Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20001108 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, November 8, 2000 515 GIILLESPIE - VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT SPLIT ...................................................................... 1 303 S. CLEVELAND .................................................................................................................................... 1 203 S. GALENA - BRAND BUILDING ..................................................................................................... 3 501 W. MAIN - CHRISTIANIA - PROJECT MONITORING ............................................................... 7 447 E. COOPER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT .........................................................................................9 303 S. CLEVELAND .................. : .............. , ................................................................. , ............................. 10 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, November 8 2~.~000 ChairPerson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Members in attendance were Susan DodingtOn, Gilbert Sanchez, Lisa Markalunas, Rally Dupps and Jeffrey Halferty. Gilbert and Rally disclosed that he will step down for 515 Gillespie. Suzannah disclosed that she will step down for 303 S. Cleveland Rally volunteered for DRAC 515 GiILLESPIE - VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT SPLIT Rally stepped down. Suzarmah opened the public hearing. MOTION.. Jeffrey moved to continue the public hearing on 515 Gillespie to January 10, 2001; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. Yes Vote. Jeffrey, Susan, Lisa, Suzannah Suzannah closed the public hearing. 303 S. CLEVELAND Request to be removed from Inventory ( cont'd from 10/11/2000) Suzannah stepped down. Fred Jarman, planner informed the board that this is a request to be removed from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 303 S. Cleveland was identified as significant in the 91-92 inventory and formally adopted by City Council Ord. 34, 1992. As a matter of process, the HPC has final decision on this matter and the applicant can appeal to city council only on the basis of denial or due process or if it is felt that the HPC exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. This is a continued public hearing. Gilbert asked if City Council would deal with the due process. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, November 8, 2000 Fred said the issues with respect to noticing and due process are legal issues and HPC is not the board that can make any action or decision on. If the applicant wants to talk about architectural integrity with respect to the historic structure site they can do that. Gilbert informed the board that the basis of discussion tonight are designation, perhaps why it was designated and what is the significance of it. Michael Hoffman, attorney for Mr. Tower owner of the property at 303 S. Cleveland. Mr. Hoffman stated that the procedural question asked at the last meeting in terms of asking the commission to reverse the 1992 decision to exclude the property on the inventory was discussed with the Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer. The City Attorney decided that it was not appropriate for this body to make that decision and he was to send a letter confirming that decision in order for Mr. Tower to have a letter of record. That letter has not yet been received. Therefore, the applicant would like to continue that question until the letter is received or he can bring it back to the board to request a reversal of the 1992 decision. The immediate prOcedural question is due process. One of the reasons for the record today is to encourage the city to redo their process because he feels it is constitutionally defective. Fred said the application before the board and the public notice that was noticed is to address the inventory and this house is on it. The client's property is listed under a certain criteria and it is that criteria that the HPC judges whether it should be on the inventory or not. Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director relayed to the board that the case might be continued if legal issues are going to be discussed that she is not comfortable with related to due process. She also informed Michael Hoffrnan of her concern and he is aware of the issue. Gilbert said the purview is establishing the significance of the property. The board said they would not discuss due process without the city attorney. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, November 8. 2000_ Michael Hoffman said the case can not be discussed without talking about due process because the inventory sheet and Amy's memo are the result of the process. The process used is inadequate and in order for the HPC to have a product that is legally defensible you need to go through a different process. Gilbert relayed that part of the process is how this property got on the list and it was determined to be historically significant. How the survey was formed and how noticing took place are topics this board cannot discuss. Michael said he needed a few minutes to think about whether he can make a presentation to the board or not. Michael said the board is uncomfortable about hearing legal issues without the Assistant City Attorney. Gilbert said if you are interspersing legal issues with items that we feel we need to make decisions on we'll hear that but we will not be making any decisions on legal issues. We are prepared to hear topics related to the historic significance of the property. That is our expertise here. If you feel the topics are inter-related then it is to your advantage to have this continued. MOTION: Jeffrey made the motion to move 303 S. Cleveland ro another part of the agenda so the attorney can discuss with the applicant whether or not they desire to proceed tonight; second by Rally. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. 203 S. GALENA - BRAND BUILDING Sworn in were architects, Wayne Stryker and Steve Buettow Fred relayed that this is a continued public hearing from October 11, 2000. The applicant is proposing a addition roof deck remodel to the top of the Brand Building which is listed on the National Register of Historic places and within the commercial core historic district. At the last meeting the applicant was requested to consrrnct mockups on the top of the building to show what the proposal would look like. The development on the roof includes several things and the applicant will respond. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, November 8 2000 Steve Buettow said the drawings focus primarily on three things, stair expansion, the west handrail and the north handrail, all which were mocked up on the building by two by fours. The site elevations from grade which is the same as the first floor and the very top of the existing stair is 38.1 feet. We have 1 ½ feet to work with. We are requesting a variance of seven to eight inches on top of the stairway to build a new roof and to possibly put in a larger circular stairway head height to eliminate the problems of the head bumping problems of the existing stair tower, Clairifications: The guard rail of woven wire and wood will be painted black. The board had concerns of the connections. Steve relayed that it will be attached with metal fasteners. ' The stair tower will basically be about the same square footage but in a different configuration. The west handrail will consist of a three-foot high very simple wood handrail with plywood or wood siding horizontal painted a dark color so that it can blend in. Suzannah inquired about the stair enclosure and the wooden beam which is the break point for the roof and what kind of headroom clearance is there. Steve said it is an existing situation and is about seven feet. Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing. HPC MEMBER COMMENTS There is an existing stair location but the desire would be to have it further back in the site. The color is important on the guardrail to keep it minimal. The six by six posts should be thinner. There is concern about the rough sawn cedar for the guardrail. The flashing of the wood cap is very important visually. The board had concern with the material selection and the stair bulkhead. Rough sawn cedar does not fit in with the character of the building. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, November 8 2__~_~000 The stair bulkhead is highly visible and should be explored to move it back and less visible. Some members felt that the objects there now detract from the building and the notion to make it bigger is not appropriate. The stair should be pulled back from the street and should not be as visible aa it is now. The materials for the handrails could be look at and possibly be metal. In the past the board has been very careful about bulkheads even on particularly taller buildings and on the impact to the downtown historic district. The board was not in favor of expanding the bulk head partly due to the location so close to the north facade. The west and north handrail could be approved. The entire project needs refined in terms of its materials and as minimal as it can be. There is concern of the complexity of the roof shapes. Applicant response. Steve said the rough sawn cedar is on the inside so it would not be seen. The north handrail will not be seen. There will be no exterior lighting. MOTION: Rally moved to adopt Resolution 50, 2000 approving a minor development for an exterior expansion of the roof deck of the Brand Building condominiums, Block 88 located at 203 S. Galena Street, City and Town Site of Aspen with the following conditions as outlined in the resolution 1 through 8; second by Gilbert. Vote: No vote: Jeffrey, Rally, Susan, Gilbert, Suzannah, Lisa Motion denied. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adopt Resolution 50, 2000 approving a minor development for an exterior expansion of the roof deck of the Brand 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, November 8 2000 Building condominiums, Block 88 located at 203 S. Galena Street, City and Town Site of .4spen with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant agree that all improvement will be held back a full three feet from the north building wall. 2. That the applicant agrees to construct the railing along the north wall to be open so that snow is not trapped against the parapet. 3. That the applicant agrees to plant nothing but flowers and low shrubs in box planters. Trees shall not be permitted. 4. That the applicant agrees that no furnishings on the roof shall be taller than six feet in height from the roof surface: 5. That the applicant agrees that no roofing shall be constructed over any part of the decking of the roof. 6. That the [-[PC Staff and monitor will need to approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; and 7. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during pubic meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 8. All exterior hand rail sizes and materials to be approved by staff and monitor. 9. The existing stair tower will not be expanded. motion second by Susan. Yes IZote: Jeffrey, Suzannah, Gilbert, No Vote: Rally, Susan, Lisa Tie vote, motion dies. Lisa was concerned about the six-foot height of the furnishings, which is almost as high as the stair tower. Fred explained that the zone district is 40 feet and nothing can go above that height. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adopt Resolution 50, 2000 as stated above with conditions 1- 7 as written and 8. All exterior hand rail sizes, heights, materials to be reviewed by the entire HPC board 9. The existing stair tower will not be expanded. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, November 8 2000 motion second by Rally. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Rally, Suzannah, Gilbert, Susan, Lisa Motion carries 6-0. 501 W. MAIN - CHRISTIANIA - PROJECT MONITORING Suzannah stated for clarity this is just for the two buildings on the alley that have gone through final. Nick Lelack, planner met with Rally the monitor and determined that the project needed to come back to the HPC due to the significant changes on the facades on both buildings. Staff's concerns are on the duplex on the west facade that faces 5th St. There is no longer a door on the ground level and staff feels that is a nice feature that brings pedestrian activity from the sidewalk and street to that side of the house. The board went through the exhibits and discussed the changes. Steve Buettow, architect said essentially they have the same building, same scale and same materials and colors. There are minor re-arrangements of the doors and windows. The porch on the new drawing is expanded. Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director relayed that the HPC needs to decide whether the changes should be reviewed more in depth as opposed to being a monitoring issue. Jeffrey said part of the problem is the existing scheme is trying to match the exi,sting penetrations of the openings and the applicant is trying to allow for better living but the board needs to question the plans under the approval process. Suzannah said the issue here is similar to 330 Lake. The set of drawings is significantly different than the final approval and it is more than a monitoring issue. Gilbert said this is different because they are not historic buildings and they are not attached to an historic building. It is not the same as Lake Avenue. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, November 8 2000 Suzannah relayed that she feels the project should be reviewed as a cohesive project and would be reluctant to sign off on all the changes. Gregg Hills, applicant indicated that he wanted to proceed the right way in the approval process. Wayne Stryker said it was the intent to keep the overall character of the buildings. He feels the window change is minor. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the submitted revisions to the Christiana Lodge duplex and four plex that were previously approved; second by Lisa. No Vote: Jeffrey, no; Rally, no; Suzannah, no; Gilbert, no; Susan, no; Lisa, no; Discussion: Suzannah said there is also the issue of demolition of the panabode and that might push it uP into a different review. There is probably about 50% demolition. Julie Ann Woods said to play it safe the minor development should be re- noticed and re-looked at. Fred said the other option is to go with what was submitted without the demolition. Gregg Hills said what transpired during the alternations of the panabode it cam to the point of keeping a little point of the Lincoln log wall here and there. Once the entire second floor was torn offyou have the main floor with an inadequate flooring system and we wanted to replace the flooring system so now you have four perimeter Walls of the first floor. It made the most sense to tear the buildings down and keep the foundation the same and build the structures the same. It just didn't make sense to keep it the way it is. Suzannah said there are two issues: One we need to eValuate the demolition aspect technically regarding code issues because that was not part of the 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ November 8, 2000 original submittal. Secondly is Gilbert's concern as to whether it is appropriate to demolish the walls and rebuild them and the roof issues. Greg said both buildings have the panabode structure on the second floor. Gilbert said rebuilding the first floor and changing the plate heights of the second floor is significant as it addresses height. Greg said he can rebuild it by retaining the walls if he needs to fall in the over 50% bracket. Gilbert said in general the walls should be saved but the problem is so much has been done to these buildings already and the questions is, is there any value in that in this specific case. 447 E. COOPER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Sara Oates, planner informed the HPC that the building is not designated historic but is in the commercial core historic district and the applicant is proposing changing windows and doors on three of the facades. Staff is recommending approval. Jim Columbo was sworn in. Jim relayed that the location is the Guido Meyer building and in the historic overlay of the downtown area. It is not an historic building. Gilbert said the space was divided up a long time ago and River Valley Ranch moved into the left side and Stefen Kaelin gave up part of his space. At the same time the window on the right was the same size as the window on the left and Stephen wanted his windows bigger and came to HPC and got approval for the enlarged window. Jim said the awning will be removed. Notice was provided. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, November 8, 2000 Suzannah said if the awning is being replaced exactly the same but a different color staff and monitor could review it. MOTION: Rally moved to approve the minor development for 447 E. Cooper Street with one condition to be added to the resolution 51; Material selection to be reviewed by staff and monitor, material selection is to match the existing; second by Jeffrey. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Rally, Suzannah, Gilbert, Susan, Lisa, All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 303 S. CLEVELAND Michael Hoffman, attorney for the applicant stated on Sept. 13th they gave a full presentation and the HPC decided to keep the buildings on the inventory. The property was categorized as being rustic but the expert says the property is not rustic and Suzannah agreed that the property was not rustic. If you label a particular type of structure then you should evaluate it in that way. Michael provided the board with a memo from John Feinberg. The legal argument is ultimately this process is driven by the Historic Preservation Commission. Gilbert said Feinberg had a list of characteristics of what rustic buildings are. The conversation that Gilbert had with Feinberg was, is it reasonable to expect any building to have every single characteristic and his answer was no. He asked if it was 50% of the items or 65% that preservation is used to characterize a particular style and again his response was no. Michael said the factual arguments are the ones that HPC has purview over. Gilbert said it seems that no new evidence is being presented here tonight. Michael said he needs a decision to proceed to city council or you need to make a decision that you want to change your process. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, November 8, 2000 Gilbert said the I-]PC needs to vote whether the property should stay on the inventory or not. The I-{PC cannot discuss legal issues. Julie Ann Woods stated that the memo has been presented and it is new evidence and the HPC has not had a chance to read it and she recommends tabling. Gilbert said this should be tabled in order to have all of the issues discussed. Julie Ann said ifHPC keeps the cabins on the inventory the applicant can appeal to city council whether or not the procedure was proper, not the issue. Jeffrey said the HPC needs time to review the memorandum and it is important to have legal council present at future meetings. Rally said the property can be added to the process that we are going to be doing anyway. Michael asked the board to make a decision on the representation given September 13, 2000. MOTION.. Jeffrey moved to continue the public hearing on 303 S. Cleveland until Nov. 15th in order for the board to have time to read the memo and have proper council; second by Susan. Discussion: Gilbert said he could vote and he feels confident about his recollection of the conversation. He does not feel the issue of due process is related to the topic of whether the HPC can determine whether this building is worthy of maintaining on the inventory. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Susan, Lisa No vote: Rally, Gilbert, MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, November 8, 2000 Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 12