Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880726HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 PRESENTATION CHRIS PFAFF PRESERVATION PLANNER JAY YANZ STATE HISTORIC ARCHITECT MINOR DEVELOPMENT-CITY HALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT . EVALUATION RATINGS .2 .8 .9 15 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall July 26, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Zoe Compton, Charles Cunniffe, Augie Reno and Joe Krabacher present. Charlie Knight was excused. MOTIONs Augie made the motion to approve the minutes of July 12, 1988. Georgeann second. All approved. Motion carries. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: At the last meeting Nick asked about Gary Bucher's tree at 113 E. Hopkins which is slanting. Gary is having an automatic sprinkler system installed and I am in contact with the company that moved the tree and will report to the Committee. Roxanne: Nick had also asked about the equipment on top of the Pitkin Center Bldg. a letter and have not gotten a response back. Syzygy restaurant I have written them MONITORING PROJECTS Augie: The building where Cheap Shots used to be (Mouse House) is torn down. Georgeann: The McDonald's pink dye in the concrete is well within the bounds of what we have seen on other pieces of concrete. The foundations are dug and they have already back filled in. Nick: Starting the first of August I will be representing the Ski Co. on the deck outside of the gondola building. I have the $7,000 scale model of the new hotel and I put together a small portfolio on what is going to go on with the hotel and I will be doing it 2 hrs. a day, 5 or 6 days a week around Noon time. Anyone wanting good information on the Little Nell Hotel is welcome. There will be no brick on the building, it will be a cast stucco cement, cedar shingles, red wood and plain metal fenestration. Roxanne: I found out from Tom Cardamone that ACES has received a building permit to demolish the barn on Hallam Lake. I will be investigating in that a little more as to alternative to complete demolition. Bill: How old is the barn. Roxanne: 1906 and very significant. It is not designated and it is not rated. HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 Charles: I think we didn't rate it as it is in the County. Roxanne: Chuck Roth is still working on the sidewalk situation and as more projects come before us that have historic character to them we will have to respond. PRESENTATION CHRIS PFAFF PRESERVATION PLANNER JAY YANZ STATE HISTORIC ARCEITECT Roxanne: Chris Pfaff administers the CLG grant contract and will be talking about that to us in addition to the tax credit. Roxanne: Jay Yanz is the State Historic architect and he will show us slides on compatible architecture. Chris: The Certified Local Gov't Program is partially funded by the Park Service and over the years we have developed a preservation partnership with the Park Service through this funding mechanism and we administer their programs as well as State programs. We want to have more of a cooperative effort with local preservation commissions and offer technical assistance to local commissions and also get feedback from them. The program was set up about four years ago and in order to be a certified local government in the community you had to have an established preservation commission with members that set certain qualifications; demonstrate interest in preservation, professionals in reviewing design decisions, inventory of historic places. Aspen meets those guidelines and became certified three years ago. As a result we have been able to fund a lot of your preservation activities. We paid 70% and the City of Aspen paid 30% on a lot of the projects that we funded which include National Registration, Guidelines, Staff etco Every two or three years we evaluate the program and that is one of the reasons we are here today to find out your concerns of preservation. Roxanne: funding: trust. There are a variety of projects that go along with CLG District Report and feasibility of developing a local Chris: We produce tangible results with the money that we are spending. Jay: The investment tax credit (ITC) is a three step application: (1) define the integrity of the structure, is it significant enough to be on the register, (2) is it in the historic register district and does it contribute to that district. HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 Once that criteria has been passed then the second step is the evaluation of the work that is to be done on the building. That work must conform to the Secretary of Interior Standards. Prior to that review of whether it meets the standards or not the basic question has to be answered does the property meet the requirement for qualifications to enter into the program. Is the re-hab work significant enough in value of the property. That is answered by taking the value of the property, land, building, etc. taking that number and subtracting the value of the land and then any depreciation that is on the building. For example if you had $100,000 in property, the land is valued at $50,000 and you have a $20,000 depreciation, when you subtract 70,000 from that 100,000 you are left with $30,000. The re-hab must meet or exceed that $30,000 figure and once you meet that criteria then you can get into the actual description of the work and determine whether the work meets the Sec. of Interior standards for rehabilitation. The program is reviewed in our office and our office gives advice and help in filling out the application. When we review it we send it on to the National Parks Service at the regional level and they have a staff of historic architects there that review it for compliance with the Sec. standards. The third part of the application is dealing with the actual tax credit portion of it and applying for that dollar value credit. Other than that it deals with income producing property, private property does not qualify. You can take the credits over a five year period, they can be taken ahead and they also can be phased in but there is a recapture provision that if you do phase 1 and 2 and 3 doesn't meet the standards the IRS will come back a recapture all the back credits. It is a 20% credit on the rehabilitation work. 20% of whatever re-hab work is put in that can be recaptured and that doesn't include any new construction or work on the property itself. It only includes work on rehabilitation. Roxanne: This can be residential but incoming producing (rental property) as well, carriage houses. Jay: There has been a 70% drop in activity in 1987 for Colorado. Bill: People had thought the program was dropped. Augie: City Hall is on the National Register. In your interpretation would this be a income producing property that would qualify for tax credits since it is owned by a local governing body. Chris: The City doesn't pay tax. HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 Augie: There is no incentive for a government body to do something like an historical renovation. Joe: Unless they sold it to private people to utilize the tax credits and took it back with some kind of lease. Jay: You could do some type of easement procedure or if federal funds were involved it would throw it into the 1968 preservation act, the 106 compliance procedure which is what we go through when for example a highway goes through a certain area, a realignment if there is an impact on potential historic structures or districts etc. they will have to go through to make sure the cultural resources are protected or mitigated at a last resort. Each project is always different. Bill: What is the guidelines on income producing, 20% of what you are trying to write off. Chris: It is the re-hab costs. Roxanne: Bill's question is how much income do you have to have to qualify as income producing. Joe: That is a fact and circumstance test, whether or not you are in business to make a profit. Chris: If you meet the IRS requirements for an income producing property that is what we will look at. Joe: What are the chances of getting a building nominated for example the Sardy House didn't make it. Should we be dealing mostly with projects that are already registered. Jay: That is part one, the significance of the property, is it eligible for nomination. The second step is determining what effect the re-hab will have on the significance and integrity of that building. In this case the re-hab had an effect on the building therefore it was denied. Chris: One of the requirements to be listed on the National Register is owner consent. Nick: The Elks Bldg. is going to put an $80,000 roof on next year and we should consider this and at least present it to the rest of the trustees. Chris: Having a building on the National Register doesn't place any restrictions on the private property owner. The only time the National Register triggers any kind of review is if the owner HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 is applying for the tax credits or if there is federal money being spent on that project. Georgeann: In your role of reviewing such buildings as the Elks Club even if they don't want to go on the National Register at this time it might be a good idea to run their design past you so they inadvertently don't do something that would keep them off the register forever. Jay: That is part of the technical assistance of my job. Saul Barnett: Do you render opinions on whether something is re-hab as opposed to reconstruction or is that an IRS determination. Jay: The role of the State is only advisory. When we send it off to the Parks Service they made the final determination and they may say it is acceptable under certain conditions. Then it is your opportunity to amend your application. We act as a mediator. Saul Barnett: An example would be a carriage house which had four walls and not much interior. You want to turn that into an income producing property by putting in all the things that you have to do. I have heard that is deemed to be new construction and not rehabilitation of an existing structure. Jay: You would have to look at the significance of the building; is it significant because of its relationship to the main house because the main house had a carriage building and/or is the interior significant. If there is significant interior features such as openings, windows etc. those type of features are significant to that building not necessarily the volume of space inside the building. Details become significant. Jay: Step 1, is the building significant. documentation of photographs of existing conditions description of what you plan on doing. My role is advice in the right direction. Step 2 is and then a to give you Saul Barnett: Assuming you left the exterior exactly as it was and all you did was put thing inside. The question was is that interior work a re-hab of this historic building or is it new construction. Jay: It would be rehabilitation of the building, taking it from one use and placing it under another use. Jay: New construction was meant to define if you put a deck on or a new addition on the back of it. Major walls being new. HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 Compatibility Jay: I went through the Parks Service position on additions to significant buildings. The whole question of compatibility deals with change, they see that change is inevitable, that uses change, districts change etc., commercial areas are now becoming residential areas. Code requirements change etc. The Parks Service looks at the nature of the change and "is that change in keeping with that community". Where does that change fit in with the historic district. Maintaining the relationship of the buildings to the street and the character of the whole streetscape. Augie: Ail three buildings have porches, two have roof structures over the porches; we see a lot of buildings with roof structures etc. over them due to energy conservation. People come and say we would like to enclose the porch, keep the detailing yet make it transparent. How would you respond to that. Jay: I had a couple of those projects myself and any significant detail on the porch should read through and that the enclosure should be on the inside of that so that detailing still has some effect of reading through and it should also be reversible action, you can come back and pull it off. Another solution that I found to be successful was to fill in below the railing and above put in snap in storms that pull out in the summertime. Jay: Another issue is whether additions fit in with the significance of the building. The Parks Service a few years ago said the addition should be clearly different. Is it compatible with the significance of the building in terms of materials, scale and character. Bill: Some of our problems are with in fill projects in the historic district. Do you copy the rhythm or the alignment. Bill: Sometimes we have an applicant that comes in that wants to change the project so much that we find it not a very good project. For example: because I am doing it as a restaurant I have to have this..it is hard for us to say maybe it is an inappropriate use. It almost has to go back to zoning to say is it an appropriate use. Chris: The whole question of zoning is a big issue because a lot of times the zoning will allow for a much greater density then is suitable for that site. You would have to say possibly HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 that the density here is too great for what is really compatible. Bill: But then you are dealing with it on a one issue basis and it may be incompatible on one but in the whole district it would be OK if there was a bigger house that could accommodate it. In our town we will have huge victorians which can handle a bed and breakfast and then you have a little log cabin next door that wants to be a restaurant and home that might not be compatible. Cindy Houben: In most cases it is conditional use to allow a bed and breakfast or whatever. That is the time it should be discussed whether or not it is appropriate. Jay: That is a big issue in other towns. It is a density question again. Zoning is allowing it but how does the review committee deal with it. In Crested Butte the problem came up and they married the two boards. In doing that the issue stays on the table and doesn't go away. Bill: There are a lot of zoning issues that have to be addressed and maybe we can set up a format where Roxanne and a planner could review it. Chris: It would be helpful if HPC could review it before it is approved by P&Z. Jay: You could send your preliminary comments to the P&Z board as backup information before they make a decision. Georgeann: What do you do when someone follows all the criteria but ultimately has a bad design and it is not appropriate. Jay: I would fall back to the safeguard of excessive dis- similarity or similarity. If it is excessive dissimilar it is not appropriate and you can always fall back to the guidelines as a rule book. Roxanne: Other issues are additions to smaller historic structures. What is compatible. How far do you go with a two story addition to destroy the historic integrity of the small cottage. An addition is supposed to look new and read as a new addition but yet where do you draw the line. Can the material match too well. It we are adding and borrowing architectural details from other types of buildings that are certainly found in the neighborhood but probably wouldn't have appeared on the miners cottage, is it appropriate, is it new victorian, does then that addition read as a new addition. Do we trade one for another. HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 Chris: Part of that is the whole question of scale. If you are looking at the building and the addition becomes larger than the original building you have lost the whole sense of that original building. It would no longer read as the small miners cottage anymore. Jay: You have to look at the significance of what is there now, is it the scale, the one story miners cottage, is it the materials, shingle work or gables. You could do an inventory of the significance and base your decisions of design upon that. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Augie: It comes back to the density issue. Jay: The cloaking mechanism was one way to pull it off but you have to have the lot size to do it. Charles: The Sardy House was involved with cloaking, blending everything together. As I understand it that turned out to be a negative rather than a positive because it blurred the distinction between the new addition and the old. Chris: Also because of the size of the addition. Jay: You can appeal if you are turned down. Bill: Can you appeal after the job is done and ask for it to be revaluated. Chris: I think you could appeal to Washington but I am not sure of the process for the National Register. Chris: This HPC board has some of the hardest decision to make in terms of trying to define what is compatible because Aspen is so collectic and you don't have a uniform style that you are dealing with. You can't save all the small buildings as their is no economic use for them and you will have to decide what you want to fight for. Cindy: Is that going to hurt us for a wider district. Chris: For the National Register Aspen was evaluated two years ago and there were not enough buildings that were adjacent to each other. There was not a cohesive collection here of buildings that could become part of the district. You have to have 75% of your buildings contributing. Jay: Looking around it seems to me the area to concentrate on is the residential sites at the West End. Maybe there is someway 8 HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 to appeal to the School Board to do a design competition. Get involved with the area up front. Nick: When these little buildings go down "what we are going to be historically is important", what do you feel that will be. Chris: In the future I see Aspen having some significant architecture not just from the victorians. Aspen is significant for its ski industry and that whole development. You have to look at those buildings, those lodges of the 1945's and decide if they are going to be significant. You also have buildings today that are going to be significant due to the financial resources. Jay: The Parks Service and the National Register significance in time is 50 years or older. MINOR DEVELOPMENT-CITY IIALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT Augie stepped down. Roxanne: The application is to install two evaporative air coolers on the flat roof portion of city hall. They are 3 feet by three feet by four feet and almond color baked enamel. Their one location will be just to the north of the skylight so it is not visible really from anywhere except the Pitkin County Court House. It is not visible from the commercial core area. The second location will be from the east rear portion of city hall up on the roof and I don't think that will be visible either as there is already a box up there now. These are necessary because there is no cooling system or air circulation system in the building at all. I see this to be a temporary situation right now and if ever the building is renovated we would review it again. The court house view plain district city hall is included in that and mechanical equipment is exempt. Bill: You find that it meets all the review standards. Roxanne: Yes. MOTION: Nick made the motion to approve the installation of the two coolers on the roof of the City Hall building to be temporary/permanent. Georgeann second. All approved. Motion carries. EVALUATION RATINGS Roxanne: At the city council meeting the Parks Dept. came and asked about the septic system of the Marolt house at a cost around $5,000. The Marolt house escaped inventory review and the rating in 1986. Georgeann presented information at the HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 council meeting concerning the house that it is in fact historically significant and over 100 years old. City Council requested information from HPC for their Aug. 8th meeting regarding our rating information on the house. The Commission should rate the structure at this meeting. We should also rate the Marolt barns and the Lixiviation ruin site. That is the site that the Historical Society has requested from the City that they obtain on a 99 year lease. City Council approved the resolution to do so and that the large barn and the ruins plus the land would then be turned into a ranching museum. City Council liked the concept. Roxanne: The Aspen "Special Category". not city owned. Institute is an unrated property included in It is not within the city limits and it is Bill: If an annexation program goes through it eventually might be in the city. Roxanne: There is a county code update going on right now. Roxanne: My recommendation on rating Opal Marolt's house is to give it a rating of #4 as it has been altered and the building has been lifted up and all of the original siding was removed. The window fenestration appears to be original to the most part. It is of the original footprint and historically it has a lot of integrity from the aspect of being involved as the original office for the whole mining works and a ranching home as well. With a #4 rating we would be reviewing any kind of demolition and it fits into our standards. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to rate the Opal Marolt house as a #4. Nick second. All approved. Motion carries. Joe: In comparing it to some of the other #4's that we have reviewed on the Board I think it certainly fits in that category. Augie: As a house I don't know if I agree with that and from what I see it has been altered a lot but because of the history and what is there it is important and I would rate it as a #4. Roxanne: We need to rate the large barn, smaller barn and the ruins site. That site has been determined eligible for individual listing on the Register. The barn served as the ore holding facility for about 13 years. In 1893 with the crash it was vacant then it served as a hay barn for the Marolts when they were ranching. The secondary structure that is there is just half of the structure that was there as it was a longer structure which also held implements etc. It has been resided and the foundation has been shored up to. We are recommending that the 10 HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 ruins be left as they are. My recommendation is that we rate that #5 because of its historic integrity and connection to our history in both mining and ranching. Bill: DO you find that to be a notable structure and may not be an excellent or exceptional structure for the designation. Roxanne: I have thought of it about being excellent and it is only the remaining of the original complex. I would still give it a #5 and we have to look at the entire complex. It is up to the board if you want to up the rating. Bill: We have structures that are designated, then we have them rated as exceptional, excellent and notables. In 1986 we evaluated an inventory that were only notables and we gave them a score of 1-5 and those were the lower end of our inventory. Joe: So this is a notable #5. Bill: I am thinking maybe it is worthy of designation as a designated site. Roxanne: In 1980 they went through and rated all the exceptional and excellent structures and all the rest were called notable. In 1986 since all of them that were wonderful were already rated exceptional or excellent then we went through and rated 1-5 all the rest of the notables. This is one that slipped through the process and never got rated at all. Anything from a #4 to an exceptional is acceptable for a rating of this particular site. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to rate the Lixiviation site as a notable %5 in our rating system because historically it had a unique method of smelting and also the buildings that have been preserved, the two barns are in extremely good condition historically. Nick second. All approved. Motion carries. Bill: I want to make sure it is documented properly. Georgeann: Before we go on to the next issue we should at this time and make our formal recommendations to Council. Roxanne: We have already endorsed the Historical Society's ranch and museum program for the two barns. Also in the endorsement letter we requested that the City apply for designation for the site. They have not yet done that. We need to strengthen that again and request that the City designate both the house and the complex; grant their own $2,000 grant to the Historical Society for exterior maintenance; that the ruins HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 remain as they are with an interpretation program developed for them. Jay: You should recommend that the city obtain an historic structure report on the barns laying out an immediate maintenance plan/long term plan and possibly that grant amount could be increased. Have the city define what the possibilities of use may be for the building before it is given for a museum and because it is a museum significant things happen that alter its integrity. Roxanne: The City has requested that of the Historical Society. Georgeann: Do you want to address the Marolt house in your letter and add our recommendations to it. Roxanne: That would be fine and possibly we might want to say that HPC would like to see it occupied, not call out the use but vacant buildings deteriorate and it would be in the best interest of the home that it be occupied. Georgeann: It has historic precedence that it has been occupied for the past ~00 years. Nick: Would we be reviewing it when it is being prepared for occupancy. Roxanne: Any kind of development activity we would be reviewing. MOTION: Bill: Under this issue I would entertain a motion to accept the Castle Creek Power Plant, Aspen Institute and the Riding Ring Race Track be placed on our inventory to be evaluated by staff so that at the next meeting we can evaluate them and give them a score. Joe: So moved. Georgeann second. Roxanne: The Riding Ring is not in the city limits and is not city owned. The city reviews it from the landuse planning aspect. Bill: P&Z has also discussed and City Council. Georgeann: John Sarpa (Hadid Enterprises) was happy to have it reviewed at least from a demolition point of review by us. Roxanne: Maybe we should separate them. The Castle Creek Power Plant: it has been determined eligible for the register and I think #5 rating is good and it has been altered with a cinder block attachment onto it. I think we should rate it now. HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 Roxanne: The Riding Rink and The Aspen Institute I will have to report back on and do a little more research. Joe: The motion was to put them on the inventory. Georgeann: By putting them on the inventory that is where things start to happen. Roxanne: Then lets rate them all individually and the way that they are added onto the inventory by code is through a public hearing. We will be scheduling that for September. Georgeann: I thought they were on our inventory as a special category. Roxanne: I can't find anything in the records that had said that. Bill: I have a 1980 map of historic sites and structures and it shows that the Aspen Institute is an exceptional structure not yet designated and that the Riding Ring is a notable structure not yet designated. The City Shops are also notable but not yet designated. Georgeann: If the Aspen Institute was rated as exceptional it should come before us for review. On the two notables we can put a number on them if we want to or we can leave it the way it was which is a special category and has to come before us before it can be demolished. Charles: I thought it had to be a public hearing. Roxanne: Only to add to the inventory not to rate. Bill: I would like you to research this and take action at our next meeting. We motions as there is too much at risk. before we take action should withdraw our MOTION: Joe made the motion to withdraw his motion. withdrew her second. All approved. Motion carries. Georgeann Roxanne: The form was a 1980 form and we need a new rating form. Charles: The form needs corrections as it doesn't make sense. Bill: Possibly the State has a form. Jay: In looking at the highway alignment I was shocked to see HPC-MINUTES July 26, 1988 how close the road is to come to the barn. Possibly it should be arched back in and a straight shot. Joe: The reason why it was made a curve was because they wanted to avoid the straight shot as you come into town, all of a sudden you are looking straight down the road and by angling it you get a view as you come into town. Jay: You are just adding a 1/4 mile of straight road. Joe: They wanted to maximize the open space on the other side of the highway also. Roxanne: I have all the criteria and I will have to develop a form. I wanted to know what you people wanted and what format was going to work for you. Joe: If everybody felt good with what Steve worked up on the five different categories maybe you could take out of those categories the common perimeters that you are basing your judgment on and then have a scale or whatever. Bill: Simplify the language so we aren't using the same words to score. Make sure it goes along with the Dept. of Interiors 10 standards. NOTION: Nick made the motion to adjourn. Ail approved. Motion carries. Georgeann second. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk