Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20091028ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jason Lasser, Brian McNellis, Ann Mullins and Jamie McLeod. Nora Berko, Sarah Broughton and Jay Maytin, were excused. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Public comments: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director A demolition permit was issued on the ticket booth at the Lift 1 lodge site on Willoughby Park . There was not a 1940 building in the structure. Essentially there are two standing applications; a 2006 application that went through HPC that had a comer of the 1940's building and a 2008 that had the 1950's building , COWOP. Both received HPC approvals. The COWOP was not approved by City Council so the 2006 application was reopened and when it went to City Council it was recommended that it look as much like the COWOP application as it can. On the 2006 application HPC recommended to go forward with demolition but stop if you recognize a 1940's structure on the corner. It was recommended that the 40's structure be preserved. There is no evidence of the 40's structure. It looks like the stmcture was destroyed when they did the 1950's version. Two conditions of demolition are recommended: documentation of the dimensions and window placements of the existing building so that if a recreation of the building is desirable in the future we can have some basis for that. Also save as much lumber from the current building as possible. The studs are affected by mold and dry rot. The applicant that is represented by Bob Daniels is favorable to whatever recommendations are made by the city. Ann said she recalled an investigation to occur and then come back to the HPC so that the board could look at conclusions not that the building would be leveled. We would look at the findings and come to some kind of compromise. Chris said the focus was on the corner and it is obvious that the building is not there. The building was torn away and the 1950 building built in its place. There was a check in with staff and if nothing was there the demolition would occur. The City Asset department is conducting the work for the Historical Society on their behalf. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Amy said the concern is that council has recommended that the applicant go with the COWOP plan which is that the larger ticket office be preserved. Brian said he agreed with staff's recommendation. He was never convinced that a 1940's building existed. He is an advocate for reclaiming the materials. Michael said he agreed that the 1940's building was to be investigated but there is no 1940's building. If this is of no historic significance we should not save it but preserve the materials. Jason said the asset department should be cautious with the city inventory. I would prefer not to see any building torn down. Ann said her concern is the fact that the building was allowed to get in the state it is. It should have been repaired when it collapsed. Saving the materials would be great but we need to take care of our buildings in the future. 630 E. Hyman Ave. Landmark, Conceptual HPC and Commercial Design Review, Ord. #48 negotiation Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning LLC. The first and second floor are largely left intact and we are replacing a few openings with actual windows. A rectangular window has been added to the Spring Street side of the facade. The building is on Ord. #48. We are voluntarily designating the building with a third floor residential unit set back over 22 feet from the fapade facing Hyman Ave. and 11 feet back on the Spring Street side. The design of the third floor does not compete with the structure but compliments it. There are also new windows on the alley side. On the ground level changes to the front were requirements of the building code. The siding will be recovered to a light color that was historically there. Under ord. #48 there is negotiation. In terms of incentives we have not asked for much. We are asking that growth management exemptions be discussed with city council. The building today is over the commercial floor area acid after the remodel it would still be over. The residential floor area exceeds the allowable and that footage is in the common spaces. We are 524 square feet over. 832 square feet is in common areas which is counted as ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 residential. In the zone district the maximum residential unit allowed is 2,000 net livable square feet and can be increased to 2,500 square feet with a TDR. We are asking for the 2,500 without a TDR. We are under the allowable FAR for the property. The existing structure has two encroachment licenses into the right-of--way; one for the CMU columns on the Spring Street side and the other for the stairs along the alley. What is the point for a revocable license when the building can't go away because it will be landmarked? John Rowland, Rowland Broughton architects: The property is in the C1 zone district. The basement was built in 1962 and in 1973the remaining upper floors were constructed. The courtyard is not functional and we have handicapped issues and energy requirements that are not being met. Existing windows are not functional. Thomas Benton was the original designer and he is becoming an icon in Aspen particularly because of the round windows. The intent of the building is that it will truly be a mixed use with a residence on the upper floor. Some of our project goals are to respect the character of the building, improve accessibility, energy improvements, retain the opening on the second level and introduce a Tom Benton art gallery in the common spaces. The client Greg Hill would like to sell back the condominium units to the existing tenants at an affordable price as well as adhering to the community master plan. Preservation concepts that are important are the round windows and the second level opening; the expressiveness of the concrete columns; the red wood siding and spider effect on the siding detailing as well as the general architecture form. Sustainable goals: We are not demolishing the building but will enclose the courtyard. Currently 64% of the surface area is exposed to cold weather and we will up the insulation values and retain the redwood siding. We will upgrade the stairs and elevator to required standards. We are proposing to bring the stair on the south side to meet code and egress. The stair will be relocated. There will be an additional egress to the street per fire codes. Tom Benton's work will be displayed on the common spaces on all levels and we will enhance the pedestrian amenities and engage the side wall as a place to sit and gather and be communal. The pent house is 5.6 off the west setback, 26.7 feet off the property line and 11.3off the Hunter Street side. The highest element is an elevator overrun that will be 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 flat in a round form. We will sandblast the far~ade to bring it back to its original intent. The architecture on the upper floor is a combination of metal panels. There is a new window proposed on the Hunter Street side. Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer: Amy stated that in the assessment scoring the building scored 99 out of 100 due to window changes in the back. Other than that the building is just as it was designed. Tom Benton is known beyond Aspen with his work and we feel he contributed to modern architecture during 1945 to 1975. The building clearly meets the designation criteria and staff supports that. This is a voluntary designation and because this building is on Ord. #48 HPC has no authority to designate without the owner's consent. The primary issue with the project is the addition on the roof and the entryway to the building. We generally do not like the entrances changed but in order to keep the stair and address fire code issues it would require enclosing it in a manner that had a piece jutting out in front of the building which staff feels is worse that moving the stair over. You still enter through the center of the building. At final we should revisit the store front level to reduce demolition. In general staff supports the stair relocation. In terms of the upper floor addition we find that it is sympathetic to the building. It has been pulled in from the roof's edges. The overall height is about 10.6 plate height which is reasonable. The glass railing seems to align with the walls of the Benton structure and staff feels that possibly it could be improved by pulling it back. The next discussion is windows. The applicant intends to replace all of the windows in the building and in this case we feel there is no artistic merit to the windows. They do not have craftsmanship that we would be interested in saving. We have no issue with the replacement but they need to be replaced in-kind as the originals and they need to be all wood. The application suggests a clad window and the existing windows are wood. These are issues that can be addressed at final. One window will be added on Spring Street which is not a negative impact on the building. Commercial design review applies here. In general we did not find any guidelines that were in conflict. Most of the commercial design guidelines talk about new buildings. Growth management will be issued by the Community Development Director to allow the new free market unit with no employee mitigation. They are already over the commercial allocation and 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 they are going to improve that but still out of compliance. They are already an existing non-conformity. The applicant wants to expand the size of the upper unit. The allowable is 2,000 and they want to go to 2,500 and the only way they can do that is by landing a TDR. They would like to do that without landing a TDR and that is something that council would have to allow. The issue of encroachments is an attorney and engineering matter. The applicant is also requesting waiver of school land dedication fees and that is money that we gather for the school districts benefit and we don't think that it can be waived. The character of the courtyard is being maintained because the space will be more enjoyable and usable. It is an important aspect of this project the way the weather and this building interact. That will change with the new addition but your experience from the street will not. In summary we are very pleased in seeing this voluntary designation offered and feel this is a good project and we recommend HPC grant conceptual approval. Clarifications: Brian inquired about the commercial square footage. Mitch said the commercial FAR is going down but because the courtyard right now is being exposed from above grade on the lower level it counts as floor area. When you put a roof over it, it doesn't count as floor area. The amount of commercial space is not going down but the commercial FAR is. John Rowland clarified the commercial square footage is going down by 340 square feet. Ann asked about the parking situation. Mitch said right now there is no parking but two garages will be off the far corner of the alley. Ann asked if the applicant is intending to keep the spider web design throughout the fapade. Mitch said the proposal is to replace the spider webs with store front windows. John Rowland said they would like to hear what the board has to say about the spider webs. Jason asked if a skylight was investigated that would light the whole way through to the courtyard; just a small shaft of light. John said they had discussed it early on and found some problems with it. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Jamie said the existing building is pretty much an open courtyard and very inviting for people to walk in and you are proposing doors which limits that interaction. Was this discussed at the work sessions. John said it was discussed from an environmental standpoint. We are at a time where energy is expensive and precious and we wanted to enclose the courtyard for that reason. There will also be foliage that will be able to grown inside due to the lighting system. It will be a great place to go and to check out Tom's art work. This will be another gathering space that will be lighted and engaging. Amy said the doors are recessed which gives you the sense of openness. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing: John Olson, public said he has had the opportunity to work with Greg in the past and the owners are very sensitive and focused on the historic preservation and to do it right. This project would be done no different than what they have done in the past. Bill Mitchell, pediatrician My office is in the building and it is a great place to watch events on the mountain. One of the biggest improvements are the elevators. Most parents currently use the back stairs and with the elderly my partner and I either go to Basalt or to the hospital. The Hills are making this affordable. My partner and I are the only ones from here to Glenwood that will see Medicade patients. Over the past 24 years I have spent well over a million dollars in rent in this building and I have nothing to show. We have been trying for years to buy. With the open roof the snow comes right down and the area gets very slippery. It will be nice to have Tom's work accessible in the building to show or sell. June Kirk, said she served on Historic Preservation Task Force Many of us are concerned that historic preservation doesn't become an avenue for just over incentives and adding additional FAR without preserving the integrity of historic structures. This building came about in the 60's when the codes were some restrictive and you could only build one or two story buildings. Along this three block area there are just one and two story buildings. I am concerned with the third floor on this building and it changes the integrity and the whole character of what we are trying to preserve. The old Boomerang lodge was preserved without changes. I can't see why you can't have your residential unit in the building instead of 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 having a hat on top. The conceptual review changes the character of the neighborhood and the building that we are trying to preserve. If you are getting rid of the patio you should somehow maintain the two story structure which is typical of Tom Benton design and feel and still have the residential unit within the building as it stands today. Toni Kronberg, public I look at this application as the beginning of a domino effect like what happened across the street from Wagner Park. This is one block east of the historic district. When the Dancing Bear got built everything around it got bigger. The Wienerstube went before city council and it was a tie vote so it was a failed motion. The reason it failed because it did not keep within the existing size and scale of the neighborhood which is in the Aspen Area Community Plan. In the historic district guidelines chapter 10 building additions it basically says any additions are to be outside of the building and have a connector to it. It also talks about roof top additions which are to go out perpendicular to the building and not up. In the assessment the roof form was given a score of 10. How can you get a score of 10 when you are adding a third story. In the guidelines it says any new additions are supposed to be subservient to the historic structure. Adam Walton's house is historic and right behind this structure. If this is allowed to be built everything around it will go higher. The community character and neighborhood character will be diminished and destroyed. I commend the owner voluntarily coming in and asking for designation. Once the third floor is on, the historic aspect is diminished. This project needs more thought. Brain said there maybe historical significance associated with this building and in order to preserve it there are certain things requested in order to maintain it which entail increase in height of the building. Given that information is it a wiser choice not to approve this with the understanding that this may go away entirely and they would have to come through a regular process in which you would hope only a two story building would be proposed. Toni said she has given that a lot of thought. The building has changed with the elevator and filling in the front. This is like the Mother Lode. It might be better that this not receive landmark designation and the building go through another process. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28.2009 Brian said his point is at the end we could end up with nothing being preserved on this building. Are minor modifications OK to preserve what we see as historical in this building or is it better to take a risk and start over. Bill Wiener, 701 Gibson Street; For the past couple of years I have been involved in preserving Aspen's character. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Everyone is talking about numbers rather than should we be doing things. Is it good for the community should be discussed and this has gotten me angry. If they buy a piece of property for twice what they should be then that opens the door to do more to get a fair return and it doesn't make any sense at all. This is a piece of sculpture and you don't add a knob on top of it. It is an introverted building and you can do a lot of energy upgrades without putting a house on top of it. You can put an insulated glass roof over the courtyard and have double doors coming in. You need to try and get some of the sunlight back in. I remember an employee unit in here and it disappeared and does employee housing have to go back into the building. The elevator is needed. HPC is following under the code and it shouldn't come down to that, it should be this is important to our community and what can we do to keep it without giving the developer something that undoes the whole reason for keeping it. This is not minor; you are building a house on top of the building. Greg Hill, owner of the building. I appreciate all the comments that everyone has made. Our philosophy when we take a building that is tired we like to bring it back to life and that doesn't necessarily mean keeping the building exactly the way it is in our opinion. Certain buildings lose their functionality and their life. What we have tried to do through all the comments from the commission and public is to make minor changes to the original structure to make it a better building for the people that are going to inhabit the building and we wanted to add more vitality through landscaping or public amenities. We have tried to minimize the unit on top. This height that we are adding is fairly minimal. We are only four feet higher than the building next door. The point of having the residential unit philosophically is to help the pediatrician, the barber, and Sandy's being able to afford their space. Yes, we will make money off the residential unit. It becomes a choice, do we add the unit on top and minimize the impact or not do that and charge higher rates. The choice as a citizen of this community is to restoring what is currently there and creating an opportunity for locals to stay put. We are really trying to make this a better building and something that we all will be proud of when it is done. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Chairperson Michael Hoffman closed the public input portion of the agenda item. Clarifications and questions: Jason asked what the maximum height could be if this building was torn down. Mitch said 36 feet and up to40 feet with commercial design review. This building is at 33 feet. John Olson said they did a structural analysis for this building and it is a very strong structure and can receive the third floor with what is existing right now. Michael said regarding any demolition he would like to see what is being proposed. Jamie asked if the interior courtyard really is exterior space. Amy said if you allow for the enclosure of the courtyard it does eliminate HPC purview on the interior. It is an impact, making what was exterior interior. The applicant is not proposing to chop up that area for offices. I see this as an adaptation of the space. Michael inquired about the housing unit. Mitch said the space occupied by a salon we feel was a residential unit at one time but staff researched it and none of the approvals of record show it was allowed in the first place so we are not allowed to use it as a credit. If we were allowed to use it as a credit we don't even need an HPC exemption for the free market unit which is moving within the building. Designation: Jason said we are talking about two names in Aspen that are big, Jack Crandall and Tom Benton. I am glad to see someone is trying to preserve it and we have a great opportunity here. Anytime you have designation there is compromise involved. Ann said she is in favor of designation and the building complies with b,c, of the criteria and the integrity scoring was 99. Brian said he understands the importance of this building and how it adds to the culture of Aspen which are all great attributes. It is too much of a risk not to accept designation. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28.2009 Jamie said overall she is in favor of designation. Michael agreed with his fellow commissioners. It meets designation criteria b and c. The designation is being brought to us voluntarily. Major Development Conceptual: Michael said the issue is the roof top addition. Jamie said she is a little concerned about how historic it will feel with you will be seeing a very modern top added. The preservation of the interior courtyard is great and the preservation of the exterior skin. Another concern is the modem glass railing up against the historic fagade. Ann said this is one of the tradeoffs we have been talking about. The architects have done a nice job of updating the building and it seems vibrant now and there will be more activity on the roof top garden and keeping the old tenants is very appreciated. It would be great to leave it without the top; on the other hand it is nicely designed and integrated well into the building itself. We are much better off with a known solution rather than losing the building and not knowing what is going to be there. It also has a great relationship to the Hannah Dustin Building which is quite a bit higher and it works out nicely. The landscaping is a little robust and a few trees should be removed so you can see the building. Jason reflected that Design Guidelines 10.12 -When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. The ceiling height is 9 feet and pretty modest and that guideline is met. It also meets 10.13 - Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. Staff has a good point about the glass railing and it needs to be set back from the plane of the historic fagade. Guideline 10.14 -The roof form and slope of the new addition should be in character with the historic building. Maybe we can see more of a shadow line on the eastern fagade so that it disappears more and you don't see the glazing. Jason said he has questions with guideline 3.3 -Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a fagade. The spider walls on the Hyman side are very important and worth saving. The rectangular window on the Spring Street side is a large "add" to the fagade. It could be justified if it lit the courtyard but it is lighting a private space. The biggest issue is the courtyard and if it had an element through I could get behind the pent house. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Mitch Haas said they will restudy the window for final. Greg Hill said they could possibly move the closet etc. and add light down the courtyard. Brian said the architects have done a good job to add a third story and making it as least impactful as possible. As a suggestion maybe the front fagade should go back a little further on the third story. Another concern is the courtyard space and everything that can be done to create that space more habitable for the community I am fully in favor o£ Maybe adding natural light would be a big component for making that a better space. With the addition on top it will help preserve the integrity of this building and hopefully make the interior space more inviting. Ann said if there is any way to get a light shaft in the courtyard I would support studying that. Michael pointed out that the HI'C struggles with "who is the gate keeper" of preservation if it is not the HPC. It is a reality if we don't approve the third story then the whole scheme that the Hill's need the investment pursuant to will blow up and we will be stuck with an entire new building. I am very sensitive to the individuals who have paid over a million dollars in this building and do not have an ownership stake in it. This plan will give them that. Those particular factors are not in the guidelines but I can find plenty in the guidelines that justify the creation of this third level and Jason pointed them out. I feel this is a good compromise for the community. I don't feel this will start a domino effect for the rest of the block. Reconfiguration of the entry stair case and spider web: Ann said this is a compromise and it is important to maintain the spider web panels along the front the same way you are along the side of the building. John Rowland said the spider webs can be retained. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Update on the new recycling containers to the next meeting; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Commercial design review: 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Michael said the major issue with the design review is the increased height of the building and Jason went over the guidelines that apply. Plate height: Jason said we can't request anything less than 9 feet. Brian said he thinks it could come down a little more. John Rowland said he cannot lower the plate height. It is livability and there are mechanical equipments that will lower it to 8 feet in some places. Mitch Haas pointed out that they are already three feet under the height limit. The board agreed that 9 feet plate heights are acceptable. Ordinance #48 negotiations: Michael said the issue he would weight in on is the 2,500 square foot residence on the upper floor. This can be justified because theoretically they are preserving the building and basically creating their own TDR and applying it to the roof. The board feels this is a good compromise in order to preserve the building. Ann pointed out that this is a compromise and the benefits that will come out of this development merit what they are asking for such as keeping the tenants and upgrading the building and streetscape. Jason asked if the 500 square feet is not approved by city council does the project come back to the HPC. Greg said some of the interior common area for Benton's display would go away. Jamie said she is new on the board and should we be taking monitory issues into consideration? Michael said you listen to the presentation and it will have some effect on your decision but you need to follow the guidelines first and the monitory issues have to be secondary. They could propose to sell it so that the tenants can afford it but they can always change that at any point. Ann pointed out that the residential unit is there to subsidize the rents so that the same tenants can stay there. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Michael said promises that they make to their tenants is outside our decision making. Greg Hill, owner said it because an issue with my reputation. I am trying very hard to keep the prices set but as we all know people's financial situations change. I have told everyone what the price was going to be. Mitch Haas said normally you would not consider anything financial but this is not normal, it is an ordinance #48 discussion which basically means throw out the codes and negotiate on incentives. This is an incentive that we have requested and it is perfectly within reason. You can achieve a 2,500 square foot unit in this zone district by landing a TDR. We are already 2,500 square feet plus under the allowable floor area and we would like to have the 2,500 square foot unit and that goes with getting an historic preservation project and a landmark structure. Michael made the motion to approve 630 E. Hyman Ave. with the standard conditions and the following conditions of approval: 1. Preserve the spider walls. 2. Preserve the ability to open the second story window on the south facade. 3. Restudy the rectangular window on the second floor east fagade. 4. Consider a skylight that lights the courtyard through the residential unit. 5. Recommend the approval of the 2,500 residential unit on the third floor pursuant to ordinance #48. 6. Investigate the eave on the upper east addition. 7. Restudy pushing the glass railing back. Jason second the motion. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Meetin adjourned at 8:00 p.m. l Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13