Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20190911 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Richard Lai, Scott Kendrick, Nora Berko, Gretchen Greenwood. Absent were Sheri Sanzone, Jeffrey Halferty, Bob Blaich and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner MINUTES: Ms. Berko moved to approve the minutes of August 28th, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko apologized; she did not realize there was a site visit today. She also asked about the reflective glass going away on the little Victorian. Ms. Simon said they have done enforcement on that and it is supposed to be removed. DISCLOSURES: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has one to follow up on with Ms. Greenwood regarding 420 E Hyman where Zocalito used to be. They want to demo and replace, and Mr. Pember was the project monitor previously. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said to plan on a November 20th meeting instead of November 27th and we will have a quorum so please put it on your calendar. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: Ms. Simon said on Monday night, they went to council for the Red Onion Jas Aspen project and council upheld the decision. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she is currently reviewing them. OLD BUSINESS: 201 E. Main Mike Kraemer Mr. Kraemer said this is a continuance from August 14th. This is a historic landmark property and former Main Street Bakery. There was a 2017 HPC approval for a connecting element between the two historic structures. He showed a picture from 1965 with the historic structures. In 2018, there was an additional minor expansion of commercial net leasable space and was granted an exemption. Tonight, the applicant is requesting approval to construct the connecting element, a previous excavation of basement and foundation stabilization. A permit was submitted and during the course of the permit and the work that was happening, there was some minor demolition happening along with foundation stabilization and underpinning. The existing basement was also excavated during this time. They are asking for an after the fact approval from HPC for this excavation. In the packet, there is a 920 square 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 foot accessory structure, a trash enclosure and restroom. There are setback variations for yard and building setbacks. There is a request for development of a fire place and water feature in the front yard. The application was submitted prior to the most recent code amendment changes. He explained details on the setback variations. The proposed water feature would be on the north façade of the accessory structure. The fire place would be a gas appliance. He showed the floor plan and talked through the trash enclosure, bathroom, etc. Sarah Yoon is going to speak to the design elements. A consideration here for staff review is growth management, which generates 8.59 full time equivalent employees. This is whittled down to a mitigation requirement of 1.58. Parking is in the rear and is part of the property. Given the development, there is a 5.33 parking space requirement by code. Three spaces are in back and one of those is ADA accessible. The remaining spaces are going to be mitigated through cash in lieu. The applicant has shown satisfactory compliance with TIA by providing an onsite bike repair station and a bike rack on the southeast corner of the property. The applicant is also satisfying the TIA requirement by providing cash for the new bus station going in the future. The project has many high points, but there are some concerns in the staff memo. They are concerned about the setback variations, but not with the basement setback requests and we don’t have an issue for the front or side yard variations. The accessory structure, we do have issue with. There is a five-foot requirement with zero being proposed. Staff has concerns about the construction, going into the alley and building maintenance. The applicant will have to go into the alley to do this maintenance. There is garbage placement concerns and a concern about distance from adjacent properties to the south. There is a five-foot setback requirement and the request moves that building closer to the neighboring property. Staff is recommending code compliance at five feet. Ten feet is required for the building setback requirement from the accessory structure to the historic resource, so staff has concerns about compromising the historic resource due to proximity since they are proposing only five feet. There are a couple of design characteristics regarding the mass on the north façade and we suggest they rethink and restudy what the north façade looks like and break it up more. Second, there is no fenestration on the north façade, which we would like to be restudied. Ms. Greenwood asked what is being planned and what assurances they can give regarding zoning on this property. Mr. Kraemer said it is in the mixed-use zone district. Today, we are seeing from the applicant that it will be a future restaurant. There are finishes that show booths and tables to hold a dining experience. The applicant can provide more detail on the future use of the property. Ms. Simon said that even if the applicant opened a restaurant the next day, they could always change their mind and do something different. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams of Bendon Adams, Mark Hunt, ownership, Dave Rybak of Rybak Architecture & Development. Mike Alpert and Ashley Allis of Design Workshop. Ms. Adams said they are proposing a commercial use and they are unsure if it will be a restaurant or not. She said the plans are for illustrative purposes only. This property is on the corner of Main and Aspen streets. The project scope includes window restoration, basement space, a small back of house building, enclosed bear resistant trash, outdoor dining area, onsite parking and growth management, per the book. The restoration is pretty clear. We will be taking out the existing door and putting in a window. This is a great piece of preservation to provide to the community. They are supposed to request relocation approval because the space beneath the landmark was excavated and staff seems to be on board with this, which is just a formality. There is no basement under the addition being proposed. Ms. Adams walked through some design considerations regarding the small alley building. We have a 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 humungous spruce tree with a big drip line and is a site constraint. We have required onsite parking including three spaces and one ADA space. There are significant grade changes along the alley and please notice how steep it is, which also adds another challenge to the property. We wanted to enclose the trash area and bear proof it and is smaller than what is required, but environmental health has accepted it anyway. One of the most important things to HPC is the reveal of the historic corner. They also have an issue with the drip line and tree roots, so they are unable to build a basement. They also didn’t think that two stories were appropriate, so they want a “background” building. If they don’t get a rear variance, they will take the roof off of the trash enclosure, in which case they would do an electric fence but that is not good for the neighbors or wildlife. She showed an aerial view. Comparing this property to the commercial core, there are no setback requirements of this kind, so we feel this fits into the historic precedence. She showed the Sandborn map with buildings much closer together. It’s important to point out the utilitarian simple form because we don’t want to compete with the resource. She showed the landscape plan and are proposing a lot of open space. The building blocks the view of the parking from Main street, which we think is important. We are saving the historic lilacs and large spruce, rebuilding the fence and restoring the window. The water feature and fireplace are not in the setback and provides vitality and is still considered in the front yard. We are needing an exception for these. We have permeable pavers and samples here for reinvigorating the space and seeing the landmark. Ms. Adams passed around samples of materials on the building. The community benefits will be the commercial use, using less than half allowable floor area, detached new construction, maintain open space at Main street, the outdoor area adds vitality, it is fully accessible, we will preserve and protect the spruce tree, lilacs, fence, upgrade all sidewalks and bike racks, enclosed trash area and onsite parking. We are requesting a five-foot variation for the trash area, a five-foot variation between buildings, basement level, 920 square foot accessory building and the outdoor space, water feature and fireplace. Mr. Moyer asked if someone wants a restaurant there and they remove the door on the east side, how would the traffic flow and Ms. Adams said access would be through the connecting element. Mr. Moyer asked what the status of the basement is at the moment and Mr. Rybak said the foundation has gone down to a basement depth but no floor and currently an open shell. Mr. Moyer asked about the historic brick and Mr. Rybak said they dry packed the brick wall between the foundation and the structure above, so a majority is stable. Ms. Berko asked if the water feature uses recycled water and Mr. Hunt said yes. Ms. Berko asked why the trash has to be so big and Ms. Adams said this is the size environmental health is comfortable with. Ms. Berko said she would like to count on coffee in this location and Ms. Adams said unfortunately not, they can’t commit to that in this hearing. Ms. Berko asked where the city is on the fireplace and Mr. Kraemer said he can’t speak to this since it’s on private property. Given the engagement of the outdoor area, staff got comfortable with the look and feel of this being a part of a restaurant landscape. Ms. Greenwood said we can’t regulate tables and chairs, so we need to consider this space without these things. Mr. Lai asked about the wood picket fence on Main street and if it’s waist level and Ms. Adams said yes. Mr. Lai asked what criteria they are looking at for the restudy of the façade and Ms. Yoon said they are 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 looking at chapter 11. This chapter addresses new construction and it doesn’t cover all, but some of those guidelines apply for reviewing the design criteria for this. Ms. Greenwood asked if they have a picture of the fireplace and the water feature. Mr. Alpert said the fountain will be at ground level with irises growing up in it. Mr. Kendrick asked how high it is and Mr. Alpert said the spigots are 30 inches high and the wall is 9 feet tall. Mr. Rybak said the material is siding. The trough is flush with the ground with the water sitting six inches below that. The pipes would carry the water down creating white noise to buffer the traffic on Main street. It would have a splash zone of about 30 inches, and he is unsure of the velocity of the water, which determines the splash. Mr. Lai asked why they chose siding instead of masonry because it seems a little strange to him. It reminds him of Tivoli, and he imagines water coming out of stone instead of siding, which he equates to wood. Mr. Rybak said they are trying to keep a uniform material and want to keep everything simple and not too interesting. We want to keep the historic resource as the focus. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bob Langley Mr. Langley said he worked with Leslie Rudd, David Roth and Dave Rybak before Mr. Rudd passed away. The biggest issue for him, is the basement. The basement was presumed to get excavated the way it is with approval after the fact. Given the situation that was inherited, it merits granting the basement. It can be a significant asset and it’s already there. What are you gonna do? Fill it back up? He thinks preserving the tree is a great idea. They’ve done a good job on managing the property and the basement should be recognized. Mr. Kraemer read a letter from Ruth Carver, the neighbor to the south. Public comment closed. Ms. Greenwood summarized what the board needs to discuss. Ms. Greenwood said from a standpoint of setbacks and site design, she isn’t in favor of the 0 setback. There is enough room on the property to have the 5 feet. She thinks the 5 feet in between building is a mistake. She’s seen what happens and it gets loaded up with junk. We need to think about maintaining the integrity of the historic building and respect the history. Regarding the building design, she’s trying to visualize the building, and to her, it looks like it belongs in Glenwood or Grand Junction. It’s a confusing visual experience to her. She doesn’t feel like the architecture will live there for a long time. She feels the water feature is in the wrong place and is very modern. She’s not opposed to it, but it should be in a better location. It’s visually odd. She doesn’t agree that the accessory building is an alley structure, as those are normally petite and small. This is not charming. The colors and materials seem out of scale. Everything staff issued in the memo, she agrees with. The fireplace is kitschy with an Aztec design. There doesn’t seem to be a unified thought on designing this space. We don’t know what this will become, so how can you say it won’t work with a basement? She wants to remind HPC to ignore the activities going on outside, that’s not something we vote on. For her, it falls short. She is in favor of going back to the drawing board and starting over. It looks better now with a vacant space instead of with a bunch of parts and pieces that don’t belong. Mr. Moyer said that regarding the existing historic structure and basement, he is good with those. He concurs with staff and chapter 11 on the auxiliary building. He understands the concept, but this is a 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 pretty important part of Aspen, so he concurs that you should go back to the drawing board. There should be a 10-foot space and that is terribly important. The alley is huge. It might be advantageous for all of us to go and look at the alley. He likes the concept of the water feature and the fireplace. It’s important to have some messy vitality in the alleys, so you should have some fenestration or door or some activity, so that it lends to the community. Mr. Kendrick said he is in favor of the basement and said it’s important. He said it helps to offset some of what can’t be done on the site. He really thinks they need to adhere to 10-foot setback and doesn’t think 0 setback is appropriate. Regarding the water feature and the fire place, if it there to drown out street noise, he doesn’t think it will be effective that far back. He also thinks they should break up the façade of that building. As it stands, it doesn’t work. Understands the city’s desire not to have the fireplace, but he thinks it’s nice and adds some vitality, so he doesn’t have a problem with that. Ms. Greenwood said this project doesn’t fit with Aspen. For her, the design is all wrong and it belongs on a golf course. Visually it doesn’t fit on Main street for her. Ms. Berko is eager to see this project happen. The basement should be legal. She doesn’t feel like the addition highlight the resource. She thinks it sort of crushes it, so she feels that chapter 11 is correct and to her, it’s monolithic and wall like. She supports staff’s recommendation on the 10-foot setback. The setbacks are there for a reason and they need to be there. The water feature would be be great somewhere else and she can’t support an outdoor fireplace. Mr. Lai said he likes the idea of the outdoor garden and restaurant. When he first came to Aspen, there used to be a restaurant called the Epicure caddy corner from the Jerome and it was his favorite place to be. They had an outdoor garden and the waitresses were all cute. It was wonderful in the summertime. He used to have a French professor who insisted on a night lighting diagram. He said they should consider light in the garden and be used when illumination isn’t possible. He questions again the water feature. He likes the idea like of Tivoli gardens, but it should have a concrete masonry. You could replicate this from the original building. It’s better to be on the street side instead of opposite wall. He’s concerned with the use and said we can’t control that, but he wants that it to stay a restaurant. He thinks the east façade needs restudy. To him, the façade and connector, seem industrial and it doesn’t quite fit. This could be more elegant. Mostly, he agrees with staff’s comments. Gretchen said as a board, they are in favor of keeping the basement in use. MOTION: Mr. Lai moved to continue to November 20th, Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Simon said there is bad news regarding the second item. They failed to post the public notice, so they sent the applicant home and continued to October 9th. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn, Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor at 6:07 p.m. __________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019