Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20060809 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006 WILLOUGHBY PARK/LIFT 1 PARK/ SKIER'S CHALET STEAKHOUSE- CONCEPTUAL, RELOCATION, DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES .......................... 1 135 W. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION - VARIANCES FAR BONUS. 7 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006 Vice-chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Sarah Broughton and Jason Lasser. Derek Skalko and Jeffrey Halferty and were excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Sarah moved to approve July 1 ih minutes; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comments: Toni Kronberg brought forward to the HPC's attention that the City hired a land use planner/consultant. They said HPC guidelines are in direct conflict with infill regulations. We have protective view planes and three projects, The Limelight, Connor cabins and Galena and Main view planes have been infringed upon. The Civic Master plan will be published Sept. 1 sl to get public comment. The Civic Master plan can open up a place to put the volley ball court that will be lost from Willoughby Park. Michael will recuse himself on Willoughby Park/Lift 1 Park! Skier's Chalet Steakhouse. Sara stated that a certificate of no negative effect was issued for Boogies. They are replacing and increasing the awning dimension 100 square feet. WILLOUGHBY PARK/LIFT 1 PARK! SKIER'S CHALET STEAKHOUSE - CONCEPTUAL, RELOCATION, DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES Bob Daniels, Stephen Holly Sarah Broughton chaired. Amy relayed that after the July lih meeting the remaining concerns were to study the location for the large tree that has to be moved because of the new parking garage. Restudy the site of the Skier Museum and possibly placing it closer to Dean Street. Work on a stronger relationship between the architectural treatment of the new structures being built on the site which are two garage exit buildings and a stair case that is attached to the old 1 -I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006 restaurant. Provide further information about the resolution of the volley ball courts if possible. Amy met with the applicants and review sketches for the location of the museum and recommended iteration B because it meets the preservation goals the best. It moves the museum closer to Dean Street and creates a nice street relationship. The Parks Dept. is also pleased with this idea. They are also pleased with the location of the Deep Powder cabins that might be used for a cafe etc. behind the museum. There was also a discussion about putting the eastern most garage exit into the museum itself to get rid of one more thing on the site and to capitalize the open space. Staff supports conceptual approval. The applicant has also provided us with two options for design for the roofforms of the western exit of the garage. Staff feels either design is appropriate. The addition to the Skier Chalet steakhouse is modest and we are satisfied with the design of that structure. The landscape plan has changed and meets staffs approval. The restoration of the chair lift and out house is really good. There are two things up in the air and one is the relocation of the large tree. The Parks Dept. is not sure the tree will survive the relocation. Something else needs to be worked out and perhaps it is mitigation in this case. The other issue is the volley ball courts. The applicant has continued to talk to the Parks Dept. and we have heard from the public that the courts are a concern. The resolution of the courts is not something HPC can resolve. They are not an historic resource and not an aspect of the site that is ski history. We do hope that a resolution is found but feel it cannot happen here. Staff recommends conceptual, relocation, demolition and variances. The variances relate to the steak house restaurant. Lisa Purdy, preservation consultant. Lisa said the team is very pleased with the revisions presented tonight. Goals: . Ski museum on the site. . Preservation and designation of the skier chalet lodge. . Find a location for the Deep Powder cabins. . Restoration and enhancement of the historic structures in Willoughby Park in order to tell the history of the ski industry. We are also enhancing Willoughby Park by removing the surface parking and providing new landscaping that works with the historic elements. We have also increased the safety of Aspen Street by removing the on-street parking and other street improvements. 2 ____I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006 Stephen Holly said at the last meeting we were directed to look at two components and one was the site of the museum and the other was the continuity of the architecture of the secondary structures. Stephen went through the linear design with the HPC and discussed how the design could be tailored to satisfy the HPC and staff. The lift is the vocal point and keeping it open is a goal of everyone. The largest concern was the secondary egress which had the inverted wing. We are keeping very simple volumes throughout the site and maintaining materials wood/steel structure. Clarifications: Alison said with the museum moving forward (B) how does that sit on the site. At the last meeting there was concern that it is too upright. Stephen said with the cabins moving to the back they have more mobility to grade it out and achieve a better slope. It is being brought back 30 feet from the street edge of Dean Street. Jason asked if the archive storage would be under the Deep Powder Cabins. Stephen said it won't be directly under but in that area. Sarah asked about the possibility of getting the main garage entrance within the museum. Stephen said they will study it but at this point they can't make a commitment that they can do it. Another concern is that they maintain a similar grade that presently exists. Sarah opened the public hearing. Vince Golecio - Golecio said he has been in town for 35 years and playing volleyball for most of that time. He understands what HPC is supposed to do. When the vote occurred in 1991 for the land to be used for the historical society there was and is a building here on the site. The building is the historic Aspen Ski Club bldg. This is the building that many skiers trained in and used for many years. What we are doing here is destroying an authentic historical building and use and replacing it with a lodge. They volley ball courts have been here for 28 years and have been used continuously by a large number of people. It is an historic use. If the HPC is of the purpose to preserve buildings and not uses I think we are getting away from the whole point. The only reason this is being proposed here is to help the developer do their project. I have nothing against having the skier chalet building being used for another ski museum but this is a bad location. Regarding the tree, it can't be moved without killing it. Vice 3 _'0' ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006 handed out an Aspen Times story and photograph of 1998 about people who have been using the volley ball courts for 20 years. We are going to generate here another unused monument tombstone. Galen Right said he has property in the South Point building which is the most effected building to this project. He has been very pleased with the process and the developer and Bob have let us know what is going on every step of the way which is truly appreciated. They like the park like setting on top of the underground parking. They are happy that the lift is being preserved. Galen also said he is the vice-president of the board for South Point. There are about 30 units, 25 owners and 15 of the units face the street. They are three stories and the bottom level is the most affected. Anything close to the street affects our views. Being back 30 feet helps but there is still a grade change. They were hoping that two floors would exist instead of three. They didn't think the cinder block was worth preserving. The biggest issue at South Point is the visual impact. We would prefer the museum back against the trees. Sarah Broughton closed the public hearing. Comments. Alison - tree relocation study. This is difficult because the Parks Dept. isn't sure the tree can be moved. The tree does impede on the garage below it. The restudy of the different sites for the ski museum were well presented. The applicant did a good job of pointing out different solutions and why they chose certain solutions. Alison also agreed that option B is the appropriate solution. It will give the museum the prominence that is needed and hopefully will generate visits to it. The design of the staircase is in the other auxiliary buildings. The restudy of the garage secondary egress consideration B is a better option and fits in with the chalet stair tower and garage entry. The relocation, demolition and variances fall within our guidelines. With the exception of not knowing the answer about the tree conceptual should be granted. Jason said keeping the tree where it is might work and incorporate the tree as a canopy. Option B is the right choice as it gets rid of the crowding of the Deep Powder cabins. The museum is best suited pulled forward on Dean Street and having the green space behind. The South Point condos will loose some view but the park will be an improvement. This is an historic effort. The Aspen Valley ski club was 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006 added onto many times and it is taken back to the original state. Jason said he appreciates the new design of the garage exit next to the ticket booth. He is also in agreement with the demolition, variances and relocation. Jason said it seems like the tree can fit in with the design. Sarah thanked the applicant for the studies. Both iteration B & Care compelling. Iteration B complies with our guidelines. Possibly we could maintain the large tree. It is Sarah's belief that the tree should not be replanted. The biggest issue about B is the stair tower and the amount of horizontal activity going on. Amy said the applicant is requesting a longer extension for final review. Sarah said typically we give all of our other applicants one year. Why would we give two years? One year is appropriate because someone could take a year to come back for final and once they get final review they can get vested rights for 3 more years that protects them from code changes. This project has a lot more review to go through and they are concerned that they aren't going to make it. The Jewish Community Center has that problem right now but we think they will make it. Bob Daniels said right now there is a 90 day lag for conceptual applications to staff and being scheduled for P&Z. We request HPC use the latitude given to them in Section 26.4l5.070.D.3.c.3 and we would request 24 months. The extension is a one time extension. Sarah said her feeling is that projects need more time and it is a positive thing. Doing an extension takes more staff time. Since our code reads that we can have latitude we shouldn't always think that it is a year. Alison asked what steps the applicant had to go through next. Bob said our next step is the new project where the Skier Chalet sits. We needed to wait for this approval before submitting that one to make sure we would address any changes that came out of this process. We anticipate submitting that within the next 15 to 45 days. Right now P&Z isn't scheduling anything for 90 days. The HPC approval will be attached to an overall land use application across the street. Bob said the process is HPC conceptual, P&Z, Council and back to HPC for final. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006 Jason recommended 18 months because they can then ask for a six month extension. Sarah relayed that she could accept that recommendation. Alison said basically they go through all three boards twice. The board and applicant discussed the conditions of the resolution. MOTION: Alison moved to approve Resolution #21 for Conceptual Development, Relocation, Demolition and Variances for Willoughby Park/Lift 1 Park/Skier's Chalet Steakhouse with the following conditions: 1. The approved site plan is labeled as option B. If possible the eastern stair and elevator exitfrom the garage should be incorporated into the museum structure in order to establish prominence on Dean Street. 2. HPC approves the following variances related to the existing Skiers Chalet Steakhouse; a 5 foot front yard setback variance and 5 foot setback variances on both side yards. 3. Additional details on the rehabilitation of the historic resources on the affected properties will be required at Final HPC Review. 4. Once the Deep Powder Cabins and the Skier Chalet Lodge have landed on their permanent locations of the site they will be considered "Contributing" historic significance on this property. 5. An application for final review shall be submittedfor review and approval by the HPC within 24 months of August 9, 2006 or the Conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code. 6. At final, HPC to see a review leaving the spruce tree in its present location. 7. Restudy of the spacing of the vertical slats of the revised secondary egress option B for final. 8. A bond to be posted in the amount of$30, 000 (letter of credit) and a plan to be submitted at final on how the building will be moved and stabilized. The bond amount might be revisited once more information is provided on the risk of moving the building. Motion second by Jason. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Alison, Yes, Sarah, yes. Motion carried 3-0. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006 135 W. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION - VARIANCES FAR BONUS Sara relayed that mass and scale of the new detached house in relationship to the historic home was requested at the last meeting for restudy. The architect reduced the mass of the detached house. She also dropped the height of the roof and reduced the initial request of a 500 square foot bonus to 330 square feet. HPC had also requested a restudy of the first story porch element of the new detached house. The applicant proposed a definitive covered porch element. HPC requested that they increase the west yard setback of the new detached house. The applicant moved the principal fa<;ade back from the west property line to comply with the 5 foot requirement, and placed the porch projecting into the west yard setback. HPC also recommended breaking up the light wells. The light well along the north elevation of the detached house is reduced to 2 light wells. The size of the light well located toward the rear of the historic home remains the same sIze. HPC also requested that the length of the garage on the new addition be shortened to create more distance between the two buildings. The applicant has reduced the garage length and reduced the width of the north fa<;ade of the new detached residence. Sara brought up two points that HPC should discuss. Stafffeels this project could receive conceptual approval conditioned on HPC approving the new roof form on the house. What is proposed is a mansard roof form that is similar to the historic home but there is a conflict with our guidelines 11.5 and 11.6. Guideline 11.5 states use building forms that are similar to the historic property. And 11.6 says use roof forms that are traditionally seen on the block. A mansard roof form is not traditionally seen in the neighborhood yet it is similar to what is on the historic property. Sara also pointed out that on the one-story deck element that is part of the new detached structure there is a roof form that has an angled slope skylights. Staff finds they add complexity to the elevation as seen from 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006 Hopkins Street. You can see it directly behind the historic home. Staff suggests that the roof form be simplified or take out the skylights or carry the angle across the east elevation. With the new proposed porch on the detached structure a variance is needed. The standards state that six feet is needed and they have approximately 5 Y, feet. Staff is opposed to the vanance. Staff also recommends that the steep slope of the roof on the porch needs restudied and how it relates in general. On the historic house the new light well size remains the same and doesn't comply with guidelines 9.7. Lights wells need to be minimized. 330 square feet is being requested for an FAR bonus. The bonus is requested for rehab measures. Two parking spaces are needed for on-site parking. They are providing two and need a waiver for two. Staff also finds that the setback variances are appropriate for the site. Doors are proposed as new cuts in the historic house. In light of asking for an FAR bonus staff is opposed to the new cuts. Gretchen Greenwood, architect. The designed changed quite a bit to reduce the height of it. It changed from a mansard roof to a flat roof. The architect said she would prefer a gable roof. On the rear building she is proposing a skylight above the living room which might have a slight slope but the details have not been drawn up. The slope would be for drainage. On the Victorian building a skylight is proposed for over the stairs but staff doesn't want to see that happen. The building inside is dreadfully dark. They can't use the windows up above on the west elevation. She is proposing to put a skylight in the flat portion of the roof that is never going to be seen by anyone. She realizes it is taking away historic materials but in the scheme of things it is a reasonable request to add the light into the center of this structure. She is not sure how extensive the detailing will be because there are drainage issues. The building has been reduced in size. The new house is set back considerably from the old house. The skylights over the master bath will never be seen. 8 .-1- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006 Entry to both garages are off the alley. We are going to be lifting the building up 18 inches potentially because the building has definitely sunk. Bringing down the height was a good solution and we would like to go forward as soon as possible. Clarifications: Sarah asked if the light well in the historic resource is new. Gretchen said it is new and she could make it smaller to allow for plantings. She is OK with creating one light well in an L shape. Michael inquired about the egress with the light well. Gretchen said she only needs three feet. Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Board comments: Sarah said the new addition to the historic resource fits within our guidelines and is sympathetic to the historic resource. Some of the fenestration issues can be dealt with at final. Sarah's main issue is the front porch of the new structure. It is out of character and out of place. The stone pillars on either side are very heavy. She also pointed out that the applicant did a great job in reducing the scale which has made a great difference. Jason pointed out that the separation between the buildings is better now. His concern on the historic resource is the western windows in the upper gable. Possibly there is a way to accommodate the framing in order to get light in. He is opposed to the skylight on the historic building. If you can accommodate skylights in the frame of the roof accordingly that would be his preference. He is also in agreement with other commissioner comments regarding the porch on the new house. He is also not in favor of penetrating the historic resource with the door. Jason is in favor of the bonus and demolition of our outbuildings and the relocation of the new historic home. He appreciates the skylight changes on the new building. At final possibly a restudy could occur on the north and west corner of the new building. Alison stated she is in favor of the variances, demolition and FAR bonus and they are within our guidelines. Alison agreed with Gretchen that she liked the gabled roof going the entire length but appreciates the mansard roof in 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9. 2006 order to bring down the size. The mansard roof is similar to the historic resource but maybe not to the neighborhood but it kind of makes this historic resource different. The front porch of the structure needs restudied. Connecting the two light wells in an L shape is acceptable because two rooms are being served. Michael relayed that he is in favor of the resolution drafted by staff with the elimination of condition #4. He also doesn't support the skylights on the existing historic structure. Alison said she is willing to discuss the skylights on the historic structure at final because they will not be visible. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #22 for 135 W. Hopkins as stated in staff's memo with the following amendments. 1. Eliminate #4and deal with that condition atfinal. 2. Eliminate #5 and deal with that atfinal. 3. Add condition #16 - restudy the front porch of the addition, mass and scale. 4. Add to condition #7 - make an L shape light well. Motion second by Alison. Amended motion: Sarah moved to include conditions 4 and 5 back in. Alison amended her second. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Jason, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes; Sarah, yes. MOTION: Alison moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10