Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19760727RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves July 27, 1976 The regular meeting of the Historical Preservation Committee was held at 1:00 in the City Council Chambers. Those members present were Florence Glidden, ~na Frost, Bob Marsh, Norm Burns, and Chairman Lary Groen. Also present was John Stanford of the Planning Office. Approval of minutes The minutes of the July 13, meeting were unamiously approved. Old Business Groen asked if Tony Coleman, architect for the Mall, had brought by the plans for the playground, as this committee had given conditional approval upon his doing so. Groen was told that Coleman has been out of town, but would be complying within the next few days. Groen stated that the Freemont County Planning Commission had requested our help in establishing guidelines for a Historic Preservation Committee in Lander, Wyoming. We will send copies of our Criteria. NEW BUSINESS Stanford confirmed that the Public Hearing and joint meeting between the Planning & Zoning Commission and the HPC was set for August 17, 1976 at 5:00. This will ~be on the Main Street Historic Designation and 125 W. Main and Arthur's Restaurant. Groen brought up that the County has requested to be able to enclose the bus stop at Rubey Park, add food vending services, telephones, heat and light~ Groen feels this is an extremley small structure for all this plus passengers. The City owns the structure, and the County wants to lease it. Once it is decided by Council to go ahead with this, then it will be coming before this committee. FLORADORA Project Review Groen opened the Public Hearing. Stanford reviewed the application for the extension of the Floradora into office buildings and a restaurant in the existing building. Stanford reviewed the process up to this point, and pointed out that the memo included in the packet related to the proposal presented at the study session that was held. There have been some changes since that time. Stanford went over the problems that the Planning Office is having in determining their criteria. They have, so far, advocated that any new building being built should not imitate the Victorian, but should be in the contemporary, more modern style. But what do you do when you add on to an existing Victorian building? This was one of the main problems facing this committee in reviewing the application for the Floradora. The Planning Office had originally asked that the expansion appear visually as a separate building but be connected to the existing building in the rear part of the lot. Stanford does not feel that the model presented authentically duplicates the Victorian style especially in the roof plans. Pielstick went over the changes that have been made: the area between the two gabled structures has been moved back; lowered the roof in the link area; included the landscaping; and reduced the floor area to where they are about 1200 sq. ft. below the FAR. This has cut the square footage consider- ably. Ms. Glidden asked how far the building was set back and Pielstick replied that it was about 32 feet from the property line. Groen asked if by reducing the square footage they had reduced the parking requirements and Pielstick stated that there were still eleven parking spaces. Mr. John Schuhmacher, a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, asked about the parking in the rear of the building. He is representing the owner of property to the North of the Floradora, and is concerned that there will not be ample space for adequate parking without someone hitting their fence. This was a requirement stipulated, that there be off- street parking~ Burns repeatedly asked if the most could be made of the floor space area by using a contemporary style. This would be so, but Pielstick stated that he would not put a contemporary style on this beautiful Victorian. Pielstick also went over the problems of trying to put an addition on a non-conforming building, and trying to meet the code. The stairwell must be attached to the original building and be fire proof. There was a removable piece in the model presented by Pielstick in the adjoining part, and Stanford felt that this was more what the committee was trying to achieve in asking for more "open space". There must still be some work on the elevation. Stanford, on behalf of the Planning Office, recommended having another Public Hearing and another Study Session so that some of these finer points could be worked out. Groen suggested polling the committee members on their individual com- ments. Marsh stated that he did not feel, in view of the feelings and recommendation of the Planning Office, that the committee could grant approval at this time. Ms. Frost stated that she liked the model being presented much better than the previous one. ~She'lik~s the piece missing, and feels it makes it look more like a separate structure. Ms. Glidden felt that Pielstick had tried very hard and that the set-back helps, but the removable piece creates a problem~ and then again there is the loss of floor space with that piece being removed. Burns is still in favor of a contemporary style addition, and liked the model presented at the Study Session as opposed to this. Ms. End likes t~is model more than the previous one, but feels everyone needs more time to work this out, and would like another study session. Stanford did not feel the question of Victorian vs Contemporary had been settled, and suggested po!linq the members 9n this quest±on. Marsh would rather see contemporary; Ms. Frost voted for Victorian; Ms. Glidden was unsure, but would like to see a model of a contem- porary style to decide; Burns would like to see a contemporary style; Ms. End voted for Victorian and Groen voted contemporary. Stanford stated that he was prepared to go with the Victorian style at this point. The criteria for the HPC was discussed by Marsh. Groen felt that it was basically up to the architects and owners to determine the style, this was not up to the HPC. Stanford suggested that the specific areas that need to be refined be well defined prior to the study session and the recommendation be based on these. These two areas were more defined as 1) open space 2) land- scaping. The members were polled as to whether they wanted to continue the public hearing and have another study session. The members were generally in agreement with this. Ms. Paepke did not feel that the members had the right to dictate the criteria for this building. She asked if any of the members had any idea how much this whole continuing mess was costing Helmuth. He is de- pending upon that restaurant being opened this winter, and she feels the committee is dwadling over nothing. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting July 27, 1976 Ms. Glidden asked if another public hearing would really resolve anything. There have been quite a few of the surrounding property owners present before and we have heard all they have to say. Chairman Groen entertained a motion for a continued public hearing and another study session. Ms. Frost so moved, sec onded by Marsh. This has been scheduled as a study session to be held immediately following this meeting, and a special meeting of the HPC on Friday, July 30, at 1:00 in the Council Chambers. All in favor, motion carried. PARAGON Stanford introduced the application by the Paragon to put windows in the front of their building that would open out onto the mall. Mr. Louie Koutsoubos made the presentation on behalf of the Paragon, and explained to the members what he would like to do. Being able to open the front windows onto the mall would enable the Paragon to participate in the new mall and add a new dimension to the mall. ~These windows would not be like french windows going all the way to the ground, but would be a couple of feet off the ground. There would be oak dividers and framing in between the windows. The noise factor was approached, even though the HPC does not have this in its critera, they suggested that this be considered by Mr. Koutsoubos and he felt it would not be to their advantage to over step their bounds in this respect, and would try to keep things down within limits. Stanford stated that the Planning Office has no problem with their application. Marsh moved for acceptance of the application, and Ms. Frost so seconded. All in favor, motion carried. BRAND BUILDING Pre-application review Randy Wedum was not present to go over this application. The committee moved to come back to this item later. PARSONS BUILDING Pre-application review Stanford went over the plans that have been submitted on this application for a new building on this property. Stanford did have one question, and this was that there are three lots involved in this application, and the small brick Victorian is not in the place where it now stands. In reality it stands on the center line, and in the drawings it is on the Eastern line. Stanford went over the previous time this was brought before the HPC, and that the Planning Office had recommended again~ demolition of the small brick house. Mr. Peter VanDomlin introduced Ron Rinker, the architect who will make the presentation. Mr. VanDomlin went over the previous application for demolition of the two structures. This was denied, and it was in- dicated that the applicants should return to this committee with plans for those three lots and the com- mittee would address the matter at that time. He stated that they had continued efforts to see if some charity group or group of concerned individuals would be interes ted in taking and moving the brick structure, but have had not affirmitive response. The offer is till open. He then turned the presentation over to Mr. Rinker, who is an architect from Denver, and is particularly interested in the aspect of preserving the flavor of historic areas, and is active in the Historic Denver, Inc. Mr. Rinker dealt with Stanford's question first off. What they are proposing is not dealing directly with that house, their approach is different. He stated that the house sits in the very middle of the property and causes somewhat of a problem. They have tried to provide a link to that house without retaining it. They will attempt to repeat the scale, the materials, the flavor and character of that house, but have it translated into a total project, rather than add on to it. The building is 18,000 square foot, which is rather large and they have tried to keep the scale down. He went over the type of brick they would be using, which will be a sandy red brick. The wood trim would be an aspect with shingles, windows and same roof pitch. Rather than retain the original house and add something on to it, they feel it would be better to take the character and create a project that hangs together as a whole. Marsh asked about parking space, and was told that there is no parking requirement in the commercial core. He asked about a loading dock, which there is not. There is an area off the alley for trash and this type of thing which is about 300 sq. feet. as required by code. Groen asked if there had been any attempt to preserve the original structure in this project preliminary studies. Rinker related that they had looked at this, but the problem was that the building sitting where it is creates a "T" shape which would create a large block out of the building behind it and it would loom over it. They have tried to maintain the one story element on the street, on the south side. The height of this building compared to Bullock's is about 1 story higher than Bullock's. Groen asked if any consideration had been given to the drawing Fritz Benedict had done, using the existing brick building as part of the new project. Stanford stated that the problem was the consideration of the value of the existing house. It is designated as a historic structure, along with the other three houses along that street, as well as City Hall. HPC must make the decision of whether that house is worth saving nor not. Does this house, along with the other houses and City create a strong enough historic en- vironment, and the Planning Office feels that it does. Every structure on this block is historic, with the exception of some additions to the rectory just north. Rinker stated that with the new contemporary project going up right next to this, the brick building would become somewhat of a museum freak. Mr. Rinker feels that the link to Aspen's past is much more successful with this approach than it would be adding 17,000 sq. feet onto that existing house when it is located in an awkward place, where it would have to be totally reno- vated anyway and in a sense they would be re-creating it as a part of a more successful whole. Groen feels that once the house is gone there is no way to recreate it. The HPC does not feel they want to take a building which they feel is one of the finest examples of a small brick building and blow it up to mis scale and try to say it has been preserved. The contemporary develop- ment which is going up next to this is was approved because it was sympathetic in scale to this small building. Groen pointed out that the HPC would like to retain the original structure, whether it becomes a museum freak or not. The frame house could be demo- lished as they do not feel it is a replica of that period RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting July 27, 1976 but there is just not another Victorian miner's cottage anywhere in Aspen that approaches the state of preservation that this is. VanDomlin asked if it was possible to save the house but not in the commercial core of Aspen. This has been approached and it cannot be moved. Marsh inquired how this building complies with the criteria, and asked it this wasn't an example of a pseudo Victorian house. Stanford stated that the criteria had been proposed, but not adopted, but the building does not apply to that criteria, since it would be an entirely new building. Groen pointed ou~ that if this brick Victorian was removed from the lot, there would be the same problem as is facing the Floradora; the structure is attempting to replace Victorian structures that have been removed and there would be a problem of trying to reconcile scale and mass as well as commercial use which is allowed. The committee would rather see this original building incorporated into a new scheme, they don't mind additions or alterations. Groen entertained a motion at this point to deny approval of this structure based on the fact that HPC has not allowed the Victorian structure to be demolished. That must be resolved first before any approval can be given. Marsh so moved, seconded by Ms. Glidden. All in favor, motion passed. Rinker asked if they wanted retention of the entire house or just a portion. This was discussed. It was the general feeling of the committee that the sheds in the rear of the porch need not stay. Mr. VanDomlin was overly concerned because he did not understand the motions and the direction the committee was heading. When they appeared before this committee the first time they were told to come back with a project and plan and the HPC would then consider whether the buildings would be removed. They had never applied for one and not both buildings to be removed. Now, they have plans and are being told the plans will not be approved bec- ause HPC will not let them remove the buildings. Groen stated that this was because the HPC has not yet allowed demolition of those buildings, how can they approve the plans? This must be resolved. The HPC does not want the brick building removed, but has no problem with removing the frame house. VanDomlin stated they have not asked for the frame building to be removed unless the brick building is removed. Groen pointed out that at the first meeting on this application, it was per- fectly obvious that HPC did not want demolition nor did the Planning Office. Groen feels their plan does not incorporate the brick building, it does incorporate some lines and detail and perhaps proportion but has nothing towards the preservation of the building itself. He feels that the building could be retained in a very simple, yet elegant way as a setting. Mr. VanDomlin was extremly upset, and feels that this committee is advocating criteria that is in no way published or made public. Mr. VanDomlin was informed that copies of this criteria have been made readily available and have been mailed to each and every real estate office and architect within this city so that situations such as this do not arrise. Copies are also passed out by the building department upon the application for a building permit within the historic overlay district. Both motions for denial were withdrawn based on the fact that the subject of demolition must be addressed first. Groen reviewed the lots; there are four structures on the lots at this time, a Victorian cottage, a frame Victorian cottage, two sheds at the rear of the property. Groen would entertain a motion that the committee consider which of those structures are worth retaining on the property. Burns motioned that all the wood structures be demolished, including the wood shed attached to the brick house, but not including the front porch. If the porch must be repaired or replaced, it should be done so authentically. Ms. Glidden sec- onded this motion. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. VanDomlin stated that he presumed the City of Aspen was prepared to accept the responsibility of liability in fire loss, fire hazard, attracted nusiance hazard, damage to tresspassers, because the building is not up to building code, plumbing code, electrical code. Stanford relayed the information to VanDomlin that the Council has passed a Resolution allowing the Building Inspector to make exceptions and variances from the Building Code so that thebuilding can be upgraded to where it meets the City of Aspen Code. Based on this motion, it has been established that the HPC would like to see the brick building preserved. This plan does not incorporate the preservation of this building and must, therefore, be denied. However, this committee would entertain approval of some type of plan that would incorporate that original structure. Marsh so moved,with a second by Ms. Frost. All in favor, motion carried. Marsh further explained to the applicants that this board can only work with its critm eria. It is here to try to preserve as much of Aspen's Historic past as possible. Everybody can work as good neighbors, and he feels the building can be built as a good neighbor and everyone will have breathing space. If Van Domlin feels this board is being overly harsh in their determination, Marsh asks that he remember that he lives in Aspen also. Van Domlin does feel that the board is being overly harsh, unfair in advising them to come back with plans of a whole project. Groen inter- jected that at the time the demolition was disapproved, it was because there was no project shown that would justify demolition. This project, he feels does not do so either. Groen asked if Van Domlin had contacted and worked with Stanford in the Planning office in developing this plan, and VanDomlin replied that he had. Stanford begged to differ on this point, and stated that VanDomlin had only submitted the plans that were presen- ted at this meeting, but had not contacted him prior to that. VanDomlin agreed that was correct. Groen stated that at the time of their denial of demolition, it was suggested to the applicant by the HPC that he work and discuss with Stanford what was planned for that property. Stanford is the advisor, and does have their criteria and knows what the HPC would like to see. Van Domlin stated that the Planning Office had originally recommended demolition of all structures, then made an 180 turn and spoke out against demolition. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting July 27, 1976 Ail of this took place within two weeks, between the first pre-application review and the public hearing. Groen reiterated that the HPC had ruled that it would allow destruction of the three wooden structures on that property, but very clearly stated that they would like to see the brick Victorian structure preserved or incorporated in some manner. He also pointed out that the Resolution by Council allowing this building to be brought up to code had not been enacted at the time they denied demolition. With this decision their thinking has been even more so. VanDomlin asked if further attempts should be made to move the house. Groen did not feel this was practical, especially in view of the modification granted by Council for buil- dings in the downtown area. That house is more im- portant where it is. The members were polled and it was the general feeling that the building should stay. Van Domlin stated that in view of this it would not be pursued any further. BRAND BUILDING John Stanford, in the absence of Randy Wedum, went over the proposed plans for the Brand Building. Their application is to build buttresses out of concrete and slanted glass, skylight type structure. It was the general feeling of the members that this addition would not be seen from any direction from the street. It is not something of major consequence and if the build- ing inspector approves, there should be no problem. This is simply a structural improvement to the Brand Building. Stanford stated that the Planning Office recommended approval. Burns motioned for approval and Ms. Frost seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Ms. End seconded, 3:15 p.m. Frost motioned to adjourn. all in favor, meeting adjourned. Ellen L. Atkins, Deputy City Clerk