 201 W. Francis, Carriage House (Cottage Infill). Les second. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 11, 1990 MOTION: Don made the motion to nominate 222 E. Hallam, Amato (New Residential Infill). Charles second. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to nominate the Main Street Bake. and Cafe (Other) for their efforts to preserve a use, Les second. MOTION: Les made the motion to nominate Boa Construction (Crafts people, sensitivity to historic preservation). Don second. MOTION: Les made the motion to nominate 1490 Red Butte Drive log cabin, Carol Miller, (Residential Renovation). Georgeann second. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to nominate the Aspen Historical Society for their efforts in obtaining the 75 year lease for the Holden-Marolt site (Other). Don second with all in favor. MOTION: Don made the motion to nominate the Schilling-Lamb house at 525 N. 2nd (Residential renovation). Bill second. Mac Cunningham verbally nominated the Godiva building (Commercial Infill). Second by Georgeann. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to nominate the Sardy House addition for (Commercial Infill). Jake second. MOTION: Don made the motion to nominate 715 W. Smuggler, Ann Miller (Residential Renovation). Georgeann second. The Board Unanimously voted for the following categories: New Residential Infill - 222 E. Hallam Cottage Infill - 201 W. Francis Carriage House Commercial Infill - Sardy House Commercial Renovation - Elisha House Residential Renovation - Schilling Lamb Other, People - Main Street Bakery Other, Special Efforts - Historical Society & Boa Construction WEST END ~T.k~4ENTARY SCHOOL SITES Roxanne: A committee has been formed by the city and County to look at planning issues associated with the site. There has been discussion to demolish the yellow brick school and redeveloped in cottage style housing that would either be free market or affordable; nothing has been determined yet. Retaining the red brick school for a day care or community use. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 11, 1990 Bill: Can it be demonstrated that the red bricks used in the school house were the bricks from the original school? Roxanne: I have been told that from other sources. Bill: In order to make an argument you have to demonstrate that it meets the standards either architectural importance or historical importance. Roxanne: The red brick school was built in 1941. Joe: Whatever happens it has to be compatible. Jake: What about preservation of some open space. Charles: What about preserving some of the red brick school house and having a public use. Les: Historic use is also community use and a gymnasium is a community use if we are discussing use. Glenn: I feel very strongly whatever goes in there should be a public building and it will have a major impact in that area. Charles: There is a lot of energy going in the direction of the school board benefiting on the sale of the property and there are a lot of west end people that are fighting to keep a school use in that area. To preserve the entire complex as is might be unrealistic. Joe: I would recommend that Staff do more investigation on the historic aspect of the red building and also we express our concern over compatibility massing and scale. Bill: We would like to see some part of that site remain public because of its context in the neighborhood. MOTION: Joe made the motion to direct Staff to conduct additional research on both structures as to whether the standards for landmark designation are met. The committee would like to have views on grain, compatibility, massing scale. We recommend that they retain a portion of the site that is historic public use to be decided by their committee. Don second with all in favor. HOLDEN-MAROLT SITE F2%RTH DAY IMPROVEMENTS Roxanne: I am recommending that the trees that the Parks Association want to plant on the site not be placed on our 2 acre 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 11, 1990 parcel until we have had a chance to really look at it. There is an entire area of historic ditches that need to be preserved. Glenn: The site is in a embryonic stage and tree planting and digging ditches should be held off until evaluated. Roxanne: A master plan is being worked on regarding the site. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to discourage any new development on the Holden-Marolt parcel until a clear concept of the master plan has been brought together with the different groups involved. Charles second with all in favor. NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, FRANK GILBERT LANE ITTELSON, STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER Frank: Other commissions cannot spend as much time as this Board does on issues and you have patience. Lane: In regards to a designation of a parcel historical integrity must be taken into account. Historical integrity means what made that site historically important is still there. To say that a site had a house on it and it is now gone and is still considered historic is an empty argument. There is no "there" anymore. Joe: In the standards it refers to a structure or site, it doesn't' refer to an historic structure or site. Roxanne: The code needs to be amended. Les: We have miners cabins in this down that have been covered with everything imaginable. I have a theory that the dimension of these buildings is historically critical. If that is valid then we have the grounds to retain all of them onsite. Evidential we don't do that because we are loosing one after another. On the National Guidelines is there a place in a mining town that the dimension of an old cabin that has been modified for 100 years and does not have the original integrity but has the dimensions and scale. Lane: If it does possess the basic form of a house even though there are added changes like siding etc. you would want to keep it. In other cases when the windows, roof etc. have been changed with addition you wouldn't want to keep it. Glenn: It depends heavily on the context. Don: As long as the basic forms are there. 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 11, 1990 COMMUNICATIONS Roxanne: We have a stucco crisis facing us. On 240 Lake Avenue the Herbert Bayer residential structure that he designed has not been maintained as far as snow removal from the roof. The owner is having a problem with drainage inside and is absolutely sold that a stucco applique is going to solve drainage problems. The Building Department notified me about this. Georgeann: The applicant had stated she tried to get designation but they wouldn't give it to her and that the house has changed and there is no foundation on the house. Electrical is subgrade and the roof needs to be replaced. The contractor states the only way this can be resolved is by stucco. Her pictures mildew on the back. She is giving us one week to come up with an alternate solution. Don: Possibly she is talking about drive-it. increase the insulation value of her wall. She needs to Georgeann: I talked to the contractor and he is talking about sealing the wall then puttying the stucco on top of it. Charles: Vapor barrier goes on the inside. Roxanne: Stucco is going to ruin the character of this structure. I have been in the house and have not seen an addition. Bill: We need to get it designated. She could get a designated grant for $2,000. We need to figure out how we can help her. Georgeann: Designation has to be done with her support. Bill: Three members of the board should talk to her this week. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn. Second by Charles with all in favor. Meeting adjourned 8:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 12