Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20120125 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Jamie McLeod, Nora Berko and Jay Maytin. Willis Pember was 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 January 11`h, second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. 1102 Waters Avenue— Final, Major Development— Public Hearing Doug Ragar, architect Public notice exhibit I Amy said this is final review for the duplex on the vacant lot at 1102 Water Avenue which is an Aspen Modern designation and lot split. There is an elevator proposed on the south near the front gable that wasn't there before. We all feel more information on the landscape plan is needed to indicate which trees are new and which are existing. There is also some landscaping showing in the city right of way and HPC cannot approve that. Engineering and Parks needs to review it. We also didn't have cut sheets for light fixtures. They need to reorient the front sidewalk that goes to the historic house and they are proposing something that is a little softer and HPC should discuss the character of that. We suggest that the material be different than what is being used on the duplex. They are also asking for a FAR bonus of 50 square feet so that they can make the light wells in the new house bigger. Staff is not supporting that and we cannot find that the bonus criteria are met. Exhibit II — roof forms and birds eye view. Doug clarified the roof forms for the board. Doug also did a power point of the stone and cedar shake shingles that are proposed. The rock is a lichen rock with a dry stack look. Exterior light has the translucent globe below and very single. The roof is asphalt composite type shingles and we are talking about a warm color so that everything ties in together. Clad window would be bronze. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2012 Doug said the sidewalk at the historic house is show as flagstone and we are proposing aggregate in a meandering pattern. Cottonwoods are along the condominium and they will remain. On the street side we will put in Aspen Trees. The slope is steep and we are leaving it as is. On the city right-of-way we will need approval from the Parks and Engineering department. We are proposing landscaping between the property line. There is one light well on the south and the other is a shared light well north facing. The shared light well is egress and we would like to enlarge it. Nora asked if they could reconfigure the plans so that no additional FAR is requested. Doug said we are right at the max. Jay asked if the south face of the garage window is required? Doug said it is not required. Jay said his concern is that the window faces the historic resource and has light pollution which is a concern. Ann asked about the roof of the historic house and if the shingles of the historic house are similar to the proposed ones for the duplex. Doug said the historic house roof is wood shake. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. Georgeann Waggaman said she and all the neighbors support the structure and we have no complaints. Ann closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Ann said the issues are; materials, additional FAR and landscape plan. Nora commented that she cannot support anymore FAR on this lot and the materials and everything else look fine. Jay said the materials are fine and the landscape is OK. Regarding the FAR I am struggling with it and more light coming out of the south side of the house. I have no problem with extending the light well on the north side as it is next to a parking lot. Maybe the fenestration could change on the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2012 garage to not allow the glass. The light coming out of the garage onto the house is not appropriate. I can support the project as it has come a long way and the hard work has showed. Doug said they can take the window out of the garage. Ann said the roof forms are still complicated and maybe they can be down plaid a little bit by simplifying the materials. I cannot support the FAR as the site is so full of the building envelope. Some other way needs to be thought through about getting more light. We need a landscape plan that addresses the plant materials and what areas are being restored and information about the irrigation ditch. Brian said he has concerns over the shingles on the historic resource as well as shingles on the new structure. We are filling up this parcel. I am concerned about the historic resource being over shadowed and we need to make sure kind of distinction between the two. I can't support shingles on the new structure. Light spill is a legitimate concern. If there was screening around the south light well I might be able to support it. The landscape plan needs to be more complete. The entry to the curvilinear walkway to the historic house is appropriate along with the materials suggested. The component off the south unit between the garage and entryway seems like it could be one simple gable. Jamie said he is not in support of the FAR for the light wells because there is enough egress out of those rooms. The location of the path off the historic resource is OK. I am also OK with the shake material on both structures because they are two completely different forms. The color will come in context between the two. The landscape plan needs to be reviewed with the monitor during construction and possibly add a little landscaping to the south unit to help screen the historic house. Also look at the landscape plan from the river. The roof forms are OK and they have been simplified a lot. MOTION: Jay moved to approve Resolution #2 for 1 102 Waters Ave. as written with the following amendments: 1. Remove the south facing window on the south facing garage. 2. Remove the south light well that is proposed. 3. Staff and monitor to work on the landscape plan. 4. Staff and monitor to work on the siding material and roof materials. 5. No FAR bonus for the light wells. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2012 Motion second by Brian. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Jay, yes; Brian, yes; Jamie, yes; Ann, no. Motion carried 4-1. 514 E. Hyman Ave. — Aspen Modern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Public Hearing Exhibit I — public notice Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Amy said the lot is 3,000 square feet and it is in the historic district and there is a building on it that was built in 1971 designed by Robin Molny. In the early 90's HPC review a change in the facade and a stone veneer was added to the structure. The property owner Mason Morse would like to consider voluntary designation and part of the purpose is to create a fee market unit on the roof. As a standard allowance in the code for landmarks no negotiation is needed and they can add the free market without affordable housing mitigation. They have also identified some other benefits that they are interested in. There is a letter in the building file saying there should be a restriction on the basement use. They are in conformance with FAR and there are no zoning problems. They are requesting that the letter be torn up. They are also asking for a 500 square foot bonus for the free market unit on the roof. They will be within the maximum unit size for the zone district but they would like a little more square footage because their lot size isn't very large and they have asked for a ten year period of vested rights. There are two other note worthy buildings by Robin Molny in town, the Hearthstone House which was landmarked a few years ago and the Aspen Athletic Club. Staff finds that the criteria for designation is met because of the association with Molny and the prominence of Wrightian design and the contribution to the historic district. The form and windows are all intact. All that has been added is the stone veneer. As far as the design review, the changes are the restoration work, some work to the entry plaza and the pent house on the roof. Staff feels the project meets the guidelines very well. They are asking for a height variation. By right you are allowed to be at 38 feet in the commercial core and HPC review can allow them to go up to 41 feet and they are asking for 40 feet for the top of the pent house. It fits in the context and not out of character. We are a little uncertain how the trash is handled. It was mentioned that they share space with the Elks. We need a long term plan 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2012 for the trash handling. Staff recommends designation go forward and that council should negotiate for their rather modest benefits they are asking for. Mitch Haas said we asked for the bare minimum to make this project work and go forward. We ask about doing away with the agreement which is really a clean-up and it is not of record and the City never signed it. The basement in today's code doesn't count as any floor area to begin with. The space is there and I am not sure why it shouldn't be used. The second request is the additional free market floor area. We are way below the allowable overall floor area. Under the zoning the property allows 8,250 square feet of total floor area and this proposal is about 5,770 square feet so we are less than 70% allowed by zoning. The problem with the free market is that a 3,000 square feet lot only allows 1500 square feet of free market floor area yet we are allowed up to 2,000 net livable square feet for a free market residence. The design is 1917 net livable square feet. Due to the way the building is already laid out and circulation we are over the limit and we are asking for some relief on that. We feel this is a modest request in light of the restoration that is going to take place. The bricks have to be restored and the parapet removed and a beam removed. The last one is the vested rights which is a City Council issue. We don't know if we will be able to use the approvals right away due to the market situation. Alex Klumb, CCY architects The key element of the design is the redesign of the front of the building. It is positioned quite well as an amenity. We need steps up to the front door of the building and to locate an ADA ramp. We are proposing seat height walls which in some cases are planters. The residential entry is needed off Hyman Ave. which will be underneath the architectural piece that is existing. The commercial entry will remain where it is today. Jay said there is no requirement that the front entry has to be on a street level. Alex said with the Robin Molny design the original was clad with sandstone and the pediment was added. The window system was re- designed. We will restore those elements back to the original. With the restoration the pediment will be removed and we will add the pent house which is set back 15 feet from the edge. On the west side or Elk's side 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2012 we are proposing a band of windows which will be added to the existing Molny building. Mitch said the wall is set back in on the third floor and the windows would add light into the office space. Alex said on the alley side the top floor contrasts the building. The Elk's building is at 47 feet and 45 feet to the elevator. The surrounding building heights are 38 to 39 feet. Alex also mentioned that the height is stepped back and up to 40 feet. There is an elevator overrun of 5 feet and there is also roof top mechanical. Alex went over the floor levels. The sidewalk falls from east to west. The first floor is commercial for Mason Morse and it also has a residential entry. There is also garage space off the alley. The second level also has Mason Morse office space. Windows are proposed on the alley side and the front area is residential. The third floor is set back and there is no roof top use proposed. Brian clarified that the intent is to restore the building back to its original condition. The west side would be restored with CMU with the proposed windows that would read as a setback band. Mitch said they are trying to stay with the Molny's solid to void ration on the west side. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment section of the agenda item was closed. Ann went over the issues: Removal of the basement restriction. Free market unit to go from 1500 square feet to 2000. Mitch said not the net livable. We are under the allowable for the net livable. Essentially the free market FAR to go from .5 to 1 to .88 tol. Ann also mentioned the 10 year vested rights and the 40 foot height. Comments: 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2012 Jamie said she is in favor of the basement space being null in void. There is concern about the free market unit being larger than 1500 sq.ft. I am in favor of the 40 foot height variance. The ten year vesting period seems a little long and I can support six years. The trash and utility area need studied. I am in favor of the six windows in the back. I am also in favor of setting back the pent house 15 feet and the overall mass and scale of the design. Brian said the pedestrian amenity out front and how they addressed the streetscape to energize the street can be worked out. I am in favor of the 40 foot height variance. On the vested rights maybe there is a compromise at five years. Ann said the landscape plan needs restudied. The 40 foot height is good and is in context with the lot. I am in favor of the removal of the basement restriction. I would like to see the residential unit smaller. Part of the reason you want a residential unit downtown is because there is so much action going on but if the town turns into units that are only being used part of the year you will lose a lot of the attractiveness downtown. On the vested rights I can only support three years. In terms of the plans the applicant has done a good job on the renovation. The cap on the residential until could be a little stronger. Jay said he is OK with the basement removal. Jay also said he had no problem with the free market unit being larger. Ten years vesting should be reduced. Jay said he is not in favor of the elevator over run or any mechanical. It is time for our city to be forward with green roofs. I know it is part of the code but I disagree with the code. Maybe the applicant can study the overrun in the basement. OK with the 40 feet. Jay said he believes that preservation and restorations of the building should go back to the original drawings and eliminate the windows on the west side. I'm less concerned about the alley windows. I also have a problem with the front door and maybe the entrance should be on the alley. It is away from the original design. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2012 Nora pointed out that she is glad to see the Molny architecture come back that will be seen by everyone in town. I appreciate the 15 foot setback on the pent house. I appreciate no roof top terracing and the deck on the east. The removal of the basement restriction is fine. Maybe the basement can be used for mechanical. The public amenity brings back that particularly history of that lot. Land marking means you are going to preserve that building not re-create it in a way we think Robin would have done it and therefore the windows are problematic for me. 1500 square for the apartment works well with the 40 foot height. I cannot support ten years of vesting. Brian said we should channel our energy on designation and let City Council gravel with vested rights. Mitch said the real incentive is the floor area. We are asking to accommodate a 1900 square foot residential unit. To have that, we need the FAR in place. That is the only incentive we asked for in order to restore the building, the plaza and to landmark permanently. I don't understand the holdup of 1500 vs. 1900. We didn't ask for the 2000 square foot FAR that the zoning allows. Alex addressed the FAR. The building has two stair towers in existence and we have to have an elevator. A portion of the existing stairway and the elevator all count for residential FAR. The net livable of the pent house is 1249 square feet. The floor below is 669 square feet. We have 700 square feet of stairway and elevators that count for the residential area. It is really important to mention that. Brian said this board should address the size of the residential unit because that affects the character of what we are designating. MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #4 for 514 E. Hyman with the following conditions: Designation of the building. Removal of the basement restriction. Recommending against the ten year property rights. Recommending approval of the 40 foot height. Reducing the FAR of the residential unit. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2012 Trash and utility area to be resolved at final. Motion second by Jamie. Discussion: Jay said it is important for us to challenge every project to be the best that it could be. The discussion tonight is very much in favor of the project. The code doesn't address everything that we have and we can use our community plan to disseminate the information. Mitch said he doesn't want the community to lose this project because we have taken away the one incentive the applicant has to pursue it. I don't want the applicant to say why would I landmark and restore this building for little. Jay asked Amy what happened on the Crandall building that allowed Community Development to change our approval. Brian said it was a roof top access. Amy said things are different from one site to another but some level of consistency is important. On this particular building if they demolished it they could build out to the sidewalk. They are forgoing over 3,000 square feet of FAR by preserving the building. It does seem that the FAR request is a reasonable incentive. Jamie said we need to address the other items such as the windows on the west side; alley windows; over run and cap on the pent house. Any said she is OK with the windows on the west. Brian said they are not a design element. It is an element that was never designed. Jay and Ann said they had no problem with the alley windows. Ann said she is OK with the overrun. Jay said you can see every roof in this town from the mountain. Brian said the overrun is not mechanical it is a safety shaft per code. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2012 Jay said he is OK with the west windows. Jay also mentioned that we should restore the front door or at least restudy it. It is something that staff and monitor can look at. Alex said if we do that it increases the use of residential FAR by creating a lobby that the residential needs to pay a part of We create a larger lobby and you would enter the residential on one side and he commercial on the other. That added lobby space now counts against the free market FAR. We tried to create the most efficient solution. Brian said he can support the entrance to the side. By having the residential door on the streetscape it gives you the illusion that it is private space. An example was the discussion of the Isis entry to the residential units. By having it to the side it at least give the illusion that it is a public space. Mitch said having it on the side it doesn't interfere with the plaza. Roll call vote: Jamie, yes; Brian, yes; Nora, yes; J ay, no; Ann, yes. Motion carried 4-1 . 315 Park Avenue — Work Session — no minutes Brian stepped down. Jim True, Special counsel said this is a work session and there can be no approvals and the applicant cannot rely on anything that is said by the commission as a whole or by any individual commissioner. There is nothing that can be stated up front that you can rely formally on. Certainly you are trying to get impressions and input and you need to understand that work sessions are not for making final determinations. At some point the commission needs to adjourn and you should not have individual comments about a particular project after the work session. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. 7) A Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10