Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20010725ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JULY 25, 2001 610 W. SMUGGLER - FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING ............................................................................. 2 513 W. BLEEKER- MINOR REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 5 233 W. MAIN - 1NNSBRUCK INN - CONCEPTUAL - PH ................................................................... 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 25~ 2001 Vice-chair Gilbert Sanchez called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners present were Lisa Markalunas, Rally Dupps, Melanie Roschko. Excused were Suzannah Reid and Jeffrey Halferty. Disclosure: Lisa disclosed that she works for Reese Henry and in that capacity she has worked with Gibson architects and Maggie Dewolf. 610 W. SMUGGLER - FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING Amy informed the applicant that they need to provide the mailing list of publication to the clerk's office by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. Amy Guthrie informed the board that this ts a modest size addition to a miners cottage. This property was created through a lot split last fall. Since conceptual the foundation needs to be replaced and while they are doing that they intend to do a basement under the house. The house will be lifted up and temporarily relocated. Stafffeels this is an excellent project and complies with our guidelines. The addition is within scale and character of the original house. One issue is some double hung windows were changed to casements on the plan but staff is recommending keeping the windows. Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Jeff Davis, David Gibson, architect. David Gibson said they would save the historic windows. There is a trim detail on the historic parr that needs to be differentiated and we have agreed to make the trim thicker on the new construction. We will use a 2 by 4 as opposed to a one by 4. There will be a strong shadow line. The third condition was to put an indent between the historic building and 12 inches was what was settled on. The changes made are the basement and the only change on the exterior are the two window wells. Jeff Davis said the house will be put back at the same grade and in the same location. They are only moving the house from the front to the back. In that way they can keep the historic secure. The house movers report and letter of credit are attached. Questions and clarifications 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ~S OF, JULY 25, 2001 Melanie ask in moving the house back is the basement only under the historic house or is it going to extend? Self said the basement will be under the historic house and the new addition. The basement will be dug in two phases. They will lift the house, dig the foundation, put the house back and then dig for the new basement and addition as the second phase. Melanie inquired about the fenestration on the west that was mentioned in the memo. David Gibson said the fireplace was moved to the interior wall so now they have four windows on the west wall. Lisa asked if there will be any elaborate detailing on the foundation and Jeff relayed that the house will be put back at the same grade and look exactly as it does now. Amy clarified that any new windows even on the historic house need to have a different size trim. Vice-chair, Gilbert Sanchez opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: Lisa said generally she finds all of the modifications of conceptual to be in line with what we had requested. She agrees with staff's conditions. Rally said this is an excellent preservation project and agrees with staff's recommendations. Melanie also agreed that the changes are fine. As a side comment she is relieved that the house is being moved on the site. MOTION: Rally moved to approve Resolution 32, 2001final review for 610 W. Smuggler finding that the review standards have been met and granting approval of a temporary relocation with the following conditions: 1. The HPC has approved a 3 '7" rear yard setback variance and a 7'3" combined front and rear yard setback variance. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 25, 2001 2. The three historic windows, one on the east, one on the south, and one on the west, must be retained and may not be altered, other than necessary repairs approved by staff and monitor. 3. The new windows that have been approved for the historic house must be wood, not clad 4. Provide a structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover. 5. Provide a bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30. 000 to insure the safe relocation of the structures. 6. Provide a relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored. 7. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 8. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house and barn are to be removed as part of the renovation. 9. Submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage. 10. No elements are to be added to the historic house or barn that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. ! 1. HPC staff and monitor must approved the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 12. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 13. The preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit pIan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JULY 25, 2001 ]4. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit, 15. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shah be required to obtain a spe¢ialt~ license in historic preservation prior to receiving a buildingpermit. l 6. That all new windows on the historic house have a different size trim to differentiate &em from the historic windows. Motion second by Melanie. Yes vote: Lisa, Rally, Melanie, Gilbert Motion carries 4-0. 513 W. BLEEKER - MINOR REVIEW Amy said this is a minor project and there are alternations to a non-historic strncture on the property. A breezeway is being removed and there is an expansion of an existing deck and modification of dormers on the carriage house to a more historic appropriate shape. A gable shape that matches the building itself. Staff supports the project. Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Jill Strang. Jill said she is guessing that the siding is not historic regarding condition #1. Amy said she can do an inspection with Jill to determine if the siding is historic or not. No clarifications from the commissioners. Lisa clarified that the carriage house is historic construction. Vice-chair,Gilbert Sanchez opened and closed the public hearing. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JULY 25, 2001 Comments: Melanie indicated that it is an improvement to the existing carriage house. Rally dittoed. Lisa said she agreed with staffthat the historic materials need protected. Gilbert said this is a great proposal and will contribute a lot to the historic property. MOTION: Rally moved to adopt Resolution 33, 2001 finding that the review standards have been met with the following condition: I. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. Clarification is needed as to how existing opemngs will be patched if siding is historic. 2. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. $. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that ail conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 5. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a buildingpermit. 6. Waive the rear yard setback of five feet. Melanie second the motion, Yes vote: Lisa, Rally, Melanie, Gilbert Motion carried 4-0. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JULY 25, 2001 233 W. MAIN - INNSBRUCK INN - CONCEPTUAL - PH Affidavit of posting was presented to the chief deputy clerk. Chris Bendon, planner presented. This is a public hearing to consider conceptual approval for the Innsbruck Inn and exemption from the partial demolition standards of the HPC section of the land use code. The project site 233 W. Main is between First Street and Second street on the south side of Main. It is a non-designated parcel within the Historic District. The Inn as it now sits is L shape with a pool and parking along the alleyway. The proposal is to add a third floor along the entire dimension of the building as well as an additional foot print on the west side of the structure to accommodate additional lodge rooms. They would like to go from 33 to 46 lodge rooms and also add two affordable housing units. It is on approximately 7,900 square feet of FAR. Process: This is a lodge preservation project and it is also a PUD process where you specifically set forth your Zoning dimensions for the parcel and it is also in the historic district. With projects in the historic district before they go to P&Z and Council it is important that HPC at least gives conceptual approval for the project so we know what dimensions should be discussed and that it is within the goals of the HPC. HPC will review the general massing of the project, the general dimensions, the height and the size of the project, the architecture and how it fits in with the historic district. Parking, snow removal, trash is handled by P&Z. H~C will be dealing with conceptual development and exemption from partial demolition. This is a non-designated building within the district. Staff is not opposed to the third floor but the appearance of mass should be discussed. It might be the factor of the roof pitch of floor to plate height that might be discussed. HPC should be comfortable with the footprint of the building before it goes to P&Z. The Newkam's are the neighbors to the east and they are opposed to the project. Two additional letters were presented one from Donald Morgan and one from Robert Donatelli who are opposed to the project. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JULY 25, 2001 Melanie read the application and inquired about the property being condominiumized. Chief Deputy Clerk swore in Mitch Haas, David Gibson, Pat Newkam, James Newkam, Maggie Dewolf, Dianna Beuttas, David Williams, Joanne Wallgreen, Donna Guerra Mitch Hass stated that the project is proposed for two phases. Phase one is an addition to the west side of the building. It includes one employee dwelling unit of 620 square feet that is below ground level. On the ground level you have two lodge units of about 280 square feet each and two more on the second level of about the same size. Phase II involves the third floor addition which is over the entire building. No changes are proposed to the setback on the easterly property line. The only changes regarding to the setback on the entire property are where the addition would be constructed on phase I. The house next door sits fight on the property line and there is no proposal to move any closer to them but the roof does pop out on that side. The third floor addition adds I 1 new lodge rooms and as part of that same second you have a total of 14 lodge rooms being added. But as part of Phase II we are eliminating lodge rooms by combining 2 existing lodge rooms and making those one deed restricted unit. The net gain is 13 lodge units and two employee units. In historic districts throughout Aspen and the World it is common to accepted that corner lots are where your bigger structures go and more historic structures step down through the middle of them and then goes back up. David Gibson, architect said one concern was the cave line, buildings are perceived by their eaves. The cave had to be something that people could relate to and it is just over 21 1/2 feet off the ground. The eave falls over some dead space. There is mass on the alley but on the three sides the Second Street side, Main Street side and 211 property side there is dead space around the rooms so the foot print of that level is about 20 to 25% less than it is on the other floors. They have moved the rooms away from the streets and surrounding buildings so that the roof curves back and there is also a corridor. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION M/NUTES OFt JULY 25~ 2001 If you put a chalet style roof on you would move the eave dramatically and the view from the pedestrian would become suddenly steeper and you are confronted with a three story wall not a two story wall. We are trying to create a two story wall with a roof scape. From the street we have an cave that is only about two feet from the house next door that wraps on three sides. We intend to keep the details of the swiss alpine architecture, the railings, the balconies and chamfered beams, shutters, window boxes. From the alley we create a three story elevation. David said there are some discrepancies regarding height on the elevation, the diagrams are off 8 feet. Mitch said there was an application from the Christmas Inn to also put a third floor on thc entire corner. You are going to start seeing these third floors on Main Street. Questions: Melanie inquired about the ceiling height of the second floor being 11 feet. David explained his strategy. If you remove the roof from the lodge you will have to close it down for one or two seasons. You will incur stopping of the lodging reservations for one or two seasons and you will incur 2 millions dollars of renovation to the 7,000 square feet. Our thought is that you water proof the electrical and keep operating this lodge while you are building the top floor. We are talking about leaving the roof on and cutting off the roof overhangs and adding the third floor. You could lower it a couple of feet if you took the roof off but that is not our intent. It is an economm factor to keep the lodge open. Rally said when you said the plate heights were off would explain that. David said it is 42 feet to the ridge. It is 31 ½ to the mid point. Rally ask what the maximum height is for this zone district. Amy said it is 25 feet to the mid point and their measurement is 31 ½ to the mid point. Amy said they are 6 ½ feet over the height limit. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JULY 25, 2001 Rally asked what the intended use is with all the additional rooms. Mitch stated that this is a lodge preservation and there is no plan for an interval ownership or time share. The neighbor is right at the property line and do you forsee any snow issues With the roof and eaves that you propose. David said they would do snow protection devices. Their roof is steeper than ours and there is ten feet between the buildings and that is probably enough to manage the snow. They would put retention devices on the eaves. Gilbert said the applicant showed a shallow roof study and did they do any other studies about just doing less volume. Obviously the square footage of the third floor isn't the entire building. David Gibson said it is about 75%. Right now you are putting a roof over the entire building foot print even though the third floor has a much smaller foot prints which results in gray space where nothing is happening. Have you had the opportunity to take a look at just working with your useful space and putting a roof over that. David said they hadn't tried that. In other words a three story building with the third floor set back. Gilbert said yes. David said that would seem a little out of character with the lodge character. You are basically looking at flat rooms and stepped back walls but they could study that if it seems promising. Gilbert asked about the phasing and is it the intent to finish all of this work or might the second phase not be completed due to financing. Mitch said the intention is to finish phase one and from there work on the financing for phase 2. The intention is to build it out eventually but there is always a possibility for anything. Vice-chair, Gilbert Sanchez opened the public hearing. Jim Newkam said they are the immediate neighbor at 211 W. Main and one of their basic concerns is that their house is within ten feet of the Innsbrnck Inn. One concern is the ice/snow probem. The other is that there are three 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 25~ 2001 windows on the east elevation and those windows are looking directly into our historic landmark. It takes away quite a bit of privacy. A point of information is that there is already an employee unit down the alley that was put in three years ago that has caused noise problems. They have worked with us through the years on that problem. Where are the proposed employee units going? He noticed that one is on the west side. A major concern is the massive strncmre next to an historic structure. Claire Newkam said their house was not considered at all in the design. Pat Newkam said the west end development is acceptable as it only adds four rooms. If they need more units they cOuld take out the swimming pool and put the units there and keep it at two stories. Pat's parents bought the house in 1969 and there was no problem between the two properties and it is a small lodge. Now they want to expand. The Christmas Tree Inn will follow suite. The last issue is parking and he has a lot on his mind about this entire proposal. Maggie Dewolfresides at 233 W. Bleeker and her objection is the massiveness of the building and the height as well. She wonders if you will be able to walk down Main Street and ever see the mountain. Dianna Beuttas, resident of 120 S. Second states that their property is also on S. Hopkins and they have two addresses. They back up to the alley and they have a guest unit which is on the alley. Her concern is the visual impact of the mass and the fact that they will not get light or views. It will cut light and views off from their property. The lodge is practically the entire block. The parking will be addressed by P&Z and there is not enough parking now. Their street is solid with parking on Second Street from the lodge. Grant it, not every day but the majority of the time. David Williams, president of the Garrett homeowners association and they are at 222 W. Hopkins. The property faces the alleyway as well. He is representing six owners. They feel as property owners and neighbors more mass in the historic district is not a good thing. They must live with the commercial operation. Why must this be approved when there are so many residential owners against it. A high quality renovation is a more appropriate direction to take rather than a massive expansion. That is a 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 25, 2001 brighter idea and better direction. The charm of the in-town lodges is they fit into existing residential neighborhoods. This massive expansion clearly breaks that tradition and we are against it. The other issues about parking, density will be addressed at a different time. Joanne Wallgreen said her unit is right on the alley. This new expansion will block all of her views of the mountains from one side of the house. With the third floor the guests will be looking in her house. She begs the board not to approve this as she just purchased her place and she loves it and loves the quaintness of the neighborhood. Donna Guerra, resident of 222 W. Hopkins who lives on the front side of the house. The Innsbruck Inn is a quiet lodge in the middle of a neighborhood. As we look up we see Red Mountain and if this building goes three stories what is to stop all of the lodges from going up three stories. We will not see anything. Right now when you enter town your first impression is the Hotel Jerome and as you go upward you will loose the historic value of our core. Scott Newkam said with the addition you will see right down into his living room. He has a deck. The guests can have coffee and come out and look fight at me. At the height of the building he will have no sun and will be living in somewhat ora cave. Our family is against the project but we are willing to work with these people. It really doesn't fit the character. My brother met the original owners and they told us it was supposed to be an Austrian hotel in a neighborhood setting. It was not meant to be this big. When the Christmas Inn gets built Main Street will become one large canyon. Vice-chair Gilbert Sanchez closed the public hearing. Comme~s Lisa said she has significant concerns over the massing and height issues of the expansion of the Irmsbruck. Architecturally is it in keeping with the rest of Main Street and what its impacts are, particularly to the historic house on the east. We are very interested in historic preservation and any impacts on that historic house is of great concern to me. The massing and the height issues are out of character with the Main Street historic district. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ JULY 257 2001 Architecturally the existing lodge is a chalet style and she has a hard time making that transition to the proposal as submitted. Gilbert's point about roofing over in effect a smaller foot print on the third floor contributes to that massing and is a real concern that I have and what it will become in terms of the surrounding neighborhoods. It has impacts on views of the mountain and what it will become in terms of the surrounding neighborhood. It has impacts on the pedestrians. The houses on Hopkins Street will be greatly impacted. Rally said he is very concerned about the critical state Aspen is in regarding lack of rooms that are somewhat affordable for people to stay and enjoy their vacations here in Aspen. We need to find a compromise in order to achieve that goal. This proposal as submitted gives me pause on many levels, many of which Lisa touched on. The roof pitch which is a continuous ridge line throughout the whole building does not alleviate some of the massing. Possibly the roof line should be broken up. If you are going to add that many units why not express them architecturally. Gilbert's idea of pulling back the upper level whether that is in character with this or not needs to be determined by the applicant. Rally said he would rather see rooms than dead space. The roof will actually double in size the appearance of this building and visually it will take over too much from the neighborhood. It is too massive for its neighbors. It will block a lot of views coming down the corridor. Regarding the standards whether this proposal improves the experience of being on Main Street or detracting, in its current form detracts from the experience on the street. Melanie dittoed Lisa and Rally. Gilbert also agreed with the sentiments that have been expressed. What we are concerned with here is the character of Main Street as well as some very specific landmarks on Main Street. The notion of how do we balance what lodge preservation is all about, and balance what HPC's goals about preserving historic character. The bulk of this building does have a negative impact both on the character of the historic district as well as the specific historic next door. There needs to be serious restudy about the roof form. Expansion should be considered but it needs to be the right kind of expansion. This is a little too ambitious m terms of the quantity that you are asking for. Maybe there needs to be fewer rooms and that could g/ve you 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JULY 25, 2001 opportunities to break up the roof. Possibly look at reflecting the actual footprint. One of the things that does concern me is the notion of what is the quality of the character of the resulting building that you are creating. Right now the building that is there is clearly a chalet style building. While it is not a protected building and doesn't have designation that style of building is important and does contribute to the character of Aspen and in this case the character of Main Street. MOTION: Melanie moved to continue the public hearing, exemption from partial demolition and conceptual development of the Innsbruck Inn ~o August 22, 2001 and direct the applicant to restudy the issues identified by the board and staff; second by Rally. les vote: Melanie, Liisa, Rally, Gilbert, Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Gilbert moved to adjourn; second by Rally. All in favor, motion carried Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14