Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19890411HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall April 11, 1989 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Nick Pasquarella, Charlie Knight, Joe Krabacher, Chris Darakis, Don Erdman and Charles Cunniffe present. Georgeann Waggaman and Zoe Compton were excused. MOTION: Nick made motion to approve the minutes of March 28, 1989, second by Joe. All approved. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: Our 1947 Log cabin at 905 S. Hopkins, Mtn. House, needs to be relocated an~ if not it will be demolished. I also have a mover out of Grand Junction that will move it for $4,000 for within a ten mile radius. Roxanne: I received a letter for the records from Bill McDonough opposing the third floor addition on the Aspen Hardware. 432 W. FRANCIS-THE H~TJ~T HOUSE-OWNER HERNANDEZ Charles Cunniffe stepped down. Roxanne Eflin presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (memo April 11, 1989). Roxanne: There were 15 conditions and each one has been addressed. Our recommendation is that HPC approve the final development review with the following conditions: 1) That proof of insurance be provided by the applicant from Ryberg Construction for all excavation and foundation work prior to the work commencing. 2) Clarification and HPC approval on the length of time that the carriage house is going to be relocated. I still maintain that the-use of the roof dormer on the carriage house is incompatible. 3) Clarification and HPC approval of design aspects of the east elevation light well. 5) If approval is granted variations are required for side and rear yard setbacks and FAR. HPC needs to make the finding of compatibility. The B of A denied the site coverage variance, so they redesigned the garage to a one car garage. Bill: We will review the 15 conditions from Roxanne's memo dated April 11, 1989. Board, Staff and applicant are in agreement with conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of April 11, 1989 #8 Proposed shed dormer. Richard Klein, architect: The revised alternate dormer A3.3 has three windows as opposed to four. Nick: The way the shed dormer is facing is not relevant to the whole scene. Dormer windows were used for ventilation. Joe: I am not in favor of the dormer and you should retain the original roof line of the carriage house. Don: I approve of the dormer. Richard: The issue of true divided lights in the shed dormer was brought up and that would be acceptable to us. Charlie: I agree with Joe and we are opening up a lot of windows and doors and would like to see the roof line stay as original. Richard: The shed ~ormer is a requirement for light and ventilation and we feel that is a better solution then skylights. At conceptual the HPC indicated that a dormer was more appropriate. Chris: The revised shed dormer is appropriate, possibly a little narrower and true divided light. MOTION: Nick made the motion that approval for the proposal at 432 W. following conditions: HPC grant final development Francis St. subject to the 1) Proof of insurance provided by the applicant from Ryber Construction to staff for all excavation and foundation work prior to work commencing. 2) Clarification and HPC approval on the length of time the carriage house will be relocated, the method employed for such relocation. A reasonable amount of time might be eight weeks. 3) To approve the use of a roof dormer in the carriage house, the three bay dormer revised A3.3. 4) Clarification and HPC approval of the design aspects of the east elevation light well and how it relates in compatibility with the historic resources. 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of April 11, 1989 5) Grant variations for side and rear yard setbacks and Floor Area Ratio for the project finding such variations to be more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Don second the motion. Vote: Charlie no, Bill no, Joe no, Don yes, Nick yes, Chris yes. Motion dies. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve all of the above recommendations except #3 and that the applicant restudy the proposed dormer situation to somehow lessen the impact of a shed dormer with three bays. Charlie second. Vote: Yes, Joe, Don, Bill Charlie. No, Chris and Nick. Motion carries. DISCUSSION Richard: At conceptual we were asked to study the dormer. If we get approval all except the dormer I would like specific direction as we need light and ventilation. A house evolves and changes with different occupants. We could use skylights that would equal the amount of square footage that is needed and we can't go through the Bldg. Dept. unless that is legal. chris: My comments for the dormer; there is not an original building here and it has been added on to. This does not detract from the carriage house. Joe: I'm not in favor of the skylights but aesthetically they are better then the dormer. Nick: 50 and 60 years ago houses had low on the bedroom floors (dormer) windows and it brought air and light into the room. They just want to let light into the room. The dormer is looking on the interior of the property not on Main St. Charlie: You have a carriage house which could be your garage. We would like to see the carriage house remain as it historically was now it is looking like another house. At a certain point you have to retain elements. Nick: A carriage house was a living quarters. Don: We are trying to determine what the options are: the dormer or the skylights and I am still in favor of the dormer. Roxanne: The argument is not habitable space, the committee wants to encourage ways to provide habitable space for carriage houses. The issue is altering the original roof form of the carriage house. 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of April 11, 1989 Bill: The motion allows you to have approval with the exception of restudying the dormer. Bill: The dormer changes the shape of the roof and we have been keeping dormers off the roofs of carriage houses in the past. I would be in favor of the roof windows (skylights) in that it would keep the character of the roof shape and our guidelines state that skylights that are out of view are acceptable. Roxanne: The applicant, Board and staff should get together for a worksession to resolve the dormer issue. ARA KiOSK-MINOR DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: Last year the ARA kiosk was found to be non-compatible with the district and I have recommended some changes for this years kiosk. After reviewing the guidelines I find that it is compatible with the district. The only concern Staff has is that it will be left in its natural state of red wood and cedar shingles. My recommendation to the Committee is that you review that as victorian wood was painted and recommend approval. APPLICANT RESPONSE Tom Hines, ARA General Manager: We would paint the kiosk if the Committee feels aesthetically that would be more appealing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Nick: It follows some of the work on the Little Nell we have cedar shakes there. If red wood is chosen I want to see it painted. Hotel as wouldn't Don: I have no complaints with materials but possibly there should be a kiosk that had more to do with commercial activity in the center of Aspen then a "garden" kiosk. Charlie: My recommendation is that it should be completely closed up in the evenings to prevent vandalism. Tom: It is totally enclosed and has a platform floor, glass windows and door that were not there last year. Council approved a $4,500 allocation for the building of the kiosk. Joe: I would rather see it painted. Roxanne: I have a color chart that is available. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of April 11, 1989 Tom: We will use pine wood and paint it. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve the ARA kiosk subject to the conditions that are stated in Roxanne's memo dated April 11, 1989. Chris second. All approved except Don. Charles Cunniffe was reseated. 525 N. 2ND ST. THE SHILLING-LAMB HOUSE-CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Chairman opened public hearing. Roxanne presented the over-view of the project as attached in records (memo April 11, 1989). Roxanne: The project involves two additions to the National Registered structure, one to the south elevation and the other to the west elevation. They are two small one story additions and the plans include restorations of the house. We find that the additions are compatible and recommend approval subject to the condition that the landscape alterations on the fence "renovation" be approved by HPC and that HPC grant variations for the side yard setback and the Floor Area Ration in the amount of 242 sq. ft. The full parcel is a 12,000 sq. ft. parcel. APPLICANT RESPONSE Travis Price and Chase Pore, architects: We area allowed 25% site coverage and we are at 22%. We have a large basement under the addition that is 33% above grade. If it wasn't for the basement coming up a few feet we would not need a variation. They wanted a media room. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Joe: What is there that is driving a need for a variation of floor area. The variation should be more compatible with the historic structure and historic integrity. Roxanne: They are trying to use the house to the fullest and keep it a single family residence. In allowing for the additions to go on they need to request that variation for FAR. They have pushed the additions back to where they do not effect the facade and I find it to be compatible and appropriate to allow for the house to evolve. The projections are small and low scale. Charlie: When you look at the structure the front porch is above grade and the side area has always been above grade and I think it is appropriate and fits with the nature of the house. 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of April 11, 1989 Chris: Is there a reason why you haven't continued the rail around the porch. Travis: We are at 2'6" and do not need a rail and we wanted to keep it clean. Chairman closed public hearing. MOTION: Nick made the motion to grant conceptual approval as recommended by Staff in the memo dated April 11, 1989 and grant the variation. Don second. All approved. RATINGS-1004 E. DURANT AND 17 QUEEN ST. Chairman opened the public hearing. Roxanne: The owners were all notified. On 1004 E. Durant a rating of #4 would be appropriate. On 17 Queen Street a #3 would be appropriate. On a #4 rating states that any demolition proposal would be reviewed by the HPC. I received a copy of a demolition permit for 17 Queen Street. 1004 E. Durant - Roxanne: Doug Allen, attorney is representing the owner who has left town. The owner is interested in having the structure landmark designated and wants to do some renovation. A #4 would make her eligible for a $2,000 designation grant from the City that would help offset some of the renovation costs. ' This is the last remaining historic structure on Durant Street. Doug Allen: I would like to have this public hearing continued until the next meeting with an agreement that we will not apply for a demolition permit in order that I may meet with my client. Commission agreed to continue the public hearing on 1004 E. Durant until the next regular meeting April 26, 1989 5:00 p.m. 17 Queen Street - DISCUSSION Mark Friedburg, realtor: Basically the seller and myself concur with the #3 rating. The building is an unsafe dwelling right now and it is the intention of the new owner of the property to demolish that structure. We have worked with the current tenant Steve Crockett to accommodate him and extend his stay there until June 1, 1989. The demolition was applied for yesterday afternoon. The notification was never sent to owner directly it went to the tenant and was forwarded to her. The owner and 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of April 11, 1989 myself feel that the property does not have historic significance. Joe: I feel it should be rated a four. Charles: If the house is rated a #3 and does go through with.a demolition permit possibly we should approach the applicant about donating it to the Historic Trust and find another place to relocate it before it is indeed demolished. Leslie Holst: I think on these marginal buildings that it is possible to upgrade the~ to a #4 so at least they have to come for a full review before they are demolished. Steve Crockett, renter: The house belongs to Mrs. Vea and there is a sale pending with Lana Trettin. I'm getting caught in the cross fire. The current owner in order to protect the property rights applied for a demolition permit and I would have done the same thing. I am curious as to how ord #17 affects this property. Roxanne: It does not and a demolition permit has been granted and it is good for 120 days. Steve: My concern is that they would be forced to demolish the house and the property would sit vacant for a year and then I am displaced because this has been driven through for them to protect their property. These are things you want to look at when reviewing this property. Mark Friedburg: We are sympathetic to the historic designation in this community and the protection of integrity. There is going to be a new home build on that property and that house is in poor condition. Roxanne: I rated it a #3 because it meets that criteria and I think the structure has potential. That rating is consistent with all the other ratings. Charles: In the context that these building were rated before and the location in the community I would have given it a #2. Joe: I think the Committee should seriously consider what will happen to that building tomorrow. Madeline Osberger: That house is kind of a demarkation and if that house goes the area will start looking like the east end. 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of April 11, 1989 Chuck Fidal: I have looked at the building and it is not in good shape but Mrs. Trettin is not the owner and cannot make a commitment. The closing is set up for the fall. She also is not of the intention to trash the house or restore it in its present location. Mark: If that building can be moved and saved we would absolutely do that but we have been told it cannot. Charlie: Is it a condition of the sale that the house be erased. Mark: No. Leslie Holst: The house has the wrong designation number and it should be rated a #4 so it would come up for a demolition review. Everything should be rated. Joe: If the house is. rated a #4 and they have a demolition permit and demolish it they still have to come through HPC with their redevelopment plan. Bill: I don't think you can structure to get the project done. proper channel, Council. falsely score or evaluate a It should be done through the Roxanne: The original rating form was created in 1980 which came up with the three different categories. In 1986 all of the notables were redone and all the exceptional and the excellent structures had been found. The notables were rated 1-5. In the landuse code it addresses the issue. We have two categories above that as well. Bill: What had happened with the public outcry the City Council made the cutoff point at #3 saying that all numbers under 3 could be demolished and they would only address 4 and 5. Now that the political picture has changed they are evaluation as to whether to lower that standard. Charles: At that time there were numerous individuals opposed to the rating system. Joe: I am here for preservation and we should have the opportunity to review the demolition and redevelopment of that property. Charles: 1 thru 18 was used in 1980 to establish the three categories. The third and lesser category "notables" was simply rated from 0 to 5 using that same form. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of April 11, 1989 MOTION: Nick made motion to rate 17 Queen st. a #4. Joe second. Chris: I am opposed to changing the rules to put a stop to something. Bill: A #2 rating means a structure has been altered in a way that it has negatively affected its historical architectural integrity. Typically the structure cannot be associated with any important historic person or event and is merely representative of a miner family home environment. The neighborhood influence is also not significant because the structure's historic qualities have become nominal. Bill: A #3 rating is given to a structure that has been altered in a way that negatively affects its historic architectural integrity, however, the structure retains some historic significance because of particularly distinctive historic structure elements and/or its contribution to the historic neighborhood. In a few cases the structure has been associated with an historic person or family. Bill: A #4 rating is given to structures that have been altered in a way that is considered compatible and the historic character is preserved. Structure typically has strong positive influence in the neighborhoods historic character and may be associated with important historic persons or events. In all cases structures were in their original location on the best of Staff or HPC's knowledge. Joe: I do not feel this structure has been altered in a fashion that negatively affects its historic integrity. Bill: I don't think the structure has been alter in a fashion that negatively affects it. Nick: It certainly fits the neighborhood. Yes vote: Charlie, Nick, Joe and Bill. No vote: Charles, Chris and Don. Motion carries. MOTION: Joe made motion to continue the public hearing on 1004 E. Durant until the next meeting. Charles second. All approved. Meeting adjourned 6:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, ~'~ Deputy City Clerk~' ~--')