Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19760511RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Mee ting- Historical Preservation Committee May 11, 1976 Heeting was called to order by Chairman Lary Groen at 1:10 p.m. Florence Glidden, Bob Marsh, Norm Burns and ~ona Frost present. was John Stanford of the Planning Department. with members Also present Approval of Minutes Burns made a motion to approve the minutes of April 28, 1976; seconded by Glidden. All in favor, motion carried. Public Hearing and Final Application La Cocina Stanford explained the application which was a request to build a restaurant west of the present La Cocina. The applicant has received preliminary approval. Stanford showed the drawings of the restaurant. The HPC members were familar with the drawings since they had already seen them when they granted preliminary approval. The historic designation of the area in which the restaurant is in the '~noteable' catagory. The planning office recommends approval of the drawings. Groen opened the public hearing on La Cocina. There were no comments from the audience. Motion Frost moved to approve the final application for La Cocina; seconded by Burns. All in favor, motion carried. Public Hearing and Final Application Aspen Grove Building (Wienerstube) Stanford explained the Weinerstube building would like to expand into the garden area. What is being proposed is an improvement to the physical appearance of the expansion. Stanford entered the drawings into the public record. The design has a victorian look on the exterior facade. Molny requested for the owners the right to have a wood facade facing Cooper Street Pier. The wood facade will be horizontal. Groen opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience. Molny entered the following letters from adjacent property owerns into the record: Wienerstube Restaurant, written by Gerhard W. Mayritsch, in favor of the remodeling; McDonough's, written by Bill McDonough, in favor of the remodeling; Pinocchio's, written by Douglas J. Hose and Stephen R. Gehring, in favor of the remodeling; Young Services, written by Barbara Young, in favor of the remodeling; Fitzgerald Real Estate, written by R.P. Fitzgerald, in favor of the remodeling; and Living Color, Inc., written by Alan Pressman, in favor of the remodeling. Groen closed the public hearing. Motion Burns moved to approve the building as the plans that were presented and dated May 10, 1976; seconded by Frost. All in favor, motion carried. Public Hearin~ and Final Application Carriage House Stanford explained the carriage house is a request for an addition on to the Stallard House Museum. The request is being made by the Historical Society. The carriage house has been granted preliminary approval. Th~o building will be shifted west 5 feet and south ~eet from what is shown on the drawing. The carriage house would be for additional storage and a display place. The exterior structure resembles the same materials that were used for the Stallard House. The Planning Office recommends approval. -1- Historical Preservation Con~ittee May 11, 1976 Public Hearing Carriage House Motion Public Hearing and Final Application Demolition request Groen opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public. Frost moved to approve final approval for the Carriage House; seconded by Burns. All in favor, motion carried. Stanford explained this application as being a request to demolish the two houses behind Bullocks those houses being the brick and wood victorian houses on Hopkins Street. Stanford entered into the record various drawings which were interpretations of the planning that has gone into the historic district. Stanford presented a land- use map which was produced in the fall of 1974; also the Historic Building Inventory in which all the historic structures in the downtown area were placed in one of three catagories. Stanford also presented the size cata- gories in which the downtown structures were placed; and the entire historic district which placed the buildings into one of three areas catagorized as to the degree of the building's historic character. The two buildings being discussed were placedin the highest catagory of historic character because all of the structures in the area date back to the 1800's. Stanford also read into the record the following letters: The first letter was from Fritz Benedict which was not in favor of the demo- lition. Benedict also had a model of the building made which was an architectural solution as to how the building could be used. Stanford then read a letter from Ramona Markatunas which was submitted into the record. The letter requested not to demolish the brick house. Groen read into the record a letter from the Aspen Historical Society. The letter requested that the City amend the Fire Code to reflect the conm~unity of Aspen. Stanford mentioned the planning office has changed their recommendation and requests demolition of the brick house be denied. The planning department would also like to see the wooden house retained also. However, because the wooden house may not fit into the fire code and is much less of an historic nature than the brick house, the wooden structure would be allowed to be demolished. Groen asked what the City was contemplating in respect to changing or amending the present fire code. Stanford had a memo from Art Hougland and Clayton Meyring in reference ot the change in the present fire code. The memo is a recommendation at this point. Groen opened the public hearing for the demolition request. Peter Van Domelen mentioned that he had spoken to the Aspen Historical Society. Van Domelen offered to the society materials from the wooden building that they wanted to use for restoration in Ashcroft. The brick building was also offered to the society in the case they wish to locate it elsewhere. Van Domelen also spoke to Goodheim, housing director, and asked if he would have any use for the building. He did not. Van Domelen had talked to builders and asked that they look over the brick building and were advised that it does not meet the electrical code, and does not meet the plumbing code, the roof does not meet the fire code, the footings do not meet the building code. The structure would have to be brought up to the building code if there is 50% or more of improvement based on the value of the building. Thus the building becomes an economic inflex- ibility from Van Domelen's clients standpoint. -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Historical Preservation Committee May 11, 1976 Demolition Request (Cont'd) Motion Old Business New Business Glidden questioned if it wouldn't be equally expensive to bring the brick house up to code for a single family dwelling as it would for a commercial building. Van Domelen replied that the code applies if alterations are done based upon a percent of the value. Also if the use is not changed, there is a non-conforming use and perhaps the use can be continued. Groen asked Van Domelen if his client had plans for a new structure on the brick building~J~an Domelen replied that he had no plans for a structure. However, Van Domelen's client would like to proceed as soon as possible towards a new building. Marsh suggested to the members to look at a preliminary plan before deciding on anything. Burns agreed that a rough plan would be a good idea. Stanford mentioned the primary issue is if the existing structures have sufficient value to merit what is being saved. Marsh felt since the historical society felt they had value to be saved, then they must. Stanford felt the significance is in the whole area of the strucutures; and if the structures were demolished it would alter the area. Groen closed the public hearing. Marsh moved that in light of the fact that the applicant has no plans for alternate use of the property at present, that the demoliton request not be approved at this time; seconded by Burns. All in favor, Frost abstained. Motion carried. Groen thanked Mary Hayes for the article which she wrote in the "Times" about the older buildings in the community. Stanford mentioned the memo from Art Hougland and Clayton Meyring on how to change the building code in respect to the fire code in order to allow for retention of wooden structures in fire zone one. Therefore each application would come up for their own approval. It would only pertain to buildings that have been designated "historic". Stanford mentioned that he is planning to come to a meeting in the near future with a slide presentation which will enable the HPC to look at the work that has been done since the adoption of the historic district. Motion Burns moved to adjourn at 2:15 p.m.; seconded by Glidden. Li~y M. ~Klym, Clerk