Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20110810 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2011 Chairperson, Sarah Broughton called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Jason Lasser, Jay Maytin, Brian McNellis and Jamie McLeod. Ann Mullins and Willis Pember were excused. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Nora moved to approve the minutes of June 27 second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. 400 E. Hyman — Conceptual Major Development, Commercial Design Review, Reduction of Pedestrian Amenity Requirement, Continued Public Hearing Amy explained at the last meeting there was concern about the height of the new structure and the lack of context. The foot print of the building has been reduced. Previously it was coming all the way out to Hyman and now it will be retaining the existing foot print. The major change is that it will be taller. It will be 15 feet taller than the existing two story commercial structure. There will be retailers and commercial on the ground floor and a two story apartment above that. Some issues at the last meeting were the public amenity and that is off the table except for a small area that will serve as an elevator for the building. That is an improvement because there is an awkward man lift that is exposed to the weather to the courtyard. Staff recommends conceptual approval but our main reservation is height and the block like shape of the building is exactly what the guidelines ask for and there have been amendments to take into consideration the concern of the tenants. The skin of the building is an issue for final. Our suggestions would be to consider whether the height of the building should be reduced by bringing the first floor level down which is at 13 feet from floor to ceiling which is in character of the downtown but may not be necessary. There also might be an opportunity to tighten up the floor structure which is at 1.6 feet at each level. Paul Irwin, Ripple Design Studio Paul went over the elevations. They have some drainage issues that need to be dealt with. We would like to get a tree down in the plaza area but not 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2011 sure it is possible. We have a glass facade with steel mullion framed windows. On the bottom level, the interior will be Yule marble and we have cloth canopies that will act as shade structures and a privacy device for the second level of the condo. There will be a bump out for the elevator that will take you to every level of the project. We would like to expand the basement which doesn't affect the pedestrian area and it will be below grade. Maybe some skylights could be put in. The owner is interested in doing this but if it is going to hold things up it isn't that important. There will be one entrance on Hyman and one on Mill. The stairs will be ten feet wide instead of seven feet wide which will open up the plaza a little bit. There is a proposed deck off the back of the upper floor that will pull the building back off the plaza at the corner. On the lower level you can see into the plaza. The interior will ideally be the Yule marble. The second level will have the privacy insulated canopies. The upper level will be mostly open with interior shading. FAR Amy said the FAR on the lot is a little over 6,000 square feet. They are allowed .5 to 1 for free market 2.1 for commercial and affordable housing is unlimited. If they create a new net leasable by excavating the basement there is affordable housing mitigation and there is affordable housing needed for the new free market unit. This can be off -site or through the housing credits. They don't generate any parking. There are three existing housing units on the site, one a deed restricted affordable housing unit and two are free market. They only have to deal with the new impacts. The two story corner building is all commercial and the units are in the L shape and untouched. They are adding one in which they need to mitigate for. There is only about 45 square feet of free market space that could be developed after this time. There is still 5,000 square feet of commercial that could be added some day and they would have to go through the review process. There are a total of 15 units in the building. The applicant owns three of them. They aren't generating parking requirements and they have minimal cash -in -lieu. Sarah asked for clarification of height with the sunken courtyard. Amy said that is the only area with a height problem. It is at 35.9 feet on the street sides and the allowable is 38 so they are OK there. Within the courtyard it measures 4lfeet from the bottom. HPC is allowed to grant up to 42 feet but the board needs to find that it is appropriate. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2011 Sarah said if it is allowed at 42 the code says that the portion of the building that goes up to 42 should be stepped back. Amy said she needed to clarify the step back. Jay asked about the construction time and the disruption to the town. Paul said he feels that the shell can get up in about three to four months. If we go modular steel, it goes up quite quickly. Amy said HPC cannot dictate when a project is to start construction. Jay asked about the deck on the north side. Paul said it is not a good place for a deck and it is there only to get the height down. Nora inquired about the mechanical on the roof. Paul said solar panels will be erected and exhausts. The mechanicals need to be under the five foot allowed over the height of 35.9 feet. Nora said her concern is how does this fit into guideline 6.25 which talks about the perceived scale. How are we perceiving three stories as a two -story? Paul said given a 38 or 42 foot height allowable that requirement of 6.25 is a difficult thing to pull off especially on this corner especially with non- compliant buildings almost going in every direction. Jason said with the awnings they could be gone if someone else buys the building. Paul said he is also pulling the window ceils down so that they cross the floor. The idea is to move the window ceils up and down so that they don't reflect the second level floor. We have solid panels that don't start or stop at the floor and we have glazing and we could put in a pane. There are a lot of four story buildings not too far from this building. I see the intent of the code but I'm not sure if it is applicable on this corner. Having 38 feet and making it look like two stories is what we are dealing with. Paul said the bottom floor will be clear in order to see the plaza and the second level shows the canopies which will have insulation qualities. If we design this correctly it can do a lot on the energy aspect of this building. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2011 Sarah opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Comments: Sarah said the issues to address are height, scale and mass of the building. Jay said he feels the third floor is too tall. Jay asked what the interior height is. Paul said he went by the code which is 13.9. The floors are 1.6 and we can probably get that down a foot. Using the existing footprint is very important and we appreciate you incorporating that. The deck on the north side should be removed if it is not going to be used. I am in support of the project but the height probably could be reduced. The building is essentially the same shape and a bit taller and that could be restudied. The energy efficient building is great for our community and we need to start seeing more of them in our community. Nora said she appreciates the pull back to the current footprint. This is the second most prominent crossing in town. The two story scale of our downtown works. I can't get beyond guideline 6.25. The perceived scale of the two story building is not there yet and the free standing nature of the building even makes it worse. Jason thanked the applicant for addressing the public amenity space. Jason also echoed the concern of the height of the building. Maybe the third floor height could be 11.6 on the upper instead of 13.9. An elevation showing it at the courtyard level would be helpful. A cut elevation through Hyman might help the argument. Jason said the applicant has done a good job breaking the scale down on the overall height of the building. Jamie said when you do the cross section can you include the Wheeler and Mill Street. I need to know how it feels when I'm walking from Mill Street to Main Street. I also echo that it needs to be in compliance with the height and I am worried about a three story structure. Trying to divide only by the awnings that can be removable is a concern. We need to know how you step back the context of the building. Sarah also said she would like information on the energy efficiency of the building. I do feel it is nice to have a survey and the context of where the building sits in the broader historic district. That would help your application as you go through the process. Also we need the street 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2011 elevations to help us understand why this height might be appropriate. You have the unfortunate situation that you are surrounded by smaller buildings. Stepping it out into a broader context might help. What you are hearing here tonight is that it is big even though you have complied with the standards. On the ceiling height it might not be appropriate. Maybe you could address shade control as the building is getting a lot of sun. Maybe you can look at invisible glass so that it doesn't cloud up. Brian thanked the applicant for making the modifications and they did help the project. On the bump out in the basement the issue would be the possibility of providing light and if skylights are installed it could be something that takes away the public amenity. I am open to suggestions to allow that public amenity to remain. Section 6.25 the perceived two story element is a concern. The building is interesting and there are a lot of possibilities. I have no problem creating signature buildings on significant corners that kind of create bookends for the block. This is a free standing building and having something this vertical is a concern. I agree with Jay that maybe the first floor can be brought down or down to two stories. The transparency of the building is also a concern especially given its location across from the Wheeler Opera House. The amount of light emitting from this building might compete with the Wheeler. What is great about Aspen is that we can have a mix of different architecture. Sarah said her concern is how this building works with the Wheeler and the historic district. Paul said he is providing options. We have solid panel and metal panels and exterior insulation that might become part of the canopy. I am exploring windows that have their own heat system inside them. They have fans on top and bottom. We have the ability to move panels around and this building will be energy efficient. The direct sun will mostly come in the evening until the Wheeler shades it. It is under the shadow of the Wheeler quite a bit. Sarah said at the next meeting you need to explain why you designed what you designed. A line drawing would be worthwhile at the next meeting. Paul clarified that the existing building is a fire hazard and tearing it down is a gift to Aspen. Lightening up the building will be good. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2011 Jamie said she would like a cut up section in the section model for the next meeting. Paul said if he puts a roof by the plaza level he is bringing down the height on the corner. Doing that aren't we getting to the code's intent. We can reduce the 13.9 height. I have learned in Aspen that each building is unique in its own entity which makes that corner to be even more different especially with the background of the brick condo behind it. Sarah reiterated that a line drawing would be helpful. Jay pointed out that the applicant is willing to look at bringing down the height and plate heights of the building. Jason commented that if the height could come down to 11.9 it would be in compliance with the code of 38 feet. If the concern is the shape of the box we need to give direction tonight. Brian said the guideline says that the street level plate height should be higher than those of the subsequent floors above it. Paul said he felt he has followed the guidelines but HPC is not comfortable with the corner. It seems like we can come to some kind of consensus. Sarah said she needs to see a site from the fountain and the rest of the block and the context with the historic district. Paul asked direction on the height that the board would be comfortable with. Paul said he is somewhat disappointed as we are talking about two or three feet on this building. Brian explained the situation of the fire department where we had drawings in front of us and when it went up it turned out to be much higher. Nora said the guidelines are there for a purpose. MOTION: Brian moved to continue 400 E Hyman conceptual development and public hearing until Oct. I2` "; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2011 1102 Waters Ave. — Conceptual Development, Residential Design Standards Variances, Public Hearing Public Notice — Exhibit I Amy said we have seen two work sessions on this project which is the development of the vacant lot which was created last October on Waters Ave. This is an R -15 zoned lot and it is undersized for the zone district but others on the street are as well. It contains a 1967 ski home that was designed by Fritz Benedict and the intention was that this would be replicated around the country. The same family has owned this since the construction of the Benedict home. During the lot split it was a voluntary designation and there were negotiations and agreements as to where development could occur on lot 2. There was also a building envelope created and significant exceptions for setbacks both from the street side and top of slope to create a long pad that a proposed new single family house or duplex could be placed on. They are allowed one curb cut, one driveway and this is to reduce pedestrian and vehicular conflicts and Engineering is not making exceptions. Their proposal has two curb cuts. The applicant can go to the Board of Adjustment and they would need a recommendation from HPC or they can go down to one curb cut. This has to be resolved before conceptual is granted. Amy explained that conceptual focused on height, scale and massing. The property is allowed 2,975 square feet of FAR as the maximum. It is a duplex and the applicant wants identical programming and space in the building and that in a way is driving the massing. We suggested other Benedict buildings which show one massive roof form covering the program of the house. Staff feels this project needs to reflect a little more of that. There needs to be more influence taken from the Benedict buildings. It is wonderful that they volunteered designation but it does need to be a successful preservation project with the relationship between the two buildings. We feel the new structure overwhelms the historic structure. On the driveway topic staff is ambivalent if it helps the proposal to have two separated driveways. We don't have a strong feeling about that from a design respective. We would like to know what the HPC thinks. There are several residential design standards that you would have to make exceptions for if you were to approve the proposed design. The building is to be oriented square to the street but here they have a curved road. We 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2011 would also need a variance for secondary mass. All new houses are required to have at least 10% of their mass in a totally detached structure and they are not proposing that which is understandable given the constraints of the site. It is an important standard and it was meant to break the buildings down into accessory and primary forms. Garages will be set back ten feet further from the street and the front most wall of the house and they are actually in front of the front most wall. That clearly needs a variance. On one of the units we were concerned about the street oriented entrance that the door isn't square to the street but that is difficult with the bend of the street. On the inflection they are required to only be one story tall and that doesn't seem to be the case but that can be met with some tweaking. Staff recommends continuation. Doug Ragar, architect Doug said he went through the residential design standards. The south duplex is parallel to the street and the north unit bends in response to the curve of the street. If it is important to the board we can tweak the north duplex a little tighter. I was confused with the secondary mass which seems to be more of a consideration in a more historic neighborhood. It is not what you would see on Waters Ave. With the constrained envelope it is difficult to pull things apart. We are trying to use every inch of allowable envelope that we have. The parking garage and car port is a critical variance request. The garage is being pulled forward and the Paterson house next door has their garage forward and this somewhat repeats the pattern that has started at the curve. It is the only way for garages to work on this site. We feel the garages work well on the ends. Doug said on the curb cut we could trade the curb cut "right" at the historic house for the curb cut on the duplex lot. I don't know how the Board of Adjustment would feel about that. The uniqueness of the parcel is that there would never been any more than two curb cuts. Our goal would be to have a recommendation from the HPC in support of the two curb cuts. The fourth variance on the river side we put windows that match or are similar to the river side windows of the historic house. We were trying to repeat the element of the historic house. I think a variance is required. Amy pointed out that no variance is needed; it is only on the street facing side that a variance would be needed. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2011 Doug addressed the materials. The materials are wood shingles and the roof porches are similar to the historic house. We break down the element so that there is a relationship but not a copy of the historic house. The new duplex is comfortable with the historic house. Doing something more like the Benedict photographs would be more overwhelming to the historic resource than our solution of breaking it down. Comments: Jay said the most important things HPC needs to do tonight is make a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment. I am a confirmed believer until we have that decision we do not have enough information in front of us to make a recommendation on the project. There is the likelihood that the project will change. We need to know if you are allowed to have two garages because they are important to your program. Sarah said in the recommendation we need to tie into our guidelines whether we would be willing to give any variances because some relate directly to the garages. We need to look at the project like there is approval of the curb cuts. Chairperson, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. Janice Nark: I look directly at the historic house. Is anything going to be done to the historic property? Doug said no alternations will occur on the historic house. Amy disclosed that two e -mails came in. One from Iva Green at 1109 East Waters who is concerned about which side of the street cars will land on during construction. Norman Gabrick is concerned about the lack of any setback on the front. Sarah closed the public hearing. The board discussed and asked for clarifications on the elevations. Scott Geary said they struggled with the garages and we have tried to break it up so that it doesn't overwhelm the historic house. Doug Throm, neighbor commented having the garages keeps the cars off the street. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2011 Requested variances: 1. Site design and orientation to the street 2. Secondary mass 3. Ten foot garage setback from the front door wall 4. Materials Jay said he is in favor of the variance and there is no other way to do the design. The secondary mass accomplished the goals from the work session by bringing the mass to the center of the structure. Jay said he has no issues with the garages or materials and the two driveways and curb cuts are recommended. Jason said he has no issue with the orientation. On the secondary mass if one of the two gables were lowered it would help the inflection. The garage setback and entrance door are OK. Drop the height adjacent to the historic building. Because there aren't any curb cuts in that area maybe Engineering won't require them. Nora said she appreciates the work the applicant has done on the project. It seems that the duplex overwhelms the landmark. There is a lot of program on the lot and I would not support variances. There needs to be some re- working of the mass and scale in relationship to the Benedict house to comply with guidelines 11.3 and 11.4, 11.5 and 6. Jamie said she is in favor of the curb cuts and is in favor of the garages on both sides because it lowers the mass. Having the garages forward in front of the house is not an issue. The north building represents the relationship to the historic house. When you come back we need to see the elevations without the vegetation in 3D. Brian said with the orientation of the house I have no problem with granting the variances. I am not in favor of giving an FAR bonus for the basement light wells on the new house. Amy pointed out that the basement light wells would have to be noticed for final if they decide to include them. The curb cuts are OK due to the proposed development. Sarah thanked the applicant for putting the time in the project. Two curb cuts are OK given the context of the neighborhood and context of the historic house. I am in favor of the variance and they are appropriate. In 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2011 that neighborhood there are variances on all the houses. Guideline 11.5 and 11.6 are complied with. The perspectives helped understand the project. I wish it was simpler but I understand what you are up against. I am not in favor of issuing a FAR bonus for light wells. Jason agreed that no bonus should be issued for light wells. Sarah pointed out that the bonus on the project was the approval for the lot split. MOTION: Jay moved to recommend to the Board of Adjustment two curbs cuts on lot two; second by Sarah. Motion carried 4 -1. Jason voted no because he felt the paving should be permeable and that was not in the motion. MOTION: Jamie moved to continue conceptual development and the public hearing on 1102 Waters Ave. to Oct. 12`" second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 jO Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11 ,