Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20180801 1 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 01, 2018 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Scott Kendrick, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai, Sherri Sanzone. Absent was Willis Pember. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the draft minutes of July 11th, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty said he’s been biking up to Ashcroft a lot lately and going past the Marolt buildings and Zupancis lot and it looks amazing. Ms. Greenwood said she also biked up this weekend and it looked really good. Mr. Halferty agreed and said it looks really beautiful and said everyone should go take a look. Ms. Simon said they did a beautiful job and when they had their hoedown in June, they did some tours of the inside. She could probably ask for a site visit for HPC sometime. They are moving into a fundraising phase to figure out how to restore and interpret the interior. The Historical Society and the city are still in a partnership for renovating the inside. Ms. Greenwood encouraged everyone to become a member if they are not already. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone said she will be stepping down for 517 E. Hopkins. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has a fence to show Mr. Blaich at the end of the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon thanked everyone for fitting this special meeting in. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan has all noticing needed for 303 E. Main and needs the remaining items for 517 E. Hopkins. CALL UPS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 303 E. Main Amy Simon Ms. Simon said this building is a National Registry listed miner’s cottage on Main Street that was renovated in 1996, which added an addition on the east side and a full basement under the site. Matsuhisa is now the primary occupant of the site along with some residential units. The applicant is here to deal with some ventilation issues. They are mostly concerned with improving circulation into the dining area and they would like to do an airlock. The first part of the application is to create the airlock and is not easily visible from the street. Airlocks are encouraged in the code for energy reasons and this would be permanent. This would not change the structure of the historic building. Staff supports the installation of the airlock. The applicant also wants to emphasize the functionality of the main door and change the side door into a window and staff is also in support of this and think it’s an opportunity to open a corner of the porch back up. We’d like to see the last panel of the porch removed. We have provided the board with a resolution. 2 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 01, 2018 APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Allison Agley of Rowland and Broughton. Ms. Agley pointed out that she is here representing Michael Goldberg and Matsuhisa LLC, their clients. She said they are proposing two entry changes as discussed. This project was originally to be cosmetic to the upper bar area, but as we studied the mechanical issues, we found issues with temperature as well. As REG helped with the mechanical issues, we realized by changing anything mechanical on the roof, we were in the view plane of Hotel Jerome so this opened a can of worms. We thought the sizing of the different items needed to stay small. If we make the two proposed changes, this will support better energy and better functionality for the patrons. The two changes for the airlock are for a regular steel window. We are in favor of working with staff to figure out the best remedy to the porch situation. It is an opportunity to look at how we can get that end of the porch looking the most congruent with the other changes. We are proposing adding two new windows to the end and matching the white windows that are already out there. Ms. Greenwood asked if there is a porch on the back of the structure and Ms. Simon said yes, on the back of the historic structure, there was a porch that was enclosed in 1996. On page 13 there is a glimpse of the open porch and you also see the door that will be replaced. Mr. Kendrick asked for them to elaborate on opening this up more. Ms. Simon directed them to look at page 13 at the plan view of the door where the window is sitting. On the west face of the porch, we would suggest taking the glazing out and we can study with the applicant to see what is best. We would like to remove any infill elements that are no longer needed. Ms. Greenwood asked if they are trying to replicate what was there before and Ms. Simon said no, but they will do some additional studies with staff and monitor. Mr. Blaich said you can see the addition on the rear and that was a big issue when this originally came up when he was chair of P&Z. There were reasons not to approve it, but it was approved. Ms. Simon said when the project was built, it was under significant property rights at the time. It feels like a lot around the historic structure, it was a compromise because the tower was in the view plane, which they got an exception for. Ms. Simon directed the board to page 52 for a view of the porch enclosure. Ms. Agley said two windows would fit where the door is now so they are questioning one or two windows and we are open to suggestions. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Mr. Moyer said he concurs with staff, Mr. Kendrick agreed, Mr. Blaich agreed and Mr. Halferty agreed. Ms. Greenwood said they are all in agreement with staff comments and direction. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve, Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 7-0, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 517 E. Hopkins Amy Simon Ms. Simon said this is a request for substantial amendment to a granted approval in 2016. They have until 2019 to build what HPC previously approved. From the first conceptual meeting, it was thought 3 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 01, 2018 the city might occupy a part of the building and we’re now back to talking about the city sharing this space. Council had a work session last night about acquiring part of 517 E Hopkins and 204 S Galena where the Kitchen is. This is an opportunity to add needed space for the city close to City Hall. When HPC reviews a substantial amendment, we want to focus on what is on the table for change. This app was made before the code amendments of the moratorium and there is lots of discussion in the memo about that. Architecturally, the applicant is making minor changes to the rear and front façades. The front façade comes closer to the sidewalk than before and the alley façade extends back further to the alley. The bridge has been deleted and there has been an addition of a large rooftop skylight to light up the building all the way to the basement. There are minor window and door changes on the rear. WE will also discuss trash storage, transformers, transportation impacts, parking and growth management. When the project first came in, the whole thing was to be commercial net leasable. For the city to maximize the usable space, the affordable housing would now be office space and use credits. We’ve created a new memo format, which I hope you find to be helpful. You will find all of our responses to the review criteria. The conditions of approval are: 1. Once the bridge is removed from the front of the building, it leaves a two-story wall of glazing so they feel some work needs to be done on this to break up the floors. 2. Study of materials and windows on the alley, which enliven the building. 3. Public amenity – they must have 900 square feet of onsite amenity. They are providing 258 square feet mostly in a courtyard on the northeast corner of the site. HPC asked for more information on materials and planting. The applicant is providing trash storage and a utility area along the alley and environmental health is in support of it. They have provided a transportation impact analysis. We’ve suggested a condition of approval that every trip is mitigated and they would pay a cash in lieu fee. The parks department is still on board with the street plantings. The sanitation department still wants a grease trap installed underneath the building incase another restaurant takes over. We don’t want to deaden the street with our offices so that’s why we have retail space. The property currently has no onsite parking spaces. The previous idea was they would pay a cash in lieu fee for the parking impact. Let’s discuss what is appropriate because there needs to be more dialogue about what is necessary on the site. The proposal is that the city will pay the cash in lieu fee, but you do need to talk about whether there are adequate facilities around the site, etc. Finally, there will discussion of growth management. This building is larger than what is on the site now. Every new square foot of development will require affordable housing mitigation. Your role here is to agree to a mathematical calculation depending on which floor you’re talking about. We provided the math calculations in the memo. There is a need to provide housing for 26.2 more new employees and a need to replace the five apartments. The city has about 90 FTE credits to use for this project. Ms. Berko asked about the 26.2 employees and mentioned them being scattered all over town. You’re not really adding employees, they are just scattered. Ms. Simon said that HPC’s role is to agree with the math in the code and you will make a recommendation to city council. We will fully mitigate for employees. Ms. Greenwood asked if the city is buying the entire building and Ms. Simon said the applicant should answer that and explain the contract details. There are five studio units that need to be dealt with and if removed, they must be replaced and the city would use its bank of affordable housing credits to do that. 4 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 01, 2018 Ms. Greenwood said she thinks it’s odd. Ms. Simon said she doesn’t know much about the transaction itself and she’s trying to focus on what HPC is reviewing. Ms. Simon said the suggested conditions of approval start on page 68. There are three related to architectural design, your verification of calculations, public amenity, parking, parks and sanitation district. Most of these are carry forwards from the previous approval. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams alongside Mark Hunt, representing the ownership and the applicant, 517 LLC. Mr. Bendon said there is a contract to sell the majority of the building to the city. Mr. Hunt would retain ownership of the three retail shops in the front. You’ll hear reference to 204, which is 204 S. Galena where the Gap used to be and is now Lululemon and The Kitchen is up on the second floor. The conceptual approval was for an all commercial building. At the time, Mr. Hunt was interested in facilitating a city hall annex at this location, but the city wasn’t very interested in this at the time. At the time, Mr. Hunt did not have a need for the second floor and during the final approval, the second floor was converted to affordable housing. They are now approaching this as an essential public facility. There is ongoing discussion about the use of 204 and connecting that to 517 so we are fine with the city using this as a public facility. The demising walls could somewhat vanish and Mr. Hunt would retain the flexibility in this space. There is an atrium that draws light in all the way to the basement. There was reference to transformer and trash area, which environmental health is in support of. There are two scenarios, both of which, have a transformer on property. If the purchase for the city is just 517 square feet, Liz Chapman in Environmental Health, is ok with 215 square feet of trash space and if its combined with 204, she would like 300 square feet of trash space. Mr. Bendon mentioned the restudy of the center module and restudy of the alley façade. Both items can be dealt with staff and monitor and we’re happy with these. Regarding the TIA, we’ve worked with engineering on transportation impact analysis and there will be some final specking with bike racks, etc. The onsite parking scenario eats up a lot of space and we can’t do underground parking. The footprint of parking, ends up consuming so much of the program, so from our perspective, the cash in lieu is perfect for the parking issue. He showed some slides from David Johnston architects that were shown at council. If the 204 plan goes forward, we will connect the interior. If this isn’t objectionable, we’d like to hear about this from HPC. The backup plan, if the contract between Mr. Hunt and the city doesn’t go forward, this application would still be in and submitted and come back to discuss. Mr. Bendon showed a rendering of 517 and 204 together and what this would look like. Ms. Greenwood asked why they decided not to have a bridge when that might serve a nice purpose. Mr. Bendon said the bridge is on the cusp of having little value. In discussion since, we asked what its purpose was and Mr. Hunt liked it, but he thinks the city wants to get as much space as they can. She asked Mr. Bendon to go over the public amenity between what was approved and what is now proposed. Mr. Bendon said it’s nearly identical. It’s 285 square feet in both scenarios, it’s just allocated differently. Mr. Blaich asked about the oval shape and Mr. Hunt said the oval is more current and a lot of this came from meetings with the city to maintain openness and light. Mr. Blaich asked about how they would confront sound problems in such an open space. Mr. Bendon said this is the city’s design and they have 5 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 01, 2018 provided the footprint, which can be square or circular. As the city develops their design, they will go through a more detailed analysis to make sure this works as far as sound and other issues. It will be somewhat similar to the way the new county building works, but they haven’t gotten to that level yet. Mr. Kendrick asked if there will be any mechanicals on the roof and Mr. Bendon said yes. We didn’t include a roof plan in the presentation, but there is an area in the back third of the roof reserved for mechanical equipment. Mr. Kendrick asked if they will use gas or electric and Mr. Bendon said that has not yet been decided. It wouldn’t be seen from the street and wouldn’t interfere with any view planes. Mr. Hunt said the building is ten feet shorter than what is there today. Mr. Moyer mentioned that if the city doesn’t go with this option, they would like to go back to the original plan and Ms. Simon said yes, they can build the approved plan and we can craft some language with the city attorneys for the resolution that this is a moving thing. Ms. Simon said she wants to be careful moving into other scenarios that aren’t presented in the packet tonight. She doesn’t want them to predetermine their opinion about 204. PUBLIC COMMENT: Steve Marcus - Owns the building that Kenichi is in. He thinks this is a wonderful improvement for the street and he doesn’t think you can do any better, in his humble opinion. Toni Kronberg – She took a walk through the new building today and feels it is a wonderful asset. What is there now at 517 is definitely an eyesore and to bring this building up to a spectacular design, would be awesome. She just thinks it’s a good modern design and is very similar to the open layout of the new county building. This is really exciting. Public comment closed. Mr. Bendon said he wanted to speak to the backup plan and had a conversation with Ms. Garrow about keeping their current approval. We have an approved project and have put those plans aside to have this conversation with the city. If this doesn’t move through and Mr. Hunt is left with nothing, that won’t work for him and that would be worse case scenario. If the negotiation falls apart, this app would still be active for the 100 percent commercial building. Ms. Simon said there is a timeframe of due diligence of about 30 days and in section 1 of the resolution, we can clarify this. Ms. Greenwood agreed and said we definitely should comment on that because it’s a fairness issue. Ms. Greenwood clarified the conditions as breaking up the large façade, the alley materials, being ok with the minor change in the public amenity and the parking discussion and we should comment on what we think about maintaining the original approvals. She likes this building and thinks it’s a good home for the city. She has always liked this development and is a strong statement and a really great project. She feels that breaking up the large façade can be handled with a monitor and staff. The picture being proposed is nice. It would be nice for the staff and monitor to work on the alley side as well and create a more interesting alley facade. She feels it’s important to encourage applicants to look at their building from all four sides. This is a definite winner and a good experience for the city. We need to allow the original approvals as we have a busy agenda and we don’t need to go back through this. Mr. Halferty said he thinks it’s an excellent project. He likes the more private/public development and said it’s is a good thing. Mr. Hunt is conscientious and knows what he’s doing. He is totally in favor of 6 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 01, 2018 what is recommended by staff. He is fine with the public amenity and the trash is fine. The parking is fine and he feels that staff and monitor can handle the back alley and glazing on the front façade. What Mr. Hunt has done here in Aspen is commendable and this would be a welcome addition. He is in full support. Mr. Blaich thinks the glass façade is an asset even for office space. It brings in light and is positive to have this glass. He is fine leaving the final details for staff and monitor and agrees with Mr. Halferty’ s comments. Ms. Berko is also in agreement and is happy to see this coming forward in potential. Mr. Lai said this is his first time seeing the project and thinks it’s wonderful and there are several things he likes. He likes the diverse commercial on the main façade and said it’s a real asset. He likes the idea of putting light all the way to the basement from the roof. He concurs with Mr. Blaich, having the glazing on the top floor would improve the interior considerably. He likes the public space on the corner as it adds some prominence to the public function. To give this entry prominence is a good idea and he hopes that council moves to approve this. Mr. Moyer thinks it’s a great project and likes the public/private aspect. We need more messy vitality in the alleys. He encouraged Mr. Hunt to put an entrance/exit in the alleyway. Ms. Greenwood agreed and said the nice thing is the public/private partnership as it offers more vitality. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve just as staff has written with conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4. The applicant has the right to move back to the original approval. The lawyers and staff will work on the appropriate language for the resolution, Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. Mr. Halferty will be the project manager. Mr. Hunt mentioned to the board that they have all been working on these projects together and are now making them come to life. He would like to show them a rundown and portfolio of what the plan is moving forward and show some of the buildings, which HPC approved, that we are all a part of. He would love to show them where they are today or at the bare minimum, meet with the monitors on these different projects. He is excited to show them the Crystal Palace. The board expressed interest in seeing these projects. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn, Ms. Greenwood seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ________________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk