Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19881206HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall December 6, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Nick Pasquarella, Charles Cunniffe, Joe Krabacher, Chris Darakis, Donnelley Erdman and Georgeann Waggaman present. Zoe Compton and Charlie Knight were absent. ~K)TION: Nick made the motion to approve the minutes of Nov. 22, 1988. Georgeann second. All approved, motion carries. Committee Member and Staff Comments Roxanne: Last night was a joint worksession between City Council and all of the Boards and Commissions which dealt primarily with the conflicts of interest and qualifications of serving on the committees. Outcome: All boards get together and report back to Council mid Feb. on any changes that they might perceive that could occur in their committee. I am proposing that we work on our by-laws and incorporate some ideas of perceived conflicts of interest and we will be talking about that at our next meeting. Bill: Lets add this to the agenda and discuss the issue. MOTION: Bill made the motion to add the conflicts of interest issue to the agenda, time permitting. Georgeann second. All approved. Motion carries. HISTORIC DESIGNATION 320 W. MAIN SMITS-ELISHA HOUSE Roxanne: The Smith-Elisha house located at 320 W. Main is requesting historic designation. Its historic evaluation is exceptional, the highest rating and was built circa 1890 and is the last remaining "Exceptional structure to be landmark designated in the Main Street Historic District. The property has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The new owner Alan Sheda intends to restore the main house and renovate the carriage house, developing office space in both structures and a living unit for himself in the second floor of the carriage house. The first owner of the house, Eben Smith, was one of the most prominent mining men in Colorado. The second owners were Lawrence Mansor Elisha and his wife Svea. They purchased the home shortly after Eben Smith sold it and in 1911 they bought the Hotel Jerome. The Smith-Elisha house is significant for its exuberant Queen Anne and Shingle styles characterized by a shingled second story, a multi-gable roof and an ornate Victorian porch. It is one of the large wood frame residences built during the height of Aspen's silver mining period. Its lawn setting is found to be significant to the site, HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1988 and is featured in the National Register Nomination form. The Planning Office feels that the preservation of the Smith-Elisha house is critical to the integrity of the Main St. Historic District and the victorian character of Aspen. The Planning Office recommends that the Historic Preservation Committee recommend historic landmark designation for the Smith-Elisha House and the Carriage House. Donnelley: It is one of the great houses in Aspen. Bill: Should we get photo documents taken before the house is covered up with paint so we know the extent of the work. Roxanne: I always photo document every project and have prints available. Bill: I'll open the public hearing. Georgeann: I drove by and they are doing some "demolitions" to be able to restore it and I want to be sure we are watching that closely. Chris: I went through the building today and made several notations which we can talk about at project monitoring. Ramona Markalunas: One of the problems that has been created within the last two weeks is the affordable housing ordinance, the historic buildings have not been exempt. I think it will discourage a lot of restorations of historic buildings. It holds about $100,000 worth of affordable hanging over the Elisha house. The owner had comments that it might be better to burn it down. Roxanne: Ramona and I have discussed this and the Planning Office knows this is a problem and we are working on it. Mac Cunningham: At the council meeting I did hear comments from the Council that certain incentives were desired for historic structures and they were going to look into that. Roxanne: Resolution #11 that P&Z passed does not address mixed use projects like this. The affordable housing issue that we are talking about is separate from reso #11. It has been in place since May 25th when this revised code was adopted which requires a 60% threshold for affordable housing. In other words if this project had come in three months ago it still would have had those same exactions attached to it. We have estimated around $63,000 just for affordable housing. Resolution #11 may or may not directly affect this project. This project was going to be affected prior to that. 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1988 Joe: Because there is a change of use. Bill: I'll close the public hearing. MOTION: Nick made the motion that this committee recommend historical landmark designation for the Smith-Elisha house and the carriage house. Second by Joe. All approved, motion carries. 605 W. MAIN ST. WESSON DEIq~AL BUILDING Bill: We have the conceptual development for 605 W. Main St. and this is also a public hearing. Roxanne: In Dec. 1986 HPC approved final development plans for a very different structure than what is currently proposed, with corner/diagonal entrances, vertical siding and a dominant standing seam metal roof. The project was know as the Wesson Dental Building. The project was never built and the current owner has entered into a contract with the applicants to purchase the land and development rights. On Nov. 8, 1988 the applicant appeared before HPC with a pre-application requesting preliminary information from the committee and presented conceptual sketches. HPC members were in general consensus that the applicant's proposal more closely addressed the guidelines and that the design was headed in the right direction. Some of your concerns centered around the south (Main St.) elevation and the main entrance requesting a more dominant appearance and the dominant appearance of the 5th St. or the east elevation as well as the stone foundation. It is Staff's opinion that every renovation and new construction project on the Main St. Historic District be very carefully considered by HPC due to the potential impacts to the Historic District and the visual impact to the entrance to Aspen. Staff finds that the scale, massing and height of the proposal is in keeping and compatible. The height is 6 inches higher than what is required and I have addressed that in the conditions of approval. The height limit is 25 ft. and there is a flat roof on this project and is being proposed at 25.6 ft. The setbacks are consistent and the visual impact of the on-site parking has been reduced considerably. All these issues are addressed in our guidelines. Dan Levinson, builder: When I sold this property to Dr. Wesson I had architectural approval for the position of the building and how it related to the Shaw house. I have never seen these plans. I am requesting at this time that this thing be tabled until I get a chance to go over it. 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1988 Mac Cunningham: The first time we found out you had architectural approval was last night, so I called you. This to the public is no relationship between any title rights that you may have on the property and we would be happy to meet with you. HPC's review of these plans has nothing to do with any title implications of architectural approval that an adjacent property has. Dan Levinson: I don't agree. The reason those things were done: 1. That the Shaw house would not get pocketed. 2. The blockage of use off towards the east. Roxanne: The Shaw house is Dan Levinson's property and you can see the similarities in the main facades here. The plans that were previously approved in Dec. 86 were quite different. I met with the applicant and through the pre-application meeting we talked about compatibility issues of the Main St. Historic District, setbacks, scale, massing, height, roof pitch and materials. This proposed project does pick up a great amount of these issues. What the HPC looked at in the pre-application was a shorter gable, windows that filled up the entire gable peak. We worked with the applicant on the importance of the orientation to Main St. instead of onto 5th St. Only subtle changes have occurred on Main St. Some concerns that Staff has are the windows in the gable peaks and possibly the entire 5th St. elevation in its fenestration pattern. The south elevation is very different in Staff's opinion, a lot of windows; the transparency percentage is very high and some of the triangular gable windows may not be appropriate. I have listed alternatives in your memo. We are recommending that HPC grant conceptual approval with the conditions: A. Reduction of height at least 6" Be That the applicant restudy the principle facade primarily the central entrance way. C. That the applicant restudy the east elevation in its relation to the principal facade and central entrance orientation. De That the applicant also study the entire fenestration proposal, particularly on the south elevation for simplification. E. That the applicant provide a simple massing model of the project including the adjacent historic structure. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1988 F. Provide a streetscape sketch indicating height and spacing relationships. G. That the conceptual material for the roof be wood shingle. Bill: Roxanne, this is a very thorough memo and I would like to commend you. Bill: This is the time to give public comment. Dan Levinson: I like what he is doing but have a problem with the thing about the pocketing. Everything that Wesson came in with I demanded 15 ft. so as you come down the street it wouldn't be pocketed. Also to maintain some light coming in from the east. I find the 15 ft. front setback very important. Bill: I will keep the public hearing open. Are there any clarifications. Mac: We worked hard on trying to increase the pronounced front of the building. We like to keep things simple, clean and neat and one of the things the elevations don't show when you look at the front of this is that the front entry is far more pronounced then when it came in for the pre-application meeting. The massing will have a very pronounced effect but the lines are very clean rather than putting lots of fenestration or pseudo victorian on. In the pre-application discussion we had discussed the setback, obviously I have not had the chance to talk with Dan and discuss the design. The actual mass of the building is still 15 ft. back from that setback line. At the request of Staff we pulled the porches forward to be even with the porch of the Shaw house in order to get the even historic line down the street, that is why it was pulled forward. We would like to maintain that, not because it pockets the Shaw house at all but it creates a very clean line and would read evenly. Dan: I wanted everything back. Stan: This was a two story structure. Dan: I don't know if I agree with Roxanne. Bill: The house should be in the same alignment and that is one of the guidelines. Roxanne: Setbacks are crucial. Mac: The draftsman can take off the 6 inches in height accordingly. I think that the mass of trying to get the long 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1988 eaves in the building will greatly reduce the mass impact compared to what was originally approved. In terms of my own esthetic comments: We tried to keep the design very simple. In my background of 15 years one thing is important not to try and mirror an historic building. The general standards are to try and give a visualization of the same architectural style. The shingling on the roof is an issue I can go either way with. The problems with wood shingles is that they don't hold up all that well. Stan: There are new materials on the market both asphalt and composite materials that don't look like standard asphalt shingles. I don't necessarily believe wood shingles are historic roofing material. If the color and texture are correct other roofing materials are acceptable. Mac: We will bring in some of those materials for the final meeting. Georgeann: When I look at these, this is a case when the elevations don't necessarily reflect what is going on. (Mac and Stan did clarifications) Stan: I will supply a massing model. Georgeann: With contemporary house aware of that. the clarifications this makes for a far more then at first appearance and we need to be Stan: This style roof is very contemporary but I wasn't trying to make it victorian. Nick: I have gotten clarified on the front setback and it is comparable with the house next door (Shaw). Looking out toward Main St. it shows 26 feet, six inches more and you said you can correct that. How does that compare with the height of the Shaw house. Stan: 23.6 feet. Nick: About 2/ 1/2 to 3 ft. difference. The space on the west side of the new house to the property line, how deep is that? Roxanne: 5.6 feet. Nick: What is the space to the existing house. Mac: 25 feet but there is a porch that comes out so it would be about 15 ft. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1988 Bill: Can we get floor plans for the next meeting. Roxanne: Floor plans are not required at conceptual but I can ask for them. We should add this to the code amendment. Donnelley: I appreciate your efforts not to produce a mock victorian. I believe one of your efforts should be to preserve the scale and when we look at these drawings they look about half the size they really are. The building is much large. The fascia and gable ends drawn here at 8th scale is approximately a foot thick and there is no victorian in this town that has that kind of heavy scale. A fence is not shown in elevation anywhere and is shown on the plan. The nature and material of a fence is important to the whole consideration of the project. A masonry base is wonderful to have but if one looks around town at stone work the quality, scale, color of stonework varies immensely from building to building and at some point we should see the nature and size of the stone and how it is laid out. It can make or break a building at ground level unless it is all planned out. Some of the elevations show corner boards and some do not. The most demanding issue to be dealt with is the heaviness of the fascias and gable ends because they get immensely thick. Stan: 8th inch scale is not the scale to consider building anything off of. Roxanne: final. Would it be better to have larger scale drawings for Donnelley: Yes. Stan: I disagree, we are not looking from you a critique on a drawing at 8th inch scale but rather, are we in the right ball park because we will be back with larger scale drawings. I'm not about to do a lot of fine line work at this point when we can end up coming back here three times. I will take your commends. Nick: I strongly recommend that we see a scale model with some reference to the house next door. Georgeann: I find the windows on the south side appropriate as they add an interesting fresh touch to the rear. I am a little concerned that the different articulations on the side might become too much and too out of character. Joe: I like the Main Street elevation and I don't have the same concerns as Staff does on the south elevation because I don't 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1988 think it is a principle elevation. My concerns are with the east elevation particularly on the north side of the lot, second floor where the contemporary windows are. I don't think they are really in keeping~.~I also would like to see a massing model and a streetscape sket~.~-,~I'm not concerned about wood shingles. Chris: I agree with everything that has been covered. Charles: I echo a lot of what has been said and the only area that I see that might be a problem because it is on the principle facade is the way the eaves of the gable ease into the roof that ~raps around them. It seems cumbersome right now. Bill: I tend to agree with what has been said and I am a little concerned about those light wells and they are perceived in the drawings as a porch which is replicated next door of the Shaw house, so I am waiting to see in three dimension not that they do become "dark holes". In the guidelines we do request that the setbacks be aligned. Sometimes it might be beneficial to set a newer structure back so that the historic structure has a little more prominence. I don't know if the distance between the buildings will allow that to happen and a streetscape elevation might show that. My major concern is the massing. When you look at the 5th St. side and the west side it still looks like a two story block building and if it could look more like a series of cross gables it might help and break the massing so we don't have such a straight facade. I also agree that the fascia thicknesses should be studied and the fence. I also agree on the stone layout and it brings up the point on the height and the street elevation will show that. The building next door is raised off of the ground in a platform effect and when you look at the stone I don't know if we have the ability in the code to grant a variance on height. Roxanne: NO. That is a zoning issue to be addressed with the Board of Adjustments. Bill: On the materials I would prefer to because a lot of the victorians did have them stained. see wood shingles and they could be Stan: In the same block there is a houses that has asphalt shingles and possibly the Commission could take a look at it. Charles: The eave line goes all around and ~aps and is basically on one plane. That may be contributing to some of the massing problem. Chris: When the applicant came in for a pre-application there were three issues. We discussed the setback and we asked the HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1988 applicant to line it up. The fence came up and there is a fence on the property already. Mac: It is on the property and is shown on the site plan. Chris: At that meeting we also discussed the problem with the ditch. Roxanne: They now are not going to move the ditch and the sidewalks will be handled when the City decides what should be done with that area. Georgeann: Then we are to assume that the irrigation ditch will remain as they are now. Mac: Yes. Dan: I wanted to keep a roundness on that corner and I am against the 15 ft. Both Wesson and the realtor said they would give a copy of the deed to anyone who was interested in the property. I also am concerned about the east view. MO~ION: Charles made the motion to grant conceptual development approval for the proposal subject to the conditions required at final development review pertaining to accurate materials representation and further clarifications required based upon findings at this meeting. The conditions to include are: A reduction of at least 6" in height to meet code requirements. A restudy of the east elevation in its relation to the principal facade and central entrance orientation. A restudy of the entire fenestration proposal particularly in the south elevation for simplification. Provide a simple massing model of the project including the adjacent structure to show the setbacks and trees. Provide a streetscape sketch indicating height and spacing relationships and also larger scale drawings including floor plans. I would like to recommend wood shingle roof material or an acceptable alternative. Study the eave scale. Georgeann second. 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1988 Mac: Restudy the east and south elevations. Bill: On the south alley side Roxanne had problems with the window layouts. Charles: I only had concerns about the light wells and stairways and no problems with the windows. Georgeann: We have more problems with the 5th St. side then any other. Joe: In Charles motion we wanted some representation of what the fence was going to look like. AMENDED NOTION: Charles amended his motion to include representation of the fence. Second by Georgeann. Ail approved of the motion and amendment. Motion carries. NEW BUSINESS Donnelley: I attended a board meeting of the west end homeowners association at which I was directed to inquire as to historic designation of some of Herbert Bayer's work in town with specific reference to the Bayer town houses which serve as institute trustee housing at present. The new plan presented by the Hadid group proposes demolition of some or maybe all of these residences mainly for access to housing down in the lower area on Castle Creek. Herbert Bayer designed a number of buildings in town but this is the biggest single complex. This issue will be brought up at or before the public hearings effecting the proposed Hadid development of the Meadows, Institute property. Bill: The Aspen Institute is on our inventory but not those structures because they were not prior to 1910. Roxanne: It is possible for us to bring forward an application for designation of those structures and the home on Lake Avenue should also be designated. It is not in the inventory so we would need to add it to the inventory which is a public hearing. We have to request that the applicant apply for designation. If the applicant does not, in the code it states that we can designate without owner consent but we have never done that. Donnelley: The Paepcke auditorium is significant and all of the residential structures but the town house grouping has more claim to importance. 10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1988 Georgeann: You and your group need to know that designation does not save something from being demolished. Donnelley: step. It does bring attention to it and that is the first Georgeann: You might possibly get them designated by the owner. Donnelley: I'm not a member of the Board and Ramona Markalunas asked me to bring this before HPC. Roxanne: I appreciate you bringing the issue up and I have a letter from the attorney and they were very adamant they were not interested in designation. That letter was regarding the Institute and was received two years ago. If that has changed it would be terrific to have all that area designated. Donnelley: That area is an ideal access to the proposed housing area and therefore they are expendable. If it is right for Aspen to have something designated then one should proceed. Georgeann: You probably have looked at the plans more than we have and while that might be an ideal access is there another access. Donnelley: I don't really know. Herbert Bayer was an important figure regarding the architecture of the City and is it right to destroy these building or should another access be considered. Georgeann: Don't we have something when we put in our inventory that said they had to come back were going to do anything with them. those buildings to us when they Nick: Yes, there was. Roxanne: From a Planning aspect, that never happened and I have researched and found nothing. Maybe Staff can talk with the Institute people and see if it is possible to get a National listing of the entire Bayer complex. Charles: If they do not want to designate the entire complex maybe they could start with the Paepcke auditorium. Nick: There is another access to that area down by Slaughter house bridge. If you turn right and go up in you can see the back end of the Meadows and valley. Donnelley: R.O. Anderson owns the property that is required to get access to that area. An easement could be granted. 11 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1988 Roxanne: I will try to update you at the next meeting. Joe: My initial reaction of getting the people in that area to agree to do anything is probably zero. I'm sure he is looking at this and trying to get his money back out of it. I would think if the people in the West End improvement association are interested they should put together some information together and file an application and see if the Board will designate the area. Roxanne: I would be glad to help the Association with an application. CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUE Bill: Some of the issues discussed last night at the council meeting: We are to establish our own mode of operating and bring it back to the Council. Ordinance #50 is existing. Basically Council said it is how the public perceives the conflict. We are trying to get respect for this Board from the public and it is important that we adhere to this. One issue brought up was that the architect and professionals on the Board would limit the number of projects that they bring before the board. Donnelley: Last night it was brought up that professionals wouldn't serve on Boards and we should consider the reality that they will serve. The real issue is focused on HPC and it only has to do with Charles as he has had so many projects come before the Board. Correct me if I am wrong but I read in the paper that the McDonalds quoted you as saying you are a Preservation Architect. I don't think that is expedient for you to say that if you did. It has been published and it has brought on a public perception that has to be erased. There is no question that there has been total professional handling of everything that has come before this committee. But when it goes in the paper that Charles is a preservation architect it is as if someone from P&Z who is an attorney says they are a planning and zoning consultant. There is a total public perception of the fact that jobs are obtained through thinking there is an easy channel to approval by using a member of the Board who is a preservationist and professional. There are two ways of looking it, no one on this board is irreplaceable or one can say I think this Board is going to have to pay very close attention to amending its by-laws and saying possibly only one project in a 12 month period or something like that. Charles: The perception is one that is warped. One project went along for a year and the Berko lasted for a year. Another thing, no one ever hired me because I was on HPC or said you know 12 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1988 how to get through the process. I was hired on my individual merits. Donnelley: We are talking about perception not reality. Georgeann: The question is how do we change the perception. Charles: Education. Georgeann: I was just a fluke that Charles had the most projects last year and he was also someone the McDonalds had a personal problem with. Charles: A lot of the perception has come from the McDonalds animosity. Georgeann: You can't expect a Board to rule on issues so close to peoples hearts without some people disagreeing with the Board. Bill: I also have never gotten any work because I am on HPC. I am on the Board because I want to contribute to the community. If there is a perceived conflict we step down. Charles: I was doing more historic work before I even got on HPC. The City Council asked me to be on the Board because I was actively involved in historic projects. Nick: We have a good working Board here and if anybody considers walking away because of some criticism that is in the newspaper it is wrong. Georgeann: Lets go back and look at the records for four years and possibly make a statement. Charles: We should start from now and be as constructive as possible. I do not want to make this a personal issue and I have been trying to be very quiet about this. I do not want to get into a debate about whether or not what I was doing was wrong. Bill: I don't want to take this as a personal battle. Council sometimes has a bigger conflict then we do, so everybody is studying it. Research and thought is required. Other conflict of interest ordinances are very similar to what we already have. Roxanne: I do not think anybody on this board has ever acted unprofessionally or if there has ever been a conflict of interest. We are going to be looking at amending the by-laws. 13 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1988 Joe: Limiting the number of projects will probably not affect the public perception of what is going on. I think we should adopt a policy statement or by-laws that essentially says a) members of the board cannot make presentations before this board but their associates can. Lay out the things that build up the confidence of the public. If we come out with a very clear statement that will flush out the circumstances. Charles: we need to encourage Council, P&Z to participate with HPC more in work sessions. Roxanne: Ail the Boards need to know what each other is doing, we have to communicate. Joe: You get involved with politics when you have City Council sitting here and the elections are coming up in less than 6 months. I'm not saying that is bad or good but it affects it. Roxanne: In your packets from October that addressed all these issues. Please and bring it to the next meeting. I gave you all a memo go back and review it Bill: Lets try to resolve this issue at the next meeting and get a letter out. Roxanne: I will try to include a project review checklist with each major project that we have. Roxanne: We need a monitor for 605 W. Main St. Do -^~ · y. I can do that project. Chris: I went through the Elisha house and made notes. They are pulling off all the shingles and taking it down to the sheathing. I also saw a lot of dry rot and the gentleman mention to me that they are replacing and not skimping on materials and they will closely match. Roxanne: I sent the entire plans to the state architect. Adjourned meeting at 5:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 14