Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20120725 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Patrick Sagal, Jamie McLeod and Jan Hills. Sallie Golden and Nora Berko were absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sara Adams, Senior Planner MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve the minutes of July l 1 th, second by Jane. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure Jay will recuse himself on 420 E. Hyman as he does business with Zocalito Jane will recuse herself on 204 S. Galen as she lives within 300 feet of the property. 204 S. Galena St. Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition Exhibit I—power point Exhibit II—renderings Jane recused herself. Amy stated that this is the redevelopment of the site that is currently occupied by the Gap. The new structure will occupy the entire site 9,000 square feet. It is primarily a one story building with five retail spaces on the ground floor and a partial upper floor which contains a restaurant use. Staff finds that the demolition criteria are met. This is an early 1990's building and we have determined that it doesn't have any historical significance. In terms of the replacement building the guidelines call for a building that comes up to the street edge on all sides and that is important for redevelopment downtown because over the years we have had a lot of infill that doesn't hold the front edge of the property and doesn't enforce the historical character of the retail experience downtown and staff is pleased to see this in the design. The proposal is a nice variety for downtown and adds relief to the streetscape. This doesn't prohibit someone from adding another floor in the future. They are meeting the requirements of the store front 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 height being taller than the upper floor heights to have a nice scale for the ground floor windows. They are paying cash-in-lieu for the parking. The public amenity will be outdoor seating for the restaurant. Staff supports conceptual with conditions. At the last meeting staff raised a concern with the cornice line on the Galen Street side, noting that it is out of character for the downtown. We think stepping of the cornice is in conflict with the guidelines. On the Hopkins side of the block the guidelines call for reinforcing the 30 foot dimension for the bays and now they are 23, or so and not aligning with the downtown lots. There are two technical issues, one the basement floor plan in which we cannot determine if it creates new net leasable space. There are certain requirements for restaurants to have access to a service elevator from the alley and it is not clear in the plan how that will be provided. The upper floor has been expanded from what HPC saw before but it is still the same amount of net leasable space. There is a central courtyard and the restaurant has been pushed closer to the street than you saw before. Staff is recommending continuation due to the design concerns mentioned. Charles, Cunniffe, Cunniffe Architects Mark Hunt, owner Charles presented a power point. The basement would be for mechanical and a crawl space. There are five store fronts on the ground floor and there is a courtyard above surrounded by restaurant space. We are proposing a stepped cornice approach. The restaurant roof would be a continuous line and in a sense provide an overriding cornice effect to the building. The store fronts are better suited to be individualized for tenants and specific uses. The Brand building is broken up into a vast variety of modules from seven feet to 23 feet modules. The existing Gap building is 20 foot modules. There is historic precedence for different module sizes throughout town. We want the tenants to express themselves in their own module. The materials are honed sandstone and a rough finished cut sandstone. The materials pick up the materials from the surrounding buildings such as the Elks's building. We interspursed the more smooth stone and the stepped cornice is representative of the Brand building. We feel strongly that the presence of the restaurant to the street is important for the success of the restaurant on the second floor and also an attraction. We want to identify the restaurant as a place you want to go. Having it glow at night will be a nice draw to help make the restaurant successful. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Mark Hunt said on this site we are trying to build a pure retail commercial building and give the tenants their own identity. We want it to read as a corner building. We wanted to create a special place on the roof that is glassy yet hidden due to the parapet walls. With the cornice maybe we can pull it closer to the front and mimic some of the windows and tie everything together. Charles said we do not want the building to mimic an older building. We want a building of today. I t is a commercial building and not mixed use. Clarifications: Jay said the plans don't represent any mechanical on the roof which was requested at the last meeting. Can you explain what equipment will be on the roof. Charles said there will be exhaust fans and hoods and we will do a corral for them. There will be a screen of some kind. Our goal is to not see the equipment. Ann asked about the 10% amenity. Charles said the space would be available when the restaurant is open. It is the deck outside the restaurant that is the public amenity space. Stephen Elsperman from the Parks Dept. was amenable if we don't get approval for the deck that we can allocate the funds that would normally go to cash-in- lieu to a Parks Department project. Amy explained that public amenity doesn't mean that you can go there anytime. The Cantina's outdoor seating is their public amenity and there is a fence around it. What they are proposing is OK. Patrick asked about the height of the parapet walls. Mark said they are shown as four to five feet and will probably become less as we figure out the deck. Patrick said his concerns are umbrellas, heaters that will block the view of the cornice. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Charles said the cornice will be higher than any umbrella. It would be similar to Jimmy's where you predominately read the roof line even though they have umbrellas etc. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Ann identified the issues: Demolition West and north facades The public amenity Bringing the third floor 20 closer on Galena Basement Jamie said stepping down the cornices on the intermediate store fronts helps the building because you are also making a material change. As a suggestion have two cornice heights as opposed to three. Jamie said doing a building of its time and what it is representing is successful. One concern is the height of the parapet wall when you are in the restaurant because you might not be able to see over it. We also need to make sure the trash enclosure is the appropriate size. Regarding the chamfer corners I am in favor of not keeping them chamfered. The square corners help define the beginning and end of the building. Jay thanked the applicant for the changes. In general I can see this project moving forward. The basement plan is a concern and maybe the crawl space shouldn't be there as it will turn into storage and net leasable. Staff and monitor can handle the cornice. The demolition and public amenity are fine and the mass and scale are appropriate. Jay pointed out that the over hang on the restaurant looks huge and I am concerned about light flowing out over on the street. With the materials and proper light diffusions this can work. I am basically in support except for the basement. Ann said in terms of the cornice I can't find the guideline that talks about the horizontality and possibly there needs to be a stronger horizontal band. On Hopkins I feel it is important to adhere to the 30 foot long modules. Charles said the elevator on the alley or dumb waiter will be part of the tenant's internal plan. There is nothing on this block that suggests a 30 foot module. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION- MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Mark said the reasoning behind not having 30 foot modules is that they don't seem authentic and the 30 foot modules don't fit well with the plan of the first floor. The building is also becoming too wide with those modules and makes the building look squatty. We feel the narrower element is more successful and balanced. MOTION: Jamie moved to approve resolution #17 with the following comments: Approval of demolition as stated. Approval of the basement as long as there is no new net leasable provided. Approval of the square corners. That the applicant study the 30 foot modules on the Hopkins side to see how squatty it looks. Restudy of the cornices to reduce the different types. Approval of the public amenity space. Restudy of the upper level cornice so that it is not reflective or too deep. The applicant should address the service elevator and make sure it complies with Engineering. Approval of the upper floor moving 20 feet further toward Galena. Submit for final review within one year. Jay second the motion. Jay said this is a good example of why we should move a little away from the guidelines on this corner. This will be a big improvement on this block and this building connects to the Elks building. Jamie said at final it would be great to see the block buildings so we can see the context. Ann said there are too many variables in the motion to approve conceptual. This is an opportunity to bring this end of town back into town to tie things together. Willis also agreed that there are too many conditions in the motion to go forward. Maybe a more overhang roof would be better. Referencing guideline 6.29 the Hopkins elevation needs a little more restudy. Roll call vote: Jamie, yes; Patrick, no; Ann, no; Jay, yes; Willis, no. Motion dies 3-2. MOTION: Ann moved to continue 204 S. Galena until August 8th, second by Patrick. Motion carried 4-1. Jay voted no. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Issues: Cornices, 30 foot modules on Hopkins and street elevation rendering of the Hopkins block for context. 420 E. Hyman Ave. — Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Special Review— cont'd from June 27th Public Notice —Exhibit I Power Point—Exhibit II Sara said the project is a scrape and replace of 420 E. Hyman. The lot is a 3,000 square foot lot, 30 x 100. The existing building was built in the early 1970's and it is a two story building. The proposal is to replace it with a three story building. Currently the building is mixed use, commercial and residential. One of the requests is to grant a height increase from 38 feet to 40 feet. Staff is recommending continuation with two areas of restudy: Restudy the third floor setback and to lower the height of the building. Staff is in favor of the site plan which mimics the existing site plan in terms of access and the zero front yard setback. They are proposing an off-site amenity with improvements to the pedestrian mall subject to the Parks Department approval. Staff is concerned about the scale and mass particularly the third floor. Right now they are proposing a 12 foot setback but we find that not adequate enough as they are adjacent to two historic landmarks. The immediate adjacent landmark has a 15 foot setback and another one has a 20 foot setback. We do consider this a corner lot with the internal alleyway and you will be able to see two facades and have the visibility on two sides. The request on the height is to increase it to 40 feet. Staff is concerned about the context of that height in the historic district especially in this block which has a very strong two story element with a third floor that is set back. The third floor is 13 feet and the second 11 V2 feet. Typically you want the third floor to be subordinate. Guideline 6.27 talks about the criteria for granting a height variance and feel none of those are met. The trash utility was a concern but the applicant has coordinated with the Environmental Health Dept. and they are supportive of their dimensions. Staff is recommending continuation because of the third floor setback and the height of the building. Staff also finds that the demolition criteria are met. Charles Cunniffe, Cunniffe Architects Brian West, Cunniffe Architects 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Charles said this is a constraint site and we looked at the plans and can go to a 15 foot setback which matches to the building adjacent to it. The roof continues along the easement because it covers the walkway to the second floor but we could eliminate that. The issues that need to be addressed are the height which we can accommodate and the setback from 12 feet to 15 feet which we can accommodate. About 50% of the building is set back from the easement. Across the street are two four story buildings. Charles said you enter the second floor for the free market unit and then you go to the top floor and there is a little deck in the corner which also gives us some relief on the corner and softens it. The second and third floors are both recessed because that is our access walkway to the four units on the second floor. We are using the access walkway as a setback because the building recesses at the alley and the third floor is open. We ran the roof over the third floor that is open. On the setback I guess we could eliminate that roof or bring the roof down to the second floor. We believe the walkway should have some shelter from the rain etc. Our client wants a gem of a building, a cool little glass building. We want to show the mullion lines in a more vertical pattern so it will reflect some of the historic patterns of store fronts yet be totally a glass block. Jane inquired about the fire wall. Charles said it is a privacy wall between the two decks and it is a cooperative with them and it is a fire wall because of the openness between the two buildings. We thought we could do some translucent fire rated glass so it will allow light to penetrate and it would add to the translucency of the building. Ann inquired about the height reduction and which floor that would be taken off of. Charles said probably 18 inches off the third floor and 6 inches off the second floor. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda was closed. Ann stated the issues: 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Site plan; scale and mass which includes the setback; height; public amenity option #2 and trash and utility. Jamie said she appreciates the height drop to 38 feet and the 15 foot setback for the third floor. As long as the trash enclosure works for the city that is fine with me. I'm also fine with the site plan and the public amenity. My only concern is scale and massing and it has to do more with materials than scale and mass but to me they go hand in hand. The concern is how the darks and lights work together and how reflective it will be with all the other buildings. The connection details are critical. The mass and scale needs to be studied with the materials. We need renderings of all elevations with materials and that would be extremely helpful. Renderings show what the materials are really like. Charles said it is intended to be a non-reflective glass. Jamie said maybe we need to look at a sample on-site. Willis said the applicant is using more than one type of glass. Charles said some of the glass will have a grayish tint to it and some will be clear. The client wants a "jewel" box that you see into as opposed to being something solid. Willis requested a rendering from the north side to confirm what is there. We also need to see the firewall. The project is cool and it is about the materials being reflective. Jane said from a development perceptive this is an incredible difficult site to develop on. The massing is appropriate for the site and the only confusing area is how the building connect to the building next door up high as that is a difficult transition. I am not sure how the translucent glass works. I also agree that the materials are going to be very important. Patrick also thanked the applicant for reducing the height and setback. Eliminating the covered walkway also helps the massing. The comparison between the Quicksilver building 15 feet back and the proposed building 15 feet back it affects the mass and scaling the way the treatment of the soffit or overhang from the third floor occur. If there is too much overhang out there it adds to the mass. Ann said the site plan and public amenity solution are fine. The overall height of the building overpowers the adjacent much smaller historic 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 buildings, guideline 6.31 and 6.32. I am not sure how well the glass box works in reality once you get furniture and curtains in there. It might be too busy and distract from the other buildings. Maybe there are examples of buildings that have been constructed as glass boxes that we could see. Charles said Apple stores are an example and they have transparent glass and the buildings are very cool and engage you with the pedestrians. I feel they are more successful than a solid building. Morris and Frywall also did a small office by Clark's and it is nice and clean inside. The occupant of any of these spaces needs to recognize that the space will be very visible. The applicant is very consumed about architecture and sculpture and concerned with contemporary minimalism. If the glass is non-reflective I think the project can be very successful. I am hopeful that we can get adequate feedback from the HPC board. When an applicant can eliminate some of the restudy concerns right off the bat and be able to simplify what the application is then it would be easier to come to conceptual with conditions because the conditions are made much more simply. MOTION: Jamie moved to approve resolution #17 for conceptual approval of 420 E. Hyman with the following conditions as discussed: Reduction of the height to 38 feet The third floor stepping back 15 feet Trash enclosure as redesigned Site plan OK Public amenity off site OK Approval of demolition Submit for final review within one year For final is a full review of mass and scale with the materials. Motion second by Jane. Discussion: Patrick said he would like to see the covered walkway eliminated for mass and scale reasons. Sara asked if Jamie is visioning that HPC could change the mass and scale for final? Jamie said yes. Sara pointed out that there are other steps that this project needs to go through and they need to rely on the size of the box; growth management and subdivision. That request maybe problematic with the growth management if HPC requires that the box be smaller. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Jamie said her concern is with the materials and maybe a piece of the glass element becomes a solid element. I am generally OK with the mass and scale. Ann said materials and fenestration affect the mass and scale and we aren't supposed to look at that until final. Sara asked Charles about looking at materials at conceptual. Charles said they are open to working to HPC's satisfaction if that can be something that is separate from the total mass and scale. If this building was solid and not glass it would still have the same mass and scale. Willis said it is not clear to him how the materials transition from the front of the building into the back. Is there a wood material proposed. We also need to see the mass and scale from the alley, views you normally don't present. Charles said one of the problems is that materials are due at final and we are trying to get conceptual approval in order to spend time doing the further research at your client's expense to take it to the next step. When you have to look at materials up front you need to involve a mechanical engineer for heat loss, structural engineers etc. That is the stuff you do between conceptual and final and when you put that kind of involvement on a client at this stage it is burdensome. There is a lot to do between conceptual and final. Jane said in terms of mass and scale and the variations of materials that might be used how much more massive and how much more different will this be. I can understand what the materials are as presented and if there has to be some kind of variation for one reason or another I think it is up to the monitor to assist in that effort. I am here to identify the mass on the site and make sure it fit and that the proportions are done well. As a commissioner I feel this is met tonight. We need to respect the applicant that they aren't going to majorly change the materials. Proportionally it works well and the mass meet all the requirements and they are giving back to what they originally proposed. Jamie said she doesn't see the overall mass and scale of the building changing. We need to know how they integrate. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Ann said she feels the proposal is too big for the site. Total glass goes against the guidelines. Roll call vote: Jamie, yes; Patrick, no; Ann, no; Jane, yes; Willis, yes Motion carried 3-2. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. fill Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11