Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20151209ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, John Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal, Sallie Golden, Michael Brown and Bob Blaich. Absent was Jim DeFrancia. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Public Comment: Jim Curtis represented the Aspen Institute and asked if there was any way HPC could push the application to early March or have an extra meeting. Willis said he discussed this with staff and HPC is willing to start one meeting a month at 4:00 to accommodate applicants and expedite the meetings. Amy said the guidelines will be presented to HPC in January and then council will adopt them. Disclosure: Michael said he assigned a contract to purchase a TDR, a transferable development right to Bill Guth for no consideration. Jim said the disclosure is appropriate but not substantive for a recusal. 124 W. Hallam – Conceptual Major Development Review Demolition, Relocation and Variations, Public Hearing Public Notice – Exhibit I Amy said the property at one time was 12, 000 square feet, 4 city lots. A subdivision took place about ten years ago. It is a Victorian era building that has additions and alterations and the 6,000 square foot lot is designated. The corner property will be developed with a new house and it will not appear in front of HPC. The architect team crawled under the building to try and locate the exact perimeter of the original foundation to determine what was old and what was new. The proposal is to tear off everything that isn’t ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 2 original. It is a large cross gable Victorian house which will face Hallam Street. They are requesting to demolish the non-historic construction and the second request is to relocate the house eastward so that they provide the proper side yard setback. They are also asking to move the house forward four feet to the minimum front yard setback line. Also by moving it forward it allows for the proper ten foot connector piece and an addition at the back of the property that doesn’t require setback variances above grade. There will also be a basement. Part of the basement is within five feet of the property line and that will need a variance request. It has no above ground implications. The footprint of the addition is similar in size to the Victorian and we feel that it is not an imposing relationship between the new and old. Staff has concerns with the design of the addition. It has a flat roof, a 25 foot tall cube. There is a roof deck on the addition and instead of having the railing pulled in from the edges it is all in the same plane. We feel there are ways to break down the height or reduce the perceived height of the addition by altering the way they are protecting the roof deck. We are also concerned with the cut in decks and other features that are not visually related to the Victorian. We are looking for a balance of fenestration and materials and compatibility. We also have concerns with the material choices. They are also requesting a 500 FAR bonus and we feel not enough of the requirements for a bonus are met. The restoration work involved will be a benefit to the neighborhood. Staff is recommending continuation to February 10th. Michael asked if just the southern façade needs addressed with the cut in deck. Amy said she feels all of the facades need addressed. Additions should be sympathetic in relationship to the historic house. Bill Guth, owner Zack Rorockett, architect Andrew Alexander Green, Rorockett Architects Zack thanked staff for their great process and good analysis. The parcel has a great relationship to the primary view corridors. We are orienting what was a front door on 1st St. to its historic location on Hallam St. We do have an alley to the north on the rear lot line which gives us prime access to a garage. In addition there are a handful of houses on the alley which we will respect. The parcel to the east has a wonderful buffer of Aspen trees and is ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 3 set back a considerably distance from this lot. The historic house was built in 1880. The southern exposure is along Hallam and the sun will be tracking around the front of the building and shadows to the rear. We will leave a five yard setback to the west and a ten yard setback to the east complying with the ten foot setback to the front and the rear yard setbacks deal with the addition and the garage. There is an existing large window and a cross gable that will be brought back. We took the Sanborn map and lot survey and overlaid the two to find out the historic footprint. The historic piece has been swallowed by additions. The porch will be restored and the central dormer will be brought back. The rear of the house will have a single gable. Zack said the new addition is to the rear. We have brought in the subordinating link element and we created a landscape buffer for a private court. The addition is a simple form that acts as a drop back for the Victorian. We initially thought of a gable form but with the gable the new addition gets quite large and would project 8 feet above the ridge line of the Victorian. That height would also impede on the neighbors. The 25 foot height limit tracks through lower than the ridge of the Victorian. The addition would be 3 feet lower than the historic ridge. We would also like to add a green roof and to the east side a deck. We are also proposing that the parapet operate as the guard rail. The base would be a wood siding similar to what is used on a Victorian and the top would be a milky glass surface that has some wood tracking through it and would be broken down into panels. It is effectively used to de-materialize the top of the building. The milky glass material also breaks down the mass. Each set of materials would be around 12 feet tall on the addition. Zack said the ground floor of the Victorian would be the public space with the kitchen, living room and dining room. The linking element will hold the powder room and the rear addition would have a small two c ar garage and a stair to go up and down and a single bedroom suite. Upstairs on the Victorian would be a suite and across to the addition two bedroom suites. Generally speaking the language is a soft wood siding and a soft milky glass. This addition clearly delineates old from new. Bill said we are trying to accomplish focusing on the Victorian. We are trying to subtly articulate the façade of the new addition. We are breaking down the mass of a 25 foot tall addition into the base and top. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 4 Zack said there is a simple entry path from Hallam Street, with a low wood picket fence, restored porch, restored dormer, restored front façade at the gable. The addition is a few feet lower than the Victorian. There is a landscape zone in between the two houses. There will also be aspen groves along the lot line that further softens the continuity of old and new. Bill said the house on the corner lot will be contemporary with a flat roof. Zack said where we have doors and windows the glass will shift in its transparency. We are imagining single panels that are between three and four feet in width of a certain height that corresponds between the two floors. The technique is to soften the top of the building. Willis said the milky glass is technically cladding with window openings. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agend a item was closed. Zack summarized that their approach is to celebrate this historic asset for the city. It is exciting to restore this house to what it once was. For the addition it is not replicating things on the Victorian. We are through the language of modern architecture trying articulate the volume in such a way that it provides for a kind of human scale and it doesn’t appear imposing and it recedes and allows the Victorian to be on the front which is Hallam Street and it is a quiet addition in the back yard that is not confused as an historic piece. Bill thanked HPC for their time and effort that they put forth on HPC and it is greatly appreciated. Willis commented that the presentation was well thought out. Willis identified the issues: Demolition; relocation southward toward the street; sub-grade eastward variation; FAR bonus 500 square feet; restoration; mass and scale of the addition and the materiality. It becomes important because of the dialogue between the addition and resource. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 5 Willis said the diagram is elegant and the concept is great. The blue sky approach in terms of how the materials interact is close. The milky glass will create a ghosted fenestration at night and during the day it will app ear more of a cladded material. Willis said he can support this if one considers the cladding as another texture. It is also important to know that the neighboring house will have a flat roof with a contemporary structure. Willis said he hopes the board understands the clear glass and what it will look like at night. Patrick commented that it appears they have a very large 25 foot high box and it is a glass box. The guidelines talk about having windows of similar shape. The guidelines say for residential that the roof should be gabled or shed. They should re-design this to have more of a Victorian character. Gretchen said she appreciates the thoughts and concepts as to how the addition was approached. You deserve the bonus for reconstructing the Victorian. The problem with this is the 45 feet long by 25 feet high glass box off the alley. The scale is not compatible with the scale of a Victorian residence in a residential area. The addition doesn’t reflect a residential neighborhood. This building confuses me and doesn’t say I’m a modern building and a product of its own time in Aspen. It is the mass and there is no breakdown in scale of the building. I’m concerned that the materials will be a problem for the neighbors at night. We don’t know how the windows will work in the evening. I am in favor of the setbacks and the bonus. The building needs a significant design transformation to break down the scale to be similar to a Victorian building. John said he is OK with the demolition and relocation to the east and south. The subgrade variance is fully adequate. I’m also OK with the FAR bonus. The porch etc. should be restored to its authenticity as best possible. This is absolutely a product of its time. It is very clear the old from the new. A lot of thought has been put into this design to create a good product and it is appreciated. It is creative and there is so much good change happening to reinstate the historic resource that there should be some allowance for creativity within the perimeters that are very confined. Bob said he is OK with all the boiler plate items. When the image of the pitched roof was shown and the effect on the neighbors behind I think this is a very creative approach. The visual interpretation will be good in that area. It is an interesting modern box and only needs a little tweaking. I am ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 6 positive about the project. It is a benefit to the entire neighborhood bringing back the original house. Nora said she is glad to see the house come back to its original form. Clearly the demolition and the movement to avoid setbacks and the subgrade are all fine. The bonus hinges on the three guidelines and we are not quite there yet. A modern box can also have articulation. We are almost there. I am a little concerned about the 25 foot wall of glass. Maybe having a lighter guard-rail might lighten it up as it feels a little top heavy. Willis said there is more articulation than we realize but it just wasn’t conveyed. Sallie said to bring the house back to what it was is a beautiful project. I am for all the boiler plate items including the FAR bonus because of what you are doing. I am torn with the back addition. It is a beautiful piece of architecture but the guidelines say similar mass and scale to the original Victorian with modern materials. A box could work but the design isn’t there yet. All the glass is a concern and I am torn with the glass at night and what might happen. I haven’t seen a lot of opaque glass used. Willis said most of the milky glass is a wall of insulation. It is really a cladding. The project is challenging because of the form and fenestration. Michael said we will see the fenestration at final. Gretchen said no matter what materials it is a large box. Willis said the materials soften the box. Michael said he thought the presentation was excellent and it helped us understand the project very well. The demolition, relocation, the subgrade variation toward the rear and all OK. I like the design of the connection and design of the addition. It is a product of its own time. Bob suggested having a model for the next meeting to see how the different shapes etc. interact. John said he doesn’t see this as a box. There is a lot of undulation taking place here that breaks up the box. The bottom of the addition is wood. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 7 Willis pointed out that the spectrum of variables in glass is enormous. Michael said at final they can bring in a sample of the glass. Willis said from the alley it shows its true mass and scale. Nora said a little “breakup” might enhance the project. Patrick said guideline 10.9 and 10.14 are not met. There should be a subtle difference not a major one. The window shape is also not similar. Gretchen said she doesn’t have a problem with flat roofs but this is not compatible in the breakdown of scale to the residential character of a Victorian residence. Sallie asked who on the board is ok with a flat roof and the 25 foot height. John, Bob, Michael and Sallie are OK with the flat roof and 25 foot height. Bill said we will go above and beyond on the fenestration and glass samples at final. John said at night the only thing being illuminated are the punched out dotted lines which is the glass for the windows. The applicant has shown what materials they like and this is a full complete packet. Bob pointed out that a lot of the fenestration changes are on the alley. Bill said you barely see the addition from the street and it is a small visual impact. Gretchen reiterated that her concern is the abrupt flat roof for 45 feet and she has stated this on other projects consistently. You need the breakdown of Victorian scale. It looks like a commercial building. Nora said she senses that there is enough discussion about not being totally comfortable with the project and it should be continued. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 8 MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 124 W. Hallam conceptual development to February 10; second by Gretchen. Michael suggested giving the applicant clear direction. Sallie also said if we required a model our discussions would go a lot easier. Bob said you don’t see the new addition on the back from the streetscape or very little of it. A lot of it is on the alley. A pitched roof would not work and I am very positive about this project. There will also be something on the west side of the lot. John said we owe the applicant some direction as to what needs changed. Willis said a block elevation of the alley would is advised and photo sides of the alley. Patrick suggested the applicant listen to staff’s recommendation. Roll call vote: Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes Sallie, no; John, no. Motion carried 5-2. 517 E. Hopkins Ave. – Conceptual Design Review and Demolition Proof of publication – Exhibit I Justin Barker, Senior Planner Justin said the proposed project is to demolish the existing building and replace it with a two story commercial building with a basement. This building is not a designated building but is located within the commercial core historic district. HPC is being asked to review conceptual design, conceptual commercial design review as well as the demolition for the existing building. All other reviews will be combined with the final review. Staff is in support of the demolition. There is currently no parking provided onsite and the applicant has the right to maintain this deficit and will only have to provide for the increase of net leasable which they are going to do through cash-in-lieu. The project is also required to provide a minimum of 10% of public amenity space of the lot which equates to about 900 square feet and it is a 9,000 square foot lot. There is currently 500 square feet of space that qualified as public amenity which is essentially the walkway that ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 9 leads between the street and the alley. The proposed building has a setback area in the northeast corner which is about 285 square feet which the applicant has represented as public amenity space and they are also proposing the use of the upper level decks as public amenity space. Staff is in support of the northeast corner but not for the second story portions. Staff recommends that the remaining be cash-in-lieu payment. There are two design options. Both options have 4 modules to the desig n on the street level. There are three commercial areas and one is the entrance area for the circulation of the building. The entrance area is set back about 14 feet from the property line. Option A which has the center space set back from the property line includes a bridge cat walk between the other two commercial spaces to connect to the roof deck areas. Option B is what is presented after the applicant met with staff which pulls the center commercial area forward so that the three commercials are located at the property line. Option B is in line with the guidelines which bring the building fronts as close to the property line and sidewalk as possible. It helps create a stronger street façade which is what the guidelines request. It also displays a strong height variation which is requested by the guidelines for properties that are over 6,000 square feet. Both designs conform to the zone district. The maximum height is 28 feet and they are at 28 feet. The only portion that extends over that is the elevator overrun which is permitted by right in the code. The proposed development is below what the view plane is and is not subject to view plane review. Staff recommends approval of option B. Mark Hunt, owner Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Mark said the City came to us and asked us to explore putting in some office space and that is why the aspen leaf is on the building. The City decided to go elsewhere. The leaf is a signage place holder. The space to the east is designed to be a shared office environment where there would be short and long term offices with a social environment to that. There is also a health and fitness area as part of the project. We will be using steel and glass partitions to keep it light and airy. The ground floor has a lobby with a large corridor where local artists can hang their work. There are exterior decks above the retail. There will also be benches and landscaping outside. It is one building but we are delineating with the different heights and different facades. There is 285 square feet on the ground that is calculated for public amenity. There will probably be another 750 to 900 square feet provided in the right-of-way. We are only counting the 285 sq.ft. and will pay the cash- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 10 in-lieu for the balance. On exhibit A the ins and outs of the façade are consistent with the block and the color is softer. Adding the wood makes a difference and it works well with the brick and stone as proposed and it engages the street. Mitch said the building itself is set back off the street. The public amenity today is essentially the walkway that leads to a transformer and then to the alley. The walkway is on the northeast side of the property. We can do the balance of the public amenity 903 square feet with cash-in-lieu even though the code says it can be taken in the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-ways or private property in commercial areas. Why we shouldn’t get credit for improving the street scape putting in benches, trees and a detached sidewalk I don’t understand. The view plane height ranges between 30.6 feet at the front of the property and 34.4 at the front and at the back of the property between 36 and 41 feet high. We fall below the view plan and the elevator run is also below the view plane. The existing building is 10 to 12 feet taller than the proposed. The second floor space on the north east will be broken up into pods or cubicles. There are also three broken retail frontages that face the street. Option B would be all brick punched openings on the second floor. Staff is recommending approval of option B. The existing building fails to meet the guidelines with the sunken courtyard. Dwayne Romero, represented the applicant The proposed structure is stepping back out of a pre-existing encroachment into the view plane that runs to the benefit of the court house. The mass and scale of the proposal is completely in line with the concept of small downtown character. The proposal has an active lifestyle health and fitness thread and a community social gathering space tied to it. It is a great program for our community needs and the shared office model is also included that rounds out the program. Mark said the four studio units on the third floor will be replaced 100 percent off site. The second floor is not laid out for retail use. Mitch said the zoning has changed and we cannot have a third floor. Justin said the housing credits will be addressed with the growth management review in the future. They will either build units or buy credits. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 11 John asked staff why they do not like the connecting deck etc. Justin said the design holds the property line and establishes the street wall that is in the guidelines. Mark said option A looks like individual buildings and B is more of the same material. Bob said plan A provides more space on the second floor and has more glass which makes the space lighter and airy. Bob commended the applicant for putting that kind of space in our community and it is needed and successful. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Mitch summarized and said in terms of height, scale and mass we have kept things to the 28 foot height limit. We have broken up the façade into modules to give a rhythm to the property. We have heard in other reviews that breaking up the frontage so that it looks like separate development is recommended. Willis identified the issues: Public amenity Demolition Cash-in-lieu View plane Mass and scale Community character Willis said this is an excellent presentation and the applicant gave a convincing case for demolition. What was lacking in the presentation was the street elevation showing the former Gap building and the Kenichi building. Option A has a better connection and fits with the mix on the street and the context. As Bob said the glass is a functionally good thing for an open office plan. Willis said he tends to supports staff’s recommendation for approval. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 12 Michael said he supports the demolition and option B. Exhibit A presents messy facades going in and out and the punched windows are appropriate. Regarding the public amenity and because of the location on the south side of the street and the fact that there isn’t a real way of providing it I can grant it for the small opening in the entry and paying cash-in-lieu for the balance. The second level doesn’t meet the criteria for public amenity. Patrick said they have done a good job with no variances requested. Having the breakup in option A is preferred. On Hopkins everything historically is pulled back. Regarding public amenity cash -in-lieu has not been beneficial to the community as much as putting physical space on the site. If the public amenity is on the ground floor it works. In general the project works and the concept is great and hopefully it will go through. Willis said the outdoor amenity space represented on the second module is not open to the sky so it doesn’t count for public amenity. Gretchen said she is totally in favor of tearing this building down. Option A is appropriate. The fact that the decks above are connected is a good feature and it feels very community friendly. The breakdown of the building is totally successful. The only concern is the streetscape and the walkway which will be missed. There will be a narrow very small walkway to the very large façade. There should have been more discussion about the corner and the integration of the building. Mark said the building is 14 ½ feet back from the street. Gretchen commented that the board should know what is going on next to the proposed building and see it in plan. The corner is harsh. When applications come before us we need to see a streetscape. Regard ing affordable housing it is a mistake to take any affordable housing away when it could be kept there. Continually moving employee housing out of the core is a huge mistake. The different materials and the way it steps in and out and the details are all great. John said he is in complete agreement with Option A and it is messy vitality and the look of the proposal. When it comes to the public amenity you are reinstating a nice detached sidewalk with benches and in the past portions of what applicants have done were calculated in the public amenity. You should get credit for doing the detached sidewalk and benches because it ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 13 improves the streetscape. The pedestrian sidewalk experience by the old Gap building is one of the best in town. By doing the detached sidewalk you are doing a service to the community. The undulation proposed will do good for the Saturday market. Nora said she also agrees that street scape diagrams should be provided on all applications. Even when you know the street well it is different when you see a new building on it. Philosophically public amenity space should be on the street. Nora said she prefers option B. Option B is much quieter and unified. There are too many materials. Sallie said she is OK with the conditions. Sallie said she would prefer A to look a little more like B, (A ½.) The Theory building next door is one material and not chaotic. I would stand behind that building any day. B feels like a side street. Option A brings in a lot of glass and it doesn’t feel cold. Bob said functionally with the glass A is better. A has a little too many variables. Maybe there can be a middle ground between A & B. The relief of A is good. The fenestration can be dealt with at final. Michael pointed out that the second floor fenestration of all glass will probably not meet the design guidelines for final. A shows a better distinction between the two story element and the one story element of the façade. B looks like it is ready to go to final. Option A might not be what you end up with. Motion: John moved to approve resolution #31, 2015 as written with a minor amendment that option A is conceptually approved and everything else will be addressed at final. Motion second by Willis. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes; John, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, no, Sallie, yes, Willis, yes; Motion carried 6-1. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Cler ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 14