Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20120523ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 Vice - chair, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin and Jamie McLeod. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Motion: Jay moved to approve the minutes of May 9, 2012; second by�Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Elizabeth Means represented the Aspen Community church. Elizabeth said they are in need of repairing the church. It is being held by tie rods on the interior. It was built in 1890 with no drainage. We are doing a capital campaign to raise 4.4 million. Since it is a community church we have raised 1.4 million. Possibly the city could get involved and maybe we can use RETT funds. Amy and Deborah .said they would research some possibilities and they haven't gone through the complete analysis for options. Jay mentioned damaging by neglect. Amy said the city has a $25,000 loan which isn't much. 720 E. Hyman — AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation and Minor Development (cont'd from May 9th) Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Charles Cunniffe, Cunniffe Architects & Associates Brian West, Cunniffe and Associates Public Notice — Exhibit I Sara stated that the property is on the corner of Hyman and Original and is also called the Aspen Athletic Club. It is included on the Aspen Modern map and was designed by Robin Molny in 1976. The proposal is AspenModern negotiations and HPC will need to make a recommendation on designation. There are also some issues for a minor development review. The applicant wants to convert the third floor commercial to two free market residential units. They also want to convert a portion of the second floor ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 commercial to affordable housing to mitigate for the free market residential component and the rest of the building will remain commercial. It is located in the mixed use zone district and is currently over the allowable height and is an existing non - conformity. It also exceeds the allowable FAR ratio for commercial use. There have been very few changes since 1976. In 2008 HPC granted approval for some minor changes including stripping the ; brown paint off the building and doing a stain which looks much better. They were approved to remove the evergreen trees that were obscuring the planter boxes. The brise soleil was approved but they didn't act on it so their vested rights have expired and it needs to be discussed again tonight. Staff finds that all of the designation criteria are met. It's representation to Molny and representation of a hybrid Wrightian Molny style. It did score 17 on the integrity scoring and staff recommends designation. HPC is asked to apply the purpose and intent of the preservation program to this designation and the proposed. project before you to help council decide and weight the benefits requested. The benefits they are look for is to allow one larger free market unit then what is currently permitted in the zone district. They also need more FAR allotted to the free market residential component than is allowed in the mixed zone district. They are making their commercial non - conformity a little bit smaller and they are asking to create a bit of a non - conformity with their free market component. They are also asking for a waiver of the three parking spaces which is cash in lieu of $90,000. There is no space for parking in the alley. They also need a slight height variance for a skylight on the roof. It is less than one foot for the variance. Right now the building conforms to the setback requirements but the brise soleil would need a variance. Minor Development: Sara said they are proposing a roof deck that would have a glass guard rail around the deck and it is about 675 square feet. They do meet the height limit for the deck and guard rail and access. They do need to provide another form of egress to the roof. Staff is in favor of the roof deck and proposed materials because it is set back from all sides of the fagade and it will not make an impact to the historic characteristics of the building. For the brise soled they are proposing all of the windows on both street facing facades and on the west fagade. They are trying to reduce the energy consumption in the building._ Staff does not support the brise soleil that it N ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23,E 2012 obscures certain architectural features. It will also change the reading of the building and the planes and understanding Molny's architecture. We do not think the guidelines are met specifically 10.10. Staff is in support of the skylight as you will not see it and it doesn't impact the nature of the historic building. They are proposing to replace the plywood hoppers with operable glazed windows. Staff is on support of that change and it is important to have all the windows operable again. Staff is not in support of the setback variances for the brise soleil and it doesn't meet the criteria for granting a variance. We are recommending that council negotiate for landmark designation. In the resolution the condition is to not approve the brise soleil and screen the mechanical equipment on the roof top for review by staff and monitor. The planters in the right -of -way need an encroachment license from Engineering and work with the parks department to determine the proper plantings since it is on city property. They are also proposing some re- pointing in the planter boxes as some of the mortar is deteriorating and we are requesting a test patch. Brian West, Cunniffe and Associates Charles said he worked with Robin Molny in 1981 and 1982 and we did some minor work inside the building for the athletic club. I personally don't think Robin would be opposed to the brise soleil with ali the climate issues as we have become much warmer than in 1981. One thing that is non - Wrightian about this building is the lack of overhangs. They would be attached in a manner that you can read the building completely and they can easily be removed. We have no other issues with staff's recommendation. Brian said with the planter boxes we will have to reline them. Brian did a power point explaining the brise soleil and the elevations of the building including the roof top elements. On the tall windows which are 3/a inch thick glass there is no insulation and the brise soleil will help in the summer time and moderately in the winter. The south facing fagade is the most important. There are two systems available, louvers which are extruded out.of the wall and cable stays or the'second system which is a grading system with a bar screen that is projected out. They would also need the rods and cables to keep them in place. The basement is partially under the planters. The mechanical equipment will be redone on the roof and you won't see it from the street. On the first floor we are proposing no changes due to the long term lease with Timberline Bank. The top floor would have two free market units with a new stair that would go to the roof. There would also be a small 3 I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 roof top deck for the free market units only. The least impact second egress would be on the exterior stair in the back and we would design one more flight up to the roof. The stair in the back is presently a fire escape. On the skylights we would reduce the amount that we have which is five small ones and one large one. We would put in three in the back and none in the front at the same size. Charles said on the brise soleil we might not need it on the east side. The south and west are the most onerous. Willis asked about energy modeling on the building. Charles said once we know we can go forward we would pursue an energy modeling. We would have a mechanical engineer do the entire building. Jay asked about the snow load of the brise soleil. Brian said it is engineered for the climate and the expected loads will be applied and they are not solid. Jay said the stairway in the center of the roof seems to be 9 feet above the roof level. Maybe it doesn't have to be that big. Charles said the stair is one egress and the fire escape is the other. Charles said he can work with the shaping of the stair and lowering it. Charles said the green roof would have a ground cover and it would be alive. Nora asked about the roof deck. Charles said they would have a picnic table and a few lawn chairs. Nora said she is worried about the scale of that block and adding a summer room. Charles said it is more of a view deck.. Nora commented that the upgrades have improved the building immensely. Without those trees you can really see the building. Possibly there are other solutions for the interior rather than the brise soleil. Charles said the best way to protect from heat gain is before it enters the building and before the heat comes through the glass. Once it is through the glass it is in the building and all you are doing is trapping it in a confined area which creates vast temperature changes from the surface of the window and the inside of a shade which creates its own set of problems. It also affects the. sealants of the windows. in ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 Nora said the building is a knockout building and we need to figure out how to keep it that way. Ann asked about the notched out piece in the stairwell and if it can be kept because it is an interesting piece. Brian said where the stair comes up is the entry to the free market unit. Charles said the sketches came from the owner and we can discuss it. Sara said if you are doing free market residential you could have a total of 4,500 square feet. If you were doing all commercial you could have, 6,750 square feet. Charles said we are basically using the space that is there. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Jamie said she is in favor of preserving the building and in favor of the 250 square foot bonus because you are already using existing square footage and just reallocating it. I'm in favor of exceeding the allowable FAR because you are within the existing square footage. I'm not in favor of waiving the three parking spaces in lieu of cash. The roof deck is favorable and you can't see it. I am in favor of the one foot height variance for the skylights and the fact that you are removing five skylights and adding three and you really are removing two and it won't exceed existing conditions. The second egress is favorable and the idea of sloping the roof is recommended. I am in favor of the hoppers but not the brise soleil. Ann said she agreed with Jamie with the exception of supporting the parking waiver because the architect has done a beautiful job with the building already and I would hate to have a piece chunked out for parking. You also have the city parking garage several blocks away. I am supportive of limiting the number of cars coming into the city. Jay said he would support the resolution with one condition to restudy the roof top stairwell. Jay said he would like to see something to help the building be more energy efficient but is not sure the brise soleil is the right 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 solution. Restoration should occur on the planters and the interior stairwell should be restudied. Nora said she would support landmark designation without the brise soleil. I would like to see the cash -in -lieu for parking. I would also support Jamie's comments. Willis said he supports the landmark status and the 250 additional square feet. Asking for the cash -in -lieu waiver is a little unseemly given the, programmatic change that is going on. I would support the height limit and roof deck use. Adding green to the roof is adding sustainable things. When Molny believed in modernism they embraced the size of these solid plate glass windows and it is a way to create to the outdoors. They added the hopper windows to add fresh air to come in. I have a hard time changing the hoppers into clear story windows. If you are trying to cut down heat gain with glazing you don't do it by adding more glazing. On the east and west vertical shading' devices perform much better. If you were to flush this out and come to us with an energy model you would find in a hurry that brise soleil on the east and west are not going to do much of anything. In terms of managing solar gain on the south you have several options. You have deciduous trees and you can look at glass technology. If Robin were here he would study that and you can look at a opaque glazing on the glass itself that cuts down a certain percentage of site line but it maintains the facade treatment. Willis said he is opposed to the Brise soleil. Charles and the owner has been looking at the best glass possible. We are not changing the structural glass. We will look at the glass for the hoppers. The owner is already changing the hoppers for the view. All of the tenants want it. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution # 12 as. written with a restudy of the stairwell to the roof in the middle of the building to shrink the height and slope and to be approved by staff and monitor. We are also in favor of the one foot height variance for the skylights and we recommend a restudy of retaining the interior second floor false stairway. Motion second by Jamie. Vote: Jamie, yes; Jay, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Ann, yes. Motion carried 5 -0. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 610 E. Hyman - Aspen Modern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development Public notice - Exhibit I Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney indicated that the public notices were in order and the public hearing can go forward. Amy said in early 2011 an application was submitted for designation. It was under the previous ordinance #48 negotiations and the application decided to stop the application. It was resubmitted in April and a very similar proposal. Right now it is net leasable space for the architectural firm and there is an existing free market unit on the upper floor. The building was built in 1963 and designed by Ellie Brickham who was Aspen's first woman architect that we know of It was designed for Pat Moore as a gallery. The proposal entails voluntary landmark designation and it meets criteria a and c. It also has architectural integrity enough to be designated historic. There are a few things being requested as a benefit in exchange for designation. Two are existing benefits that we already have in the program which are some waiver of affordable housing for new net leasable space that is generated by the rear addition in the building. They are also asking for a parking request. They only generate a fraction of a new parking space through the commercial development so they are asking for a waiver of the cash -in -lieu program valued at $28,000. In terms of AspeModern designation'they are asking for three things: The property is already at the limit for what a free market unit can be on the site and they are asking to increase that to a little less than 1,200 square feet. With circulation for a free market unit staircases etc. are wrapped into the calculation and can strain how much it can be expanded. We need clarification whether the proposal goes over the maximum unit size of 2,000 square feet . of net livable space. They are also asking for an extension of vested rights to ten feet. This project also involves conceptual design review which is a two step process. There is an- addition proposed for the alley and the roof top. Staff doesn't have concerns about the location, size or placement of the addition. HPC can address material selection at final. Staff's issue is the lack of restoration of the historic resource. There are a few things that we feel are important in terms of restoration. It is a negotiation and HPC and Council could choose not to designate the building. The ground floor store front has been changed. It used to be a 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 centered entry and now the entries are on either end of the building and there is a large light well in the middle that doesn't meet to the ground like it used to. The arched openings are very important to the concept and they have been changed from the ground floor. The upper floor courtyard has a temporary canopy roof over it which is a change. We feel some of the changes need reversed in order to really make the building worth landmark designation and the benefits they are asking for. That is what UPC had said at both of the previous hearings. At the least the stucco should be painted white. Removing the canopy entirely would reinforce the open area courtyard at the top. There should be some effort to genuinely restore some of the arches. There may have been some interior changes that would not make that easy but a 1200 . square foot bonus and around $300,000 worth of waivers is being proposed. There is also no on -site trash and they share with the Golfco bldg. next door but HPC needs to be aware this entire block is being redeveloped including the Golfco bldg. and they might not want to continue to share a trash area. Staff is not recommending that the project go to council at this point. Charles Cunniffe, applicant Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Charles said when he originally came to UPC four years ago under Ordinance #48 it was because the art museum was taking our view and light away. That .building is higher than what you can do today. Had Council not done the forced march for development with a threat of a moratorium which has scared everyone into action you wouldn't see all this development. You will see 15 years of development happening within the next two years. I am looking to make this.an attractive building and preserve it. This building and the Crandall are the only two from the 60's on that block. When I remodeled the building I didn't deteriorate the building from its actual state. The only thing significant I did was relocate the doors for better access to the building and I added ventilation to the building. Ellie Brickham came by this building and told me I did a nice job. In the scoring there,are some errors. Mitch Haas said staff has already done a new scoring. It rates as a better AspenModern property. In the old score we disputed it. The old score of 75 should have been more like 87 or 89. There was no part credit for things that were partly changed. Either way we are a better example of AspenModern. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 Amy pointed out that the new scoring is not as detailed. It scored 15 out of 20. Charles said the building has continued to maintain its original integrity. In hind site with the Aspen Art Museum I wish I had-made the building taller to preserve the light and view. I would like to achieve designation and do it without losing my ventilation and light. The brick was left natural and when you paint it, it accelerates the deterioration of the brick. The canopy was done in order to have covered outdoor space and it is light and airy. I have not done too much to it to denigrate the building. Mitch said if you have a 3 year vesting the entire block will be under construction at the same time. None of the other buildings are under AspenModern and cannot ask for more vesting periods. We are basically talking about development on the alley side and the rooftop is pushed back. The building is already an AspenModern and designating it is worth incentives. The additional commercial space is needed for Charles's office. Charles said on the trash we have the recycling bins for the neighborhood and they in turn have the bulk trash containers. Nora asked what is different from this proposal than the previous one. Charles said previously the review was not in the right light due to the scoring. We started out with mistakes in the scoring which developed into some people feeling the restoration should occur to the entire building. I don't believe that it is required to do 100% restoration to qualify as a worthy example of AspenModern. The building is compromised because it is a split level. To do the elevator is very expensive because the building has multiple levels. It is a masonry building and well built. I only made some improvements to the building. Mitch said Charles said he is willing to change the stucco if necessary and is willing to consider the canopy removal. Amy said in the overall FAR in this project they are fine. It is the thresholds on residential and how much commercial FAR that they have a problem on the residential. I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 Charles said the additional FAR is to make a one bedroom. Because of the split level the stairs take away from the usable square footage. Amy said you can only have 1500 square feet of residential FAR on this site and they already have that and they want to make the unit bigger. Amy pointed that the application said they were going over the unit size cap and then there was an amendment said they weren't. Mitch said the C 1 unit size cap is 2,000 square feet and our proposed net livable is 1,814 square feet; however the free market FAR is a little over 2,100 square feet. We would like to do that without buying a TDR. Amy said there are conflicting numbers and that is one of the reasons we are recommending continuation. Willis inquired about the ten year vested rights requested. Mitch said you don't go to city council and ask for vested rights extension without being in a negotiation process. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Commissioner comments: Jay said he is in support of the designation and the plans presented. Essentially the building and scale of the building'will remain as it is. 1, would like to see the awning as a clear awning. The historic integrity of this building will stand out even more after the development of the neighborhood. We are preserving the scale and a lot of Ellie Brickham's design. I don't support ten years of vested rights. Ann said she is not addressing any of the negotiation items because she is not supporting designation. The building has been dramatically altered taking' out the arches and changing the entry and landscape in front. Most. importantly the transparency of the second floor has been changed. I can't see designating this building unless you show a restoration at a minimum of the fagade. Charles said the awning is like an umbrella and is not part of the building. Charles also reiterated that Ellie Brickham applauded the changes to the 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 building that he made. The use of the building changed. Charles said the scoring was based on the wrong facts. The building would qualify as better without doing anything retroactive.' The assumption was that the/front windows weren't there and it was an open atrium but that was never the case. It was based on a wrong -fact. Amy said at the last scoring and the new scoring it meets the thresholds. If it meets the criteria HPC really doesn't have justification for denying the designation. The problem is if you don't think the building is in good condition you may not want to support all the benefits that they are negotiating. It might be hard to argue that it doesn't meet the criteria as I feel it does meet that criteria. Whether or not you want Council to support an FAR bonus and net livable and extended rights is a different question. Ann said she is saying it doesn't have the degree of integrity to be designated. Nora said she supports the project and the addition but does not support the designation. There is no integrity. I feel I am being asked to compromise my integrity in historic preservation on something that has been really altered. Charles said if he removes the awning that would restore the openness to the sky and the roof line would be exactly the way it was. Willis said he feels the project is worthy of historic designation. I would argue for certain terms to bring this project back further than it is now. The way it is now is not worthy of designation. I would require the awning to go away. The experience when you walk by is that it is closed in so the awning should be removed. There are certain things we can talk about to bring the building back so that everyone is happy. As aboard we have the sense as to what is authentic and what is not. We need more dialogue about the details in order to make this work. Jamie said she feels the application needs to be clearer as to what the applicant is giving to UPC for the designation and with the benefits that are being asked for. We need to know what you are look at with regard to restoring the building. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 MOTION: Ann moved to continue the public hearing on 610 E. Hyman to June 13t' second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried 5 -0. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn, second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ' Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clark 12