HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.198807261 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE July 26, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. First Floor Council Chambers City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes-July 12, 1988 III. Committee Member and Staff comments IV. Public Comments V. Monitoring Projects VI. PRESENTATION Guest Chris Pfaff, Preservation Planner Jay Yanz, State Historical Architect COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY Topics: ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY, Jay Yanz CLG grant program A look at other preservation programs throughout the State Aspen's local proposed districts Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credits program, Presented by Chris Pfaff QUESTION AND ANSWER VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Development Application-City Hall mechanical equipment 1*«47t£Ly B. Evaluation Ratings for inventory update VIII.OTHER BUSINESS A. Creating the Evaluation Ratings form NOTE: Sub-committee Local Historic Trust Task Force meeting. Thursday, July 28, 1988 5:00 p.m. at Zoe Compton's home. 1 j
MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Scheduled Appearance by Colorado Historical Society Date: July 26, 1988 I would like to introduce you to two very active and important players in the historic preservation community of Colorado. I have asked these two individuals here to meet with you, City Council, and the general public, and offer their suggestions and advise in the area of historic preservation and preservation planning. Besides their professional affiliations with the Office of Historic Preservation and Archaeology with the Colorado Historical Society in Denver, they both actively advocate for historic preservation statewide and nationally as well. Chris Pfaff, Preservation Planner, administers the State's "Certified Local Government" program, of which Aspen has the honor to be included. A select program, CLG certification only has been given to five other Colorado communities: Denver, Boulder, Longmont, Telluride and Lake City. She will*making a brief presentation at the June 25 Council meeting regarding the current focus of the program and what benefits Aspen may expect in the future. Chris will be addressing the HPC on this and a variety of other topics, such as Development Review Standards, proposed historic district boundaries and the formation of a local non-profit historic trust, a CLG-related special project I am currently working on. Jay Yanz is accompanying Ms. Pfaff. Jay is the State Historical Architect and will be making an in depth presentation to the HPC on the subject of "Architectural Compatibility". This should be a fascinating and educational meeting for anyone interested in attending. THIS IS AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO BRING YOUR IDEAS AND COMMENTS BEFORE JAY. I have worked with Chris Pfaff for a number of years and respect her vast knowledge of historic preservation. She is pleased to have this opportunity to address the Aspen City Council, the Historic Preservation Committee, and the general public, and will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Please feel free to invite your other preservation-interested friends. Thank you!
MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development Application for Mechanical Equipment for roof of City Hall Date: June 26, 1988 LOCATION: Aspen City Hall, 130 S. Galena St. Commercial Core Historic Overlay District APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The City is requesting approval for a minor development application to add mechanical cooling equipment to the roof of City Hall. Two 3' x 3' x 4' almond colored baked enamel evaporative air coolers will be installed on the flat section of roof. No other exterior modifications are proposed at this time. HISTORIC DESIGNATION STATUS: City Hall (1892) is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is a local designated landmark and located within the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District. PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: This application is considered Minor Development based on the review standards specified in Sec. 7-601(E)(2)(a) and is a one-step process, requiring HPC's approval only. SUMMARY OF THE ACTIVITY: Deputy City Manager and Planning Director Alan Richman requested this development activity be reviewed by HPC at their earliest convenience. The application is currently being processed and includes a rooftop location sketch. As you know, City Hall is currently undergoing substantial interior renovation. It has been roughly retrofitted time and again. No system for cooling or air circulation exists in the building at the present. When the sky lights were installed a few years ago, the third floor was opened to the ceiling, therefore, no opportunity exists to install mechanical equipment within the building below the roof. The high summer temperatures, especially on the third floor, require the need to install a cooling system is necessary. Rooftop installation is required, however, the city's contractor and Staff believe this can accomplished sensitively from a visual impact standpoint, by rooftop placement alone. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: 1) The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels...
RESPONSE: The equipment is simple in design and neutral in color. It will be placed on the roof in two locations: in the center to the north of the bubble skylight and on the north-east portion of the roof. Staff finds it very unobtrusive, possibly difficult to see when looking up at the roof from adjacent sidewalks, and a common function of modern life. It will have a semi-matte, baked enamel finish, which may be painted at some time. In our opinion, it is as visually quiet as moderately-sized mechanical equipment can be. 2) The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood... RESPONSE: The Commercial Core Historic District contains a variety of commercially oriented buildings which contain a number of rooftop devises and mechanical equipment. Staff finds the two box-like structures minimal in visual impact, only readily seen from the 3rd floor of the Pitkin County Courthouse. It should noted equipment similar to what is being proposed is visible on many commercial buildings seen from the Courthouse and other taller structures in the Commercial Core. Staff feels that any additional rooftop equipment adds to the overall visual clutter, however, the impact of this is minimal. The equipment is not visible looking north from other landmark buildings located south of City Hall. Also, as a point of reference, mechanical equipment is exempt from viewplane review; City Hall is located with the viewplane area. 3) The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value... RESPONSE: Staff finds the development activity does not detract from the cultural value of City Hall. In a way, mechanical equipment on the rooftop of an "Industrial Style" building may be more appropriate than on most large structures within the Commercial Core District. 4) The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity... RESPONSE: Staff finds that the equipment and its placement on the roof does not diminish the architectural integrity. No facade changes are being made. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the minor development to install two 3' x 3' x 4' evaporative air coolers to the roof of City Hall in the location specified in the application, defined in Staff's memo.
0 1 . 1·- ' : . ... ./ ... ... - FRIGIKING- Built-In Quality ..3 And Excellent Product Design Create a Greater Product Value For You 4 1.- ..· .. . / . -44. U.% . -41~--54·29 - - ,/49/1.•ifi 9.1 h 1/~~li'~19,1/44/ I «~r /291606/Ir 4. ililigi'fr'.1,%151*92/ 1~rh.n 'rpll#F~" ~1'#2 3.4·11 - : *9 1 1.4 & 9 1 ....F~*9/ 1 -, ...17 1: 1.k 01 ' ' ....AL//1&51 -- A-3-//111.11* A~4.14 -> W £.h •k .: ~ TN VILIEL".2.trit idigi 2 63/52- .. h ~ 1,4 - 1- I . 0- A Vt /2~1412.1 31.- ...flo /.tdig l. W#ih .- . 4 : 4,;j . t. r,4 . /~/alit?", //v'A .rat:'2 b- - .14 g _....·- i -#,I -- - >N,· 2/ -*tk - 1 h. t v ..4.4. ¥ h - * 74 -11 20 I. ...., 4 ... 1 0.,t'' \.6 '11\<219 , 2% ... ' -: 50. . 1¢, - Ift .*1 £ 7 . 44 - A. . li' ',I 44 ' I **e 7%/ - . . . '; '· -2/RM»· £ 2.». 14. 1--, . -xlf/Tr-,F' , 6 - - . *1* U-0. U¥; - 1*-' _,®dr,Y · %1 vt.:74.- *439 -=01."fe//5:4*144 , A V . A \ W,-,-,L.E.3.2'~33,2.-p-96=:12 1. *#.. 6 . 151% . 1 + . .449¢7. I. . I J -'
- I~... ./ ~./ I. I ' 4 . ... 1 k,¢' . ... . A e. .. -- - 0 00.- - I . I - a . - . a - ... ..... tA . .. 0. ....... lr: ..... 4. 0 . 0. i . .......... 0 . E . ... . 8 .. 6 .. - 0 -- . . i.... . 1. .. . 1 0 0 0. . ... ..... 4 ' .. .. e. 0 .. E .. ... - 0 --0.- 0. 0 . .0- ... .... ... I. - 0 00 . 0 .... . ... ...-... .. -.-. ... 0 .. .. . 0 0 . ....... 1 0. i . ¢ 0- ......... 1. . . 0 - .... I. . . .. 0 ... I. 0- . 0 ....... 0 1 .. 0 --- .'-0 . . 0 ........ 00-.. . 0 .. . .. I . . ..... a .0 0. .I ... I. ... 1. 1 .... ... . ..... e .0 - . - .... ..0 - ... .. . . ..0 . . 0. - . 1 - ....... . 1 2'4'2•: G . 0 F .:2 ... *.. .- - 1 . .... - ... 1. i . .. . 0 01 0 111 1 11 - 0. -- ... 0 ... 0 -- i .... .- . . I . .... . 0 - .. e . .. ..... . .. ... I. ... . I. ¢ ... . ...... ... 1.- . . . ..... .... . 0 . .a-/. I
MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Evaluation Ratings for the purpose of Inventory Updates Date: July 26, 1988 As previously discussed with you through Staff memo dated July 12, 1988, a number of properties have not yet received a rating, a task which should be accomplished at this meeting. Evaluation Ratings are necessary before the Public Hearing Inventory Update process may take place. A number of clarifications have been made in the last two weeks on some rating-uncertain properties, however, a few remain unevaluated. Rating forms have been attached for properties to be evaluated at this meeting. To receive Evaluation Ratings: 1) Marolt Barns, both major and minor structures, and the adjoining Holden Lixiviation Ruins Recommended Rating: l'51'2 Determined Eligible fot National Register Listing 2) "Opal Marolt House", aka Holden Lixiviation Works Office (see attached historical fact sheet) Recommended Rating: 4-0, Determining Ineligible for individual National Register Listing, however, could be included in a Multiple Resource Area (complex) nomination along with the Marolt Barn and Lixiviation ruins. Unrated properties included in "Special Category": 1) Castle Creek Power Plant, now known as the Roaring Fork Electric Company and City Shops 2) The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies 3) Riding Ring Race Track and Fairgrounds (Meadows area) Note: No individual ratings are noted for these three properties, and Staff has questions for seasoned HPC members with regard to the "Special Category'l.
Page 2 - Evaluation Ratings/Inventory Update Structures that have been demolished since the Inventory Form was first completed should be eliminated from the inventory at the public hearing. These are: 1) 222 E. Hallam (4) 2) 701 E. Hopkins (3) 3) 726 W. Bleeker (1) 4) 718 E. Hopkins (1) 5) 720 E. Hopkins (1) Any re-evaluations may be considered at the time of the public hearing as well. Please take a good look at the properties to be evaluated, and please come prepared with your comments to this meeting.
HISTORY OF THE OPAL MAROLT HOUSE Site of the Holden Lixiviation Works Office Aspen, Colorado (Note: The information in this report has been obtained by Georgeann Waggaman, Vice Chair of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, through telephone conversation with Opal Marolt herself, July 19, 1988.) INTRODUCTION The "Opal Marolt" house, located on the city-owned 70 acre Open Space parcel at Highway 82 and Maroon Creek Road, has a distinctive history combining the early mining and ranching era is Aspen. Considered as part of the Holden/Marolt Complex, which includes the large barn, smaller outbuilding and the Lixiviation Works ruins, it is most likely eligible today for listing in a National Register nomination due to its historic integrity*. HISTORY Built in c. 1890, the structure served as the original office of the Holden Lixiviation Works. It also served as a residence during its use as an office. Local Aspenite Amelia Trentaz lived there as a little girl in the 1920's and remembers the house well. Her narrative history of the property is currently being obtained. In the 1930's, the Marolt's bought the property. Since that time the following changes have occurred: 1) The house was raised and a basement was excavated using horses and wagons. Local Contractor/Stone Mason John Parson built the foundation and fireplace using stones hand picked from Maroon Creek. The Marolt boys made regular trips with horse and wagon to choose the stones, and Parson would use only those he found suitable in color.* 2) In the 1930's, a few windows were changed. Research is being done now to determine the extent of any change in fenestration.* 3) The original clapboard siding was completely removed in the late 1940's or early 1950's by Mr. and Mrs. Marolt; new aluminum siding was installed.* 4) The home was completely reroofed in the 1950's; extra roofing is still in the barn. Heat tapes were installed, and the switches are located inside, reportedly near the fireplace. It is reported that the house never leaked while the Marolt's owned it.
.X History of the Opal Marolt House, continued 5) At one time, the original assay office which was attached to the rear of the office/residence collapsed and was rebuilt on its exact footprint. The red rock stoop at the back entrance once supported the original Holden safe, which Opal Marolt has to this day. The house is currently endangered and warrants further study for its preservation. It meets the standards for local landmark designation, and it is recommended that the City apply to the HPC to begin the designation process. The Holden/Marolt property is representative of both the mining and ranching era of Aspen and contains significant historic integrity which should be taken into account. The Aspen HPC will be evaluating for rating determination the entire Holden/Marolt site at their July 26, 1988 meeting. *The alterations as noted consider the structure non-eligible for individual National Register listing, however, as an element in the Holden/Marolt complex, and due to its history integrity, the - property may be included in the larger nomination.
$ I. . 1 r 1 .2 4 1 0. t f '4.1 $ ll:lk /14£611- Lriz #jiti- .~}fi~*+ 1" : I + $ 84~6(4- ]Aotj) frjttal~t:1 (Mld,Di»fick.~)~ 1 > '. r ' '~/h 4 t 1 + P*t t, - ;14- 1 1.1.- 4 44 1 t 41«dy.. , :F. . a :0 , » 4 %20 13 4..1 . ..41'474J - :.. U.<1 1,1 , 4 , trit.:>417\.4 .A. .# 3 * , 1, 4 & 'I 411* %,s " <11 / Ie I a ........,1 ./. M ¥ 5~ .8 -I .,1 . I . :4 4 . v - ...r J 54 · 3*Il ''lj tet,p,23. - ] N. P.-9 e- . . I. - + \ i f ./ .2. » 1.. ' d. - #dit,1 . '4 2 ..1 2- , . /4 1 t 4. 1., 11.1 . 4~ 31 1 1 -- 4. 1 4.- :,3 + 4 - 4- . 44/ . 1 Li; 1 ' 1 .14- 14 , 8 4 1. '*/0 1/i A.. / . 442 f . 1 7 4 ,-/ 0. , , 7.2. 2/.- 7:•7 t] li k·;- - 22 I "~ * 11.-4Wk*p ./ · T- 1.- ;41£21 .4 .-' .. ' '' '4 + 12- 4. h. 1 .17. : ' , , 7 0, p 41 , ~ 3.1 .4 .- 0 .t *le 41* ¢ . ..1 Lt'.41/. 7 4, ti@¢ .. , ·,6,1. t r - - '-41=.4/2/Vilf h L-, 4-jj . L. . . t..4. . . / -iii . 1 V ..2 1 11 , . 21*; 3. I 1 ¥6. -1 - , 5(11 cr - C j Ki U #cd 1GL, 4,14
MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Evaluation Rating Forms Date: July 26, 1988 This is the first time HPC has added any property to the official Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures since the 1986 update. For those members who recall the process (some new members may not be aware) a system of evaluation was created with a rating attached to each, the top being "5", the bottom "1". The highest rating was given to those sites and structures considered of extremely integrity, in an unaltered condition. The lowest rating was given to those structures which have been altered beyond any recognition. Special weighting was given to properties located within neighborhoods containing significant strength in the area of historical integrity, and, likewise, particularly impacted neighborhoods might weigh negatively in the historic resource's final score. A great deal of thought, time and energy was invested into the inventory update and evaluation process, and the basis for those decisions should be incorporated into a format which would be easily utilized in the future by Staff and HPC members. No form has been developed to date, and Staff is looking for input from you on the information you feel is most critical to be contained within the form. Attached is the 1980 "Analysis of Historical Significance" inventory form, which you may wish to utilize. I have also attached a copy of the technical brief from Preservation Law, which succinctly states the 10 degrees of adverse affect a development may have on a historic structure. These elements may be incorporated into a rating form very easily. The six (6) Standards for Designation should be incorporated into our thinking in developing this evaluations rating form. We should also consider secondary historic structures (outbuildings) located on the parcel, either weighting the individual parcel rating higher if an original outbuilding is found on site, or rate each individually. An complete Outbuildings survey and context is scheduled for 1989.
1~NENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES & STRUCTURES ; ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE ASPEN, COLORADO ESOURLE NUMBER: AME OF STRUCTURE/SITE/PROJECT: OCATION: Block Lot I Street Address .ESCURCE INTE.GRITY: 9=: Nor,2 .&'A'20.·1 =-Kotable /2= Excellent /3= Exceptional (Maxinium - 51'01'ills ) , DEGREE OF SIGNIFICANCE SCORE . ->-7-ID--74'.istorically Assoc-iated with Events of Significance to: . LOCALE 0123 . REGION 0123 . STATE 0123 . NATION 0123 SUBTOTAL 0 M. 7-7 Historically Associated with Individuals or Groups which are Significant to: . LOCAL 0123 . REGION 0123 . STATE 0123 . NATION 0123 SUBTOTAL 0 III. 7-7 Embodies Distinctive Characteristics of: . TYPE/STYLE ARCHITECTURE/CONSTRUCTION 0123 . PER10D OF ARCHITECTURE 0123 . METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION 0 1.2 3 SUBTOTAL r--1 U.r· C-7- Represents the Work of a Significant Craftsman/Wilder/Architect: . LOCALLY 0123 REGIONAL 0123 . NATIONAL 0123 SUBTOTAL V. //A Noteworthy Survivir.a.€.te':--1>le of a Style Becoming Rare in the Locale or is Identified with a Street -Scene Dr rthon,Landscape 0123 i ·-Possesses High Artistic Value 0123 TOTAL POINTS 1 1 £27 1-6 Points = NO1481 E . DATE: zZLY 7 - 12 POINTS = EkLELLL.<; -'<~>:·'- --- / / 13 - 18 POINTS =-EXCEPTIONAL · , El El El
- -* - - 11 - NATIONAL CENTER FOR PREWERVATION LA'4V !33 2 OTH STREET, N.W. 0 SUITE 501 0 WASHINGTON, D.G, 20038 • (202) 828-9611 PRESIDENT ExECUTIVE DIRECTOR TERSH BOASBERG, ESQ. STEPHEN N. DENNIS. ESQ. PRESERVATION LATV UPDATE 1987-41 October 16, 1987 A Vocabulary for Degrees of Change to Protected Structures Some alterations are more injurious to historic buildings than others, depending on how much original building material will be affected and the extent to which the appearance of the structure may be changed as a result. Assessing the extent of an alteration should be more than an exercise in reading architectural drawings, but many preservation organizations have difficulty in articulating degrees of change in a satisfactory manner. The cumulative impact of individual changes may also need to be monitored for buildings of great significance. The International Council on Monuments and Site ("ICOMOS") recently held its Eighth General Assembly and International C- delivered at the General Assembly was one entitled "Monitoring Symposium in Washington October 10-15, 1987. Among the papers the Effect of Historic Building Controls in London," given by Richard J. Griffith of English Heritage, the popular name for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. Mr. Griffith outlined how English Heritage is beginning to monitor over time progressive changes to listed historic structures, in order "to ensure that historic building controls are applied consistently." Mr. Griffith noted that in England a re-survey of historic buildings is resulting in a list that will eventually contain over 1,000,000 structures subject to historic building legislation, and that the "annual value of controlled development" for such buildings is approaching $5,000 million: Legislation affecting .. . historic properties does so by controlling how they are changed. Specifically, controls are intended to prevent unwanted change; but, conversely, they also define acceptable change. In the United Kingdom the overwhelming majority of controlled buildings are in private ownership. As a result the majority of changes occur because the owner wishes to modify his property for his own purposes.
NATIONALCENTER FOR PREHERVATION LAW An appendix to Mr. Griffith's paper contains two "scales" for determining "degrce of change, " one showing how existing /- features of a building would be affected by a proposed change, L and another measuring the extent to which restoration of known or conjectural features would be involved in the alteration. The ten degrees of change of the first scale may suggest how preservation commissions and local preservation organizations can monitor changes to significant local structures. Communities which have surveyed all properties within local historic districts may want to assess numerically changes to the surveyed properties as they are approved to determine when the extent of change to a particular building has approached a point at which the building will have lost its historical character. To what degree is the existing special architectural or A~r historic interest of the property adversely affected by this proposal? 1. Very slight change 2. Minor change 3. Simple alterations which do not directly affect elements of interest 4. Alterations having marginal impact on elements of interest ~ 5. Alterations having noticeable impact on elements of interest 6. Elements of interest generally intact, with occasional losses 7. Substantial or complete loss of some elements of interest, but over 50% remaining generally intact 8. Major alterations involving substantial change to over 50% of elements of interest 9. Loss of majority of elements of interest 10. Complete loss with the exception of a vestigial feature The second scale asks "To what degree do the proposals involve restoration or conjectural reinstatement of missing or mutilated features?" There are four possible answers: (1) not at all; (2) to a small degree; (3) to a moderate degree; and (4) to a high degree. (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series is available for $45.00. Please send inquiries to the National ~- Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.")
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 PRESENTATION ON "DEVELOPING A LOCAL TRUST" .....3 ARA KIOSK .............6 200 E. Main Pre-Application for Significant Development ....8 715 W. SMUGGLER-APPLICANT: JENNIE LANG .....15 22 -2.~
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall July 12, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Nick Pasquarella, Georgeann Waggaman, Augie Reno, Joe Krabacher, Charles Cunniffe, Charlie Knight and Zoe Compton present. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the minutes of June 28, 1988. Nick second. All approved. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roxanne: CLG funding will be presented at next Council and HPC meeting. Joe: I'm requesting the final plans of 334. W. Hallam. Carl Bergman: We are having an antique engine show in conjunction with the ice cream social on July 17th 12:00 to 4:00 Pm. Nick: The preview display of the engine show at the Court House is excellent. MONITORING PROJECTS Georgeann: The Stallard house windows are in and are very satisfactory. Bill Lipsey's sculpture garden is just about finished and it seems to be functioning and working well. There have been a good response of people around it. I haven't contacted McDonalds yet. Nick: 113 E. Hopkins where we are going to move the house from Spring St. to E. Hopkins there is a little bit of excavating where they moved the pine tree and it is drying rapidly and needs irrigated and the tree has picked up another 2 degree list to the east. There are wires on it and possibly we should contact the Parks Dept. Roxanne: The existing home on lot K at 134 W. Hopkins will receive the renovation of the plans that we approved. The other home that was supposed to be moved right away apparently there is some stalling going on and I don't know what the situation is. I contacted Roger Kerr but have not gotten a response back yet. They do know they are under a time constraint. I will have more information later. Bill: They did represent that as one project but is it in fact two separate projects.
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 Roxanne: The Bldg. Dept. is allowing a separate building permit to be let on the one existing property so she can begin doing what we already approved. There would be another building permit for the other site. Bill: Do we need to inform the applicant that it was approved for that one particular house and that if another house was to be moved it might have to be re-approved. Roxanne: We have already done that at the meeting when we gave them final approval. Augie: The garage at 513 W. Bleeker is framed up. Zoe: Someone told me that McDonald's sidewalk has red dye in the concrete. Roxanne: We didn't address tint in the sidewalk. Charlie: They were going to paint the bottom of the building the same color. They talked about repainting it the color of the native sandstone. Zoe: We had been talking about sidewalks for that project and I was wondering if that shouldn't have been mentioned. Bill: We didn't review it and we have no purview over color. Georgeann: I will look into it and report back. Charlie: Possibly we need discussion about Main St. and an inventory of what is there as we have a lot of residential style buildings, box type office buildings and to me there is a dichotomy of what perhaps is not to be a disneyland and what perhaps is appropriate for the ambience of Main St. Perhaps we need another district in the west end. Roxanne: I just sent a report into the State regarding the feasibility of districting some of the west end and we do need to discuss the Comprehensive Plan and Guidelines regarding Main St. Bill: I would recommend that we put time on the next agenda to discuss this issue. 2
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 PRESENTATION ON "DEVELOPING A LOCAL TRUST" Roxanne: One of the activities that is required in our 1987 CLG grant contract is the feasibility study of the possibility of developing a Local Historic Trust. I have invited Rebecca Waugh to come speak to us on this topic to begin the dialogue process among ourselves and the Historical Society and any interested people. Many cities across the country have found a need to create a nonprofit organization that can fill a void between museum oriented historical society and a public oriented HPC. An local historic trust can be invaluable in a number of ways, in political advocacy revolving loan funds, realestate acquisitions and a variety of issues that we right now do not have set up in place. Rebecca Waugh is the Administrative Director of the Summit County Historical Society primarily dealing in Breckenridge. Rebecca Waugh: My background is in design, education and Colo. history. We are not political and a non-profit organization set up similar to your Aspen Historical Society. We are partially funded by the County and towns of Summit County. We have been working hard on preserving the Breckenridge Historic District and we consider that town an artifact. The Historical Society works very close with the town of Breckenridge to preserve the town. We do a lot of public relations work in the town. We have all the information, photographs etc. that can turn a project around and in the end preserve a building after they realize the importance of the building to the town itself and that is our role. The town of Breckenridge is on the national register of historic places and there are over 350 structures and it is the oldest community on Colorado's western slope. There are a lot of mining phase and settlement phase architecture and it is basically an all clapboard environment. We are at 9,600 ft. and have been thru a series of booms and busts. It is a wonderful example of a Colo. boom town. We have everything from the false front buildings to delivery stables, miners cabins, and victorian cottages. We have a whole residential district full of these cottages with hand gig saw work. Many of the houses date back to the 1970's with a lot of log work, clapboard etc. Breckenridge is probably most famous for its Main Street, very wide and it is one of the few towns that you can still drive into in the state of Colo and actually see the town develop in the three distinct phases that a Colo. boom town develop in. There is early settlement phase architecture, log work done early in the 1860's. The settlers were finding a lot of gold in the Blue River around 1859. After the sawmill was developed the settlers began to use false fronts on the buildings which is visible as you move up Main St. The false front buildings were a 3
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 very quick type building where they threw up a few vertical struts and put on vertical clapboard and that was your building. So when you see them leaning to the left and to the right its not because they are old its because they looked like that from day one. Breckenridge with its economic ups and downs has been able to preserve these examples of old architecture which in the richer boom times they didn't want to preserve these buildings. They wanted to put up more substantial architecture. At the south end of Main St. you see a lot of the building environment that happened after 1896 an introduction to the towns architecture. We have an Irish, Swedish, German and Swiss districts, you can see the european influence coming into the architecture. H.L. Hilliard, one of the towns assayers weighed and cleaned "Tom's Baby" Colorado's largest gold nugget in 1887. Edwin Carter was a famous naturalist who collected over 3,000 species of animals and donated them to the City of Denver to start the Museum of Natural History. All the boom town churches are intact, Episcopal, Father Dyer church, catholic church St. Mary's all are the style of carpenter gothic. We have Italianate but instead of having pressed tin and ironwork bolted up to the front of the building we have wooden Italianate buildings. We have one piece of colonial revival in the whole town, The Summit County Court House which was built in 1908 after the town was done booming. We have Roman and Queen work on the sister building to the court house, the school. Only the most important buildings in town are built out of brick and masonry; court house, school and the mining supply store. We encourage the businesses to use the old houses for their shops. We work directly with the Planning staff in trying to preserve the old structures. To keep some of the density out of the historic district we have two sides of town, west Breckenridge where the red light district was and we have the Breckenridge historic district. The historical society keeps a file of people coming into town interested in purchasing the old cottages when they come up for sale. We work with Northwest COG to obtain low interest loans. We also have an adopted barn program. Zoe: Does Breckenridge have an historical commission. Rebecca: They have a Planning Commission, Town Board and myself. Zoe: Where do you get your maintenance money. Rebecca: Individuals leave wills; grants; fund raisers; membership program; County Commissioners etc. We also have a "bolt tax" for the purpose of marketing. My job is to do a cultural survey of the property. 4
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 Augie: How do you deal with the desire of the developer to replicate buildings within the historic district. Rebecca: We discourage it in Breckenridge and we have formal guidelines that say we discourage replication of the past because it was confusing our history. People were driving into town and they didn't know if the houses were old or new. We decided to keep the houses etc. that were special to us. Bill: How do you deal with infil projects in the historic district. Rebecca: We encourage them to look at the whole block and take from that block patterns, scale, shapes, etc. to try to make it blend but not to try and replicate. Charlie: How is the community reaction and legally how do you deal with the trade offs for changing the density as we have such strict zoning. In our community there is a pressure and expense on each piece of realestate. Who makes that decision and have you had black lashes. Rebecca: We never had any black lash and also we down zoned the historical district twice in seven years. Charlie: We are finding that scale and massing to be the most difficult thing for us to address due to the zoning laws that allow for large buildings in relation to the size and average historical building. Rebecca: That has always been a problem and we down zone. Zoe: On additions to historical structures that want to be either replicated or have a contrast what do you favor. Rebecca: We favor the contrast. We want them to be able to make a distinction from the new and the old. We would want the shapes and general scaling to be secondary to the original building but we want people to be able to look at that building in 100 years and be able to tell the original house from the addition. Zoe: What if someone wants a 2000 ft. addition to an old house and says if you won't give it to me I'll tear the house down. How do you deal with that. Rebecca: We try to avoid that. That is my role to do the PR and when we see that coming before that person even gets to the planner that person has already seen me to at least consider another alternative to demolition. Any press or media see me as 5
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 we are always selling the town and the history. We might even go so far to pick that building up and put it up for adoption and relocate it to another lot. Usually the developer pays to have the building moved and in return we will give him some allowances on his landscaping or something like that. Georgeann: Do you have a design review board. Rebecca: We have a planning commission that can say yes or no to a design. The town of Breckenridge has a very stiff development code and we have a guideline printed. Bill: I would recommend that we set up a sub-committee of three members from our Committee and three members from the Historic Society to work with Roxanne to research setting up an historic trust in town whether that be land, transfer density rights or facade easements etc. Also set up an exchange program between other historic societies and possibly meet a couple of times a year to change information. Charles, Nick and Zoe volunteered. ARA KIOSK Roxanne: At the June 28th HPC meeting the recent installation of the ARA kiosk was discussed with respect of the need for design review. The design was considered inappropriate and the entire structure appeared to list to the west. The purpose of this meeting is to assist the ARA and give them direction for kiosk development. HPC is very supportive of the activity however we have concerns regarding the design and construction quality of the structure. Staff concurs with HPC that the design and construction quality of the particular structure does not meet the standards of development that we are striving to achieve in the community. We have developed a few alternatives in the memo and we feel that a quality design kiosk would serve the community well and could be used at other times of the year serving a variety of functions and purposes. Our recommendation is that the ARA apply for minor development review for a new kiosk to be situated in the district. Scale drawings should be required in the application and the Planning office also recommends that HPC members offer whatever design ideas that you feel are appropriate. Tom Hines: It is appropriate that the Committee understand the process. ARA did go to Council in Sept. 1987 and Council passed and funded the kiosk with an approximately $5,600 budget of which $1200 was to be used for construction. You aren't going to build much for $1200. As far as permits I contacted Ron Mitchell and he assured me that no permits were required as long as the structure as temporary and did not contain any electrical or 6
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 plumbing and now I am hearing otherwise and I appreciate the opportunity to be here and work together. We totally concur with the assessment. Last week the kiosk was literally destroyed and since has been rebuilt at almost the original construction costs. It no longer lists to the west and now has a roof that doesn't leak. One of the main reasons the kiosk was approved was to relieve the impact at the Wheeler visitor center. We are seeing in excess of 1,400 people a day which indicates that the kiosk is working. Bill: Our purview is over the aesthetic value and there is the CCLC that would have to be informed of its location and what is happening. It appears that it will get enough use and will probably become a structure that is used quite often. We are getting inquires from people on how this got approved in the historic district. Roxanne: I am recommending that we request a design and go a little further and give him some direction of what we would like to see. Georgeann: I have looked at the structure and philosophically I am not sure that it needs to be changed. We don't need everything in this town to be "disneyland". If serves the function of a temporary structure do we necessarily want everything to be "designed up". Maybe having this that aren't overly designed is part of what makes the town have a reality. Zoe: I agree but if you would take that same little box and put a better quality roof and wood on it would automatically become more attractive. Augie: I initiated this at the last meeting as it is not so much the design that I have a problem with, it is the quality and that reflects what has happened to that structure. It is a poor quality structure that people aren't going to respect and I anticipate that it will be there all summer and next summer and will become a permanent fixture. I was not on HPC when you reviewed the bus shelters but to me this particular structure is very similar to what you put RFTA through and I would think that you should have some continuity in the design for that structure and the way it is going to be looked at. Bill: As a method of compromise we could have a monitor on the project to work with Tom and report back to us. Augie: I feel due to the quality of the kiosk that in three weeks you will have the same problem. 7
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 Bill: If the kiosk does come down again can we be of help Tom to you. Tom: The number of request for usage has become strong and I don't want to see a lot of kiosks on the mall. I feel we will want to continue the project next summer but I don't think it should be this structure. Hopefully we can work on coming up with a structure where other groups could actually work and use it. The structure is due to come down around Aug. 25th and hopefully we can live with that structure for a month. I would rather see us work together to create a structure that is acceptable to all of us for the future. Roxanne: Maybe we can live with it at this point and possibly the ARA could trade services with a member for some design and that it come through us. I feel there is a great community interest for a kiosk. Bill: I feel the Committee would be willing to live with what is there until Aug. 25th and then next year it would have to come before us. Roxanne: Our issue is quality of construction not necessarily design. Georgeann: It has been proven that it does need to be made of a more quality material; possibly get a larger budget from City Council and help from other people. Tom: I doubt if you will see this individual booth resurfacing during the winter. 200 E. Main Pre-Application for Significant Development Roxanne: The applicant is requesting preliminary information from us as they wish to construct a 2250 sq. ft. two story structure for office use on this site. It is a 3,000 sq. ft. lot on lot K. The 1904 Sanborn map shows only a small one story out building on this site. No other research in the Planning Office has determined that there was any other building ever at that site. I would recommend that the applicant research the Historical Society's archives. The intent of the research was to discover the size of the siting of any previous building that might help direct new development activity. In our opinion this is an extremely aesthetic-sensitive site right in the Main St. district, highly visible located across from the Sardy House and diagonal from Paepcke Park. The 200 bock of East Main contains a heavy concentration of historic residential structures primarily vernacular miner's cottages. All the issues in the memo are critical and must be thoroughly examined to make sure we are 8
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 guiding him in the best possible development for this site. It should be noted that although it is commercial and office zoned the guidelines for residential should be reviewed. In examining architectural compatibility , massing and styling for this site staff draws HPC attention to the variety of historic structures found in the immediate area specifically the Sardy House which is a very elaborate Queen Ann and then you have Gracy's cottages which are very modest one story miner's cottages with decorative porches. The sketches reflect a two story structure, narrow with steeply pitched, at least a 12/12 roof. The proposed footprint does not encroach into required setbacks, however HPC may wish to consider optional siting if the new development is found to visually encroach into Gracy's buildings. The site plan sketch reflects a 10' setback which is the required setback in this zone district and the 5' side yard and the 15' rear yard setbacks have been addressed on this. You may want to consider the following questions at this particular meeting: 1. Does the design as presented reflect all the critical compatibility issues as outline in the Guidelines, Comprehensive Plan. 2. Is the height to dominant for the particular site. 3. Are the details, such as roof pitch, front entry and fenestration appropriate and do these details relate to the character of the Main St. Historic District. 4. Is the massing and alignment too severe for the site. 5. Would additional undulations on the west and east elevations add more architectural interest to the structure. 6. Could increased depth of undulations soften the extreme verticality and is the front yard setback appropriate to the adjacent historic structures. 7. Specifically what materials might be utilized to set this building off, allowing it to read as a new structure yet still blend in compatibility. Our recommendation is: We are very sensitive to the economic needs of the applicant as stated to develop the site to its maximum FAR potential, however, we feel the sensitivity of this site in relation to the adjacent and neighboring historic structures warrants further study to reduce the size of the proposed building. It appears dominant for the site and slightly incompatible in fenestration, which is a critical design issue. Staff recommends that the applicant submit their full conceptual 9
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 development application based on the direction given to them by HPC at this meeting. Bruce Sutherland, architect: The process that we have taken in siting the building is we have set back more on the rear then required as we plan to park at the rear of the building. We intend to keep the side yard setback however we believe there is an opportunity if we could encroach over into the side setback we could open up the space between Gracy's or give a little more detail on the fascia of the building. We are trying to create an appearance that has a balance. We want to keep the building simple and we do not want to be the dominant building on the block. We also agree that this is one of the most important corners in Aspen. At this time we aren't suggesting the materials we are into however we are leaning towards masonry, some stone and aggregate. So far we are leaning away from the red type metal roof and anything that is wood so we are looking toward something in the range of some type of asphalt shingle, slate etc. that will not give the strong lines of the standing rib roof or something of that nature. Those of you who are designed oriented will realize the difficulty of doing a building that is 17 ft. wide and 70 feet long and that is why we have tried to break it up so it will read well coming around the corner. We do not agree with staff on the reduction of the size of the building in that this is a 3,000 ft. lot and we are only suggesting putting 2250 sq. ft. We don't like the idea of reducing the size of the building at all. We tried to stay along in height with the balance of the adjacent buildings. Bill: The setbacks you have shown for this district; are these the minimum setbacks shown and do you know that in the code you can offset those by the minimum going to one side as long as the total is met. Bruce: We have drawn this within the footprint of 5 ft. on this side, 6'7" on this side and the dotted line indicates the 15' rear and the front is 10' and we understand that we have some freedom on the setbacks which we would probably do on the side towards Aspen St. We would like to open this area between Gracy's upon further study as we don't want to get too close to the building. Bill: What does the code say is the minimum setback. Bruce: 10' on the front, 6'7" on the corner side, 5' on the interior. The total 11'7 Bill: In the code only for historic reason does it allow us to vary the setback. 10
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 Bruce: Since we do have quite a distance between the street and the building we would like to consider moving the building. There is no sidewalk and we might want to look at having it come along the curb in lieu of having the strip. We really haven't addressed these things on the site plan yet. Roxanne: This particular lot is designated. Bruce: We have one site with three buildings on it. Bill: Do we have a "vehicle" to help them vary the setbacks. Roxanne: From my understanding, yes but Cindy Houben from the Planning Office is looking into this for a variety of other issues such as can a free standing building be built on this 3,000 sq. ft. lot in the way that it is particularly done right now. There are a lot of questions connected with this. Charles: We need to look into whether the variability of setbacks is just for the R-6. Roxanne: We did that with 300 W. Main St. Bill: When we did rewrite that section of the code the intent was for the historic overlay district and historic landmarks. That the proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels. We can vary the setbacks. Don Fleisher, applicant: When we acquired this property we looked at possibilities of extending onto Gracy's building as being our development and I personally felt that if Gracy's was an important historic structure that to modify it was demeaning to it. I asked the architects to do something that was compatible but quiet in terms of architectural style and in particular stay away from Gracy's as much as possible. Mary Martin: It is too far in front of Gracy's and shouldn't be so tall. It should align in the front on the setback with Gracy's because the building next to Gracy's will probably go next and that whole block should be aligned up to the gas station ultimately, I think. Charlie: As one of the owners could you give us background: It was my understanding that there were the two houses on the lot. Do you have a master plan for us to look at so we can anticipate what perhaps might happen as you had brought up that you would like to see the integrity of the two existing victorians stays and this be a third building. 11
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 Don Fleisher: There are no plans for any changes to Gracy's. After the building is built the improvements will be condominiumized and two people will own the corner building and two other people will own Gracy's building and the land on all three lots will remain merged as three lots on one parcel with condominium ownership. Bill: So it will always come back to us as one project and we would review each individual building. Are you going to ask for FAR for each individual building as an individual lot or would we see the building to the east ask for all the FAR on that one lot. Don: When this building is finished the three lots total will have unused FAR. The people who own Gracy's building could come back and ask for something. Bill: So we are setting a design standard for those three buildings. My thought is how are we going to accept those buildings. If the committee is going to say we wish to see that those buildings stay on that site and would not allow them to move then we can make valued judgments on this one parcel. Don: The ownership of Gracy's could change. Zoe: I was assuming that those little buildings would stay there. At some point a model would be appropriate. All masonry might be too severe because of what is around you, possibly stone and wood. The height is too dominant and the building should align with Gracy's on Main St and the design of it is not offensive but it doesn't add any character to its surroundings. The massing is a little severe and further study is necessary. Charles: I think it should align with Gracy's and less high. Perhaps there is a way to work with the setbacks to allow it to get a little wider so that in the street alignment facades it looks more compatible with the other two buildings in massing so it is not as high but it is a little wider. Zoe: Possibly on the Aspen St. elevation maybe that could be split into two buildings and not so long. Georgeann: The alignment with the other stores is critical and the reason for that is people drive into town you don't want that blocking the Gracy's building. I feel clapboard or wood siding would be more appropriate and the reason is we want to keep a residential look on Main St. The height could be articulated in a way; perhaps it looks so high because there is that tall narrow element and possibly you could modify the design. I am not unhappy with pulling that one section out to the side but I would like to narrow up the back a little bit by a few feet so 12
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 you de-emphasized that in relationship to the front part of the building. It is very severe now and looks too commercial but I presume that will be taken care of with further work on the design. I don't think we want a commercial look on the buildings along Main St. when they get this far out of town. The fenestration is very harsh and very large for this part of town. Nick: I agree with the fenestration criticism that Georgeann made and I don't find the building too high. I look at the scale and it is a little higher than the other buildings but if that is what will put that corner into something that it isn't right now I'm not against it. The long high windows do give me a feeling that they don't fit with the small or narrow tall building. As far as setback is concerned it is not that much out of alignment. How necessary is it that it align up on Main St.I Joe: As far as the siting goes I would prefer to see the line or even setback a little further from Gracy's buildings. As far as varying the side yard setbacks maybe it would be more appropriate to have a little more spacing between the Gracy's building. On the elevations I find it a little high. From the Aspen St. side it seems very massive from that elevation. Augie: Setbacks should relate to Gracy's. I would be in favor of allowing the setback on the west side to go out a little more. The building is a bit too tall. I'd favor some kind of pedestrian walkway on the west side going north. I think the materials of the building should relate more to Gracy's and the other building. I'd prefer the lower drawing, alternate with the fenestration of the more vertical windows but the rear half of the building needs to be broken up a little bit more as it is too massive. Bill: I concur and I would also be in favor of varying the setbacks to allow you to get more variation in the building. I don't find the very long tall building to be compatible with the other structures not only adjacent to your site but across the street. The Explorer Booksellers is a renovated residence, Sardy House is a residence and you have small commercial which we allowed, Little Cliff's Bakery. They are all in a very similar scale so to be in support of varying the setbacks to get a rhythm to the street which is more compatible in width and height of your adjacent buildings I would be very much in favor and I think the Committee is also supporting that. I would be in favor of some height allowing you to go two stories but I don't think it should be to the whole building so by varying it I would like to see some roof lines that would be a transition between single story buildings on your site and the Sardy House which is two story and longer. There is some compromise within the Committee. Since that is a main street and we are addressing sidewalks I 13
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 think Aspen St. is a collector street for the elementary school below but we don't know if the elementary school is going to stay there. To get the sidewalks and ask them to go down is going to be tough to do but if you are going to bring in offices etc. you might need to do that. Bruce: I think we would like to have a sidewalk on the Aspen St. side probably at the curb in lie of having that little strip Georgeann: Perhaps we have to look at sidewalks as sidewalks were something in the victorian eras but they wandered and did different things and they weren't pieces of concrete. Maybe what we need to look at in sidewalks is when it becomes off the main street the sidewalks that move, turn, undulate, different materials, something that softens it and it becomes part of the landscape. I would like to compliment you on saying you don't feel you need to make a landmark everywhere that this can be a quiet building. Don: What you see there is what zoning allows, you do your setbacks, height you end up with a long pullman car type building. From our point of view we also have to look at function and be able to operate out of it. This will be an office building and each room will have a series of windows. Bill: I think you will come up with a whole new building after our comments from today. Charlie: When they come back I'd like to see a little more of the master plan on what they anticipate happening with the rest of the lot and what the FAR is on the existing buildings and potentially what would be there so we have an idea of what we would be facing if there were additions put on the back of the Gracy's. Don: When we went into partnership with the Carters they made it clear to me that they were not going to do anything to Gracy's. Charlie: I feel the continuity of this building should be a little more aligned to Gracy's block then the other historic building and the personality of that building right now is not addressing that. Georgeann: Since I asked you to kind of make this skinnier a thought to consider: perhaps the entrance could be separate entrances or something to the offices so you don't have to worry about corridors and that might change the character of the look. Don: You have a series of rooms that are 10' by 11' in size and a four foot corridor for all offices. 14
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 Bill: What you are doing here you could have the potential to set how the development develops with the other buildings where if you make it look like two separate buildings. What we are see are a lot of victorians that have two story additions added onto the back. We have not found a successful solution that allows the small victorian miner cottages to keep their own identity without "big brother" peering up out of the back. That is what Charlie is alluding to. Charlie: What about below grade. Don: We are not putting in a basement as we want to keep the building down as far as possible. Bruce: We could add another 750 sq. ft. to the zoning ordinance by putting on-site housing but we are not going to put housing on the site. Bill: I feel the commission has given you some leeway in setting the setbacks and we are looking forward to seeing you in a couple of weeks. 715 W. SMUGGLER-APPLICANT: JENNIE LANG Bill: This is a public hearing for the conceptual development review of 715 W. Smuggler. Jennie Lang is representing the applicant. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting significant development review and it involves a partial demolition of three 8' by 10' walls that are not original to the rear of the structure and the attachment of a two story addition with a new single carport freestanding and a mostly-restored front porch with repositioned front entry and an added gable. All the required setbacks have been met and no additional bedrooms are proposed, creating the need for additional parking spaces. This structure was relocated to this lot approximately 20 years ago. The applicant and staff has attempted to research its original siting and we have not uncovered the mystery as of yet. By determining its original location the possibility of finding archive photos for the structure is more likely therefore aiding in the actual restoration. The 1904 Sanborn Ins. Map do not even include Block 15, so I can't tell you what was there originally. No footprint information is available. When the structure was relocated to this particular site a new foundation was built which is quite a bit higher then he original foundation therefore the front is accessed by five steps. The front entrance as it exists right now is not historic as it currently stands and it comes in thru the side and the porch is enclosed right now. It is the opinion of the Planning Office that the 15
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 proposed development is mostly compatible in character for the designated structure. The addition will be located well to the rear of the property with only minor demolition going on of those three walls as proposed. Compatible and matching materials will be utilized and the details of the original home will be preserved. The verticality theme is carried through with the new addition and the existing roof pitch is replicated. The new addition appears compatible with the original structure and does not compete with the historic facade of the original house in our opinion however the lot does slope up to the north and the new additions completed height will be 26.6 ft. at the roof ridge and 22. ft. at the median point. A reduction in addition height would be more compatible and less dominant to the historic building in staffs opinion. The proposed south elevation of the new addition consists of a two-story six sided mud room.balcony which is about 8 ft. in diameter. It is mostly hidden from the front of the existing house. The remainder of the south elevation is 16' wide and includes a 7' oriel window on the second floor. The proposed car port which is a free standing car port are ten' by 15' will be open on three sides. I believe that Jennie brought along design and the materials will match the new addition. A 12 x 12 roof pitch is proposed with some decorative shingles and that needs to be addressed. Interestingly on this site two historic outbuildings are encroaching just a few feet on the east rear portion of this site. These outbuildings are primarily situated on Lot G, apparently owned by an out-of-state property owner who owns the property at 700 W. Francis. Neighbors have filed complaints with the City Manager's office regarding the poor state of the vacant lots immediately to the east of this particular parcel. The complaints focus on the weeds and dilapidated outbuildings. The applicant has stated to us that she is very concerned about them and wishes those outbuildings to be preserved and possibly by having them moved slightly off of the Lot F they encroach move back and be totally encompassed onto the other owners property therefore that carport will be able to be addressed without encroaching. The owners will begin dialogue necessary to accomplish that task. Historic neighborhood character is greatly influenced by front facades in the west end and front porches are very important to that and staff agrees with the applicants desire to re-orient the front porch entry to align directly from Smuggler into the house however feels that accurate porch restorations is an important element of the development of this site. An accurately restored front porch is necessary to balance out the development activity in the rear in our opinion and the proposal reflects that a new gable addition to the front porch will be added projecting nearly four feet from the original facade. From standard #4 regarding architectural integrity we find that the proposed porch and the height of the addition does diminish to some degree the architectural integrity of the structure. We refer to the 16
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 Guidelines; specifically to maintain front porches as an important facade element; to preserve original porch materials with decorative elements not know to have been used on the residence, that should be avoided. The applicant has an opportunity to restore the front facade of the miners cottage while adding to the new addition to the rear and porch restoration is strongly encouraged and will help increase the integrity of the original structure. Height; Staff feels that the general design is good however reduction in height is warranted; the compatibility issue with the original home. Regarding partial demolition we find that the review standards for demolition 4 through 6 have been met. It is a minor demolition and will clean up that rear south elevation. I have included a variety of alternatives which HPC may wish to take at this meeting and our recommendation is that the HPC approve conceptual development for this particular project subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant further study the front porch design to restore the original and return to the HPC with revised plans and that the height of the addition be reduced to be more compatible with the original historic structure. That accurate major building materials representation be made at Final Development Review and that a structural response letter be submitted with the Final Development. We also recommend that the property owner assist in preserving the two outbuildings that presently encroach and if moving the structures is found, to do so they could be moved slightly over to lot F and if that is found to be the best possible action then staff would support such activity. Jennie Lang: I have done research and we have not been able to locate any pictures of the house. We do know where it was located. It was moved from the 600 block of E. Hopkins. Bill: Welton Anderson was involved with that and may be able to help you. Jennie Long: I have no idea what that porch looked like originally. Ann Miller is the owner of the house noted that the previous owner of the house did enclose the porch. Charlie: On your FAR review I assume this house when it was moved a new foundation and basement were put underneath it. Will all the additional footage be added to this number the way the basement is set up under the current regulations. Jennie: It is counted, the percentage of the basement is included in the FAR. 17
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 Zoe: Is this designated. Roxanne: It is designated and I will find out the rating. Georgeann: Is the porch going to be moved out further. Jennie: We are proposing to build out a little cover over top of the stairs. The stairs will come directly out of the porch and the pediment will come out as there is a bad snow situation that being the north side of the house. Bill: This is a public hearing and I will take comments from the public. Bill: Heather Tharp who lives at 712 W. Francis St. which is right behind the building presented letter to commission. Letter attached in records. Heather: Is the apartment in that building still going to be existing. Bill: That would be a zoning issue that would have to be addressed when you go to the Bldg. Dept. Bill: Public Hearing is closed. Joe: I would like to see the ultimate design differentiate from what is the new addition and what is the existing structure. I would like to see the porch retained as much as possible but without photographs it might be difficult to do. On the entry way of the back it may be a little too much for what is supposed to be a miners cottage. The height of the addition concern me, it sort of overpowers the original structure. Georgeann: I feel it is valid to have a cover over the porch steps and the porch in the front should be kept simple and materials should match. I would say that materials should match in the back also because this is so minor. I don't see that it is encroaching all that much on the open space because the length of the building until you get to the hexagonal tower is what is already there. I do think with strong neighborhood comments that the addition in the back should be kept as small as possible. Most of the addition is over the open deck in the back. Jennie: The reason we decided to go up was because we didn't want to destroy the yard and the client wants a garden and _ intends to replace the railings. 18
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 Georgeann: I do think it is too high and I don't understand why it has to be that high when it is already a two story building. I think the hexagonal tower is inappropriately too elaborate for the design of the front of the building. Charles: My comment is in regards to the height. Could the height be reduced by the addition of a dormer on either side to allow you to have the head room. Jennie: I could but I feel the impact of the dormer from the front of the house would be more severe then the height that you see going back because you are seeing a sloping roof. Charles: If the gable is still where it is but dropped down and two small dormers one on either side to give you the space that you need for a room. Jennie: The pavement is considerably lower in elevation and you are looking up at the house when you are standing on the pavement. It is a sloping site plus the house was put on a foundation which raised it out of the ground. Charles: What is the purpose of the tower. Jennie: There is a hot tub up there. Zoe: The compatibility with the original structure is excellent and your neighbors comments are very valuable. The basic idea is excellent and I feel the front porch should be restored to where you think it was originally. The turret is the only thing that bothers me as it is a little too over powering for the area itself. The addition is beautiful but could be slightly shorter and not quite so tall. You should be sensitive to your neighbors and your neighbors should be sensitive to your need also to acquire a compromise. The outbuilding should be moved and preserved. Charles: In looking at this it seems to me that it slopes to the south, the back of the house is towards the mountain. Is there anyway to step down so that on the inside you walk a few steps down and then go up two stories so it wouldn't be so high. Jennie: There is a full basement. Charlie: I think the original house should be restored as close as possible to what it was and that the addition be compatible. I agree with staff that because this building was set on a foundation and is about three feet higher then it normally would be that the two story addition is overwhelming. I would like to see a scale of the neighboring house to the west. The scale in 19
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 relationship to the neighborhood is important to us and we can't see it from the drawings. Augie: I agree with everything Charlie just said. I think the porch should be reconstructed to as close the original as possible. Jennie: How do we determine that. Augie: If you can't find anything in the Historical Society's Records look at buildings of that era and that type. Jennie: Open porches into the livingroom these days are not practical to the occupant of the house in terms of heat loss. We were trying to create only a section of the porch open. One section that you walk into, that is open and the other one we put a railing across and glass enclosure. Augie: I won't argue that but I think because we have a structure that has some value the integrity of the building is very important more so than energy at least from this Boards standpoint. The addition seems a little too high; the shape of the turret does not relate to the original building, possibly rectangular or something else more compatible. Bill: I tend to agree with the Committee that although I sympathize with the applicant for snow shedding maybe there is another solution. Most of the miners cabins I am not that aware of a gabled pediment, they intended to be more on the larger houses. In the past the Committee has debated the openness of the porches and we haven't come to resolution on the airlock entries. We have been promoting open porches and the airlock entry should happen on the inner side of the house. I tend to agree with Augie on the back that the addition seems to be not compatible with the addition although they have similar roof shapes I think maybe you could reduce the height almost by the front window on a smaller or the existing house you can see it penetrates the eave line and go up into that space so maybe that roof can come lower and we could have more of an attic space. I also would like to see the octagon more compatible historically. Maybe if you reduced the height the neighbors would be more in favor of it. Ann Miller, Owner: I am very sensitive to my neighbors. We want to keep the victorian feeling of the house. If you feel the turret is too big I'm sure we can see if it can be changed. There is a lot of garden and I have dogs. There are two houses on Francis, three or four house in back of me and not one has a garden. I am the only one with a garden. The architects were 20
HPC.MINUTES.July 12, 1988 very sensitive to keeping the feeling of the neighborhood and the feeling of the house. MOTION: Charles made the motion to recommend that we approve conceptual review for this house with the following conditions: 1. Applicant further study the front porch design to restore the original and return to HPC with revised plans. 2. That the height of the addition be reduced to be more compatible with the original historic structure, at least that should be studied. 3. Accurate major building materials representation be made at Final Development Review. 4. A structural response letter be submitted with the Final Development Application and the turret element be studied further. Nick second the motion. Charlie: Should we include the plans that show the car port etc. and relationships of the other buildings, footprint. Charles: Many times we ask for fenestration study or neighboring context in relation to the lot etc. Georgeann: Then we want three things it: more readable plan, elevations of the buildings which include the garage, context of the neighborhood elevation. AMENDED: Charles amended the motion to include the three points made by Georgeann. (marked in Bold). Nick second. All approved. Motion carries. Bill closed the public hearing. Roxanne: Do we want to address the outbuildings. Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 21
July 12, 1988 Mr. Bill Poss, Chairman ' Members Historic Preservation Committee City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Poss and Members: I wish to register my protest at the demolition and significant development being applied for at 715 W. Smuggler Street in Aspen. I support the concept which resulted in the formation of the Historic Preservation Committee. This concept reflects the feeling of Aspenites that there is value in keeping and preserving the flavor of old Aspen. The West End epitomized this flavor with its porches, pretty yards and above all, its open space - which distinguishes country from city - where one could walk around the neighborhood, see people that you knew, communicate with them and feel as though you were a part of a small town filled with friendliness. I feel that this development being applied for at 715 W. Smuggler will be destructive to our environment. A two-storied, 837 square foot addition would take up most of the ground in back of this house. This is a residential area that was designed for a certain size house and when people buy a house and lot in the West End, any changes should maintain the scale of the original house. If someone wants a large house, let them purchase a large lot with a large house. Why should the HPC make an exemption for those persons who buy a house in Aspen for its "charm, " then proceed to destroy that very charm by turning their environment into exactly what they left in Lake Forest, Tampa, Los Angeles, or wherever? The Committee's existence then becomes meaningless. Aspen is beginning to take on the look of city apartments and townhouses. The new addition to the house opposite me at 700 W. Francis has eaten up every bit of earth and grass. The house at 715 W. Smuggler proposes to do the same. Much of my neighborhood now has fencing around the very large, always two-storied houses, which almost always fill the lot lines. Aspen is fast becoming an all-of-a-piece wooden structure, divided only by roads.
page two I PROTEST the size of this proposed addition the desecration of Aspen by those who move here for its charm and then proceed to destroy that very charm Sincerely, ',-1-r < L C''Cti' t.. >-/fl t<- t'·£11 Heather Tharp 712 W. Francis Street Aspen, Colorado 81612