Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20120912 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Patrick Segal, Sallie Golden and Jane Hills. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of August 15th second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Public comments: Bill Wiener, 701 Gibson. It is important to preserve the character of this community. The height issue is now before the public because of what went on with council and the 28 feet. When we put extra height on a building we are putting extra volume on it also. There are circumstances that where a building needs to be taller than 28 feet. To do that they need to mitigate. It is time to start looking at volume and that is mass and it is changing the character. There is a formula that I can work on. You would get setbacks that create urban feel with little gardens. Jay said our guidelines indicate no setbacks. Bill said the character of this community has been little gardens, flowers and a piece of sculpture and variety around town. This is not that kind of large city where we need everything to the property line. Bill said he will do a volume analysis. 1006 E. Cooper Ave. Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Variances, Public Hearing Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney said the public notice is appropriate and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I. Amy said the parcel is 4, 372 square feet. It is in the RMF zone on E. Cooper. There is a Victorian house on the site that has several additions to it. The proposal is to strip back to the original miner's cottage with a gable end facing Cooper Ave. One issue bringing the house back to the original is that they will be crossing the threshold of demolishing more than 40% of the structure and once you do that your project is considered new construction. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 They lose their right for the maximum FAR that they could have had if they kept the additions and just added on. They will take an FAR penalty of 20% on what they can build out. The proposal is within the 80% allowance 2,192 square feet and they are not currently asking for the FAR bonus. There has been some discussion about TDR's but that is not on the table tonight. They are requesting to demolish the shed in the back and we have no basis to think it has historical significance. There is a request to move the Victorian slightly on the site to allow for it to be free standing and up toward the front of the property. Right now it is slightly sequed on the property and there has been some suggestion that it has been moved in the past. In terms of the relocation there will be a lawn area all around the house. There is a connector that hooks to an addition in the back. One of the concerns is that the connector is 8 feet long rather than 10 feet long. The concern is consistency and is it providing the separation that is really needed. Staff recommends HPC hold firm to the 10 foot requirement. The addition has a simple gable end and is two stories tall and set well back. Part of the addition is one story. It represents a quiet back drop behind the miner's cottage which makes it successful. They are asking for a five foot variance along the back depending how the connector discussion goes. Patrick inquired about the sheds. Derek said there is a tuff shed from 1998 to 2000, the rear structure and the main house. Staff is recommending that the connector extend by two feet and in order to fit the whole project on the site they either need to move forward or back. Jamie went over the issues to review: demolition of more than 40%; demo of the non-historic shed and the tuff shed. Moving the Victorian and the connector piece and the five foot variance for living space above the garage. Derek Skalko, architect Adam Gillespie, owner Derek said there is the main cabin with several additions to it in the periods of 1937 -1942 and 1964-1969. In the rear there is a chicken coop. In the neighborhood we have an historic house, a large condominium and an apartment complex. It is a very diverse mix and not like the West End. The Moore family owned the house and it was moved once and possibly twice. Originally the property went back and west. Then the house was shifted in the 60's when a foundation was added to it and it was shifted 6 degrees. The 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 foundation is construction from the 60's or 70's. The chicken barn was added in the 40's with a flat roof. In the 90's the tuff shed was added, an awning and a new bathroom. Derek presented colored elevations as to when the additions occurred. There will be reconstruction of the west wall of the building. The addition that is to be removed is impeding any kind of development. In our proposal we also have a perpetual easement of 121 square feet that further reduces our FAR by 18 square feet on the lot. The proposal is to move the building over five feet which we feel is more historically accurate and also five feet forward. We are creating a lot of open space around the property and pushing most of the massing to the rear of the property. The structure is a two story structure and the height of the condo building next door is 38 feet. We could extend the building another two feet but would need a variance. The existing shed is 7.5 feet off the property line. We have kept all our light wells away from the side neighboring setback. We are not trying to maximumize the square footage of the property. We have already taken a 20% reduction in FAR and we have a perpetual easement and a program that works. With the extension of the breezeway we may ask for a bonus to make sure we can achieve the FAR. If there is a way to do a TDR and use that for some other parcel we would entertain that. The FAR bonus if given would be for the project proposed and it wouldn't be for further development on the site. We are keeping the scale within the context of the miner's cottage. We want a clear definition of old and new and a simplistic design. Patrick said in the alley 20 years ago there were numerous chicken coops all along that alley. The 6 degrees is probably a declamation error and they used a magnetic north rather than a true north and forgot to compensate for that. The mass to the rear is a good fit. The front yards are a character of Aspen of that time. Derek said there is a chimney inside but we have done no demolition at this point and we aren't sure if it can be used as an indoor/outdoor application for a fireplace. Amy said they have no onsite parking right now and they could maintain that legally. They are offering to ad one parking space. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Willis asked when the gable was added to the chicken coop? Derek said he thinks it happened around 2002 or could have happened in the late 90's. Willis asked what advantage did you achieve by demolishing more than 40% of the structure? Derek said from a square footage point we hurt ourselves. For our program we didn't have to use all of the square footage that an R6 lot would entail or grant us. The building size is 15 x 20. We want to work with what is truly representative of the building in 1890. Nora asked aesthetically what does it do by bringing the building forward two feet. Derek said theoretically we could move forward 10 feet. The applicant has concerns about having some space in the front yard so people aren't looking in the windows. Adam Gillespie said the property and neighboring properties are set back and we wanted to keep it in context with what the neighborhood was and it is a benefit to the property and the landscaping. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comments. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Ann stated the issues: Demolition and on-site relocation Length of connector Five foot variance for the building on the alley FAR bonus Jamie said she accepts everything except the five yard setback. The concern is too much two story on the alley. Patrick said the idea fits with the character of the neighborhood. The massing stepping down in the back is appropriate. Whether we do the-five foot variance or the eight foot connector is not a huge concern. Jay said he is in agreement with everything including the bonus. Out of the bonus I would give you the square footage that you need in order to make the project work. I also feel the connector should be ten feet and pushed back. The chimney should be restudied as it is big and bulky and represented as brick. 4 - ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION - - - - MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Nora thanked the applicant for doing a project that gets you the program that you want without a lot of variances and square footage. Jane said she likes the entire project and the applicant should be commended for his appreciation in doing the project. I would like to be the monitor on this project. The project is an outstanding attribute to that neighborhood. Willis said he supports the project and the requests. Sallie also said she supports the demolition and relocation. A longer length would be acceptable and I support the FAR bonus which could be used to get more length. The chimney should be restudied. Ann said she would like to see what can be pulled away from the alley. The connector should be extended to ten feet but I don't want to see the house move forward because then it would be out of sink on either side. I am also in support of the FAR bonus if needed. Derek said all of the two story massing in contextual form is keeping it to the back. There is a fireplace in the building and it will be restudied. Willis said he like the chimney the way it is drawn out. MOTION: Jay moved to approve the plan as proposed, resolution 2 l,with a restudy of the chimney and a ten foot connector using the rear setback to make up for the two feet. (7 foot variance) The demolition and relocation are also approved. Motion second by Patrick. Amy said you need to provide a ten foot setback and they are providing five and now they are going to provide 3. Roll call: Patrick, yes; Jay, yes; Willis, yes; Sallie, yes. Nora, no; Jamie, no; Ann, no. Motion carried 4-3. Nora, Ann and Jamie did not want to see the building go into the setback. They liked the building in its current location. Derek clarified that the massing is to be taken toward the alley two feet and we have a ten foot connector. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 422 E. Cooper Ave. Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Mountain View Plane Review, Public Hearing Sallie recused herself Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney stated the public notice is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Amy said we are dealing with a 9,000 square foot lot on the Cooper Ave mall and it contains 3 structures. One has an art gallery and a t-shirt shop, the Red Onion Restaurant and a poster shop. The entire property is landmarked and in the historic district. At one time the Red Onion occupied all three spaces. This proposal only affects the portion of the property that is occupied by the poster shop. The structure was built around 1965-66. This application is to demolish the one story poster shop addition. The applicant is proposing to keep the fagade as it is now on Cooper but there is some uncertainty as to whether it will survive the construction process. The new construction will have a one story element at the front, a setback two story element and setback three story element. There is no residential use on the lot right now but it would be created. Staff feels because it is set back and sympathetic to the architecture of the Red Onion and adjacent building we feel the scale is appropriate. Staff feels that the signage on the Red Onion restaurant east facing should not be blocked. The floor levels align with the adjacent buildings and staff feels the proportions are good. They are at the allowed height limit and are not asking to exceed it. There is a requirement that they address the public amenity requirement. There are several ways to do that. They can physically set a building back from the street and provide cash-in-lieu. They would like to continue to have the poster shop right at the street line and would make a contribution to improvements to Cooper Ave. They are required to provide a certain amount of trash and utility area and that is being met. They are located within the Wheeler Opera House view plane. There are many things in the way that obstruct that view and some existed at the time the view plane was adopted particularly the Paragon building. The view plan slices across the Red Onion property and we want to ensure that nothing they are constructing now makes the view plane blocked anymore. Their argument is that existing development on the Hyman mall already interferes with the projection of the view plan of Aspen Mountain and they are not making the situation worse. The issues that need addressed are demolition, the appropriateness of the mass, scale and height 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 of the addition, cash-in-lieu; trash and utility and Wheeler Opera House view plane. Staff recommends conceptual approval with conditions. Patrick said if the buildings on Hyman were redeveloped they would have to comply with the view plane. Amy said you are supposed to address the situation as of today and are they infringing further on the view plan than other obstructing buildings already do. Stan Clauson and Associates Inc. Kim Weil, Poss Architects Stan presented a power point on the existing buildings and proposed development. Regarding the neighborhood outreach we had a meeting explaining the project. The project was generally positively received. The building is a cinder block building, slab on grade and a portion of the Red Onion Restaurant comes into it on the first floor. Kim said the dimensions of the building are 20 x 100. Stan said in documentation that we have we show that 422 E. Cooper is not historical and has no historical significance even though it is associated with the historically designated Red Onion. On the first floor there is 1,000 square feet of net leasable and the proposed residence on the second and third floor would consist of 2,000 square feet. There are significant setbacks. On the first floor to the second floor it is set back 12 feet and on the third floor it is set back 45 feet. The existing fagade will be maintained if we can shore it up. An elevator provides access to the third floor. The Red Onion sign would remain. The entry would be the same as it is now with a single doorway adjacent to the large picture window. From the doorway you would enter the commercial space and then enter stairs and the elevator to access the second and third level. There is no access to a third floor roof deck. The elevator has a simple over run on the third story. The highest point is 38 feet which is compliant with the code and then there is approximately a 4 foot elevator run. View plane The building is located within the Wheeler Opera House view plane generally speaking, but due to the height of the buildings on Hyman the 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 proposed development will be blocked from the view plane. The view plane cuts off a portion of the third story. Because it is blocked the code provides for a complete exemption from the view plane. The blockage largely occurs from the Paragon building and the Roaring Fork building. Kim said it was not our intent to create an architectural statement as much as it was to do something of its time and respect the Red Onion. We will keep the white fagade and we would step back and use brick and stone and glass rails which tend to minimumize the mass. We wanted to keep it simple because there is an alley behind it and two buildings on either side. Jay asked about the scrubber on the roof for the Red Onion restaurant and where it would be located. Kim said we will retain a mechanical engineer to determine what our options are. Codes require hoods and kitchen equipment to be up and we aren't sure which building it will be on top of since the owner owns all three buildings. New technology allows the mechanicals to be smaller. Jane asked about maintaining and retaining the Red Onion sign. With the decks and setbacks people will be living in those units and they will likely have things on their decks. Kim said the second level deck is set back for that very reason. We are holding the deck back from the sign so things can't be put there. Jamie inquired about the street entrance. Kim said in order to retain the picture window the door entrance will be right where it is now to serve the retail and residential unit. It is a little step up. Nora said given the idea that we are trying to make iconic buildings stand out and have some breathing room how can we not over shadow the Red Onion building. Stan said the proposal has very significant setbacks. On the second floor it is set back 12 feet and 45 feet on the third floor. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Kim pointed out that the lot is 100 feet deep and we are 45 feet back and there is no roof deck or stairs to the third floor. Kim said it would be difficult to come back later for a roof top deck because you would need an elevator and two sets of stairs. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comments. Junee Kirk said she attended the neighborhood meeting and listened to many of the comments. The Red Onion is one of the most iconic buildings and I would hope that you would not put the third story on but rather look at the balance of this. Balance in terms of space and space in terms of not building right next to it. The Red Onion had one story structures on either side. The guidelines indicated buildings next to iconic buildings should not exceed a height of 28 feet. On the alley side with the third floor addition you will have a 42 foot high structure that will impact the Red Onion. This is an historic block and once you destroy the Red Onion it is sad thing that we are doing to this town and our local history. In Europe they really honor history. You should take the one story and go back 12 to 20 feet on the second story and they can still have their pent house. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Sallie stated that the sign should be protected and the mechanical should be addressed on the roof. Jay asked for information on the plate heights. Kim said the first floor is 13 feet and the second level to the third level is 11 feet. The third floor is 12. 6 feet. These are floor to floor heights. The plate heights would be lower. That amounts to a 38 foot high building. Ann outlined the issues: Demolition Mass and scale Height Public amenity Trash/utility View plane 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12 2012 Patrick asked staff if by right they can build 38 feet. Amy said that is the maximum they can have and HPC would have to approve that height in the project. Jay pointed out that the Red Onion is the center of the block and everything else tapers down lower. The buildings behind the Red Onion are massive. If any block can handle 38 feet it is this block. I would like to see if the applicant can study the mechanical and see if they can bring the 38 feet down to 36 feet. That is an important part and we might not need the max for the program. Ann said the Red Onion is dominant on the block and we have one owner for all three lots and we can maintain the dominance of that historic resource within the block. This project does not do that. The demolition is fine. The mass, scale and height is unacceptable. It completely dwarfs the Red Onion and you will get some of the view from the west side. On the east side it will be the tallest building in the block. The third story will stick out and dominate and compromise the Red Onion. The public amenity and trash/utility are fine. I can't accept that something else is blocking the view plane. The main issue is the third story. Jamie said the third floor is over powering the Red Onion building. Jay said for what is behind this building and the large setback is clearly there to honor the Red Onion. I support the project with a restudy of the height and this project can handle the mass. Sallie recused herself. Jane will be voting. Nora said she feels we are chipping away at our mission. Our mission is to preserve what we have. The Red Onion deserves some prominence. Part of the appeal of this town is what we have in history and as we build these huge buildings next to it I have to look back and ask what I have contributed in preserving what we have. Willis said he feels the board is struggling with reading the mass and scale. It would really help to have a three dimensional representation and show the view planes. A one story building is not in the vocabulary of this project. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Stan stated that the Red Onion is flanked by one and two story structures. The entry to the two story structure comes right up to the Red Onion. The building is at 38 feet. With respect to the view plane the code is very clear and if something interrupts the view plane in front of you, you are exempt from the view plane. We could have come to you with a two story building coming all the way out to the front but in respecting the sign and the Red Onion there is a significant setback for the second story and a significant setback for the third floor. We feel this is a very respectful and small project. We can do a three D model. MOTION: Ann moved to continue 422 E. Cooper to Sept. 19th; second by Jamie. Motion carried 6-1. Jay opposed. Patrick said his issue is the third story. Jamie said her concern is the height against the Red Onion and how much higher is it. Ann said she feels the building should be a two story. If that isn't possible then there should be no view plane compromise. Willis said he feels the mass and profile is very promising and if you go two stories you will block the sign and that doesn't make sense. From any pedestrian point of view you won't see the third story. Jane said she agrees with Willis that a three D contextual of the neighborhood would be helpful. How does it compare to the street. I like the project and want to see it in terms of height context. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Stric d, Chief Deputy Clerk 11