Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19951213ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 918 820 E. RESO. 3, 1995 DRAFT EIS ........ 1 610 W. HALLAM ........... 5 935 925 KING STREET ......... 12 706 W. MAIN ........... 12 E. COOPER - LANDMARK - CONCEPTUAL - PH 12 COOPER RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 Chairman Donnelley Erdman called the meeting to order at 5:08 with Holst, Madsen, Dodington, Vickery, Moyer, Smisek and Roschko present. Excused was Alstrom. MOTION: Martha second by Susan. yes; Dodington, moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 29, 1995; Roll call vote; Vickery, yes; Holst, yes; Madsen, yes; Moyer, yes; Erdman, yes; Linda submitted her packet and corrections of minutes to the Assistant City Attorney and then was excused. RESO. 3, 1995 DRAFT EIS Stan Clauson, Community Development Director: While all of the alternatives impact the Holden Marolt site it is believed that alternative H impacts the least. Alternative H pushes the transportation facilities as much out of the view plan as possible while still providing some facility on the Marolt Holden site. From a standpoint of other historic properties we believe that alternative H has no impact on those properties. It may have impacts with respect to the Berger House in access but we do not have all of the reports. We are asking the HPC to execute a resolution saying that the Commission believes that alternative H within the EIS is the least impactful at least from an Historic Preservation. A system map is set up as it emerged from the charette and the Mayor and I are here to answer questions. QUESTIONS & CLARIFICATIONS Donnelley: The focus is on the Marolt property and the impacts by Alternative H. Since there are no topographical lines how far below the general grade of the. open space would the new alignment of the one inbound lane be placed? Stan: To some extent that is subject to detailed and engineering activity which has not yet taken place but conceptually the alignment is approximately on axis with the intersection of Cemetery Lane following the gravel roadway and it is my impression that it puts it lower than the level of the open space generally. Donnelley: The intent is to drop it below the generalized grade level so that there will be less noise and visual impact to the historic resource. Susan: If it is below that level will it interfere with the Holden Smelting complex by the bridge below? Stan: It will not be that low and not on the embankment. Susan: Will those ruins be effected? Stan: At present, no. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 Les: You are asking CDOT to consider the original H which is two in and two out and are there other ramifications to look at? Stan: The inbound lane would cross on the Holden Marolt site and turning to go on the axis of Main Street and inbound and outbound light rail. It would be possible to use a one track system for many portions of it so inbound and outbound would share the same track. At the base closer to HWY 82 where there is a station the rails would be separated and there would be two tracks. John Bennett, Mayor: The implication is one light rail vehicle each way every ten minutes so a total of one vehicle ever five minutes. The vehicle selection hasn't taken place. Martha: Is this overhead cables over Main Street? Stan: There would be a single wire that goes over each set of tracks and the wire is suspended by a support system. The vehicle that rides the track has a collector to get current from it. Martha: Are you having safety gates at every intersection going down Main Street? Stan: No, any intersection would have a cross track and they require signals. What is contemplated is that some intersections would not allow cross traffic. There will be a provision for pedestrian crossing which would be handled by either a special pedestrian crossing or a signalized intersection. John Bennett: There will be central islands for pedestrians to cross and actually it would be easier and they would be landscaped. Today you have to cross the seven lanes of traffic. Martha: From an historic preservation standpoint the distraction from Main Street are a concern. Roger: Have you looked at other sources of power? Stan: Yes and they are not available when all of the factors are considered. Jake: What about a third rail? Stan: A third rail can only be used when you can isolate the track. Pedestrian crossings would not be possible. Roger: If this is done there would be two tracks down Main Street and historically Aspen had ~wo railways coming into town the Midland and the Rio Grande. Have you looked at using the former original railroad right-of-way so you would in fact have a loop and ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 this system might hook into down valley and therefore eliminating the two tracks down Main Street. Stan: It would be difficult to install tracks on the Rio Grande. Bringing it down Main Street would be a central space in order for people to get on. With respect to the loop there is one proposed and the Aspen Street Railway could have its street car on that loop as a more local facility and it would be compatible with the use of the historic antique vehicle. Donnelley: The two historic parcels effected are the Main Street Historic District and the Marolt parcel. Jake: In terms of conceptual approval we have given it before and sometimes it ends up being the final such as the pedestrian bridge. John Bennett: In this case I would be very surprised if the resolution was giving any ki~d of conceptual approval. It is simply making a statement to CDOT. We do not pretend that this has no impact and we wish it had none. Donnelley: The greatest impact is to Main Street and the Marolt has been minimumized. John Huffer: I see this as enhancing Main Street as it will break up the seven lane and with landscaping on the median it will enhance it. Donnelley: Our greatest concern is the source of power. Stan: Approximately 1.6 acres of the Marolt would be taken and that is from the report done by Tom Newland. Donnelley: Next to doing nothing this has the least impact. Jake: There are numerous people coming into town and leaving after work and I still don't understand how it works with the one traffic lane and the use pattern. Stan: The Otak report has a.light rail working as a system in conjunction. A long debate was whether all traffic should be on the S curve or on the Holden Marolt. With the lightrail functioning you will have adequate traffic capacity with the one inbound lane. The S curve reduces the speed at which you can negotiate the curves by one half. You will have two lanes outbound and one inbound and they will merge after the Castle Creek Bridge. Susan: Other cities that have light rail seem to be bigger cities and a train size vehicle going down Main Street might look fine in Portland or Denver but in Aspen our scale is much lower. Are they ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 going to be small and low to fit the scale of our small town? Stan: The vehicle looked at has relatively small cars. The ultimate selection will have to take into account scale and aesthetics. John Bennett: We have to be very careful in picking the equipment. Donnelley: We actually aren't talking about equipment we are talking about routing. Les: I have been at every meeting for a year and a half and represented the HPC and I guarantee you ever question that has come up as been asked five different ways and addressed. I tried to ask every conceivably question. If we don't do H twice the automobiles will be coming in and we can held them. Martha: My concern is by sending this resolution alternative H which is the best solution is not refined enough to my satisfaction. I have some reservations about committing to this resolution unless we get to say more. Stan: Ail the Boards will be asked again to make a comment. Jake: I am having trouble with the wording in the resolution and it states final. John Bennett: I would suggest that we include in the Whereas clauses "although we recognize that this alternative needs further refinement and development and Whereas we wish to be involved in the process of the development and refinement none the less we recognize this alternative to be the best", something that states you are not endorsing all the'details because all the details do not exist but you are endorsing the concept. Donnelley: Paragraph #3 states that alternative H to be evaluated. Les: I feel it says we will be involved. Susan: I am not quite clear and to the position of the rail? Stan: It will be right down Main Street. Roger: I do not have a problem with this resolution but feel we should send a strong message to the City and Planning Dept. that all means are dealt with to remove the wires. We have spend numerous dollars to get rid of the wires and now we want to put them back up. From an HPC perspective that is not acceptable. The other part not acceptable are the two lanes down the middle of Main Street as Main Street was never that way. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney: My suggestion would be to vote on the resolution proposed and then send comments in a motion form and to be given to Council. Melanie: If we do vote in favor of this changes can still be made. I never got an answer as to why we had two lanes on the S curve and then it is going from one to two and back to one again and also there was made mention of additional signals and I would like to know where those are? John Bennett: If this meets with success at the state level and goes forward there will be a good year of public meetings and citizen groups and making the refinement and developments. MOTION: Les made the motion that the HPC adopt resolution #3 Entrance to Aspen series 1995; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. Jake: Can you consider other routes besides Main Street? Stan: I doubt if that would be considered but modifications can occur. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC'send comments to City Council that all considerations be made to look at other power sources; look at original historic alignments that might be close to use as possible corridors for two tracks as opposed to two tracks going down Main Street; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: I feel alternative H locks Main St. in as the way to go. Les: I feel they should hear our concerns. 610 W. HALLAM Amy: We had discussed this at the last meeting and you have received an opinion from the city attorney in a confidential memo. I have presented essentially the same memorandum to you finding that the landmark designation standards are no longer met due to the amount of demolition that has occurred on the site. Donnelley: Ail of the standards are stated again for local designation and in terms of rescinding designation you have to find that none of the standards are met. Amy: Procedurally this goes to P&Z next Tuesday which is a public hearing and then to City Council for first and second reading. Donnelley: What were the standard that were met before? ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 Amy: B, architectural importance; E, neighborhood character and F, community character. Architectural importance I find is no longer left. The house had most of the exterior materials replace so the real significance was the overall form and the framing materials and most of them have been removed or removed from their original context. There may have been some dimensional changes to the building but it is unclear to me. Standard E neighborhood character; again, as other sites have been removed from the inventory because of excessive alternations that were not reviewed by HPC, and I will insert that for the memo to HPC and the structure has lost its integrity. Community Character, the property no longer maintains its historical importance it previously had nor does it represent the method of preservation which the community supports through the preservation program. Jake: At the last meeting I. was requesting clarification of provisions in the code that assign responsibility to the Board on an applicant to make representation or to the Board to reasonably interpret or infer conditions from an application? David Hoefer, Assistant Attorney: Let me make it clear, if a court were to look at the approval of this for the historic designation they would look at the resolution that you adopted and consequently it has to be clearly set out what conditions you are putting on the property. To clarify those conditions they would look at the minutes. Jake: Is it the applicants responsibility to clearly indicate the intentions and the detail of what he is proposing to do or can he come in a vague way and then its upon the responsibility of the board to be able to read into whatever implications are made. David Hoefer: The applicant has a responsibility to clearly indicate what he is going to do and you as a board have the opportunity to modify that by your action. In other words make it more restrictive if you so desire. The application would be the controlling item that starts the process. Donnelley: Do the Iglehart's wish to make a statement? Jim Iglehart, owner: We are here to listen and we have no opposition to rescinding designation. I do not necessarily agree with the language of Amy's memo that gets us here but I am not here to contest that either. Donnelley: What are the implications of this, does it mean it implies reversing some building that has already taken place? David Hoefer: Specifically it would depend on Council. Clearly ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 they received benefits being designated and council could determine A, that the resolution wasn't clear enough and that consequently that it was part HPC's fault and part the Inglehart's part to do nothing or they could recommend and proceed under the guidelines that I set forth in the memo to you which would include a variety of things rescinding the setbacks, the grant and those kinds of things. Donnelley: Council has full discretion. Jake: What is the status of the demolition bond? David Hoefer: The bond is still in effect. DISCUSSION Jake: I am focused on two issues: one, the landmark status of the structure and the second representations that were made regarding the demolition. It is really the extend of the demolition that I would like included in this motion. I feel there were representations in the application by the applicant that demolition would be less than 50%. There was a reliance on my part on that core representation and subsequently we found that more than 50% of the historical structure was in fact demolished as a matter of observation. It is not just rescinding a landmark designation it is also an acknowledgement that the demolition far exceeded what seemed to be represented by the applicant. Donnelley: You are suggesting in the motion that there be included the reasons for the rescinding of the designation. Jake: I am saying not only ghould the landmark designation be rescinded but in addition to that the agreement between the applicant and the HPC regarding conceptual and final approval are in effect useless. The representations on the very foundational level were not fulfilled. MOTION: Jake moved that HPC recon=~end that landmark designation of Lots P & Q less 7.5' of lot P Block 22, City and Townsite of Aspen be rescinded finding that the designation standards are not met. Further that the development advantages including the $2000 grant from council, the waiver of park dedication fees in the amount of $2033 and dimensional variations also be rescinded by council. In addition, the applicants representations connected to conceptual and final applications were not completely fulfilled. The City has created a program of incentives to help offset the development encumbrances inherent to historical properties, many of which this property owner took advantage of. In fairness to other applicants and participants in this HPC program and in an effort to preserve the integrity and proactive spirit of the HPC, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 this landmark designation should be removed; second by Les. DISCUSSION Les: For the record normally what happens when we retain part of an historic building that is included in the structure and is retained and saved in the scale and massing that it is. This building has turned out to be not a bad building and was built well and what happened here in my view the original structure was totally demolished and it was reframed within the new building or addition. To me the builder knew what was happening. Besides that it is a nice building and a lot of proportions have been saved the violation of our agreement has been totally violated and the demolition did exceed 50% and in fact it was 200%. If there was a bond it should be forfeited also. Melanie: What happens to the $10,000 and the preservation incentives? Amy: It was a $2000 grant and $2033 and the city is holding a $10,000 bond that was given to us to ensure that the building would be relocated safely. Stan Clauson, Community Development Director: Amy knows my opinion. This is a very ambiguous situation. It appears that the applicant went far beyond the expected demolition but on the other hand it also appears as Les has indicated that the resulting building is essentially from the exterior, as presented to the commission originally. That ambiguity has presented enforcement problems to our department all down the line. Had there been clear conditions stated as to the amount of framing that was original and the manner in which it needed to be retained we would have had much stronger enforcement potential. Lacking that we are faced with the situation and are disappointed with the results from a standpoint of the amount of framing that is original but we have to acknowledge that the exterior is initially what was presented. Where does that leave us in terms of a message that we want to send by rescinding the designation. As a matter of speculation what Council and P&Z will do when they receive the report. One possible outcome is that they would agree with you in rescinding designation and possibly ask for the money back but not choose to do the aggressive and ask that the building be demolished. That leaves the property unprotected by its historic designation and effectively frees the applicant and the developer from any restraints what-so-ever. He has an existing non-conforming building and one that can be modified in accordance with the existing code but without the constraints of landmark designation. In a sense that is the worst in all possible worlds. I would ask that the commission recognize through a resolution that the development process here by the developer was inappropriate. But ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 on the other hand recognize that it was incumbent on us as a commission and staff to have absolutely specified the kind of framing that we wanted to see historically retained and failing that we have no strong recourse. Jake: I adamantly disagree with Stan. Whose responsibility is it to define or describe what is proposed to happen with an application? I disagree and feel it is the applicants responsibility to be very precise. We do not sit here as a group for 1 1/2 hour of deliberation and be expected to come up with a thorough understanding of all the implications that someone might vaguely present. It is very important as to how the applications are worded and I feel that burden is on the applicant. I am happy to keep this project a landmark so that we have review over it. I feel the core of the issue is the extent of demolition. The question boils down as to how you maintain landmark status for something that is 97% demolished. We do have properties that have landmark status but for various reasons there is not a substantial structure on them. Donnelley: Most of the Commission did not encounter the problems that Jim Iglehart was encountering until we made a site visit subsequent to the problems being described to us. It was incumbent to the applicant to notify the city that the structural integrity of the historic resource could not be retained. Upon inspection of the structure it was quite obvious that the original wall and roof framing was inadequate to support the building or producing a structure that was safe by today's standards. I see the major problem being one of total disregard establishing communication at an early enough stage. I also agree that the outcome that you see from the street is essentially what was approved. There could have been more of the historic cladding siding retained. We are here tonight because the applicant did not come to the city to reveal that he was unable to retain the structural integrity of the historic resource. Les: This is a tough one and if there were joists touching from the original building then I was know that there was some intent there. We have ended up with a wonderful project and I do not know where the break down was. I d6 not think we told anyone that they could tear the entire thing apart. Some willful misinterpretation of the regulations went on. I do not want to send the wrong message out to the public and I think we bend over backward with any applicant that comes in and talks with us. Amy: I would like to restate that it is my feeling that the essential issue here is that we no longer have an historic building. For my personal views I go along with Jake that the representations made to us were not what they should have been. I have recently discovered that the central cross gable of this ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 building actually was a log house which indicates that the house was older than suggested to us. It is hard to say how that would have impacted our view. Jake: There are places that we have a landmark site that is a vacant site that is a landmarked site. By being landmarked it establishes control over the property independent as to whether it has something old on the property. Amy: In the case that you mentioned the fathering parcel had an historic structure on it and there was a lot split so I do not feel it is quite the same as having no significance on the property at all. Donnelley: The significance has diminished or removed. Les: He is asking if we can maintain landmark designation and call the bond and remove the benefits that they have received. David Hoefer: I feel you can retain the designation and recommend to City Council that they proceed with appropriate legal remedies for failure of the applicant to abide by his representation and the resolution is adopted by HPC. Susan: Is there any other historic site in town that has had something new built on it. Amy: There is not parcel in town that is historical designated that has nothing related to it. Jake: I feel we need to establish policy as this effects the integrity of our entire program. There are provisions for reconstruction that allows someone to rebuild something back to the form that it was in and perhaps remain a landmark. Martha: Like the Gazebo. Jake: Someone could bring up that we really have a reconstruction here and I just throw that out for deliberation. The house does contribute to the neighborhood and essentially built in exterior format to what was represented. I would be willing to amend or withdraw my motion to add the language that the Assistant City Attorney stated. Donnelley: I feel we should consider the other alternative that the Assistant City Attorney has mentioned. ROLL CALL VOTE: Les, yes; Martha, yes; Susan, yes; Roger, no; Don, no; Jake, no; Melanie, no. Motion dies 4-3. 1--0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 David Hoefer: The motion will read that the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission recommends that the historic landmark designation continue but that Council consider appropriate legal remedies for alleged violations of the application by the developer. MOTION: Jake moved to recommend to Council that the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission recommends that the historic landmark designation continue but that Council consider appropriate legal remedies for alleged violations of the application by the developer. The amount of demolition was more than 50% of the historic structure and the manner of communication from the applicant to the Board was inadequate. Amy: Can we take the language from the previous motion deleting the recommendation to withdraw. Jake: Lets do that. AMENDED MOTION: Further that the development advantages including the $2000 grant from council, the waiver of park dedication fees in the amount of $2033 and dimensional variations also be rescinded by council. In addition, the applicants representations connected to conceptual and final applications were not completely fulfilled. The City has created a program of incentives to help offset the development encu~.rances inherent to historical properties, many of which this property owner took advantage of' second by Les. Roll Call Vote: Les, yes; Don, yes; Jake, yes; Melanie, yes; Roger, no; Martha, no; Susan, no. Motion carries. Melanie: I have concerns about what is in place that will stop someone else from doing this action. Can we make it hold. David Hoefer: Council may decide to do nothing. Melanie: Something has to be said to the public that this is not appropriate. It must be held up by all the other parties involved. Stan Clauson: When you tell Council what has resulted from this project is something that you pretty much expected to see but the project was not done in a manner that you would have hoped to achieve, they will become confused. It is an unsure thing as to how Council will react. Roger: I feel we have made a mistake and we should learn from our mistakes so that it doesn't happen again. I concur philosophically with Jake but we need to do onfite inspections and enforcement are necessary. In reality when we first looked at this the only historical part of that structure was what was inside and the bay window. Everything on the outside had been removed and replaced. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 I personally feel this should be dropped. Donnelley: If you take your attitude to the logical conclusion it is the city's or county's responsibility to police everyone and no one who is an applicant or builder or developer is ever responsible to adhere to the building code or anything if they can get away. Melanie: I would like to suggest a letter go along with the motion stating how strongly we feel about this decision. 935 925 KING STREET Amy: The historic inventory refers to two historic houses on that property and Roger and I did an inspection and there is only one historic house on that property of any value and one historic barn. I am recommending that the parcel stay on the inventory by legal description but you give me direction to revise it to show that the one structure should not be identified as one that we wish to preserve. MOTION: Roger moved that the one structure listed as a dubious date be removed from the inventory and that the two parcels and the listed historic structure and barn be retained at 935 and 925 King Street on the inventory as recommended by Staff; second by Melanie. Ail in favor, motion carries. 706 w. MAIN Amy: We granted final approval in October and we are recommending at the property owners request vested rights starting at the date of approval of this resolution Dec 13, 1995. MOTION: Roger moved that the HPC approve resolution 2, 1995 granting vested property rights to 706 W. Main for three years starting from the date of this resolution December 13, 1995; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. Martha: When was his original application? Amy: 1993 was conceptual and he got one extension then final. Conceptual review expires after one year and once you have final you have 1 1/2 years for vested rights unless you request as Joe did for three years of vested rights. After that time he is subject to the code. 918 E. COOPER - LANDMARK - CONCEPTUAL - PH Jake stepped down. Amy: We have done two worksessions and a site visit on this 1--2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 project. Lots M,N and O have been listed on the inventory since 1980 and lot P should have been included because it was the legal description of the parcel but it was not. In 1994 City Council approved a lot split which when through the historic house on this property and at that time I expressed my frustration with that because it is essentially forcing us to have the house relocated. It has to be corrected as the property line goes through it. Since that time there has been a code amendment so HPC has first review on all lot splits. Once I s~w the survey of the property and really began to look at this situation I determined that moving the house off that lot line in any direction would really be considered an off site relocation so I met with David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney and we discussed it and determined that since the original fathering parcel has been on the inventory we would consider it as one site for this review. As a further ramification of that Lots M and N in theory are on the historic inventory. I believe we should request a mass and scale review of the development on Lots M and N and then have the property removed from the historic inventory. That is listed in the memo as a condition of approval. There are several things being requested, historic landmark and I am recommending that you approve that finding standards B, architectural importance; D, neighborhood character; and E, community character are met. For the conceptual development review,while from an ideal preservation perspective we are seeing somewhat of a significant development on this site but the possibilities for it are much more greater. As a single family this house which is essentially is 520 sqft. could have an addition of 2700 sqft. on it or worse if it was developed as an RMF parcel and the FAR is one to one you could have the 500 sqft. building with 5,400 sqft. new. Looking at it from that understanding I feel the applicant has made a development decision that we should really support. Amy: I made a number of suggestions to the historic structure, relocating a deck and breaking up the development in general to separate the historic building and the historic barn from the central addition and the applicant has new drawings to submit to you tonight which I do find have addressed that concern. In terms of the duplex unit at the previous worksession that the bothersome element to you from a streetscape perspective was the one story flat roofed addition to the front and they will address that~ They have lowered the second story plate heights. They have requested a number of variances for setbacks and at this point still requesting a 300 sqft. FAR bonus. Partial demolition is recommended and the standards have been met for the onsite relocation. The number one issue here is a small shed that was identified on the first site visit as being of interest to the committee. It is apparently from the 19th century although I do not have much information on it. They had originally said the site was too constrained to keep it on the property and they would like 1--3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 to have it relocated. The problem is that you would have to approve it as an off-site relocation and this maybe something that we would want to amend in the future. I feel it is onerous to make it so difficult when they are saving two structures on the property. Off site relocation requires a $1,000 application fee and standards which from our point of view were not meant to be met. It is a 170 sqft. building and I feel if they can keep it on the site that we should consider a FAR bonus for that. Compliance with Ordinance #30, they do not meet the standard for the principle window on the historic house ~nd we would not want them to change the facade of the house to add one. I recommend you waive that. I would recommend approval of this project with conditions. Mark Ward, architect: The rear structure is now more visible from all sides. We have incorporated recommendations on the historic P unit and that was creating a deck element on the front to isolate the front historic unit and still maintaining a two to three foot separation to the rear unit with the low pitched roof. Roger recommended pulling unit P forward and we have done that. We have eliminated the stone. We have also lowered the plate on P so that they are compatible. Regarding the shed the physical constraints now are that the shed is 10 by 13 feet and there is not a spot left for that other than perhaps an area that was to be used as a double stack parking spot. We need three parking spots. On the shed we could be in trouble with the 35% open space issue. John Davis, contractor: We are still wishing to move it off site. Mark Ward: Regarding the front canopy we would really like to have it and do not feel it is offensive to the existing building. We will keep it simple. At final we will provide a relocation plan and provide a bond. Susan: Where did you say the shed could go? Mark Ward: Right now where the car port is we are allowing two cars to park and it is possible that we could shorten the car port and move the shed up but I am concerned about the constraints. Amy: If the shed were to be kept onsite and in the car port we would have to recommend to P&Z that they waive one parking spot. If you stick the shed in you are obscuring even more of the historic barn. The other solution was to put the shed on lots M & N as a garden shed and I do not know if they want to address that. As I said it is a problem to approve it, to go off site we have to find that it meets those standards. Donnelley: For clarification by moving the shed next to the garage it really becomes and appendage or something strange that no longer offers an historic justification of the two elements so I feel we 1--4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 should not address that as a possible alternative. COMMITTEE CLARIFICATIONS Roger: In your recommendations do you feel the plate height has been addressed? Amy: Yes it has been met. They are meeting Ord. #30 which requires that they have a one story element there and it is in keeping with Lots M&N and I do not know why they have to have a gable on it and the stone columns have been taken away. Amy: On the conditions of approval I feel we still need to keep condition 1, mandatory mass and scale review for M & N; #3 more information for final about the preservation of existing materials. Number 9, 10, and 11 which deal with relocating the shed and then the bond and information we need for relocation. Amy: The conditions that I feel are still questionable are the canopy over the door and number #5. Jake: On Ordinance #30 can a bay or canopy project into the front yard setback or is the front yard setback measured from the face of the bay. Amy: You can only have an overhang go into the setback 18 inches. I am not sure if the applicant noted that he needed a setback. Mark Ward: You bring up a good point there because the small canopy is projecting. Roger: Have you thought about moving the shed to one of lots? Mark Ward: I have not had a lot of time to study this but my first initial look is that we are faced with the same situation where physically as designed right now there isn't a spot for a 10 by 13 shed. It is possible that we could reconfigure one of the M & N units. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. No comments from the public. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. Jake: On E. Cooper it has been my opinion that a 10 feet setback is a minimal setback and I would encourage you to increase that setback. You might consider crowding the rear more toward the alley and increasing the front yard setback. Mark Ward: The reason we moved it forward was because it was a 1--5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 recommendation of Rogers that he wanted it moved two feet forward to be able to give it a break on the other unit. The building next door is ten feet also. Susan: Will you address the canopy in the front. Amy: I understand that it is necessary as a functional element and my only concern is having it appear to look original but they could do something to make it clearly new. Susan: It seems to me that they are trying to make it look like the older ones in town. Mark Ward: What you are telling me is to make sure it looks like it is new. Susan: The idea of the miners cottages was that they were so simple and flat faced and there aren't very many left like that. Donnelley: It may extend too far into the front yard setback and two there is very heavy appearing bracketing. If you want it to conform to our goals make it obvious that it is something added on in this period. Make it out of corrugated metal or a steel rod detailing, very simple so it is obvious that it is a tack on that is appropriate to the building but definitely cannot be confused with historic. Amy: My initial reaction was the same as Susan's that it was in character originally a very simple building. Susan: I realize it is important for the use of the front door. Melanie: I like the division and is the new deck space usable. Mark Ward: It is a six foot deck and can be used. Melanie: I also assume you will have the proper drainage on the deck as it seem like a dark area. Martha: I am OK with everything so far. Jake: Underneath every miners cottage was a simple box and then they were added onto whenever they could. In my mind it is the adjustments that give the historical structure its uniqueness and identity and tell the story. In the case of a canopy it can easily be taken off and is reversible. Les: What are the variances requested? Amy: 300 of the 500 sqft. and if the shed stays I would suggest 1--6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 that they get the bonus. Roger: I would give up an ambiguous shed for a mass and scale review over M & N. I would allow the canopy to remain as long as it is built so that it is not trying to copy what was original. I would allow the shed to be removed or taken down and stored for use somewhere else. Ail the windows and doors should be saved. Donnelley: It does not seem that the shed can be incorporated but it should be saved for another use. You still need the answer on the canopy. Part of the motion could be that the front yard setback can be restored to ten feet so that lot 0 & P are on the same line. I believe the applicant thought that could be done by decreasing the rear yard setback. They would now be asking for an increase in the rear yard setback to become a five foot on the rear yard setback rather than a seven foot setback. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant conceptual approval at 918 E. Cooper with the following conditions: 1) Mandatory mass and scale review for lots M & N after which these lots will be removed from the historic inventory. 2) Restore the front yard setback so that the facade is consistent with the other houses on the block. 3) Provide information on preservation of the existing historic materials for final review. 4) The Canopy element may be placed over the front door; however, the element should be constructed so that it would not be mistaken as historic. HPC allows the front setback variance of not more than 30 inches total for the canopy. 5) Variance are requested as listed on attachment 2 in the packet. The request for a 300 sqft. FAR bonus is granted. 6) Regarding the shed it should either be removed and relocated or if possible disassembled and stored on a site in the city for some future person to use. 7) Provide a relocation plan for the structures for final. 8) Secure a bond to ensure the relocation of the structures (amount to be set by HPC at final) prior to submitting for a building permit. 9) HPC shall waive Ordinance #30 standard dealing with the principle window. 1--7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 10) HPC recommends landmark designation of lots 0 and P finding that standards B, D, and E are met. 11) HPC recommends Conceptual, Partial Demolition and onsite relocation approval; second by Melanie. Les: As usual I have a serious problem granting FAR bonuses on any project. Ail in favor, motion carries. 820 E. COOPER RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Amy: There were two issues on conceptual that are back for discussion and one is the ligh%wells in the front of the house and they are now to the side; however, the architect is showing a different proposal where the house will be elevated 36 inches and there will be windows in the foundation and an excavation down to 30 inches. There will be no fence required for it and plantings will be in front of it. This will, I assume require a waiver of Ord. #30. The other issue is the canopy over the door. Again I feel it important to save examples of very simple styles of architecture. The biggest protest I have about this particular element is that it is meant to be a porch that is glazed. Yes there are examples of porches glazed but I feel this is a very different element on a house. The glazing gives a strange reflection to it and seems like a very new element to the building so I feel we might want to consider a canopy similar to the one we just approved but I am not certain about the airlock entry which is basically what they are asking for. Donnelley: I don't see the porch on this drawing. Jake: The porch would have to return to the committee as a public hearing because it requires a setback. I would like to talk about it though. It turns out to be an important element to the owners of the property and the vestibule is an important element, an entry buffer from the noise and dust and activity on Cooper. It also acts as a transitional entry to this modest structure. Jake: Miner cottages start out basically as a box and then they start to tell a story. Going back to the Secretary of State Standards you will find in a sense that this is a rehabilitation and that they certainly allow changes of a structure to accommodate utility and current use. I also mention that this is an added element that requires very little demolition of the existing resource and can easily be reversed. In my discussions with Amy maybe a canopy would work. This provides an enticement to the street of pedestrian scale. I would like the board to look at these issues and I refer to this house as the "house with no nose". ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 This side of the street is a major pedestrian traffic flow. Jake: The other issue is the lightwells. The deep egress lightwells have been moved around to the side of the existing cottage. They will have a grate over top. They have been made larger and we are requesting that they be able to accommodate a six foot wide window. Because they are placed perpendicular to the south a larger window helps contribute to the light and air that they would get there. Only one of the five bedrooms are above grade and all of the other four bedrooms are below grade. The bedrooms should have as much light and air as possible. I am trying to bring light in from two sides, both the egress side and south facing side that has the direct sunlight. The property sits relatively iow to the sidewalk and street and by increasing and raising the structure some 30 inches from where it is now increases the prominence of the structure. The basic window structure is mitigated by iow evergreen shrubs 18 to 30 inches high. Donnelley: At present the floor level is how far above existing grade? Jake: At present the floor level is on grade or inches above and the existing grade is probably below the level of the sidewalk at this point. Donnelley: I can agree that perhaps the existing floor level should be raised but I cannot agree with 36 inches because it presents quite a different image. Jake: I am amenable to find ~omething that makes sense for this project. It was intended to be 30 inches because anything over you need a guard rail. By doing 30 inches which is only 12 over the allowable of 18 I feel we can get reasonable windows in there and have a minimal impact on the structure. Donnelley: I agree that it provides a much more livable and an attractive amenity to the below grade situation. I agree that it is inappropriate to have it sitting at or below grade both from a structural and aesthetic standpoint. Les: I feel we need to do another site visit because this is a totally new ball game. Donnelley: Lets discuss this entrance element because it is an issue that we have been dealing with on commercial buildings; reversible airlocks. On a residence this would probably remain as a permanent entrance element. On the previous project we were talking about an element tacked on and whether it should look as if it is something that has been added recently and is light and insubstantial and of our time or should it look like one that might 1--9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 have been on the front porch of that period where you could glaze in between the structural elements. There is a philosophical issue here and as a commission we should talk about it. Susan: I thought they were going to use the back entrance. Jake: As a practical matter they were going to use that entrance. They will use the front entrance after skiing etc. Walking around the side is not practical in the winter. Susan: I understand what you say about the houses being added onto as the person had the money but this is an example of a poor person who never did add anything on and there are so few of them left. The "boxes without noses" are the only ones left. Donnelley: This leads to what the addition should look like and what if it were quite transparent like a greenhouse structure. You would be taking something that is obvious and adding on and all of the historic elements would show. This would be like a little glass enclosure. As an energy advocate I think this is a great idea. Les: Possibly this is something we need to look at further. Melanie: It is such a major element on a small house that it has to be either look like it belonged there which I do not agree with or it has to be something light. It is so big for that size of house and I would like to see ideas first. Donnelley: We are establishing a precedence here and whatever we do has to be something that the people can look at and either emulate or we don't want to do it at all. Jake: The thing for us to do is return in a public hearing. Donnelley: A fairly large scale. Regarding the windows etc. you would have to prove to us that 30 inches is appropriate and compatible. Roger: After we look at it we may determine that the impact is much greater than allowing a lightwell in the front of the house. Les: You will have to make a point that it is compatible. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Les: Within the parameters of my experience on the historic preservation committee I do not feel I can do my job anymore because of the way the ordinances are written. We are spending 80% of our time giving people variances and FAR's to get them on the 2--0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 inventory when they all should be on the inventory. We are making bigger homes and destroying the rhythm of the neighborhoods in order to get something on the inventory and to me the natural extension is going to city council and requesting that the entire town be historic river to river and I feel this needs to be done. I do not feel ordinance #30 is working. Roger: If City Council will not give us river to river, that council should at least give us the same historic review that the guy who has an historic house has to have before he can do anything. It should be changed so that the person with a large me has the same notification review. That frustrates the community. Les: The ordinance reads allowable FAR and it doesn't say that they are entitled to it. If .someone came to us and we said we wouldn't give them the FAR could we withstand that? David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney: I think it would be pretty difficult if it weren't at least within the ball park. Amy: The decision would have to be based on our review standards. Jake: I feel it would be a taking. Les: I do not feel that way. David Hoefer: We will have to look at that more closely. MOTION: Les moved to adjourn; second by Jake. motion carries. Ail in favor, Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland Chief Deputy Clerk 2_11