Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20121024 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 Vice-chair, Jay Maytin called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Sallie Golden and Jane Hills. Jamie McLeod, Ann Mullins and Patrick Sagal 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: Nora moved to approve the minutes of Sept. 12th second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Motion: Jane moved to approve the minutes of September 19th second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Jane will recuse herself on 610 E. Hyman 400 E. Hyman Ave. — Minor Review Debbie Quinn said the public notice affidavit and they are in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Sara said the project is also called the Tom Thumb building located in the commercial core opposite the Wheeler Opera House. The applicant has submitted for a minor development review to do some window changes and freshening up of the existing building rather than the previous proposal of a large glass box. They are proposing window changes to the first and second floor. On the second floor they want to put larger windows in. This does not meet our strict design guidelines for downtown where it says there is a solid to void ratio on the second floor. However, this building was built in 1981 and we think the proposal to enlarge the windows on the second floor actually freshens up the building and contributes more to the commercial core than leaving the windows the way they are. Signage: Staff has some concerns with the signage and as a condition of approval it should be reviewed by staff and monitor. Signage is not something HPC typically sees. It is usually reviewed with the zoning officer but since it is wrapped with the minor review we thought it prudent to bring 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 it to the board. Our big concern is the location of the signage. There is going to be one commercial tenant for the first and second floors and the signage is proposed for the second floor and we feel it is more important to have it on the first floor. We are also concern about the back lit nature of the signage. What they are proposing meets are zoning regulations for lighting and signage, however this is directly across from the Wheeler and we felt that a back lit sign maybe distracting from the historic Wheeler and we are suggesting the applicant look at a more traditional lighting such as a goose neck to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Regarding the mechanical they are proposing two large HVAC's on top of the building and it is an HPC concern and a zoning concern. It has to be pushed back from the street fagade. Staff is suggesting that they find the smallest HVAC systems that they can and push it back as far as they can. We also recommend that staff review the proposed screening once they are in their location. The plan is also to add two other chair lifts in the plaza area to make the entire facility accessible. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Louis Loria, architect Ken Sack, owner Louis said with the nature of this particular lot and where it is we thought that by making a more harmonious fayade and more transparent would be a nice addition to the retail at street level. The upper larger windows give the client more ability to translate their'product to the people on the street. We feel the signage is appropriate and it meets the criteria and we feel it is not out of character on the second floor. We would prefer the back lit signage and it is a Led within the letters and is soft. It is not a glaring light. The goose neck has a lot of glare and it is out dated. Louis said on the accessibility there is a stairway that goes down and we will put a chair lift that is ADA approved which will make the overall building accessible. One goes to the street level and one goes to the lower level. Louis said the mechanical equipment the building is only 20 feet wide. It would not be visible from Hyman Ave. but is visible from the Wheeler opera house. Code says put the mechanical 20 feet back but it is impossible because the building is only 20 feet wide. We could push the unit back to the other side if the board desires so it is not visible from the Opera House. We are turning the area into a dynamic retail space. New front elevation — Exhibit II 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 Louis said the frames of the windows will be stainless steel and the screening is a brown metal tubing to screen it and be as quiet as possible. Louis said it is really a soft hallow around the letters of the signage. Nora said her concern is looking from the lobby of the Wheeler which is the second floor and looking into the windows. Louis said this building is all one tenant and the windows are translucent windows. Louis said the heating is generated by the lighting within the space and equipment which is driving the cooling out of the space. We have to stay within the energy code. Willis asked about the awning. Louis said the awning will be white and sunbrella fabric. The materials for the lettering will be stainless brushed steel. Jay asked if the windows would be operable. Louis said no. Sallie said the windows enhance the space and should be monitored by staff and monitor. If the mechanical can be pushed back as far as you can that would be appropriate. Willis said this proposal enhances that corner and adding the transparency enhances the building. We need to be careful that the hallow is a modest hallow. The signage is elegant and the location is also elegant. Jane said the proposal is beautiful and the window changes create a vitality interaction on the street. On the signage that is not in our purview but we need to be careful so that it is a soft subtle light. I am not in favor of the goose neck. The lift is a great amenity for that area. On the awning being white we get a lot of red dust storms and white will be a maintenance issue. Nora concurred with Willis. Nora said her only concern is the view plane from the Wheeler. Jay said he likes the project. On the mechanical we need to make sure that it is the smallest possible. The proposed location is appropriate and I 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 wouldn't change that. Staff and monitor should review the screening of the mechanical. Vice-chair Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment section of the agenda item was closed. Louis said he appreciates all the comments and feels the design is more appropriate for the area. On the lighting I will work with Sara to make it as acceptable as possible. I know what the board wants. This is a luxury store. We can also have a mockup made before it is installed. On the screening we can look at other alternatives. Ken Sack said he is part owner of the store and assured the board that the awning will be kept clean. Jay recommended that condition #2 be amended that the wall sign be reviewed by staff and monitor. #3 the wall sign and lighting and a mockup to be approved by staff and monitor. #4 to be approved by staff and monitor. Motion: Jay moved to approve resolution #25 with the following changes: 42Wall sign location to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. #3 Applicant shall provide a mockup of the wall sign including the lighting and to be approved by staff and monitor. #4 Mechanical to be approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Nora. Willis made a friendly amendment to strike #2 as the sign location is approved on the second floor as presented. Nora accepted the amendment All in favor, motion carried. 5-0. Sallie and Jay are the monitors. 422 E. Cooper Ave. — Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Mountain View Plane Review, Public Hearing Sara said the key issues are height, impact of the third floor, vertical sign and mechanical equipment. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24 2012 Stan Clauson did a power point showing the sign from different views. The sign is not obscured as the third floor is set back 45 feet. Stan said they realized the setbacks had to be significant due to the Red Onion. Stan said we can review the mechanical at final and will look for the smallest equipment available. Willis inquired about the view plane. Sara said the view plane is from the steps of the Wheeler opera house. Kim said the overrun on the third floor for mechanical is 4.2 feet. Nora said she supports demolition and the public amenity request and the trash/utility area. Two stories are OK but the 3 rd floor is too much. The Red Onion is the only structure on the block that needs to be prominent. Jane said she is OK with staff's recommendations. With regard to the massing and scale the applicant has done a great job and the setbacks are OK. Jane said the heights are OK. I'm not in favor of the elevator over fun but it is a requirement. Sallie agreed with Jane's comments. Willis said it comes down to the third floor as seen from Casa Tua. The massing is successful and the upper floors have no visible connection to the Red Onion. Jay said the project is good. For final there needs to be a restudy of the roofline/cornice. The detailing on the second floor needs to be simpler. Vice-chair Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Junee Kirk said you can see the massive building from the east side. The Red Onion is the most obvious building on the block. Vice-chair Jay Maytin closed the public hearing. Sallie agreed with Jay that the detailing on the second floor should be restudied for final and the lines simplified. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #26 second by Jane. Motion carried 4-1. Nora opposed. 610 E. Hyman —AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review for utility/trash recycling area, continued from October 10th — public hearing Jane recused herself Amy summarized the staff memo. This is an AspenModern negotiation, a voluntary offer of designation in exchange for some landmark benefits that are available for all properties. In terms of designation staff finds that it meets the criteria. Ellie Brickham in 1951 was Aspen's first female architect. This is a good example of her design talents. There have been alterations to the building and it scored 15 out of 20. In terms of the negotiation the first incentive has to do with floor area. There is an allowance for 1500 square feet of residential free market floor area on the property and the applicant is asking for just over twice as much. That floor area figure covers not only the actual living area of the unit but also drags in common hallway and deck area. This project is asking for doubling. It also pushes them slightly over the cap for what a building that just has commercial and free market uses ought to have by 692 square feet. On vested rights everyone receives three years and they are asking for ten years to allow more time to move forward. There are standard landmark benefits which are available to all designated properties. They are eligible for an affordable housing mitigation waiver for the office space they are creating. If they had to pay for a non-historic property it would be around $250,000. but they wouldn't pay anything in this scenario. The expansion of the office space triggers the need for a partial parking space onsite and they are asking to not provide the parking space but not pay the cash-in-lieu fee which would have been about $28,000. Their residential development is exempt from certain fees related to city parks and transportation. In terms of the incentives city council is the body that can award those incentives but HPC generally makes comments. UPC is also asked to review the conceptual design for the proposed addition at the back of the building. In terms of the HPC guidelines staff finds that the addition is acceptable because it is along the alley and doesn't encroach upon the historic building itself. It doesn't have a negative impact. In terms of the commercial design HPC needs to consider the request to go over the height limit. The height limit is 36 feet 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 measured from grade and their proposal is 38.11 to the top of the residential unit in the back. Our concern is that it looks like the floor to ceiling height on the third floor is about 12 feet which seems like it could be reduced and the height increase lessened. On the utility delivery issue every property downtown is expected to have a certain amount devoted to the functional needs of the building about 120 square feet and it should be along the alley so trash can be picked up easily. This property currently has no trash area that meets code. There is an internalized area for recycling and they have an agreement with the neighbor. That does not meet the standards. We have not seen any agreement that this will continue. In theory HPC could grant a complete waiver but we do not_think that an appropriate plan. One - - - - suggestion is to eliminate one of the existing on-site parking spaces which then generates its own variance and cash-in-lieu and perhaps that is a way to accommodate the trash. Council has already awarded an extension on this project part of which HPC's agendas were so blocked up but the current extension expires in December. If this project cannot leave HPC with a recommendation tonight staff is not inclined to recommend an additional extension. We feel there has not been enough preservation effort represented in the project to out weight the benefits. The character of the windows has changed from the original design which has changed how you perceive the building from the street. We are concerned about having a certain standard to hold up that the AspenModern program can achieve certain things that the community can clearly see. The removal of the canopy and stucco on the fagade are not significant movement back to the original character. We would like to see this project work out but we feel we are not in the right place to approve it and we are not recommending HPC approval. Nora asked what has changed since we saw this the last two times. Amy said one of the things was the calculations on the building which were not clear enough for us to take a position._We didn't understand what some of the square footages were. Amy said designation doesn't happen if the negotiation doesn't occur. Staff finds that the building worthy of designation but we are concerned that the other end of the proposal isn't meeting up to the standards. Willis asked for clarification regarding the trash. Amy said they are required to have 120 square feet on the site for their trash area and they have none 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 that qualifies now. HPC can accept any arrangement that you think appropriate. If you were going to ask them to provide any on the site it is going to impact one of the existing parking spaces. HPC can grant a variance to eliminate the parking space and you can eliminate the fee. Charles Cunniffe said in 2003 when he got approval to build the garage in the back the building was designed to have two stories in the future. The trash area was negotiated with the city and the city allowed us to do a recycle center instead of the traditional dumpster. The building has a gas meter on the back of it and has the meters along the car port. The recycling center has three bins for glass, aluminum and paper. It is used jointly with the neighboring properties. We would continue to work something out with them. We are attempting to be as paper free as possible. Most of our products are recyclable. It is the only 30 foot lot that is constrained in the neighborhood and if you put a 10 x 20 space in the back you would have a ten foot parking space. It is in the best interest to have a recycling center rather than a trash/utility area. We have four spaces and have the adequate parking. It is a two car garage and a two tandem space which was also approved in 2003. Ellie Brickham was a friend of mine through the architectural world. When I talked to her about what I wanted to do with the building she was very much in favor of me changing the windows. It is a better solar gain and the additions of the transoms allowed for ventilation. I haven't changed anything regarding the solid/void pattern on the front of the building. The only thing I altered is the lower arch is now squared off for a transom window. Mitch Haas, Hass land planning: With ordinance 48 and Aspen Modern the 90 day negotiation forces us to take a short view of the property and the effects of designation. It seems to put everyone in we want everything right now or nothing at all approach to a negotiation which is not really how one enters into a negotiation. There were three points of restoration: the arched windows, color of the stucco and the removal of the canopy. Charles agreed to two of the three. On the integrity assessment it scored 15 points which is on the border of better and best. By doing the two restorations we would be in the best example. If this building is not on the inventory there would be no HPC review or consideration ever going forward. In the way of incentives we have asked for additional free market area. The building is not efficiently laid out and there is a lot of common area and stairs than would be in any other building. We have requested a free market area of 3,053 square feet. The unit itself is 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 1908 square feet of net livable space. Right now it is a studio to become a one bedroom unit. 286 square feet is counted as wall thicknesses and another 473 in circulation spaces that are shared for the commercial spaces below and another 385 deck space that is counting as floor area. Also the code requires an elevator. There is no parking requirement in the C 1 zone district and none for the residential unit. At the alley the proposed height is 40 feet as submitted because the alley starts lower than the sidewalk. We are trying to look at the ceiling heights a little closer. We can drop it to 38 feet at the alley. Both buildings are going to go to three stories and will overwhelm this building. Mitch said the trash sits behind the golfco building to the east and is shared with this building. The recycling is behind our building. The golfco building has been approved by P&Z which is 9 feet along the alley and 20 feet deep. This project will be coming back for HPC final review and it doesn't have to be completely satisfied and addressed right now. When we come in for final we will either have letters of agreement from the neighbor or we will have a specific proposal for the H PC. We will resolve it or we won't get final approval from the HPC. You should save this building. Charles said if you look at the drawings there is not a significant alteration on the building. The most significant alteration is the canopy which is going to be removed. I feel what I did as appropriate to the building. Amy said she didn't hear until tonight that there was an tandem parking space on the site. I was under the impression that there were three parking spaces. That is adequate for the net leasable. The code does not allow commercial uses to count stacked parking spaces as adequate you have to have unobstructed access to the alley. That fourth space is not OK as the mitigation for this commercial building. It is great that you are working with your neighbors on recycling but the other side of the equation is that you have no place to put your trash. I don't think the existing arrangement is going to work. Vice-chair Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Junee Kirk said she served on the preservation committee. I recall that there weren't that many on the AspenModern list that were to be preserved. I'm surprised that this is coming under ordinance #48. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 Amy said the task force did not get to that level of detail. We aren't actually talking about getting this building to perfection. There are changes that we aren't even suggestion that should be undone like moving the entry to the center and filling in the light well. Vice-chair Jay Maytin closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Jay said you can walk to the recycling area from the alley. If this agreement falls apart would you be able to collect your trash in this area. Charles said we have adequate access and this case is unique because it is a single tenant. All the changes are above the garage and there are no changes to the first floor. Nora said I thought it was clear that there were things that we wanted to see done before we thought it could be designated. I can't support designation and this is a very significant building and I don't feel as though we are being given the respect of what the restoration should look like. Maybe the board should vote on whether this building should be designated. Charles said he had to move the doors per code issues which were not in effect in 1962. It was a building code. Willis said he doesn't see anything substantially different presented from the last meeting. Mitch said we had to get all the calculations in the cad. Charles said before I wasn't willing to change the stucco or the canopy and now I am willing to change those. Willis asked if Charles talked to Marty Flug about memoralizing the trash agreement. Charles said we co-share the cost now and I can talk to him. Commissioner comments: Nora said she cannot support designation. Willis said there are four points of restoration that have been discussed. The same four things have been discussed at every hearing in the past. The 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24 2012 canopy, the arches at the second level, the stucco color and the entry door change. We aren't asking for perfection and eliminated the entry door. The other three are the essence of Ellie Brickham. AspenModern negotiation has potential for demolition. The spirit of AspenModern is for the developer to think twice about their actions. We have asked for three out of four things and you should just do it and enjoy the benefits that with it. Jay said his fear is that this building will go away and people will be upset. The removal of the canopy was a huge step. I don't agree with the ten year vested rights. This building will probably be dwarfed after the two buildings on either side are done. This will be a better project than letting it go. I also agree that the utility for a restaurant should be different than for an office building. Sallie said it is great that the canopy is removed. The color change is good but I think when we asked for three I wanted three. I would support giving more time and figuring out how we can designate a building that looks like the original building that she designed. Charles said the arches are not functional. Willis said part of the charm is the arches that speak to the era. Charles said the arches are one of many things that make the building historic. If you put the arches back there is less light. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #27 with the following condition&that the first level arches return to the restoration and some agreement about the trash be submitted and that council take up the issues of vested rights. All the incentives are ok. Motion second by Sallie. Motion carried 3-1. Nora voted no. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 12