Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19870224HXhu"J.'E$ HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE February 24, 1987 Old Council Chambers 2nd floor 2:30 p.m. meeting Meeting was called to order by chairman Georgeann Waggaman with Patricia O'Bryan, Charles Cunniffe, Bill Poss, Marge Riley and Mary Martin present. Absent from the meeting were Nick Pasquare- lla and Zoe Compton. NEW WINDOW SCHEME ON 520 E. HYMAN Bill Poss stepped down and Kim Wiel, architect, resumed the discussion on the window scheme. The east and south elevation were discussed last week and there weren't many problems with it. Two south windows were shifted mainly because of construction going on inside now. South elevation has four windows and an open deck which is what we had before on the approved set. These are the windows in question. Georgeann stated that what we have done was to get more glass and increase the size of the windows still leaving brick between them. She still feels each should have their own individual awning. At last weeks proposal the windows were pushed together and there was no brick down the middle. We narrowed the windows up a little bit and kept brick between them giving each one its own individual awning. There is no longer going to be a recess- ed deck on the south side. Georgeann said she likes the proport- ion of last weeks better than the new proposal. She can't believe that the inside space could be that unpleasant. Kim Wiel, architect, indicated that the windows are only slightly bigger and with the individual awnings on the windows and if the proportions are carried through...we're trying to get the windows a little closer together and we have a tremendous view of the mountains until Mr. Ling wants to develop his property across the street and even if he does he has such a large parcel that the building won't be very high. Georgeann stated if you think about it the Elks building has been undergoing with those long thin windows and they give plenty of view anyway. Kim Wiel, architect, stated we're not trying to copy anything. This building isn't a copy it is as rendition of the Elks building and I still think you have the long narrow windows, maybe they aren't as long and maybe their a little wider but I still think they have that general feeling and that is what we are trying to accomplish. We're not trying to replicate. Georgeann stated that she knows it's not a victorian building. Mary Martin said she thinks we are getting into a lot of knit picking with smaller details. We missed a very important point on the Jerome building; that building is too high. We made a major mistake on an historic building. This building we are dealing with is not a victorian building. Georgeann stated that you are going to get the majority of the vote Klm no matter how I vote. Steve Burstein, Planning Office, stated that his only comments were that he felt there was good discussion at the last meeting with regard to how this applicant has designed the building with many elements that are very compatible with the landscaping and that it is a compromise but not a radical departure because there are so many other involvements such as the use of sandstone etc. Mary Martin called the motion to accept the changes on the south windows. Marge Riley second the motion. Georgeann opposed the motion but motion carries. UTE MOUNTAINEER STORE, 318 $. ~'T.T, Graeme Means, architect, said he feels the Committee is familiar with the building. He stated the owner would like to keep the existing rough form. With a large flat roof building he thinks that lends a lot of indemnity and he wants to keep that form. We intend that the facade on the mall be pretty much the same as this although we intend to reconstruct the whole roof for structural reasons. Also we would like to keep the facades in wood. The 500 sq. feet would be added on the second floor. The footprint of the building would remain the same. The bulk of the second floor at this end is set back as you can see looking at the front and side again, this part of the floor is set back 12 and 1/2 feet from the front facade and this back portion is set back 30 ft. from the front facade so we feel that we're not imposing on the mall. We are considering adding a gable form on the rear portion of the second floor and that is about as far as we have gotten at this point and we wanted to see if this meets your approval. Mary Martin asked if they were using barn wood? Graeme Means said you can look but it is painted wood. 2 Georgeann asked if they would be changing any of the materials? Mr. Means said we would want to keep the facade wood but would probably change the material and we would have to rebuild the whole front of the facade and a new roof. We would be putting on new siding, windows, and door. Georgeann asked when they got to that stage would they be returning to HPC. Mr. Means replied that is correct. Georgeann stated her first reaction is positive. She is not uncomfortable with what he is proposing. Any other reactions to report? Mary Martin stated she is concerned with height of second floor. Mr. Means stated the view is looking up toward Independence. Georgeann said it looks like it makes it sort of tall but still we have to address that. Charles Cunniffe stated that bulk is needed. Georgeann said she is a little uncomfortable at the moment with what happens with the flat wall as it turns into the back peak area. She presumed they would be developing that further but it looks a little strange right now. She suggested that Mr. Mean take a couple pieces of styrofoam and do a real rough model for us. Mr. Means stated because of this building here he doesn't think that you would ever see this, but I agree that we can do a model. Charles Cunniffe stated that the gable seems a little thin, you may want something added as a mass or something. Mr. Means stated that the gable roof will be treated differently. Charles Cunniffe stated he didn't quite understand the set backs. Mr. Means said this is looking at the building from the south, this is the south elevation, so that this part of the building is set back 12 and 1/2 feet, if we look at the north elevation this gabled roof is 30 feet long and this triangle that Georgeann is worried about is set way back three feet from the mall and everything else rather non-visual. Georgeann stated that it is just a matter of looking at one part of the elevation and interpreting your own thing. I can tell that you just pointed out that that is a balcony and I thought it was a sloping roof from that view. Mr. Means said he probably should have done some roof plans. Georgeann said she doesn't think any of us are uncomfortable at the moment with the plans and this sort of looks like a prelimin- ary preliminary, and I think from here you can just go ahead and get started. Mr. Means stated that we wanted to get on the agenda. Mr. Poss stated that he is concerned about the historic elements. Mr. Means stated we are looking at an element that is already there. Mr. Poss stated that you have a roof shape in question. Georgeann stated to Bill that that roof shape maybe an inappropr- iate shape not that you can't have it, maybe you are doing the same thing that I am doing because he uses the traditional forms and suddenly there is a pediment used on a wooden building when generally it is used on a square store type finish. Here where it looks like the end gable of the building it just might be an inappropriate use for it. Steve Burstein, Planning Office, said the idea is if it were an actual end gable. Georgeann stated maybe that is why Charles wants it a little thicker. Charles Cunniffe stated if you look at store buildings there are many done like that or are squared off or have a combination. Mr. Means stated what everybody here is saying is maybe they don't like this particular thing but if it is treated properly then it can be of use; first of all there is something here to work with and second of all it is an historic used element. We would like to work with it because we think it would increase the interest of the building. Georgeann stated that maybe it needs to look less endgableish and more fentamentish. Mary Martin stated that she thinks that the gable should be moved over further because the gable will be best directly over the door. Georgeann stated that Mary is reading it as a gable at the end of the building and maybe it should have a different character 4 perhaps. Steve Burstein, Planning Office, ask the HPC if they would agree that it is a novelist kind of form almost a swiss chalet. Marge Riley asked when the Ute building was built? Mr. Graeme said it was built then added on to; 1960 swiss structure. Steve Burstein, Planning Office, stated the building is not a Crested Butte log or an Aspen style. Mr. Means stated his attempt is to add something to the Mall area there and is open to suggestions but you see a lot of flat second stories and we want to use the gable we presently have and work off of that theme. Georgeann stated that you could even have more fun with it, maybe that is what it needs, this is just the beginning. Mr. Mean stated this is a very simplistic beginning. Georgeann stated that at this point she feels the Committee should give preliminary approval. Do I have a motion for that? Marge Riley made the motion to approve the preliminary reviewing. Pat O'Bryan second the motion. Motion carries. GOLDEN HORN BUILDING. 314 S. p!TT.T. ~'l']~Rk'? Mr. Dracopoli stated that the windows to be replaced are on the second floor of the Golden Horn. On each side of the central panes of the windows on the second floor, which are double hung, the windows had been painted over so many times that the paint is shot. What we want to replace them with wood casement windows. It would be painted exactly the same color. It would be a vertical operable window. There are actually four windows like this and wherever there is a double hung it will be replaced with a casement window. There are four windows altogether two facing onto the deck facing south. Georgeann stated from the Committee's point of view we'll get the big wide window and another window but we won't get the division. I don't have a problem with that, does anyone have a problem with the proposal? Pat O'Bryan made the motion to approve the window changes on 314 S. Mill Street. Marge Riley second the motion. All approved. No opposition. Motion carried. Committee discussion on Historic Designation. 5 Mary Martin stated that she was negative toward historic designa- tion. Georgeann asked Mary how we to the old buildings if we worth saving. are ever going to give any incentives don't designate the ones that are Mary Martin stated what she means by historic designation is designation of someone's house without them coming to HPC and saying they want it. Mr. Poss stated there has been a lot of public input. The public brings a valid point with the part of forced designation. There are other ways to do it and I think a lot of people are having trouble with that terminology of designation. Mary has collected some information on Boulder and I've collected some information on other cities where you have quality incentives and a good program that brings pride of ownership. You almost put out there a carrot that people want to step up and take on this title of being designated. Even in the national trust it is not mandatory that they tell you, you have to be designated. In fact it's all voluntary. All of the national structures are voluntary. They have a program that creates private ownership and allows those people to step up and want to own those structures and people want to live near them. I really don't know if we have the right at this time to tell somebody what they have to do with their house. In analyzing some of the code problems if you designate one structure and we all agree that we want compatibility and want to protect the designated structure but you also want to review the house that goes next to it. You want to control what goes on with the house beside you. Georgeann stated she is very concerned about the mandatory also, and when she talked to Steve about this she feels people will say that the only way they can get out of this is to neglect my building. We don't need two dozen neglected buildings in this town. Georgeann also stated that she is inclined to voluntary designation with so many incentives that people will come forward and hope that we will get enough people that will want their house designated and in hopes that their neighbor will also want their house historic. In the neighborhood meeting Georgeann stated that another concern was if one owner has an historic house they are concerned what would be built next to it. How do we deal with that? Georgeann suggest all of Aspen be an overlay district only for massing i.e., in order to control size of buildings such as a huge building next to a small building. This is just another possibility. I don't believe the people realize what power they have in the decision process. Steve Brustein, Planning Office, stated the Committee started out with the plan to study the overlay district and look at a 6 demolition review. From there we have gone to the moratorium in six months on demolition to try and get this group and P&Z and staff to try and get together some regulations to look at the system. Steve feels that the district still has merits but the idea is that we went through an evaluation and an analysis as to what are the appropriate incentives and what are the appropri- ate levels of review for different types of structures. Marge Riley stated that five or six years ago she was involved in restoring the building on Cooper and Aspen which took a year and a half. She hopes we don't have to walk away and say we have lost everything. She feels that it is good to have some kind of control over the architectural design of a building. She feels it is part of our heritage here and is all for trying to save some of the historic buildings. Mary Martin stated her feelings on an overlay district. She feels the district would mean that you put on a map, which you already have, and pin point all the victorians. If you have already graded the victorians then you would color code them to the ratings. And if you had a district and we sat down and really derived some sensible and inviting carrot rules toward the people we would have it all defined what their chances are. Mary feels that at one point in time all of Main Street will be contemporary. We cannot tell a person with a small white house on some property that he must keep that house. We must find a way of taking those houses and moving them to Marolt or Ashcroft, so that their property values are not lessened. I only want to try and save an semblance of our mining and historic heritage, Mary is not opposed to contemporary. Mary feels that the Committee never really voted on mandatory designation. Marge Riley stated that she wonders how Breckenridge and Crested Butte were able to do what they did with their Main St.. Brecken- ridge has had advertisements on TV and it is really great. People drive in through Main St. She is worried about what Mary is saying that our Main Street may turn out to be contemporary. Carol Farino, Historical Society, stated that the one thing the Committee is putting off is coming up with incentives. Every conversation comes down to; if we could give them a carrot, if we could give them an incentive. She feels the Committee needs to turn around and start focusing on the incentives and try to work backward from there. Georgeann stated this is frustrating for two reasons, everybody has had plenty of opportunities but nobody has come up with many incentives. And even when they do they all go to City Council and are out of our control. Georgeann stated that our incentiv- es are not concrete yet and that Steve Burstein has a whole list of them. 7 Steve Burstein, Planning Office, stated that everybody's points are well taken. Georgeann stated that HPC should have a demolition review of any of those buildings. She also stated that she directed Steve to bring up to City Council, this same night, at least the buildings in the upper notable category to come before HPC for review if they are going to be demolished. Carol Farino, Historical Society, stated that she has been working on placement of old historic buildings but still hasn't acquired a place. If we are starting to think about that she would appreciate any input from the Committee. She has talked to the Forest Service concerning Ashcroft and it can be done. If the buildings are moved to Ashcroft the buildings must sit there as historical pieces. Think of all the people in this community that need housing, employee housing and elderly housing. Why should we be demolishing these houses. There is the possibility of the Meadows also. There must be a foundation set up for perpetual care. If people give their houses to the Historical Society plus pay to have the house moved into some foundation that can be maintained, then what do you get as an incentive back; at least you get a piece of property that you don't have to pay tap fees on. Bill Poss stated that Carol has a good program and that should only be part of the program. That is an expensive program that Carol is talking about. There are other alternatives to assist the Incentive Program and we should start working on now. Bill Poss said we need to get individuals interested in pride of ownership. Mary Martin asked that Georgeann make a motion that each HPC member take the task of discussing certain aspects of incentive- s, certain aspects of demolition, foundations, buying, and fixing up. Georgeann stated that she doesn't feel we are not quite ready for a motion yet. Georgeann stated that the HPC members need to closet themselves away for a whole day a hammer these issues out. Georgeann stated that HPC definitely needs four hour working sessions and at that point designate certain areas for each member. After the facts are compiled present them to P&Z and City Council. 330 W. GILLESPIE Committee and staff decided that further photographs would needed in order to properly evaluate the cite. be Steve Burstein, Planning Office, suggested that the Committee should examine the site before the next meeting. 8 HOUSE ON A.C.E.S. PROPERTY This property was given an evaluation of 3. A 3 coding is a structure that has been altered in a way that negatively affects its historic architectural integrity; however, the structure retains some historic significance because of particularly distinctive historic structural elements and/or its contribution to the historic character of an neighborhood. In a few cases, the structure has been associated with an historic person or family. SHEELEYBRIDGE Sheeley bridge was designated between a four and five. A four is a structure that has been altered in a way that is considered compatible with the original architecture; and the historic character is preserved. Structure typically has strong positive influence in the neighborhood's historic character and may be associated with important historic persons or events. In all cases, structures were in their original location, to the best of staff and HPC's knowledge. A five is a structure that appears to be unaltered or has been carefully restored/reconstructed. In some cases, structures were rated in the 1980 Inventory as excellent or exceptional rather than notable. Typically these structures are very good represen- tatives of an historic architectural style and craftsmanship, and have a strong positive influence on the neighborhood's character. Structures evaluated as 5's may also be associated with important historic persons or events. Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. kjs 9