HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19740904 Study Session Aspen City Council September 4, 1974
This was a joint meeting with Council, P & Z and the Historic Preservation Committee and
the following people were present: Ramona Markalunas, Jack Walls, Stacy Standley, Jim
Breasted, Jennifer Pederson, Chick Collins, Jack Jenkins, Robert Barnard, Spencer Schiffer,
Lary Groen, Judy Ferrenberg, Norm Burns, Florence Glidden and City Attorney Sandra Stuller,
City/County Planner John Stanford and City Manager Dr. Philip Mahoney.
John Stanford:
The City/County Planner summarized all that had occurred since the HPC had been created.
He mentioned the opposition felt at the Public Hearing simply because there was no criteria
to follow so the HPC did an inventory of existing buildings considered indigenous to the
area and rated them "exceptional", etc, according to the materials used, size or massing
of the buildings and land use of those buildings and came up with criteria that are both
workable for architects and yet in keeping with the historic buildings around them.
Stanford stated that the main intent was to protect the area of historic character so that
they maintain their siginficiance through street landscaping, promoting visual unity along
building facades that enclose pedestrian spaces such as the mall, link the topographical
areas such as the Rio Grande land with the Little Nell lift and Rubey parking lot, and
maintain the"green" areas plus promoting architectural cohesiveness in the construction of
new buildings from the vacant lots.
Judy Ferrenberg
The Chairman of the HPC reiterated the fact that the criteria had been developed from the
HPC's needing to know what to base criteria on and that the only objection heard at the
Public Hearing was that there were no criteria to go on. She felt that since powers had
been granted to the HPC, it should be followed up with criteria so that architects have
something to go on.
Jack Walls
Mentioned that he had shown the criteria to three architectural firms for some feedback
and that the overwhelming opinion was that the criteria would make "new" old buildings.
Norm Burns and Lary Groen - Criteria
Went over the criteria and explained them in detail. The seven items are as follows: New
Construction or remodeling shall not extend for more than three town lots (90' by 100')
without an alteration of at least 8 feet in the front setback line of the building facade
which is parallel to the alley.
Building roofs of the new construction ore remodeling shall not exceed three town lots
without an alteration in the form and/or height as it relates to the front setback.
These roofs shall be flat, gable or hip. Established local historic variation shall be
reviewed.
Explosed side and rear elevations shall be of identical materials as the front facade or
of a color or material analogous to the front facade. Any street or mall facade shall be
considered a front facade.
Building materials other than brick, cut stone or clapboard siding shall be of a nature and
texture not to detract from the significance and character of the historic buildings within
the district.
Hip or gabled roofs shall be standing rib sheet metal, wood or composition shingles, or
suitable facsimile thereof. Other materials shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation
Committee.
Fenestrations above the first floor shall be greater in vertical dimensions than horizontal
Building details, if used, shall be oriented to fenestrations, corners, roof lines and at
floor levels.
No new construction or remodeling shall have exposed structural skeletal elements other tha
load bearing walls.
Porches and stoops shall not exceed 20 feet along any facade. Balconies shall not project
beyond the building facade.
Painted front facades shall not exceed 90 feet without a color or textured alteration.
Colors, values, intensity and color placement, being considered a valid controversial
artistic embellishment and having an intimate relationship to all the foregoing criteria,
shall be subject to review by the Historic Preservation Committee.
As examples of what would be considered to fit the criteria would be the new RBH building
in which the architects have been able to come up with a perfectly m~dern design that fits
in with the historic area. But the proposed Marcus building would not be approved because
of the hanging gardens and the balconies which will not fit in with the Galena Street
historical buildings.
Jack Walls
Mentioned that architects thought that there was no flexibility, that the critieria would
lead to an "open door" or "Disneyland" effect and that they disagreed with legislating
taste. He suggested that the HPC should be involved with old buildings only and that a
Fine Arts Committee be made up with architects and other craftsmen.
Sandra Stuller
Stated that the wording had purposely been made vague in the Resolution for~he~adQpt~n 6f ~
the criteria so that there was flexibility in them. She further stated that other communi-
ties were deliberately keeping the wording vague.
Jim Moran Iq
Questioned government's role in telling the public what their taste is.
Walls
Again noted the apparent inflexibility of the criteri~ and that the architect had no way
of knowing that he could deviate in any way from the old buildings.
Stanford
Suggested that a preface be inserted in the criteria explaining that the criteria are
guidelines only. Also suggested that the HPC meet with local architects to get their feelil s
after explaining the reasons behind the criteria.
Ferrenberg
Questioned what the Council wanted to do now: Did they want an HPC for new construction as
they had originally voted or what? Did they want criteria?
R~cording Se~-~etar~