Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19900110HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES Second Floor Meeting Room January 10, 1990 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Charles Cunniffe, Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Leslie Holst and Glenn Rappaport. Georgeann Waggaman and Chris Darakis were excused. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minutes of Nov. 8, 1989. Charles Second. All approved MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minutes of Nov. 29, 1989. Charles second. All approved. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve the minutes of Dec. 13, 1989. Charles second. All approved. MOTION: Roxanne made the motion to table HPC Resolution - Goals until the next regular meeting. All approved. 334 W. HATW~%M, FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL EXTENSION Bill stepped down. Charles chaired meeting. Roxanne: In order to grant an extension HPC must review the approval again. The issues of the west elevation were brought up and found to be inappropriate. The Planning Office recommends that HPC approve an alternative between B & C: upper floor windows as proposed and no gable on either floor be included and also grant Final Development extension. Larry McKenzie, architect: Concept 3 of our proposals ( cross gable) maintains the gable as is, no new styling in the victorian architecture. It provides some snow protection and a contrast from the new construction with the old and I feel that is necessary in showing what is new and what is existing. Charles: What is staffs concern with the gable. Roxanne: It is whether the Board wants this particular addition to blend so well into the historic resource that there is no real distinction between what is old and what is new. Les: My problem is snow accumulation. Larry: I feel solution C is a compromise in reference to snow. I feel the second floor cross gable introduces a new shape that is not shown on the existing structure. Charles: The question is whether leaving the addition like it is vs adding something to the addition that is still on the addition and doesn't add to the main house. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 Larry: We are getting rid of the existing addition and adding a new addition. Don: C solution seems to be the best as B tends to draw a lot of attention. Les: Because of the verticality it balances everything off. Glenn: I feel there will be a problem with the snow. Charles: Possibly there is another way to make the gable come down and not come into the intersection of the roof. I would like to see a version of C with a reduced gable. MOTION: Don made the motion to grant final development approval extension for 334 W. Hallam. That scheme C be approved with the provision that the height of the gable and on the second floor be lowered below the top roof height and therefore reducing the size of the gable and giving more room for a roof eave to dissipate snow before it runs into the original building. The approval for the windows as shown in C also. Joe second. All approved. 309 E. HOPKINS & 200 S. MONARCH, LANDMARK DESIGNATION, DEMOLITION, RELOCATION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Charles stepped down. Bill reseated. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting variations from the HPC on parking and open space. The applicant is requesting landmark designation for the entire 9,000 sq. ft. parcel and also the demolition of the cleaners building on the corner and relocation of the Lily Reid Cottage to the corner from its location on lot C and conceptual development. LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Staff finds that the entire parcel does not meet the standards and therefore the code does not allow for a designation of the entire parcel. It does allow for designation of the cottage. Standards should be discussed and how they apply or not apply to the parcel. Landmark designation states that any structure that meets one or more of the (6) standards maybe designated. A, the first standard is historic importance and the cottage meets that standard due to the association of Franz Berko, Aspen photographer. The rest of the parcel does not. B, Architectural Important; this is the last brick cross gable cottage in the commercial core district and meets the standard. The existing building on the corner is new 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 but is proposed to be demolished so we would be looking at new development and we do not designate structures that are not yet built. C & D, Architectural Importance; this does not apply. E, Neighborhood Character; this does apply to the importance of the neighborhood. F, Community Character; The Lily Reid cottage does meet this criteria. We support landmark designation for the cottage and also for the 3,000 sq. ft. that it is immediately associated with finding that it meets standards A,B, E and F. We find that the remainder of the parcel does not meet the criteria. We are recommending that HPC recommend landmark designation for 1/3 of the parcel. Landmark designation would allow them to not have to compete under GMQS and would allow them a number of benefits that they are seeking. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: I will speak on designation only. The standards state that any structure or site that meets one or more of the following standards. We feel it meets Standard F, community character. The code defines a site as one or more parcels with one or more parcels. The relocation of the Lily Reid gives a one time opportunity for the community to highlight a small building in the core area. There is nothing like it in the core area. Because of the community character we should be allowed designation of the whole site. The designation of the entire site is critical to the project. Designation would not change the employee housing requirements at all. If designated enables us to do the project now and not compete in the growth management and it gives us a break on certain parking requirements. Larry has to tear down a good existing building in order that the Lily Reid site can be made prominent. When an owner comes in and tries to help solve a problem that the community has (which is a building that is surrounded by two large buildings) and is willing to tear down his own building to put this in a prominent location what is the community willing to do back in return. Jay Ordan, owner of the dry cleaners is in support of designation. If we stretch a little it allows for the preservation of an unique cottage, allows for the preservation of the site and the unique character of the neighborhood. It offers a clear opportunity to businesses that exist there to continue to exist in Aspen at a reasonable price. COMMITTEE ~MBER COMMENTS Joe: I like this project because the historic house is going to be saved, accented and have a new location. The language in the code E & F could also apply. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 Don: We have a developer that has acquired 9,000 sq. ft. and what if a developer had acquired 20,000 sq. ft. in that same block, is it within our menu to designate that whole 20,000 as historically significant and give it historic designation because we want to save this one house. Nobody in this room is arguing against the quality of the project or the value of house. My problem is precedent setting whether we as a committee can do or should do that. Glenn: This is a good project and the issue is as Don said is it in our menu to designate the whole parcel. My concern is that the Berko House get a high volume of people and not something that no one ever goes into. We also need to tighten up our language and I am in favor of the project. Les: My primary concern is saving the building and I do like the project. The benefits to the developer are also very large. Bill: I have also reviewed this extensively and I think it is a great opportunity to get something for the city by relocating it and getting it to the corner of the parcel. The City would get a better streetscape and it would tie together better with the other buildings across the street more prominently than if we had let it in the middle. It would complete the block. I feel the code says we can designate the whole site. If we want to get this project renovated why would be set a site size. I am in favor of designating the whole site. Roxanne: The issue is whether or not it meets the standards. If it is a clarification of language I would recommend tabling until the City Staff attorney has made a determination. We can grant designation of the cottage and grant them benefits that are immediately associated with the parcel and the structure. Lets say a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel would have 4 parking spaces on it. We have the ability to grant a variation for that if it is found they cannot be met on site. Parking spaces/cash in lieu in the downtown core are two spaces per one thousand sq. ft. net leasable is required. Parking spaces/cash in lieu is $15,000 per space. We could grant a variation of four parking spaces and that would be equal to $60,000. That equals more than the cost of relocating the cottage and certainly goes a long way in helping its restoration. That is one example. Standard E says that the structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. We are not talking about new construction, we are talking about preservation. That is very clear and standard E does not deal with new construction. Standard F structure or site (historic structure or site) is 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 critical to the preservation of the character. New construction is not preservation of character. Historic older buildings are. How does the new construction relate to other structures of historical significance, I don't see that it does. The cottage clearly does. Joe: On F, I do not read structure I read that the site is critical to the preservation of the community because of its relationship in terms of it size and location to other structures. We need that site to preserve that structure. Bill: No matter where we put the building on the site it has to do with the 9,000 sq. ft. It is important to the whole community to move that building to the corner. Roxanne: You are talking about the development of the site. Site in this paragraph means a site such as an archeological site, open space site. That is the intent of this particular standard. Gideon Kaufman: We are not asking for the new structures to be designated we are asking you to find the site where the Lily Reid house is going to be moved and that site to be designated historical. Once that is done then there is another process to go through for the building of the building. Amy Margerum, Planning Director: Our concern is how do we know that the new 7,000 sq. ft. is critical to the preservation of the Berko building. I am worried about setting a precedent. Larry Brooks,owner; explained the history of the purchasing and development of the parcel. Bill: Every project is treated on an individual basis and on this site we want a preserved building. This is a positive project. Joe Wells: I see no way if we have 1/3 of this site designated that we could be granted GMQS exemption for the balance of the site. I don't believe the code will do that. Larry: If we only get 1/3 designated why should we tear down a 6200 sq. ft. building and why not just go into GMQ for a second and third floor addition. It is about the whole parcel. Glenn: If we say that we are encouraging it but we don't want to set a precedent then we are hedging on ourselves and that is an important perception for the general lay person. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 Roxanne: Take 1/3 of the parcel and transfer the benefit that they would receive from designating that parcel onto the remainder of the parcel. They need a variation of 15 parking spaces ($225,000) which normally would have been their impact fees, cash-in-lieu. Take 1/3 of those and give them as a variation. That would actually be more than immediately associated with a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel. The only way we could do that is if there is some kind of PUD overlay over that parcel and The Planning office could do that. Joe: My analysis of this critical question is the entire use or the creative use of the entire site is critical to being able to preserve the character of this neighborhood. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve landmark designation of the entire site at 200 S. Monarch and 309 E. Hopkins Lots A through C Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen. Glenn second. YES VOTE: Joe, Don, Bill Glenn. NO VOTE: Les. 4-1 Motion carries. DEMOLITION AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION: Roxanne: The code states that all the standards shall be met by the HPC and that a demolition cannot occur until all the standards have been met. Section 7-602 (B) "The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure." We are talking about the corner building and there was no discussion in the application about structural stability. They need to provide information that addresses standard B. In the future when we do a code revision the Board will need to be discussing non historic buildings within districts. We also need to discuss the partial demolition issue, the rear addition to the cottage not being original and the character of the cottage is not being diminished. Bill: It appears in the drawings that you are taking off the cross gable that goes to the east on the existing house. Mark Henthorn, architect: roof plan drawing. The cross gable will remain, error in MOTION: Don made the motion that Lots A through C, Block 81 request for demolition and partial demolition be granted subject to conditions as noted in Staff's recommendations which are: 1. That the applicant address Standard B of Section 7-602. 2. That the drawings and model reflect actual conditions of the existing structure including but not limited to the cross gable and 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 subject to any additional conditions. Les second. Ail approved. RELOCATION: Roxanne: The siting with the setbacks on both sides is critical and we need to take into consideration what is historically correct and across the street in both directions. Bill: This motion would allow it to move from its present site to the corner site and then we deal with the specifics in conceptual development of where that exact building will be. Gideon: None of us really know what the appropriate setbacks will be until we do a study. MOTION: Joe made the motion that we approve on site relocation of the Lily Reid house on Lots A through C Block 81 subject to approval of the precise siting of the relocation and further study of setbacks. Don second. All approved. Glenn: They are showing it in the same setback position that it is in now on Hopkins. Mark: It is five feet forward then it presently is. Glenn: On the existing map it is lining up with the front of the Mill Street plaza. Mark: Yes and we are showing it five feet in front of that presently and we had specific reasons for doing that. Roxanne: I feel it needs pulled back. Glenn: I recommend that it be pushed forward. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT: Roxanne: The general concept does meet the standards and we suggest that HPC should carefully review the strong distinctive elements (6) that set the character of the new construction as attached in memo dated January 10, 1990 page 6. Photographs should be studied for porch detailing and other issues. We will need a complete report on the restoration. We are requesting detailed drawings. Mark Henthorn, architect: We will preserve the Lily Reid house as closely as possible to the original state. The basic concept is that the two facades relate to the street front character of 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 downtown Aspen. That they fit the urban context of Aspen. That this is a transition from the urban context to a neighborhood context. The Reid house is the pivot point in that transition. Similar materials would be used masonry, sandstone banding, awnings, details and massing that are similar to other buildings. The courtyard materials will be softer and simpler. The height of the building matches the height of the Mill Street Plaza. The stairs simplify the circulation patterns of the building, they make the second and third level terraces part of the urban space. Joe: We need to see more details. I like the concept of how the new building relates to the commercial buildings on the other side. Glenn: My major concern is the treatment of the courtyard. Les: It is important that an area be provided for people to sit in the courtyard. Bill: The horizontality needs studied. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant conceptual development approval for Lots A through C. Block 81 subject to conditions: a) Detailed elevations, site, roof and landscape plans. b) Massing model. c) Complete, accurate restoration plan and detailed drawings for the historic cottage, including (but not limited to) partial demolition activities, front porch and window restoration, relocation methodology and protection during adjacent demolition, cleaning methods, foundation and excavation plan, measured drawings and photographs. d) Performance Bond or Letter of Guarantee, approved by the City Attorney for relocation of the historic cottage. e) f) g) h) i) J) Don second. Project phasing report. Restudy of horizontal features of new construction. Accurate representation of building materials. Information to support Demolition Standard A. Restudy setbacks of relocated cottage. Specific information on variations request. All approved, Motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 8