Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20220608 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 8TH, 2022 Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford and Sherri Sanzone. Staff present: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant II MINUTES: Ms. Pitchford moved to approve the minutes from 4/27/22, 5/25/22, and 6/2/22. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty mentioned that he had been in conversation with Ms. Yoon about the Hotel Jerome’s fixing of the porte cochere. He thought it was a lot but was ok with it if Ms. Yoon was. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Feinberg Lopez mentioned that the HPC awards would be presented at the next City Council regular meeting on June 14th. She then referred to the bike tour that was originally scheduled for May 31st has been postponed until June 28th. She then reminded the board members of the work session scheduled for the next meeting. Ms. Yoon mentioned that any commissioner comments related to the lunch meeting they had with Amy Simon related to the moratorium are due by 6/9/22 at noon. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice and that notice was provided per the code for both agenda items. Ms. Thompson noted that Ms. Sanzone had joined the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 8TH, 2022 NEW BUSINESS: 121 W. Bleeker Street – Final Major Development and Floor Area Bonus, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Derek Skalko – 1 Friday Design Mr. Skalko mentioned that the bulk of this is due to a clarification of the Floor Area and stressed to the commissioners that nothing had changed about the approval. There was a mistake in addition / subtraction, yet the Floor Area discussed was exactly as proposed. He asked Ms. Yoon if it would make sense for the City to make its presentation first. Ms. Yoon thought it was still appropriate for the applicant to go first. Mr. Skalko apologized for the delay and said that he and Ms. Yoon had been working on some finer points and he believed all has been resolved. He started by introducing Gyles Thornely with Connect 1 Design, who would be discussing the landscape plan and the applicant, Ms. Nimmo-Guenther. He again stressing that, per pages 5-10 of the packet that discuss the Floor Area bonus, that after in internal review with Sophie Varga that the total square footage was about 40 square feet off. This should have resulted in a 246 minimum square foot bonus. The approval was for a 205 square foot bonus but included language referencing “the drawings as documented and presented”, which would reflect accurately the Floor Area as it was counted out. He apologized for this clerical error at the initial meeting but hoped the board would see what happened. To catch the board up on what was approved, he showed renderings of the existing conditions and the proposed project and highlighted the substantial reduction of above grade mass and scale. Regarding the materials and fenestrations, he noted that nothing had changed for the conceptual approval to the final approval. They have just detailed a little bit more information about the materials. He then went over some of the proposed materials for the addition which are intended to reduce the look of the scale and produce a very quiet solution to what is existing right now. He also described a bit about the restoration of the historic asset and mentioned that they do not have a lot of exterior damages on the North, East and West elevations and have a lot of information to go by. He did say that since so much of the rear (South) side of the Victorian has been enveloped by the non-historic addition for the early 1990’s, they have less to go by until they get into the framing. Mr. Skalko turned things over to Mr. Thornely, to go over details of the landscape plan. He said there is very little change to the landscape design, mainly just enhancements. He then showed the overhead demolition plan in order to highlight changes to the entry walkway. He went on to describe the changes to the walkway, comparing the existing and proposed layouts. Mr. Fornell asked if the existing stepped design of the walkway would be replicated in the proposed layout or would it be sloped. Mr. Thornely said it would be sloped and that the amount of slope does not require steps. Mr. Thornely then addressed some comments about the right of way plantings and said they had been working with the Parks Department on these. Most of the time these are not allowed, but the applicant is asking the board and the Parks Department to reconsider the removal of the perennial species in lieu of sod. He explained that perennials require a lot less water than sod and that their removal would really detract from how marvelous they currently look. Mr. Halferty asked if the civil drawings could be shared and discussed. Mr. Skalko showed the civil drawings and mentioned that most of the civil work will fall on the west side yard property area of the Victorian as this area is completely free of tree canopy and is also the low point of the lot. Mr. Halferty REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 8TH, 2022 asked about the details of the drywells. Mr. Skalko went over these details, including that the covers would be integrated into and mostly hidden by the perennials that are planned. Ms. Sanzone asked where exactly the drywell covers would be located on the plans. Mr. Thornley pointed out the approximate location on the plans that falls within the sodded area. Ms. Sanzone asked if it could be slightly moved to be located in an area of perennials, to which Mr. Thornely said yes. Ms. Sanzone said the form of the planting beds in the right of way on the proposed plans was a little different to how the beds are existing on site currently and asked how these compare. Mr. Thornely said the edge of the existing beds were drawn for aerial photos and that they proposed beds are exactly as they are today. Ms. Sanzone asked about how the beds would be protected during construction. Mr. Thornely said they are working with a greenhouse that will be removing the perennials, potting them, and then replanting them after construction using a photographic inventory of their current location. Mr. Fornell asked if the plants were a variety that can be readily replaced if some were lost in the removal and storage during construction. Mr. Thornely said yes. Ms. Thompson asked for clarification on some of the materials. Mr. Skalko provided details on these materials. She asked for clarification of the proposed materials of the walkways and patios. Ms. Pitchford asked about the plans for the front yard wrought iron fence that is not historic. Mr. Thornely said he did know how long it had been there but that they would like to keep it to avoid adding any additional footers. Ms. Thompson said it would be discussed later in the meetings. Staff Presentation: Sarah Yoon – Historic Preservation Planner Ms. Yoon started by going over the request for approval and the lot description. She went over the history of the past two design reviews and subsequent revisions and said that the design that is before the board today was approved by a 7-0 vote from HPC. She commended that applicant team for bringing this resource back to the community. She reminded the board that the design footprint, massing, and scale were all finalized thorough conceptual approval and that the revisions to the Floor Area bonus do not result in any change or increase of the mass and scale of the approved design. She then went over some of the staff comments related to the landscape design and said that the landscape plan that was presented in the packet to staff was a bit different from what Mr. Thornely presented in his presentation. She highlighted a few Historic Preservation Guidelines related to walkways and said that staff is requesting a revised landscape plan to look over with staff and monitor to ensure the width is appropriate, the steps are removed and only meandering where trees are being avoided. She mentioned the plantings in the right of way and while realizing they are very mature and the timeframe of when the encroachment into the right of way is not known, there is a concern of the privatization of the right of way. This will be more of a conversation between the applicant and the Parks Department, but staff is asking that it be a part of the landscaping plan to make sure it is compliant. Ms. Yoon then discussed the wrought iron fence and that staff, while realizing it may have historic qualities, does not believe it is original to the site. Staff Is recommending the removal of the fence but would like the board to have discussion related to it. Lastly, she briefly went over the revision to the Floor Area Bonus. In closing she said that staff is recommending approval of the Final Major Development with conditions and went on to describe the conditions. Mr. Fornell asked if this was called up by City Council during conceptual review. Ms. Yoon confirmed this and mentioned that Council had some pointed questions about the massing and wanted a better REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 8TH, 2022 understanding of the sighting of the project. After the call up Council did uphold all HPC’s approvals including benefits awarded. Ms. Thompson asked what the height of the existing fence is. Mr. Thornley said the majority of it is 36 inches with some of it coming up to about 46 inches. Ms. Sanzone asked if the other fencing on the property is being represented to be maintained. Mr. Thornley said it is going to remain as is and that repairs would be completed as needed. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISSCUSSION: Ms. Thompson reviewed the items for discussion, including the plantings in the right of way, the fence, drywells, and materials. Ms. Pitchford said she was a bit conflicted about the fence. She realized that it had probably been there for a while, but it is still not an original fence. She wanted to hear other member’s thoughts on the fence and the plantings that come into the right of way but was fairly certain she was not in favor of the plantings. Ms. Sanzone said she was struggling as well. She thought that the metal fence and other fencing on the property does not appear to be historic, and that they detract for the historic asset. She felt there was a lot going on on the property now and was concerned about the site and the other detailing. She was concerned about some of the hardscape materials and while she liked the concept of preserving the planting beds, she thought the plan to preserve them was not really leaving them in place but rather moving, altering areas, and replacing them. She then described a few other areas she did not feel as appropriate, including the secondary concrete walkway and the porcelain tile represented in the drawings for the patios. Mr. Halferty liked the proposal and thought it complied with the guidelines. He acknowledged that it would be a challenging process to maintain the perennials during construction. As far as the guidelines, he agreed with staff when it comes to the landscaping on a small site. He supports the project and agrees that “less is more” when it comes to landscaping. Ms. Thompson said she was struggling and agreed with Ms. Sanzone that she did not like the fences on the East and West side of the lot. She did not feel that they meet the guidelines but acknowledged that the do exist currently. She was having a hard time understanding the construction sequencing related to the fence and plantings in the front of the house. If the fence and plants can stay, she supports leaving them, but realized that would mean there would be no access for construction on the south façade. She supported Ms. Sanzone’s thoughts about the primary path being concrete and the secondary paths being secondary materials. She would support both pathways on the sides of the house being the same as the one proposed on the west side, being gravel and secondary pavers. Ms. Sanzone agreed. Ms. Thompson also agreed and wanted a description of the materials being approved added to the Resolution. She also wanted the inconsistencies in materials presented to be clarified. Mr. Moyer would encourage Ms. Sanzone to be the monitor for this project. He agreed with everything staff brought up and clarifying proposed materials in the Resolution. His main concern is that the plantings are kept simple but was ok with plantings in the right of way. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 8TH, 2022 Mr. Fornell had no comments. Ms. Thompson summarized the Commissioners thoughts related to the fence on Bleeker, the right of way plantings, the primary and secondary pathways, drywell cover, and summarizing and clarifying the materials. Ms. Yoon showed the draft resolution and said she could make revisions as needed. An edit was made to condition #1 to remove language related to reducing plantings in the right of way. Language was added to condition #1 to have the applicant submit an updated landscaping plan revising the primary walkway to 3 feet while removing the flare at the curb, the secondary walkways to be a different material from the primary one and the patio materials and pattern to be approved by staff and monitor. A condition was added for the existing wrought iron fence and plantings to remain in place. Another condition was added to state that if the side yard fences have to be removed, that they are replaced with ones that meet design guidelines and be approved by staff and monitor. Condition #3 was amended to include that the drywell cover be an inverted manhole cover, concealed within perennials. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #9 Series of 2022 as shown. Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll Call vote: Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. NEW BUSINESS: 204 S. Galena Street – Minor Development Review and Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Cheuk Choi – CallisonRTKL Mr. Choi began by introducing the clients from Gucci. He then went over the general site information, including location and building and tenant square footage, and the general scope of work for the project. The two existing tenant spaces are to be combined into one single tenant space, consisting of a proposed 5,444 net square feet. He went over the proposed interior renovations, but for purposes of this meeting will focus on the proposed exterior scope of work. This includes a new proposed storefront window system and entry doors, in which the existing storefront rough openings would remain, with a new proposed glazed storefront system within the existing openings. There would also be new proposed signage to be submitted under a separate permit. Next, he showed a map of the area, highlighting this project and also showed street level pictures of the current storefronts. He moved on to show and describe the existing elevations and then the proposed changes. These would include on the East Hopkins side, a new blackened metal framed glazing system. They would also like to introduce a new natural accent material in the form of a green Italian marble stone clad header and cornice. He then described the proposed elevation changes to the S. Galena side of the building. These are similar to the Hopkins side changes but would also include the storefront entry. He noted that the Building Department had provided a few comments and that they would be complying with them. Next, he went over in more detail the proposed recessed storefront entry bay that was needed to accommodate the ADA compliant access ramp. The ramp was necessary due to the difference in height between the sidewalk and the interior floor. The storefront renderings were then showed and described as well as the proposed materials. To add some context Mr. Choi showed the proposed interior floorplan and rendering. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 8TH, 2022 Ms. Sanzone asked if the windows on Hopkins, even though not “fashion” windows, would be transparent and one would be able to see into the interior of the store. Mr. Choi responded yes that only the right bay on Galena St. would be intended to be an encapsulated fashion window. Staff Presentation: Sarah Yoon – Historic Preservation Planner Ms. Yoon started by describing the details of the request for approval and why it is before the HPC board for review. The building itself is not a landmark structure, but anything with a design review within the Commercial Core is brought before HPC. She then went over the existing site context and proposed fenestration changes. She pointed out a few commercial design standards and guidelines, including #1.23 which speaks to the materials used and that they should related to the current context on the block. Staff wanted to point out that the proposed green Italian Verde Alpi Marble proposed on both the west and north elevations, is something that is not seen within the historic district and does not meet some of the description details in #1.23. Staff is recommending that this material be restudied to a different cladding that is found in the commercial core. Staff had similar concerns and recommendations related to the green tile proposed for the interior of the storefront windows. She also stated that the use of the tile in the facia pocket wall reduces the look of the overall height of the storefront window. She stated that the commercial core district focuses on heightened storefront windows at ground level and that the proposed design does minimize that look. She then discussed the proposed entry and while it does meet the minimum recess from the front façade, its overall footprint is not consistent with the context of the district. Staff is recommending restudy of this element to make it more in character with the surrounding storefront areas. She went on to talk about commercial design standard 2.11 which describes maintaining a floor to ceiling height of 12 to 15 feet and staff feels, again that the proposed design of the pocket walls in the storefront windows to distract from the overall floor to ceiling height feel and asked that that be restudied along with the tile materials. She then reviewed staff recommendations, including restudy of the entry vestibule, cladding materials and the dropdown ceiling detail in the storefront windows, all to be more contextual with other storefronts in the district. Mr. Fornell asked about the affordable housing mitigation calculations regarding commercial spaces and if it is related to the overall size of the space and the combination of two commercial units. Ms. Yoon said it does not, and that this project is accounting for the entire space. Mr. Moyer asked if the building had a basement and what the total square footage of the two units combined. Ms. Yoon said it does have a basement and Mr. Choi said the combined square footage was 5,444 square feet. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISSCUSSION: Ms. Thompson made a motion to extend the meeting until 7:15pm. Mr. Fornell seconded. All in favor, motion passes. Ms. Thompson reviewed what needs to be discussed related to materials and the entry vestibule. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 8TH, 2022 Mr. Moyer agreed with staff on the restudy but commented that this building was one of the biggest mistakes they have made and that nothing of the building relates to downtown Aspen. He went on to explain his thoughts. Mr. Fornell did not have an issue with the size of the entry but did have issue with the building being broken into two different styles. He was concerned with the conflicting styles. He also did not have issue with the perceived lower heights of the storefront windows. Mr. Halferty agreed with staff’s guidelines relating to the materials. Ms. Sanzone asked Mr. Choi is the marble materials proposed would have some type of a finish that would reduce its shine and add traction in the entry way. Mr. Choi said that the flooring marble in the entry would be honed to create texture. Ms. Sanzone wondering if the applicant knew if the material would withstand Aspen’s climate. Mr. Choi said they could also embed some slip resistant strips. Ms. Sanzone satisfied with the application as presented related to the vestibule and thought it met the guidelines. She also thought the materials could be reviewed with staff to make sure it complies with design guidelines. Ms. Pitchford did not agree with Mr. Moyer’s frustration about the building. She concurred with staff’s recommendations on the areas of restudy and had some issues with the green marble not complimenting the context of the district. Ms. Thompson did not have any issues with the form of the entry. As for the soffit height drop in the front windows, she thought that the materials fall to the interior of the building, which HPC does not have purview over. She also did not have issue with the soffit dropping down in front of the windows as she believes you would still get the appearance of the 12-foot interior space. The only thing she thought should be restudied was the marble materials on the exterior as it is not an appropriate material. Ms. Thompson reviewed members thoughts on staff’s proposed areas of restudy. As for the entry design the board was split on being ok with it or wanting restudy. Mr. Moyer said he would be ok with the proposed entry. As for the dropped soffit the board did not think it was in their purview. The board then agreed that the marble materials should be restudied. Mr. Choi asked for some clarity on what the board would be looking for when it came to different materials. Ms. Thompson thought that the design guideline relating to “neutral colors” was in question here and asked the other members for thoughts. Mr. Fornell thought the board needed to be sensitive to the applicant’s styling and branding and also to the community. He said this the building not a historic asset and it’s probably not a forever location of the applicant. He had less of an issue with the stone but agreed that a more natural product would be acceptable. Ms. Thompson thought that the proposed is so different and did not mind a natural stone as long as it was more in line with the rest of the materials seen on the building. Mr. Choi asked if the material changes could be a condition of approval in order to move forward with building permits. Ms. Thompson thought that this could be handled by staff and the monitors and that if needed could come back to the board. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 8TH, 2022 Ms. Yoon presented the Resolution. An additional condition was added to have exterior cladding materials be reviewed and approved with staff and monitor. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #10 Series of 2022 as written. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. Project monitors were then assigned. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn. Ms. Pitchford seconded. All in favor; motion passed. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk