Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20090722ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22.2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, Jay Maytin and Ann Mullins. Nora Berko was excused. Staff present: John Worcester, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Sarah moved to approve the minutes of April 22 and May 13 2009; second by.7ay. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: .lay moved to approve the minutes of Apri18`" and May 27, 2009; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Commissioner Comments: Toni Kronberg said we don't have a specific section on the commercial core historic district. We have had three historic blocks literally destroyed of their historic character; the buildings behind city hall; the fire station area; the Syzygy building. I haven't seen where a particular building is scored against the block that it is on or the district that it is in. Buildings are becoming big urban buildings. We have not been taking the development projects and applying them to the district. We are taking the commercial building standards and applying them to the building. We are eliminating the grass, fresh air and seating areas, all the things that make Aspen special. I feel it is covered under streetscape. Jay pointed out that he is reviewing projects taking into consideration the mass on a block. Sarah Broughton will recuse herself on 434 E. Cooper. Rowland and Broughton Architecture are the local architects on the project. Lift I Ticket Office - 701 S. Aspen St. - (Cont'd from June 24, 2009) Georgia Hanson, Aspen Historic Society Amy said in 2006 when the ticket office was more intact than it is today HPC reviewed the initial proposal that was brought in by the Historical Society and Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge to bring the Skier chalet on the site and make it the museum and add some interpretive functions and restore 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22.2009 the lift etc. At that time we talked about the ticket office which is part of a larger building that has been used over the years by various organizations. We looked at photos to determine whether a portion of the building was the original lift office where you bought your ski lift tickets when the chair lift was built in 1947 and concluded that a small corner of it was there. HPC approved demolition of all of the building except the foot print which is around 6 x 6. Down the road came the Lift I project and HPC revisited the ticket office and the face of the office facing uphill was to be preserved which were in photographs of the 1950's. At that time the roof had already collapsed but the project was moving. Another year has passed. The only thing in effect is the 2006 approval to preserve the corner and the building has continued to deteriorate. HPC needs to decide whether or not it is realistic because of the deterioration to achieve anything and what the Historical Society's position is and their goals for the site. Staff thinks there is value in attempting to preserve the building because this is such an important center for our community and the original chair lift is there. This was the longest chairlift in the world at one time. The players involved are the City and the Historical Society. Staff feels the debris should be removed and then get a closer look at the building. Staff would prefer preserving the corners that were recommended in 2006. Georgia Hanson, Aspen Historical Society Georgia said this has been a joint effort for a long time. In our lease we are technically liable for anything that happens. We had thought in the lease we had the entire park but at a council meeting the city reiterated that the lease was the right to build a museum rather than owning the park. We have always carried insurance per the lease and we did temporary repairs and put a skin across it but the roof still collapsed. When Roaring Fork Mtn. Lodge application came forward for Willoughby Park all eyes were on the future and the buildings that were on the historic register but not the existing structures. HPC determined that the ticket booth should be protected and included in the new site plan. The building is an imminent hazard and I hope HPC decides to determine that tonight complete with required asbestos removal. There are only two partial walls that could be remotely considered the original ticket booth. In the photos the windows and siding are different. Our interpretive plan includes an entry introduction into modern Aspen at the site of the lift and ticket booth. We will fashion some exhibit outside to incorporate the boat tow but the 1940 date is the snapshot that launches our current plan into the story of the Aspen Idea which will be in the museum itself. We have no conflict with removing a building that we deem 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009 dangerous and unworthy and or impossible to be restored. In the lease Exhibit A has been missing and it needs determined what Exhibit A is going to be, the museum or the museum and the park. Until the ticket office is settled we can't move onto anything else. Ann pointed out that the southeast corner closest to the lift is what HPC is concerned about. Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director - In looking at the building and pictures I do not think the original windows or siding are there. The building needs to be taken apart and the foundation in order to get to the 6 x 6 walls. If you maintain the two walls you would have to replicate the rest of the building. Georgia said if the decision of HPC is to restore the two walls then we can demolish the rest of the building. Sarah said we would need a restoration plan before demolition. Ann suggested that the debris be removed and the building be looked at to see what is inside. The north east corner was built with heavier posts which are believed that was built at a different time. Ann suggested the building be stabilized. Georgia said everything costs so much money and she objects asking the insurance company to do it because we could use that money for other things. In order to stabilize it you need to cover it and do something like a tennis dome and put it over the building until a decision is made and that is very costly. Michael suggested that our special counsel step in and help the Historical Society deal with these issues and see if we can come up with a separate source of funding. Michael agreed with Ann that we don't know enough at this point to make a decision. Jay said he feels this is damage by neglect and there is a loan process through the city to handle restoration. Would that action be able to take place at this time? Georgia said the owner of the ticket office is the city. Jay said he would hate to take down something that is historical without knowing if it is or not. Georgia said she would restore it but feels there is nothing there to restore. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing. Jackie Kasaback - On the board of the Aspen Historical Society The Lift I area looks awful and this building is in near collapse as is the Skier Chalet with its staircase hanging by a nail adds to the look. It is a terrible representation of what Aspen is. We aren't talking about the original building. It is clear that this is not the building that was there in 1947 when lift I began operation. If we are going to do anything in terms of restoration we should tear down the entire building and keep the corner that is original and rebuild the building. That is premature at this point. We are going to have to replicate. The building is not historic; it is a 1950's building. It makes far more sense to preserve the corner that is 1947 and then we add it to whatever is done in the future. We are talking about an enormous amount of expense and aggravation. We are dealing with rock, mildew and asbestos. Keep it simple and save the portion and get rid of the rest of the eye sore. Tom Sharkey - On the board of the Aspen Historical Society Tom said when the Elli's building was restored two walls were saved and moved offsite and preserved and then they put them back and they kept the same color of blue. You might find out that the two walls aren't original. June Kirk said there is a lot of junk stored at the site that needs to be removed. It is important to have original walls etc. be preserved as our past. The buildings should remain until the future design of the area is completed. Bill Wiener said everyone has talked about the options, demolish, restore, replicate. The object of historic preservation when it relates to a working facility is to educate, tell the story and interpret. History is not a snapshot it is a continuum. All you need to do is tear the building down and the edge of the building put up two inch pipe welding to put up a frame. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public input portion of the agenda item. Sarah said HPC spent time on the historic portion and did agree to keep the historic portion of this building and we made a motion and resolution. I am surprised that we are thinking about erasing this history without a solution. Georgia said they can't do anything without seeing what happens with the application that is being reviewed by council. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22.2009 Sarah said we don't know how long we are going to be in this holding pattern and maybe there are effective ways to deal with a temporary solution. Ann said she feels very strongly that we cannot lose an historic resource just because we do not know what is going on in the area. Amy made a great point that there are very few ski areas that still have original pieces of the ski company and it is very important to keep it. Maybe Jim can work with the insurance company to see if there is a way to stabilize and protect the ticket office. Loans are also available from the City for demolition by neglect. We need to work our hardest to save the original ticket office. Brian said it seems worthy of having a little more study and see if the original building is encapsulated into the larger building. I have looked through the photographs and I don't see how it could be. I feel the original building was torn down at some point; however, I can't really make that determination. If that is true this building in the condition that it is right now is doing an injustice to historic resource on the property which is the lift itself. It blocks the view of the lift as seen from the street. The landscaping on this property doesn't receive as much attention as it should. It is hidden away. We need to bring the attention back to the real resource. Maybe we should move along progressively. We do need to represent how the landscape actually was represented in the past. Jay said we need to look inside the building and determine if there are original materials and then make a decision at that point. I cannot support demolishing this building without knowing that for sure. It would be a travesty to tear down part of the original structure. At this point the master plan for the two lodges should not even come into play. Michael said there is a problem in our relationship with the Aspen Historical Society. We had the same issue with the Marolt Museum. In this application are we willing to give up the bare bones of an historic structure and instead move toward a replication? It seems we are all saying the same thing that if the 6 x 6 section is historic that we should learn that right away and protect it and move to preserve it. Georgia said HPC is saying that we need to restore what is there and that means you take what is in place and don't put anything new there. When we 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009 restored the house on Bleeker Street we didn't put a new roof on or new windows. I don't think we can do that here. Ann said part of the restoration project would be to remove anything that was added to the building, i.e. the roof and one of the reasons to have further study is to see if there is anything actually left of the original building to use as a building block to restore the building. Amy said we need to do the same thing that was recommended in 2006; peel back the layers and see what is there salvageable that is authentic and there will be a need to reconstruct two of the walls and possibly the roof itself. We were expecting some aspect floor framing, wall framing, some of that aspect was there and you wanted it salvaged to the greatest extent possible and reconstruction limited to only what had to be filled back in. Georgia said that is what we would have intended to do but we can't demolish the rest of the building without a plan. Amy suggested HPC give direction. Amy said Galen Bright sent an a-mail representing the owners of South point. The association feels that it is an eye sore in its current state and they also made the comments that they are displeased with the Deep Powder cabins sitting there also in an unsightly condition and request that they be moved away. MOTION: Michael moved to give approval to demolish all of the foundation, to study the 6 x 6 section and if it is historic we need to move the historic portion which will be difficult and approval to demolish the entire foundation to build a small new foundation for the 6 x 6 section and finally restore it in the way Amy described the 6 x 6 section in the minutes. If after study the 6 x 6 section is found to be either not historic or is beyond preservation the applicant can demolish both the foundation and the structure which will be approved by staff and monitor. Ann second the motion. Ann said she wants notified if the study comes back that the foundation and structure are beyond repair. Ann would like added to the motion that Special Counsel work with the Historical Society on the insurance and review demolition by neglect for a loan and before further study something needs to be done to the building. Somewhere money is needed to shore the building in order for the engineer to go into the building. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009 Sarah said Ann made good points but if the goal of our motion is that we want this building to be studied to understand what are the historic portions of the building and how they get to that point is up to them. Jay said why wouldn't we continue the hearing until we have that professional opinion on the historic portions of the building and then make a decision. I can't support a motion that says this that and the other when I don't know the answer. Michael said he is willing to withdraw his motion. Sarah said the motion was fine. Sarah clarified the motion: Investigation and that the existing foundation will be removed and if the original 6 x 6 is historic there would be a new foundation put in place for that portion of the building and the applicant will work with staff and monitor on the restoration efforts if it is proven that that portion of the building is indeed historic. Jay said it needs to be proven that the building is not historic. Gerogia said she was told by the City that we only have the right to build a museum on the site. The only reason why we have anything to do with this building is because we were required in the lease to have insurance. When the City tried to do something their insurance popped up and said no. Suddenly we are owning and responsible for a building that isn't our museum and this is just full circle. Michael said the city is ultimately responsible and if the Historical Society is a proxy that is inappropriate. Brian said he understands that the motion is for further study and if the determination is that the building is not historic then you are giving authority to the applicant for demolition. If it is historic applicant works with staff and monitor to determine the proper rehabilitation. Roll call vote: Ann, yes; Sarah, yes; Brian, yes; Michael, yes; .lay, no. Motion carried 4-1. Jay and Brian are the monitors. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22.2009 434 E. Cooper Ave. (aka Bidwell/Mountain Plaza Bldg.) Major Development Conceptual, Commercial Design Standard Review, View Plane Exemption Review Sarah Broughton will recuse herself on 434 E. Cooper. Rowland and Broughton Architecture are the local architects on the project. Jim True, Special Counsel stated that the public notice needs to be submitted by noon tomorrow. Mitch Haas, Haas Planning John Rowland, Rowland & Broughton Architecture Sara stated that the lot is 9,000 square feet and located in the commercial core and the application is to redevelop the parcel with a new mixed use building. HPC has previously approved demolition of the existing building. In 2007 HPC granted conceptual development, commercial design standard review and also view plan exemption for a different project for 434 E. Cooper. It then travelled to P&Z and they granted approval for growth management for new commercial and new residential and new affordable housing units. They also recommended approval to City Council for subdivision. The project then travelled to City Council and there were a lot of concerns from the public and council regarding the mass, scale, height and public amenity space. City council ended up denying the application for subdivision. The applicant restudied the project and did a new design and went back to City Council and asked for them to reconsider denial. Council granted reconsideration and recommended that HPC review the new design since it had changed so much. It is important to point out that the application is still under the March of 20061and use code. Issues brought up by Council were the lack of public amenity space. With the redesign they are setting a portion of the building back along the Cooper Street elevation and providing a 12% pedestrian amenity space on grade. Some of the issues the public and Council were concerned about are in conflict with our guidelines. Design guideline 13.8 (maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalks edge). They are provided an 18 foot setback from the property line; however, we do think the on-site pedestrian space is appropriate. They are providing an architectural element that distinguishes between the pedestrian mall and the public amenity space. We understand 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009 that guideline 13.8 is not met but we do think it appropriate for this site and it does respond to the issues of the public and council. Height: Originally the design of the building was 41 feet and the public and council felt that was too tall. The new building they are proposing is three stories but they have dropped the height to 36.7 to the highest point. The maximum height under the 2006 code is 46 feet. Staff feels the height is appropriate and it is broken up into modules and the third floor is significantly set back. Mass and scale: This is one of the most important corners in our downtown which is active and vital. It is very important that the mass and scale fit into the context. The concern was filling the entire lot with building and no setbacks. An issue is the one-story element on the corner. Guideline 13.9 (maintain the average perceived scale) of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. We talked about if a one-story element is appropriate. Staff feels the one-story element is appropriate as it steps up into atwo-story element; (study presented to HPC). Another issue was the loss of the western vernacular. The applicant is addressing some of that concern and guideline 13.11 is met. The other main issue is the height of the store fronts. There is commercial proposed for the first floor and the second floor. We typically like storefronts to be in the range of a typical store front. The applicant is proposing two to four feet lower in height than adjacent structures. We are suggesting HPC discuss the trade offs of raising the store front heights and what that will do to the two- story and three-story element. We don't believe the total height should be raised. Maybe for final the applicant can study the height of the store fronts. View plane review: The height was dropped and previously HPC granted a view plane exemption. We still think there is a minimal view plane impact and it is appropriate. Main issues HPC should address. The majority of the Planning and Zoning Commission were in favor of the one-story element and the public amenity proposed. The majority also thought that the height was appropriate as proposed. We overall think the project meets the reviews that are on the table tonight and recommending approval with the condition that the applicant study the store front and 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22.2009 fenestration heights and the impact to the overall height of the building to better relate to the surrounding contexts for final. John Rowland commented that they are meeting the current height restrictions instead of the 2006 restrictions which are higher. Jim True said the project came through various sundry reviews and when it got to Council, it was denied. At the applicants request there was a motion to reconsider which allowed them to go back and redesign. Jim said there are certain aspects of the approval that are still available but because of the new design they are coming back to HPC. Sara said they need the commercial design standard review; HPC conceptual review and view plan exemption. Planning and Zoning approvals for growth management are still valid and they supported subdivision. Jody Edward, attorney for the applicant said basically it is an amendment to the 2006 application. Mitch Haas, planning consultant for the applicant. Mitch said they are OK with staff's presentation. We do feel it necessary to give background behind the design and explain the project and view plane. This property went through landmark proceedings and was turned down so it is not a landmark. The idea is to meet the predominance of the guidelines but every guideline doesn't need to be met to the letter so long as the spirit of the guidelines are complied with. The design of this building compliments the Independence Square building and the Volk Plaza building on opposite corners. The project will be built to silver or better standards. A lot of the materials will be reused. Mitch said the modules across the front are 30 feet each with different heights. The public amenity space is 1,100 square feet off Cooper and it is 18 x 60 feet long. Michael asked Mitch about raising the height of the store fronts. Mitch said he has no problem studying them but it might affect the second floor. Brian asked about the modulation of the facade on the Galena side which is against the guidelines. Is it appropriate. Sara said staff felt that it was appropriate to break up the fagade of that side. The Ute City Banque is a corner building and you have modules that are different. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22.2009 Brian said the way the traditional blocks are set up one street would be the predominant street where most of the streets would align up onto and the other one would be a secondary street where you see the full side length. Mitch said they were working off the Andre building. Jay said the malls were added in the 80's and the streets were changed. On the Hyman mall the Aspen Drug was built and it is a one-story and has a large alcove where Dish is. It is OK to modify the guideline. The mall is primary and Galena Street isn't. John Rowland said the one-story structure has a deck above it on the Cooper Ave. side. The wood boardwalk would be at ground level for the pedestrian amenity. It has 1,080 square feet with a hitching post. We will use the railings of the existing building which came from an old bank in Denver. There are ten parking spaces in the basement with an auto lift. Four commercial units are proposed. There are two units on the third floor; one is 2,000 square feet and the other is 1,400 square feet. The materiality is brick and wood. The corner module is reclaimed brick. Exhibit II -Building analysis. Exhibit I - Affidavit of public notice. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. June Kirk said the malls were done in the 70's. All along Cooper there were one-story buildings and two-story setbacks that were designed by our land use codes specifically to keep that character. There are setbacks of 15 feet and the height doesn't go up to more than 25 feet. You need to look at what this proposal does to the character of the mall. Another issue is the view plane and there should be no exemptions of view planes. I am also concerned about the fenestration on the Galena Street side. The pedestrian amenity is good and could be extended to the Galena Street side. Neighbors are concerned about the height and it is a subdivision application that is in an historic district and doesn't necessarily conform with the character of the district with that third floor and if it could be dropped to two stories it would be a better application. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009 Toni Kronberg said this is a new building that has come back with a new design and was it publically noticed. Mitch replied yes and they even noticed the public outreach meeting which was voluntary. I was one to support the reconsideration but none of my comments are reflected in the design. The reason why the courtyard of the Bidwell building was there is because it matched the open space of the Volk building, that it was rectangular and a gathering space. By filling in the space you are talking away something that was historic. I had suggested not to fill in the open space and put a flooring on it and to match the open space with the Volk building whether it be a restaurant whatever and not to add the free market unit on top of the building which destroys the historic height of the buildings along Galena Street. On old post cards the roof lines along Galena are consistent. How does this building relate to the blocks surrounding it? This building might meet the guidelines but it doesn't meet the Aspen Area Community Plan which said new development has to be in the scale of the existing neighborhood. Bill Wiener, said in the task force a statement was made that the City must designate and mark its historic buildings before it goes to the public to show they are the leader and in that they listed the two malls. This is a new building in an historic area. We have talked today about western vernacular and the three thirty foot modules and if you look at the plans that isn't what we got. It has a 60/30 and an overhang that doesn't relate to anything. The design is not relating enough to the Paradise Bakery on the Volk building. It doesn't look like 3 thirty foot lots. It isn't about the building it is about the place. Regarding view planes you don't look at them in cubic feet. On the whole this is a good approach and can be fixed and be an asset if we recognize how it falls into the overall area. We should wait to see what the historic task for says and relate more to the other existing buildings. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public input portion of the agenda item. Michael- said he would like to discuss modulation and the Galena Street facades. Are the structures perceived to be 3 thirty foot structures as is traditional in this historic corridor? Brian said he is not sure he has a problem or not but the modulation of the 30 foot components are not articulated all the way through to the ground on the architecture. It makes for an interesting modern expression. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009 Ann said she thinks it works great and this is not an historic building. The horizontal elements work well breaking up the modules. Michael said he feels the Galena Street fapade is confusing and doesn't work. All the Victorian blocks have the architecture consistent. Brian pointed out that entrances on Galena are important to retain for vitality of that street. Jay said on Cooper Street the 30 foot sections are shown. You do loose the concept a little on the middle section. The Galena Street is more difficult because it is almost like we are looking at the building having two fronts. Maybe have a little less detail on the Galena Street side, a more uniform mass so you get a strong side on the building. This could be addressed at final and this is not a mass and scale issue. Michael said he is troubled by the Cooper Street mall. There is not enough modulation in the middle element. Michael said he is not comfortable with the pedestrian amenity and feels it doesn't work. Sara pointed out section 26.412.060B of the code. The 2006 code refers to versatile space that will contribute to the pedestrian experience and vitality downtown. The requirements are generally open to the sky, at grade and accessible to the public so that it isn't privatized. Ann said the space adheres to the amenity guidelines. Jay said it is mimicked across the street at the Guido's building. Michael asked about the middle 30 foot element on Galena. Mitch said it is a modern interpretation and it is a modern building. We do not want it to look historic. We did that once and it didn't work. This is clearly a response from the direction of Council. It is not a strict 30 foot to the floor and we don't want it to go to the floor. It sets itself off and does not mimic the historic but is compatible with the historic patterns. There are three facades. Michael suggested that one of the middle elements be wider. Sara said there are 60 foot fronts that are typical downtown; it is not always a 30 foot 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009 fagade. If there is a way at final to deal with fenestration and not try to have the middle and the piece to the east read as separate but as a 60 foot piece maybe that would resolve the issue. Mitch said this is a unique site and it has two prominent frontages and a requirement and need for pedestrian space at the corner and it requires unique approaches. Brian said he is willing to give some liberty to the architect. The 30 foot modules are well delineated with a contemporary twist. Jay said the applicants have come back undersized, under the square footage and responded to what they have heard from council and this board. John Rowland addressed the fluidity of the 30 foot modules. This is a dynamic urban space in our town. It is like the "living room". This is our interpretation and our artistic endeavors. When we look at this space it is not only the living room it is a ballroom. This building is literally dancing and that is how we are looking at this space. Ann said in terms of the height there is a real mix of buildings in that area and the one stories are important but it is not necessary to duplicate that down the street. There are two, three and four stories all around and I can't see an argument for aone-story building. Jay agreed. Too small of a building on that comer would be out of character for the size and scale of the rest of the buildings around it. I like the fact that it is a little bit of a one-story and complements the old store front. All board members agreed. Jay asked that the applicant study the material of the public amenity space and possibly extend the mall material into your property to bring the mall into your building or bring your building into the mall. Ann said she disagrees with Jay and that the change in material is important and maybe a soldier course with wood in between might work as a suggestion. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22.2009 Michael pointed out that the idea of the retail uses spilling out onto the public amenity space is great. Mitch said we want to leave the area flexible and possibly a restaurant would come in. Brian said he has been thinking about what Toni Kronberg said about mirroring the plaza on the other side of the street by Paradise. This site is so dynamic we don't need to deal with symmetry. It is acceptable to play with different shapes and forms especially on the streetscape where this is a rectangular space as opposed to what is at Paradise. It will create more dynamics the way people will use the space. Michael asked about the windows and should they be higher to match the adjacent storefronts. Ann said the windows work well because the building next door has low windows. If you raise the windows to the height of the Red Onion the proportions will be very strange and you will end up with smaller windows on the second story. Sara said as a discussion for final; to have the building better relate to the commercial core historic district was to deal with fenestration and materials in a way that was more traditional just to make it a little more compatible. Brian asked what the height of the windows are. John Rowland said the proposed windows range from 10'2" to 11'2". Sara said the reason we are bringing this up at conceptual it is important that HPC talk about the relationship of raising the store front windows in relationship to the overall height of the building. Jay pointed out that the height of the windows are appropriate and they actually make the Red Onion building stand out. Ann pointed out if the windows become taller, that means the building has to increase in height. Michael said he feels the modulation and fenestration needs restudied. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009 Brian said he is not sure you will see the third floor element from the street and if so that should be minimized as much as possible. Also if the overhangs are visible they should be reduced in size also. Ann suggested using a lighter element on the overhangs. MOTION: Jay moved to approve conceptual development for 434 E. Cooper Ave. with the requirement that the applicant restudy the modulation of the Galena Street facade as well as the overhang of the pent house apartments. Motion second by Ann. Michael said he would like to have the applicant come back before granting approval because the changes are substantial enough and could affect the fundamental design of the building. Roll calla Brian, yes; Jay, yes; Ann,no; Michael, no. Motion died. MOTION: Michael moved to continue 434 E. Cooper Ave. until August 12`ti, 2009 asking that the applicant come back with a restudy of the Galena Street facade and the overhang of the penthouse and the modulations on Cooper Ave. Motion second by Ann. John said he would probably continue the element where the reclaimed brick is down to the lower level which would alleviate the so called piece meal. John suggested a site visit on the 12`n All in favor, motion carried 4-0. 219 S. Third Sarah was seated and chaired. Brian excused himself. Suzanne Foster, owner Amy said at the last meeting HPC was asked whether they would give your support to a reduced amount of bonus. Council did give the applicant support to revisit the bonus with the HPC and HPC supported a smaller bonus. At the last meeting HPC wanted to make sure all of the figures were right and Jake Vickery challenged some of the calculations and there have 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009 been other questions raised. The applicant is here tonight to present the calculations to the board. Susanne Foster said Aspen Surveyors came out and they determined that all of the slopes were manmade and all manmade slopes don't count toward reduction. Instead of having 7744 square feet of FAR to calculate our FAR we had the whole 9,942 square feet. That gave us an extra 5024 square feet over and above what we through we originally had. In the meantime there were calculations that were overlooked. As an existing duplex 94 square feet of the car ports count toward the FAR but once you convert it to a single family the calculation is completely different and 315 square feet count toward the FAR. We aren't changing the mass, scale or size or anything about this but there is a net reduction of 219 square feet in the available FAR for the addition. The other thing in the porch calculations we didn't realize that they are over 15% so there is another 131 square feet of decks and balconies that are over the 15%. Jake Vickery came up with a couple other things which bring it to 134 square feet. We basically gained 524 square feet of FAR but when you calculate it correctly without changing the mass and scale it is actually more FAR than we originally thought. There is only a net difference of 44 square feet. Amy clarified of all the square footage that is gained through the slope reduction and taken off the table all but 44 square feet of it is consumed by the design that you approved. Taking the slope reduction out gained 524 square feet into the allowable mix for the project. All but 44 square feet of that needs to be applied to cover the project that you approved conceptually. Suzanne said since she got the 44 square feet she only needs 250 square feet of FAR. They don't want to change the massing or anything. We just want to make sure that the HPC is on board. The FAR for the buildings is 3,105 square feet and 2,211 square feet. Sarah suggested that when Suzanne goes to council have a graphic as to how the FAR is calculated. Amy read the motion from the last meeting. Jay made the motion that the permitted floor area not to exceed the lesser of the floor area that would be permitted under the city code if Lot 2 was a lot of record. It should not 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009 exceed that or 291 square feet. The floor area to be verified from a registered surveyor. Vote 4-0 in favor. Sarah opened the public hearing. Jake Vickery asked that the data sheet be redone in order to get the current numbers that we are dealing with. The slope reduction is new information and we have not had time to verify it and research it ourselves. I want to sit down with their architect to verify numbers. I am coming up with 3,268 and the applicant has 3,105 square feet. For the total of the overall site I am coming up with 5,003 and the applicant is coming up with 5,066. Sarah said she needs a graph of the numbers in order to determine which ones are correct. Jake said the criteria committee released their info not to find Modern Chalet as a viable category or type. Does this property relate to a chalet or is it modern; how does it relate to the two categories that are established. Angela Young said the scale of the models are not know. Susanne Foster said her architect Joel Petty knows what the scale is. Bill Wiener said he doesn't care about the argument of numbers. If this was an historic structure already and somebody came to you to add to it probably HPC would say no. The value of the building is three dimensional; it is not just the front. It is probably the most historic classification in Aspen because it took a style of Aspen's weather, social structure and economics and created this Modern Chalet. The addition destroys the integrity. Regarding the statement of the vote on this style of building that was a subcommittee not the full committee. June Kirk said if you are going to have this and preserve this style that may not be recommended by the entire task force which did a straw vote and voted it down I urge the HPC to look at how splitting the lot and the addition affects the entire neighborhood. Jody Edwards said they object to this hearing.. We haven't had an opportunity to seriously review the information. We now hear that there is 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009 an additional 520 plus square feet that are appearing. That is significant in the context of this project. Jay pointed out that this isn't a public hearing and it is for information only. Paul Young, 413 W. Hopkins said my point is I heard from City Council that the entire process would start over and it seems like the only thing that has been zeroed in are the FAR's which had a jump of 524 over two weeks ago. I feel the process should start over and slope reduction has always been a part of it and now tonight we hear it is not. Bill Marion said he met Larry Doble, City Engineer to determine if this was a manmade slope and we walked around the site and determined that it was. The code allows this and the applicant is entitled the additional FAR. The facts still remain that it is a manmade slope. Paul Young said the Midland Trail is historical and we need Mr. Edwards to check the codes. In my opinion there should have been a variance or something filed to get approval for that 524 feet instead of being told tonight. Sarah said her recommendation is that staff work with Suzanne in determining very clear cut documentation of what these numbers are and that there is agreement on the numbers. I am comfortable moving this forward to council but our recommendation is that there needs to be clear representation of the numbers and full agreement on how it is calculated and with the exact wordage from the land use code as to how the reductions or lack of reductions all they all fit within our land use code. Jay said he doesn't agree. The applicant found out something that is in the code that she hadn't found out before. Had she found this land use issue earlier this would have come out a lot earlier, that is very clear. My point is we voted as a commission and we do not have to make another recommendation. Michael said as long as the information that available to the public she can go forward. FAR was calculated incorrectly. Suzanne has brought forth is Sarah also pointed out that the 19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2009 Jim True said there is nothing wrong if the HPC emphasizes to council that they consider the accurate code calculations. The opponents can argue about the square footage; about whether the slope is manmade or not but from HPC's standpoint the point was to advise you of these issues and if you felt what you heard required you to change what you did then fine. There is nothing wrong with you to emphasize that you want council to consider what the actual facts are as best as the applicant can present it. Michael pointed out that the issue is the size of the addition. Suzanne said that doesn't change. Michal said according Suzanne the "box" doesn't change and that is all that matters. Sarah said what we agreed last time remains and my suggestion for the applicant is that you come to City Council how all the numbers have been put together and that should become part of their public record. Suzanne said she will go into more detail of calculations with council. Ann said we are telling City Council we have not changed our approval but make sure council is comfortable with the numbers they are getting. Sarah said the mass and scale hasn't change and we are proponents of this project. MOTION.• Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 20