Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20070110 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 1000 MATCHLESS DR. ( SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB) LANDMARK DESIGNATION, RELOCATION, MINOR DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC HEARING..... 1 214 E. BLEEKER - CONCEPTUAL, DEMOLITION, RELOCATION AND VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING ................................................................................4 406 E. HOPKINS AVE. - ISIS THEATRE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING........................................................................................................................... 9 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Michael Hoffman and Sarah Broughton. Excused was Alison Agley. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Nov. I5th minutes; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Certificate of no negative effect issued for mechanical- Aspen Mtn. Lodge. 1000 Matchless Dr. (Smuggler Racquet Club) Landmark Designation, Relocation, Minor Development, Public Hearing Proof of publication - Exhibit I John Sarpa, Centurion Partners Bill Poss, Poss Architects Sara stated that the applicant is proposing to redevelop a portion of the Smuggle Racquet Club property into affordable housing. The cabin is a small gabled roof cabin and it sits along Park Circle. Staff has looked at the size and location and it is identical to the historic photographs. The applicant proposes to designate the cabin and relocate it 25 feet to the west into the center of a newly created lot with generous setbacks. There will be a generous grassy area around the cabin. Staff believes that the cabin is part of the Smuggler mine which was listed on the National Register in 1987. The location of the cabin was on the 1904 Sanborn map. The cabin has had a couple alterations, two small additions and some exterior material changes. It is in its original location and still has the original gabled roof form. Staff finds that the cabin complies with criterion A & B and recommends designation. Relocation: One of the most important features of the cabin is that it sits in its original location. Staff recommends that the cabin stay in that location. John Sarpa said this is an opportunity for his group and the City. A previous Mayor of Aspen deeded the parcel to Aspen. We are building a project 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 called the Lodge at Aspen Mtn. which is in its final review process. This project is an integral part of it. We need to house about 100 people for that project. The projected housing project will house about 70 people. The Housing Authority loved the original design. We presented the proposal to the Community Development Dept. and they didn't like the original plan so we redesigned the plan. The idea is to have the entire project reflect the Smuggler mine and what the little cabin is all about. The racquet club is near the site and we had to be sensitive to their view planes. The housing is basically along the road and trailer courts. We had thought moving the cabin would be permissible. By moving it 25 feet to the west doesn't make an impact on the historic district or the Smuggler mine. We are to balance a couple of community interests, affordable housing and historic preservation. If we can move it the building will have a 40 foot buffer and if not the buffer will only be 15 feet. Moving it will have a much larger setback. To take one building and build the affordable housing around it makes a unique project. We feel the cabin should be habitable. Bill Poss said they originally had a garden type layout and Chris Bendon asked us to make a more of a street presence. Chris did not want the gated community look. The mine is some 100 feet away and up on the hill and by moving the cabin 25 feet and designating it will protect it from fire threats and the close construction of the units. We need to lift the building in order to rehabilitate it and put a foundation under it. In creating a street scene there is a parcel of land between the road and us which is owned by Sam Brown. There will be front and back entrances and some of the parking will enter from the rear of the units. Michael inquired about the use of the building. Amy said the Sanborn map indicates that it was used as an office. The majority of the other buildings are gone. Bill pointed out that there were two railroads that serviced town back then, The Rio Grand and Midland. The Midland came into the Holden Marolt smelter and the Smuggler mine had its own smelter to separate the ore and ship it and the railroad came across their own bridge and up to the property. Brian asked the applicant to explain the configuration of the new buildings. Bill said they are townhouses, up and down units. There are some two and three bedrooms. The modules will be stacked with some units up and some down. Brian said each of the units is connected into one building. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 Sarah asked the applicant if they looked at keeping the cabin in its existing location. John Sarpa said they did but it is too close given what is all around the area. Amy asked if they looked at turning the closest unit ninety degrees. Bill said then we loose the street presence. Chris Bendon said they wanted the residents on the street. Jeffrey asked if they looked at moving the vehicular access closer to the historical building and maintain the clearance of the well. Bill said they do not own the area along the road. Amy pointed out that maybe there is a way to orient the program slightly to comply with the Planning & Zoning issues. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. John Sarpa said we are here to try and designate a building. We went through three or four staff designs and we are trying to combine affordable housing requirements with historic preservation. We are here voluntarily. Brian pointed out that the greatest historical integrity ofthe cabin is its location. Given the context to the Smuggler mine we need to maintain its location. The applicants plan is very clear; putting the cabin in the center of the square actually does celebrate the building in the configuration proposed. He is not sure every configuration has been exhausted and he is conflicted with the street presence. Sarah said she would vote in favor of moving the building. There is a lot of opportunity for the site plan that we are not seeing here. Moving the building so that it has more open space helps keep itvisually exposed. Michael said as he read the memo, he thought it would be appropriate to keep the cabin in its original position. Listening to the applicants comments this structure does not relate to anything. Everything has been removed around 1900. Moving it 25 feet is not meaningful. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 Jeffrey said the voluntary commitment is commendable. Maybe there is an opportunity on the site plan to make the cabin a more visual piece. Maybe there is the possibility to add onto the building with square footage. The site plan seems very generic. There needs to be some relationship to the historic resource that begins to relate to the modulars. Because there is nothing left at the mine site doesn't give us the right to remove that structure. We need to preserve the structure in its original location especially when there is flexibility of a quarter of an acre in that location. The preservation of the cabin and designation is commendable but maybe there can be one more site plan reviewed to look at all of the pieces. John Sarpa said they need to keep moving on the project whatever the outcome. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #1, 2007 with the following additional conditions: 1. Details of the relocation and foundation to be presented to staff and monitor. 2. 10 feet of buffer should be included on all sides of the structures. Motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Michael, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. John Worcester said the resolution should include meets and bounds before it is signed. 214 E. BLEEKER - CONCEPTUAL, DEMOLITION, RELOCA nON AND VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Proof of publication - Exhibit I Sara said the subject property was built around 1893, a single story Victorian in its original location. There have been minor alterations and an addition undertaken in the past. There is a gabled roof out building that was built around 1904 that encroaches in the alley. The application is to construct a one-story addition, demolish the rear out building and relocate the Victorian residence toward Bleeker Street. The Victorian is adjacent to the designated Community church that is in the West End. All the buildings in this block are in their original locations. There are generous front yards which is an important aspect of this area of Aspen. The residence is in good condition and does not require a lot of maintenance. Relocating the building forward will decrease the integrity scoring and will interrupt the context of the front 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 yard pattern in the West End. Having a one-story addition on the rear is a good trade off with a connector piece. Design review: Overall the height, scale and massing of the proposed addition in the back including the connector piece complies with all our design guidelines and it is a great proposal for the site. The roof forms definitely communicate a new construction in comparison to the old. Staff has a few concerns that will probably be addressed at final: Light well on the east elevation of the historic house and replacing the double hung window with a French door which also does not comply with the guidelines. Demolition: The material condition of the shed makes it difficult to have any kind of integrity. The shed is in poor condition and would collapse if moved. The proposal is also to demolish the 1999 rear addition. Relocation: The proposal is to move the building seven feet forward toward the front yard setback. They will also reconstruct the rubble foundation using historical materials. Moving it forward does allow for a connector and the one-story addition in the back. Staff encourages the applicant to minimize the amount it is moving forward in order to keep the generous front yard. Maybe the connector piece can be shortened or ask for more of a rear yard setback. Staff recommends that HPC approve the relocation of the historic resource with the condition that the front yard setback be lessened. The applicant is requesting an 8 foot rear setback and ten feet is required, also a two foot setback variance for the garage while five feet is required. The variances are consistent with our goals. The applicant is also requesting the waiver of one on-site parking space. Dave Rybak, architect Christin Church, manager Dave said the original proposal was for a two-story with no variances requested. HPC felt that structure was too large and imposed too much of a mass on the historic resource and asked us to look at a one-story. Dave said his drawings indicate 15 feet to the front porch. The out building currently encroaches into the alley. A lot split was done by the previous owner and part of our requirement is to eliminate the encroachment. Our proposal is to relocate the house and excavate and locate the house back onto the site with a ten foot setback requirement. We would do a one-story 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 addition with a ten foot connector on the east face and 12 feet on the west that would connect to a one-story master suite and a one-story garage. The materials would be wood siding in a different fenestration so that it can be distinguished from the original building. The window fenestration would all be double hung. A metal roof will be added to the garage structure and the living space would have a wood shingled roof. Board clarifications: Brian asked staff about the front yard setback. Sara said moving it forward interrupts the streetscape. Sara said there is two feet in the rear and possibly the house could be pushed back so that it would only be moving forward three feet instead of five. Michael asked about the square footage of the improvements. Dave said there is 900 square feet ofliving with 250 square feet of garage space. Dave said we are 174 below the FAR. Sara said the total is 3,066 square feet on the lot so there is 174 remaining. Dave said that 174 will likely be used up with below grade light wells. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Norma Berko said her perspective is from the alley. Setbacks are established for reasons of safety. The West End alleys have a life of their own. When traffic gets backed up on Bleeker Street they go through the alleys. Parking in a one car garage becomes difficult with snow removal. I am respectively asking you to be the guardian of our neighborhood and historic preservation. Howie Malory, Norma Berko's husband, owner of the property across the alley. We are very happy with the one-story proposal and the roof pattern is very interesting. The one one-story addition compliments the building. The alleys are part of Aspen's history and the HPC has the responsibility to maintain the alley experience. The applicant has asked that the rear setback be changed to allow the garage to be put on a plane of two feet from the property line when five is required. The total linear variances add up to 15 feet requested. With a two foot or no setback plowing snow becomes a nightmare. The snow goes on the neighbor's lot. With a nine foot garage door entrance makes an inaccessible garage entrance. The turning radius for normal designs is 20 feet. If you have a 20 foot alley and no setbacks you have a problem. Use of setbacks up to the property line is kind of like 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 privatization of public assets for a profit venture without consideration of the public. It is taking public assets for a private venture. We request that the HPC consider the following adjustments: I. Have the north end of the house setback to a minimum of five feet from the property line. 2. We support the low profile connector. 3. We support staffs recommendation of the front yard setback. 4. We would like HPC to consider that the three foot adjustment be developed as a combination of either shortening the connector or allowing some movement to the south and front end. Mirto Berko Malory, neighbor said she is a 3rd generation living in Aspen. Our youth is coming back to Aspen and we do not want to have dark alleys. We need to keep a sense of community. Alley life is vital. The first story is keeping with the historic preservation guidelines. The gables and materials are all appropriate. The garage setback is an issue. Per architectural guidelines you need 24 foot space in order to turn in to a 90% parking spot. Under the 2 foot setback you need a 22 foot radius. There is a fence line on the Berko property and in order for a car to turn into the one car garage it will require quite a lot of maneuvering. HPC needs to sterilize the 174 square feet in respect of the variances if given. Helen Hunt said her son grew up here and lives in California. Her son always came through the alleys. Alley life is an astonishing thing and it is real and vital. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Sarah said this is difficult and it comes down to the question of whether you have a two-story addition in your setbacks or a one-story outside the setbacks. In looking at the forms they are working with our guidelines but there is still an opportunity to work with the hipped roof because it is a foreign shape in its peaked form and possibly it could be flattened out. In looking at the room sizes it appears some relief can occur from the long wall. We have many guidelines that deal with the alleys as a secondary circulation path. In terms of the front yard setback I am torn. This whole block has buildings set further back. Sarah said she is willing to look at setback variances with a little more articulation of breaking up the mass in the back. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 Michael said he realizes the applicant is trying to get some kind of program that meets their needs on this site. There has been a really good faith effort to meet all the community concerns. Michael said he is sensitive to the Malory's comments and he is willing to enforce the five foot setback on the back because a lesser setback would degrade the alley experience. Brian asked the applicant where the two foot setback came from and is there enough maneuverability to get out of the garage? Dave said it is a three fold answer. Per previous board suggestion we moved the building forward. We need to have a ten foot connector between the addition and resource per HPC guidelines and the program that we had we knew we needed to stay off the alley. As someone commented an 8 foot garage door will be difficult so we will widen the garage door. Brian said pushing the house to the ten foot setback does concern him. Amy pointed out that the ten foot connector is a suggested dimension. Brian said he feels the "give" should come from the connector piece. Whether or not five feet is necessary in the back is questionable. Possibly the setback could be accommodated between two and five feet. Jeffrey commented that he did attend the work sessions on this parcel and there was a more aggressive scheme presented. The one-story mass behind the historic resource is commendable. He agreed with staff regarding the E. Bleeker separation from the street and it should be maintained. The alley and turning radius all become issues in the alley. Part of our guidelines is to allow variances to help the historic resource to be separated from the addition. The one-story linking element is a nice buffer between the historic resource and new construction. The setback off the alley is important as is the Bleeker setback. Guideline 10.7 and 10.8 has some flexibility. Guideline 9.2 talks about moving a building that contributes to the historic district should be avoided. Jeffrey said he is not in favor of moving the structure to the south. Dave said by no means are we trying to take a right-of-way for the use of this property. We are just asking for a variance. The original proposal set within the property lines and we could have proposed a fence which is allowed in the code and there would be no improvement in the alley life. Weare trying to do the best we can to our neighbors to the north as well as the resource to the south. Ifwe don't relocate the building forward five feet 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 we don't have enough space left given a five foot setback or a two foot setback and still be below our allowable FAR. We had a two-story proposal and came back with a successful plan. We will need clear guidance as to whether we push south or north. The.remaining 174 feet will be utilized as calculated space in the lower level, all below grade space. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 214 E. Bleeker with the following study to be brought back to the board: The balance between the north and south setbacks and addingflexibility for the applicant to our guidelines for the 10 foot link. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Michael moved to continue 214 E. Bleeker with direction to the applicant to maintain a five foot setback along the alley. Motion died for lack of a second. Sara pointed out that there is a delicate balance between the front and back setbacks and the program. We do not want to push them into a bad solution. MOTION: Brian moved to approve 214 E. Bleeker and the rear setback as suggested by the applicant, maintaining the front setback as is and compromising the loss of square footage via the connector piece. Motion died for lack of a second. Sara pointed out that the applicant has received a lot of feed back regarding the alley etc. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 214 E. Bleeker with the conditions as stated in staff's memo until March 14, 2007; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Brian, Michael, Sarah, Jeffrey 406 E. HOPKINS AVE. - ISIS THEATRE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARlANCE- PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting and publication - Exhibit I Jeff Lester, Charles Cunniffe Architects - Exhibit II photograph 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 Exhibit III - 4 Elevations Mitch Haas Cortney Lord, Isis group Amy stated that in a previous work session we had discussions about filling in the notch and whether that would be the entry into the theatre. As far as we know that issue is up in the air. There is no proposal that shows that. Right now we are dealing where you enter into the building. The proposal is to alter the store front entries of the building to accommodate either one or two retail tenants and a single door that would lead to the altered lobby of the Isis Theatre. Originally two bays had a recessed entry with windows on either side that were flush with the fa9ade and on the eastern end of the building there was a door that was flush with the fa9ade. That has been revised over time. What we have today is an effort to reconstruct but it is not all that historically accurate of the original appearance of the building. The proposal indicates a recessed door which should be flush with the fa9ade. That gives you the entry in the right plane. The Isis theater sign has been moved in the past and it is recommended that it be moved and be associated with the theatre door. Our ideal suggestion would be to have the entrance on the end bay. Jeff Lester handed out 4 additional elevations. Jeff summarized by saying they are keeping the historic openings intact but adjusting the door and window fenestration. Is it the original warehouse what we should relate too in the 1800's or perhaps the silent movie theatre done in the 1950's. In the packet we have a single tenant scheme and a two tenant scheme. Jeff went over the six different schemes of the front facade. Jeffrey asked which plan the applicants desired. Cortney said C. D. or E. Sarah point out that E has the most historical references. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Neil Carbank expressed his dismay that no one from Aspen Film has seen any of the elevations. In the MOU Aspen Film will ultimately own the theatre. We think the project will go forward with the notch. Neil said he is 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 appalled that they have not been included and will ultimately own the theatre. Neil encouraged the HPC to table the application so that they can go back and finish the work on the notch and come back in a timely manner and get it resolved. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Courtney Lord said, the filling in of the notch and bringing it out to the street has received some positive reaction and has been an idea to approve the square footage of the lobby of the theatre. We stated that was a goal when we signed with the City. There is no guarantee that there will be a notch. Michael asked who owned the property. Courtney said the property is owned by CCA and he represents the purchaser. The contract has been the subject of a MOU with the City of Aspen and upon the City performing certain things between now and the middle of February we will sign the contract purchase to the City and the City will sign it over to the financing board which in turn will lease the property back to the City and the city will lease back a portion of the property, the entrance to the retail to Aspen Property Group and the remaining theater lease to Aspen film. Aspen film was notified ofthis application weeks ago. If the notch does not occur we need the conversion of space. Mitch Hass explained that they need a fall back plan. Michael said as a matter of courtesy Aspen Film needs to be included. John Worcester, City Attorney suggested that the HPC meet next week. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 406 E. Hopkins until January 16th 2007 at NOON; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. Election of Chair and Vice Chair: Jeffrey was elected chair. Michael was elected Vice Chair. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adiourned at 8:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 11