Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19990526ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5~00 p.m. Members in attendance were Lisa Markalunas, Roger Moyer, Heidi Friedland, Mary Hirsch, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Christie Kienast and Maureen McDonald. Staff in attendance were Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer; Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie and Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathleen Strickland. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jeffrey volunteered to be on the DRAC board. Jeffrey recused himself on 240 Lake Ave. MONITORING ISSUES - 234 W. FRANCIS - MULLINS Amy relayed that on the west side of the house that faces Second St. the one story addition was approved for renovation. The roof has too flat a pitch to guarantee wood shingles and the owners have requested to use metal that will patina out like the other copper on the building. It is an historic portion of the building that had a roof change and it was being restored back to what it once might have been. The roof proposed will be a copper roofing. The Board approved the copper roof with the condition that a solution be applied in order for the copper to patina out before application on the roof. Amy relayed that new windows were approved to the non-historic part of the house of Nancy Greenway. She asked to put windows in the existing casement openings. When she got to the Building Dept. she was told that the windows need to meet egress. Double hung windows are being recommended. The Board agreed with the window change. Jeffrey stated that the fire treatment on the steel beam at the ISiS has spilled onto the historic brick and recommended that Board members site visit that area. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 308 N. FIRST STREET - INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Amy relayed that a site visit occurred today. This house went in front of city council recently for a lot split application and was granted. While council was looking at the project they said they had concerns that the building on the site was historic and they initiated an application to have it listed on the historic inventory. It was listed on the 1980 original city inventory and it was then removed in 1992 when HPC held a public hearing and the owner at that time came to the board and presented evidence that there were many changes made to the house that compromised its integrity. It was built around 1887- 1888 and was owned by the brother of D.R.C. Brown. Exhibits were provided from historic maps and city files and testimony from the previous owner about the changes made. The siding and roofing has been replaced in addition to towers, additions and decks being added. Staff feels that the original form of the house, the cross gabled roof and some of the wall areas are intact enough and should be monitored by HPC to preserve what remains and avoid any additional inappropriate changes and guide any restoration that might be taken in the future. Staff is recommending that the entire original property that has been split in two be listed on the inventory. This is due to the outbuilding on the new open land that is historic, but upon inspection today it doesn't appear that is the case. That recommendation has been withdrawn. Lot 2 that has the old house on it is being recommended on the inventory. Sworn in were Stan Clauson and Richard Klein. Stan read into the records a letter from Mr. Nolan (exhibit iii). Also a letter has been entered into the record from Wayne Stryker who was the architect for the reconstruction of the out building (exhibit V) which is of no consequence since Staff has withdrawn that recommendation. Plans were presented to the board so that the Board can see what the owners intent is and what has been accomplished with the lot split and where they would like to go. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 Richard Klein stated that he was asked by the Nolan's to address the Historic Inventory status of the house. A letter was read and entered into the records (exhibit IV). Stan informed the Board that the owners clearly feel it is an encumbrance from the standpoint of the approvals and reviews that are required. The owners also feel it has financial disadvantages. He also reminded the HPC that the code has been changed recently so the listing on the inventory carries much more significant restriction in terms of the use and review. It carries restrictions that used to be for landmark status. The problem with this particular house is that it would be a stretch to put it on the inventory and a huge stretch to put it on landmark status. It is only with landmark status that the compensatory things that we have been able to offer over the years for historic houses become available to a property owner. This is a new era with substantially increased body of restriction for inventory properties and no advantages for them until they achieve landmark status. Stan also felt that City Council, in their response to the individuals who spoke at the lot split public hearing really wanted to be responsive and to show that they were concerned about a house that may or may not merit being on the inventory. He is not sure that the instruction from council was to go and put this on the inventory. He feels the instruction was to go and investigate whether it should be on the inventory. He also felt that they were operating out of a mandate to do this. Stan presented a site survey, which extends over two lots, which have been split. The lot split extends over a significant addition from 1984, which does change the entrance. All the additions are pseudo-historical. As a condition of a lot split a section would have to be removed and made conforming to setbacks. He has been investigating what the original footprint of the foundation was. The side porch would have to be removed. With respect to the side yard setback, the lot split was granted conditioned to conformance with setbacks and FAR and lot coverage. They have a program for removing some of the very small outbuildings and the porch that will be sufficient to meet that requirement. There is an historical extension of the house that goes closer to the newly established historic townsite lot line than the required five feet required setback. It actually sets 2.5 feet into the setback. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 Stan will go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to allow this extension to be retained and at the same time allow the original historical townsite lot line to be retained as well. As part of the HPC deliberation if the Commission could see it as possible to offer a resolution of support in this particular matter, it would be a great benefit to the restoration of the west elevation of the house. QUESTIONS Amy relayed that the next process is to proceed to Planning and Zoning and then to City Council who will make the final decision. Roger asked if the property is on the inventory and if a structure is on the adjacent lot would the HPC have review over the new structure? Amy said if the entire property is listed HPC would have review over what is built next to the historic house. Amy felt because there is nothing historic on the one lot it would be difficult to justify the entire site on the inventory. Roger informed the HPC that the garage existed when he came to town in 1965. Stan said it is used as an office and he conversed with Wayne Stryker who did the plans for renovation and it was effectively completely demolished and rebuilt essentially in the same footprint and shape that existed. That occurred around 1984. Roger said there is also a little building that comes off to the left and exisited in 1965. Stan said that building does not appear on the Sanborn Map, 1904. Roger confirmed with Staff that if the house is not on the inventory it could be demolished. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 Amy said there is no reliance on the owners representation that they do not want to demolish it, it will also be put up for sale at some point. There is no protection. Amy said unless the entire property is on the inventory there is no review over the empty lot. Roger said that should have been part of the consideration by council on the lot split to have review over the entire site. Amy said there is a process for a building to be placed on the inventory and it was her direction to initiate an application. Heidi inquired about the fascia trim and the trim above the window as to whether it was historic. David Hoefer, attorney stated at the NOON site-visit it was determined that those fabrics were not historic. Stan said there is no question that the trim does look historic as the entire house has historical elements about it. Heidi asked about the roof being original. Richard said there is a primary gable form that still exists and it is a cross gable form. It is hidden by one of the chimneys and the other side gable it is disguised by the turret and deck area. Heidi said it is the original roof form behind all the additions. She also inquired about the modification plans. Richard said at the present time the door will be restored to the Hallam side. At this time they are only planning on removing the foyer area. It would be extensive remodeling to get involved with restoration of the front of this house. If the front is restored, there is an issue with the turret that sits over the front of the house and doesn't relate to the old former house. Heidi asked what the intent of the owner is on the adjacent lot. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 Stan said it is the intent of the owner to build on the newly created lot next door for themselves and put the existing house on the market. Christie stated that the house was quite beautiful when Kathryn Lee bought it. Lisa said the house was on the inventory when the remodel was done from 1984 to 1992. Amy informed the board that the HPC had minimum regulations at that time. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. COMMENTS Mary said her initial feeling is that it was not fair to put this house on the inventory. Susan said it is discouraging that new owners do not want their houses to be recognized as historic. It is an admiral quality to have an historic house. She is in favor of the house being on the inventory. Heidi stated that historic houses do not effect property values that much and she would like to see the research if that isn't the case. Regarding the criteria there is something old about the house but when you stand in front of the house it has been modified significantly. She is concerned about the confusion factor if the house is put on the inventory, will too many people then think all the additions are historic. She doesn't want to see the house torn down. Lisa stated she is in support of putting it on the inventory as a supporting structure. Since 1992 there has been a big shift in our sensitivity to historic structures and what those mean to the community and the loss of those structures. We area charged with preserving historic resource and we should do everything we can do preserve our history. Maureen agreed with Lisa and she is also in favor of the 2.5 variance. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 Christie also supported putting the house on the inventory. There is not a house in town that has not been added to considerably. If the house is not on the inventory we will loose more and more of them. Roger stated if the house was demolished in a month from now the human cry would be outrageous. He was on the HPC when the house was taken off the inventory and at that time the board was different. Underneath all of the additions is a wonderful little structure. He recommends that it be on the inventory. He also recommends that the entire parcel be on the inventory. HPC has always fought to have review over parcels around historic properties. In 1991 there were not lot splits and if they existed then the entire parcel would have been listed. He also recommended working with the owners representatives on the variances. Jeffrey felt that the impact on the neighborhood is important. Although the house has been remodeled and altered the footprint and the essence of the foundation once represented is very important. He is in favor of the house being a supporting structure. Suzannah stated that she doesn't see this as being any different than the Williams Way project in terms of its alternations. They are pretty equal and this house has the form of the historic house. She supports the listing on the inventory. She is less inclined to attach the other lot. She is also in support of the variances for the historic house. Stan said the concern of the Nolan's is becoming involved in another layer of bureaucracy which is a real concern for many people. They perceive that other people will have an influence over their hearth and home in a way that maybe uncongenial to them. Stan also relayed that our code is much more draconian at the inventory level in terms of the amount of review. That might not be a bad thing but it certainly effects the way people react. It is certainly a catch 22 for those houses that maybe inventoried but not landmarked. Those houses have all the review but none of the benefits of landmarking. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 Stan relayed as far as the adjoining property goes, you have people that are sympathetic to the historic resource even though they do not want it to be regarded as an historic resource. The way they have worked with Richard and himself is indicative of that in the way they have moved forward to seek a variance to allow the original historic footprint to be maintained. He feels they will be equally sympathetic and fall strongly on Ordinance #30 for review for the comer property. He doesn't feel the HPC has an historic basic for putting the comer property under review. He also requested a general resolution in support of the variance be addressed in the motion. It is basically a 2.5 foot encroachment for 7.9 feet of length into the setback. Richard relayed that the comer lot that will be available for new construction will probably be contracted with a contractor that is more costly because he is working on historic properties. If that is the case he feels it would be unfair as it is new construction. Heidi relayed that the entire block is historic. MOTION: Roger moved to (1) adopt Resolution/¢29, 1999 recommending that City Council adopt 308 N. First Street, Lots' K, L,M, and N Block 56 City and Townsite of Aspen to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. (2) HPC approves the variances that are required when part of the non- historic portion of the house is removed. Some of the historic structure will be within the property line and HPC encourages that all other boards' to grant this variance. Motion second by Susan. Yes kote: Roger, deffhey, Mary, Susan, Heidi, Lisa No Fore: Suzannah, 520 E. DURANT - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Mary recused herself. Maureen and Christie were seated. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 Sworn in was Patricia Straight. Amy informed the Board that Peaches en Regalia is located in the Ajax Mountain building. The Polo store was the first shop to ask for awnings and the HPC approved the awning but said every other awning from that time forward has to be the same because HPC wanted a uniform appearance of the building. Probably the mistake in that decision was endorsing the Polo signature colors to be applied across the building which is probably not welcomed by the other shops. Peaches en Regalia has had for a long time a blue awning with white lettering. Staff is recommending a navy fabric with gold lettering. Patricia informed the Board that for six years she had navy and white lettering with a little silver glitter on it. She also said she was never asked to replace her awning. She has purchased a replacement awning of navy and white. She moved to town in 1972 and started the stores in 1973 and in the 26th year of business. She has had five locations and three different stores with awnings. She was not aware of this policy. There is a lot of predominance with the navy and white in all the stores. There are a lot of changes on the awnings, some are navy/gold and some is navy/brown. She feels the different colors add charm to the town. Staff stated that the building owner knows about the policy and maybe isn't communicating it well enough. Staff is recommending blue and white. Patricia stated that she was never told to replace the awning. She is in her 26th year of business in Aspen and has had five locations. She has had three different stores with awnings. She appreciates the character and historic nature of the town. Pictures were presented that indicated a lot of predominance of the white and navy in the signage of the different stores. She would like to keep what she has as it has already been paid for. She stated her awning has been blue and white for six years. Several awning are the blue with a brown or gold. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 Patricia stated that it is difficult because both Chanel and Polo have signature colors. MOTION: Roger moved to allow the tenant at Peaches en Regal to keep their navy and white awning which she has had for the last six years; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried. 400 W. SMUGGLER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Lisa and Maureen were seated. Sworn in was Steve Weaver. Amy informed the Board that the application is to add dormers to an historic outbuilding on the site. The property is an historic landmark. The owners have presented a couple options. On the south side of the cottage there is a shed dormer. They could match that shed dormer or they could do gable dormers on the back and change the shed to a gable dormer. Staff is recommending that the shed dormer be added because it has a lower profile and there is no reason to tear off an existing structure. Staff has listed conditions as to how the siding should be applied, what the windows should look like; they should be casement windows, and also noting that the decorative trim work should not be added. Steve stated that the decorative trim has been removed. Amy stated that a drawing needs submitted regarding the shed dormer before a building permit can be issued. Steve stated that recently the owners decided that they would rather do four dormers, two on each side on opposite sides of the building. There is an existing stairway and the space is unusable due to the roof line that goes to the floor. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 Amy stated that Christie's parents owned this house and possibly she could shed some light on the project. Roger clarified that the existing owners would like to take off the existing shed dormer and put on four more traditional type gable dormers. Steve stated that they would not be obtrusive and would be the same height of the one existing. The owners are into the historical quality of the house and they want to do what the HPC recommends. The decision to alter the plans is due to space constraints and they want to put a bed in that area. Suzannah asked about the proposed triangle window. Amy said if the gable is proposed she is recommending removal of the triangle window as it is an architectural complication of the building. Christie relayed that her parents owned the house for thirty years and she lived there for a long time. The reason the house was sold in 1987 is because the HPC would not allow her to put a dormer on the house. Her parents rebuilt the house and the shed dormer was there since early 60' s. She feels the gable dormers do not go with the house but she is not opposed to the a shed dormer on the alley. The board was amenable to some kind of dormer on the house, preferably a shed dormer. The board also felt that drawings should be presented to the entire board as the house is a landmark. A statement was made having four dormers might be overpowering on the little building. MOTION: Heidi moved to continue 400 W. Smuggler until duly 14; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. 333 W. BLEEKER - Worksession - no minutes Christie stepped down. Sven Alstrom and Mel Burnstein presented. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 240 LAKE AVENUE - ENFORCEMENT ACTION David Hoefer, attorney stated in this matter, similar to the Mullin's case there appear to be clear violations of the approval and the construction on the property at this point has been red tagged. It is recommended that the red tag be lifted for purposes of working on elements of the house that are not subject to consideration. This meeting will be informal and then anticipate meeting with the representatives to see if we can come up with a remediation plan to resolve the problem and in addition to see if we can reach agreement on a monitary penalty similar to what was done on the Mullin case. A site meeting was conducted today. Amy defined the problem and presented drawings to the board. The project took two conceptual hearings and one final hearing. In the final dimensions the representation for demolition was 24% of the perimeter wall would be taken down. What has actually been taken down was 59% of the wall. What that means is that they will also have to mitigate for affordable housing in addition to the violations of the HPC approvals. In the memorandum it was noted that they are proposing to do some demolition on the east and west sides of the building and the roof is to be removed and raised above the livingroom area. Every representation to the board was that limited areas of the house were being removed for the new addition. The participants are Jennifer Cohen, staff architect for Charles Cunniffe. Vincent Partyka, Lone Pine Construction and Gilbert Sanchez architect. Heidi stepped down. Gilbert was the project architect at Charles Cunniffe's office. As the project forwarded in March the owner came to Gilbert and hired him as the owner's representative for the construction of the project. At a regular visit to the site Gilbert became aware of demolition to the site that exceeded his expectations. He met with the contractor and Jennifer and then met with Amy and at that time he immediate concern was the two concrete walls east and west of the courtyard. In addition Amy's concern was the north wall and L shape of the window wall. From Gilbert's information it didn't seem that far from what was expected on the north wall. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 Gilbert felt that the important topics are the concrete walls in the courtyard and the approved scope of demolition of the north and east window wall. Gilbert suggested, from his experience, if there were a pre-demolition meeting that was a condition on all approvals for the contractor to get together at the site one week before demolition is scheduled it would be the best opportunity for everyone to understand the implications of all the approval process. One of the problems is the chronology of the way things are presented and developed and approved. There was a failure of the concrete block walls that was not intended to be demolished. David Hoefer, attorney informed the applicant and HPC if there is a dispute as to what the approvals were, that will necessitate a separate meeting. Tonight's meeting is only an informational meeting to inform the Board when there will be a remediation plan and a recommendation regarding the lifting of the red tag. If necessary there will be a detailed opportunity for the representatives to discuss their issues and the process. David recommended a motion with the four following conditions: 1) Permit Staff to remove the red tag with such restrictions that staff finds appropriate. 2) Direct staff to deal with the owner and or his representative to attempt to reach an enforcement agreement reserving the right to, in the future if necessary have an order to show cause hearing or court action. 3) Direct the owner or representatives to come forward to HPC with a formal remediation plan. 4) Direct Staff to provide the Historic Preservation Commission with a staff report on the issue of mitigation for affordable housing. Suzannah stated that the HPC was assured by the applicant at the time that the materials were going to be staying essentially intact and that is why it was not discussed further. She also agreed that a pre-demolition meeting is a good suggestion for future applications. MOTION: Roger moved 1) That the red tag be released. 2) That the owner meet with staff and work out an agreement. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 $) That the owner is directed to come to HPC with a plan. 4) Staff and owner meet and figure out the housing mitigation. 5) Roger reiterated David's motion. Permit Staff to remove the red tag with such restrictions that staff finds appropriate. Direct staff to deal with the owner and or his representative to attempt to reach an enforcement agreement reserving the right to, in the future if necessary have an order to show cause hearing or court action. Direct the owner or representatives to come forward to HPC with a formal remediation plan. Direct Staff to provide the Historic Preservation Commission with a staff report on the issue of mitigation for affordable housing. Motion second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MAY 26~ 1999 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ................................................................................... 1 234 W. FRANCIS - MULLINS ...................................................................................... 1 308 N. FIRST STREET - INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES ................ 2 520 E. DURANT - MINOR DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 8 400 W. SMUGGLER- MINOR DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 10 333 W. BLEEKER- WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES ..................................................... 11 240 LAKE AVENUE - ENFORCEMENT ACTION .......................................................... 12 15