Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20150930ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Michael Brown, John Whipple and Gretchen Greenwood. Absent were Nora Berko, Sallie Golden, Patrick Sagal, Jim DeFrancia. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk John will recuse himself on 305 – 307 S. Mill Street Michael commented that at the council meeting they had a lengthy discussion about view planes. Council left the meeting with the result that most of them didn’t understand the view planes and they hadn’t reviewed the criteria and there are a lot of subtleties and ambiguities and they left thinking that staff would conduct a work session on view planes. HPC should attend that work session. We need to have a good understanding of what we are being asked to review. Jim said council wants to have a work session but the challenge is scheduling. HPC and P&Z would attend. Chris Bendon and myself will do a detailed analysis of the history and the language that is used in the code. Tonight you should consider the language as you interpret it and the facts before you. Jim said some of the code language was written in the 70’s 80’s 2000. There are some inconsistencies in the code language. John said he will recuse himself on 305-307 S. Mill 434 E. Coper – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and View plane Review, Public Hearing cont’d from Sept. 9th Amy said at the last hearing everyone was mostly supportive. Demolition discussion was removed from the hearing and it was determined that it is not a required review process at this time. No one can pull a demolition permit In an historic district until the replacement building is approved and that is what has taken several years. The demolition permit stands and the applicant has to pursue the application in a timely fashion because there is ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 2 language in the code about abandonment of an application. Staff said overall the board is supportive of this new replacement building which is a rectangular building that fills the entire lot. Store fronts are at the front of the lot line which is supportive by the design guidelines. Staff mentioned modulations of the façade breaking it down into 30 foot widths expressing the traditional foot print of town. HPC didn’t find that the modulations were an issue because of the columns along the façade at approximately 30 foot intervals express that intent. There is no primary entrance in this design that faces Cooper Ave. and we feel that there needs to be some orientation in that direction that can be addressed at final. The corner treatment was also discussed. Staff objected to the rounded corner that happens on the second floor of the building. The only time you find the rounded corner is on the Elks Bldg. A chamfer flat corner at a 45 degree is recommended for final. Staff is recommending approval with the condition that more information is needed about the transportation impact analysis for final. The applicant is proposing cash-in-lieu payment for the on-site parking. Public amenity: The applicant is expected to maintain 10% of the property open to the sky or some equivalent which could have been a second floor roof deck which is what they propose or cash in-lieu payment. We don’t find that the roof deck meets the public amenity requirements because it is not directly adjacent to a restaurant space and it is not clear what it would be used for that would require public access. We support cash-in-lieu payment equivalent to 10% of the lot size. There were comments made at the last meeting that the building looks like it was influenced by another place and that is a concern of ours. View plane: Amy said this project is subject to view plane review. The view plane originates from the Wheeler Opera house. There are two things you need to consider in determining whether a project can be accepted as proposed or needs heightened scrutiny for the view plane protection. View plane guideline: Development within designated mountain view planes as set forth in this section shall be subject to heightened review so as to protect mountain views from obstruction and strengthen the environmental character of the city and maintain property values and enhance the city’s tourist industry by maintaining the city’s heritage as a mountain community. Standing at the Wheeler Opera house you could not in any way see any part of this building from the advantage point. There is development in between the two spaces that is already taller and obstructing ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 3 the view. HPC is supposed to determine whether there is any new impact here that is beyond minimal. You are also supposed to determine if there is some opportunity that exists that buildings between the Wheeler and this building might be torn down and reopen the view plane and we need to be sensitive to that. There are several buildings between the Wheeler and this site that are designated landmarks. An example is the Red Onion, Paragon Bldg. 410 E. Hyman and also the Independence Building. Michael said the memo of Sept. 9th talked about the criteria for demolition approval and the project did not proceed to HPC final review and the approval lapsed. Amy clarified that the previous conceptual approvals lapsed; however the issue is the demolition approval granted in 2006 and whether that has remaining status. There was a change in ownership and it has been determined that they have shown adequate effort to continue to try and get a replacement building approved. Jim said the issue was raised to the City Attorney’s office and we reviewed this we the Community Development and with the applicants representative and we felt that under the circumstances and unusual history of this building including the determination by council when they had the ability and opportunity and considered an involuntary designation and determined not to do that it was determined that the demolition permit was still active. Michael said he doesn’t understand how one could construe that demolition rights would last for 9 years on an approval. Jim said the circumstances which started in 2007 which included a determination that this was not an historic building were granted a demolition permit at that time and it has proceeded in one form or another since then that that demolition permit approval is still valid. We are strongly recommending that this project be completed once and for all. Council chose not to designate the building and that was an action by council that upon which the previous owners and potential owners could rely on. There actions must proceed appropriately and quickly. Michael asked if there is a section in the code that states how long a demolition is good for or what actions need to take place so that everyone has clarity. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 4 Jim said this applicant can rely on the demolition permit. There is a whole body of law that enforces that position. Michael commented that he fails to see how the situation is different than it was in 2006. Jim said it is substantially different because there was an action by council that could have involuntarily designated the property historic. Michael explained that his issues is whether the process is legally being followed. Jim said he assured the board that the process is legal. In 2006 we had the power to involuntarily designate it and now council does not have that power. Any designation has to be voluntary. Mitch Haas, Mark Hunt, Herb Klein, Dwayne Romero Mitch did a power presentation on the location of the building. The south side of the property is in the Wheeler Opera House view plane. Everything on the north is the standard 28 foot height limit. There is 243 square feet of public amenity space. The requirement of 10% is about 900 square feet and we are fine with cash-in-lieu. Mark Hunt said the building is a Fritz Benedict building and is really in rough shape. At the last meeting we were directed to make the building taller and be more bold and hold the corner. We have done many studies. We wanted to put a prominent building on the corner and we took inspirations from buildings such as the Elks building and Brand building with its mortar and stone. We are working with steel for the store fronts. We feel the rounded corner is appropriate and the steel ties in with the mining era and it is simple. The glass in the doors reflects the 45 degree angle. The store fronts are 30 feet on Galena and on Cooper they are 27 feet. The curve is set behind the plane of the lot line. On the second floor windows we separated them in a punched way and broke up the windows with a steel shade. There is no residential on the second floor. View plane: The height on Cooper is 25 feet and 28 is allowed. On the alley, Galena Street drops down and the height is 28 feet. The Red Onion ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 5 bldg. measures 35 ½ feet tall at the front. The Red Onion blocks the view plane. The Independence bldg. is 42 feet tall and is a landmark. The odds of any of these buildings going away and getting redeveloped in compliance with the view plane height limit is about 0. One would have to build a building less than 7 feet tall and you cannot build a building of that height and comply with building codes. Mitch said the goal is to be compatible but not mimicking anything. Mark said Cooper Ave. has an entry to the second floor. Mark said he understands the 30 foot concept on Cooper but there are actually buildings a lot smaller than that. Herb Klein, attorney for the applicant explained that there was a memo in 2012 from staff that states the demolition approval of 2007 remains valid. This was part of the due diligence when Mr. Hunt bought the property. In the code for abandonment it relates to a development order expiring and a demolition approval is not a development order or a site specific development plan. We could not find anything in the code that had a sunset provision and we agree with the City Attorney’s analysis. Michael said we are being asked to make a decision that circumvents that demolition criteria that will be de-facto tearing down that building. Herb said the HPC in 2007 voted against land marking and City Council voted against land marking. Jim said if a demolition permit were denied here in essence there would be a involuntary designation and we do not have that power anymore. John said we should take the advice of our own legal counsel that this is a moot point and move forward. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis commented that the applicant has accepted the cash -in-lieu. Staff has supported the analysis of the view plane. The 30 foot modulation on the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 6 Cooper Street needs addressed. The corner also needs discussed. Parking and affordable housing will be taken up at final. Willis commented that staff’s position is good particularly as it relates to the corner. The second floor window treatments has a reduction in scale and the sun shad devices are a good feature. Staff brought up the point that the Galena Street side should not be treated the same as the Cooper side and there should be more emphasis on the entrance on Cooper. Regarding the corner with metal there is still a concern with the double height reading of the entrance on a two story building. Gretchen said nothing has changed from the last meeting. The project does not meet 6.27 to 6.31of the guidelines. This is one more very monolithic large building and does not have a breakdown of scale. There is also not a variation of the building height. As a pedestrian walking on the mall there is a breakdown of scale with small buildings. On the north side of the mall there are variations of buildings set back. This building is also competing with our majestic buildings downtown like the Elks’s building and Brand building. Does this building enhance or detract our Historic Preserv ation. This building in terms of mass is not compatible with Aspen. John said he is largely in agreement with staff’s memo. John commended the applicant for a 28 foot and 25 foot building. I am OK with the 30 foot undulation. With the 22 foot segments and columns is about as close as you can get in breaking down the facades. The punched windows are fine and the wrap around the alley with windows brings light in. The view plane is fine. We are at 25feet and 28 feet. Regarding the chamfer front on the corner the features and metal make it a product of its own time and I enjoy the building and it will be a nice feature. We really need to commend the applicant for being below the height limit. Bob said the issue he keeps hearing is the corner whether it be rounded or chamfer. I feel the corner and structure is a very friendly structure but could go with a flat chamfer as we move forward. Gretchen pointed out that it is pleasant walking down the mall seeing the changes in the buildings. You have that with the Red Onion building. The height of 25 feet is great if the building could be broken up. This building does not meet guideline 6.3 (the building should be designed to reflect the individual parcels). This 100% does not do that. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 7 John said the lots were combined with one structure previously. Michael said he has no issue with the view planes on this building. The Red Onion building is in the way and I don’t see that building getting redeveloped. I question the wisdom of lot line to lot line with no public amenity onsite with every building in the core. I like the chamfer corner and design guideline 6.22 emphasizes that it should be flat. This building is not reflective of the fenestration that you see in Aspen. I understand that the uses are different today but our guidelines do not jive with the uses of the upper level floors. I would prefer council opine on demolition before we make a decision. Bob said the function of the building is different than in the past. Gretchen said that the building proposed does not fit in the fabric of the buildings that are in the core. There needs to be a break down in scale. This is a large building in a small downtown. John pointed out that this is a two story building under the height limit. Willis said the conditions of the resolution would address the chamfer corner and perhaps changing the character of the two street elevations. Amy said if the form, footprint and height are OK you could move the rest to final. Fenestration can be dealt with at final. Mark said regarding mass and scale Gretchen’s comments would be appropriate midblock. This is a prominent corner and this building holds the corner. What is important are buildings that hold the corner and are significant. We came in with a one story building and it wasn’t appropriate and not tall enough. We push for the 30 foot widths and the height limit is 28 feet. It is kind of backwards. The 28 foot height is at the alley and there is a three foot grade change. The ceiling heights on the second floor range from 7 ½ feet to 10 feet. It is smaller than the building that exists now. Willis said up and down with three different fabrics along three different 30 foot widths is not appropriate. The Galena Street side is successful. Coming back with a chamfer corner and coming back with more articulations and ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 8 creating the difference between the Cooper facade and Galena facade might get approval. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #26 with the conditions that a chamfer corner 45 degree be on both floors and there is a one story expression of entry at the corner. A transportation analysis for final review needs submitted. There needs to be a difference between Cooper and Galena store fronts. A more public entrance off Cooper be acknowledged. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Gretchen, no; John, yes; Willis, yes; Bob, yes; Michael, no Motion carried 3-2. 305-307 S. Mill Street – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and View plane Review, Public Hearing continued from July 22 John recused himself Amy said in July the proposal was for a scrape and replace and the board had concerns regarding a lot line to lot line redevelopment. The existing building is a u shape and will be clad with new materials. New construction will occur in the open notch at the center of the site. There will also be a new addition at the north end of the property where the popcorn wagon sits. We are looking at 1000 square feet net leasable all above grade and no basement excavation and a real reduction in the construction impacts that were previously submitted at the last meeting. The applicant is planning to retain the existing building but if they were to go cross the threshold of removing more than 40% of the surfaces of the existing building it would be considered demolition. We have applied the demolition criteria because it is in the historic district and we aren’t sure if the calculations will go over the 40%. We have found no historic significance. The arched façade building was built in the 60’s but we have never found any documentation on this building. The popcorn wagon is a vehicle and a movable object and is not something that could be considered for designation. It has been moved a few times. Remodeling: Amy said recladding the existing building and breaking it up into distinct modules is successful. The arch is being retained and that is a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 9 nice connection to other buildings downtown. The new additions are lower in height than the existing structure and primarily glass. The storefronts have nice connections to other storefronts downtown. There are entry points on all facades which meets the design guidelines. With the new development less than one parking space is generated. The applicant is proposing cash-in-lieu. Public amenity: Amy said the property has right now 1,330 square feet which is about 22% and the applicant has to meet that again. The applicant is showing 834 square feet of open space and a little less than 500 square feet to be mitigated by cash-in-lieu. We find that to be appropriate. Exhibit I – new drawings Amy said with regard to trash they are enclosing the trash area and enlarging it and making it more in compliance with the requirements. Environmental Health supports their plan. The trash area is larger than the requirements. One ongoing concern is the mechanical equipment. It is not represented on the plan and the concern is the visibility of the mechanical equipment and how it sprawls across the roof and that can be seen from the Wheeler Opera House. The revised plan indicates that the new roof top equipment will not exceed the heights of the existing roof top equipment. This does not satisfy the concerns that the mechanical is all over the place on the roof. There is no organization to it and potentially intruding into the view plane. We have suggested that all mechanical be consolidated on the new addition in the middle and hopefully it would be lower than the surrounding development and hidden. Right now there is no representation on where it would be and how tall it would be. This is important to the view plane impact. The applicant also needs to submit a transportation impact analysis for final review. View plane: Amy said there is a view plane that stretches all across the frontage of the Wheeler property. Then it projects toward Aspen Mountain in a wide cone. This building falls right into it. It hits the property line at about 7 feet. The proposed new development is lower in height than the existing structure. The new development that will happen in the middle of the site is lower. We feel that there is no new impact on the view plane and we don’t feel there is a likelihood of new development of this site that would open up the view plane and lowering all the new construction to lower than 7 feet. We feel an exception is appropriate and HPC needs to make a finding ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 10 that there is minimal or no impact on the view plane or that there is not the likelihood of future development that would open the view plane back up. Amy said the commercial core zone district requires a minimum of ceiling to floor height of 13 feet which is basically the height of the existing building. The applicant is proposing that their new construction be 11 feet tall. They could raise the height to 13 feet but that contradicts the view plane desires. HPC needs to decide if the 11 feet is too squatty in proportion with the historic district. Mitch Haas presented a power point on the development. The trellis is at the property line and is 10.6 feet in height. At the front we have a 6 foot setback and an 8 foot setback on Mill Street. The addition is pulled back from the street and does leave a good amount of open area around the building. No mechanical would be taller than existing mechanical equipment. If we did Amy’s suggestion it would have to be set back 15 feet from the street and the concern is whether there is enough area. The basement below Jimmy’s Bodega would remain for storage. Mark Hunt – The existing site is made up of two buildings and a trellis. The first time we came in we showed one building then we looked at the corner and set the addition back and made it light and airy and open. We will re- clad the Bodega building with accordion windows. The space in the center is around 700 square feet. We pulled everything back to make the façade on the park side pop out as well as the arch and clean everything up. Mitch presented the board with a power point of the view planes. The view plan hits the property at 7.3 inches tall which is less height than the existing popcorn wagon and one could not build on this property and comply with the city building rules and view planes. The building code has a standard door at 7 feet tall. The door framing would put it above the view plane. Commercial design standards have the entrance at sidewalk level so you can’t sink down into the ground to provide the space to fit within 7.3 inches. We have conflicting regulations and it is impossible to comply with all of them at the same time. We have not gone to the full height of 13 feet to not push into the view plane. The Gray Lady height is 13.5 feet tall. We listened to the feedback from the last meeting and the public and dialed the proposal back from a redevelopment that was much taller than what is being presented today. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 11 Commissioners: Bob commented that the proposal is moving in the right direction and the application has come a long way. In the presentation it shows the popcorn wagon disappearing and in the minutes it states that you are offering it to the city as an amenity and they can put it anywhere they want to. Mark said that is an option but there is room in the 6 foot setback for it to sit. Michael said all the renderings indicate the popcorn wagon staying. Mitch said that was the case before we were told we needed 300 square feet of trash and recycling. The feeling now is with a six foot setback we will still be able to fit the popcorn wagon in. Mark said he feels the popcorn wagon will fit. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman, attorney said he is speaking for 5 of the six space owners of which I am one in the building next door Wheeler Square building. Gideon said they appreciate that the applicants have been meeting with us and discussing the concerns. We want to address three issues that were left after the changes were made and that Mark and Mitch have agreed would be appropriate to put in the resolution and I hope HPC would consider doing that. That the applicant will work with the neighbors on the construction management plan. That the applicant will fix the drainage problem along the property to prevent their drainage flowing onto our property that it currently does. That the applicant commits that the rear door facing the alley toward Wagner Park will not be used for the public and will remain in its current configuration. We are appreciative of the applicant working with us. Gideon commented that to approve this HPC is making a finding that for commercial space in the downtown 8 foot ceilings are not really desirable and the code requires first floor ceilings to be much higher in that zone district and the justification to allow an encroachment into the Wheeler view plan to allow for realistic ceiling heights is in part because the encroachment is minimal and in part because the rear of the existing roof top mechanical already intrude. Our building next door has the same view plane issues and same similar situation and that the same logic and findings you would approve to our minimal changes to comply the same way if we came in with the same kind of request. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 12 Gretchen said in regards to drainage one property cannot drain onto another property and Engineering will make sure that doesn’t happen. Michael commented that the request is a private party agreement. Jim said HPC would not normally have the authority to put these as conditions on this particular approval; however, if the applicant is willing to put those as conditions voluntary they can do that. If HPC doesn’t want them as conditions that would be up to them also. You don’t have an obligation to put it in and you can’t mandate it. Willis said there is an opening on the south side and the windows look like a service counter. Amy said they are windows. Bob said you can’t make that a food service area. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Mitch said we want to be good neighbors and we can memorialize the agreement between us privately or in the HPC resolution. Amy said any agreement has to comply with all city regulations. On the door the city doesn’t want to be enforcers as to who is goin g in and out of the door. Jim said they cannot agree to something that is not consistent with our requirements. I would say the same regarding the door. Any condition would be subject to compliance with all city regulations. Gretchen said there are codes in place to handle the issues between the applicant and neighbors. I would not support putting it in the resolution. Gideon pointed out that the board encourages applicants to work with the neighbors and I would hope you would agree to add it in the resolution. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 13 Michael said it is hard to insert elements that do not come under purview in the resolution. Willis identified the issues: Demolition Public Amenity Utility trash enclosure View plane issues Mechanical equipment Willis said this project is 1/5th the size of the previous presentation. The quality is much higher. It enhances the pedestrian experience tremendously. I do support the view plane being less restrictive than what is there now. I could also see someone taking a more drastic point of view regarding the view plane based on what the guidelines say. The drainage plan etc. will be captured by the Building Department requirements. The rear door is not relevant given the glazing and openings proposed. Gretchen said she is happy to see the changes and what they have done is kept a building so that there is some familiarity in new development that people can recognize. That is an important key element that is being lost. The reduction of the view plane is appropriate and I support lowering the building. The trash area is great and the public amenity is excellent on the street. Regarding the mechanical if you lower the ceiling where the bathrooms are to as low as possible maybe the roof line can be lowered and put the mechanical equipment in the area where Amy suggested but get the roof down. You don’t need ten foot ceilings in the bathrooms. A mechanical plan should be submitted at the next meeting. I like what you have done on this corner lot breaking up the height, breaking up the mass and it has a breakdown of scale which is appropriate for Aspen. The transparency of the north building is appropriate and the fact that you can walk outside anywhere in that building. Bob said he feels strongly about this project and it has been very well thought out and you retained some of the character that exists and I like the architecture and transparency. It is a very commendable project. The existing buildings are a hodgepodge. Congratulations on the re-thinking of the building. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 14 Amy pointed out that the public amenity calculation etc. will be confirmed during the building permit process. Michael said he reviewed the minutes from April 17, 2013 hearing with regard to the addition of the trellis to the building. The minutes stated that the trellis is being built to give the popcorn wagon a sense of being. What happened, it go pushed into a corner vs. being exposed. In the 80’s there was a fire pit around the wagon and it was a great public amenity. We are putting a roof on the trellis and enclosing everything. It was also stated that the trellis destroys the openness of the corner. I would like to see the public amenity maintained and I don’t support the cash-in-lieu and I don’t agree with the view plane and I read the standard. I went to the edge of the observation point and looked in the spectrum and it has an effect on the view plane. I’m not sure that building wouldn’t get redeveloped to open the view plane further. Willis said the standard is that the view plane is minimal and less than what is there currently. Gretchen said if the bathroom roof was lowered you would pick up 3 feet and the mechanical might work there. They also need a plan for final and how it is going to be covered up from the top. Amy said the mechanical plan needs some organization to it so it is in the most minimal impact area. Bob said he needs to see a plan for mechanical that shows the function of the space. MOTION: Gretchen moved to approve resolution #27 as prepared by Amy with the condition that a roof plan be presented showing the mechanical and final heights of equipment at final. No higher than 13’5”. Motion second by Willis. Roll call vote: Gretchen, yes; Willis, yes; Bob, yes; Michael, no. Motion carried 3-1. MOTION: Bob moved to adjourn; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 15 Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk