Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19990414ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, APRIL 14, 1999 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5~00 p.m. Members in attendance were Roger Moyer, Gilbert Sanchez, Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Heidi Friedland, Christie Kienast, Maureen McDonald and Jeffrey Halferty. Lisa Markalunas was excused. Staff in attendance were Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer; Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie; Sara Oates, Planning Technician and Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathleen Strickland. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minutes of March lOth and April 7th minutes; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure Suzannah stated that she is friends with the owners of 2 Williams Way and they had a brief discussion on the implications but very general. Amy stepped down on 134 W. Hopkins. Heidi stepped down on 2 Williams Way also. 834 W. HALLAM - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL MOTION: Roger moved to extend conceptual approval for 834 W. Hallam until April 26, 2000; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried. 2 WILLIAMS WAY, INVENTORY, PUBLIC HEARING Suzannah recused herself. Heidi recused herself. Christie seated. Maureen seated. The affidavit of posting was presented to the attorney. Sara informed the board that City Council requested that staff look into placing 0002 Williams Way on the Inventory of Historic Structures. The west side of the property is in its original location and built around 1885. The east side of the property with the gable was moved to the site at some point in the 1960's and the two houses were combined. Scott Hicks and Maureen ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ APRIL 14~ 1999 Kinney own the property. 50 years old is the age that a property can begin to be considered historically significant. Properties have to be unique or have special value to the community. It is the only structure that remains in that neighborhood. Staff recommends to add this property onto the inventory due to its unique character. Sworn in were Scott Hicks and Maureen Kinney, owners of the property. Scott stated that they contest the listing on the inventory due to practical and philosophical opinions. The owners believe in the mission of the HPC and historic preservation in Aspen. If they were intending to do a large scale development to this project they would want to appear in front of the HPC and oversee the process. They have no intention of doing such development and have no interest in being under the thumb of another government entity telling them how to add a window or change a gable in the roof. One of Scott's concern is why all of a sudden today we are deciding that the house is historical. HPC has been in existence for over 25 years and over that 25 year period this structure was never added to the inventory. During the negotiations on the sale of the Aley property Jake Vickery stepped in and brought up the question of whether or not this home should be on the historical inventory. He had spent many months trying to purchase this property for development. Jim Markalunas's aunt lived in the property that was moved to this site. He also felt that the historical nature should be reviewed. Scott feels the current home does not meet the standards that are listed in the memorandum. The house has been significantly modified with triangular windows. They would potentially like to put gables in the other end of the roof as it is in keeping with the current character of the property and that is a decision they can make on their own. On the east side of the building which is the building that was moved to the property in the 1960's the city was aware of the property and did not list it at that point as an historical structure. The property was in the city and then moved to the county. Political wind shifting is dictating whether or not this is an historical structure. The middle part that connects the historic west and the east was built in the 1960' s. It 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ APRIL 14~ 1999 comprises at least 50% of the current square footage which is 2,000. There are two original doors remaining on the original structure and no original doors on the structure that was moved to the property. Of over 20 windows there is only one original window. That indicates that there has been quite a change to the property. Jim Reeser who worked for Tri-Cor Corporation in the early 60's had his office in the structure. The structure was then used as a structure for the Hunter Creek Association. Then the county stepped in and bought the property and it was never listed as historical. Then the county exchanged the property for some mining claims on Smuggler Mtn. Maxwell gave up his mining claims and got the one acre parcel in town with the property as it is today around 1990. The property was then annexed into the City. The property is segregated from the original townsite. The property is resident occupied and deed restricted affordable employee housing in the unit that they live in. The one bedroom is category four. In the memo it indicated that the property would be a supporting structure. The way it is written puts fear in the homeowners when it is written that the structures have received substantial alterations over the years; however, with substantial effort could be considered contributing once again. The owners are hesitant to be under city bureaucracy as they are already under employee housing guidelines. They sold some of the property to the City for the park and gave 7,000 square feet as an easement to the city so that they had a realistic size park that could be used for the area. The owner feels this house is an issue due to the politics of the day. The owners requested again that their house not be listed. David informed the Board and owners that HPC is not the final deciding body on this matter. Amy relayed to the HPC that the last time the inventory was done was in 1991 and the property was annexed into the city in 1992. The inventory will be updated next fall and that is why it is not presently on the inventory. CLARIFICATIONS The maximum square footage is about 7,700 square feet based on a duplex. The historic landmark lot split does not apply to this zone district. A code amendment could be brought forward. If the property is not on the inventory it could be demolished. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ APRIL 14~ 1999 HPC members felt that the house should be on the inventory even though there have been numerous changes. Other historic houses have had extensive changes in the past. They felt that the site retains some of Aspen's history and the nature of how the houses were moved there. It has been altered significantly. Members feared what could or would happen to the house if it was not on the inventory. A lot has been ruined because we did not have HPC sooner. It is the only house like it in that area and is very picturesque. The house would be picked up on the inventory next year. It wasn't on the county inventory because there is none but next year a county inventory will exist. Being on the inventory and living in an historic house is a thing of pride and the homes are maintained. HPC is trying to make the process easier with the design guidelines. Members felt that the house contributes to the quality of Aspen and the character that we would like to preserve. Possibly future owners would not share Scott's philosophy. It is important to protect the assets while we can. Government review is not onerous and the owner gets a better project. Maureen asked if the house is deed restricted or RO that maybe city council should look at some leniency on the part of the housing authority that any improvements go to the base value. Scott said the burden should be on the property owner if they go to the Building Dept. and request to tear down a wall they should be directed to HPC. The end result should not be on trying to keep the house from being demolished. Incremental steps on the process need addressed rather adding all these homes to the inventory so landowners are under the thumb of government. Maureen Kinney spoke about her dedication to this house and the fact that they will never demolish it. It is her dream house and it has been a struggle to purchase the house. Gilbert stated that the fact that the house is on the inventory doesn't compel the owner to exert the effort in restoration the house. What it does is protect the house so that that possibility always exists. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ APRIL 14~ 1999 MOTION: Mary moved to recommend approval of adding 0002 Williams Way to the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures to City Council, Finding that the criteria for a Supporting structure has been met; second by Christie..411 in favor, motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: Roger, Gilbert, Mary, Susan, defJbey, Christie, Maureen Mary relayed to the applicant that research indicates that historic properties only get more valuable. The Board felt that possibly relief in the fees charged could be explored. 531 E. COOPER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Stephan Kanipe, Chief Building Official stated that there was extensive work done in the four apartments on the interior only by Tanner Construction. He doesn't know who did the brick work. Roger stated that there is a major violation to an historic building and it could cause structural damage. The exterior brick needs removed and repaired. He relayed that he tried to call the contractors but there was no answer. Suzannah stated that there are two issues: The issue of having the work done without a permit. The other issue is how do we get remediation for the work that was done in terms of the historic building. Roger felt that there was a third issue: If you have a contractor working on an historic building maybe we need to look at masonry contractors going through a training. Stephen stated that the department is headed toward that particular training. David Hoefer, city attorney stated that staff will investigate and report back to HPC. Minor Development (windows) 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ APRIL 14~ 1999 Amy stated that a site visit was done to replace the existing windows on the second story of the building. There is some deterioration and in some situations the weight mechanism needs to be repaired or reinstalled. Window sash repair needs done. Staff recommends denial of the window replacement and the windows should be restored. Brian Smith, property manager was sworn in. Last winter the interior was remodeled and this year the owner desires to have the windows replaced. There are five on the alley side and an engineering firm came in and said they could not get the refinancing until the windows are replaced. On the rest of the windows, the front side they were never checked. On the sill levels there is deterioration. The new windows are basically the same as the Chitwood Plaza building. They are double pane, wood frame windows. Roger stated that all the windows can be restored and none of the windows have to come out. He also felt that all the parties involved in this project need educated. Brian said the loan company to do the inspection hired Inspection Evaluation International. The five critical windows are on the alley. Roger informed the Board that in 1968 Stein Erickson requested a color scheme of the building and at that time he was informed about the alley wall and nothing happened. The entire board felt that the windows should be repaired. Storm windows could be added. MOTION: Christie moved that the windows be required to be repaired and that notification should be sent to the parties involved regarding HPC's concerns of the violations; second by Heidi. Christie moved to deny the minor development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards'; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried. 134 W. HOPKINS - PUBLIC HEARING- (Continued from 3-24) 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ APRIL 14~ 1999 Amy Guthrie recused herself. David Hoefer received the affidavit of notice from the applicant. Sara Oates, Planning Technician presented. At some point between 1988 and 1997 there was a shed put on the back of the landmark property that was done without permits. The current property owners bought it in 1997 and went into repair the shed and basically ended up tearing it down and rebuilding it and making it larger. What that has produced is going over the site coverage by 3.2% and creating a space between the structure and the structure next door of 22 inches. Staff recommends denial of approving the addition of the shed as well as the variances. This is an opportunity to produce something on this property that is more historically appropriate and compatible with the historic landmark. David Hoefer, city attorney informed the HPC that the existing shed was built without a permit. There is no equity argument. David Rybak from Poss and Associates was sworn in. In 1997 the Budinger's purchased the historic property knowing that they could not expand. They also have purchased other historical structures where they live in Delaware and have done remodels to those homes. The shed was on the back of the building at the time of purchase and this summer it was repaired and added onto. At some point it was red tagged by the building department. If the shed is denied the property no longer functions as a family to live in Aspen. The recommendation from staff for a detached shed impedes upon the use of the land. The location is the least impact from public spaces. It is only visible if you look over the fence. The shed is to store the lawnmower and chairs. Clarifications: The shed is attached to the exterior wall of the house. The rear yard is fenced. If the shed is denied it must be tom down. The size of the home is 1700 square feet. They are required to have a parking space and they have a grassy area for that requirement. The fence is a little over 5'6 and the storage shed is a 6'8 plate height and goes to 7'4" due to the slope. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ APRIL 14~ 1999 Suzannah opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Dodd was sworn in. She represented the owners that live on the east side and they are impacted by the two-foot height increase of the shed and it shadows their patio. Suzannah closed the public hearing. Roger stated that the HPC policy is not to give variances if there are other options. Members felt that there are other options available. The shed is a substantial shed. Historically sheds are on the alley. The majority of members supported staffs recommendation. It would be difficult to grant the variance and allowing a building to be 22 inches away from another building that is historic. David Rybak said as part of the variance it is to look at other options as Staff has asked us to. Suzannah stated that the other proposal need to be brought forth in another application. David Hoefer stated the owner has a recourse against the prior owner if they feel they have damages. MOTION: Roger moved to deny the addition of a shed, and sideyard setback and site coverage variances for 134 W. Hopkins based upon staff's responses as put forth in the memorandum by Sara Oates, Planning Technician, dated April 14, 1999; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Yes Vote: Roger, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Heidi, defJhey. 735 W. BLEEKER - PUBLIC HEARING David Hoefer stated that the applicant did not provide the affidavit of posting. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ APRIL 14~ 1999 The Board felt that the application should be treated as a worksession. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ APRIL 14~ 1999 834 W. HALLAM - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL ...................................... 1 2 WILLIAMS WAY, INVENTORY, PUBLIC HEARING .................................................... 1 531 E. COOPER- MINOR DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 5 134 W. HOPKINS - PUBLIC HEARING - (CONTINUED FROM 3-24) ................................. 6 735 W. BLEEKER - PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................ 8 10