HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19880922SPECIAL WORKSESSION Aspen City Council Planning and Zoning Commission Historic Preservation Committee Thursday, September 22, 5:00 p.m. 1st Floor City Council Chambers 1. Summary report of HPC's decision process on the Berko project a. overview by staff b. condensed presentation by applicant c. HPC member comments 2. Commercial Core Historic District a. Potential TDR sending areas b. preservation incentives 3. Evaluation Discussion of professional and technical status Of the HPC; State CLG requirements for makeup of the Committee 4. Other Discussion Items: a. Future HPC projects: 1. Formalizing the proposed residential historic districts 2. Main Street District Study b. Sidewalks and West End irrigation ditches c. Other community preservation issues, time permitted agenda.wrksn.9.22.88
f I j .* Aspen/Pitkin Plahning Office 130 south galena street aspen,*'colorado 81611 A I=+14[ 3 September 14, 1988 Mayor Bill Stirling Aspen, Colorado Re: HPC's decision on the "Berko" project Dear Mayor Stirling: Per your request, I have summarized the ten primary reasons on which the HPC based their decision to approve the application for the relocation and redevelopment for the project at 309 E. Hopkins, a/k/a the Nelly Reid House, or "Berko House". On August 25, after many hours of deliberation and much public comment, HPC took staff's recommendation and voted to table action, requiring that the applicant return after restudying alternatives to relocating, i.e. adding on to the rear of the structure on-site. On September 1, HPC, in a special meeting and continued public hearing, again deliberated for many hours after the applicant presented revised information covering alternative addition elevations, floor plans, and access dilemmas. Four of the six HPC members present were convinced at the end of that meeting that a relocation and restoration was the best preservation activity for the 100 year old structure and voted in favor of the relocation to the ACES site (with conditions), and approved the conceptual redevelopment plans subject to a restudy of massing, height and main facade. I believe I have captured the essence of their thoughts, however, I will be all to happy to provide you with a copy of the minutes if you desire. These were the primary reasons stated in the September 1st meeting by those four members who voted in favor of the relocation motion. Staff's denial recommendation as stated in the review memo follows. a. Even the smallest on-site addition shown in the alternative plans diminished the historic integrity of the structure; all plans presented showed "Big Brother" looming over smaller scale cottage
b. The historic structure is currently out-of-context with the remainder of the streetscape c. An addition does not provide adequate interior leasable spaces d. High price of city exactions not exempted for historic preservation projects e. Non-workable access, very difficult to provide ingress/egress f. The positive strength of the new site (ACES); adjacent historic structure; neighborhood g. The return to original residential use; restored facade h. Historic structure reported to be structurally sound, able to withstand relocation i. New infill development more compatible with adjacent buildings j. Employee housing needs met at both receiving and redeveloped site, current major concern of city Staff's recommendation in the September 1st memo read as follows: "Staff recommends HPC deny the application for relocation and redevelopment for the project at 309 E. Hopkins, finding that the structure can be rehabilitated to provide for beneficial use of the property. (Refer to Sec. 7-602(B)(2)). Staff also recommends that the applicant apply for conceptual development approval to rehabilitate the historic structure, adding on a compatible addition, and apply for landmark designation to take advantage of the GMP exemption for expansion Of a designated historic landmark." At the September 1 meeting, the applicant requested a worksession and HPC set the date for September 8 to again review conceptual redevelopment plans, based on the conditions of the approval motion. The applicant returned on September 8 with slightly revised plans (facade change only), which again were not satisfactory to the committee. Then on the regular HPC meeting of September 13, the applicant again appeared and requested to be added on to the agenda for a clarification action on the revised conceptual plans, which HPC granted, with different conditions that the third floor materials, setback and elevator doors be restudied. Mayor Stirling, I have also included a copy of my summary letter to Bill Poss, HPC Chairman, and a copy of the response letter I received from the Colorado Historical Society which was included
. in the record at the August 25 meeting, and incorporated within my review memo of that date. I concurred with the questions that Chris Pfaff posed in that letter, and those HPC members who voted in favor of the relocation assessed them as well. In response to your question of the City Attorney regarding whether our next HPC meeting (September 27) constitutes the next formal meeting after the final decision was made, I believe Fred spoke to you on that. It is also my opinion that since the relocation/redevelopment application is all inclusive, and HPC made their final revised conceptual approval for the redevelopment on September 13, the next HPC meeting could constitute the next formal meeting following the decision. Fred said if a majority of the Board felt the same, he would do his best to support the issue, should a reconsideration vote come to the floor. I am receiving, as you may imagine, many public inquiries regarding this project, and continue to suggest people write down their concerns and forward them to the Planning Office to distribution to interested parties. I look forward to talking to you again soon. The entire HPC is very interested in holding a joint worksession with Council and Planning and Zoning very soon. They have suggested Thursday, September 29 if possible. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner CC: Alan Richman enclosures
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall August 25, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Zoe Compton, Charles Cunniffe and Joe Krabacher present. Charlie Knight and Augie Reno were excused. Bill: Public Comments concerning the Berko Bldg. from the August 23, 1988 meeting are in the records. 309 E. HOPKINS-BERKO BLDG. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Charles Cunniffe stepped down. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting HPC's conceptual development approval to relocate the Berko Build-ing to a site adjacent to the current professor's house on the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies property on Puppy Smith Street. The proposal also includes the redevelopment of the 309 E. Hopkins site to construct a three story commercial structure of 5,877 FAR with 5,499 sq. ft. of net rentable area. It includes retail and office space as well as a one bedroom employee housing unit and a third floor two bedroom apartment. This is as public hearing as u you have stated. Three major elements are involved with this project review: 1) The historic structure relocation and the pros and cons of that. 2) The proposed relocation site and renovation activity. 3) The proposed redevelopment for the cleared site. This is a question of historic integrity in the commercial core historic district. The proposal presents a classic historic preservation dilemma: continued economically-beneficial use for historic structures whose integrity has been diminished due to changing neighborhood context. First we will review the demolition and relocation. Staff finds that the submitted report from James Mollica and Assoc. regarding the economic issues to be inadequate in providing substantial information addressing requirements 5 (a) (b) and (c) in that particular section of the code Section 7-602 D. In particular 5 (b) requires "estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser experienced in rehabilitation addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for demolition be submitted. Estimates have not been included in the application packet. Mr. Mollica states in his letter, which he admits is not a formal analysis of the projects feasibility or value, rather brief comments and valuation parameters that it is not totally infeasible to keep the original structure and add on to it. Staff finds that the economic feasibility report lacking in specific information which HPC may use to base their determination for action. We have also received a letter from the Colo. Historical Society, Chris Pfaff who is a preservation planner and Jay Yanz who is the State Historic Architect. They **4: 1-4,1!-2 11!1:goil i [9 41
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 state prior to approving a removal of the Berko Bldg. the applicant and HPC must examine every alternative for insight rehabilitation, taking into consideration the individual significance of the building and whether its significance is dependent on the setting. Would an addition be compatible with the building or would it alter the character substantially to diminish its historical integrity. HPC should consider whether the buildings significance is in its contribution to the surroundings and would a removal disrupt or destroy the historic streetscape. Questions must be adequately addressed if this structure will survive the move and if any architectural features will be destroyed or damaged in such a move. Regarding standards for demolition Standard #2 which specifically states that the structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide any beneficial use for the property, meaning that the applicant must provide the information that deals with that particular standard. Staff finds that alternatives for insight renovation have not been presented and staff recommends HPC require the applicant to study the many alternatives which exist for reusing the historic structure insight proving that any addition or alteration will not diminish its historic integrity. A facade restoration including porch and bay window restoration should be required which will provide the owner the most beneficial use of the property value wise in Staff's opinion. The Aspen Area C Comprehensive Plan, the Historic Preservation Element of that comprehensive plan states specifically the following objectives: To encourage renovation and maintenance of historic structures through development review incentives and economic benefits. To encourage productive and economically attractive uses of historic structures. To discourage demolition of significant historic structures identified and evaluated in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as it has been amended in 1986. Allow historic designated structures to be moved if demolition appears to be the only alternative. The Berko Bldg. is rated #4 and is the only remaining brick miners cottage in the commercial core historic district. Bill: For the record Zoe was seated at this point. Roxanne: Moving on to the relocation site review which the applicant has submitted regarding the ACES property should HPC find that a more beneficial use for the Berko house include its C 2
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 removal from the Commercial Core Historic District, the site of preference as submitted by the applicant is probably one of the most compatible for the Berko's relocation. The problem associated with this site is in the dimensional requirements of the R-15/PUD zone district which the applicant is well aware. A minimum of 7,500 square ft. per landmark building is required, as of yet still has not been met with regard to that particular parcel. A master plan for the ACES site has been requested by the Planning Office and the site is required to be developed in accord with the PUD regulations. Certainly relocating an historic building is preferred over total demolition and in this case may even be preferred over the structure receiving an inappropriate addition. The redevelopment plan has submitted a memo but I won't go through the details of that at this time. The State Historical Society stated that they found that the redevelopment proposal is appropriate for that particular area in scale and massing and they did not choose to deal with the details of design. There are four alternatives that Staff has provided for HPC that you may consider today which is approved as submitted: 1. Approve the plans as submitted. 2. Approve the plans as submitted with conditions. 3. Table approval based upon the need to examine a variety of alternatives to relocate the structure off site. 4. Deny approval based upon inadequate information. Staff's recommendation is that HPC table action to allow the applicant to further study a variety of on-site rehabilitation alternatives to demonstrate to HPC why the structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. Tabling action is also recommended finding that the economic feasibility report required in the demolition application does not adequately provide the information required by Code (refer to Sec. 7-602 D-5 and further that the application does not adequately address the standards for demolition review #2 (stated above), #4 neighborhood impact and #6 architectural integrity - upon relocation. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: In Nov. of 87 we came before you and discussed the various alternatives for this particular property. At the end the mtg. the majority thought if an appropriate location could be found for moving the bldg. it would be beneficial to move rather than do an expansion. We also answer all the code requirements. 3
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 C Lisa Purdy, president of preservation consulting firm in Denver: I help numerous clients obtain historic designations for their buildings and help get their buildings on the National Register and help owners use the investment tax credits. I have been in the field of preservation for 8 years and worked in design and construction for five years before that. I spent 6 years getting an historic district in lower downtown Denver and I also wrote a book on historic incentives. My concern is what is best for the historic Berko building. The owner, Jack King, hired me to look at the alternatives for the Berko bldg. The four alternatives: 1. To look at the building as it stands now. I noticed because of the contemporary buildings on either side of it that building is lost. A lot of the context has been lost and in my opinion the battle was lost seven years ago when the Mill St. Plaza bldg. was built. That building itself is over scaled that it doesn't respect any of the patterns of the historic building. The building on the other side, the corner, does very little to enhance the building. The owner of that building has informed us that he is about to put on two more stories and that will make it even worse, that little building sandwiched in between. The building in its present location -is in a bad spot. I know it was designated historic but the context has been lost through the years and unfortunately has put this one in a bad position. It C has also lost its architectural character. The code states that the economics do need to be taken into consideration. It is pretty clear that a 900 sq. ft. building on a 3,000 sq. ft. lot that is zoned for the highest commercial development doesn't make economic sense. The second alternative, the expanded version (addition on back), we tried to incorporate the historic property into a commercial structure. In terms of design the architects did a very good job. I think the expanded version in fact makes it worse. From an historic standpoint because of the problems of getting into this building you end up going through the historic building and it becomes not much more than an entry way to the larger structure. You have lost its original use of residential. The third alternative would be to demolish the historic structure and this consideration the owner wouldn't even look at. The fourth alternative is to move the historic structure. In order to make that work we needed to find a site that allowed this building to be seen and return it to its original use, residential and also a place where it could be restored, the ACES site. The second issue was to determine whether or not the building could be moved without damage. Carl Ryberg a mover from Denver I have worked several times with and feel comfortable about the move. From an historic perspective the ACES area works best as there is another historic building on the site, the professor's house that is compatible in both scale, height and massing. The new site allows for open space and L 4
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 landscaping around the building and the public will be able to < view it. The Berko bldg. will be returned to residential use. While some people in the community feel the present site of the Berko historically important I happen to disagree. Over the years the setting and use of this building has been lost. The Mill St. bldg. was allowed to be built in a way that was totally disrespectful not only of the historic street patterns but of the Berko bldg. next door. It is presently over powered by its neighbors and its historic context on that side of the street was lost years ago. While I agree that Aspen should retain its historic fabric in this particular instance the best is to move the Berko bldg. to a more suitable and compatible site. I was also glad to see the letter from the State Preservation office stating that the site was compatible. I had to look at the standards for demolition because there are non for moving the building and I will be adapting those to this particular situation. Standard #1 says that the structure must be structurally sound. In this case the building is sound and there would be no problem moving it. Richard Klein: The mortar and building is in very good shape because it has been on a stone foundation. After the assessment it was determined that the building would be very easy to move. Lisa: Standard #2 asks if the structure can be rehabilitated or reused for a beneficial use of the property. Others will address that reusing the building doesn't make economic sense. Standard #3 asks if the structure can be moved to another site and it can and is a site that is suitable. Standard #4 asks if the project mitigates any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood. That is where I keep talking about the historic context of this block. To me the historic context is gone as it is the last piece and is already out of context. The addition of a newer building enhances the block better. Standard #5 asks that the impact be mitigated on the historic importance of the structures located on the parcel and adjacent structures. There are no adjacent structures on this side but the professor's house on the new site will gain architecturally and historically. Standard #6 asks that the impact on the architectural integrity of the structure be mitigated. We will be moving the house to a site that I think allows greater architectural integrity, the building will be restored and viewed on all sides. The best thing to me for the building is put it in a more suitable site. Jim Mollica, appraiser: On July 29, 1988 I was asked by Richard Klein on behalf of Mr. King do try and meet the guidelines in this requirement for the HPC. The guidelines were new and I had never dealt with them so I dealt with them the way I had for the last 15 years. I prepared evaluation comments and in section AA it asks for the market value of the site as it stands today with 5
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 C and without the building. At that point I said approximately $300,000. The feasibility and economic benefits of the restoration I did not deal with specific numbers. It was never my understanding that a governmental agency was looking for specific numbers as to what Mr. King may or may not make. If the building stays the way it is the underlying land value would be 100 to $150 thousand range. If there was a small addition to the property the value might be up to $200 to $250 thousand. It is the result of the size of the addition and the quality of the space that is generated from the addition. If you do a large addition to the back of the property then the land value would be $250 to $300 thousand. If a new building were placed there the land value would be $350 to $450 thousand. Joe Wells, Landuse Planner: We did a calculation on land cost and building costs, the cost of relocation and the consequent City exactions that come out of the GMP process. The option of doing a relocation and rebuilding on this site without any of the consultant fees or utility costs, tap fees, bldg. permits etc. it has been estimated at $160. sq. ft. The expansion alternative increases up to $200. a sq. ft. due to the City's exactions. Gideon: There are three items to discuss. Georgeann: What do you mean by exactions. Joe Wells, Landuse Planner: Employee housing, parking, a cash in lieu for parking in the cc district, the open space now has a cash in lieu provision; under the expansion alternative the city's exactions are all almost the same as the cost of construction. Bill: I will open the public hearing at this time. Frank Berko: At the last meeting I had a certain feeling that it would be nice to keep the front part of the house. There were no strings attached to the sale. Hearing today it seems that the logical thing would be to move the building. Tom Cardamon, Director of ACES: We are interested in accepting this building. Its use would be for employee housing, professors and naturalists. Larry Brooks, owner beside Berko bldg., one story: I have retained Charles Cunniffe to help me do a two story addition to the building and fund-ing is currently in place. Leslie Holst: I presented a petition at the last meeting that stated: The undersigned are in opposition to any alteration or moving of the old Berko building at 309 E. Hopkins. We feel this L 6 <-1
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 building does have redeeming architectural value and is an 04 important link in Aspen's past. People cannot maintain their spiritual roots and their connections with the past if the physical world they live in does not sustain these roots. What happens, as no one has mentioned how this relates to the community or the quality of life of the people that have lived here all their lives. I have been a builder, remodeler all my life and I just finished a 1880 brick bldg. and a 1904 brick bldg. and I am redoing a log cabin right now. Anything you want to do can be accomplished. The only redeeming factor on that street is the Berko bldg. and that is the only building we will remember when we walk down the street. On moving this the best thing they had to say was that they have a lot of insurance. I don't consider that an adequate criteria for picking a mover. Did they do any inspection on the mortar, is it sand, portland or what. Where do you draw the line and you have to start someplace. At least Mr. King is looking at alternatives. Everybody in town that I talked to has an emotional involvement one way or another. I think this building is a good place to start and there are alternatives on this building. Dave Lettingham: My mother owns the Snow Queen lodge and I grew up here and I just wanted to say that I understand wanting to move it but we renovated the Snow Queen to make it fit the old style and it has also been financially feasible for us. I think renovating using the existing building is a really good option. I can't believe what is happening to the town. You need to take the whole street into consideration and it is a sad thing that is happening to Aspen. My Aunt who owns the Little Red Ski Haus is leaving. I see the logical alternative of moving it but I am really concerned about loosing what Aspen is. David Fleisher: You have to draw the line somewhere as we are loosing all the old buildings. In New York you see a large building (sky scraper) and then a small building. Those people have a sense of fortitude and kept their old buildings. As far as the financial aspects the purchaser of the building had to have some idea of the down side risks when he bought the building. There has to be some way to mainta-in the building and still make the project financially feasible. Carl Bergman: The HPC will just have to make their choice. Personally, I just bought the two houses beside the Miners Bldg. and they will be retained as they are and I will take my loses. Bill: We did get a phone call from Bill Stirling, Mayor and he would like the HPC to know that the Berko Bldg. should remain where it is as it is important to retain the character of the town and it is in the long term the best interest of the community. 7
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 C Bill: I also go a letter from Don Fleisher and that letter will be entered into the records. It briefly states that the Berko site is a contribution to the historic character of the community. All the comments from the previous meeting are entered into the records. Mrs. Charles Edison: What business is Mr. King proposing for this location. Mr. King: It depends on the square footage that we have to work with; possibly a jewelry store and the second floor a professional office suite plus employee housing and the third floor we would put an apartment. Gideon: That is not relevant. Mrs. Edison: I think it is, that is like saying you are going to take the hope diamond and it makes no difference if you surround it with a septic tank or whether you put it in a museum. Gideon: One persons trash is another persons treasure. Mrs. Edison: It is a very valid building and it should be protected and maintained and used properly. That is logical, ethical thinking. We need to know Mr. King's intentions for the City of Aspen. Bill: Mrs. Edison, we don't require other people on their review to state what tenants they plan on putting in the building. We just try to review and evaluate the importance of this structure. Mrs. Edison: If you don't require that why then do you require the financial feasibility changes. Roxanne: P&Z deals with use and HPC deals with compatibility issues. Gideon: We feel that moving the building to the ACES is the best for this building. It will be restored to a residence. The rating on this house #4 was done in 1980 before we built the Mill Street Plaza. Once the plaza bldg. got built the historic character in context of the building was drastically changed. Bill: I'll close the public hearing at this time. Lisa: About context and use it is very difficult to get a building designated if the context around it has been lost. In 8
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 terms of use it's preferable in all cases to return the building to its original use. Jack King, owner of the building: I'm from Detroit and have been a skier for 35 years and skied Aspen for the last 25 years. I always wanted to own a building or house in Aspen. I was the Mayor of Gross Point Michigan, a suburb of Detroit and I know where you are all coming from. We couldn't do anything with the building that is there. There is no kitchen and the bathroom has a wash basin and a toilet. In order to make this economically viable it was determined that the building would have to be moved and we found the ACES site as I wanted to retain the building. We will retain this house as a home as it was a residential use and they will restore it and people will be able to see it. I want to give this building to ACES and add additional money to it to allow them to move it, build a foundation and to have it in good shape. I'm willing to build a new building in any character that the Planning Dept. would like to have as long as it is in good taste. The new building could have many uses, restaurant etc. I have no idea right now but it will be in good taste. Zoe: There needs to be a compromise, what is financially and economically feasible for the owner and what is important for the City of Aspen and its character. A lot of respect has been forgotten for the people and the buildings who have made Aspen the reason why we are all here. If the Berko bldg. remains and the building next door is built then it has to be in context. If the old building were to remain would the front facade be completely restored in terms of the bay windows etc. Richard Klein: That would be discretionary and up to the client. Zoe: I agree that Mill St. plaza is over stated. What reminds you of what was here are the smaller charming buildings. I think the compromise would be to retain the building and restore the front and take the bay window out. We need to construct our buildings that they conform with some of the original old structures that are now existing to retain the character and charm of what we all moved here for. Joe: I would like to go through the standards for demolition and give you my remarks. There is nothing in here for removal, just demolition. It would seem to me under the demolition standards only if it is appropriate to demolish would it be appropriate to relocate the building. That is my interpretation at this point. The first standard #1 is that the structure is not structurally sound. We have the report that says it is structurally sound, so from a point of view of demolition we wouldn't have satisfied that first requirement. Standard #2 that 9
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 C the structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. This is the only brick miner's cottage in the commercial core. This is the last building. I think we should go out of our way to try and rehabilitate or reuse it on the present site given the fact that it is the last one. No one has talked about the properties across the street and they should be taken into account as well. It's like the domino effect. On the economics, standard #2 requires us to look at that. Based on the standard that the structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused or provide for any beneficial use in my mind we haven't met that standard on that basis. Some of the numbers that Jim Mollica ran through in terms of the land value also created a concern. The property was purchased for $350,000 and with a large addition that the value would be $250 to $300 thousand for land cost and if we had a new building $350 to $450 thousand. My conclusion of putting a new building on here means that the value of the land itself will go from what he paid, $350 thousand to the range of $350 to $450 thousand. On the other hand if we do a large addition we will be loosing $50 to $100 thousand of land value. I point that out, the question is whether or not that prohibits any beneficial use of the property in my mind. Joe Wells brought up the relative cost of relocation and rebuilding as opposed to expansion and said that the reason the expansion was going to be $40 a sq. ft. more expensive had to do with the relative costs of city exactions from employee housing, cash in lieu, parking and open space. If in fact there are other code requirements that make this more expensive I'm not really sure if that falls in our purview. We are trying to look at, is this going to be prohibitably expensive to renovate because of the renovation, in my mind not because of the peculiarities of how GMP code works on an expansion as opposed to a relocation. The next standard, the structure cannot in all practicality be moved to another site in Aspen. I had a difficult time applying this one at all to moving it as again these are demolition standards that say the structure cannot be practically moved and that is the standard for being allowed to demolish it. I'm confused as how to apply that in this kind of situation, obviously we can move it. The other standards on the redevelopment plan mitigating the impact of the neighborhood, the impact on the historical importance of the structure etc. obviously we are relying on Lisa Purdy's analysis. One thing that bothers me is the analysis that we went through on an alternative plan for adding something on to the existing building. The assumption that I think was implicit was we should be allowed to build the maximum floor area for this building and so what we get is this little model, because the house is on the front of the lot it is pushing the development back and up in order to meet the 6,000 sq. ft. maximum floor area that they are entitled to on this lot. I don't know if that is a valid analysis of the alternatives. Maybe there is something more in L 10
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 keeping with this building on the site and is not quite so large and dominant. This is the last brick cottage in the commercial core area and I find that very important and we have to draw the line somewhere. One other thing I would like to say is that I was disappointed in seeing the barn on the ACES to be torn down. We don't have jurisdiction over that. Roxanne wrote that staff is concerned about the preservation philosophy of the ACES's board through their current plan to raise the historic 1906 barn at the edge of Hallam Lake. She then goes on to question whether adequate preservation alternatives have been investigated. ACES had stated this would be a great spot for other future buildings to be relocated to and I have a problem making that like a little area where all the old buildings will go. Georgeann: In 1980 we did not give the house a number only a notable. We only did the fours two years ago. Gideon: I said the designation. Roxanne: It is not a designated structure. Georgeann: Lisa commented on this building as being out of context but she seemed to forget that people do turn around and look on the other side of the street. I would like to thank Mr. King for finding a site for old buildings for the future. The Berko bldg. contributes significantly to the streetscape here. I cannot be convinced yet that we couldn't use the Berko bldg. in its present place and this could possibly be to Mr. King's advantage. You might have a more unique and marketable structure here by finding a way to adapt that building. I do think the design needs more work on it. Even if the building was used as an entrance I think it would give people going through the building a terrific opportunity to experience the small scale intimate spaces of the old buildings. You could create something exciting by moving from the old small scale into the newer building. In regards to exactions HPC could recommend some of these things in order to preserve the building. Nick: Does everyone remember what "was" the Mill St. Station and we knew at that time we couldn't control the goings on. The west wall of the building was going to be cinder block and HPC made an extended effort to get the red brick there. I would like to see a little further effort in keeping the building where it is and developing behind it. I do feel if we are going to move it where you have selected is a very good spot for it. Bill: I would like to thank Mr. Brooks for coming because what this Board says today has an impact on what direction we are going to take in the future. I am for preserving this building on this site. It is the transition zone from the commercial core 11
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 C to the residential and lodge districts. I would be willing to give my time to work with the applicant to see if we can help transfer density rights and some of the economic issues that you will want to get out of your site if we can. Maybe the corner can be redeveloped to take into account this building. We are here as a Board to preserve Aspen. Zoe: I will be happy to help in any way. The ACES is an excellent spot but I think it is more of a spot for the moving of the "true orphans". I don't think it should become the graveyard for wonderful old buildings just because there is space. Lisa: We are all on the same side and where I see the conflict is the zoning as that area calls for the highest intensity in the whole county. If the zoning weren't so high we wouldn't have to put such a large building behind it. You can't see the historic buildings across the street when you are looking at this side of the street. To me if you are going to draw the line draw it across the street where at least you have four buildings in a row. I also feel that the Committee is ignoring the expertise of the mover and I have worked with that mover on several buildings in Denver and never had a problem. I am not nervous about the move of the building. C Joe Wells: We used to have a mechanism to help preserve historic structures called GMP exemption but that is gone and there is nothing that you can do to relieve us from what appears to be $150 thousand of employee costs. $165,000 in parking costs at $15,000 a space. Roxanne: There is a GMP exemption for historic structures of an expansion of 500 sq. ft. or less. Georgeann: There must be some ways with an historic building that we can make it a little smaller, give the developer enough breaks so that it makes sense for him and the community. Bill: I think the City has to step up and help. It's nice for the City to have zoning and allow you to have all these FAR's to go to but it doesn't say that you have to go to them but we will try to go as far as we can and still keep compatibility within the context of the neighborhood. I don't know what that is but the City has to help. We should put a time limit on it also and if that doesn't work go on. Gideon: We have to compete in GMP and without conceptual approval we aren't eligible for the GMP deadline of Sept. 14th which puts us back a year. We are more than happy to work with you and possibly HPC could propose to the Planning Office to see C 12
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 if there isn't a way to enable us to continue working with you and at the same time not be knocked out for over a year in the process. Bill: I think that is fair and how can we do that. Roxanne: I understood that if you were in the pipeline that you could still apply for GMP. Gideon: In the past without an actual conceptual approval you are not eligible to file. Roxanne: I will have to talk with Alan and 2 1/2 months ago I asked Charles where the project was so I don't want it construed that "we're" under a time frame. Gideon: In the minutes of the Nov. mtg. we were directed to go look for a site and we spent 6 months looking. Now given the input of the community and this Board the direction is different. Roxanne: I do think maybe Gideon is taking this out of context as I was not here at that time and all I can do is reconstruct from files and minutes. It was a pre-application where no information, no staff memo was presented to HPC and was brought up at the meeting to add it to the agenda. The alternatives were not clearly presented. Roxanne: I have some comments: I would like to help direct the applicant in dealing with the standards for new construction of commercial buildings in the guidelines on page 35 as I see it the expanded proposal does not adequately address the first three paragraphs. I'm not convinced after looking at the model that the new development is adequate in context with the building either. I would like to see a variety of alternatives and I am willing to have it come before us the 13th of Sept. which is two days before GMP application deadline. Nobody has talked about the entire block. Zoe: If we are going to try and retain these little buildings we will have to work with the City in trying to make it easier for the people who want to keep them. Nick: I want to defend some of my actions on this Committee. I thought I was supposed to listen to all sides and the public and put together some thoughts and when we got to a vote act that way. What I said six months ago when certain things were presented I made that particular statement. Today the group comes in, they put three stories there that aren't there, they expect to convince me in that direction, other people said their is no portland cement and the building will fall apart so I did a little evaluation and that is my job on this committee not what 13
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 C we locked into two or three years ago but what the situation is right now. My situation right now is that I would like to hear some more about moving down there, not moving down there and what can be done on that piece of property. When that next door neighbor comes I expect to be sitting here and he going to have to be concerned about what is sitting next to him. Gideon: One of the reasons it took us so long was we were trying to respond to your concerns at that particular time not that you can't change your mind. Joe: Maybe we should talk about giving Planning direction to work with the exactions and economics. Bill: If this were designated maybe there is some way to help the neighbor and the developer. Zoe: Lets give him good solid direction. Joe: I would be willing to hold a special meeting. Roxanne: The issue is what direction are we going to give them so they have time to respond and I have time to respond. Leslie Holst: When you talk about economic hardship there is no C economic hardship, he chose to jump into the system and everything in life is a choice. If the guy can't afford the project he is in over his head. Jim Gibbons: I have been here for 18 years and 15 years ago I said to P&Z and Council that all you need to do is come up with guidelines, code for people to live by. If you have that you can't expect this guy to come in here and buy a piece of property with the assumption that he can do something then all of a sudden change the code. That is not fai-r. Zoe: In the Historic Guidelines it does state that any building that is constructed in the historic district you have to be sensitive to what is around you. Jim Gibbons: You are supposed to be working for and with him not against him. Larry Brooks: I remodeled the dry cleaners with the hope that someday I would put a home on top of it. I came to this meeting to see how my neighbor was progressing and see if I could go ahead with my project. As it is I would have liked to have started last year. Coming to this meeting I hear I have one set of rules for density and another set of rules for setbacks L 14
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 because I have an historical building next to me. You are making it impossible for me to improve the property in terms of costs. Zoe: Not impossible but it will take a little bit more effort on your part and the architects to design something that is suitable. In 1982 the Committee did make some mistakes. Jim Gibbons: You are eliminating the little guy by keeping the costs up. Bill: May I recommend that we table this meeting. Roxanne: Does the Committee feel like you have responded to the application as it has been submitted. Have you reviewed the application and do you feel that there has been new information that has not been presented that we need to go over at this time. If you are going to table this give them direction on what you want to see from them. Richard Klein: I won't be available until next Thursday. Nick: I would like to see the small building with the addition in the back done in a different manner then was presented to me today to show good or bad how you could use that area behind the building where it sits today. Zoe: Start with the old building and exhaust it to the point where it will either work out or it won't and then go to plan B. Georgeann: I would like to see the applicant come back with new studies of the design; the upper building lowered; the front simplified; use the four ft. space on the right hand side of the building to draw the people to the back building. At the same time I would like HPC to have managed to keep the project in the GMP at least for the next few weeks. Also that HPC come back to the applicant with some better recommendations, better possibilities for some relief from these exactions if that is what we have to do to preserve an historic building. As Bill said the City has to give also. Bill: We have to get the City and the P&Z here to see what they would be willing to give up otherwise we don't have a ground to stand on. Gideon: The key element would be to get a two week delay to the GMP. What you are asking for is important and will take longer. By Sept. 13th it is not possible to do a GMP application. Roxanne: I can't recommend that for other GMP applications that are coming in on other historic issues. 15
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 C Gideon: The only one that I am aware of is the one by Cheap Shots and that applicant may be willing to go along with it. Gideon: Sometimes we shouldn't put the process ahead of the goals. Georgeann: Why don't we do a once only and the deadline would be extended for everybody. Bill: I happen to represent that other applicant. Gideon: We could get a conceptual approval subject to modifications. Bill: We could give you conceptual approval and allow you to change it as you go through the GMP process. Roxanne: We are going to have to have conceptual approval based on an application which they are going to have to apply and I see no other way than a special meeting. Georgeann: Give them conceptual approval on this. Roxanne: They have not made an application on this so we can't grant them conceptual. Joe: We could schedule a special meeting to review first stage of conceptual. Zoe: We need a special meeting and in that meeting give them advice and direction. Gideon: We could have a special meeting and get conceptual approval on this particular building (original with addition) with the understanding that it is going to have the change the process and Mr. King is going to have to make a decision as to whether or not he wants to spend the money to go through the GMP application with the chance that the P&Z won't give him enough score based on this building and we get knocked out. MOTION: Joe made the motion to continue the public hearing until Thursday, September 1, 1988. Gideon: Why do we have to go back to square one and do an application as we are just modifying it. Roxanne: The applications are completely different. 16
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall September 1, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Augie Reno, Joe Krabacher, Charles Cunniffe, Zoe Compton, Nick Pasquarella and Georgeann Waggaman present. Charlie Knight was excused. 309 E. HOPKINS-BERKO BLDG. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Charles stepped down. Roxanne: The applicant has submitted revised conceptual development plans per HPC's request on the project and is seeking your approval for the relocation of the historic structure and the redevelopment of the site and they are attempting to demonstrate with the additional information the inability to adequately utilize the historic structure on the site's development. A suitable relocation site has been found at ACES and a redevelopment proposal is for a three story vertical commercial structure. There are three parts and I will present all three portions. I have a clarification in regard to GMP exemption: Alan Richman and I discussed it again and an expansion of a landmark building can be exempted from GMP going through P&Z. If in fact that is what they choose to do by rehabing the existing structure the deadline for Sept. 15th is now no longer a "push" date. Gideon: While you are exempt from GMP competition you're not - exempt from the requirements. You still have to pay all the exaction fees. Roxanne: I would like to clarify the Nov. 10, 1987 meeting which the applicant has continued to bring up. The applicant at that time had requested time to just get some feed-back from the HPC and had asked to be added on to the agenda at the end. There was no information that was presented prior to the meeting and Staff's concern at that time was the ability of the Committee and the Staff to formally review without a chance to review it ahead of time. The applicant stated at that time that it was an information discussion. Emphasis at that meeting was on getting GMP exemption and for the relocation of the structure which continued to be borough up in the minutes as the first option. Members of the Committee responded that possibly relocation was a better option then adding on a larger addition that would be six times out of the existing which was proposed. No formal action was taken at that meeting it basically was for information only. On March 23rd a pre-application meeting was held and Staff informed the applicant at that time that further study was warranted on whether the building should in fact be moved and
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 that their assumption that HPC and staff would approve a relocation may be premature. Staff's follow up letter to the applicant suggests a variety of on-site rehab alternatives stating that these items would require formal application. Then in July the applicant came before us and I went with them for a view of the ACES site and it seemed to be a very good alternative. I reiterated again that it may not be approved through HPC. In your packet you have four facade sketches that incorporate the Berko building into a rehab and one revised new development facade sketch plus floor plans, letter from the applicant that reviews the history, design conflicts plus Joe Wells has gone to a lot of work to produce cost estimates of construction and resulting income for each of those alternatives. We need to be satisfied that the applicant has in fact demonstrated sufficiently that an on-site rehab incorporating the Berko building is or is not feasible and that the relocation is the best possible alternative for this structure. Consideration of the integrity of the district in the immediate block is necessary in studying context and the future neighboring development. Will the proposed move adversely affect the special historical architectural character of the district and would an addition be compatible with the historic character of the building or will it alter the structure so much that it's integrity would be lost. Regarding the demolition removal standards particularly standard #2, beneficial use has been demonstrated by the applicant therefore based on these standards, approval to relocate the historic structure cannot be granted. It is not HPC's position to review and grant approval for removal based on highest and best use, the standards specifically say any beneficial use. The Planning Office is still not convinced that an on-site rehabilitation could not be accomplished to the best use of the historic structure allowing the owner a good return on investment. A creative rehab would provide a unique highly desirable space in the Commercial Core District and Staff feels that the applicant has demonstrated that with a little more effort an on-site rehab solution is not far off. That is step one: should it stay or be relocated. Step #2 is the relocation considerations which were reviewed at length in the other memo and an acceptable site has been found. The applicant has provided information from a structural engineer and moving company and in their opinion the structure can be moved without damage. I am still a little concerned about that but it appears that they are professionals and know what they are doing. The structure would be returned to its original use as a residence and would provide for needed housing for ACES staff and the structure would receive exterior restoration and interior renovation which could extend its functional life. Step #3 is the redevelopment considerations and after seeing the model I'm not convinced that I agree with the design solution for the new development. The guidelines specifically state that in all new 2
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 commercial construction compatibility to adjacent building types should be considered. The characteristics that have already been established can be respected while at the same time developing new and creative building designs that avoid the invitation of earlier historic styles. The redevelopment as proposed may in fact replicate a bit too much victorian styles but we will need to discuss that. I have given you alternatives in the memo. The Historic District must accommodate growth and change but at what point does a district lose the character for which it was established because of the volume and density of the new construction. Staff does not agree with the applicant that this miner's cottage could not be creatively renovated inside and out and provide a highly desirable commercial space in the cc zone district. Staff also disagrees with the applicant and the statement that the interior renovation cannot be accomplished sympathetically without destroying the historic integrity to adapt the structure to a commercial use. Some of the most successful historic renovations involve adaptive uses of residential structures. Staff recommended that HPC deny the application for relocation and redevelopment for the project finding that the structure can be rehabilitated to provide for beneficial use of the property. Staff also recommends the applicant apply for conceptual development approval to rehab the historic structure adding on a compatible addition and apply for landmark designation to take advantage of the GMP exemption for expansion of a designated historic landmark. Lisa Purdy: We have come up with five different scenarios. Kevin MacCleod: The original siting of the Berko house on a . small 3,000 sq. ft. lot cuts it in half and leaves only half of that lot for any future expansion. It is an extremely small area to get all the vertical and horizontal circulation that is required. It became apparent no matter how big one story or two or three story it always became the same problem the vertical circulation took up so much square footage and the Berko house became nothing more than an entrance with a long hallway back to the vertical circulation. We would not want to see the case where any expansion would be built over that, which would allow us to bring the stairs, elevators forward, that would not be acceptable to us or to you the HPC. The retailers want glass store frontage so they can sell their product. We studied several alternatives which lead to the new building which would allow us to have the required store frontage and the circulation was cut down to a more appropriate percentage. Bill: Could you demonstrate how much more exposure you do in fact have. 3
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Kevin: With the Berko building the front frontage is 15 feet and the only display is the bay window which is a limited amount of glass and with the new it would be 22 feet. Georgeann: The Berko bldg. is two parts: one the original bldg. and one the storage area put on behind it. Are you looking at saving both. Kevin: We will not save the storage area behind it as it was added at a later date and made out of inferior material and would compound the problem. Georgeann: If we save only the Berko bldg. we are only saving about 20 ft. of depth. Kevin: The biggest problem is vertical circulation, stairs and elevators take up a tremendous amount of square footage. Georgeann: In the new bldg. you have separated the back circulation from the front circulation and in all of the remodels you have made that a continuous piece of circulation. Wouldn't breaking that into two separate pieces of circulation help you a little bit. Kevin: The problem again is the front to the rear connection. The space would have to have two means of egress. It was the clients choice to be able to fit in two occupants on each level. If you have a rental space in front and one in back we would have to provide a corridor to connect the two and the frontal rental space would have to have two means of egress and the back would also. Georgeann: On the new building you just egress through the rental spaces and in case of fire I would think it could be done that way also. Kevin: If the square footage was arranged so that they both could reach the stairs. Georgeann: I'm not trying to say this is a good or bad option but it seems to be that in a way you are padding the circulation here and cutting it out in that one. Kevin: In order to get the rentable square footage up we have eliminated the parking. Bill: If for some reason the employee housing wasn't built on the site we could get a smaller building which wouldn't dwarf the little building. 4
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Joe Wells: We looked at the costs of the projects and various alternatives not only the construction costs but the City's exactions, bldg. permit fees, hookup fees. Planning, architectural and legal fees are not in these numbers so that we know on the cost side the cost numbers are too low probably by $100,000 to $150,000. None of the alternatives work on paper. The costs of the project range from $800,000 to 1 million 300 thousand dollars which exceeds the projects value of $500,000. Another important point on the numbers we didn't discount for some of the awkward spaces that we know are less rentable then some of the alternatives. Bill: What is the point you are trying to make. Joe Wells: None of the numbers work on paper. Joe: You are saying he paid too much for the land. Joe Wells: To have gotten this property for a number that would work out on paper he would have to have gotten it around $50,000 to $100,000 and we all know that is unlikely. We simply supplied numbers to each alternative in the same manner, we didn't draw any distinction as to the efficiency of any of these layouts or as to the quality of the layout. Gideon: We feel if you construct a building that has poor space and doesn't have as many windows your chances are that it is going to be a loosing project. If you are able to construct a building that has good space and windows and good circulation then you are going to be able to rent it sooner and get higher rent. Zoe: Why did he buy it in the first place and he knew what he paid for it. Joe Wells: The rules were totally different then. Since he bought it there is now a $15,000 per space exaction for parking; open space cash in lieu provision; employee housing has gone up from 35% minimum in the commercial core to 60% minimum. Bill: Would you say the City exactions are the economic hardship here. Joe Wells: Yes. Bill: If a deal could be worked out that the exactions weren't there how does that change the picture here. Joe Wells: Dramatically. 5
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Bill: I have two thoughts: Is there any flexibility on the exactions with the City. How does the employee housing and residential unit hurt the size of the development. Gideon: The problem with that is there are conflicting community desires. Bill: If the City wants to save this building can in fact that be waived. Number one we don't want the mass of the employee unit there because it will detract from the house and is the City willing to waive that. Nick: Who in the City wants to save the building. Joe: The Mayor made a comment. Nick: I talked to 150 people out in front of the Berko building last week and the opinion was "no" that the City wants to save the building where it is. They want to save the building but there was no reflection at all in the mass of the people that want the City to save the building where it is. Bill: We took public comment the last two meeting and some people spoke up and wanted to save the building in that site. Roxanne: We also had a petition with 103 names. Georgeann: When I look at all these numbers granted that the numbers won't work the relationship between the two of them doesn't seem that much different in any case. I would think that it would be in your best interest to get rid of the employee housing because then you could get more viable numbers even using the older building. Gideon: If that was the only alternative then maybe that would be the best but there is still an argument to be made that moving this building to the ACES site may be a better alternative. Bill: We are here today to find out to see how we can save it. If it doesn't work we can go to the alternative, ACES. Lisa Purdy: I was hired for my professional evaluation and came to the conclusion that relocation is better: 1) The context has been lost on the place where it is now. 2) For the long-term preservation of this building that is accurate historically moving it is better. 3) There is not a single addition in my opinion that doesn't bastardize the victorian house. I can't figure out how to make it work as you have lost the first half of the lot in order accommodate the historic house and pushing the retail to the back. 6
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 A narrow lot makes it difficult also. Joe: What if you move the building forward on the lot. Kevin: What's the difference between moving it forward or moving it to another site. Georgeann: The grass and little lawn in front of the house makes the building have character. If it was pulled forward I think you would defeat the whole purpose of the little building. I'm not concerned about the interior I'm concerned about the exterior. Another thought that bothers me, lets say we told them to keep the building and change the window. I don't think we can asked them ever to change this to completely restore this to its original form because that would mean one window that was about 5 ft. high and 2 1/2 ft. wide and I don't think we could ever ask a commercial building to have one 2 1/2 ft. wide front window, so we are looking at a change regardless. I also find the scale of the Berko building refreshing and a delight. Bill: If we want to save it on site we want it to keep its own identity. If you force them to max it out with an employee unit it tends to make it bigger and ruins the scale of the Berko building. Nick: Removing employee housing would not be in standing the way the community is going today. The stress is to have as much employee housing as we can get. I don't want to see any reaction by this committee that would remove any employee housing. Bill: The employee unit is being put on here to get more footage. Gideon: The City Council wants employee housing on-site. Bill: The only way to save it on-site is for the City to give up some of these exactions. Nick: It is our responsibility to the community to act as part of the City and make these decisions. Georgeann: In a way we would be loosing two units of employee housing, the one that we would be putting on the site and also the employee housing for ACES. Nick: I went down to the ACES and that house is being used properly and I have been assured that when this house goes down there it would be utilized properly as employee housing. It will only be a period of time when people will say that was the Berko house and used to be uptown. The building doesn't have to 7
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 stay where it is. I would like to see the building moved in a proper way with the proper protection. Zoe: I would like the building to stay and the windows be put back and possibly the building be moved forward and that the City relieve them of some of the exactions. The exactions have to be worked out but we don't know if the City will give up any. Georgeann: I think in a way this has to go to Council because they do put us in a box. Zoe: We can make our recommendation but we will need support from Council. Our job is to retain the historical character. Augie: I looked at this project with potential developers and I believe the building should be moved. I don't think that the past was wrong allowing the other buildings to be built but I do, however, think that the architecture didn't respond to this little building, that was the mistake. They didn't respond in scale or setback. I think the building should be restored in a different location. Joe: I am certainly convinced that we have a problem with the floor plans based on the scenario that is presented here. After looking at this and going through the problems we have with the City code I feel the code language that we are operating under right now doesn't work to allow us to do a relocation. On the other hand the code language doesn't allow us to give any exemption to get away from some of the City's exactions. So, I have a problem both ways. My feeling is we have to establish our priorities. My feeling is if Council is willing to allow the developer to get out of some of the exactions so we can do a project on the site that makes sense, great, otherwise I'm in favor of relocating the building. Bill: Looking at the four alternatives that the applicant has presented I don't see a viable alternative that allows this building to keep its identity and scale. We could move it and finish up the block neatly in scale and do our battle on the other side of the street. The City Council and P&Z have the ability to deal with exactions not us. It will be hard for us to save this building without the Council sitting down and negotiating with the developer. Zoe: If we want to save this little building the City would have to give up exactions and if they won't give them up then I am for moving it. Nick: There are three houses beside City hall and when we start making concessions we are starting a new precedence. We are 8
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 going to take the building and make a viable use out of it. The building geographically doesn't fit where it is. We have to look at what the preservation needs really are in the community and I find that you do that by getting out and talking to the community. Gideon: It was very difficult to find a site as there aren't very many around. Most of you have dealt with the City Council and this will take at least six months and will not get resolved right away which means we will be placed in limbo and Council may not change their mind. Augie: Forgetting the interior plan do any of these additions help the building or go along with it. It is all "big brother" hovering behind it. I'm convinced they don't work. Joe: The more I think about it the more unlikely it seems that Council will grant any exemptions. They will be under a different political spotlight and it is an issue (employee housing) that will get a lot of attention. Bill: We have looked at 1/2 dozen additions to small miners cabins and we have yet to see one that doesn't look like "big brother". I would recommend that we table action on this with a recommendation to the applicant that they proceed on our next agenda to look at the new building. That we proceed going ahead and moving this building to the new location and that we set on the agenda the new building that will go on the site to keep them on the GMP track. Within that we recommend that P&Z and City Council come to that meeting to work things out. Georgeann: I would like to pose the question is big brother bad, we have the choice of big brother or no small buildings left downtown ultimately. Bill: You have to look at it case by case and on this location the add-on structure is destroying the integrity of the structure. Gideon: While I appreciate your effort of compromise in reality when you have a GMP deadline of Sept. 15th you have to be prepared and can't wait until Sept. 13th to see what kind of building you are going to ultimately approve or see what the City Council is going to do. Roxanne: Either approving the relocation and the redevelopment and give them 101 conditions or you are denying the application and you don't want the building to be moved. They have to have some direction. A tabling is not going to be effective for us or 9
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 them. Are you convinced that these are the only addition alternatives. Bill: There are variations but basically we are looking at the massing. Georgeann: If this was required to remain I think we would have to allow them to put in larger windows in the front so we wouldn't have a perfect restoration anyway. Bill: I don't agree with that because some use may not require a lot of windows. Roxanne: There are a variety of businesses that would love that space. Bill: I don't see how you can add on to this and keep its identity. Georgeann: If it didn't have the employee housing it could work and there are times that we will have to relax the requirements. Either move it or relax the requirements. Roxanne: It is unfortunate that we have to review this under demolition/removal standards. Based on standard #2 which specifically states, has the applicant demonstrated that there is any beneficial use out of the property and they have in fact demonstrated that there can be a beneficial use out of this building with an addition that may or may not be compatible. Are you convinced that a relocation is warranted. Joe: You can always make some beneficial use out of anything. I think it comes down to a question of compatibility and looking at the floor plans and the alternatives are pretty grim. After looking unless we can get relief from the exactions... Roxanne: What are our priorities here, to act as P&Z, no. The burden is upon the applicant, if they have a problem with the numbers and all, that is not our issue. We can only recommend. Zoe: I moved here seven years ago and some day I would like to have another store or shop and right now if you don't have a glitzy building you don't have a worth while space and we are loosing what Aspen is. I think the building should stay and the windows should be restored and there ought to be an addition to the building and it is unfortunate that possibly the developer paid more money for it than he should have because he knew he had to keep the building. 10
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 MOTION: Nick made the motion to move the building to ACES location and guarantees of a solid move. The developer of the building be responsible for all eventualities and done in a contract basis. I would like to see a $200,000 bond picked up by the developer to assure me and the people in Aspen that that building will be moved and moved properly and will be set in a site that will be a beneficial use to employee housing by the ACES people. In that contract there should be deed arrangements to assure the longevity of that building on that site. This does not in any way indicate acceptance of the new development diagrams. Augie second. Augie: I question whether or not we should have language in that motion that relates to the development that this action would take place if we approve a redevelopment plan. Roxanne: The relocation is not just for relocations sake so we need to include in that motion about the redevelopment. The application is for relocation and redevelopment. AMENDED MOTION: Nick, the motion is subject to conceptual redevelopment approval. Zoe: If this building gets moved the three across the street will go next. If the City doesn't give up anything the little houses are going to come down. Quite frankly if I was a developer, and unless the City gave me something I would say I want to move the house. Lets try to keep the town the way it is supposed to like. Bill: We can't make a motion to give them the direction and tell them to go to Council. Georgeann: If it isn't this building it will be another project with a desperate reason. Augie: I agree if the three houses across the street were to take this same fate it would be terrible but those three structures are under a different situation, different context. There are three buildings that are adjacent to an historical building. Right now we have two contemporary buildings that totally ignored that existing Berko building. There is no validity in saying if this one gets moved the three across the street will also. Joe: Based upon what Lisa has told us, moving it, restoring it is the best way to accomplish the objective which is to preserve the historic character of the town while not compromising the other things that are important like employee housing. Based on what I have seen I am leaning on toward moving the building. 11
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Bill: I already said I am in favor of moving it because of what I have seen how. If you make a statement that it has to be saved how do you control that and how in the next development which is on the corner, do you save compatibility. How do you save the identity of that structure. You don't know if you have that tool. We have looked at how it can be added on and saved in this location and we are not pleased with the outcome of it. You either turn it down or let them go ahead. Roxanne: We need the motion restated and clarified and I want to deal with the bond issue on that motion. NICK RESTATED HIS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION: Nick: I move that we approve the moving of the Berko building to the ACES site to be developed as employee housing. To that I would like to have written guarantees in a contract to guarantee a solid move and that the developer be responsible for all eventualities in the moving process and be responsible for all costs to repair any damage in the moving of the building. To assure that move I would like to see a bond of the appropriate amount put up by the developer to guarantee the payment of any of these eventualities. The property deeds be developed to ensure the longevity of the building on that site and to approve the redevelopment of the piece of property after the building is moved, subject to the L conceptual approval of the redevelopment. Roxanne: We need to clarify the conceptual development as proposed. Nick: We just want to look at the plans they presented but we don't want to accept that. Joe: Nick is saying OK let them move the building but we want to approve what is being put in its place and that is a condition. Roxanne: The application includes that redevelopment in your packet for the three story commercial building. Nick: I don't want to give conceptual approval for that. Augie: We can have a second motion. Joe: We are going to look at the redevelopment this afternoon. Roxanne: I am concerned that we aren't tying this motion into a redevelopment. The application before us is for conceptual development of that particular building. We have to give them conceptual approval. 12
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Joe: Why not give approval to move the building subject to conceptually approving the redevelopment. Augie: If we don't approve conceptual the building can't be moved. AMENDED MOTION: Nick: Lets add subject to conceptual approval of the redevelopment. Augie second. Roxanne: The motion is to approve moving the Berko building to the ACES site to be developed as employee housing with a written guarantee for a solid move and that the developer be responsible for all eventualities in the moving process and cost to repair any damage that is done in moving the building and a bond be put up by the developer to ensure the longevity of the building on site and to approve the conceptual redevelopment of the site. Joe: It will be used for employee housing and have some guarantees on the move and there is going to be a deed restriction on the new location and it will be subject to conceptual. Georgeann: Mr. King also stated he was going to give monies for the restoration. Roxanne: That needs to be added in motion. Joe: I would like to add removal of the bay window and complete restoration of the porch. Georgeann: Just restoration will cover that. Will that restoration be reviewed by HPC. Bill: Only if it is designated. Roxanne: It also needs to receive landmark designation to do this so that it can move to that R-15 zone site. There are problems with that because ACES doesn't have their parcel legally yet to even be able to accept that building. There will have to be two bonds, the mover and the bond from the owner on the restoration. I will get with the Eng. Dept. Bill: We are giving direction to the applicant to go ahead and come back to us at a certain date with a redevelopment plan. VOTE ON MOTION: All approved except Zoe and Georgeann. Motion carries. 13
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Georgeann: Everything will have to be bonded and they will have - to come back before us with the new building and the restoration of the old building in its new site. CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF NEW BUILDING ON BERKO SITE Richard Klein: The model is simplified by the removal of the pediment. Because of the context on the block being adjacent to a new building this will be more of a contemporary building. Materials, possibly glazed brick, or tile. A colored store front might possibly be a direction to go. The parapet is 36 ' high and its relationship to this building and the entire block we have shown that this isn't in fact too high of a building. The porches or decks in front have similar relationships of Gordon's and the banding line continues. I think the pediment is important and helps the building. The pediment is at 39 feet and the roof behind it is at 38 ft. Joe: What is the maximum height in this zone. Richard: 40 ft. Joe: What is the height of Gordon's. Joe Wells: My recollection is around 29 ft. Roxanne: In the guidelines it mentions new development infill be respective of the context of the adjacent buildings. The adjacent buildings are extremely horizontal. After I saw the model I thought that the new development doesn't appear to be appropriate. I have a problem with a lot of the victorian replication. The whole reason for removing the Berko building is to finish off this block architecturally to make it a nice clean break between what is going on across the street and this new very contemporary horizontal block. To "puncture" it with a vertical building is not necessarily going along with the character of the streetscape. We need to come up with a design that reflect what the guidelines say which is a contemporary building. This design you have presented is a replication, why not keep the Berko building with an addition behind it. Lisa Purdy: All the guidelines say make it vertical and repeat the openings that are in the historic buildings. This building follows each of the items that were in the design guidelines but violates one which says don't imitate the old. Roxanne: This building in going through all the details misses the whole picture. In the initial paragraph it missed the whole purpose. 14
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Richard: There is no way in a 30 ft. long lot that you aren't going to appear vertical. Roxanne: My point is, is this a better design for this block then the Berko is with an addition. Based on block context it doesn't. If it doesn't help the block then why are we moving a small cottage off the site. Georgeann: We are ending up with a lot of buildings that are going to be called in the future late 1980 art deco victorians. They all look the same and are made with brick and sandstone. I don't think we need anymore. I think this is a place to break the scale and change the pattern of the horizontal that are going on and I think we can change our scaling pattern enough to have it reflect a little bit the feeling of the other side of the street; possibly an angled roof. Augie: The massing doesn't bother me but the closer to the replication does. I think the building can be done in a more contemporary manner and yet relate to the victorian heritage and to the existing buildings. You are taking the guidelines very literally in saying this is what we are doing. It might be nice if the building did step out a little bit further to give that block some relief. Richard: It has an 8 ft. setback. Augie: Because of that long horizontal facade on the Mill St. Station if we get something too similar then we get this wide expanse of sidewalk that is out there and that becomes undesirable unless it is landscaped the entire length which right now it really isn't. It looks too much like a replication to me. Joe: I'm concerned about the height of it a little bit and it makes the streetscape look massive. I would like to see some other designs. Bill: I don't have a problem with basic massing but I do have a problem with the look of the rendering there. Even if you took the pediment off that building would look better in another area of the core. I would like to see the building more compatible with the buildings adjacent with their rhythm of the store fronts and the windows and not so much verticality. You are changing the rhythm that is neither complimentary to the building to the left or to the right and you have to make a choice which way to go and then we will be able to relate when the next building comes in. I think the three stories hurts it a little because the massing of the other building, Mill St. Plaza is more of a two story in nature. 15
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Richard: It is 2 1/2 stories. Bill: I agree with staff that it should relate to the neighbors on either side. I don't think you can relate to the buildings across the street because they are different styles. I don't find the building that far off. Georgeann: I think the contemporary finish will help tremendously. I would like to see some relief of the scale to break it up. Joe Wells: In the old code there was a provision that required that HPC grant conceptual approval prior to any GMP submissions. I can't find that in the new code and I wanted to know if any of you know whether its been eliminated. Roxanne: I was told it needed to be in the pipeline and you need conceptual approval. Georgeann: I see no problem giving them conceptual approval. Roxanne: We could go with conceptual approval with conditions to restudy issues and state them. Bill: When you look at the rendering it is not compatible with this street. It is the use of materials, color and little details that relate this building to other parts of the core and not to its neighbors on the other side. MOTION: Nick: I move to give conceptual approval with stipulations that we look at the front facade, height and massing. Gideon: Everyone has a problem with the front facade but I got three people on the board that said massing was OK. Roxanne: The massing relates to what you are going to apply for with GMP. Richard: How does the Board like the curves. Augie: There are no curves on the block so I don't think they relate and to me they look like a replication of victorian structure. Roxanne: We could schedule a worksession but I am not sure that is necessary. Bill: I am sure Richard doesn't want a building designed by the Committee. 16
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Bill: Is there eight inches of clear space between the buildings on both sides. Richard: Right now there is four inches. Bill: Whose building is not against the property line. Richard: They will be right next to each other. Gideon: I need direction on the massing. If we are just changing the facade then the GMP allows that kind of change but when you change the building drastically then we may have a problem. Bill: I have a motion on the floor. Gideon: If we would eliminate massing then we would have it. ON MOTION: Georgeann second Nick's motion. Bill: Does the Board have a problem with the massing as presented and if so what are you against. Georgeann: I want to see something that is not so symmetrical and I don't like the way it goes in on the third floor. Roxanne: Possibly breaking up the massing and not so solid. Georgeann: Mill St. Stations has a lot of rhythms going on with it and I think that is interesting and appropriate on this block. Nick: I like the way the building steps out in front but I don't like to see all the steps the way it goes back into the structure. Bill: We told him to restudy the massing but how does he do that; should he lower it eight feet, three steps, two steps. His massing is really two story. I find his massing to be correct. Georgeann: This would look nice next to the Wheeler block bldg. I don't think this kind of massing that looks like the contemporary victorian is an appropriate massing here when we have all these themes going on in the massing next to it. Richard: What if you didn't perceive columns. Augie: You could make that a contemporary building with just a new facade. 17
HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Nick: I am not going to change my motion; show it with or without the columns. Bill: I don't think the applicant has direction here and I am trying to help them. There is a misunderstanding of what massing is and what facade fenestration is within that massing. The massing is the width and height of the one story and with width and height of the second story and the position of it. In this particular case I find it to be correct within the massing of the street. If you were giving them direction on massing you would either tell them you want it one story and the second story step back or you want it three stories all at the front. Georgeann: I think to step the third floor back might be appropriate. Richard: I think we should get together in the office and come up with something we like and show it to you. ON MOTION: Bill: All in favor of the motion. All approved. Motion carries. Roxanne: We can schedule a worksession 4:00 p.m. Sept. 8th. Adjourned 5:30 18
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 Gideon: We asked for removal and we know we are not getting our removal. We then asked for redevelopment and conceptual approval. So basically we are just coming back for our conceptual approval and we were planning on getting conceptual approval of this. You have looked at this building and decided that is not the building you are going to give us conceptual approval on but you are giving us direction to come closer to the other model so we are continuing the public hearing for you to reanalyze our conceptual approval for a building similar to this. Georgeann: We have tabled conceptual approvals in the past. Roxanne: We are trying to help the applicant and this is going beyond what the application really is. We could even make a denial motion. If we go with the tabling and recommend that they revise their application to show that the building remains on site with the expansion and go ahead and make that motion now then make a motion to table the public hearing until that time. MOTION: Joe made the motion to table the application and continue the public hearing until September 1, 1988 at 2:30 p.m. to reconsider the new design that we have given them direction on, the revised design. Zoe second. All approved. Motion carries. Roxanne: I would like to state to the applicant that I will need a complete application by Monday at 5:00 p.m. Zoe: At that time is when we will do revaluations on our comments toward the addition. Richard Klein: It could be a smaller building if we don't have to worry about housing and parking. Bill: We don't have that ability. Roxanne: All we can do is what code says right now and if the applicant would make recommendations to us in writing as to what we might consider recommending to P&Z. Georgeann: If you would give us suggestions that you would like us to recommend that helps us. Bill: Possibly if this was designated it might help the project next door as it would be nicer if we could open that area up somewhat but he has to be compensated some how. Joe: They are going through minor code amendments right now and it would be nice to get Council to adopt something that would give us the ability to have a little more flexibility. 17
HPC.MINUTES.AUGUST 25,1988 C Adjourned 5:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 18 L