Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20150909ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Patrick Sagal and Michael Brown. Jim DeFrancis, Sallie Golden, John Whipple, Nora Berko and Gretchen Greenwood were absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Sara Nadolny, Planner MINUTES: Willis moved to approve the minutes of August 26th 2015 as amended by Bob, Michael and Willis. Motion second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Michael said he has known the applicant for 434 E. Cooper and 447 E. Cooper, Mark Hunt for 20 years. Debbie asked whatever personal feelings you may have about Mr. Hunt can you set those aside and make an impartial decision based on the facts and record. Michael said without question. 434 E. Cooper – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition and View plane Review, Public Hearing Debbie said the affidavit of posting is in order: Exhibit I Amy said we would like the board to not discuss demolition tonight. We are going to discuss the design issues. The property is in the historic district. Conceptual is about height, scale, massing and proportions. The height limit is 28 feet and the floor area is 2/1 so the applicant could be proposing a building of 18,000 square feet which is where they are at. The property is in the path of a view plane projecting from the Wheeler Opera house which is on the southwest upper floor of the site and HPC has to consider whether there is an impact on the view plane. We do find that the design guidelines ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 2 have been met. With the commercial design guidelines they were written when the heights were higher than they are today. The applicant is proposing 28 feet across the site and we find that meets many of the design guidelines which ask for downtown development to be a two story form. There are two guidelines that we think need restudy. The guidelines talk about the façade having some kind of modulation reflecting that the historic town site lots are 30 feet wide by 100 feet deep. We would like to see the 90 foot street frontage have some kind of division whether it is through a column or some other architecture feature to break down the scale of the building into 30 foot wide modules. We don’t see that in the proposed design. Maybe there could be some kind of modulation of the cornice. We have also recommended a restudy of the corner and we support some kind of chamfered or some relief on the corner. A flat face chamfered is more typical than the rounded corner that is shown. We have some concern about fenestration but that is for final. The ground floor is usually glassy and the storefronts are emphasized and the upper floors are more punched minimum openings and there is a distinction between ground floor and second floor. We don’t see that in this application. Affordable housing mitigation will be handled at final. The applicant is also generating the need for around 7 new parking spaces on the site and they are proposing to mitigate with a cash -in- lieu payment. The applicant has provided an initial study as to how they would improve the area (transportation impact analysis). Sara Nadolny said the redevelopment requires the provision of on -site public amenity space or cash-in-lieu payment. Ideally 25% is dedicated to public amenity. The code does allow a deficit to be maintained. The applicant is proposing a roof top terrace as their public amenity space which exceeds the 10% requirement. Staff is not supportive of this kind of mitigation. There is no commercial space that is directly adjacent to the proposed deck. Staff fears limited activity on the roof top level and there are no plans that this will be an activated space. We aren’t suggesting the public amenity be taken care of at the ground level because this is located on a pedestrian mall. Staff is recommending cash-in-lieu payment for the public amenity. With the utility trash delivery area it is located off the alley and the transformer is open to the sky. Environmental Health has reviewed the trash area and find it to meet the size requirements and with an overhang to the building. The trash area is accessed by all tenants through the interior corridor. The Building Dept. has raised an issue that the exit must be a fire rated door and cannot open directly to the trash area. There needs to be a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 3 hallway between the corridor and trash area that meets code for fire safety. That will be restudied for final. The mountain view plane - Sara said the wheeler view plane hits at approximately ten feet in height and exits at about 16.6 at the south and it is impacting a small corner of the south facing second level. Numerous buildings intervene with the view plan already: Paragon bldg. and Independence Bldg. Staff is recommending view plane approval due to the existing buildings encroaching well into this view plane. Amy said staff is recommending continuation to study modulation of the façade to reflect historic lot widths and eliminate the rounded corner and deal with the building code issue. Amy pointed out that windows on the first floor should not be equal with the windows on the second floor in size. Mitch Haas, Mark Hunt, Dwayne Romero Mark Hunt said they have looked at a lot of different options. We wanted something to hold the corner. We have tried to respect the architecture and elements of the buildings in and around town and make a gesture on the openings of architecture of today. We are limited to 28 feet and there is a three foot slope on the site on the mall side of 25 feet. I have always liked the Elks Building and the curve in front. We are proposing steel with older forms of masonry. The details on the building are reminiscent of the mining era to roughen the building up a little. The corner breaks the façade up with a steel element. The 30 foot bays going down Galena are broken with columns. Each column is indigenous stone from here and each column is different and it is hand cut stone with a random stacking. One of our goals was to respect the 30 foot grid. The building reads as one building but the individual tenants would have some sense of their own presence. Mitch said we are OK with the cash-in-lieu which would amount to around $90,000. We can fix the trash situation. On the Wheeler view plan it is one corner of the building. All the intervening buildings interfere and you can’t possibly see the property from the Wheeler advantage point. The Red Onion annex bldg. maintains a vested approval for a 38 foot tall addition plus a ten foot elevator override on top. The Independence Square building is over 40 feet tall. On the corner element the idea was to provide a more modern interpretation of a chamfered. In the past upper floors were for residential uses or office use. In our current economy we are finding second floor retail spaces in Aspen struggle. It would be nice to have those second floor retail ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 4 spaces to be in a more modern building that provides a modern interpretation of what the old purposes were but signify commercial use. Dwayne Romero said this building as proposed and the other buildings are to create better spaces and better buildings and creating smarter buildings. We are recognizing our iconic treasures which create vitality. This application for the Bidwell bldg.is smaller as proposed than the existing envelope. That is rare and there are no penthouses. This building will create foot traffic that will bring people into the Cooper mall. Michael asked if studies were done on the chamfered edge. It was stated that the columns are 30 feet wide. Mark said the columns are 30 feet on Galena and on Cooper we have 90 feet so they are a little smaller on the Cooper mall. Willis inquired how the three foot drop from the corner northward is being handled. Mark said on the ground floor there will be varying heights. Each of the store fronts have different floor heights. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. Phyllis Bronson – I saw the drawings for Base I and II and I like them. For me 434 E. Cooper is a visionary building and reflects architecture in town. The red brick/stone is a contemporary use of materials that are congruent with Aspen. The design of the front has grown on me. That building has been ‘dead’ for years. Andrew Sandler – Marks vision is revolutionary and evolving for the community. Base I, II and the Gap building and this building are forward thinking that we need to attract more people to town. The building is gorgeous. Jay Maytin – I applaud the applicant for creating a good design and it compliments Terry Butler’s hotel very well. The chamfered corner opens up to the mall and public. This is a small building with no residential component. I hope HPC approves this project when it’s time to do so. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 5 Ernie Frywald - I have seen the evolution of businesses come and go. Mr. Hunt purchased my family’s building, the Gap building. Changing the building the way he did on the Gap has made that a dynamic part of our town. This project needs to be done. I like the two-story massing and the Cooper mall needs a boost. Tom Yoder, Kemo Sabe – The building is awful as is. It was stated that everyone would have 30 foot spaces. I am making a public appeal to Mark to stay in this corner. You need to think about Aspen. We can’t please everyone. It is all about determination and it concerns me that we might end up with a cookie cutter environment. We would like to be involved and make a dynamic impressive store in Aspen. Kemo Sabe is one of the must see destinations in this town. It is not the building that will make this successful. Frank Heger - My business is the Aspen Goldsmith and I have been in business for 20 years. I plead with you to keep some kind of character in Aspen intact. There is no small business that can pay $150. dollars a square foot. If you keep destroying the old buildings you will wipe out any kind of local character in this town. Jim Farre – The building is a challenged structure from a merchandising standpoint. The applicant is highly mindful of the aesthetics. The red stone is great and this building is a home run. The building is actually getting smaller. Phyllis Bronson – I don’t want to see Aspen homogenized and Mark isn’t doing that. If you get to see what Mark is doing most of it is not radical, it is transformative. Amy entered two letters into the record. One from Bob Jackobsen who is concerned with the evolution of the downtown was in the packet. A letter from Mari Rainer who’s concerned with impacts on the view plane. Exhibit II. A letter from Sherrie Cutler in support of the design, Exhibit III. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comments. Applicant rebuttal: ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 6 Mark said the 30 foot module is a guideline and it is not to try and make everyone happy. It is about what fits in and what we can be proud of on the corner. We really focused on the design and we want to make it work for a retail experience. Willis thanked the applicant and those individuals who came to the meeting. Willis identified the issues: View plane Utility and trash Mass and scale Standards Public amenity cash-in-lieu A 30 foot module is encouraged by the guidelines The corner treatment Willis said the building is not creating any major issues with the view plane. The likelihood of buildings being redeveloped that would expose this building to be worse is virtually impossible. The trash and utility can be rectified for the Building Dept. Cash-in-lieu for the public amenity is appropriate. I agree with Amy that the height, two story block is the right gesture at this corner. The 30 foot modulation is generally satisfied with the vertical pilasters that are down the mall and Galena Street. Maybe for final you could map out in town examples where brick and metal are used. Michael said there are no impacts being created by this building regarding the view plane. The trash utility area sounds reasonable if the Building Dept. approves it. I have no issue with the cash -in-lieu for the public amenity. There is a lot to be sorted out with the fenestration on the second floor. The materials are very successful. With respect to the modulation of the bays I’m still thinking about that and the corner. Bob said he appreciated Mark’s comments regarding the design. The project overall fits in both with form and materials in Aspen. There were some historic references to the chamfered corner and it is appropriate. Rather than having a hard corner it softens the building. I would support the applicati on and maybe some tweaking. Willis said staff is recommending a squared corner. You can have a chamfered entrance but a square second floor is typical of an Aspen block. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 7 Patrick said the utility trash is fine. The steel and brick usage is great. The chamfered is also great. I feel the curve on the second floor is fine and steel is a unique usage. The building is a reference to the Elks building the way you designed it. The 30 foot modules are great and the mass and scale should enhance the modules so that it looks like there are 6 commercial spaces that would draw retail to it. On the second floor windows maybe they could be smaller and have a little more historic character to them. The first floor is chamfered and the second floor is rounded. The second floor can have different treatments. Willis said the corner reads like a two story entrance whether it is curved or flat. Historically guidelines never supported two story grand entrances whether it is a residence or commercial structure. Do we want to support a two story entrance or a once story scale entrance. A one story entrance is more in the spirit of the guidelines and commercial development downtown. Michael said this building has to dialogue with the building across the plaza. Bob said if you take away the curved element then you are going to come back with a flat corner. Mark said he has a chambered corner on the first and second level which give it a softer corner. The steel is a design element to soften the corner instead of looking at one big stone building. It breaks it in half at the corner. It is a small building compared to the other corners. MOTION: Willis moved to continue 434 E. Cooper to September 30th; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. 447 E. Cooper – Conceptual Major Development Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, View plane Review, Demolition, Public Hearing cont’d from August 12th. Debbie said the affidavit of posting on 447 E. Cooper was submitted at a previous meeting. Sara Adams said the main change is the trash and utility area. There are drawings of trash on site and shared trash with the adjacent building. The property is about a 9,000 square foot lot. It currently has retail tenants on ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 8 the ground, free market units and deed restricted units. There is a common circulation corridor between this building and the adjacent building that Casa Tua is in. HPC is the only decision making board for this project. Regarding demolition review we find that the criteria are met with this building. It was built in 1950 and it does not have historic significance. It does not contribute to the historic district. The proposed parking is cash-in-lieu which is allowed in the code. Public amenity: The applicant is proposing to use the upper level decks for their public amenity. Staff doesn’t support the upper level decks. We feel there could be a more meaningful contribution either through off-site or cash-in-lieu to meet the public amenity requirements. One of council’s ten goals is the restoration of the pedestrian malls. We are recommending that HPC approve off-site improvements for the pedestrian malls or cash -in-lieu. Building replacement: There are two design issues that we are recommending to be restudied. One has to do with a consistent street wall. The guidelines mention that a minimum of 70% of the front façade should be at the property line. The building is broken up into three modules and it is 90 feet across. The middle module is set back and that is where the 70% is not met. The two smaller modules are set on the property line. There are two decks proposed one on the north and one on the south and staff is recommending those be consolidated into one deck. The setbacks on the upper floor we found were not significant enough to really push the second floor mass back so it wasn’t very visible. By consolidating the decks into one larger deck you would reduce the visibility of that second floor setback and you would start to achieve the undulating height in a little more of a successful way. There are some concerns about floor to ceiling heights but that will be dealt with at final. Utility delivery and trash areas: The on-site trash area is approved by Environmental Health which meets their requirements. The Bldg. code issues are workable with the on-site trash. The shared trash has the trash on the Casa Tua site where it is currently located. They were trying to have the south façade read as an inviting façade since it faces Rubey Park. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 9 Environmental Health did say they would take the shared trash take the project through special review if HPC felt there was a better design by having two street facing facades. View planes: Wagner Park looking from the goal posts to the Independence Pass and Wheeler Opera house view planes. It is hard to see this building from either view plane. The Wheeler also hits this building and there are many buildings blocking it. Staff is supportive of the view plane exemption. We are recommending a restudy mainly to consolidate the decks and bring the ground level store front to the property line so that the guideline of 70% is met. Mitch Haas, Mark Hunt, Dwayne Romero The central core piece connects the Casa Tua building and that would remain and have a new skin. The ridge height of the Casa Tua is 28 ½ feet and our proposal is 28 feet. On the existing building you go up a few steps to the businesses. There is parking in the back rented to off-site people. The existing alley is nicely treated and not utilitarian. Mark Hunt said the design intent on this building is to make it more textural with brick, old world type masonry. We have the opportunity to dress up the back side of the building based on its location with the bus stop and amount of traffic that goes back there. In the back we are positioning the brick and adding shadows and texture. On the mall we staggered the store fronts for texture and define the retail experience. The setback adds some interest and it isn’t a significant setback. This is one building and we wanted to identify the retailers. The trash could be in the center on the alley or shared in the back side with the Casa Tua bldg. Mitch said from the Wheeler view plane you cannot see this bldg. At the rear is where the Wagner view plane crosses the property. If we put the trash/utility in the back it carves out the central portion at the back of the building and it fits a 10 x 10 open to the sky, transformer, plus 200 square foot trash and recycling storage area plus egress etc. It carves out a lot of the building. The other option is to do the trash recycle area on the Casa Tua side. It is in a full on enclosure and the trash haulers roll it in and out. We would increase that to 300 square feet of trash recycle and share that with Casa Tua. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 10 Mark said on the alley there is a three foot elevation change from the mall. At the rear you step down and that is the reason for the lift. Michael asked the applicant their thoughts on the 53 foot module in the middle. Mitch said the 53 foot module is setback one to two feet and the doors are inset from that. It breaks up the massing and creates shadow lines so that it doesn’t feel like one monolithic structure. The two decks on the second floor also break up the massing. Sara said this proposal is 100% commercial. Mark said if each piece was 30 feet it would look blocky. We were trying to incorporate the architecture to actually be the parapet wall. If we dropped the parapet wall something else would have to go there; some kind of railing to meet the code requirements. Sara said it is the perceived height of the middle piece being 19 feet. Your floor to ceiling heights downtown should be between 13 and 15. Maybe there could be a material change for final review. In the evaluation it was determined that the two end pieces should be more vertical. Downtown has strong verticality. The Cooper mall is very varied with the different types of architecture. Amy said the guidelines ask for some variation in the building. In the previous application we looked for that in the façade by expressing the 30 foot modules. Here you have an up down up down rhythm and they were making the gesture in a different way. There are multiple guidelines that talk about scale and breaking it up. Willis opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. Jay Maytin Jay said according to the code the view plan exemption is required. The height is at 28 feet. Half of the second floor is void with a terrace and it opens up to the sky and there is no residential. They are not using all their square footage and creating a void on their building. The annex of the Red Onion was approved at 45 feet across the street with a residential component on top because that was the only way we could make it work. Of all the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 11 buildings on the block nobody’s buildings come up to the property line. There is no continuity. Regarding the trash HPC 100% should consider the back of this building to be designed without the trash component. All the buildings in the alley talk to that area and we need to consider the alley atmosphere. This project is exactly what this commission has waited to see. Mark Goodman said he is a current tenant at 447 E. Cooper Exhibit I photos of the alley. There are obvious misrepresentations. 7 of the 9 parking spaces are tenants and two others are occupied by Gorsuch. There are 5 units and they are in excellent condition. On the view plane they are asking for 7 feet which is an impact on the alley and I urge you not to give the var iance. There is a glass gallery, jewelry store and my store in the existing building. Sara entered a letter from Karen Day letter - Exhibit II – She says the proposal is not in harmony with the block and she doesn’t support the project. Applicant rebuttal Mitch said the parking in the back doesn’t matter who it is assigned to. The code is clear you are allowed to pay cash-in-lieu. There are no kitchen facilities on this property. To be a dwelling unit you have to have bathrooms and kitchen facilities. If you live in one of the dorm units you can use a hot plate which is a fire hazard or go out. The deed restriction is for 3 units of a specific size. The units there do not match the deed restriction at all. Upstairs there are free market units. There are four units and only 3 legally established. The Gorsuch building is taller in the back and that is where the Wheeler View plane goes through the property. On the view plane it is the impacts from in front of the Wheeler Opera House and what are the impacts from the goal posts in Wagner Park. Mark said when we look at this from a portfolio we are looking at how all these buildings are going to affect and fit in Aspen. We have tried to take small movements, this building and the Bidwell building. We are trying to make the buildings we are replacing better and create an experience that is more fitting today. Willis identified the issues: Demo criteria ok Public amenity cash -in -lieu ok They are asking for relief from the 70% property line rule ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 12 Consolidate the decks Further setback of mass in the center from the north and south side Onsite trash or offsite trash View planes Mass and scale and the guidelines that go along with mass and scale. Willis said the project meet s mass and scale except for the center which is back about 2 feet. There are quite a variation of the properties on the mall with different setbacks. The textual concept is nice for this project. There are many properties in Aspen that have 3 lots that are developed all at once. Maybe the applicant can find some examples or research of the compositions in town. There is nothing in the guidelines that prohibit the bilateral symetry. I am in favor of the off-site shared trash solution. The proposal is not impacting the view planes as defined. Willis said 63% of the entire façade needs to be on the property line and only 48 feet is. Sara said it is only a guideline and if HPC finds that this design is more appropriate and works with the context we can accept that. Bob said he like the project as presented and it fits into the environment at that location. The architecture and use of materials are interesting. The architecture is not trying to look Victorian. This is a considerable improvement from what exists on the site. Patrick said he likes it as designed and it is beneficial and within the character of Aspen. I’m glad there is a setback in the center section. I also feel the second floor windows should be smaller but that will be dealt with at final. The View planes and decks are ok. Mass and scale is fine. I appreciate that it is separated and doesn’t have 30 foot uniform frontages. In the back there will be a lot of bus noise and maybe the applicant should look into soundproofing the south facing side. Michael said with respect to demolition all the criteria are met. Cash-in-lieu for public amenity that is being proposed is acceptable. I also favor the option of having retail on the south side facing Rubey Park. It would activate that side of the building when you exit the bus. I am in favor of the off-site trash facility if Environmental Health can make it work. With respect to the view plane if you stood at either location you would not see an ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 13 impact being created by the building. I would like to see the street façade held at 70%. I find that 19 feet then 15 feet modulations are awkward. Bob said in this community we have tried to have people make use of the allies. If we can solve the problem of the trash I am for the off-site trash recycle. Michael said the arch from the first story of the middle module looks like it goes above the 15 feet and it is unclear if you could create another type of railing that would be more opaque to give the appearance of 15 feet like the outside modules. Sara said she feels it is the windows and whether a different material for the parapet would be appropriate or it might not be appropriate. We would look at that for final. Patrick said he likes the modules as is because it looks different and looks like three separate buildings rather than one uniform building with different frontages. MOTION: Patrick moved to approve resolution #25 as is giving the Environmental Health direction to appropriately approve the shared trash between the two buildings. Cash-in-lieu – public amenity Shared trash with EH approval View plane exemption is granted Demolition is granted Final application submitted within one year. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Bob, yes; Michael, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk