Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20080924ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 Contents Lift I -Conceptual Review ................................................................................................. 2 135 W. Hopkins Ave. -Substantial amendment .............................................................. 10 210 W. Francis Ordinance 348 negotiations ..................................................................... 11 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 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 Review Chris Bendon and Travis Coggin presented a power point on Lift I. Sara pointed out that there have been some major changes to the project. A poma lift parallel to Lift I has been suggested and a product of that change is the relocation of the steak house and Deep Powder cabins further up the mountain as part of the Aspen Skiing Company operation. Staff is in favor of activating the corridor and having an animated experience around the historic lift. Staff is curious to see what type of physical impacts the poma would have; where would the towers go. We just need to make sure it doesn't conflict with the historic structure. Steak house: The existing context around the steak house has changed. The Holland house is gone. There is a strong relationship of the steak house to the original lift, the ticket booth and the spacing of those structures and also the relationship to the mountain and South Aspen Street. There has been a loss of integrity to the site by moving yet another building. Staff does not find that the criteria for relocation has been met and recommend that the steak house not be moved. The skier chalet lodge is still being proposed to move down the hill towards Dean St. and convert it to a museum. The proposed location is similar to what was approved in 2006 except that it has been shifted over to the east. Before there was a parking garage and that has been omitted. Now that the lodge has been shifted over further it creates more of a green space which is a great idea. Staff would like the board to discuss the 30 foot setback. Is it a positive or a negative. Another proposal for the lodge that was mention is to keep it in alignment with the skier chalet steak house. In looking at that 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 proposal in more depth the grading issues are pretty severe. They would have to sink the first floor creating a garden level and staff doesn't feel that is appropriate. It also creates an imbalance of historic structures on one side of the park. The Ski Club width of the building in the 1955 photograph should be preserved. There was an addition that was just tacked onto the back. The window opening closely matches the photograph. The 1955 size and integrity are there and it could be restored. Deep Powder cabins: There is a proposal to integrate them on top of Aspen mountain. Staff feels it would be an exciting idea to interact them as warming huts or a ticket office. The Skier chalet lodge has a pool house that sits near the pool. Because this is part of the ordinance #48 review we feel the smaller building is of the same significance and style and we recommend that both buildings be moved down the site. Stephen Holly, from Poss architecture. Stephen presented a power point. We are here as a COWOP due to the number of property owners and people involved. The Ski Company, Roaring Fork Lodging Company, Centurion and the City of Aspen. The COWOP is consensus driven and an open process. There are 27 members. The end product might not be the ultimate dream of every person but it is a method for compromise and drives what ends up to be a total benefit for the City of Aspen and land owners. We will concentrate tonight on the entire property context in order for the HPC to understand what the total picture is. This area at one time was the only lift access. The COWOP concentrated on historic goals, accessibility, sustainability and vitality. Chris Bendon said the collision of reality gives vision. At the last meeting councilman, Dwayne Romero suggested that we try to use the original Lift I apparatus. It was determined that the alignment could be reactivated with a poma lift which fits with the goals and aspirations. Use and activity is to remain around the project. Stephen Holly: The existing conditions have random and run down structures, over grown foliage and vegetation and falling down fences. The site presently is unwelcoming. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 Site planning: Historically the lift is designated, Skier Chalet steak house, Skier Chalet lodge and several out buildings and the ticket office. We want to make the area an access so that it is a four season event. In the long range plan Dean Street would become pedestrian and link to the gondola and hopefully the Lift I. The site plan assembles buildings on top, a poma lift through the corridor and one small bridge across the two buildings. The poma lift lands next to the old Lift IA. HPC prioritized their points at the last meeting. 1. Lift One 2. Skier Chalet steak house 3. Skier Chalet lodge 4. Accessory structures a. Ticket office b. Out buildings c. Deep Powder cabins Through the site plan we are trying to get preservation through activation of the assets which are traditional uses. The site plan has a turnaround on the site with a drop off area. That area also acts as a staging area for the winter races. Vitality is created through use. The lodge would be brought down to Willoughby Park. The Skier chalet steak house moves down 80 feet and will somewhat be a local "watering hole". The ticket building is in disarray and research is being done to see if there is any integrity left in the building. An addition is proposed for the steak house. The goal is to revitalize the Lift I area. The skier chalet lodge becomes the museum. The Deep Powder cabins are not incorporated in the site. Possibly the Skiing Company will be able to incorporate them. The poma will be parallel to the Lift one towers. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Leon Feld addressed the volley ball courts. The courts could be integrated with this proposal. The park needs to be an historic park plus an active park during the summer. The Bright proposal isn't half bad. The Ski museum should be incorporated with the ticket office. The community uses the courts all year long. The Mother Lode event has been going on for 37 years. To move the courts will create traffic to get to those areas and take away the spectator like appeal. My hope is that you will take a good close look as to how to preserve the courts which are a long standing tradition. Many of the players wanted to come to this meeting. If you cannot maintain the courts it 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 should be in writing that the developers will replace the courts in a timely fashion and in a convenient like position. Mary Janz, task force representative. One of the best things about putting the poma lift up the corridor it really eliminates most of the traffic that would have gone up Aspen Street. The Roaring Fork Lodging Company had made great sacrifices in order for this to happen. Cliff Weiss, P&Z representative on the COWOP. Originally I had concerns about the Skier Chalet restaurant until one of the presenters made the comment that the eight acres will be different after the redevelopment and you will be hard pressed to remember where it was. The movement is not so great that it will be totally disoriented. Alan Harvey, task force representative. We went over backward to find a plan that works. Alison Agley was great keeping us focused on the historic structures. I'm excited that the corridor is here. It is important to have access on this side of the mountain and this plan restores the lift. Mary Ann Meyer, task force member. My office was the ticket office for four years when I was the world cup coordinator. Memories of sense of place where the Skier Chalet steak house which was the hub for apres skiing. We have come so far and designed a sense of place that has twelve months and preserves the history. Jasmine Depactor, task force member. There is a wonderful opportunity to move the Skier Chalet Steak house down to have the context with the lodge. It is a great opportunity for HPC to show some flexibility with these Post War buildings. Galen Bright, task force member. In the last two weeks a lot of things have happened with bringing the skier access up and down that area. Twenty members approved the new design. Chris Bendon: You need to experience the historic buildings like the Hotel Jerome. The context around the Skier Chalet building is changing significantly. The street is changing and skiing back down is a fundamental change. The museum and lodging are changes that are incorporated into the site. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 Bill Wiener, task force member. Bill practiced architect for 40 years. Bill asked that the HPC have some flexibility and to leave the location of the museum steak house free to move as the plan gets fully developed. The museum is a building that you need to walk all the way around. Adopt that the museum go in the park and leave issues up to the architects to come up with better solutions. Andrew Kole, task force member. There is a difference between historic character and history. I believe that if the museum could be incorporated possibly in a new building with the steak house into the corridor and leaving the volley ball courts where they are is a better plan for the site. If the museum is in the corner it won't generate a lot of traffic. Assuming that doesn't happen I am in favor of moving the steak house down. Georgia Hanson, member of the COWOP. This plan is exciting because everything is connected. It is the circle of vitality. Toni Kronberg recommended that the application be continued to Oct. 8th. If some of the buildings have to be moved HP C has the jurisdiction to do so. Buildings need to be moved around to accommodate everything. The Deep Powder cabins going up the hill is appropriate. I want to bring attention to the original approvals for Willoughby Park which included the components of the volley ball courts and the grove of trees. It states that in certain applications things might have to be moved around. The poma lift improves the access coming down but it will only be open three months out of the year. When the lift is not in operation how are the people going to get up and down the hill. Bob Daniel, member of task force and represented the property owners for the Skier Chalet lodge and Skier Chalet steak house. The plan was encumbered previously by having a garage access under Willoughby Park which created a podium in terms of propping up the Skier Chalet lodge further back. The concern was that there was not a sense of place on Dean Street without that building being pushed forward. The enlargement of the ticket booth helps make a sense of place. Our original proposal was to have the Skier Chalet lodge steak house all affordable housing as part of the reuse of that structure. Through the COWOP process it was determined that we needed a local feel in this neighborhood. Our focus is to create a place for people to be and we feel this plan represents that. We implore you to look on this favorably. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 Exhibit I -Letter from Telemark Apartment Association. Sara said the letter requests that the skier chalet building be placed near the North West corner of the property adjacent to Dean and Aspen street. Any building being placed in the park be a maximum of two stories. If underground parking is included access should be from Aspen or Dean Street. Exhaust fans etc. should be placed on the Aspen Street side. They also oppose any employee housing on Willoughby Park. Sara said HPC can give clear guidance on the bullet points to the applicant but staff is recommending continuation. HPC needs to weigh the trade offs. Jim True said HPC should give as much information to the task force as possible. Discussion: Michael said the most important decision is the relocation of the buildings and the appropriateness of the poma lift. Ann inquired about the volley ball courts and if any previous discussion had occurred. Bob Daniel said in 2006 the conceptual approval was a requirement by HPC to commit for the replacement of the courts. At P&Z we never got conceptual with the same requirement due to the COWOP process. We have been working with the Parks Department and whether that is to the satisfaction of Mr. Feld I cannot speak. It is a condition of approval to work with Parks for the replacement of the courts but not on this site. Poma to the historic lift I. Brian said he is in support of it especially from the alignment to Aspen Street. This is a process of give and take and this will do a lot to bring the epicenter down to a place where people want to be. Ann commended the COWOP team for doing a great job. The poma is a representative combination of what was there and the poma lift is terrific especially along the alignment of Lift I. It is accessible from the drop off point. This plan is much more pedestrian friendly. Jay inquired about the three month operation. Bob Daniel said it will be operational for the ski season. If no one is going up the mountain the lift 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 will not run. The time has not been defined. It is not a continuous loop. Jay said he supports the poma 100% . Alison said you can remove the platters from the poma lift in the summer and there will be hiking and biking trails. Sarah said she is in total support of the entire plan. Michael said the idea of the poma is great. We need to see something as to whether it is distracting from the historic Lift I towers and cabling. Brian and Sarah said the poma base should be moved upward so that it is not perceived as the backdrop of Lift I. . Relocation of the Skier Chalet steak house and the ancillary building being the pool house. Brian said in order for the project to financially work the steak house needs to be relocated. Bob Daniels said through discussions of the COWOP the new location created a greater sense of space.and vitality around the lift. From a programmatic situation if this where to stay in its existing location our buildings would have to be taller in order to accommodate it. Alison said by bringing the steak house down it energized the lower corridor. The plan finally made sense with the steak house moving down and there are numerous benefits to the community. Jay said he is struggling with moving the steak house but sees the trade offs. I need to see how the north side of the hotel interacts with the steak house. Michael said in this case relocation is an acceptable means of preservation so long as the historically and architecturally relationship is established between the lodge and steak house. Brian said moving of an historic structure should not be taken lightly. If we can demonstrate that this will create a better environment by doing it then it can be supported. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 Ann said this is a good strategy for preserving historic character. Jay commented on the Willoughby Park volley ball courts. Jay said he goes to the park five days a week and has only seen people there two or three times. He supports moving of the lodge to the newly proposed position. Michael said the detail of the outhouse and buildings needs to be drawn out. Brian said there needs to be a condition and specific criteria for the relocation of the volley ball courts. Deep Powder cabins Sara said the cabins where a condition from the Limelight to locate them to Willoughby Park until a permanent spot is found. Bob Daniels said we have had a brief discussion with the Skiing Company to see if they can incorporate the cabins on the mountain. Possibly they could be used as a lift shack or for a picnic area. With the addition of the poma lift the site is too tight to handle the Deep Powder cabins. Michael said he agrees with the applicant that this site is not appropriate for the cabins but he is not sure about Aspen Mountain. Sarah said she would like to see the site in three dimensions. Alison said at the end of the COWOP meeting it was determined that they needed to focus on the west side of the mountain. Overall site plan: Jay said he .feels the COWOP should move forward with what they have presented. Alison said one of the questions was why did we go off the grid. The road is bent to help bring the Lift I lodge onto part of Aspen Street so that they have enough room to open the corridor. Bob Daniels said the two buildings will create the "frame". Ann commented, with the poma down at the base the area becomes more public. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 Michael said he is yielding to the overall COWOP regarding the site plan. MOTION: Jay moved to continue Lift I to October 8`h; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 135 W. Hopkins Ave. -Substantial amendment Public notice -Exhibit I Elevation -Exhibit II Sara said the property is on the corner of Hopkins and South First Street. The property was approved to do a small addition to the one-story Victorian and a detached single family home that is accessed off South First Street. This is all on one lot. The ,request is to change part of the roof form of the new house to a gable. It was originally approved for a mansard roof that mimicked the historic resource. The proposal approved by HPC was over the height limit. If they change the roof to a gable it will be within the height limit. Staff is in favor of the roof form because it simplifies everything. They are also requesting approval to change a door to a window on the north elevation. At final staff and monitor where to approve a railing for the new house. The proposed railing presented tonight creates a better space on the north elevation and staff is in favor of the railing. Gretchen Greenwood, architect said we decided to lower the plate height a foot in order to make the change. The perceived height will come down which is a benefit to the project. After approval the owner wanted the kitchen toward the street. Sarah suggested taking out the bay window and making it a simple window on the north elevation. It has been a helpful process working with staff. David Polich said this is.the last step and we would like to keep moving forward. We have one step with the zoning officer before we can proceed. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Roof, window and railing. Ann said the new roof form distinguishes the new construction from the old appropriately. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 Sarah said the change from the door to a window is appropriate and also the railing. MOTION: Brian moved to approve resolution #21 for a substantial amendment to Resolution #38, 2007. The property is located135 W. Hopkins Lot A. The conditions of approval are stated by staff in her memo and Exhibit II as submitted tonight; motion second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. 210 W. Francis Ordinance 348 negotiations Amy said the structure is a pan-a-bode structure and falls under Ordinance #48. Anyone who owns a property under Ordinance #48 has a few channels they can go through. This has come before us as a negotiation and is basically a 90 day delay period. At the end, if council doesn't extend it they will be able to issue their demolition permit. Your role is to give council a sense as to how historically you think this building is. The pan-a-bode was built in 1965. They were very popular and economical to build in the 50's and 60's. Les Holst's father was a representative for the pan-a-bode company for many years. He sold this building the McHarry family in 1965. I was able to locate their daughter and Gwendolyn, the wife is still living and is 95 years old. The daughter wrote a letter and stated that they loved to ski and they stayed at several hotels in town. One was owned by a man named Guss Hallam who owned the Deep Powder lodge where her parents came during the 50's in Aspen. It had a log cabin on the grounds. It sold and condos where built on the site. After going to Aspen for many years they bought the lot on West Francis and spent winters there. It was a vacation house. Pan-a-bodes where economical and Jack Holst built this one. It certainly was not a notable house. Her father was asemi-retired attorney and taught skiing under Stein Eickson. They were very fond of Aspen and probably wouldn't recognize it today. The family now lives in Carmel and are struggling with the same growth problems that we are here. The statements in the letter certainly support the discussions we have had in our context paper hat pan-a-bodes played an important role in early vacation houses. It was a style of building that was very popular and common in Aspen at that time period. We find that the building was an important rend in town at that time. The memo discusses alterations. The integrity assessment score was applied to this property and we felt that it merited 83 out of 100 points. The 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 minimum for designation is 75 points. There have been changes to the building; all the windows have been changed on the front of the building, they have been enlarged. There are skylights on the roof and the building has been painted. Staff feels the changes have not deterred the integrity. It is a rather large pan-a-bode and takes up most of the lot. There is no significant addition to it. A car port has been enclosed and the porch has been enclosed. The understanding that it is a pan-a-bode structure is completely coherent and for that reason staff finds that the building has integrity. Some of the benefits are for redevelopment but the Tobin's don't really want to do that because they are satisfied with the house as it is. If the parcel is landmarked instead of having a single family home it could have a duplex... The one thing that is an exciting opportunity is that the Tobin's own the lot to the west. It has a modest 1950's house on it. Staff looked at that house and it was determined that it did not have any architectural merit to it. That property has open area and perhaps some of the incentives from this site could be transferred to the other. Joan Tobin, owner said her family also ownes the property next door. Her long term interest in the two properties are for her children. She is open minded by it is very hard to figure out how her children's interest are going to be served by being told that this house is going to have to stay the way it is in perpetuity. Joan said her concern is that things may be discussed and then changed in two years from now. Other concerns are how does it get locked in? Can we make the agreement run with the land? Can it be part of a permanent deed? Are there endless processes that she has to go through? Kim Raymond represented the owner: Kim said the pan-a-bode takes up most of the lot so you can't do much such as a lot split or move it over. Part of the concern is with it being historically designated the owner would like assurances that the value of her property is still maintained twenty years down the road. Staff said some of the benefits from 210 could be applied to 212. If the HPC wants to save this resource we are willing to find out what we can do so that Joan is happy, her children protected and the city gets to keep the resource. We don't feel comfortable land marking this one house but we don't know because of the design criteria and the H PC guidelines what we could actually do with this building. At what point do we need to come up with a new design for this property even if the owner doesn't want to do anything for fifteen years. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 Joan said a lot of the benefits discussed increase your square footage but don't help the aesthetics. Jim said Ordinance #48 is difficult to get a grasp around. We are looking for some direction from the HPC as to the value of preservation. Council would ultimately end up approving the negotiations. The owner and the city could come up with something that could be fashioned in a manner that was comfortable for the owner if the owner wishes to do it. HPC needs to say to the council this house is worth using city resources to preserve. Here there seems to be some alternatives. Brian pointed out that this is a new process for the HPC. Amy said HPC's expertise is about the architectural history of the building. Council can offer anything that they feel is appropriate under the circumstances and there probably needs to be something binding. If we bind the landowner by designation then council needs to bind the agreement in return. Brian said council has a lot of flexibility even to the extent of extending vested rights. Kim asked if the agreement could be bound with the property. Jim said council has a lot of authority under Ordinance #48. Joan Tobin said she doesn't know if HPC feels this house is worth the trouble or not. Alison said Joan submitted a demo permit. Alison asked Joan if she intended to demo now or in the future. Joan said her problem is simple. She did not set out to touch these houses. She suddenly discovered she was on the list. The reason we have had these houses for the last 25 years is for our children. There are two lots, two houses. The houses in real estate terms have no value. The difference is I am not trying to build a huge amount of square footage which I can then turn around and sell one off or maximize the square footage on the lot. I need to be able to know my children have some flexibility and retain their property values so that they can grow. Because 210 covers most of the lot it makes that the options are much more limited even if the options where aesthetically pleasing. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 Alison said it is somewhat difficult for the property owner because the task force has not been resolved and Ordinance #48 kind of has an unlimited time frame to it. When people start investigating sometimes it opens a can of worms because the future merits of the site could change with the different ideas coming from the Historic Preservation Task Force. Brian brought up vested rights. Could there be an assurance that the owner could receive that any approval that comes forward in the next couple of years by the HPC could actually remain through an extended time period no matter what happens to the code. Amy said if a demolition permit is filed they have approximately six months to take some kind of action. They also can ask for an extension. If the demolition permit expires and we adopt a mandatory designation of pan-a- bodes they would be subject to it. Michael asked the HPC members if there is integrity in this house and the importance of this house as a pan-a-bode. Ann said this is not a great example of a pan-a-bode compared to other pan- a-bodes in town. It is painted white, large picture windows and the door being double sized. The additions are done very well and you can't tell where the original house is. Kim Raymond clarified that the carport was a garage and part of the pan-a- body and they just took out the garage door on the back. Ann said the changes are integrated so well that it reduces its value as an historic resource. That said all the changes are reversible. If it was designated and the owner reversed the changes and added incentives from City Council that would be great. As is, I do not see this as a wonderful example of a pan-a-bode. Brian said as a structure it clearly defines itself as apan-a-bode. The scale of the house in a neighborhood that is changing and it is important to have that historic scale in the West End community. Sarah said the scale goes along with the structure but we are here to discuss the alterations which are reversible and we could get back to the original 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 pan-a-bode fairly easy. I do not know if this is something worthy of taking that step to get back to the original example of a pan-a-bode. Alison said as an architect it could be quite an exciting project to take the pan-a-bode back to its original form and use the lot on the side and take the incentives and create an interesting project. It takes an owner wanting to participate in that. Alison asked the owner if she wanted to change anything on the house. Joan said she had no intention of touching the house. She pulled the demolition permit for two reasons; it was less expensive than trying to figure out how to do something that I really don't want to do, like draw plans etc. I have no idea if we can come to some kind of agreement that would be suitable for everyone. I have two children that are my primary interest and the value is very important. I do care how this will shake out. I cannot project forward because there are too many unknowns in this particular puzzle. Michael said after you pull a demolition permit you have approximately a year to do something. What happens if she doesn't use the demolition permit? Amy said she is subject to whatever is in place when the permit expires. Ann asked how long incentives would stay in place. Jim said that is up to council. Vested rights could be extended beyond what is allowed in the code. Michael said it sounds like all of the changes in the pan-a-bode are reversible and if the applicant is willing to make those changes then this property would be eligible for designation. MOTION.• Ann moved to approve resolution #22 that HPC recommend to City Council they pursue negotiations with the owner; second by Alison. Discussion: Ann said it isn't a great example but it is reversible and it could be a great project for someone to restore. That might not be something the owner wants to do but with further discussions with council you might find that there are some advantageous incentives. In the end you can always walk away and say you don't want any of it. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 Joan said she actually never thought about restoring the house back to the original state. Ann said the important thing is to have the house stay. Michael said he felt that in part of the negotiations the house should be restored back to its original state. Jay said out of the negotiations comes designation and at that time any alterations to the property would have to come back to the HPC. Jim said council would have the authority to give all the approvals but I would doubt that they would give approval without HPC input. On the other hand one of the incentives is to avoid all the processes. It all depends what the owner wants to do. Vote: All in favor, motion carried 6- 0. MOTION.• Michael moved to adjourn; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:04--p.~n. /f / ..~~ Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 16