Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20080109ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 980 Gibson -Final, Public Hearing cont'd from Dec. 12`h, 2007 ...................................... 2 Red Butte Cemetery ............................................................................................................ 4 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, Nora Berko, Alison Agley, Ann Mullins and Jay Maytin. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jim True, Special Counsel Election of Chair and Vice-chair. MOTION: Nora moved to approve Resolution #1 nominating Michael as Chair and Sarah and Vice-chair; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Alison and Jay will recuse themselves on 980 Gibson. Nora will recuse herself on Red Butte Cemetery. 212 W. Hopkins Sara said the project monitor approved a smaller dimension than what was actually built which is 12 x 24. Keith said on the permit 12 x 18 cement tiles were approved by the project monitor and 12 x 24 tiles were installed. Sara explained that it was a condition of approval at final that the dimension of the the be approved by staff and monitor. Keith said from the last architect on the project we ordered 12 x 24 tiles because that was the last direction we got and they are installed. Alison said it makes sense that the concrete tiles are larger than the zinc tiles. The board decided that a site visit would be preferable. 980 Gibson -Final, Public Hearing cont'd from Dec. 12`h, 2007 Alison and Jay recused themselves. Scott Bartleet of Flux Design Studio, Basalt Revised drawings -Exhibit I Proof ofpublication -Exhibit II Sara explained at the last meeting the applicant was directed to study the scale of the fenestration on the new addition, landscape plan and to simplify ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9.2008 the two story porch that is proposed for the addition. Overall staff finds that the guidelines have been met and recommends approval. In terms of the landscape plan the materials for the walkway and patio are not identified but those can be approved by staff and monitor. The overall concept of the landscape plan is appropriate for this project. The applicant added a terrace style retaining wall so there will be two walls about 18 inches high and 18 inches apart with plantings to soften the change in slope. The applicant proposes off street parking at the front of the site that is accessed off Gibson Ave. and the Engineering Dept. actually has a policy that only allows one curb cut per property and they already have a curb cut for the property so we obviously recommend that it be removed. In terms of fenestration the applicant successfully reduced the scale of the windows proposed for the addition and guideline 3.3 and 11.9 are met. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing doors that will open onto the patio at the east end of the property and we think that is appropriate because the doors are existing. Do to the size of the doors there probably isn't going to be too much existing evidence of where windows were. In terms of materials they are appropriate but we are still concerned about the corrugated metal roof but HPC had no issues at the last meeting. In terms of the architectural details the applicant successfully simplified the porch and there is a much better relationship with the historic resource and the reconstructed porch that will be constructed on the historic resource. The chimney was also changed to a flue style chimney. No historic photos have been found because the house is not in its original location. Scott said Sara explained the changes and summed them up and he had nothing to add. Chairperson Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Michael identified the issues: Balcony and new roof form. Tree species. Materials to be used for the court yard and walkway and the question is whether we are comfortable with staff and monitor reviewing it. Design for the retaining wall. Elimination of the off street parking spaces. Corrugated metal roof on the addition. Design of the Victorian porch. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 Balcony and new roof form. Ann said she came in midstream on this project but the size and mass of the fenestration negates any kind of historic value that the cabin had because it over powers it. At this point I realize it will not be changed. In the future HPC should consider looking at a landscape plan at conceptual and identify the existing plants and track the size and how old they are. Scott responded and said he would have submitted a landscape plan but that is not presently a requirement. Sarah said the porch has gotten simpler and is sympathetic to the decorative nature of what is going on with the historic resource and it is a better solution. Brian also said the fenestration is a better solution. Sarah said the board is in support of the chimney, fenestration and the porch. Michael pointed out that everything seems to be resolved. With regard to the tree species he is comfortable with staff and monitor signing off. Michael said he is a little uncomfortable with the fenestration and the doors have destroyed any evidence of what the fenestration was in the past in the historic cabin. Scott said they will get doors that match the existing front door. The doors are existing. Sara said staff prefers that the doors be left as existing instead of guess what was there. The doors do work better for the program. Sara said there could be a condition that during construction if they discover anything that might indicate a window existed it should be looked at by staff and monitor. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #2 for 980 Gibson with the amendment to condition #3, adding prior to purchase and installation. A more thorough landscape plan identifying trees species should be reviewed with staff and monitor; motion second by Jay. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Ann, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 5-0. Red Butte Cemetery Letter in support -Exhibit I Letters not in support -Exhibit II 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 Affidavit of posting -Exhibit III Alan Richmond stated that the hearing tonight is focused on the compliance of this project with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. We have not submitted an application for rezoning which is handled by Planning & Zoning. John Tharp said the cemetery was incorporated in the late 1800's and is governed by a volunteer board. The intent is to create and preserve a service in Aspen for a cemetery. We have a need for a maintenance facility. At this point we are operating out of a temporary tent that doesn't have power, light or water or a restroom. It is inadequate to maintain our equipment and to provide a place for the maintenance of the cemetery to take place. The second issue is housing for the cemetery manager. The manager needs to understand the mapping and plotting of the cemetery and manage that in terms of record keeping and deal with the public in terms of plot sales and mortuary services. He also handles the excavation when necessary and the monument companies. The City forester mapped and inventoried and devised a program to monitor the 200 plus mature cotton wood trees with the manager. This has to be done twice a year. The manager has been with us for over 20 years. Even with all there is to do it doesn't comprise a full time job in terms of income for the manager. He is available at all hours but in the winter he gets a second job. We fell it is instrumental for us to have a housing unit to maintain continuity with our management. Grame Means, architect explained that the site is 17 acres. Most of the cemetery proper is not seen from the road. Most of the site is R-15a or b. There are residential lots on the south, west and north. There is a bank on the east that goes to Castle Creek. The cemetery is somewhat divided into two different parts, the southern part that is developed with burial plots and there are a distinctive row mature cottonwood trees that run along and a system of ditches. It is the most distinctive aspect of the cemetery. On the northern portion there is a temporary maintenance structure and it is largely not maintained. In the southern portion there is a cabin 12 x 17 in good shape. Our intention is to restore that in place. There is also a 5x10 out house that sits to the north. We also intend to restore the out house and move it ten feet and reorient it away from the burial plots. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 In the northern portion we are proposing to put a maintenance facility/caretaker unit located approximately in the center. The site selected lets the existing historical part of the cemetery to remain relatively un- impacted by the development and it also gives a buffer from the residential lots on the north and west. There is a three car maintenance facility, small office and then a residential unit. All three components comprise less than 3,000 square feet. The access comes along an existing dirt road. There is a sage meadow to the north. There is approximately 200 feet from the property line to the building. The building is as low as possible and broken up into three pieces. Alan Richmond said Aspen is very fortunate to have a cemetery established on a site that is 17 acres within the City limits that has considerable capacity remaining. The upper valley is very unlikely to create a site for a cemetery in the future. Aspen needs to make the best effective use of the cemetery that it has so that we remain a real community, a place where you are born and a place where you can rest at the end of your days. Despite the designation on the city zoning map the cemetery is not a city owned park it is owned by the cemetery association for more than 100 years. The association needs a place for maintenance equipment and for the caretaker who maintains the site. Having a maintenance facility is fundamental to maintaining the historic character of this site that we all treasure. We have contacted the streets and parks department to see if there was any room in those facilities. There is no room for our equipment so we feel it is an absolute necessity for this facility to be placed on the site for the future needs of the cemetery. Having housing for a caretaker is critical to the association to retain a trained employee for the cemetery. It was nice for the neighbors to suggest that the association ought to get the use of one of the city's housing units but we don't have priority in the lottery system and frankly we do not want to compete with any other employees in this community who are in desperate need of housing. We can provide housing for our own employee. The site plan minimizes the impacts of the new building on the historic character of the cemetery. We have had several meetings with the neighbors to come to a meeting of the minds. We will create distance and separation from the neighboring houses to the north and the facility will not be in their back yard. In staff's memo it was suggested that we move the facility up to the northwest comer of the property. We feel that is inappropriate and in conflict with the conversations that we had with the neighbors and we would like to be consistent with the representations that we made about minimizing our impacts with the neighbors. The 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 building is one story with very simple forms. The equipment stored outside is a visual eye sore and the facility will eliminate storing equipment outside. When we reviewed the project in August with the HPC the board was highly supportive of the location and design of the building. Amy stated that there are three cemeteries in town, the Ute Cemetery that is owned by the city and hasn't been active since the 1930's. About three or four years ago the City received grant funds and we used some of our own funds to do a substantial project and every stone on the site was restored. It costs $100,000 for the 75 stones and they were carefully put back to their original condition. The second cemetery was Aspen Grove and it is similar in size to Red Butte and actively used now. It ismanaged by anon-profit board and recently the City has done an outreach to that group. They have trees that are falling over that have hit the grave markers. They have an aging group of people sitting on the board and they are trying to do the best they can with the site and the City has gotten involved by sponsoring grant applications. We will do a planning effort for how the site can be managed and restored and the Parks Department will be involved in some level. In terms of the Red Butte the City has not been asked for a significant amount of help but the City Forester has been on the site inventorying the trees. Part of staff's approach to this entire application is that we want to help. There are approximately 2800 grave sites with markers and 2001arge trees. This project will serve as an ongoing need for the community for years and years. When I first met with the applicants on this topic the caretaker unit was mentioned and at the staff meeting we talked about transfer development rights. Selling TDR's could build and endowment to deal with the long term costs. This might come up down the road when rezoning is pursued. Getting specifically to the application we are not here to discuss whether there should be a residential use, that is for City Council to determine. If HPC has ideas how impacts could be mitigated that is specifically HPC's job. Staff brought up a few things. Placing the building as they have does put it in a rather exposed location. Staff is not sure if it is appropriate to change the planting pattern. Perhaps as the cemetery grows we should continue to have the rows of cottonwoods. If the building where put in the northwest corner of the site where the backdrop is existing residential development, it would lessen some of the concerns. Access to the building wherever it is is important. There is no intention to pave the gravel roadways which is great because that would be a negative impact on the landscape. One of the other comments at the work session 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 was whether the building could be broken up into pieces instead of being one structure. If it were broken up it would fit into the cemetery context better. To the extent that there are parking areas those would need to be screened and sensitively placed that they weren't any more visible from the users of the cemetery than necessary. Architecture of the new building. Staff made a suggestion that something more of a vernacular form with a gable roof would be more appropriate on the site. The cabin that exists does have a gable form and a shed form. In terms of being in context with the period of significance the 19`" century and early 20`" century it might be a good idea to reflect back on what forms of the building would be appropriate. Staff certainly supports the restoration work proposed for the cabin and out house. Regarding the relocation of the out house we normally do not like to move buildings when there is no pressing reason to but the out house is close to some graves and that should be taken into consideration. Staff still feels that the out house should not be relocated. Someone made the decision earlier on that it would be an inappropriate relationship, but it is part of the history. Staff is recommending continuation. Questions and clarifications: Sarah asked if the proposed development impact the future plots. Grame said they think the out house was built around 1920. The northern part of the property will have the same pattern as the southern in future years. It is plotted out on paper. There is an existing road and the proposed development will be on one side of the road. We intend to maintain the sage brush and we will get a landscape architect onboard. Alan pointed out that a Parks Zone district allows a park maintenance facility. Sarah inquired about the height of the proposed building. Graeme said it is a little less than 17 feet at the peak. Most of it is lower than that. Alison asked where the closest grave site is to the out house. Grame said around 2 '/2 feet away but the sites are not occupied. John Tharp said occupied sites are around 15 feet away. Alison said with the existing zoning only the maintenance facility can be approved. Amy said it is important for the HPC to be evaluating how and where any new structures can be 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 accommodated on the site. An office facility could be an accessory use. The only thing not completely locked in is the residential component. Alison asked if there was additional room on the south end by the shed and out house for another building. Grame said the shed is within ten feet of the property line. If we added a building we would be impacting the historic structures. Ann asked what kind of approval process occurred with the existing maintenance facility. John Tharp said they had no approval process. A slab was poured and the shed was temporary and the Building Dept. said OK. That is as far as it went and that was about six years ago. The intent was always to put something permanent on the site. Brian asked staff what HPC's role is regarding the site. Amy said HPC needs to confirm that the project is in conformance with the guidelines and if not what can be done to get it incompliance. For example if a road was to be paved that would impact the site etc. Another example would be the residential component and possibly it would need to be broken down into smaller pieces. Jay asked if the roads are cleared during the winter. If someone lives there how will that impact the site? John Tharp said the perimeter road is kept open. John said there would not be additional plowing due to the residential unit. Michael asked when the property was landmarked. Amy said around 1995. Michael also asked if there were any documents specific to the designation. Amy said there is an inventory form and ten years ago the city did a study on all three of the cemeteries regarding maintenance issues and identified all the grave stones. Michael asked staff why this property is designated. Amy said it is one of the three cemeteries in town and it has an important native landscape and is much more formal than the other two cemeteries. It is an outdoor museum and there are beautiful sculptures on the site documenting the history of the community. Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing. Letters not in support -Exhibit II Howie Malory, resident on Snowbunny Lane. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 Howie said Red Butte Cemetery was zoned park approximately 30 years ago when the city did a major rezoning. At the same time the City created a conservation zone and specifically excluded the Red Butte Cemetery. The conservation zone was created largely with the intent to allow open spaces that had development potential to still be protected as open space but without creating the issue of takings that certain development potential was allow in the conservation zone properties, namely a single family residence. It is important to remember the history that the cemetery 30 years ago was designated park and not conservation. It was not the intent at that time to create any development activity in the cemetery beyond the maintenance facilities. HPC has an implicit responsibility over any historically designated property in the city to maintain the historic condition. HPC has to be able to say how this property is going to be maintained and retain the historic values of the property. This application effort has shown that the HPC probably doesn't have a strong set of guidelines as you might need to have to deal with historic grounds cape changes. There are guidelines that nationally exist and have been developed as the result of other communities that had historic cemeteries. The activity level in the cemetery is rather low. There are approximately 12 burials a year. The cemetery has huge operational problems. The request for housing on this property is inappropriate. The housing authority should be approached to establish a priority for housing for an employee who handles the operation of the cemetery. HPC could support the housing authority. HPC needs to establish a series of guidelines that deal with historic landscapes and until HPC is comfortable with the potential zoning change when this property becomes delisted as an historic park that you table this item. Jesse Boyce said he is on both city and county open space boards. Every day we are under pressure of a wonderful idea that would nibble away at our open space and we have to defend ourselves against that. Employee housing should be sought elsewhere for the cemetery. It is crucial that we do not loose sight that the site is a park. What would happen if we put a maintenance shed or housing in Wagner Park? The cemetery has been there for 100 years and we have gotten this far without needing this elaborate structure. I understand the need for a maintenance shed but the residential unit is really pushing the envelope. ]0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 John Callahan, said he lives near the cemetery. Right now there is a Quonset but with a piece of canvas hanging over it and people have to work there. There is nothing wrong with the building going up and giving the caretaker a better place to live. It is called for and we are helping the people that maintain the cemetery. Carolyn Cerise said she has lived in her house for over 50 years. She is in support of the housing and it is situated in a place that does not impact many people. It is certainly something that is needed and they do a great job taking care of the cemetery. Keith Gardner said he has lived here for 30 years. The whole thing is a cemetery and it is one parcel. The idea of putting a caretaker unit in is egregious because there is no access to this building. Access would have to be made through the cemetery adjacent to graves. This would occur for all domestic purposes, daily trips to and from the house. There would also be normal social activities and kids playing. Margo Gubser Gardner pointed out one aspect and that is many people come to the cemetery to visit graves and meditate and they appreciate the quiet sanctuary. Jamie Stake said he lives on Cemetery lane and his back parcel comes to within 120 feet of the cemetery. Jamie said he is for the proposal and it is important that they have enough storage to keep the maintenance going on in the cemetery. Stony Davis said he is on the board and this cemetery is operating and functional. Even though it is zoned park it is not a park. If you want the cemetery to remain as is, it needs maintenance and has to have someone to look over it. Shane Evan said the HPC needs to think long and hard about the precedence you are setting by allowing employee housing on the site. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Sarah asked where the maintenance vehicles come from. John said some are on the property but when excavation is needed we contract that out and they 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9.2008 store the equipment on the property until after the service is over then come back and fill and take their equipment away. Jay asked how long the caretaker takes care of the property. John said it is mostly seasonal. Spring, summer and fall he is on the property daily. In the winter he answers daily requests on the phone. He identifies the plot and oversees the excavation. He is on-call everyday. Ann commented that HPC really lacks guidelines for historical and cultural sites. On the list there are only 9 out of 300 on the inventory. In the meantime we need to go with our experience and knowledge on the importance of a cemetery to a community and apply that to the goal of protecting the historic resource. Michael said the discussion should be "is the proposal consistent with what is historic". Jay said the question to him is the new use of the historic site and if it is appropriate. Is it appropriate to put a dwelling on it for a family to live in? The big concern is the effect of having someone living on that property 24/7 and how that will affect the historical integrity of the cemetery itself. The public is also concerned. There is a need for the maintenance facility. Over 100 years the cemetery has been kept up very well and over the next 100 years how much more maintenance is actually going to be necessary to continue to keep it in the state that it is currently. The use of the land and preserving what we have now and how the use will change, and how that will effect preservation should be addressed. Ann pointed out that cemeteries become an important resource for communities. They reflect the cultural value and artistic talents and ethnic groups in the community. Red Butte seems unchanged for the last 100 years. It is important to keep that intact. In the west cemeteries, are disappearing rapidly. This cemetery has a definite pattern of landscape. Widdling away of parks is occurring in this valley and across the US. That is another threat to the historic use. The landscape has the beautiful cotton trees and sage meadows which would be impacted dramatically by building a large structure. We have this treasure in town and why not keep it as is, not modify it with this new development. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 Sarah said this is very difficult. In the pattern of development how is it foreseen to grow and how does the structure affect the historic nature of the property as a cemetery. If it is seen that the structure does not historically affect this as a cemetery then is the proposed structure in the appropriate location. There are two different issues, maintenance and housing and they should be separated. In the work session possibly the zoning wasn't picked up. Typically you have maintenance facilities in cemeteries; it is part of the function of the cemetery. Jay said the current zoning allows for a maintenance facility to be put on the property. Where it goes should be addressed and we also need to consider the residential component. Michael said the first question is whether amaintenance/residential structure appropriate for this particular parcel of land. Jay said they should be separated according to the zoning regulations. Michael asked what was considered when the property was designated and what is in the records. Sarah said we are being asked to accept change and to look into the future and this is a difficult position to be in. Ann said she sees this as the HPC is here to protect the historic resource and this development is inappropriate and detrimental to the cemetery. Michael also said he hears the City telling us that we need to help these people because the cemetery could fall into disrepair and would need further financial assistance. Those are values that should be considered as well. Conclusion: The board felt that the maintenance facility and the residence should be separated out. Alison said we can clearly see the necessity for the maintenance facility. They need the storage to keep the cemetery at the level of maintenance where it is at right now. We need to be imaginative and help find the best location for that portion of the program. It is interesting that the residential component would increase traffic. Brian agreed that the maintenance and housing component should be separated. The board needs more information in order to make a decision. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9.2008 Michael suggested that staff come back with the materials requested and that the board looks at the National Park Service criteria for historic landscapes and that we get good examples of other municipalities that have adopted guidelines and the board will meld everything together. Amy brought up the idea of adding onto the cabin to make a studio or one bedroom. Is that a direction that HPC is willing to look at? Alison said if you are going to restore the cabin then it seems that you could do more and add a bathroom and help alleviate having such a large structure on the north end. Jay said they are restoring the structure and it would make sense to give it a use. When you say caretaker unit I think of something very different than a two bedroom home. Graeme said that site is extremely constricted. The cabin is about 12 feet from the property line. There is a road right there and burial plots and a bank. It is so small that it wouldn't even work for an office. If you added a bathroom and bedroom you would overwhelm the historic cabin. You would also have setback issues. Amy said the inventory form will be brief and it was designated with a lump of other properties and there was no lengthy discussion. Council just accepted staff's recommendation that there was historic value. We can provide you with the Secretary of Interior's standards. Amy said she can research how other communities have dealt with something like this. Sarah suggested that the applicant show the proposed structure on the overall site plan. Sarah also asked the applicant to look at reducing the size of the residential unit and address the issue of traffic. Possibly look at the residential unit being at the entrance. Sarah also said she feels the proposed site is appropriate. In addition it was recommended that the applicant look at other historic cemeteries and how they deal with these issues. Amy reminded the board that this is the typical chain of events when you have a larger project that is multiple steps. Landmark sites always start at HPC. It doesn't make sense for the applicant to go to council to see if they can have a residential site when HPC and the guidelines might not tolerate a building of that size. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 Alan said the zoning for this property has been in place for 33 years and it was done in 1975. A lot of the zoning that was implemented in 1975 has been found to be faulty and has been changed. All the lodges up and down Main Street were zoned non-conforming and that was a mistake. It was rectified by the City in the 1980's and 90's. The Ute Cemetery is zoned public and Aspen Grove Cemetery is zoned R-15. John Tharp said Aspen is truly unique in our employee base problem. Because of the cost of real estate and housing it is a powerful incentive to keep a long term employee. MOTION: Brian moved to continue the public hearing on the Red Butte Cemetery until February 27`"; second by.Iay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City 15