Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20060524 ~---- A.SP,,^, HISTO!llC PIlES€"" A. nON COll1MJSSION l11IlVUTE~~4'l!!Jl& 100 E. BLEEKER ST _ CONCEPTUAL ANn V"'<rANCES . . DEMOLrFJON, ON-SITE RELOCA nON :';~~o~r;:",,: p ~~~~~~~fONTiNiJj::ii;;U;;iiCHiiARiNG.............'; DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) n"L TEAKEOUSE, LIFT I PARK _ MAJOR VARIANCES. PlJ ,,~ OCA TloN, DEMOLITION AND I ~:~~~'..MA:iOiiDBVjjiO;;MiiNT=CONCiiPiU;;i=VARiANc~3 ------------------- 24 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.rn. Commissioners in attendance: Sarah Broughton, Alison Agley, Derek Skalko, Jason Lasser and Michael Hoffman. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of ApriI19'h; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Michael abstained. Disclosure - Sarah will recuse herself on 434 E. Cooper 100 E. BLEEKER ST. - CONCEPTUAL, DEMOLITION, ON-SITE RELOCATION AND VARIANCES Mitch Haas, consultant Rally Dupps, architect New elevation - Exhibit I Amy said the project is a Victorian miner's cottage on a comer adjacent to the Yellow Brick building. There is an addition that has no historic significance that will be removed. A garage will also be removed and the building will be picked up and moved forward a couple of feet. It is tight from side to side and some setbacks variances are being requested to allow for a reasonable addition. There has also been some discussion of a FAR bonus. The issue is the connector piece between the new and old construction. The applicant has done some revised drawings that are in the packet but in staff's opinion we aren't quite there yet. The issue is the use of the connector as a deck and the railings and furnishings that come along with that are somewhat awkward sitting right behind an historic building. Possibly incorporate the deck to the east side of the building which is the non-historic side of the building. There has been a restudy of the west side of the addition. Two options have been presented A or B. As a suggestion maybe the connector could be slipped westward to facilitate more outdoor space. Mitch Haas, planner. They altered the deck and it is no longer overhanging over the west side toward Garmisch Street. All the overhangs occur on the east side. We also pulled back the railing of the deck and the connecting 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 element is much smaller than the existing element. The cap has also been taken off the glass railing. Derek asked if a cap is required on the railing. Rally said the railing has to have a certain compression and thickness. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Rally said he worked on the drawings trying to move the deck to the other side but to get the program the deck would push everything out so the house would then be wider than the historic house. Alison said if this is going to be an exemplary project having the 500 square foot bonus would have to go hand in hand with not having the deck. She understands why the client wants the deck and she has no problem with it. To make it even glassier you could get rid of the comer posts and make it all glass. Alison said if the deck gets approved it is in the right position. Derek said regarding massing and scale the restudy is good and the project is in compliance with our guidelines. Regarding the deck from a compliancy standpoint they are keeping it away from the historic resource and they are not attaching to it and the glass is an honest attempt to keep it light. As far as fenestration options B is his preference. Sarah echoed Derek's comments regarding the deck given the constraints to the site. The revised plan of pulling the glass off the historic building is appropriate. The comment made by Alison about eliminating all metal at the comer is a good suggestion. In terms of mass and scale Sarah has a concern with guideline 10.14 about the roof form. Option B, the gable on the vertical element on the west fa<;:ade having it come so much higher than the north facing ridge is against that guideline which talks about the roof being in character with the historic building. The detailing of the out riggers, the rafters seems tedious and should be addressed at final. In terms of demolition and on-site relocation and variance, they are all acceptable. Jason said the only sticky point is the deck. He is in favor of A design simply because that is the only design that is a two-story element and ties in 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 better with the gable end. Jason has no issues with the deck and he couldn't find anything in the guidelines that says you can't have a roof deck on top of the connector link. Jason also agreed with Sarah's comment about the verticality of the ridge line piece. Michael said he is favor of option A for the same reasons stated by Jason. He is concerned about the deck and he is not in favor of the FAR bonus with the roof deck. A flat roof with no deck is a better idea. Jeffrey also agreed with staffs concerns about mass and scale. The deck element is a comer element and the street frontage is prominent. This is a landmark and exemplary project. There is an awful lot of detailing in that link that is starting to become competitive. Guidelines 10.3 and 10.6 deals with designing a building that maintains the character of the historic building. The concern is the west elevation. Jeffrey would prefer A design with a study of the gable roof. Sarah said in terms of the verticality discussed option A would be preferred. Alison also said she would prefer A. Amy said with regard to the connector the guidelines don't speak directly to it, but staffs interpretation comes from guideline 10.7 which says a one story connector is preferred. As soon as you do something programmatic on top it isn't a one-story anymore. Mitch said the deck is only 7 feet and not big enough to have a hot tub on it. It is not a place for a grill etc. because all of the living and dining area are downstairs. You would have to come through the master bedroom to use the space. As far as patio furniture that can happen on any historic property. There are projects in town that have a one-story connector over a deck and some of those projects face the street. We are fine with option A. In terms of massing on the roof we will lower the gable to meet the historic one and not extend above it. Rally said he will look at the roof overhangs and he appreciated all the comments made by the board. Mitch addressed the FAR bonus. He emphasized all the assets. We are removing an inappropriate addition. We are removing a garage and restoring the entire streetscape. We are removing a non-historic bay window 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 and restoring that as best to the historic condition. Our connecting element is much smaller than the existing one. Rally said we are exposing the entire back side of the historic house that was gone. Mitch said on the east side of the connector the door was removed. Amy listed the conditions: Conceptual, demolition, on-site relocation, Setback Variances: 9.6 rear yard setback; 2 foot east side yard setback; five foot west side yard setback variance, and a 500 square foot FAR bonus if the board chooses. MOTION: Derek moved to approve conceptual development for 100 E. Bleeker St. with documents submitted in plan B with the inclusion of the deck and eliminate any steel connections that are vertical. Approval of the conditions listed above by including the FAR bonus to go into TDR's; motion second by Sarah. Roll call: Jason, no; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, no; Sarah, no; Jeffrey, no. Motion died 4-2. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #13 for 100 E. Bleeker with the following variances as stated by Amy including the 500 squarefoot bonus for TDR's. Mass conditions: Reduction in height of the gable on the west facing addition to match the north facing gable and no higher than that gable. The inclusion of option A diagram. The inclusion of the roof deck. Elimination of the rafters. No vertical steel connectors in the deck. Motion second by Derek. Roll call: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, no; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-1. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 434 E. COOPER AVE. - DEMOLITION, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Sarah recused herself. Amy stated that 434 E. Cooper is in the Commercial Core District. The board and staff ultimately guided the applicant that they should simply submit their demolition request and have a public hearing format to respond to the criteria. The proposal is not too necessarily tear the building to the ground but what they are doing will meet the City's definition of demolition. There is enough removal of skin, fabric etc, that we call demolition. The building will be remodeled beyond what we know it today. Staffs memo indicated that letter C of the criteria has been met (the structure cannot be moved to another location). The second group of standards talks about the significance of the building. The building was built in 1965. It is more than 40 years old. The applicant is not offering to designate this building. The core is mostly influenced by Victorian architecture; however, there was nothing said or done at that time that excluded a more modem building being contributing to the district. On Main St. there are a number of modem buildings and lodges. Part of our finding is that the building doesn't meet the criteria for demolition. It could in fact be a contributing building consequential to the preservation needs of the Commercial Core Historic District. One of the papers written by a consultant explains that in the context of the buildings that remain, this building is an interesting example of Benedict's architecture responding to the contest of the downtown and doing it in a different way than the Victorian buildings did. There are still massing relationships, fenestration, flat roof form and a variety of things that are in some ways a very creative twist on patterns that were developed by the Victorians and it is certainly a unique building. This building has a lot of integrity and there is nothing to staffs knowledge that has been done to change it since its construction in 1965 other than basic maintenance. Staff finds that the demolition criteria are not met and the building contributes to the significance of the historic district and the loss of the building would adversely affect the integrity of the district. Fritz Benedict was an architect that contributed to town and is part of the history of our town. This is a fine building that remains of his body of work and it should not be demolished. The applicant has hired a consultant that views the preservation of the building in a different way. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 Mitch Haas, Land Planning John Rowland, Architect Mitch said they can understand and sympathize where staff is coming from and the position they are in with this building, and it is not an easy one. One thing that he can't get past; is this the building we really want to say has to be there from this day forward in this form. He has a hard time thinking that anyone would think this building should stay here forever. Another question, how can it be that a building which ignores, as our guidelines point out, all the character defining patterns of a Historic District contributes to the significance and integrity of that district? The guidelines for the core talk about several patterns that are defining, things such as open space on the property. Open space is occurred as accents along the street usually where a house existed in an historic context or a lot that is temporary vacant. While some open spaces may occur it should be subordinate to the traditional character of the street. In this case our open space erodes the streetscape and the pattern of our traditional Historic District. With regard to building setbacks, buildings pull up to the street on the sidewalk edges and in this case the building setback at the comer which is the most prominent important part of the building which should address the street and pedestrians. It is setback and also provides an impediment to getting to the building, a sunken courtyard with walls around it. The building forms here are not consistent with the Commercial Core. It is an L shape away from the comer lot line with decks facing the street and arcades over the sidewalks. There are also large overhangs that are inconsistent with the Commercial Core. The pedestrian engagement and storefront character is an important designing feature in the Commercial Core Historic District. On this property it turns inside out and detracts from these defining features. This building detracts from the integrity of the historic district. It recedes away from the street and does not have an inviting entry or prevalent store front windows. The windows that exist are severely shaded and darkened by overhangs and arcades which are inconsistent with the historic district. The sunken courtyard impedes pedestrian and visual access to the building. The post war buildings that have been considered in Aspen or designated or of interest tend to be, pan abodes, cabins or chalet buildings. None of these styles are in the Commercial Core Historic District. I think everyone would agree that the Design Workshop building, the old Pitkin County Library is the best remaining sample of a commercial Benedict designed building that we have. It only means to me that the Mountain Plaza bldg. is not nearly as good an example of Fritz Benedict's work and is considerably less 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 significant. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines provide several architectural styles that are import toward Aspen's historic context. This building does not fit into any of those styles. The closest local influence besides landscape is the Independence Bldg, Red Onion and Aspen Block, all Victorian era buildings. This building ignores those other buildings and their shape and form. It is unsuccessful in addressing property edges. It addresses them in a manner that is inconsistent with the historic resources and the alignments of the Historic District. Overall, we have found that the building has survived to present day without alterations. There is no question about that. The question is whether that is a testament of the value and integrity of the building or is it a testament to the fact that the building has never been sold and never been worthy of sinking additional funds into. It stayed in the hands of a property owner who built it as cheaply as he could. The building is not structurally sound and does not meet most of today's building codes. It could not possibly be redesigned to meet today's ADA requirements. Tom Bracewell from the Sanitation District told him every time we have a lot of rain fall in town all the toilets in this building overflow and backup as the connections to the Sand District were done improperly and there is no way to fix it unless the building down is tom down because the pipes are well below the building. In the end I can't believe that this is a building that we want to see stay here forever. It is not an historic building and never has been designated. The only reason we are discussion it is because it is in the district. The more important question would be what would go in its place and that would be decided by this COITIlTIlSSlon. Nancy Lyons, Historic Preservation Partnership stated that she submitted a report on her findings. She has been an historic preservation architect for 25 years. There is the issue as to how we deal with the 50's, 60's 70's architectural buildings. Then we need to look at the urban design interests as they dovetail historic preservation. She looked at the background information and the different styles of architecture and architects that played important rolls in Aspen's history. She tried to get into the 50's to determine what the atmosphere here was. What was the design that was going on? This building was client driven and Bidwell wanted to keep the costs down. Architecturally it is clear that Fritz Benedict made a contribution to the development of the mountain vernacular. He didn't have direct interest in the design of this building. The through that she drew together in the report were: 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 Is this building important as an historic resource to the course of history? We don't' really have the district defined with the context that includes buildings like the Bidwell bldg. My conclusions are based on imagining what is going to be there. Does the building have something to say about the history and development of the story of Aspen? In the 60's we had urban renewal and in the 70's historic preservation came into play. What are the buildings that are good to represent the story of the 60's? The Bidwell building does not have a lot to tell. It is represented in a time of the 60's that buildings were just blown up. This building is very market driven. You can't fix the structural without taking the thing apart. The building is not representative of any style. Nancy feels she would not put the building in the list of buildings to be represented of the 60's in Aspen. This building has no partners. The question would be does this building have to be designated because it is related to Fritz Benedict. Everything that she could get her hands on made her feel that the building does not say much about his work. Mitch said Fritz Benedict is one of the founding fathers of Aspen. If Fritz's name was not attached to this building we would not be discussing it. This is not one of the better examples of his work and this is not the building that should be an important part of his legacy. Amy indicated that the applicant can pursue the application if the demolition is resolved. Mitch said the code changed and they will have to restudy the application. Should this commission approve the demolition request we are perfectly find with the condition that we have a year or so to have a conceptual plan at least submitted. The building will sit there until we have a plan that will replace it. Michael asked if the plan is to demolish 40% of the building. Mitch said we know that more than 40% of the building will be demolished but it will not be tom down to the ground. Amy said they are not asking for demolition except if they demolish at least 40%. If they aren't going cross that threshold all they need to get is conceptual approval from HPC. Once it has been triggered as demolition then they arrive to this process. Michael clarified that they can demolish up to 39% or less with conceptual approval. If you go over 40% then it is considered demolition and then we come to the issue of whether we are taking away something significant. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 Mitch said we didn't want to go through the process with some members of HPC feeling like we were dealing with an historic building and some not. If you approve demolition, that question is answered and we go on to conceptual approval. Derek said one of the arguments was that the building has to go because of the toilets and that everything is so far below the building. How far below the building if you aren't going to tear it down. Mitch said we will be doing excavation in the basement. How much of the building will remain we don't know. We just have a strong feeling that it is going beyond the 40%. Even ifit doesn't go beyond the 40% we want to set aside the issue of whether or not we are dealing with an historic building. If you grant demolition then we aren't dealing with an historic building. John Rowland said to be clear on what demolition is, it is only the skin of the building. The interior slab in the basement will be completely demolished and lowered. Michael requested clarification of demolition. John said when you go to measure a demolition you take the surfaces of the exterior of the building and the roof so that is the calculation we are measuring against, 40%. Jeffrey said the code is based on an aggregate sum of the exterior surfaces including the roof. So, whatever they do in the inside as long as it falls in the 40% criteria it conforms. Jeffrey said Nancy talked about Benedict's contributions to an evolution of a local vernacular. This new style influenced by Wrightian principles was adaptive for the mountain region. Jeffrey asked Nancy to clarify the style and why this building does not satisfy her own description of Fritz Benedict's work. Nancy said her decision came mostly from conversations with Bob Sterling. The residential structures done by Benedict had much more to do with taking the Wrightian approach architecture which involves the landscape. The design fits with the land. When she looked at the Bidwell building, 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 which has a flat roof, it doesn't fit in. Conversations with Bob Sterling indicated that they didn't want a flat roof and wanted the building to be "mountainey" and woody. Alison stated the criteria for demolition. a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located. b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties. c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs ofthe area. Nancy said a and b are similar, and as she said before she does not see a pattern. On criteria C she feels demolition will be consequential in that it has done a lot in bringing the HPC together to help define what it is, and it would resulted in everyone taking a hard look at something as to how this building has changed and how any new infill goes in there. It would be consequential and a positive impact as to what goes in. Alison asked Mitch and John to respond to her question. If this is not a good example from that era in the commercial core are there any other buildings that you think are? Mitch said with regard to Benedict's buildings we are looking at the Wells Fargo building, Aspen Square Condominiums and this building. Perhaps commercial design was not their forte. Alison said her concern is that we have the Victorian era and that is great and historic preservation was built on that. If this building isn't kept, what other buildings in the historic core maybe kept from that era? Is this building the best of the worst? Does it mean that everything else from that time period goes away and then we have a void? It says in our guidelines that that was a period in our history. I am trying to think ahead. Mitch said he can't think off the top of his head of other buildings from that era, 50's through the 60's. Amy pointed out that we already lost some buildings that predate this building, The Prospector Lodge and the Guido's building has been 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 remodeled beyond recognition. There aren't many modem buildings from the 50's through the 60's that exist today at all. The Vectra Bank is also a Fritz Benedict building. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Ruth Kruger, broker. Ruth said in the past she was hired by the Bidwell family to lease the spaces in this building. This is an A plus comer and a very critical comer in Aspen and this building is a D-minus. It has been extremely difficult to lease because of the big mote that detracts from the accessibility of retail spaces. The building has plumbing and mechanical problems. This is an opportunity to put a nicer building on a prime location which is now a detriment. The board needs to look at what needs preserved, just because buildings were from a certain era doesn't mean they need preserved. This is not a building that Fritz Benedict wanted to preserve. James from Kemo Sabe said buildings have a life span and then it is time to move on. James said the building is a failure, the roofleaks when it rains or the snow melts. No tenant has made it in that building for more than 18 months other than ourselves at ground level. If it were the last building in town from the 1960's I don't think I would say save it because it was from the 1960's. Buildings have a life span and it is time to move on. The general public now or in the future would not think this building is that significant. Why does Paradise Bakery work? Look at that great open space. The sunken hole in the ground that we have doesn't work. Georgia Hanson said she talked to Fritz Benedict at one point about this building and buildings he was proud of and the ones he wasn't particular proud of. This building was one that Fritz was not so proud of. Amy said a letter from Tom Yoder, owner of Kemo Sabe was in the HPC packet, basically saying a lot of what has been said. He doesn't feel the building has continued value. Chairperson, Jeffery Halferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Derek said he has studied this project and interviewed every tenant in the building. There is not a cut and dry answer here. You can argue this building to go either way. He is looking at the project from a preservation 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 standpoint. As somebody who is in this profession oflongevity and doing something that is a lasting statement, he understands the idea of a record. At some time there is a very critical point when you have to look at function and success of the space. The tenant list over the years has been quite long. That tells me that the building is not functioning properly. There are mechanical, electrical and functional failures in the building. Regarding this whole thing, some of the ideas that came out of the Bidwell building that are interesting could be carried into the next phase of the building's design. If the decision goes into a new building proposal it should carry the essence of the Bidwell building. It has been said that we are getting a consistency of brick lumps in town. Some of those reasons are due to our guidelines. Jason said if we removed the name from this building we would have a different decision. Fritz Benedict wasn't the primary designer building this building. The courtyard is not used and just a hole in the ground. We need to look at what was there before. I'm looking at this purely as a building and try not to associates Fritz with it. It is a non-functional piece of architecture that is not generating any business or interest on that comer. It pushes people away. Jason said it is tough to say this but he is in favor of demolition. Alison said she also spent time talking to people and found no one who wanted to keep the building which is something to take into consideration. Everyone has feelings on this building. She is very interested in the timeline of history through the core of Aspen. HPC as a body has no incentives to give to a commercial building to stay in its historic state. I have a problem telling the Bidwell family that you have to keep this building that nobody loves because it is part of history but I can't give you incentives. Michael said the first set of criteria 26.415.080A-4 is the only thing that is met. The structure cannot be practically moved. Chapter 13 talks about the commercial core historic district and the character. Michael feels the commercial core is a Victorian district. There is no vitality on that street. He agreed with Alison that the building is not that significant of a building. He feels that the preservation needs of this district will not be damaged and that the demolition will be inconsequential to the historic nature of the Commercial Core. He is very concerned about what goes in next. He could approve demolition with the condition of approval of a subsequent plan. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 Jeffrey said if this was a Fritz Benedict structure we wouldn't be discussing it. That being said the criteria for demolition item C; the structure cannot be moved to another appropriate location. He would agree with that condition. Jeffrey said he is a big proponent for the Post Second World War period as a very influential period that helped create the environment that we live in now. He can't come to terms with the demolition. He could perhaps see major renovation. There are hand drawn details that had Benedict's influence. He would like to see some change of balance. He also wishes HPC and the City had more incentives to help improve a design. He also understands the economic pressures. He almost wishes we continue to visit the project and come up with something that works. Mitch Haas said Fritz was a capitalist in this building. It was built for a client. It is not the legacy we want to attach Fritz too. Nancy Lyons, preservationist said it might be a good idea to get a collection of photos of this building to make sure it is all documented. MOTION: Michael moved to approve demolition of 434 E. Cooper, resolution #14 provided, however that no demolition permit will be issued until a conceptual plan for the replacement structure has been approved by this commission; second by Derek. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, no; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, no. Motion carried 3-2. Derek said Michael's condition is very reasonable and he supports it. WILLOUGHBY PARK, SKIER CHALET STEAKHOUSE, LIFT I PARK - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RELOCATION, DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES - PH Jason and Michael recused themselves. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Letter from Heather Henry in support of the relocation - Exhibit II Telemark Condominiums letter - Exhibit III. Volley ball court be retained. They question some of the detailing and how the foundation will be dealt with on a sloped site. They are supportive of underground garage. They are also concerned with the relocation of the Deep Powder cabins because they would take up some of the open space on the site. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 Bill Poss, architect Bill went through the site plan. The proposal is to build a parking garage under the lift. The idea is to re-create the base area. We have provided for the relocation of the Deep Powder cabins where the ticket office is right now. A park would also be created in the summertime. We will also be talking about the two volley ball courts. Our application is to relocate the Skier Chalet lodge from its present location to right behind the lift which would expose the lift to the public as they come up South Aspen St. We would also be donating the lodge as a skier museum to the Historic Society. That is the basic overall plan. Amy said in the staff memo we are talking about a few steps, major development review, conceptual, relocation, demolition and variances. We will be talking about Willoughby Park, Lift I Park, Skier Chalet steak house although the restaurant is gone and the Skier lodge. 15 years ago the voters approved Willoughby Park being used as a ski museum. Conceptual -This was the original base area of Aspen Mountain. The Boat Tow was first which had inventive equipment to get people up the hill in the 30's. In 1947 the Tow was replaced with the longest chairlift in the world. Amazing history happened in this town at this location. Even in the 50's there was some kind oflift access at the Little Nell area. There are also architectural resources from this area, chalet lodges, that are effected by this proposal. The Skier Chalet lodge was the kind of building that belonged here. We are talking about significant resources in staffs opinion, some of which are on the national register others which are designated already. Willoughby Park was the Fifth landmark designated in Aspen's history in 1974. Design guideline - We focused on the parking garage basically and the associated elements. It is a surface parking lot right now. It is an improvement in that sense by putting the parking underground and to regain use at grade with landscaping elements. Staff relayed that real elevations were not provided to show some of the features. We do have renderings that show the stair tower but clarification is needed. Skier Chalet steak house/restaurant - This is a small parcel that has an easement for the ski lift. The one-story addition was added later in its history and that architecture is not consistent. In order to facilitate a 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 rehabilitation and reuse of the building that addition might have to be sacrificed. The applicant intends to use the building for affordable housing. Lift I Park - This is a landmark designated parcel and is owned by the City. The only feature on it is the lift tower. The applicant plans to build a parking garage underneath exclusively for the lodge. When they do that they will take the towers off the site temporarily. Landscape is the only thing changing on this site. This was a ski corridor and adding a lot of trees seems contrary to what exists. On-site relocation - The two Deep Powder cabins are proposed to be moved to Willoughby Park which was a recommendation that came out of the Limelite approval. HPC is being asked to officially accept the cabins in the site. We need discussion as to exactly where they should go on the site plan. There is also a proposal to move the sister lodge, 233 Gilbert which was built ten years after the lodge to the site. It is not designated but has been a prime interest to the board since 2000. The property was then sold and the new owner has a new intention to move it to Willoughby Park and donate it to the Historical Society and rehab it. Stafffeels strongly that the board does not have enough information to decide on at this point. You have to determine that relocation is the best preservation alternative. The application relayed that there is public access that will be created through it being a museum but we haven't heard why the public couldn't have an opportunity to access this as part oftheir lodge project as a restaurant or publicly used space. Stafffeels moving a bunch of buildings on one site that has its own underlying significance starts to change that significance. It can be creating what is called a "petting zoo" where communities take a group of buildings and move them altogether to one site. It is an enjoyable experience but it becomes difficult to what it is you are trying to experience at this site. Staff is concerned that the Post War buildings keep moving as if we they can't be accommodated like all the other Victorians. Staff does not want to jump to the conclusion that relocation is the best solution without further information. Possibly some of the fabric of the Holland House can be used for rehab in the museum. Demolition - The applicant proposes to demolish the one-story addition to the Skier Chalet restaurant and we can understand that that piece might not be integral and not affect its historic significance. There is a proposal to demolish a shed roof building at the base that has been used by the Ski Club and now the soccer club. That building might have been an original ticket 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 office and added onto. We need to resolve whether this building is contributing or not. We also need clarification about a shed that is collapsing at the comer of the Skier Chalet restaurant, and whether that is significant. Setback variances- On the addition to the Skier Chalet restaurant variances are need because the property boundaries are so constrained. Five foot variances on the front and five feet on both sides is needed. This is not something that should be controversial. Staff recommends continuation after hearing some discussion. Bill Poss, architect presented. They have received conceptual approval for the Lodge at South Aspen to develop a lodge going up S. Aspen street. We are also working on the parcel for the Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge. When we worked on the Lodge at S. Aspen it was brought up that no one was master planning the area. It is at the base of the mountain and been identified as lodging sites. We have one developer that has purchased property from the Skiing Company, the Holland house and the Skier Chalet property. We have enough to work with to do a master plan of the entire area. With the new master plan we are redoing S. Aspen Street and the City has asked us to take the cars off the street and we are also working on a new access point to the Lift I A. Weare proposing an elevator to get to the lift. We will put all of the service underground and parking. The client also built the Roaring Fork Club in Basalt. Part of their community participation was to develop the Roaring Fork Conservancy which raises money for a water shed at the Roaring Fork River. The client has discussed raising money to restore the museum and donating it to the Historical Society. We are here tonight to discuss the relocation of the building. It would be more prominent at this site then behind a building. We plan to open the site up and make the lift prominent. The Skier chalet lodge would be moved 90 yards down the hill. The two chalet buildings would be around the lift and the open area would be developed. We are willing to open the area up and eliminate some of the trees. The parking garage could provide income for the historic museum. If the skier's walk is created it would go from the gondola all the way past the Residence of Little Nell, the Hyatt, St. Regis and connect the two other lodges at the base of the mountain. We feel it is beneficial to relocate the lodge and give it more prommence. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 Lisa Purdy, preservation consultant The Skier chalet lodge is not located in a good position and is compromised. It has lost its visibility and context. When you first look at how to preserve a building is to never move it. In this case the building will be better off if it is moved because it will be protected and preserved. She has never been in a circumstance where a developer is willing to go to such great lengths to renovate, restore and pay for the move of the building and donate it as a ski museum. The question is does HPC think it is an appropriate place to be moved. This building is not yet designated. Essentially we have an undesignated building that we would like to move, rehabilitate, and then designate it. This is a small move because it is in the same kind of neighborhood and it is next to the ski slope. This building fits the criteria of a move that is beneficial to the historic building. Its integrity is its relationship to the ski lifts and ski slopes will stay approximately the same and even its relationship to the sister building which is the steak house will remain very much the same type of relationship and distance. If it stays where it is at best, it would be incorporated into a large project where it already has its setting compromised. Ifit moves we will have a change to rehabilitate it and designate it and house the historic ski museum. There is a building already approved for this site for the ski museum. All we are saying is let us house the museum in an historic building that we can move to this site. Bill said the ticket office could be part of the museum and utilize it. The little shed can also be incorporated. The historic skier chalet steakhouse will be used for employee housing. Derek asked Lisa Purdy what her arguments would be ifshe were defending the other side and keeping the building in its existing location. Lisa said in the preservation field one always argues to keep historic buildings on-site. Bill said the building was built in 1965. The Europeans that came here felt strongly about the European look. These are not true historic Swiss Chalet buildings. They are representing and era and that is what we are preserving. Amy said it is valid that the building is in its current location. Lisa said in the future the building would be overwhelmed by what is being built in its current location. 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Ruth Kruger stated that the current location of the lodge is totally obscured. Whatever will be built will make it more obscured. This is a win-win for the City and the Historical Society to have the museum. It will have a higher visibility, better access and in a park setting. Leon Feld said the Mother Lode volley ball tournament has been in existence for 34 year. There are volley ball courts at Willoughby Park. We cannot loose those two volleyball courts. We are also in the process of making the event bigger. The building of those courts helped us push to the impetus of what the tournament is now. It is the largest beach double volley ball tournament in the world. Georgia Hanson submitted a letter from Heather Henry in support of the relocation. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner comments: Amy clarified that the Deep Powder cabins need formal approval by HPC. Derek said the volley ball issue will be directed to the Parks Dept. Preservation is to keep something alive over the course of change and time. The best possible scenario is moving the building as it does more to benefit the structure. There needs to be more discussion regarding the exact location of the building. We need to look at all the possibilities. Alison said a lot of things in this project are dependent on other pieces. She is fine with the underground parking and the site layout. She has no problem with moving the building to be the historic ski museum. The building is not designated historic. She approves of the demolition of the addition to the steak house. The elevator staircase needs to be worked on. Something more sensitive needs to be incorporated in the design. Regarding Lift I, the site needs to be prominent and eliminate some of the trees. The Deep Powder cabins are complicated and there might be room on the site for them. The issue is that they are going to be saved. 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 Derek said the most important historical aspect of this is the connection of the historical lift itself with the mountain. Alison and Sarah also agreed with Derek's comment. Alison said maybe there could be some kind of opening through the Roaring Fork lodge. Sarah said the entire neighborhood uses that corridor and there is something great about the connection of skiing down beside an historic lift. It is imperative that an opening be retained. Maybe an easement could be sought. She is in support of the relocation of the building but we need to start the process of where the building would go. It is positive that we want to keep it within this area but maybe this site is not the right one in this park. She agrees with Alison about a connection to the skier chalet. Further information needs to be provided about the ticket building and the out houses. Keeping the area open as a skier access is imperative. The issue of the Deep Powder cabins has been discussed immensely. We should just keep it open to re-examine the site plan. Linking both our ski bases is unique for Aspen and S. Aspen Street is critical in the overall feeling of what that will look like. The historical Aspen Street needs to come into play in the design. Jeffrey commended the architect for an excellent presentation. The improvements to the park are excellent. The parking concept oftaking it below grade is excellent. Retaining the volley ball court is an important component. The historic relationship to the ski hill and the lift is challenging. Our primary issue is to keep the building in its original place but our guidelines are sometimes flexible about making it a better public presentation. Personally he would like to see the skier chalet kept in its current location. Regarding the Deep Powder cabins, HPC interest is keeping them in their original location. The addition of the elevator to the skier steak house needs restudied. The other secondary structures in that area should be preserved in their original locations or in a close proximity. Keeping the lift at its historical grade is important. Taking the boat tow and removing it from its historic location is conflicting. All in all it is an excellent concession by the developer to try and connect all the points. Jeffrey also commented that he is in support of creating something for the Historical Society and a ski museum for the community. To what lengths do we have the right to do that? Some individuals are concerned about keeping the historical open space retained. With restudy of the site plan he could support the majority of the proposal. 19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 Bob Daniels indicated that they are committed to working with the Parks Dept. on the volley ball courts. Bob also said they understand that the Deep Powder cabins crowd the site. Amy pointed out that HPC doesn't really want the cabins on that site either. There are a lot of problems with getting the cabins to the site and it is quite expensIve. Amy stated that the majority of the board is in favor of relocation of the building. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue conceptual development, demolition, on-site relocation, variances and the public hearing to June 28th; second by Derek. Roll call vote: Alison, yes; Derek, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 4-0. 114 NEALE AVENUE - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Cappeli letter - Exhibit I Amy stated that in the early 1990's the subject house was sitting in the center of the 17,000 square feet lot on Neale Ave. The historic house was moved up the hill and the building was restored with a contemporary addition added on. A lot split was approved years later and HPC just approved a new house under construction on the down hill end of the site. The only remaining potential on the table for this subject house is aFAR bonus. Bret Thoeny is the owner, architect and he would like to exercise some of the rights that might be available through aFAR bonus. We need to pin down exactly what FAR amount is needed. A single car garage is being proposed and an extension of some of the existing contemporary construction and there is a free standing guest house which is really just a bedroom. Staff has no concern with the extension, the addition or the guest house. They comply with zoning and do not need variances. The gist of this is about the garage. When the original proposal came in, it was poor planning because no accommodation was made for the garage. That became a problem and the original developer cut down trees in the right-of-way without permits and created a parking pad. That became a problem with the neighbors and the City. That pad is the only on-site parking and that is the 20 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 starting point for the proposed garage. In the past there were discussions to see if a garage could go off Neale Ave. The board was offended by the visibility right next to the historic building and Engineering didn't like the concept of coming off Neale Ave. The garage would require setback variances and the neighbors have suggested that there are trees that are going to be impacted. The applicant has not met with the Parks Dept. regarding the outcome of the trees. Possibly a car port or other form of structure could decrease those impacts. The neighbor has brought up an issue with the rights or lack of rights over a ditch that they own or have rights too. Staff has not investigated the ditch. A Water Commission arbitrates situations like this. AFAR bonus is being requested and a finding needs to be made that that is an appropriate thing to do. There is also conflict with our Residential Design Standards. Staff recommends continuation for the outside issues of the trees and ditches. Bret Thoeny said he had owned the house for four years and there is an issue not having a garage on the site and cars are being parked on the street. He has been as sensitive as he could to the neighbors. The garage would be very small and needs a 2.6 foot setback variance. There is a visible separation between the Victorian. The addition is a contemporary style. Everything is behind Neale Ave. and not visible. There is an easement across the stream that goes in front of the property. A parking pad has been over that. The intent is in no way to disturb the water. The garage is exempt from the FAR ifit is under 350 square feet. The den is 70 square feet and the free standing bedroom is 110 square feet. The intent is to not over build the site. Amy pointed out that the side yard variance required is ten feet. The variance requested would be 7.6 feet. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Linda Cappeli, owner next door. The entire issue might be moot whether the garage is approved or not. The owner might not have official access across the ditch. Ernst allowed a culvert for construction only. There are also a group of trees there. Linda said the ditch is an historic ditch that was abandoned and she and Ernst restored it. There was a garage proposed in the same location before and it was declined. Amy said for the record the application was not denied, it was never formally acted on. 21 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 Ernst Cappeli, neighbor said he bought the proper 39 years ago. His house is designated. Ernst said he understands Bret's position but he knew what he was buying. The trees affected are 30 to 40 feet tall. The owner's land rover would be able to fit into the garage. He would. have about 6 feet in the garage. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Sarah said she is very concerned about the location of the garage to the property line. Maybe there is a way to work with the non-historic addition that is already in place and reconfigure that to allow for a garage that works with the setbacks of this neighborhood. Ifwe were looking at something less close to the property line and trying to retain some of the trees it might be acceptable but that is not the case right now. Derek said before he makes any decision he needs to discuss the new development with the board regarding setbacks and variances. Derek also said there needs to be a discussion with the riparian people about the pond. He has concerns with fenestration and detailed elements of the documentation presented. Alison said it is hard to make any kind of decision without knowing what the Water Commission is going to say. Ifthe right to the driveway can't go through then we can't even talk about the garage. The Parks Dept. also needs to be involved regarding the two trees. The site is extremely constrained. Bret Thoeny said the only other place is off Neale Ave. There is a home on the other side that has a curb cut on the hill. He didn't take that direction because of the history that went no where. If it were off Neale it wouldn't have the impact to the Cappeli's. Alison said asking for a 7.6 foot variance would make the garage too close to the Cappeli's. We need to continue until information is obtained from the Water Commission. Jeffrey thanks the neighbors for their input and all the work that they have done on the ditch, cottonwoods and the property. The site for the garage location is very challenging. As a preservationist it is the appropriate place 22 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24. 2006 because it is setback from the historic resource. The additions that were done in the past are appropriate. The garage is a challenge and you will have the same difficulty moving it to the west on King Street away from the neighbor but we don't want the historic gable compromised. Allowing the lot split memorialized this historic resource with a modest addition. Jeffrey said he can see a restudy and could look at aFAR bonus. MOTION: Alison moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 114 Neale Ave. until June 28th; second by Derek. Roll call vote: Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Jeffrey, yes; Sarah, yes. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Kathleen 1. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 23