Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20180613 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018 Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Willis Pember, Scott Kendrick and Richard Lai. Absent were Nora Berko, Gretchen Greenwood and Sheri Sanzone. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jen Phelan, Deputy Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Blaich motioned to approve the draft minutes of May 9th, 2018, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Pember congratulated Mr. Blaich on his 65th wedding anniversary. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has one thing to show Mr. Blaich after the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said there will be a special meeting a week from tonight on Lift 1A and the next regular meeting is cancelled. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she will look it over and if there is anything wrong, she will address it. CALL UPS: None. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 304 E. Hopkins Ave. Amy Simon Ms. Simon said this is a conceptual review to discuss the demolition and replacement at 304 E. Hopkins. It was built in 1980’s and is in the commercial core district. HPC has a number of review processes to consider. Staff’s recommendation is continuation. Ms. Simon handed out a resolution so the board has a starting point to add and modify. It is not historic so there is no issue with removal and it does meet the criteria for demolition. In terms of design for the replacement building, this is a 3000-sq. ft. lot. Staff is proposing a continuation to a meeting in July. There are two sets of guidelines at play: the commercial lodging and historic district guidelines and the historic preservation guidelines. For the commercial core, there are standards that must be met and some are more flexible than others. There are a numbers of standards which staff feels have not been met and some they feel deserve variations and some they don’t. One thing that is expected is the pedestrian amenity. 25% of the site must be open to the sky and street facing. They are proposing 435 square feet at the front of the property to be provided and 324 feet to be provided as a cash in lieu payment. One of their concerns is that a one- story masonry building with a porch is not typical in any part of Aspen’s historic districts. The only flat roof with a porch like this is the Mesa Store building on Main Street. We find this to be a unique condition and is not a good reference for the downtown area. We recommend a retractable awning 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018 instead of the wood porch structure that is being proposed. Please consider the planters at the front, which are about 5 ft. 6 deep, but has been reduced by about 1 ft. 4, but they are still rather large masonry planters that are eating into the usable space. At the front of the property, there is access to the basement. The applicant is required to provide 2nd tier space because those elements which existed in the old building have to be brought back in the new building. The applicant has proposed a basement with street access to a 2nd tier commercial area. They are concerned with a gaping hole to the basement being part of the streetscape and feel this needs restudy. The project also requires mitigation of affordable housing. There are two affordable housing units in the existing building so they must be replaced. The applicant has not proposed to do that, but they want to provide affordable housing credits instead for a different location in town. It should be considered on this property because residential use downtown is traditional and valuable. We think there should be consideration of a building with greater stature here. There are other departments who are interested in providing feedback to the applicant move towards a building permit. The building department has exiting concerns and we want you to be aware that the building department has to make an exception regarding this basement entry. Environmental health also has concerns about the onsite trash requirements. The property is being developed by the same ownership as White House tavern next door and there will be some shared space in between the two buildings. Both properties require 300 square feet of onsite trash storage area and neither have that amount so there has been a lot of discussion about a shared trash space. There is a mitigation required for parking on this site and they are not proposing any parking, but they are proposing a cash in lieu fee. Overall, they are not currently in compliance with the design standards and guidelines so HPC needs to prioritize the issues. Mr. Pember asked Ms. Simon to explain the 2nd tier access and issues with the basement access. She said the applicant has to provide a specific square footage in the form of 2nd tier space at the basement level or upper floor. It must be accessible from the street so they are doing what the code asks, but leaving it as an open stairwell, raises some design concerns. There are also egress discussions going on with the building department. It is important that the 2nd tier and the primary space at grade, not mix or bleed into each other. Mr. Halferty clarified if staff is suggesting to move the front elevation more towards Hopkins. Ms. Simon said yes, some aspect of it and it was suggested 25 to 50 percent in the memo. Typically, downtown, their preference is to have storefronts on the sidewalk, but on this block, there are two residential structures. The building next door has a little notch out of it, so we think something similar here would work, gesturing to both neighbor buildings. They would like to see the building brought forward on the east side. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams representing the Hillstone Restaurant Group alongside Brian Biel, VP of Hillstone, Matthias Lenz, Sr. Project Architect with Hillstone and Hunter Fleetwood of Fleetwood/Fernandez Architects. Hillstone is the owner and operator of White House Tavern next door so first of all, they are trying to lean towards a composting option. They want to not overdo things and focus on the product they are putting forward. It’s the first project under the new code that is triggering all requirements. There are strict view plane requirements along with pedestrian amenity. Mr. Biel said we are restaurant people 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018 who love great food and great service as well as a good design. We like to do a few things really well. He showed another project on the screen, which is located in Montecito, called the Honor Bar. It’s similar because there are a lot of historic architectural elements in this location as well. He also showed a property in Arizona, Denver and Newport Beach. We want to improve what is next door to us here in Aspen. That building hasn’t been kept up with and this should now be a reflection on White House. They want to do a complimentary restaurant to White House. It won’t upstage White House and it will fit in the community. When looking at a two-story structure, things started to get very complicated. The space required an elevator, which would have to be separated from the main space. The restaurant itself was becoming consumed with lobbies, elevators, staircases, etc., so the restaurant experience was starting to be compromised. So, we are giving up space and views, but we’re not having a lot of extra stuff. This is more of a modest size and it harkens back to the past. Mr. Bendon spoke about the existing conditions and said there are three levels. The basement was Over Easy. The ground floor was most recently Over Easy and the upper floor was the Aspen Brewery. North of the third floor are the two studio housing units. You would go through the brewery to get to them and there is also a back entrance. They looked around for design cues they should take from the area and showed on screen pictures of 308 and 316. He showed a historic picture of where White House is now located and what was next to it and said they are taking cues from that as well. He showed the Sanborn map. He showed more examples of one story buildings in the downtown area. This is a simple plan and they are not trying to outdo anyone else. It is handsome and clean and welcoming and they we are respecting 302 by revealing the corner. This was an important design decision to use traditional materials in a modern way. This is a great outdoor dining space and will be well sought-after seating while creating a more comfortable waiting area. This puts energy on the street and provides good people watching. We keep looking at more planter designs that create a boundary from the sidewalk, but in a way that doesn’t disrupt the views into the property. We looked at relocating the affordable housing units due to parking and access complexities. There is just no restaurant left over when you are done mitigating for all of these items. The affordable housing is not currently occupied and we have worked through this with APCHA and the city because the building itself is not readily occupiable. The trash conversation is ongoing and we are working with environmental health on a shared trash situation with White House. We are looking to combine services and thought we were close to having this done. 25 sq. feet is Liz Chapman’s recommendation. The city wants to reduce the trips through the alleys and we ask HPC to please allow this conversation to go on because we may arrive at a number less than 25. There was a staff comment about the opportunity for a building of a greater stature and what was the best economic use of this building. It’s not normally something we hear from the city to build bigger, etc. We feel there should be some opportunity to build a simple one-story building. This team has looked at everything and they are not a group of idiots and have explored use of the second floor and decided to pull back into what they know best. They do feel this is the best use of the parcel and they don’t want to overstuff it with too many things, which would lead to functionality issues, etc. We’d love to be able to get to a vote tonight and we’d like to have some grounding on the four major points. Are we on the right path with a one-story building and placement? Are we on track with the pedestrian amenity space? We do not want to trigger a city council review. We only have a 35-ft. wide lot and we are trying to create the boundary with the planter edge and storm water obligations. Are we on the right track with the awning? Are we on the right path with off siting the affordable housing mitigation? 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018 Mr. Halferty mentioned that Mr. Lai has joined the meeting. Mr. Lai said he is sorry for missing the staff presentation. He asked if the operation of the new restaurant is going to be separate from the White House and Mr. Bendon said it’s entirely separate in theme, delivery and makeup. The only connection is in the back-kitchen area. But it has its own identity. Mr. Lai said it does read as a separate entity. Mr. Blaich asked if they have other Colorado restaurants. Mr. Biel said yes, two in Denver in the Cherry Creek neighborhood. Bandero is one and Hillstone is a little bit further west. Mr. Pember asked under which conditions they would have to go back to council. Mr. Bendon said there is an allowance that HPC can play with for up to 50 percent of the 25-sq. foot area. If we wanted to have less than 50 percent, we have to go to council. 740 is the 25% and we’re currently at 435. Ms. Simon said they could decrease to 377 and still not have to go to council. They could occupy 50 square feet more before they’d have to go to council or they could provide a different configuration of pedestrian amenity onsite. There are so many solutions and a variety of ways to address it. Mr. Pember asked if the planters count in that calculation and Ms. Simon said yes as well as the porch area. Mr. Pember mentioned an elevator being required if there are units on the second floor and that encumbering the operation of a restaurant. Ms. Simon said she doesn’t know if any unit requires an elevator and Mr. Lenz said he’s pretty sure it does. He said they looked at a lot of options said they are only proposing nine tables, which is extremely small, so if we add an elevator, it will only allow seven tables. This would be a tough pill to swallow and make work financially. Mr. Kendrick about the covered area and if it is to be intended to be enclosed in the winter. Mr. Bendon said it will always stay open. Mr. Biel said they had proposed to have a winter vestibule and were told not to do that, so it will be open year-round. Mr. Halferty asked if they did a retractable awning, if they would recommend keeping the same looking façade and Ms. Simon said they have some concerns about glazing on the windows. We aren’t prepared to say the awning should be the reason for redesign, but a fabric awning is a better way to meld with earlier downtown traditions. PUBLIC COMMENT: Peter Fornell Mr. Fornell thanked Hillstone for their service and desire to further it. He said consistently, HPC, has supported protecting the view planes and we need to maintain this consistency. It might be the first time he has heard about violating the view plane. The two-story building does violate it and he wouldn’t want to see the building with employees living on top of it. He said he was the creator of the housing certificate program and we have an easy solution for the certificate program. Ms. Simon noted that there is no view plane violation in the current proposal and we are not suggesting a violation. We do think there is room for a second floor and we would not pierce that height restriction. Mr. Fornell mentioned with regard to an elevator, you would have to have ADA accessibility to a unit on the second floor. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018 Mr. Pember said that Peter Fornell started the housing program so he is the salesman and Mr. Pember wants to make sure everyone knows this. Mr. Bendon confirmed he would be purchasing credits with Mr. Fornell. PUBLIC COMMENT: Nicholas Kuhn Mr. Kuhn said he owned the property where Matsu is and the garbage is number one, for him. It’s important that it’s enclosed because if the birds get in there and sit on the top of the building, which causes droppings on his client’s cars. He doesn’t want the construction to block his tenant’s parking either so she can get out. He wished the applicant’s luck with their project. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bob Langley Mr. Langley thinks denying the affordable housing is a mistake and that it should be kept onsite. It’s the type of housing that is needed downtown and said no one will live there for more than five years. It’s a real advantage for being here and he doesn’t think we should deny it onsite since it’s been onsite since the program began. Public comment closed. Mr. Bendon said Ms. Simon is right, they aren’t proposing a view plane violation and he does agree it could be done without violating this. There are other complexities that lead us away from that. Mr. Halferty summarized the issues for the board. Mr. Moyer said we have an opportunity that we’ve missed on one of the most huge issues. Giving up housing on any unit is a bad idea. In this instance, it won’t be the most livable spot, but we can’t allow for this to go away. He concurs with staff’s recommendations. Don’t come back to us without employee housing. In 90’s to 2000’s it was hard to get people to say no. We said no to the White House three to four times and finally, we said yes. Mr. Blaich said he agrees, in principle, with Mr. Moyer. His concern is with a consideration to quality of life and affordable housing. We didn’t go inside today, but he wished they had. We don’t know how livable those units are. Quality of life in those units are highly questionable and should be acceptable, not just some minimal space, but we have to try, if possible, to have affordable housing. Mr. Kendrick is in favor of onsite affordable housing. It would have been nice to have seen some of the exploration of the second floor and why they say it won’t work. Mr. Lai said affordable housing is the number one concern with the community. We exclude a lot of people who could work at this restaurant because of housing. The argument to have a second floor to accommodate the housing and requiring an elevator, is a concern because he likes this façade. It has a scale that we are losing in Aspen because we have so many huge buildings being built. He’s torn between affordable housing argument and the façade. He would have to disagree with the majority of colleagues because he likes the intimacy of scale. If it’s possible to have the housing towards the back, he would be all for that. Mr. Pember followed up to Mr. Lai and said we can’t build 308 anymore, as it is out of question now. It’s a piece of history and has affordable housing in that building and Matsu as well. To Mr. Fornell’s point, there is a community of affordable housing in that area. Historically, we’ve had problems with 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018 308, so he agrees with Mr. Lai, that the scale is fine, but feels the board is pushing for affordable housing. If it’s not possible to put all of that in the back, that’s a concern. We’re comfortable with hybrids, but not sure this is a happy one, for him. The planters look entirely commercial and are really at odds with the rest of the building. It doesn’t flow from the street level. He’s staying out of the ah debate for now, but he does think a one story could work. Having exposed open air stairs is very problematic. This would be the only time you see city staff asking for more FAR. He’s fine with parking and trash and is fine with granting public amenity. He doesn’t want to see them end up at City Council. Mr. Halferty echoed some of Mr. Pember’s comments concerning front elevation. He commended the developer for doing a modest addition, but he doesn’t like the planters. He said he was on HPC when they approved Walt’s project next door, but it was an unsuccessful attempt of us putting everything into one bag. The applicants are obviously aware of the sensitivity of the view plane and the second-tier space is well done. The offsite credits are still going to create spaces for employees just somewhere else. We need to come to terms with whether we want to pursue a continuance or accept as is. Overall, he commends this plan and said it’s a difficult site. Mr. Blaich said he’s not totally against off site housing. If it can be worked into this project without affecting the total function or view plane, he would like to see it approached. He does like the scale and he doesn’t really want to see a two-story building. He does feel there is something more that could be added regarding improvement as a visual aspect and approachable for people. White House is a success and he’s putting a certain amount of faith in Hillstone. He enjoys the Denver restaurants as well. He agrees the planters are a bit too much and look like a mini Berlin wall. Mr. Lai said he respects them as restaurateurs instead of developers and likes that they are presenting themselves that way. He also doesn’t like the planters out front. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to continue with the points from staff, Mr. Blaich seconded. Ms. Simon noted that July 25th would be continuation date. Roll call vote: Mr. Kendrick, no; Mr. Pember, no; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, no; Mr. Blaich, no; Mr. Lai, no. MOTION: Mr. Pember moved to continue with amendment to condition #4 with the word “analyze” instead of “provide”, seconded by Mr. Halferty. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. ______________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018