Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20121212 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Nora Berko and Patrick Sagal. Absent were Sallie Golden, Willis Pember and Jane Hills. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Ann moved to approve the minutes of November 28th; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. 434 E. Cooper Ave. Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design and View plane review — public hearing Deborah Quinn said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Sara said this property received demolition in 2007 from HPC which remains valid. The proposal is to replace the existing building with a new two story building. It will be built out to the lot line and is primarily a one story with a second story setback from both street facing facades. They are proposing an off-site public amenity and they are also partially within the view plane but there are other buildings blocking the view plane so we found that not to be a concern. Staff's main concern has to do with the location of the second story. Traditional development downtown you typically have a strong one story and strong two story element and sometimes a three story at the street edge. We are concerned about the significant setback of the second floor that it does not reflect the traditional patterns that you see downtown. We are suggesting that the second floor be moved closer to the street and respects the strong street edge that the guidelines are looking for especially on a prominent street corner such as Cooper and Galena. Guideline 6.18 and 6.25 are not met. Staff feels there needs to be a strong one story and two story element downtown. The other concern is the height variation. Guideline 6.28 talks about achieving height variation using setbacks and varying the height along the fagade. The applicant is proposing changes to the parapet wall along the first story and staff is not completely supportive of that. We don't feel it meets the intent of the variation. This is a 9,000 square foot lot and we think by pushing the second story to the street you will get more of that height variation. We also have concerns that this 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 project is very similar to the Gap project down the street two blocks away. The form is very similar and the detail is similar. Staff is recommending continuation to restudy the location of the second floor mass and to better reflect the height variations that are intended in the guidelines. Sara said the applicant is proposing off-site public amenity which we find appropriate in this location. They would be required to do 10% which is about 900 square feet. With the mall and Paradise across the street we didn't' want to have a redundancy of open spaces and staff feels it is appropriate to have the off-site public amenity and it is consistent with guideline 6.7. Sara said overall the trash/utility is fine. We have some concerns about the mechanical on the roof that they aren't showing a comprehensive plan. At conceptual it is difficult to have a plan. We are recommending for final a complete mechanical plan so we can see what is happening. On the trash/utility standard #3 states that delivery services are integral to the building and two of the retail spaces don't have access to the alleys or trash area which can be resolved by adding a hallway. Sara said the corner of the building falls into the view plane but it is already blocked by buildings and one is an historic landmark. We also have much lower height limits right now. Staff is recommending approval of the view plane review. Charles Cunniffe said this is a scrape and replace of an existing building. We are trying to make this building compatible with Aspen. This location is unique and a square building is appropriate for this corner. Across the street is the Casa Tua building which is set back. The only truly historic building on the corner is the Independence Building and it is a three story building. Our material selection is cut sandstone which creates a pattern that is more reminiscent of an historic layering of a building. The store fronts have a vertical orientation with the mullion pattern. The building is edge to edge on the Cooper Street and Galena Street side. The existing building never had a step down parapet and it is actually compatible with the Aspen Block building. There is a nice pedestrian pattern as you come up the street and we want that to continue to read. This is one building and we do not feel it appropriate to step the building. It should express itself as a single floor plate and a single roof line. The kick plate section as you come to the alley is stepped down. We also returned a store front along the alley corner which 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 we feel more buildings should do in town to engage the alley with the pedestrian. We feel the second floor setback is appropriate. If we push the second floor to the street and to the corner we would have a large void dead space on the roof. On the mechanical we can show a mechanical area but you can't do a final mechanical plan before you have your tenants. We can show a corral where the mechanical can remain. Mitch Haas, Haas planning Page of the HPC guidelines Exhibit IV Mitch said in the guidelines it states that not every guideline will apply to each project. Mitch said this project is 100 % on the sidewalk edge and we are fully built out to the sidewalk edge. The most troubling guideline in the memo is 6.25. The guideline says maintain a two story height at the sidewalk edge or provide a horizontal design element at this level. This project does provide a horizontal design element at this level and meets the sidewalk edge. There have been two previous redevelopments proposed for this property. Both of those had either two or three stories built out to the property line. Both failed before council and public opinion. We don't want to make that mistake again. Given the existing patterns of properties adjacent in the core this single guideline is overstated. It was quite clear in the past that the public did not want a three story at this corner. By stepping back you will see the historic Red Onion sign on the side. Second story step backs are common in town. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. E-mail from Mari Rainer, Exhibit II Letter from Junee Kirk, Exhibit III Terry Butler said she has lived in the Aspen Block building next door for the last 26 years. I was probably the one that led the charge the hardest for the demise of the last project and it was three stories and built right out to the corner and threw a giant shadow on the entire corner and it would certainly shadow my building behind. This building I actually like a lot. Usually in this town we see developers push it right out to the edge and want every square inch they can get and I understand how expensive it is in town. Here we have someone that isn't asking for anything extra and is trying to work with the community. The end product will be something that we can all live with. One of the things I've always liked about the Fritz Benedict building 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 is the setback and all the openness of the corner. Even though they are building over the patio they have a lot of glass in the building and the setback on the second floor will be actually about where it is today. Every inch of light on the alley and the glass you will get a lot less ice in that alley. I am for the setback and having the sky, light and view plane is so much more important than having it build out to the edge. Junee Kirk said she agrees with everything that has been said. In this location it doesn't fit to bring the second story to the street. By setting back the second floor it opens up views. You will also be able to see the entire shape of the Red Onion building. I hope you approve the mass and scale as it is appropriate for this area. As a suggestion putting a little arcade over Galena might give it a little Western texture. It would also be a way to keep out of the rain. I am 100% in favor of approving this plan. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public hearing. Ann stated the issues: Mass and scale Location of the second floor Height variation Public amenity Trash/utility and mechanical plan View plane Jamie thanked the applicant for the application. We can address the mechanical and trash at final. My only issue is that I thought we were reviewing the Gap. Maybe with materials and details we can distinguish this building differently. Setback, location and height are all acceptable. Ann said she is OK with the trash/utility and public amenity. I actually think in this part of town it works to have the second floor set back because there is already an openness in that area with the old Guido's and Paradise bakery. If we work with the materials we can distinguish the building from the Gap. I am supportive of the application. Nora echoed Ann and Jamie's comments. I am celebrating the two stories. Nora commented that most of the buildings in town have a truncated corner which makes it much more communal and a crowd assembly area. It is great that the windows are coming around the alley. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 Jay said this is a great project. I don't agree that the second floor should be brought forward because it would look like a bookend. It does look somewhat like the Gap building. I would like to see a different material rather than stone or rock. When you snowmelt possibly snow melt across the alley and work with the City. I would request at final that the mechanical be explained as best possible and that the materials are identified. This is the best project for this corner. Patrick said he feels this building will pass the public review which is the most important thing to me. It is a masterful job. I would recommend keeping the stone like the Wheeler and City Bank because of this premier location. I agree with Nora about the truncated corner and I walked around today and there were about 97 buildings that had setbacks or truncated corners that were lively. The heavy stone has been in Aspen since the 1880's. The window alleys lighten the area and bring people in. I am not in favor of off-site amenities. The parapet and the differences in setbacks on Galena work well. This building is far apart from the Gap and I see no problem between the two. Jamie said she is not in favor of chamfering that corner due to the mall being right there. Jay and Nora also agreed. Charles said between this building and the Gap purposefully we want the Gap building clean, simple and contemporary. This building is an anchor and a more stately building. This building has to hold its own on the corner and we are proposing a red sandstone cut. Mark Hunt, developer said the scale of the Gap is important and getting the verticality. I look at this building very differently. The rhythm might be similar. This is one of the best retail corners in Aspen and this building will kind of pay tribute to the Ute City building. We made a stronger base on this building which is horizontal. MOTION: Patrick moved to approve Resolution #33and grant conceptual approval as presented; second by Jay. Jamie asked for a friendly amendment that the parapet/cornice needs to get restudied for final. Patrick said he would not accept Jamie's amendment. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12 2012 Charles said they have not refined the details and the parapet would be part of that. There will be a greater level of detail for final. This is the mass and scale that we want approved. Amended motion: Jamie moved to amend the motion that the parapet and cornice get studied in greater detail at final. Nora said the mass and scale would not change. Amended motion second by Ann. Motion carried 4-1. Patrick voted no. Sara listed the conditions for conceptual: Granted as presented Off-site amenity Trash/utility access be reviewed at final Mechanical plan presented at final View plane Applicant shall study the parapet/cornice at greater detail at final Applicant has to submit for final within one year. Vote on motion and amendment: Jay, yes, Nora, yes, Patrick, yes; Jamie, yes, Ann, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 204 S. galena, Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review— Public Hearing Deborah Quinn said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed, Exhibit I. Amy said this proposal is for a new building on S. Galena Street and it is a complete replacement . There is an existing parking lot and the building will encompass that area. Staff recommends approval with 8 conditions. All new buildings are required to have an airlock or two sets of doors before you enter the space and that is in an effort to be energy efficient. That needs to be accomplished before building permit and it doesn't need to be reviewed by HPC. There is not enough information about the mechanical plan and it is not shown on the roof plan. There is a condition that nothing should be put on top of restaurant roof top and everything should be clean. The proposal is that the fagade will be a buff color and sandstone and there really aren't any other buildings in the historic core that use that color tone of 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 material. We have painted buildings but mostly they are red brick and sandstone. We don't feel that color should be eliminated but our concern is that it is such a departure from the traditional palate downtown. The lighting proposal has been presented Exhibit II. Basically they are goose neck fixtures that would be on the ground floor by the retail spaces and on the upper floor on the soffit and some step lights. In this case regarding public amenity the HPC accepted that the upper floor with a restaurant deck would serve that purpose but if the space turned into retail that mitigation would have to be dealt with whether it is a cash payment etc. HPC has already accepted that the seven parking spaces would be replaced with a cash-in-lieu payment. There is a view plane from the court house but it is under it so HPC wasn't asked to give any exceptions. They are representing no new net leasable and no employee housing mitigation needed. Nora said the basement will be infilled now but in the future if ever it is changed it would have to be mitigated at that time. Charles said he understands about the basement. On the materials this building is a more contemporary building. This building has to hold its own and we don't want it to blend in with the other buildings around it. It has never been an historic building. The Gap building has always had this color. The materials are both smooth stone and cut stone that would be used in different places. There would be a bronze case metal window. When we work with the monitor and staff we can do a mockup. Charles said the airlocks will occur on the inside of the building. Patrick asked if the goose neck lights would project off too much reflectivity at night. Charles said the intent of the lights is to show onto the materials. We don't want to compete with the glass. We can bring in a diagram showing the location of the mechanical. It would be at the farthest back point on the building and back toward the alley. You wouldn't see it from the Fire Department. It would be like a corral. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comment. There were no public comments. The public comment section was closed. Ann went over the issues: 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 The airlocks, materials and mechanicals Possibility of a different material, different texture The lighting plan was provided Public amenity Jay said he supports this project and the material selection. Staff and monitor can look at the placement and screening of the mechanicals. Patrick said he agrees with staff that the stone should be darker to coincide with the core. Jamie said she is in favor of the lighter color stone because this is not an historic building. Jay agreed on the color. Nora said the light color makes the building look non-historic. Ann also agreed on the lighter color. MOTION: Jamie moved to approve resolution #34 for final, striking #3 condition. That means that the air locks will be addressed during building permit. The roof top mechanical will also be addressed during the building permit process with staff and monitor. Final review of the lighting which was presented is OK. The public amenity would be addressed if the restaurant space changes and would come back and be reviewed. Replacement of the 7 parking spaces with cash-in-lieu is fine. Review of the court house view plan and net leasable has been verified. Motion second by Nora. Patrick agreed with Nora that the color could have a little more darkness to it. Charles said when it is sealed it will get deeper. Any stone as it get older gets darker but we are not representing that. We like the color. Jay said he has no problem with the color. Vote: Nora, yes; Ann, yes; Jamie, yes; Jay, yes; Patrick, no. Motion carried 4-1. Patrick and Jay are the monitors. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9