Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.200809101 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order a~p,m. v Commissioners in attendance: Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin, Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton and Alison Agley. Nora Berko was excused. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Lift I -Conceptual Major Development Chris Bendon, Community Development Director presented Lift I. The two lodges are working on combining service deliveries and the project encompasses 8 acres at the base of Aspen Mountain. Exhibit I - aspenpitkin.com website Exhibit II - CD Exhibit III -Binder for Task Force Exhibit IV -Galen Bright -proposed diagram Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Nancy Culbrum from South Point stated is adamantly opposed to the project at Willoughby Park. It is the only park in that area left. This is a disservice to the community to move any buildings onto our open space. Susan O'Neal from South Point suggested that the ski museum not be at the lower end of the parcel but up higher on the side. It is important to maintain the open space. Galen Bright, task force member and resident of South Point suggested that the museum be placed slightly about the original ticket office and not obstruct South Point. High Hatcher also agreed with Galen's suggestion. Andre Kole, member of the task force invited the HPC to come to their meetings and ask questions etc. Sarah pointed out that at the last meeting HPC said Aspen Street should remain straight and not curved and the diagram does not indicate that. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 Jay said his concern is the placement of the museum in the parking lot and moving the lift is also a concern. Michael asked the board if the plan has a preservation of a sense of place through landscaping, grade change etc. Ann pointed out that the alignment of aspen Street should follow the city grid and there is too much vegetation. By eliminating the parking in that area it makes the site seem more private. The public amenity is the restaurant at the top. Alison said she feels the cabins could be used for museum employee housing. Jay said he is in agreement that the area is privatized and not welcoming the public. The area near the stairs needs revisited. Jay said he would prefer that the historic buildings remain on their current sites if at all possible. Brian also agreed that the grid should be maintained. The suggestion by Galen to move the museum by the Skier Chalet could work. The two relationships could energize the area. Sarah pointed out that the lift will be challenging. Parking under Willoughby Park is a good idea and that is what was previously approved by HPC. Alison said pushing the museum further south so that it is more proximate and leaving more open space on Dean Street may help preserve the open space. Chris Bendon said the plan is being pushed and pulled in many different ways. HPC is not the only audience and it is very important to understand where the HPC is even if it is outside your technical jurisdiction. There is a desire to definitely make this area a people place. MOTION: Jay moved to continue Lift I A conceptual development until Sept. 24; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. John Saraa said the task force spent a month just on the goals and a hug part of our goals focused on history and sense of space and how this area should ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 reflect it. Almost on one knows where the area is. The frustration I hear after hundreds of hours of discussion and experts from transportation and lifts. At the base of the site the circle area is not a parking turnaround, it's not needed for any garage in this scheme. It is a plaza and a place that is different to draw people in and get comfortable. We don't want this just to be a place for lodge guests we know if there isn't a good interaction with everybody then it is boring. We have asked the experts what we can do with this street to make it pedestrian friendly and inviting and easy to getup there. After looking at many alternatives it was determined that people wanted to look at this as a green experience and not a straight shot. That is how we have the slightly curved street away from the pedestrian area. We wanted to make the area interesting whether it is water, or escalators or little landings. The sidewalk is too narrow so the road was swung into our property to give the ability to make it more interesting visually and inviting. By pulling the road over slightly it created vitality. HPC might not like the outcome but we did have the same things in mind. It was very conscious in the group's minds. If the road is straight pedestrians will not go up the sidewalk. Bob Daniel represented the owners of the Skier Chalet lodge, skier chalet steakhouse and Lift I lodge. My only comment is that the elevation represents too much vegetation which can be altered. The vegetation represented a gesture of the pedestrian flow. Regarding the technical aspects of the prior approvals for Willoughby Park there was an original proposal whereby the Skier Chalet Lodge was set back. There was concern that if it didn't have street presence that this would become nowhere. So perhaps after the comments from Brian there is a reason to re-examine the approval of 2006. Also incorporated in that approval was a parking structure that had a plate underneath Willoughby Park which contemplated the removal of the base terminal for Lift I and the replacement of it. It is the responsibility of the developer and applicant to work with staff to make sure all the specific grades and orientations are replicated. The design for that at the conceptual level accounted for putting that back in its exact location and elevation. With the master plan we might have an opportunity to limit the impacts on the historic resources because working with the city in the cowop it gives the right-of--way as an option and perhaps taking some of the garage components and turning them 90 degrees. Andrew Kole, task force member comments that the group had set goals and within those goals there are a number of things; being true to the history, 24 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 hour access. My stake in this is that I am spending six months of my time and I want an outcome that is beneficial to the town. Retaining the volleyball courts has a number of benefits. One of the things the groups agonizes over is that it has to be accessible for everyone. Regarding the grade the street is all cement and difficult to look at. By providing the circle we have maintained the connection with the town. Just because it doesn't run up to the top of the mountain where nobody is going that we haven't retained that connection. Also the history of grids and roads where based over 100 years ago. If the argument is Aspen doesn't want to look like a city of Vail what better than to not have a straight grid road. Have something that is interesting to look at and is inviting to the public and enhances the accessibility to this project. If we wern't going to change things we would have a roundabout. We wouldn't have the one way on Galena and buildings wouldn't change at all. We took a 8 '/2 acre parcel and asked how we could make it better. I feel we did a great job and it was over debate, debate, debate. As a suggestion maybe the HPC could look through the minutes to see how we got to where we are today. Galen Bright thanks the HPC for reviewing his proposal. It would create a greater sense for arrival at the top of the steps if the museum where moved. Susan O'neal said aesthetically having the two Swiss cabins together, clustered, makes a lot of sense. We should have a fountain and a fire place for a gathering for people to bring pedestrians to the lower area. Bill Wiener, member of the task force. HPC brought up a point to maintain the historical grid pattern. It can be done very easily. If you abandon the street it goes away. If you vacate it the right-of--way is still there but it is not used. You can just close it to traffic and Gilbert Street can come in and you can have a pedestrian walkway where Gilbert Street is and line it up with the hotel. The same thing can happen with Juan Street, take it through and make it pedestrian only. Dave Stapleton from South Point. Willoughby Park should not be dense. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 Amy pointed out that this is the second review of this project under Ordinance #48 and a site visit occurred today. Everyone understands the process that the sites listed under ordinance #48 must go through a delay period before pursuing any kind of application that would potentially diminish the integrity of these resources that have been identified. `That is the situation we are in right now. The property owners have proposed a remodel which staff believes would threaten the integrity of this potential historic resource. We have 90 days to be a negotiation process with the owners to determine if there is any other alternative that the City could offer. HPC need to let council know what they think the quality of the resource is. Staff has identified it has a potential resource. We do mention in the memo that our hope is to go to City Council Sept. 22"d. At the last meeting the board was not ready to make any kind of decision because we had not provided you with enough information about the history of the building and its integrity. We have provided you with that information in your packets. This property is in the group of modern chalet and it has features that are significant to the chalet style primarily the low long roof line. This style became integrated with some of the architectural trends that where happening on modern structures where glazing was much more dominant on the facades and the original gingerbread details where removed and details are much cleaner. Other structures are pictured in the memo and this pattern was very common in Aspen in the 50's and 60's. In terms of the architectural style that is how we address this building. There is nothing in the building department file for this site except an electric permit pulled in the 90's. Information from the Assessor's office is in the packet and we where able to locate the original architect Ellen Harland. Part of the difficult dealing with post war resources is the varieties and issues like who is the architect become more significant and the records are simply not in place. Even with Fritz Benedict we have not been able to get a handle on his full body of work. We where already aware of Ellen Harland who practiced architecture in Aspen. Ellen was contact and told the story of her arrival in Aspen. She was able to attend MIT as an architecture student in the mid 1950's probably in the extreme minority of women. She and Ellie Brickam where the only women architects for some period. She came to Denver for a change of scenery and to Aspen on the weekends and was aware of Fritz Benedict. Fritz interviewed her and hired her and offered to help move her to Aspen. She and Robin Molney where Fritz's draftsman. She worked for him for 20 years and she described a number of buildings that she was involved with; the 1960 public library on Main Street which is Design Workshop now. She produced a lot of the detailing on buildings that we 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10.2008 have given recognition too. Ellen said this building we are reviewing was her personal residence and it was built between 1958 and 1960, the portion that is in the center of the lot and to the back of the existing house. That is supported by some of the records in the assessor's office. In 1964 she designed and built the portion that is right on Waters Avenue. I believe some time after that she sold the residence to the Davis family, Ki and John Davis. Ki Davis was a noted poet and artist and she did the sculpture on the Hyman mall. The Writers foundation has an award named in her honor. It was not the Davis family's original residence. There have been some modifications made to the house over time. On the front portion the building has been extended with an additional enclosed space and there are a number of small bump outs here and there. Gretchen Greenwood mentioned that the original portion of the house has been filled in under an eave line so there are definitely some alternations. How substantial those are is what HPC needs to determine and recommend to council. We did not fill out an integrity assessment form as mentioned in the staff memo. The modern chalet style was really not something that we discussed in 2002 when we wrote the historic context papers and the integrity assessment forms that we have in place now. It is really something that has developed more as several years have progressed and we have done more intensive surveying and have worked more on ordinance 30 and 48 so we don't have a scoring form and we didn't think it was important to suddenly create one now. We'll just rely on the records we have on the history of the building and determine if you still think it has architectural integrity. In the memo we tried to detail some of the currently existing benefits that would be available to the property for instance the expansion that would meet HPC criteria could be exempted from impact fees. There could be variances granted as needed. The building already has some encroachments into setbacks which is problematic in terms of expanding. We mention that the property size only allows for a single family house and there is possibly a duplex on the site and that is not allowed and there is no evidence that is a legal use but landmarks are allowed to have a duplex and that might be some incentive to work with if a duplex is something they want to have. There is also the floor area bonus and TDR's. Council might come up with other incentives because they have flexibility with ordinance #48. We are hoping some kind of recommendation can be made to Council. We do think this is a good example of modern chalet and the connection to Ellen Harland is important and with even more research we can document other structures of hers in town. We do know that there are some on Waters Ave. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10.2008 Gretchen Greenwood represented the owners Nancy Bryant and Chris Leverich. This is a new process for HPC and the applicants. It is difficult to understand or create a presentation with not knowing what the city or HPC is trying to do here. The house has been added onto a number of times and has been pushed out through the years from 1960 through 1974. In most cases with HPC that would effect its landmark status. Another thing about this property is that it is no secret that the owners are adamant about not being on an historic resource list both for reasons of not going through the process. Perhaps we can have some discussion as to what this negotiation is about. What are you offering the owners. You have to understand that most people look at their properties in terms of their best and fullest use. This property has about seven foot plate heights and it rises to about ten to eleven feet and it pretty much sits on the entire property casqued, so it has issues with current designs rules, standards and regulations but it also really in its present form takes up the entire property. In terms of review it would be difficult to create anything but what currently exists. It is not charming on the inside and has no energy. It is a split level and has been added onto in an unprofessional way regardless of what this architect did. She created a 900 square foot house and it has doubled in size and has five different levels in it. It is not worthy of something in terms of preservation. I have known the owners for 30 years and we pretty much want to keep the same form because the house would probably be torn down so we just went up on Waters Ave., the newest addition on the front part and went straight up. The addition that is being proposed we are going in front of Planning and Zoning only for design rules and regulations is because it has non orthogonal type of windows on it and the new addition doesn't face perpendicular to the street. These are all solvable problems. We are not expanding the non-conforming of the addition and we are staying within our setbacks. The design regulations are really designed for Victorian west end type house and not created for buildings like this. In my opinion this building is not an expandable building and it would be a difficult process and it would reduce the value of the property considerably. They are not developers. We should have a discuss what you offer people who really have a building that can't be added onto. You can't do anything with this building. Michael asked the owners if they had any interest in the potential benefits listed in the memo. Chris Leverich said he did not recognize them as benefits and may HPC can explain why they are benefits. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 Amy said HPC role is to recommend to council what they thing the value of the preservation of the building is. HPC is not the board that will be getting into a dialogue about incentives that are existing or new incentives that council could come up with that are relevant. The intention in creating this negotiation period was to allow time for everyone to stop and talk about the value to the community as a whole and how can we come to a solution that works for everyone. Ultimately their permits will be issued assuming they comply with zoning and other regulations. This is a delay period but they ultimately can do the project that they want to do. We are just trying to have a chance to talk before something is lost. HPC is to make a recommendation to council. Jay asked if council could designate this property. Amy explained that designation can't occur without the owners consent. Ann said what we would be doing is recommending or not recommending that council try to negotiate the property. Amy said no matter what we still need to go to council and they can decide what to do. Amy addressed the benefits; anyone that adds bedrooms they are assessed a fee that is used to offset impacts in the community and in this case park. The fee that would be waived would be $14,781 for three bedrooms if the applicant worked with HPC and come up with a design that conformed to the guidelines. Variances are available. Gretchen said the house sits on the site and has a site reduction in FAR because of slope analysis. That would be at the southeast part of the property. There isn't really a lot of room to move around on this property because it is so large. I only say that from an architect's standpoint. Ton the older building the windows, floor etc. have been changed. It is a difficult structure to say this is a great pristine building. You can't add onto it and that is my professional opinion. Nancy and Chris aren't developers and are trying to keep the building in the family. Going through the HPC process is almost impossible. Amy went through the rest of the incentives. Part of the negotiation is too possibly find someway to add on that did less damage to the building. Gretchen pointed out about the site and when you have a site that has certain slopes to you certain FAR is taken away from you. Council could give it 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10.2008 back to you and you could sell it as TDR's because it can't be carried on the site. Gretchen pointed out that we aren't proposing to go to the total FAR with the slope reduction at this point. Amy pointed out as an historic landmark you have the ability to not just give up and sacrifice that square footage but you might be able to sell it and get cash for it. There is also a 500 square foot bonus for landmarks. The most obvious is the legalization of the duplex if in fact that is a zoning violation on the property. Chris Leverich said he finds it ironic because his property has been picked because there are other house on the street and one of them in particular would love to be designated, Georgeann Waggaman's. We both have lived here for a long time and it was 20 years before I was able to buy a house when we bought this house. I like my house and I would like to do what I can do to make my house comfortable for my wife and myself. It was built cheap when it was built. I talked to Ellen Harland and she said she built the original house for $10,600. and then she added on and had her husband do the work. Ellen also said Fritz would roll over in his grave if he thought this was something that was judged as an architectural monument because it has been added onto. Georgeann's house is the same thing. Nancy Bryant said we barely have three bedrooms, two of the bedrooms are called the cell. We have twelve of us in the family and it is a hardship for us when everyone comes. Our grandchildren are here to stay and they aren't going away. It is not a duplex. We have one little kitchen upstairs. Jay clarified that the new process allows for different incentives. Jay asked the applicants to look at the property in a different light knowing that some of the rules might be able to be broken if we recommend this property to be preserved. Gretchen said it is much more complicated than that. Frankly it is a financial burden. Going through an HPC process as we know is very difficult and lengthy and extremely expensive. If this property was a small chalet and you could isolate it that would different. This particular property doesn't follow the standards that HPC has come up with. The burden of this particular property, on this particular building and in this location within 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10.2008 walking distance to the gondola could never be realized. HPC and City Council have to come to terms with certain properties where it is a real takings of the value of the property. That has to be discussed and brought up. This building may stay forever like this. We are doing an interim solution where they want a bedroom away from their grandkids. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman asked for public comments. Jack Wilkie said he was here at the last meeting and his main issue was that the chair asked staff for an integrity assessment for modern chalets as it might apply to their unit. I have a modem chalet and I wanted to know what the integrity assessment is for modern chalets. Amy said we created the integrity scoring in 2002 when we re-wrote the whole preservation program. Jack said Michael asked for a modern chalet assessment and that is why I am annoyed because I have one and there are only six or eight of us. They are all different except mine which is alook-a-like to the neighbors. If you look at them all there is no common thread that runs through them. That is the frustration. I am looking for information and I don't get it. Alison said she believe staff is waiting until the task force is finished. Amy said in the memo we did provide information in the memo trying to create that thread of showing other examples of buildings and what we think the influences are. We have not written a context paper in the depth that the other three styles have and we have not done an integrity assessment form because in 2002 we where not discussing this style and we didn't think it was appropriate to suddenly write one up now with no other involvement from any other parties. It is something that will come out of the task force. Gretchen said she has been watching the task force on TV and there will be buildings that are worthy of designation and there will be buildings that you will be having problems with and unfortunately this property is on. This is a financial situation with the value of this large property right near the gondola. It has no parking and an inadequate garage. It doesn't serve Aspen needs. I appreciate HPC and I have seen it come a long way. I see these buildings difficult to preserve. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 Michael said at our last meeting Ann said criteria should be predictable, understandable and defensible. Michael said how can we recommend to council when we don't have criteria. We probably have enough if we strongly feel this should be designated. Amy pointed out that we do have criteria in place, association with people, trends, and historical events. What you maybe feel you are lacking are the tool to judge how well the standards are met. Ann asked if this goes to council and we recommend negotiation to come up with a design that we felt was more sympathetic to the building what kind of process are we talking about. Amy said with ordinance #48 it opens up a lot of flexibility and possibly council might want to create a quickly simpler process for the design. Jay pointed out that the architect is significant and previous owners Ki and John Davis. The house has its history of strong blood lines. That warrants that there might be a great opportunity for the applicant and the City to come to an agreement to designate the structure. Alison said the house is not a good example of a chalet. It has the low slung roof and lacks balconies. I am not sure I would be proud to have this house on our historic list. The applicants need to understand all the incentives. Brian said he agrees with Alison. The most significant thing is its orientation. It is lacking some defining characteristics that we wanted preserved. The house doesn't quite measure up. We need to back up ordinance #48 and it needs to be a good example and this house is not. Sarah said she understands staff's concerns. This property is not a good example of modern chalet and she would not recommend land marking it to city council. Ann said this is a great example of a transition from chalet to a modern style. There are not many of these houses left in town. I feel it ought to be recommended to city council. In twenty years these properties might be like the Victorians. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 Michael said he feels this property is defensible. MOTION: Ann made the motion to recommend to City Council to continue negotiations for the preservation of this property; second by Jay. Roll call vote: Alison, no; Brian, no; Jay, yes; Ann, yes; Sarah, no; Michael, yes. Vote 3-3. Michael pointed out that there is not a majority of members that endorses this. 204 N. Monarch -Final MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 204 N. Monarch until Oct. 8`"; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Brian moved to adjourn; second by Alison, All in favor, motion carried. Meeting Adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12