Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20100113ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2010 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Jason Lasser, Ann Mullins, Jamie McLeod, Sarah Broughton and Nora Berko. Jay Maytin was seated at 5:45 p.m. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve the minutes of November 11, 2009 as amended by Brian. Brian second the motion. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION.• Brian moved to reinstate Michael as Chair and Sarah as Vice- chair of the HPC; second by.7amie. All in favor, motion carried. Reso. 1, 2010. Sarah will recuse herself on 320 Lake Ave. -Her firm helped the applicant do due-diligence on the property. Michael will recuse himself on 320 Lake Ave. Michael has provided legal services to the applicant. 525 E. Cooper Ave. -Minor HPC review, Commercial Design Standards Review and View Plane Review -Public Hearing Amy said the subject project is the Aspen Grove building in the downtown historic district although the building is not considered contributing. The proposal is to swap out some space in the building to carve out a trash area along the alley and to take that void and move it to the front corner of an existing retail store. It is approximately 200 square feet that is being maneuvered. The reviews necessary are minor HPC review, commercial design review and view pane review. The HPC standards and Commercial standards are almost identical. This project is minimal and everything is going to match the existing building. The only concern is that the application did not have a door into the retail space facing Cooper Ave. and that is an important characteristic of the shopping experience in downtown. The entry should be clear and the interaction of passer's by and the store front. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2010 Amy said both sets of guidelines say the door should face the street and be sheltered and reset. The property is in the line of the Cooper Ave. view plane. This building and the Ajax Mountain building already violate the view plane and have for some time. This particular model is below the angle and there is nothing further protruding into the view plane and we recommend that HPC allow the project to go forward. Amy said she got one comment from someone who owns a condo in the Independence Building concerning more lighting in the alley. We have guidelines that do not want spot lighting. Dana Epstein, designer/contractor said we will have wall lighting that is the same as existing in the alley. Sarah said her firm did work in the past but they aren't doing any work at this time and there is no conflict. Dana Epstein went over the project. The alley is muddled with trash bins all the way down and we propose to make a 200 square foot indentation in the first floor of the building so we can roll the trash cans in and get rid of the trash cans on the alley side. We will move the trash areas from the alley to an enclosure with a pull down garage door and move the 200 square feet to the front store front and squaring the building off. A concrete floor would have to be poured at a slope in order to get the trash cans in and out. Sarah asked for clarification why the brick sill isn't coming around the building. Frank Woods, owner said he feels it makes it look cleaner and fresher and more updated. Ann said the glass will come down to grade or within two inches. Nora pointed out that the space can't hold all the garbage bins in the alley. Dana said the other businesses will have to work with common dumpsters. The dumpsters are never full. Michael asked Jim True, Special Counsel if HPC can require the applicant to consolidate the different trash bins. Jim-said it could be a condition. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2010 Frank Wood said he isn't even sure if all the trash bins belong to his building. If the city let them have a trash bin what can we do when they aren't on our property. Amy said she doubts if an encroachment was ever granted and this application will probably trigger a requirement to fix the situation. Amy said you could suggest that the Engineering Dept. look at the problem and proposes some consolidation or encroachment permits. Dana said the trash could be moved to the side of the building but there is a transformer in that location. Jamie inquired about the door and steps in the alley. Dana said they are existing and not new. Vice-chair, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Ann commented that she appreciates the fact that the alley will be cleaned up. Currently it is a plaza and what you are doing to the west side of that plaza is changing it into a corridor. There is an existing plaza and by your addition you are getting rid of that. There is a way to still ad square footage and maintain open space. The front door also needs to be on the street side. Jamie commented that she likes the brick going all the way across and it keeps within the historic nature in that area. One concern is the division of windows and doors on each side and possibly that could be more consistent. Jamie agreed with Ann and adding that small section does limit the access of coming into the court yard and that is a concern. You don't want to hinder the other retailers in the back of the space if you block out their public access to that area. The two entry doors being so closely related is also a concern. Jason said having the west side pushed back is in conflict with our guidelines 13.8. The historic pattern is keeping the facades on the property line to maintain a straight fapade on our streets. Jason said he couldn't find anything in the guidelines about the sill except for maintaining an historic pattern. He also agreed that the two doors in the front are problematic. The ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2010 door on the north face on Cooper should be the primary door. Jason said he also agrees with staff about Engineering and the trash encroachment recommendation. Brian said he is torn and by squaring off the corner you are inhibiting the natural flow into that space. Because of that I am concerned about the tenants in the interior of the courtyard. You are creating more of a narrow path into that area. On the other hand it does justice to the store front by bringing it forward but is it at the expense of the businesses in the courtyard. Michael agreed that the design element of the sill along Cooper Ave. should be continued. In terms of the application for commercial guidelines I agree with Jason who quoted them well. The City Engineer should deal with the encroachment of the trash receptacles. Sarah also agreed that there is no impact on the view plane. This building is not historic yet it is in our historic district. The entire building is at odds with our guidelines and our commercial design guidelines. I do have concerns with the addition coming out to the lot line. If the addition occurs the punched opening for the door is very foreign. The bldg. is masonry book ends with glass in the middle. This is one instance where our guidelines are not applicable to a more modern building in our historic district. I would rather see a store front door without it being in a punched opening. Amy pointed out that the door cannot swing onto the sidewalk. Ann also agreed that the guidelines are clear that the storefront should come up to the street and even with the other facades but it also mentions the importance of a public amenity space which is well designed and flows well. Amy said the applicant is providing more open space than what is required and they are bisected by the view plane. Nora said guideline 13.8 and 13.6 are in conflict. If you are going to have pedestrian activity and somehow mirror the other side then you still have an open flow. Squaring it off lends a hybrid look. Michael said he finds the entire idea of the existing courtyard uninviting. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2010 Jason said if you walk along the street edge are you likely to tum and go into the courtyard or walk along the street edge looking at the windows. Frank Wood pointed out that the configuration of the building is due to the different codes being in place throughout the years. There was a time when you had to provide 25% open space and now you don't. The planter inhibits the flow of traffic I have been part of the ownership for 25 years and we wouldn't do this remodel if we thought it would be negative on the tenants. Our tenants in the back have been there for 23 years. The more activity we can create to the building the better it will be. On the door we can put it in a straight line because the building is set back. Dana said he didn't think about the building being set back four to six feet. On the handicapped access you have to have the door so wide that we had to have a little window. We have planned on taking out part of the planters to make the corridor more pedestrian friendly. Incorporating the sill is not a big deal but without it, it does create a more open look similar to what we did on Mill Street. View Plane: The board determined that the project was not in violation of the view plane. Alley: The board was in favor of the alley proposal and the pull down door and that the Engineering and Zoning Departments assess the alley for encroachments and make sure the trash is cleaned up and consolidated. Addition: Proposed changes: Getting rid of the punch for the door. Ann said the design can be re-worked and not be so symmetrical so it still creates a wider opening to the plaza. If the proposal is to take out the entire planter we need to see the re-workings of the plaza. Frank Wood said they are going to be working on the planter and making it smaller. Brian agreed with Ann that a restudy should occur. Stepping the addition back somewhat so that it isn't squared off on the corner would be something to consider. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2010 Jamie agreed that stepping it back and revising it so that it is a little friendlier would be recommended. Applicants: Frank said removing the setback door isn't a problem and either is putting the sill on. Frank pointed out that on the Mezzaluna building both corners are cut out. In order to make it more pedestrian friendly by removing the planter that would be great. Amy said this is a 30 foot wide corridor and it is a city lot that is basically not permitted to be built on which is in conflict with our guidelines and the way we approach things today. If they would be interested in reworking the plaza and court yard to make it more accessible and spacious we would support that. This is a struggle because they have a lot of things pushing on how they can do anything. We have said in the guidelines that they need to be up on the street and they are being told not to because the courtyard has some design significance but I am not sure what that is. I am not sure how to guide them with the revisions at this point. Dana said the planter is on the ground with a row of bricks/concrete around it. It is easily changeable. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #2 for the project at 525 E. Cooper with the following conditions: 1. The primary entry door face Cooper Ave. and be in line with the facade and that is in compliance with guideline 13.3. 2. The brick sill element come around on the fixed windows in accordance with the other openings. 3. The applicant work with staff and monitor as the new planter ideas are redeveloped and making sure if you are required to have the open space that the open space remains a viable open space. 4. Work with Engineering to resolve the trash along the alley. Michael second the motion. Jason asked staff if there was a pattern for recessed entry ways. Amy said this building is from a different era. Sarah said not every guideline will apply to this building or this project. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2010 Roll call vote: Jamie, Nora, Ann - no. Jason, Brian, Michael, Sarah -yes. Motion carried 4-3. Jason is the monitor. Work Session- 320 Lake Ave. Jim True, Special counsel said work sessions are a tool to the applicant for providing input from the HPC; however, any statement made by an individual member or collectively by the commission will not be binding and we request that the applicant acknowledge that this is a work session and not binding by the HI'C. Rich Carr, representing the applicant said he understood what Jim said. Sara Adams said Ronnie Marshall, the owner of the property has consented to the potential purchasers to appear before HPC to do this work session. MOTION: Brian moved to adjourn; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. ._ L L . ~- J. Stricklarlcl, Chief Deputy Clerk