Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20180725 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Scott Kendrick, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai, Sheri Sanzone and Willis Pember. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Kendrick moved to approve the draft minutes of June 20th, Mr. Lai seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone will be stepping out for 304 E. Hopkins. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon will follow up with a couple people outside of the meeting. Mr. Halferty joined the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned the special meeting on August 1st, as well as the regular meetings on August 8th and August 22nd. September will now be devoted to Lift 1A. Ms. Yoon will be absent next week on August 1st. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she has all required notices. Mr. Halferty apologized for being tardy and said he will be stepping down for 500 W. Main. Mr. Pember joined the meeting. Ms. Simon mentioned there are no estimated time frames on the agenda so she recapped the time frames for each item in order to stay on time and end by 7:00 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: 304 E. Hopkins Ave. Amy Simon Ms. Simon said this is a continued public hearing for a demolition of a non-historic building located in the historic downtown commercial area. The proposal is to build a one-story building with a basement. The main floor will be occupied by a restaurant and the lower floor will be required second-tier commercial space and cannot be directly connected to the restaurant and main floor. The project requires mitigation for affordable housing. We are asking for the project to be continued tonight for restudy. Staff finds the most restudy incomplete regarding the design guidelines. We have confirmed 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018 that accessible circulation is required, such as an elevator or ramping to the second floor. The applicant showed some massing studies and they are not proposing any changes to the front elements or to the affordable housing or pedestrian amenity. Some prioritization is needed and staff still feels that these items are important. Perhaps the pedestrian amenity isn’t as important as accommodating the second floor or balancing out various issues that are regulating development on this property in a different way. Staff is recommending continuation again. We feel this building is an odd fit for this area of downtown and stature is lacking here. The planters have been deleted and some additional windows have been addended, but the pedestrian amenity dimensions haven’t changed. Much of what they’re providing is underneath that roof, but should be open to the sky. Mr. Halferty asked for clarification on the view plane. Ms. Simon said they are under the view plane and we are not recommending they pierce the view plane. Mr. Kendrick asked about staff reaching out to APCHA and said he is unclear what their recommendation was. Ms. Simon said the applicant has proposed offsite credits and APCHA supported it and agreed with it, but they are not opposed to onsite either. This is evaluated on a case by case basis. Ms. Berko asked what the motivation is for one floor and Ms. Simon said the applicant can explain further. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams, Bryce Johnson, advisor with Hillstone, Mathias Lentz, Senior Architect with Hillstone Mr. Bendon spoke about them wanting to do one thing and doing it really well. He covered the issues from the last meeting and summarized for the board regarding the planters, standards and guidelines, transparency and proportions, restudy of the second floor, trash, etc. We got rid of the “hot tubs” out front (planters). They still have a desire to pull the building back off the property line and they feel it is consistent with the character of the block. Our setback helps establish the prominence of White House and not take away from it. We think there is a historic precedence and it also accommodates the street level amenity. We did study enclosing the pedestrian amenity and showed plans on screen of ideas. We think this is a bit disruptive and clumsy and looks terrible. The applicants want to remain restaurateurs. The guidelines do allow HPC to consider the historic context of the pedestrian amenity space. We think this is a nice context and massing between the two buildings. We were asked to look at the main floor ceiling height and it is just shy of 10 ft. 11. White house is about 9 ft. The 308 building is a little taller on the inside. We are comfortable with the height we’re at, otherwise, it starts to feel like a vault when it’s too high. Regarding the pedestrian amenity space, HPC can allow this space and allow it to be covered and this would be a year-round covering. There are a couple ways to situate this space. It is a well- designed and versatile space. There was a request from staff to look at variance, but we’re pleased by the way this space works. It is a variance free project and the code is new so we don’t want to pursue a variance. They don’t want to stumble into the new space with headlines of a variance. We looked at the window heights and have made them higher and the sill has been lowered. The sill is about 30 inches or so and very comfortable. We are not taking it all the way down to the ground. Regarding the discussion of adding a second floor; there is complexity that comes with this. Massing is an issue so that it doesn’t look clumsy and overstuffed and there is an exiting requirement with two egress points. The restaurant is compromised on the ground floor and the affordable housing space doesn’t provide a great living situation for someone. We’re not interested in pursuing a public vote. Mr. Bendon showed plans for a 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018 two-bedroom unit upstairs and showed how the restaurant becomes severely compromised. It starts to become a building that is purely comprised of mitigation and not much of a restaurant. There would also be some view plane challenges. The last time we met, you guys wanted to see the recon, so we are showing you the background work that we’ve done. We’ve had a good on-going conversation with the environmental health department, which handles the trash for both locations, so this box has been checked. We are very comfortable with this proposal and the board was close to supporting it last time. The land use code prefers on site housing and we think the code is agnostic. The affordable housing program is award winning so we feel this should be used. Mr. Bendon read some of the code regarding affordable housing and replacement units to the board. The Hillstone family is looking at this with a long view. They want this to be here for the next 30-50 years. Mr. Halferty referred to the plans and noted the unit upstairs is large and asked if it would need a variance for the view plane and Mr. Bendon said yes, for the mechanicals and vertical circulation and we aren’t interested in pursuing public votes. Mr. Halferty asked about combining the trash area for both restaurants and asked if they have a plan for down the road in case one space sells and leaves. Mr. Bendon they will create an operating agreement regarding this and the easements. We’re not opposed to any cross agreements. Mr. Lentz agreed and said they would get the proper documentation to protect this area. Mr. Halferty asked about the front entry and if the design team looked into a retractable awning. Mr. Bendon said they didn’t touch on that. Mr. Lentz said they studied different types of awnings. We need protection all year round and the retractable awning would only extend 6 feet which wasn’t much. We also looked at the ability to have snow guards, gutters, etc. We feel this would not provide the level of detail and comfort for guests. Mr. Bendon said what they have presented provides a level of permanence. Mr. Blaich noted the drawing on page 177 representing the affordable unit and said he doesn’t see any evidence of access to that. Mr. Lentz said It’s schematic and just shows the space. It’s a detail that would be added. Mr. Bendon said we’d have to have a long hallway. Is it conceivable? Sure, but we wouldn’t pursue this. Ms. Berko asked if there is potential massing that could be compatible and Mr. Bendon said not in our estimation. We aren’t happy with how the plans look. Mr. Pember asked them to explain the public amenity presentation from last time to now. Mr. Bendon said they discussed with Hillstone and asked them if they’re interested in reducing it and they said no. Mr. Johnson has been coming here for 40 years so he knows the sensitivity around view planes, etc. White House has a comfortable space out front and so the answer to the question is no and no. Mr. Lentz said they have to strike a balance with size. Aspen likes vitality on the street so we want to contribute to that. We studied all options using different percentages and the function falls apart and the process becomes unpleasant. Ms. Greenwood said it looks like they’ve come back with the same presentation. Mr. Bendon said the conversation has been around affordable housing. We had explored onsite, but we didn’t bring studies last time so this time we’ve come back with the studies that we have done. By not providing the affordable housing onsite, we are providing offsite through the program. Ms. Greenwood asked if they have had any conversations with their neighbor to the east and Mr. Lentz said they’ve had some brief conversations to avoid issues in the future. We will continue speaking with them and haven’t heard anything negative to this point. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018 Ms. Simon recommend they don’t get drawn too deep into what is required by code. It’s complicated so just keep it to the guidelines. This project will be going to city council due to a call up notice. You’ll see in resolution, you have to grant four variations on design standards so it’s not really variance free and there are exceptions being requested. PUBLIC COMMENT: Peter Fornell – he said he can’t state enough how important the housing credit program is and he feels this didn’t get the level of importance last time. The housing board has a full staff which live and breathe the housing credit program on a daily basis. They made a unanimous recommendation to use the housing credits for this project and they did this because the program creates credits in residential zone districts and this is what we want. The notion that onsite is preferred predates the program. This is a much better option and living in the alley downtown is not preferred. Public comment closed. Ms. Greenwood referred to page 14 as issues to be discuss. The focus of the project has been the affordable housing issue, for the most part. We are here to focus on the building and whether it fits into our commercial core and if it is appropriate for Aspen. We should look at the design considerations to see if the building fits in. Mr. Halferty said he appreciates the massing studies. The view plane is important and the massing is a challenging aspect. There is a conflict architecturally with the proposed awning. The pedestrian amenity could still use some study because we want that open to the sky aspect. The snow loads and drainage are important, so he understands. The setback is encouraged because it sits back from the resource to the west. That standard is a challenging one. He appreciates the heights. If you can get a unit up there, that would be fantastic, but watching what happened next door, that wasn’t very pleasant. He’s a big fan of the affordable housing credit program and thinks that is a good option due to the way this building is laid out. He is in support of some of the variations and reductions and he likes that they don’t want to ask for a lot. With some fine tuning, he thinks it’s moving forward and although the changes are subtle, he likes them. Mr. Blaich said that Mr. Halferty covered most of his thoughts, but he doesn’t support affordable housing on this site and feels that it’s a huge mistake. A lot of the issues will be resolved if affordable housing isn’t on this site. Mr. Kendrick is in favor of the affordable housing credits on this project as there are too many constraints. He likes that the building is trying to respect the historic property, but he’s not in favor of the front porch and feels the windows are covered by the front porch. He does appreciate the planters being removed. It’s getting closer. Mr. Lai said his thoughts are a repeat from last time. He likes the idea of affordable housing downtown and feels it’s good to have a mix, but he agrees that affordable housing on this site is a mistake. There are too many impediments regarding the view plane and feels the cost is too great. He thinks the intent of having a housing requirement in the downtown area is asking the restauranteur to spend too much time, effort and money to meet this requirement. He agrees with having a minimalist approach in the front façade. He wishes you didn’t have to have the stairs going down. He respects the fact that the applicant identifies their intent to remain a restauranteur instead of a developer. He doesn’t mind the 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018 solid awning, but sees the advantage of a retractable awning. Maybe it could be designed to be a combo of both. Generally, he in favor as presented. Mr. Moyer said there are two main issues here. The first one being housing and secondly, he doesn’t see this as meeting any requirements for messy vitality in downtown and feels it doesn’t fit in. He thinks it’s a no. He also thinks we need the downtown unit for a bachelor living downtown who can stumble home at night. It’s a piece of crap. There was some bad press about this too. Mr. Pember said he felt the affordable housing and massing studies were a little feigned in seriousness. It’s a confused combination of elements and seems to be conflicted with itself. The setback is extraordinary and that is part of the problem for him along with the awning. An awning that extends 6 feet, is a pretty generous awning. He thinks the building lacks stature. He read an excerpt from the staff memo regarding the design guidelines. Ms. Berko said she agrees with Mr. Moyer that the affordable housing be in town, but she understands what APCHA is saying too. She’s having a hard time seeing how this western saloon front enhances and respects and celebrates the white house. What you have on the east is challenging, but you could put some energy into the staff recommendations of other items if the affordable housing is off the table now. She feels that it deserves better. Ms. Greenwood said we are almost unanimous that this isn’t a site for affordable housing. The credits program is always a better choice, but as for the project, as a whole, you need to start over. You have problems you’ve created yourself with the large setback and it doesn’t meet plate heights that are consistent around Aspen. The façade doesn’t fit with the historic store fronts. The overhang over the stairs doesn’t provide anything and we encourage you to come back with a different building. Create a building which is a piece of Aspen. I don’t know where this belongs, but it’s not in Aspen. Mr. Bendon summarized the suggestions and recommendations to make sure he was clear on all aspects. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue, seconded by Mr. Blaich. Mr. Moyer amended to add the date of September 12th, Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 7-0, motion carried. Mr. Bendon asked for a vote on affordable housing, but Ms. Bryan said that is not appropriate. Ms. Sanzone reentered the meeting NEW BUSINESS: 135 E. Cooper Avenue Ms. Simon Ms. Simon said this is a minor review with variations. In March, the board reviewed a connector that links the historic house to a 2003 addition. There have been many conversations over the years and a solution was found for a two-story link and this is in for a building permit right now. Now, we have a separate proposal to expand the addition to the building. This must be reviewed under the new guidelines. It was required that the two discussions be had separately because the connector came in under the old code. In analyzing this application, we realized the property is over allowed in floor area. 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018 In order to pursue the addition, which is 145 square foot addition, the applicant must free up some existing floor area. They have proposed to demolish an attic level space in the historic home, which serves as a bedroom and was granted a CO. That level of the house is to be removed and the freed up area will be used for the proposed addition. You do need to consider if it complies with the design guidelines and whether it complies with the setback. There is a long history with this property and HPC had decided with the applicant that the west side was the best place to put an addition. It is a large Queen Anne and on the national registry. HPC liked seeing the three sides of the house. The applicant would like to expand the addition by moving the wall closer to Cooper by 5 ft. 10. The main challenge is the addition coming into near alignment with the historic resource. Guideline compliance is our concern. The addition was approved in 2003. You would have to grant another variance. Staff is recommending continuation and restudy. Mr. Pember asked how much are they exceeding the new guidelines and Ms. Simon said she doesn’t know the number and the applicant can probably explain more in detail. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Mitch Haas representing the owner, Christy Farrer, Christof Eigelberger and Cassandra Stevens of Eigelberger Architecture and Design. Mr. Hass showed a plan on screen of the existing addition. It sits 2.8 feet from the property line today and please take note of a couple of very large trees in the front. Immediately to the west is a big concrete retaining wall. There is no other viable area to be used. He showed an area of a proposed change to the existing footprint. It’s a very minor change in terms of the overall property and it doesn’t take up a lot of square footage and barely extends where the lightwell is today. Mr. Haas showed plans of where this has been and where it has gone since the beginning. Regarding guideline 10.3, he showed a view of the home as it is today and said the right side is subordinate to the historic resource. The addition is compatible in size and scale. Guideline 10.4 talks about the historic resource remaining the entry point and main focus of the property as viewed from the street. The standard does allow HPC to waive this and we feel we meet 2 out of 3. The addition relates to the resource and if we meet 10.8 regarding mass, we should meet this as well. Regarding guideline 10.6, it is a product of its own time and we feel we meet this. We satisfy the letter and the spirit of the guidelines with a successful and clean design. Regarding setbacks, we are asking for a simple variation, which he showed on screen. Staff expressed concerns for a loss of front yard space, but this isn’t a criterion. By moving the west wall forward, we are mitigating against impacts of the neighbor on the historic resource. Mr. Kendrick asked how they are getting rid of square footage and Mr. Haas said it would be the third floor attic space with low ceilings that will be removed because it’s not a functional space. The floor will be taken out. Mr. Kendrick asked what happens to the existing light well and Mr. Haas said that bedroom below would no longer be a bedroom so it would no longer require a light well and it will now become a gym. We are not adding below grade space. Ms. Greenwood noticed the height of the addition is taller than historic gable and asked how much taller it is. Mr. Eigleberger said the current eave of the historic gable is lower by a foot and a half than the newer addition. It is 18 inches higher. Mr. Halferty said there was some discussion last week on a landscape plan and wanted to know if they have investigated a landscape plan yet. Mr. Eigleberger said we have not addressed this, but we would like to create a planting bed in front of the new addition indicating it is not a point of entry. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018 Ms. Sanzone asked if a landscape plan was required as a part of this and Mr. Eigleberger said no. Ms. Simon said they didn’t propose any changes so we accepted things would stay the same, but now this is new information so we would need condition of approval. Ms. Sanzone asked if they’ve met with parks about the evergreen tree and Mr. Eigleberger said yes, they want to preserve that tree and we came to an agreement to not damage any of the root systems and have no bearing point on the tree. Mr. Moyer asked about removing the light well due to safety issues. He asked if there was anywhere else to put it that would not interfere with setbacks. Ms. Simon said they initially wanted to put one on the west side and she spoke with the building department about it and there are two lightwells in the basement on the east side that are considered adequate. Mr. Eigleberger pointed out a very large walkout area in the basement used by the living space down there along with the bedroom spaces down there. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Mr. Halferty said he appreciates the evolution of the property as he has seen it a lot as it becomes more and more thought provoking. He feels the proposed addition and the square footage is good and shows proper camouflage and is the appropriate place to meet guidelines. The footprint is in compliance and he feels the variance is ok. Guideline 10.8 is met. The new roofline is more in line with what we’ve had historically and the addition exceeds the setbacks in the R6 zone. He continued to list off the rest of the guidelines and feels the project complies with all of them. He still feels the historic resource is the main focus and he can support this. Mr. Lai said that looking at the north elevation, he is worried a little about the proportions. He would like to see a restudy with greater articulation and a finer scale of the windows. Mr. Kendrick said the mass and scale of the addition is already quite large. The new addition will just add to it and he feels that it takes over. The density on that lot takes away from the historic resource so I would like to see a restudy. Ms. Berko said she will support staff’s recommendations. She is really sensitive to adding square footage to the addition and feels it is a burden on the resource and the neighborhood. She supports and agrees with all of staff’s recommendations. Ms. Greenwood said the photo on the screen says a thousand stories. The addition is not subordinate to the resource, as it is. We’ve seen this property a lot and feels uncomfortable with them asking for a variance. It needs restudy and need to bring the mass and scale down. The resource needs to maintain as the dominant building. It’s important that the addition sits back and is subordinate. Mr. Pember said he thinks the existing addition is vile. He supports doing something better to this. Mr. Blaich said the aesthetic and scale of the addition are the big concerns for him and he suggests restudy. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick moved to restudy and continue to September 12th, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. 7-0, motion carried. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to extend the meeting, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018 NEW BUSINESS: 500 W Main St. Amy Simon Ms. Simon reminded the board that Rowland & Broughton is moving their offices to 500 W. Main (the Mesa Store), which they bought a couple of years ago. HPC reviewed a substantial addition with commercial and residential and the team scaled back from that and now they are just remodeling the historic building, which will accommodate their office. There is all kinds of restoration going on with porches, windows, chimneys, etc. They are looking at other options now, such as, splitting off the west lot into a 3000-square foot parcel. They are going to council to ask for that approval and to allow them transferable development rights. When you create TDR’s, you don’t have to act on them, it’s your choice. If they receive approval for seven TDR’s, it would strip the property of all development. It will cost them and they will lose some FAR. In order for them to split the lot, they do need some variations. There are issues such as, setback violations and parking. Mr. Pember asked if there is subsequent development on the split lot, will that go through HPC? Ms. Simon said yes, it’s historic and will stay a landmark so it will come through HPC. A big issue here is if the new lot is created, the building code requires a ten-foot separation between the new west lot and the historic building. They will have a 15-foot-wide building envelope on the west side. Mr. Blaich asked about what they originally approved and why can’t that building can’t be built for some other purpose. Ms. Simon said those approvals are gone now. Each time they scaled back, the new idea eliminated the old ones and all they have now is the interior remodel. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: John Roland and Dana Ellis of Rowland & Broughton Architecture Mr. Roland said in the 1880’s, there was another building that was all the way up to the front lot line, just like the Mesa building is today. It’s been interesting, we’ve gotten accustomed to the openness. It’s created a lot of interest in our minds as a quasi-public park, so to speak. It would still be our private property, but people could walk through and enjoy. Ms. Ellis showed the plan which is currently in with the building department on screen for the interior remodel. The plan is still to complete the picture. One of the things we are looking for now is options. We’ve met with the building department and they’ve made some more recent determinations on setbacks. The building department is requiring a 10- ft. setback from the historic stair, which would be a recorded easement so we can’t even put a wall with windows on this line. It does limit future development, so at this point, we are looking to go to council and get acceptance for TDR’s as this seems to be the best option. The plan is to improve the adjacent lot and move the parking spaces to the alley and create a nice open area to enjoy. The lot split in that direction is for future use options. The TDR creation has a financial benefit. Ms. Greenwood clarified that their desire is to sell off as many TDR’s as possible. Mr. Roland said it’s one avenue. Ms. Greenwood asked if that is that what they would prefer and Mr. Roland said so much has transpired in the past few days, that it is a hard question to answer and they are gathering a lot of information. Ms. Broughton said they purchased a lemon and in the end, they couldn’t afford to do the addition. Mr. Roland said it’s been a vacant site for a long time for a reason. She said they can’t really answer Ms. Greenwoods question because every time they turn around, they are hit with new encumbrances. They are just trying to keep their avenues open. 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018 Mr. Kendrick asked how seven TDR’s came about and asked if that was recommended by the city. Ms. Simon said it’s based on a single-family house and square footage. Mr. Pember asked who would retain ownership if they sold all of the TDR’s and Mr. Roland said we would still have to maintain. Mr. Moyer asked if this is a big tax burden for them and Mr. Roland said that’s a good question. Right now, the value of the lot is 3 million so we would need to consult our tax accountant. Mr. Kendrick asked if they have to do the lot split in order to get the TDR’s and Ms. Simon said yes. Mr. Moyer asked if there would be any downside to allowing this and Ms. Simon said she doesn’t think so. Mr. Pember thinks a lot split with TDR’s is great. Ms. Sanzone asked if TDR’s could re-land on this lot in the future and Ms. Simon said no, it’s theirs forever. MOTION: Ms. Sanzone motioned to recommend the lot split and creation of TDR’s as described by staff, Mr. Kendrick seconded. The TDRS will support HPC ideals; assuming the TDR’s will all be sold. This fulfills HPC’s goals. It would be HPC’s preference that they sell all TDR’s and HPC is also in favor of variations. All in favor, motion carried. ________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk