HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19870623HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO~I~ITTEE
MINUTES
JUNE 23, 1987
Meeting was called to order by Bill Poss in the absence of
chairman Georgeann Waggaman. Nick Pasquarella, Patricia O'Bryan
and Mary Martin were present. Charles Cunniffe was absent.
Excused were Gerogeann Waggaman, Zoe Compton and Marge Riley.
Committee membez and staff comments
Mary: This is my last meeting, I resigned last night and am in
the process of writing a letter to Council explaining why. There
has been so much animosity. The premise started around 1974 that
a town had to be preserved to some degree by the National
Preservation Act by the National Trust. The day I got on I
hammered and hammered about preservation. There are two concepts
in preservation. One that the building be exactly as it was and
be restored exactly as it was in the 1880's. Every building here
in Aspen had been remodeled to some extent almost totally when
Paepckes came here. So when the Colorado Trust people came they
couldn't even designate the Sardy House as an example because it
had been added to; a small room in the back. I kept working to
try and make the board see that what was an original house had
been modified. Zoning codes have changed and I don't understand
as much as I should about zoning. I'm going to step off of this
board and try to study zoning and see if I cannot guide us
through some kind of a process that is amenable to our little
tiny town, it shouldn't have 1500 pages of codes and so many
arbitrary rules. Example is the Mesa Store, he has to pay an
encroachment license for a new roof which already had a roof on
it before. Because its historic it falls back in the publics eye
that it is something that HPC has done, and I don't think we
should be blamed for historic preservation, it was started and
still a very viable meaningful thing to preserve what is here but
it's got to have more support from the Planning Dept. I got a
book from Telluride on historic guidelines and Telluride has been
totally preserved. They do a review of everything new being
built. I feel this is the only fair way to go in a town this
small that has so much to work toward. Telluride wanted the
people happy. The people of Aspen aren't happy here. As far as
I'm concerned I never wanted houses put on a register and I went
along with the guidelines and guidelines were meant to be just
guidelines. The incentive program to me meant nothing more than
giving an individual who would restore his home one year release
from taxes and a release completely from the building permit from
the time that he develops. I'm going to try and work from the
outside in this time and really study what's wrong.
Bill: Mary I'm sorry to hear that. Mary has given us her input
on the committee and the incentive program. Steve, have you had
a chance to look at the Mesa Store bldg. yet?
Steve: I alerted Bill Drueding and asked him to look into it
because he also has a set of the approved plans. The pitch of
the roof in the area which is vertical off the porch appears to
be different than what was approved.
Bill: The roof is a lot different from the review, it is more
toward the first plan that was turned down.
Mary: That is what
our decisions. That
be like that.
I am talking about. We are too arbitrary in
decision was made 3-2. We can't afford to
Bill: You are never going to get 100% of the people to agree.
That is the reason for the committee. The Committee agreed to a
certain standard which he presented and he is obligated to build
it to that presentation.
Nick: I'm not happy with the Mesa Building either, and I feel
it is fitting and proper that it gets turned over to Bill
Drueding and find out what is going on.
Bill: There is quite a difference in the building than what was
presented to us. It looks more like the presentation that was
turned down. If changes have been made they should be presented
to us at the next meeting.
Mary: Why does the Mesa Store have to pay an encroachment fee?
Bill Drueding: Because about four years ago the Engineering
Department decided that a lot of buildings had previous encroach-
ments and never had encroachment licenses. A policy was set up
when someone remodeled they would pay encroachment licenses that
were never caught before. This is for protection of the City.
Patricia: I was walking by
one year and the dumpster is
to us in the past year.
the Popcorn Wagon and it has been
still visible and I know they came
Steve: I have been working with the representative of the
owner. Dr. Comcowich owns one structure and another owner owns
the adjacent property, they are trying to work it out and enclose
the dumpster, put wooden doors up and possibly brick pavers.
Nick: Whose responsibility is it to enforce?
Bill: I believe it is the Building Departments.
Nick: Our job is to acknowledge and remark so that we don't get
out of line.
Bill Drueding: The Building Dept. has the authority to tell
someone they didn't build according to the plans. For enforce-
2
ment you would have to get the City Attorney involved. Your
Committee administers, you don't do things as part of a resolu-
tion where as Council does.
Bill: In actuality the Committee has no bite.
Bill Drueding: Not as much as you would like it to have. You
can hold the building permit until you give your approval. Once
the permit is acquired it is very difficult for the Committee to
have control.
Bill: Take the Mesa Store, as long as they build it to code and
alter the approved plans how can we hold them up.
Bill Drueding: The HPC stamped approval is put with the building
permit to see that they are supposedly building according. In
the Building Dept. there are so many sets of plans to be checked
and not enough people. We assume until it is brought to our
attention that the plans that are used are the approved plans.
We can red rag the project.
Bill: Suppose you missed the violation in the construction of
the building.
Bill Drueding: There is much less control than you think.
Something like that will not require a CO. It may not even
require a final inspection.
Mary: Someone from the Committee should call the architect and
ask them if they are building according to the design that was
approved.
Bill: I don't know if this Committee has that authority.
Bill Drueding: At one point different people from the Committee
were assigned to individual projects to monitor.
Regina Lee: When you wanted this trash bin enclosed and they
came to you to approve the plan, then you can't make them enclose
it.
Bill: We can just review it and since the trash enclosure is
not required for public safety the Building Dept. cannot hold up
their building permit. We have to rely on the creditability of
the person to comply.
Steve: There is indeed an approval process and if someone has
approval it should be built accordingly.
Bill: We should institute the monitoring system again.
RUBY PARK TRANSIT CENTER
Tabled until 7-28-87
GARAGE 131 g. HALLAN ST.
Bill: Tabled until 7-28-87 as it is a repair and not a renova-
tion. The siding and roof finish need repaired. We are waiting
for the incentive program to go through because right now we
presently have a non-conforming structure but when the incentive
program goes through it will become a conforming structure
outside of the setbacks.
Nick: Is it in the overlay?
Bill: It is a designated structure.
SPECIAL BUSINESS
Steve: A memo was prepared to follow-up some of the comments
that were made at the June 17, 1987 meeting.
Mary: The incentives are part of the Guidelines.
supposed to be involved in the incentive program.
Were we not
Steve: Primarily
was input by this
legislation, and all
P&Z had spearheaded the incentives and there
group. P&Z had the ability to initiate
of the incentives are in that category.
Mary: I didn't receive the" Survey for the West End Assoc."
headed by Jan Collins.
Linda Summers: I feel everyone should have received that survey
not just a few. You should have gotten a city directory and
taken the addressed from there.
Steve: Linda, there was no attempt to hand pick people to get
input from.
Mary: June 22, 1987 there was a big upset between the public
and the Council on HPC. It is clear to me that HPC is being
bypassed. Incentives belong with HPC. We should have originated
the incentives and then gone to P&Z with it.
Kathryn Lee: I feel it is important that what you must do if you
are the board for historic preservation, the problem is you're
getting all the flack, all the situations and you aren't having
any input. You aren't part of the process. This board that sits
here from what I have observed is why we keep coming back trying
to say your the board that is supposed to sit there, your the
board that supposed to be coming to City Council not the Planning
4
Dept. It should be this board which is coming up with what they
are trying to preserve.
Steve: Kathryn I know that you understand a lot about the
situation but really you must recognize, the board must recog-
nize, there was an attempt to get input, there has been open
discussions on all the issues that involve historic preservation
including the incentive program.
Linda: Who was the discussion with?
Nick: Among ourselves and I agreed when I came on this board
eight years ago to be a member and I would enforce the laws that
were set forth to me by the Planning and Zoning Board. I am not
a legislator. I will react and carry out the laws as set down, I
will give input. My job is to carry out what is set before me.
We do not legislate on this board.
Linda: I didn't say you do and I expect you to do only what your
job is. My point is, look how many people are here who knew
about this meeting. You put it in the newspaper somebody is out
of town Thursday and Friday. These discussions are important to
property owners.
Patricia: That is not our problem if you are out of town for a
long length of time.
Bill: Linda I can address that. This is a continued public
hearing that was published two weeks before the initial public
hearing.
Linda: Published where.
Bill: In the newspaper.
Steve: This would have been published prior but this meeting
was not specifically announced because it was a continued
hearing.
Linda: Ail the people in my neighborhood, there are people who
don't read the newspaper from cover to cover. People have no
idea what's going on. They have no idea what is in these
guidelines and I know you have changed them periodically. I
think every time you change them they should be sent to all the
people that they are going to effect so they can have some input
into it before it goes to City Council and you pass something and
nobody knows what is going on.
Bill: Even when City Council enacts legislation I don't think
they send out letters to every person in the voter registration.
Linda: You have 54 properties that are 4 and 5 and over 100 that
5
are 2, 3, 4 and 5. There are a handful of us who have been able
to figure out what is going on and request these papers. They
did a letter saying their property is a 4, big deal, they don't
know what kind of impact that is going to be. Nobody explains
yes this could devalue your property, you might not be able to
sell it, you might not be able to tear it down, you might not be
able to paint it, you might not who knows what with it, they
don't have any concept what a 4 means. They know what the
criteria was because you sent a little backup with it. Thirty
days after you say you can make an appeal, thirty days later you
were kind enough to send a letter to the fours and fives saying
they can appeal up until July 11, 1987, now that has been
extended. What if we are out of town until July 11, you sell
your house on July 15 and that house has that number. I'm real
confused about what is a designated structure, a structure with a
rate like 4 or 5 and an evaluated score. If you have a number
four on your house does that mean it's a designated structure.
Bill: No.
Linda: Basically these guidelines have nothing to do with
anything unless it has been properly designated.
Bill: Or within its historic districts, or identified.
Linda: It sounds to me my house has nothing to do with any of
this except the demolition permit.
Steve: You are right.
Linda: So being a number four means I'm going to be designated.
Bill: No.
Linda: I can paint my house any color that I want!
Bill: Yes, if you follow the building and zoning codes.
Linda: Why are we even giving anybody a rate.
Nick: Because people came here last winter and wanted to know
where did they fit in our plans.
Linda: Who came here? Because you were telling them they were
going to designated and they wanted to know.
Bill: Actually what we were doing at that point was evaluating
our structures. The City has a resource of historic structures,
the City has directed HPC to look at and evaluate this resource
and see what we are going to do with it. There were several
options, to go by district, designations whatever to go through
preservation of these historic structures. At that point all we
6
did was evaluate structures that were on an inventory that was
done in 1980. So there were structures that were identified in
1980 as having some historic significance. This Committee took
upon a program to evaluate only and find out what strength these
structures were in historical significance. We rated them 1
through 5, the 4's and 5's were worth looking at to see if they
should go through designation at some point nothing has been done
up until that point.
Linda: Who determines whether they should be determined or not?
Steve: That will be a public process and go through Council
and all those people will be notified.
Steve: Thus far what has been agreed upon is that it is a
voluntary program for designation. We are trying to develop
incentives to make it more attractive so more people will
volunteer.
Linda: But there are people calling me saying I don't know what
is going on here.
Steve: There is a lot of misunderstanding out there Linda.
Linda: Why don't you write a letter and explain to these
people.
Patricia: We have sent two letters.
Kathryn Lee: Linda showed me a letter that didn't even make
sense to your average homeowner. You cannot follow what the
letter says.
Regina Lee: It seems to me if Steve is a staff
and sends letters out that happen to deal with HPC,
Committee review the letter first.
person on P&Z
does not this
Patricia: We aren't a paid board we're just a volunteer board
working with Planning.
Bill: Let me see the letter. This letter was sent out from
City Council and P&Z.
Nick: You are demanding us to legislate to your concerns and to
your needs. We do not do that.
Linda: We're demanding that you leave us alone.
Nick: If that is the case you will have to take that up with
City Council not the board.
Kathryn Lee: You have to take an approach to get the people to
work with you not against you and preserve homes. Whether you
legislate or you don't, people have to come to someone to ask
questions. You have an obligation on the board to understand why
you have an upset public.
Bill: A lot of the comments made here by the public should be
directed to Council and P&Z.
Kathryn Lee: Why doesn't this board get involved.
Bill: At certain points this board does get involved with P&Z.
Mary: The planners set the agenda for both, work on the things,
bring in the people to discuss it and that was it. I am arguing
if you are responsible for historic preservation then you as a
board should be responsible for the entire thing from concept to
finish.
Steve: At this point there is a resolution from P&Z recommend-
ing incentives. City Council looked at the incentives and tabled
action because they wanted further study. It is going back to
Council the second meeting of July.
FINAL REVIEW ON ELLI'S RESTORATION
John Cottle: The Main St. elevation will be the same, I will
talk about the Mill St. elevation. The Parapet will be braced
front and back, lifted off and then stored on the site. The
kickplates will be rebuilt, the planters will be relined with
copper or rebuilt. New windows will be installed and we are
currently pricing, one is clad and one is wood. The trim between
the windows will be removed piece by piece and if it is still
reusable we will then reuse it on the building. This is the same
procedure that will take place on Main St. except that the entire
wall rather than just the parapet will be removed and restored on
the site and placed back on the foundation. All the existing
doors will be reused.
Bill: Elli's will be pulled apart and almost leveled to the
ground and put back together. Some kind of notification should
be made to the public to make them aware that the original
materials are going to be reused.
Mary: A sign should be put up relating the restoration to the
public.
John: We would be happy to put up a sign. One problem that we
have found is that there are no foundations under the majority of
the building. In addition to no foundations they are going to
put a basement in. The present kickplates are plywood and need
to be changed and the trim will be the same.
Steve: One of the conditions of approval was that the applicant
come back with detailed restoration plans and this is in compli-
ance. This is a quality restoration project and the operation of
taking down the walls be understood so that the public and the
Committee are not surprised of what is happening. This project
is an attempt to save everything that can be saved and I would
recommend if the window sashings need to be changed that they be
done in wood as they are more authentic and this is an attempt to
do an authentic restoration.
Mary: I believe that there are exceptions, the rents are so
high...I feel if clad windows can be used and that reduces the
cost, then clad windows should be used over wood windows.
Patricia: I have no dislikes with the project and admire what
they are attempting to do.
Bill: It troubles me to do this kind of restoration, it puts a
burden on the architect and the client. What you are doing is
taking the building apart and replicating it and so we are
building a replica of Elli's not restoring Elli's. When you have
an historic building that hasn't changed in awhile, the charm of
preservation is that this building has withstood the test of
time. To take it apart and put it back it is a replica. We are
creating a burden on the client and the architect allowing them
to take it apart and save parts of it which is an added cost as
opposed to keeping the structure and working within the structure
and so we are not doing restoration here we are replicating. I'm
willing to do this as a test but I feel the Committee should
address this at some point, what restoration is, what preserva-
tion is, what is replication and what is new structure.
Steve: My understanding is that a basic distinction between
restoration and a reconstruction would be that they are utilizing
the original parts. The Glidden house has all new parts, they
did not try to reuse the original parts of it.
Bill: We're reducing this down to a point where all we're
saving is the siding and if the siding is the least expensive
part of this building you might as well put up new siding. That
is going to be the next thing, John will come back and say we
tried to save the siding but it didn't work. If you want to save
this building I feel you should be working within the confines of
the structure.
MOTION~ Mary made the motion that the owners of Elli's be given
a little discretion on the restoration process. That what they
have presented today is more than acceptable and if they find
that it is difficult to do what they are doing that they be given
the leeway of putting up new boards.
Nick: Second the motion. Ail favored. Motion carries.
Steve: May I ask if we could ask the applicant to inform the
Planning Office when different replacements are necessary. In
that way we can tell the public what is going on.
Bill: Would somebody on the board like to monitor this project?
Nick: I would be very happy to.
MO~ION: Mary made the motion that those residences and commer-
cial buildings within the Woods building be notified that they
can put in clad windows if they need to be change.
Patricia: Second the motion. Ail favored.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION & CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
701 H. HOPKINS
Stan Mathis: The house is a clap board house built in 1880's
and HPC has rated it a 3. Our intent here is to ask you to
designate the structure historic and by doing so it will allow us
to apply for an exemption under GMP so we can add on to the
structure which is in the office zone. We would like to add
approximately 3700 sq. feet. to it, it exists now at 830 sq. ft.
not including the porch which is on the front of the building.
There was an addition added on to in 1960 to the original
structure. We would like to turn the house 90% so that the
elevation that faces Hopkins St. side would now face Spring St.
The original proposal did not have a center court yard. The
actual square footage of the structure is 3300 sq. feet and 400
square feet of balconies and stairways. We will end up with 4000
sq. feet of office space. We need the designation to make the
GMP exemption. If this board doesn't agree with this proposal we
need not go any further. We would really like to replicate the
building as much as possible.
Steve: If the Committee gives conceptual approval and a
recommendation for designation then it goes to P&Z and then to
Council for first and second reading of an ordinance because is a
zoning designation. Stan has attempted to utilize a small house
and make it a restoration and an expansion. I don't think that
the concept works, to add 3300 sq. feet to a structure that is
830 sq. feet now and to use massing that is very much larger than
the original structure is not compatible, it is not in the scale
that it should be. The structure is rated a 3 and is not an
exceptional structure, the massing is not compatible.
Bill: The is an example of our incentives program where a
structure has been evaluated at a low score. The potential buyer
of the property is looking to upgrade this structure, give it
designation that would allow him to expand and take availability
of our incentive program that allows him to increase the FAR on
the site without going through GMP.
Stan: This is not a designated structure, it is in the office
zone. In the office zone a duplex is available at 4500 sq. feet
and it seems to me that the HPC and the City has an opportunity
to watch and have their say in a development as it goes along.
We aren't interested in doing a duplex. Someone can raise that
little building and put up a 4500 sq. duplex of any style they
wish. That might be the critical point to address.
Mary: What does this exempt him from, how much money and time?
Stan: I prepare one GMP per year for a developer at a cost
around $40,000 in fees and the process wasn't finished. I would
estimate $60,000 when completed.
Mary: How can the planners write this incentive program that
doesn't even mention elimination from the Growth Management
Process.
Bill: The resolution from P&Z recommends to Council various
provisions of chapter 24 to create incentives for designated
structures. I've been informed of this and it exists.
Mary: Lake Avenue was a house like this that was supposed to
have been preserved and an addition placed on the back. If you
will do it exactly like that then I'm all for you Stan, but if
divert I'm against it. I believe in giving you the GMP exemption
to save that house, but I don't really like moving it around but
as long as there isn't anything in front that would be fine.
Patricia: The mass of the scale is too large.
Bill: The mass overshadows the structure right now and because
of its site it has more prominence than the Lake Avenue site. I
would be for it if you soften it up a little bit. I wouldn't
care if you had more square footage as long as it is more
compatible.
Steve: There is a certain sense of the open space on the
property that is a critical aspect of its contribution to the
fabric as an historic structure. I'm also concerned about the
site coverage and how that works.
Mary: What do you want him to change, do you want him to go to
the basement with one of these levels or what?
Stan: I understand what Bill is tell me.
Mary: Is it the opinion of this board that he be given an
exemption from GMP.
Linda: You can't increase the FAR and keep your open space
both.
Bill: The designation and use of the FAR allows us to manip-
ulate open space and setbacks to allow this to happen. If
someone is willing to put money into a structure and restore it
to its integrity and because they did that we gave them this
incentive if it is a viable restoration. If it is a replication
of something to circumvent the law then I'm against it.
MO~ION: Nick made the motion to table the conceptual approval,
table approval of designation and recommendation for designation
and gave direction to Stan to carry back the Commissions thoughts
and represent the plans with less mass.
Patricia: Second the motion. Ail approved.
SPECIAL BUSINESS
Steve: Citizens had asked Council to do something about the
process of the Guidelines and also general discussion on the 4's
and 5's and how they are affected on the inventory. Council
initiated a code amendment to extend the appeal rating system to
60 days. It is set up in the ordinance #11 that you can appeal
the rating system that HPC did back in Jan. to City Council. It
was set up as Sept. 10th and is now November. City Council has
asked us to bring them up with incentives and guidelines. The
evaluation process established informational base on the struct-
ures but it did have impact on the 4's and 5's because they are
now subject to demolition review. Ordinance %11 which is the
revision of the whole section on historic preservation-24-9 of
the code and re-established the inventory because it does have
some standing with regard to 4's and 5's and we wanted to give
the ability to everyone whether they had a 0 to 5 to have some
recourse if they were not happy with the ratings they got and an
appeal process was established for that.
Linda: Why even tell people they have numbers if it has no
significance whatsoever.
Bill: Because we started to do it and everyone said you can't
do this without notifying the public, so we told the public and
look what happened. Maybe we should get the Mayor, P&Z, etc. and
let the press notify the public what the process does.
Kathryn Lee: Your money in town is from major investors, the
people who have the money to build the buildings. Put business
people together rather than homeowners to discuss the incentives.
All homes have been altered since the 1880's. We have to look
more toward the flavor of the victorian and look at things that
are historically compatible and toward things that are available,
that means compromise on everybody's behalf. Maybe we should get
together with Council and HPC and the public and try to get back
on the right foot and create a better working condition so that
we all achieve something.
Bill: Steve, in what stage is the resolution.
Steve: The incentive resolution has been tabled by the Council,
P&Z has adopted the resolution.
MOTION~ Bill made the motion to tabled the Public Hearing.
5:00 p.m. adjourned
Kathleen J. Strickland