Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibitC HPC Draft Meeting Minutes.204 S Galena.20220608 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 8TH, 2022 Chair person Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, and Barb Pitchford. Staff present : Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant II MINUTES : Ms. Pitchford moved to approve the minute s from 4/27/22, 5/25/22, and 6/2/22. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENT S: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS : Mr. Halferty mentioned that he had been in conversation with Ms. Yoon about the Hotel Jerome’s fixing of the porte cochere . He thought it was a lot but was good with it if Ms. Yoon was. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS : Ms. Feinberg Lopez mentioned that the HPC awards would be presented at the next City Council regular meeting on June 14th. She then referred to the bike tour that was originally scheduled for May 31st has been postponed until June 28th. She then reminded the board members of the work session scheduled for the next meeting. Ms. Yoon mentioned that any commissioner comments related to the lunch meeting they had with Amy Simon related to the moratorium are due by 6/9/22 at noon. CERTI FICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS : None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice and that notice was provided per the code for both agenda items . Ms. Thompson noted that Ms. Sanzone had joined the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 8TH, 2022 NEW BUSINESS: 204 S. Galena Street – Minor Development Review and Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Cheuk Choi – CallisonRTKL Mr. Choi began by introducing the clients from Gucci. He then went over the general site information, including location and building and tenant square footage, and the general scope of work for the project. The two existing tenant spaces are to be combined into one single tenant space, consisting of a proposed 5,444 net square feet. He went over the proposed interior renovations, but for purposes of this meeting will focus on the proposed exterior scope of work. This includes a new proposed storefront window system and ent ry doors, in which the existing storefront rough openings would remain, with a new proposed glazed storefront system within the existing openings. There would also be new proposed signage to be submitted under a separate permit. Next, he showed a map of the area, highlighting this project and also showed street level pictures of the current storefronts. He moved on to show and describe the existing elevations and then the proposed changes. These would include on the East Hopkins side, a new blackened metal framed glazing system. They would also like to introduce a new natural accent material in the form of a green Italian marble stone clad header and cornice. He then described the proposed elevation changes to the S. Galena side of the building. These are similar to the Hopkins side changes but would also include the storefront entry. He noted that the Building Department had provided a few comments and that they would be complying with them. Next, he went over in more detail the proposed recessed storefront entry bay that was needed to accommodate the ADA compliant access ramp. The ramp was necessary due to the difference in height between the sidewalk and the interior floor. The storefront renderings were then showed and described as well as the proposed mat erials. To add some context Mr. Choi showed the proposed interior floorplan and rendering. Ms. Sanzone asked if the windows on Hopkins, even though not “fashion” windows, would be transparent and one would be able to see into the interior of the store. Mr . Choi responded yes that only the right bay on Galena St. would be intended to be an encapsulated fashion window. Staff Presentation : Sarah Yoon – Historic Preservation Planner Ms. Yoon started by describing the details of the request for approval and why it is before the HPC board for review. The building itself is not a landmark structure, but anything with a design review within the Commercial Core is brought before HPC. She then went over the existing site context and proposed fenestration changes. She pointed out a few commercial design standards and guidelines, including #1.23 which speaks to the materials used and that they should related to the current context on the block. Staff wanted to point out that the proposed green Italian Verde Alpi Marble proposed on both the west and north elevations, is something that is not seen within the historic district and does not meet some of the description details in #1.23. Staff is recommending that this material be restudied to a different cladding that is found in the commercial core. Staff had similar concerns and recommendations related to the green tile proposed for the interior of the storefront windows. She also stated that the use of the tile in the facia pocket wall reduces the look of the overall height of the storefront window. She stated that the commercial core district focuses on heightened storefront windows at ground level and that the proposed design does minimize that look. She then discussed the proposed entry and while it does meet the minimum recess from the front façade, its overall footprint is REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 8TH, 2022 not consistent with the context of the district. Staff is recommending restudy of this element to make it more in character with the surrounding storefront areas. She went on to talk about commercia l design standard 2.11 which describes maintaining a floor to ceiling height of 12 to 15 feet and staff feels, again that the proposed design of the pocket walls in the storefront windows to distract from the overall floor to ceiling height feel and asked that that be restudied along with the tile materials. She then reviewed staff recommendations, including restudy of the entry vestibule, cladding materials and the dropdown ceiling detail in the storefront windows, all to be more contextual with other stor efronts in the district. Mr. Fornell asked about the affordable housing mitigation calculations regarding commercial spaces and if it is related to the overall size of the space and the combination of two commercial units. Ms. Yoon said it does not , and that this project is accounting for the entire space. Mr. Moyer asked if the building had a basement and what the total square footage of the two units combined. Ms. Yoon said it does have a basement and Mr. Choi said the combined square footage was 5,444 s quare feet. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISSCUSSION: Ms. Thompson made a motion to extend the meeting until 7:15pm. Mr. Fornell seconded. All in favor, motion passes. Ms. Thompson reviewed what needs to be discussed related to materials and the entry vestibule. Mr. Moyer agreed with staff on the restudy but commented that this building was one of the biggest mistakes they have made and that nothing of the building relates to downtown Aspen. He went on to explain his thoughts. Mr. Fornell did not have an issue with the size of the entry but did have issue with the building being broken into two different styles. He was concerned with the conflicting styles. He also did not have issue with the perceived lower heights of the storefront windows. Mr. Halferty agreed with staff’s guidelines relating to the materials. Ms. Sanzone asked Mr. Choi is the marble materials proposed would have some type of a finish that would reduce its shine and add traction in the entry way. Mr. Choi said that the flooring marble in the entry would be honed to create texture. Ms. Sanzone wondering if the applicant knew if the material would withstand Aspen’s climate. Mr. Choi said they could also embed some slip resistant strips. Ms. Sanzone satisfied with the application as presented related to the vestibule and thought it met the guidelines. She also thought the materials could be reviewed with staff to make sure it complies with design guidelines. Ms. Pitchford did not agree with Mr. Moyer’s frustration about the building. She concurred with staff’s recommendations on the areas of restudy and had some issues with the green marble not complimenting the context of the district. Ms. Thompson did not have any issues with the form of the entry. As for the soffit height drop in the front windows, she thought that the materials fall to the interior of the building, which HPC does not have purview over. She also did not have issue with the soffit dropping down in front of the windows as REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 8TH, 2022 she believes you would still get the appearance of the 12-foot interior space. The only thing she thought should be restudied was the marble materials on the exterior as it is not an appropriate material. Ms. Thompson reviewed members thoughts on staff’s proposed areas of restudy. As for the entry design the board was split on being ok with it or wanting rest udy. Mr. Moyer said he would be ok with the proposed entry. As for the dropped soffit the board did not think it was in their purview. The board then agreed that the marble materials should be restudied. Mr. Choi asked for some clarity on what the board w ould be looking for when it came to different materials. Ms. Thompson thought that the design guideline relating to “neutral colors” was in question here and asked the other members for thoughts. Mr. Fornell thought the board needed to be sensitive to the applicant’s styling and branding and also to the community. He said this the building not a historic asset and it’s probably not a forever location of the applicant. He had less of an issue with the stone but agreed that a more natural product would be acceptable. Ms. Thompson thought that the proposed is so different and did not mind a natural stone as long as it was more in line with the rest of the materials seen on the building. Mr. Choi asked if the material changes could be a condition of approval in order to move forward with building permits. Ms. Thompson thought that this could be handled by staff and the monitors and that if needed could come back to the board. Ms. Yoon presented the Resolution. An additional condition was added to have exterior cladding materials be reviewed and approved with staff and monitor. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #10 Series of 2022 as written. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. Project monitors were then assigned. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn. Ms. Pitchford seconded. All in favor; motion passed. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk