Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20220914 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 Ms. Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:35pm. Commissioners in attendance: Kara Thompson, Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, and Barb Pitchford. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant II Ms. Thompson motioned to adjust the meeting agenda to start with New Business. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes. NEW BUSINESS: 422 – 434 E. Cooper Ave. –Substantial Amendment to Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Chris Bendon – Bendon Adams Mr. Bendon started by introducing the project and applicant. He also introduced Jimmy Marcus, the project manager from M Development. He mentioned that the massing of the project is the same, but some detail changes have triggered this review by HPC. He then briefly went over the past approvals for this project. He then showed a few historical pictures of the building. Showing a rendering of the project approved in 2016 next to the proposed rendering he went over some details of the approved design and proposed changes. One change was to relocate the main entry to the corner, to which Mr. Bendon showed some other examples of corner entries in the downtown. He then showed approved and proposed renderings of the secondary entrance on Galena St. and went over the proposed changes. Next, he showed some examples of skylights currently in the downtown, going over some of their details and also mentioned the approved, but yet to be developed skylight feature at the new Jazz Aspen project at 414-422 East Cooper. Then he went over proposed materials and showed a few examples of different bricks and a picture of a skylight that was the inspiration for the one proposed for this project. Mr. Bendon mentioned a letter that the HPC members had received (Exhibit L) from the attorney of a neighbor to the project. Mr. Bendon went over the concerns of glare and glow that the neighbor expressed. He said that he had spoken to the neighbor’s attorney and that they would work as a good neighbor and that the neighbor’s views were important to them. He went on to describe some of the aspects of the design and benefits it will provide the neighborhood. He then introduced Gary Friedman, CEO of RH, and Jordan Brown who leads the design team for RH to talk about their design goals for the building. Ms. Brown and Mr. Friedman spoke to the overall design of the building, what the skylights bring to the project and what they hope to give back to the community. Mr. Friedman started by sharing RH’s overall design philosophy and their vision for the project. Renderings of the proposed skylights and open space between the first and second floors were shown while Mr. Friedman described the details of the skylight design. Ms. Brown reiterated their desire to be good neighbors with respect to being mindful dark sky ordinances and controlling their environment to be both beautiful and harmonious within the place they are. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 Mr. Bendon then showed a picture taken from Little Nell ski run looking into town which included a rendering of the proposed building, noting their understanding of how the building appears from the mountain. He also showed the same view from the mountain into town but as it would appear at night with lighting from the proposed building and the surrounding area. Mr. Moyer asked when construction would resume. Mr. Bendon said as soon as they could, but that there were some decisions to be made regarding this review that translate into structural elements. Ms. Pitchford asked about comments at the beginning of the presentation regarding the recessed secondary entry, that it could be address or fixed. She asked, being a significant issue, if anything more could be explained about that comment. Mr. Bendon explained that in their revised proposal they have changed from the approved recessed entryway to a flat fenestration, but if important to the HPC they could adjust on. Ms. Thompson asked some clarifying questions about modifying their proposed entry way if they needed to recess it. Mr. Halferty commented that the proposed changes to make the entryways flush instead of recessed would add FAR and Mr. Bendon concurred but said it would be nominal. Mr. Halferty then asked if the night view rendering was an accurate depiction of the lumens that would come from the skylight. Mr. Friedman said it was pretty accurate. Mr. Bendon noted that since the secondary entries were mainly intended for egress the flush mounted design would differentiate them from a primary entrance. Ms. Thompson asked if the main entrance on the corner would be covered. Ms. Jordan said the door is slightly recessed but is not covered by an overhang. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice, and that notice was provided per the code for the agenda item. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon, Planning Director Ms. Simon started by going over the history of the approvals of the project. She said that staff has thoroughly vetted this application and it is an appropriated filed amendment to a standing major development approval granted by HPC. The amendment does not change the massing or character, nor is much of a deviation from what was seen before. She then mentioned that new design guidelines were adopted in 2017 and those are what will be applied here. Next, she went over the differences between “standards” and “guidelines” for review criteria. She mentioned that staff finds some of the revisions to the ground floor to be improvements, namely the increased plate height and narrowing of storefront openings, creating a more vertical proportion and that staff recommends this amendment. She did say that there are two mandatory standards relating to the entrances that staff finds are not met. One standard is that both primary and secondary entries be recessed. There is also concern about the height of the door on the end of the building closet to the alley. The grade slopes there and staff finds the proposed height of the door is inconsistent with others in the neighborhood. Moving to the upper floor, she mentioned that staff has not provided a recommendation of support in regard to the skylights, sighting two guidelines in particular. One being that with the amount of skylights covering enough of the roof space, staff feels it is moving away from compliance with the characteristics of the downtown. Staff REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 has recommended against approval. There is also a concern that with the upper floor already having a lot of glazing, combined with the proposed skylights on the roof it will potentially create illumination that is out of character with the downtown. Overall, staff is in support of the ground floor revisions, but concerned over the roof plane and recommends HPC either provide a partial approval of aspects they find in compliance or after discussion continue the hearing to October 12th. PUBLIC COMMENT: Evan Wyly introduced himself as a neighbor in the Paragon building. He spoke to his concerns the proposed changes will make regarding the increase in height and potential light pollution. He also mentioned concern over the glare that could be produced during the day. Bart Johnson introduced himself as an attorney for Edward Slatkin who lives in the Paragon building. Mr. Johnson spoke to Mr. Slatkin’s concerns about potential impacts from light pollution at night and glare. He also mentioned some concern of the potential amount of activity and noise from the upper terrace. Between the main skylight, that he estimated at over 1,000 square feet, and the 4 other skylights there is a lot of potential light. Ms. Johnson closed the public comment and allowed the applicant to respond to staff’s presentation and public comments. Mr. Bendon thanked Ms. Simon for her time in working with the applicant team on these iterations. He then responded to the two standards Ms. Simon brought up regarding the recessed entries and height of the door on the north end toward the alley. He said the applicant team see those as more detail oriented and they could be worked on with staff and monitor. He noted that the design team had spent a lot of time on the skylights thinking about how to make them a beautiful element of the building with minimal impact to pedestrian view planes. He noted that they are in compliance with the code regarding the height of the building and that the downtown core does have activity and the building has always been designed as a commercial space. They do have empathy for the neighbors’ concerns and are willing to continue to work with neighbors on the glare and glow issues. Mr. Marcus stated that he doesn’t believe he has even worked with a developer that has been as painstaking with every detail on a design and taken the amount of time honoring the guidelines. He spoke to the benefits this building will bring to the community and that the skylight will be a huge amenity to the town compared to what is usually on most roofs. Mr. Freidman responded to the concerns of evening noise and light. He said that their restaurants take last seating at 9:00pm and they don’t have a bar or serve hard alcohol. Regarding the lighting, they only use dark solar skylights and have low level, extremely dim restaurant lighting. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson started by agreeing with staff that the entrances should be recessed to come into compliance with the commercial design requirements. She also did not think it appropriate to have five skylights but would be ok allowing one skylight and would want to continue the meeting to hear more from the applicant about the details of the skylight and glass. She then appointed Mr. Halfety the chair for the rest of the meeting and said she would rejoin the meeting shortly. Mr. Halferty also agreed with staff regarding the recessed entries. He felt that the skylights work for the space and that they comply with the guidelines. He agreed with the applicants trying to energize more roofs as opposed to just having mechanicals. He thought that the glazing and shading of the skylights in respect to the neighbors could be done with staff and monitor. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 Ms. Pitchford agreed with staff that the secondary entries need to meet the standards and she could not support the skylights as they don’t, in her mind meet the guidelines. Mr. Moyer agreed with staff on the entries and said he was completely opposed to the skylights as designed. If there is to be a skylight it should be flat and not visible from the street. He was also concerned about rooftop implements related to the restaurant. Mr. Bendon said that this may be an item that the applicant would like to continue. He said there are some aspects that can be taken care of with staff and monitor, but the number, scale and scope of the skylights could be something they could look at and potentially come back with a slightly amended proposal. Ms. Simon conferred that the next meeting they could bring this back would be October 12th. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue the hearing to October 12th, 2022. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0; All in favor, motion passes. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon took the time to inform the Board that she would be leaving the City of Aspen. She said it has been a great five years and thanked the members for all the help and support they have provided her. MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue the approval of the minutes from 8/10/22. Ms. Pitchford seconded. All in favor, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer stated he was appalled by the “holes in the ground” and unfinished projects around town. He asked if the Commission could write a letter to City Council demanding that something be done so that this doesn’t go on in the future. He mentioned several comments he has received from people in town. Ms. Johnson noted that this issue came up at the City Council meeting the night before. Many Councilors shared the same concerns and have directed staff to start putting together some options in that area. She said that the HPC board could decide to author a letter and submit it to Council as a board or as individuals. Ms. Simon described some State statutes and City code language that perpetuates approvals for some length of time and that is what we are seeing at work here. Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Moyer’s thoughts and wanted to know if there was some action HPC could make to get some movement on this. She was in support of sending a letter to City Council. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 Mr. Halferty said that he would like to be able to urge City Council on this matter but didn’t want to push their board’s rights. Ms. Johnson said in crafting a letter, the board needed to be careful about open meetings law and went on to explain what can and can’t be done regarding discussions between members. Mr. Moyer said that after hearing comments, maybe a letter would not be advisable at the moment and that members should speak to City Council members and staff one on one. Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Moyer about talking one on one with City Council members and staff and if after that and some time they don’t feel like things are moving, to discuss at a regular meeting and potentially write a letter. ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk