Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160127ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 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, Michael Brown, Bob Blaich and Jim DeFrancia. Absent was Sallie Golden. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Sara Nadolny, Planner Tech Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of January 13th second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. 533 E. Main Street – St. Mary’s Church Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Special Review and View plane Review, Public Hearing cont’d from Oct 28th Amy relayed that the proposal was continued partially about the discussion of the curb cut that exists along Main Street and whether or not the church could continue to use that or abandon it and relocate all access from the alley. The applicant has had discussions with CDOT and the Engineering Dept. has deferred to CDOT. It isn’t completely resolved and the applicant has gotten positive feedback but at this point we are going forward assuming that it will be resolved and no longer an issue. There were also concerns about the size and location of the expansion. We do recognize that this is a project with community good behind it. Staff does have concerns with the specifics of the proposal. The proposal is to create a new event type space on the site. They are well below the allowed square footage on this property which occupies an entire half city block. Most of the event space is below grade. The applicant has reduced the size of the above grade about half. With the proposed addition there is less of an intrusion into the view plane. Staff feels there needs to be discussion on the site plan. We prefer a site plan that would locate any above grade aspect of the pavilion to the center of the lot in the area where there was previously a chapel. Having buildings front Main Street is in keeping with the 19th Century site planning concepts than occupying the entire alley with facades. We are concerned about the basic location of the new construction. We are also concerned with the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 2 shape of it. It is proposed to be a flat roof structure with glass. We like the idea that the addition is minimized in presence but more compatibility with the shapes and character of the 19th Century development on this site is needed. This might not be the time to make st atements with forms and materials in terms of new construction on this site. We would like to see a restudy of the location and shape of the roof over the pavilion element. Most of the meeting space is below grade and day lighted with a roof that pitches with clerestory windows up to 3.6 feet high along the Main Street frontage of the property. This is inconsistent with the character of the property and interferes with the use of the open green yard which a real amenity to the site. There may be a way to create a better courtyard or ground level space that would bring daylight into the basement but we feel this is not the solution. The applicant proposes to redo the egress out of the sanctuary. There is a good exit at the front of the church and at the alley there is a minimal staircase that leads down to the alley that is not offered to the use of the parishioners. The applicant is proposing to add a staircase on the west side of the building. They are offering three options one to completely enclose it, one is just roofed and the third is completely open to the air. If approved staff would recommend the stair open to the air because it has the least impact physically on the building. If it were enclosed you would no longer have review authority over what had become an interior wall of the building so the windows and masonry could be changed without any review and that would be a loss of historic fabric. There would also need to be fire improvements to the doors and windows and could be an alteration that you could be concerned with. Amy said on the front the applicant is proposing something light to open up the existing porch element that is there which is non -historic. The building originally had no covering over the entry. We would like to see a restudy with more traditional materials and closer to the height of the door and not so high up on the wall because the proposal interferes with the expression of the steeple. The trash storage area will be upgraded and the proposal is to have a roof over it and more protected for the needs of the property. Environmental Health requires a roll up door that has at least 9 feet clearance and they proposed building is 11 feet tall. Anything that can be done to reduce the scale would be great because it is right next to the church. Sara Nadolny said there is no standard in the code that relates to parking for civic uses so any requirement for parking on-site is related to net leasable or new net leases on the site. There are three on-site spaces that are garage ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 3 spaces. At the last hearing a formal parking study was requested. The parking plan has been reviewed by the Engineering staff. It concluded that no additional parking is needed for the site and street parking is adequate for special events and new expansion. The study has not yet been reviewed by the Transportation Dept. for comments yet. Staff has issues about expanding both uses and structure and whether parking is needed or not. Staff is recommending holding off on the parking decision until Transportation reviews the study. Sara said other departments feel the proposed mitigation methods are acceptable for the project so we are happy with the TIA and that portion is closed. Growth Management – Sara said civic uses are considered essential public facilities and council can access and waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements. We discussed 10.27 fte’s which is calculated at the commercial rate which might seem high. Staff is requesting some mitigation for the increased floor area. The Housing Authority request some mitigation as well but the Housing Board recommends no mitigation. Staff suggests turning the free market unit that is above the garage into a mandatory occupancy deed restricted unit. The mandatory occupancy could be chosen by the church. We think the unit is around 535 square feet. This equates to around 1.35 fte’s so it does provide some mitigation for the new development. Mountain View planes – Sara said at the last meeting the applicant was directed to reduce the height of the pavilion structure which was at 21 to 25 feet as it was encroaching into the view plane. The applicant has responded and reduced the height to 14 feet which is beneath the view plane. The egress stairway reaches the height of 25 feet which extends into the view plane. If HPC picks an option of either closed or roofed they must find that the additional structure has minimal impact on the view plane. The unenclosed option is more modest in height and we measure it to be around 15 feet and this proposal does not extend into the view plane. Amy said staff is recommending continuation of this hearing to March 9th.  Restudy the height and form of the pavilion. Consider moving this structure to the north of the carriage house. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 4  Eliminate the day-lighted basement concept.  Eliminate the proposals to enclose or partially enclose the egress stair. Provide more detail regarding impacts to the historic structure and study more traditional building materials.  Re-study the front entry into the church and restore the original condition or minimize impacts of any roof canopy and railings.  Confirm the Transportation Department’s assessment of the parking study and need for any mitigation.  Provide an analysis of the number of employees that would be mitigated through a mandatory occupancy deed restriction of the existing ADU. Michael asked if there is a precedence that we could look regarding other civic buildings. 4.1 fte’s for commercial space seems punitive for a civic use. Amy said there are previous church expansions that have been analyzed and provided some kind of affordable housing mitigation. The applicant feels that their existing employees can cover the new space. Staff feels there is some additional impact. Patrick Rawley, Land planner from Stan Clauson & Associates Marina Skiles, Charles Cunniffe from Charles Cunniffe Architects Patrick R. said St. Mary’s church is a vital part of our community. We are seeking the continuation of our parish. The proposed social hall straddles lots D & E. We have sunken the social hall in the ground which keeps the green space open. CDOT said if you submit something and it meets the standards it can be permitted. That process is about 4 months. We have addressed the front entry, TIA and parking. We have also reduced the height of the pavilion which eliminates the view plane issue. The current church was built in 1892. In that zone district we can go up to almost 75,000 squ are feet. The existing church has a little over 16,000 of existing square feet divided into the church, rectory and the employee housing over the gar age. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 5 We have 3 full time employees living on site. The parish is made up of 300 families. Patrick R. did a power point of the proposal. The existing main floor has classrooms. The elevator tower was built in the 1990’sand thee is the trash area of the alley and a garage and rectory building. We currently do not have enough room for all the classes and the spill out into the hallway. We also have the homeless shelter during the winter months. Patrick R. said we are proposing an interior remodel of the church to bring it back to its historical appearance. We want to improve the efficiency and comfort of the church and safety for the occupants. With the one means of egress it is not adequate to get everyone out in an emergency. We would like to remove the front porch and re-establish the historic appearance. We also need a second means of egress. The subgrade parish social hall has been created to meet the space needs. It would be around 9,000 square feet of new civic cultural space and of that it would be 3,200 square feet of contributing floor area. We are looking at a total of 19,600 square feet when we have the ability to go up to 75,000 square feet. This is our spiritual home and we take that stewardship seriously. Marina said two things are very important to the client, one to keep the lawn maintained. We will maintain access into the existing garage by using grass and lawn pavers. The pavilion is a gathering place for after mass and an area for parents to congregate and watch their children on the lawn. We intend to expand the bathrooms, office space and the reception area and we will refurbish the altar. We will keep the stairs at the front of the church for one egress. The lower level of the church will be kept as is. We did look at excavating underneath it but it was structurally unfeasible and might damage the historic church. We are proposing a subgrade access from the existing main stairs that come down and accesses to the subgrade area. There are a lot of advantages putting the bulk of the property below grade. Patrick R. went over some of the interior renovations. The altars of Mary and Joseph on either side of the sanctuary will be maintained. Regarding the egress stair that goes out of the church, the window in the church will be converted into a door on the west. Marina said the maximum required distance to a means of egress is 75 feet for this occupancy level. We are well over 150 feet. There has been ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 6 discussion about the existing stair. The stair is only 30 inches wide. It would be difficult to use as an egress because you would have to come through the sacred altar and come up a couple of steps and into the altar boy sacristy and go down the stairs. We are eliminating that stair to enlarge the bathrooms downstairs. Patrick R. said the most logical place to put the egress stair is on the south west corner. Marina said we have three options for the egress stair; 1, to fully enclose it with a sloping metal roof and all glass walls. #2, partially enclose it with a glass roof and #3 make it look like an old fire escape with very minimal steel stringers. We would prefer option #1which is utilitarian. Patrick R. said the entry has seen various modifications. In the mid 1990’s the current condition was built. It is our intent to uncover the arched stained glass window that was installed in 1982, the centennial of the parish. Patrick R. said the western façade has had changes specifically the elevator tower. With the subgrade social hall you can still read and see the western façade of the historic church. It is also setback from the main front of the church. The lilacs will remain untouched. Charles said there will be a lifted lawn with a railing and glass windows. The social hall is in the St. Stephens footprint. The lilacs and fence become the buffer. The social hall will be accessed from the pavilion above. Patrick R. pointed out that the top of the pavilion is in line with the sanctuary level of the church. Steel and glass allow the transparency. The egress stair is very important for our parishioners. Nora said with 9,000 square feet isn’t there a way to upgrade the egress in the stairs. Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building official Stephen said the elevator allows access to the church for the disabled. There is no defensible argument to not put some provisions for accessibility to the second floor. Chapter 34 of the IBC applies for exiting out of the existing building. We have an existing single exit building. The occupancy load can be 260 to 700 people. It is important to get the people out of the sanctuary ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 7 and rescue personnel in. The building has a sprinkler system. In Chapter 34 for the required exit width as a single exit building is allowed to be .2 inches per every occupant. For an occupant load of 300 those existing stairs comply. The pavilion is part of the entire approach to what we would require as exiting out of the sanctuary. The connection of the building to the pavilion would require the second exit as it is considered one building. The people in the pavilion don’t exit out of the sanctuary. If the renovation was the only work contemplated then I would not say yes you have to have the second exit. When we consider the size of the building as a whole and with the pavilion added I think that makes a strong case for requiring the second exit. In the code the entry to a building has to be covered or the area maintain and be free of the accumulation of ice and snow. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Jim Markalunas said a second means of egress is necessary but I have serious reservations about it being placed on the west side of the church and using an existing window. You will have problems with ice and snow coming from the roof unless you enclose it. The snow weight in 1957 began to push the walls out. Steel rods were put in for stabilization. After that a metal roof was installed. Regarding the egress the best way is to modify the altar boy sanctuary and have it be code compliant. Julie Markalunas Hall – Exhibit I My letter was submitted to not compromise the west side of the church. When you are traveling down Main Street and your view is to the east you will see the west façade of the church. Once that side is compromised in the future it will be easier to request modifications. Julie thanked the architect for moving the pavilion away from the church. Lisa Markalunas said this is a significant historic building in this community and it deserves to have the time and detail analysis of what is best for the historic property. The exterior stairs block the west façade and the materials are inappropriate and they modernize the lawn area. The trash structure is oversized and the exterior egress blocks the kitchen. The interior stair can be modified which can be an expansion of the existing stair in the side room and it doesn’t involve moving the arch over the altar. The normal stair is 48 inches and the one drawn is 46 inches. This would vastly improve the current situation and not add an exterior stair that would be blocked by snow and ice and block the view of the current structure. It is worthy of ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 8 consideration to see if the egress stair can be accommodated on the interior of the property. There is no really good handicapped access to the church and there is no place to drop anyone off other than the back door by the alley. At some point we need to address access to the property. Interior stair drawing – Exhibit I John Kelleher said St. Mary’s church has been on this property since 1882. Renovations have occurred over the past 25 years and the time has come to further the religious and educational opportunities for members of our parish and all members of the community. The pavilion will be used for classes and the design is restricted by the court house and Veterans Park and historic aspects of the existing church. We proposed having the building on the alley. Staff recommended placing the buildings along Main Street where the view plane is the lowest. By doing this we could only get a building 8 feet high and thus is the reason for the proposing the building below ground. HPC doesn’t support either of these schemes. The egress options shows a stair at the south west corner of the building that has no connection to the proposed building. All traffic between the church and the pavilion would be in the open subject to inclement weather. That isn’t conducive to wheeling food carts from the kitchen to events. To compromise any reasonable functionality of an expansion of an existing facility which is necessary for the church is under the pretense of preserving the west façade is insane. We are trying to do something for the benefit of the community. Judy Gunn said the beauty of the building is in the inside. The egress situation is not one we like but it is important. Most of the things in the church from 1892 are still there. The renovation will ensure that those things stay in place. We need the additional space for our parish to grown. Stowman L. Stines II – letter – Exhibit II Stowman said he think the project will be a positive influence on the city as a whole and the renovation will modernize the infill structure. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Charles said the younger families are in support of the application. We have been holding open houses after Saturday and Sunday mass and the attendance has been good. Patrick R. said losing any loss of the liturgical function is unacceptable to us. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 9 Willis said you are talking about 50 square feet. Patrick R. said Mary’s altar is an historic component of the church and to have people passing into the altar area for egress doesn’t work. Mary’s altar is part of our religious practices. That area is also for the preparation of mass. Willis identified the issues: Over all site plan Modifications to the entry on Main Street Egress stair View plane GMQS – 10 to 14 fte’s Mass and scale – Commercial guidelines and Historic Main St. guidelines Willis said this building is part of our community and the need is demonstrated by the various parishioners. Willis thanked everyone for participating. The site plan is hugely improved over the first one that was submitted at the last meeting. The view plane subject has been handled well and all in all it is a modest program. The entire effect is less than anything built on the entire site. The pavilion is smaller than any of the secondary structures that exist. Architecturally it is quite compelling. The only way it would be perfect is if the 1990’s elevator were moved and combined with the egress stair that the applicant needs. If the Markalunas plan could be incorporated it would improve the reading of the West façade and the lawn. Option 1,2,3 on the exterior muddies the water in making something approvable. The site plan and the roof on the lawn is landscape architecture. The driveway turning to grass-crete that grows is going to be a huge asset to the community. Patrick also thanked the design team for going in the right direction. Patrick said he supports staff’s recommendations. Restudy the height of the pavilion. The daylight basement concept should be at ground level and no three foot glass walls to break up the lawn. The inside stairs should be looked at for the second egress. The loss of the bathroom or classroom downstairs to accommodate the egress is not significant when the project is 9,000 square feet. The roof of the trash area should be lowered. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 10 Gretchen said the site plan is an improvement but there are still problems with it. There are a lot of parts and piece on the church and we are adding more. We are adding a pavilion and raised roof with glass. It stems from the fact that they are retaining the driveway of Hwy 82 and its pushing development. The existing carriage house could be accessed off the alley that is required in the residential design standards. Handicapped access should also be addressed. Our historic buildings are slowly being eroded away. The entire site should be looked at with the elimination of the driveway off Hwy 82. There are parts and pieces that do not make up the historic pattern of what should be developed on this property. Perhaps this should be back to having something very simple. The stairs could go on the inside. The pavilion should be accessed on ground level and the classes below. Having most of the building below grade is good. She could not support this project. It is not close for approval. All parking should be accessed off the alley and redo the carriage house and put garage doors on the alley. John said he echoes Willis’s comments and this project has come a long way. It is unfortunate that the functionality has somewhat been lost. The parish is clearly needing space. I was in support of the original plan. One thing that could have been entertained is the existing elevator shaft and there are a myriad of new technology in elevators since this was put in. If we could have put the egress there it would make for a better project. Bob said we are living with certain constraints and one is the view plane. I don’t want us to make another mistake. I was on P&Z when the carriage house was proposed and we approved it and it didn’t meet any of the criteria regarding site lines. Instead of having a modern pavilion take that same kind of architecture and then it would be more complimentary in terms of materials. The original proposal was acceptable. The project needs to be compatible with the existing facilities. The second proposal is an improvement. Possibly restudying the elevator and put the egress adjacent to it. Another alternative is to take the carriage house and extend it. Jim said he also agreed with John and was in favor of the original proposal regarding form follows function. I’m not sure about the raised lawn as it might not create a functional lawn area. A suggestion would be to pull the egress stair next to the elevator wing and redo the elevator wing to get a stair in which would minimize the impact on the entire façade. He agrees with Gretchen that it needs more work before anything can be approved. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 11 Nora thanked the applicant for their presentation and the public comments. Our moral obligation is the historic preservation of this building. Once it’s gone it’s gone. The egress is a concern and if there is a code compliment internally that would be acceptable. Enclosing an outside egress is a concern and losing control of one more historic fabric. I support staff’s recommendation. Seeing lawn is appropriate and possibly change the employee free market unit to an employee unit. I am in support of the pavilion underground without the elevated lawn. Willis pointed out that staff’s recommendation is completely different regarding the site plan. Gretchen stated Staff is supporting an addition on the carriage house or that kind of alignment and would already be in the view plane. Bob said the view plane is already lost. Gretchen said in terms of the elevator, she k nows we have to give something up on the west façade. We already gave one thing up in 1992. If the rear of the property had the elevator and the egress stair that would be an excellent solution. It would free up the lawn and give the view of the historic church that defines our building history. Willis agreed stating the elevator should be at the back of the site. Michael said he appreciates the movement from the August meeting to this one; the improved distance between the buildings and fixing the view plane. It would be nice to see the movement of the elevator but that is up to the applicant to restudy it. Regarding the GMQS I would like to see some precedence from staff. We also need more detailing on the entry awning regarding the distance that it come out from the building. The current entry has snow pile up and doesn’t showcase the stained glass. Regarding the stair egress it should be configured internally and explored as to what can be done internally. The daylighting on the raised lawn is not appropriate. Willis said the argument of the stair is based on morality and religious use of the alter. It is only used in an emergency. In an emergency, sacred space becomes emergency space. It is not an everyday stair by any means. Stephen assured us it would not have an exit sign above it. I’m comfortable taking the position of an internal stair. Gretchen stated she is in agreement with him. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 12 MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #4, conceptual development with the condition that the elevator be restudied and the egress stair become internal and in so doing make wheelchair access to the church improved . The lawned roof will animate the street and sight lines will go down into the main gathering area. Motion second by Jim. Nora asked if he is suggesting they fix the 1992 problem. Willis replied yes and make the proposed egress stair internal to the church. Patrick said the motion on the table ignores the pavilion is a flat roof and completely glass and is not in front of the carriag e house and would disagree with the motion as it stands. Patrick made a friendly amendment that the sloping roof be at grade and that the pavilion be more in character with the existing buildings regarding mass and scale. Roll call vote on the friendly amendment: Patrick, yes; Gretchen, no; Nora, no, Willis, no; Bob, no; John, no; Jim, no. Motion failed 6-1. Roll call vote on the motion: Nora, no; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, no; Patrick, no; Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-3. Amy pointed out that there is no drawing or image of the elevator presented to base the motion on and all this will do is send this to Council who will return this to HPC as a call up at conceptual review and potential referendum 1 issues. Charles said if the elevator is addressed there will still be an object there and that might be in the view plane. Amy said her recommendation is to reconsider the motion and continue this item. Gretchen said the problem is the two additions of the elevator and the stair on the outside is objectionable. Patrick R. said the motion is very confusing and convoluted that we would prefer a continuation to a date certain. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 13 Amy said she understands there is a majority support for the basic concept and you would like to move them along and it is terrific. However, some of the suggestions you have made you don’t have an image of them. They may or may not be feasible. They may or may not be in the view plane and you made no findings of minimal impact and I think you are just setting them up for a problem. I really think you just need to put it on March 9th and let them go back and talk about your comments. MOTION: Jim moved to rescind resolution #4; second by John. Michael said he felt that whole process was completely hap hazard and the project deserved more. Gretchen agreed. She stated the board should have voted to continue. It always turns out better in the long run. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 533 E. Main St. to March 9th; second by John. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. 626 W. Francis Street – Historic Designation, AspenModern, Public Hearing Debbie said the public notice has been properly provided – Exhibit I Amy said we welcome another voluntary landmark designation of an Aspen Modern resource. The subject property contains two units. It is a duplex with mirror images of each other. They were built in 1964 and considered modern chalet. Two years ago the owner designated half of the duplex that he owned and that same client has purchased the other half of the duplex and desires to voluntary landmark it. The entire complex will be preserved. The request for incentives is minimal. They are requesting a 500 square foot FAR bonus which will be turned into two TDR’s. The applicant will have a little less than 200 square feet that they could add on someday and that would have HPC’s review. Usually when you have one property that is a landmark there is one 500 square foot floor area bonus. If this scenario is approved of 500 square feet, 322 was granted for the other duplex that was turned into 1 TDR and a 70 foot addition. If you look at it as a whole the bonus for the site would be 822 square feet but there are two voluntary designations. We feel this is a very positive project. It is a 9,000 square foot condo minimized property. There was a 1964 building permit and the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 14 contractor was C.M. Clark who was Butch Clark. We feel these are very good examples of this modern chalet style. There are very few alterations other than window replacements. We feel it meets two of the designation criteria, style and period of significance. In terms of scoring it met 19 out of 20 points. We ask that HPC make a recommendation to council for designation, a 500 square foot bonus that is turned into two TDR’s. Michael asked what else could have been available regarding incentives. Amy said for voluntarily designation you may ask council for any incentive that you think necessary to bring you to the table for landmark. Typically we see setback variances, height, FAR bonus and impact fee waivers. None of that is being requested. Kim Raymond, architect The applicant is excited about land marking this unit. In the last few ye ars the owner has done at least 9 or 10 HPC projects and he is committed to historic designation. There is only a roof between the two units and there is no common wall. We intend to update the inside of the building a little. Our request is for the 500 square foot bonus for 2 TDR’s. There would be about 190 square feet left. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #4 to approve AspenModern designation. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 7-0 529-535 E. Cooper Ave. Conceptual, Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Mountain View plane Review, Demolition, Public hearing Debbie said the public notice has property been provided – Exhibit I Justin Barker, Senior Planner Justin said the property is located at the corner of Coper and Hunter on the south west corner of the intersection. It is known as the Stein or Bowman bldg. It was originally constructed 1888 and currently contains a mix of ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 15 commercial and residential uses. The proposal is to add a one story commercial addition and utility trash area on the back of the property. There will also be a conversion of a residential unit that will be dealt with at the final review with growth management. The 1890 Sanborn map originally showed that the structure extended all the way to the alley. The southern portion has been removed sometime in the past. The existing southern potion today was a remodel by Fritz Benedict in 1953. That is the portion that has the wood siding on it. They are proposing internal connections on the first floor for the new construction. The entire rest of the building will be preserved including the decks on the southern portion that faces the alley. Public amenity: Justin said there is currently 11% of the lot which is approximately 715 square feet to provide. The applicant’s requirement is to provide the same amount either onsite or cash-in-lieu. Due to the nature of this site and the extent and size they are proposing it is not appropriate to have more public amenity provided onsite otherwise there wouldn’t be much of a project left and it would be detrimental to the commercial space to try and create and carve out more space for the public amenity space. There will be some cash-in-lieu provision that will be necessary. Staff is comfortable with what is proposed and it meets the requirements of the design standards. The guidelines call for maintaining the alignment of the building facades at the sidewalk edge. It would be inappropriate for them to pull back further on the Hunter Street side. Staff appreciates that they have pulled it back slightly in order accentuate the existing corner of the Fritz Benedict addition. All trash and utility concerns have been resolved by Environmental Health. There is a small sliver that is intersected by the Cooper Street view plane; however, the applicant has represented that the proposed development would be underneath and not infringe upon that view plane. No review will be necessary. Staff recommends approval with condition as indicated in the resolution. John Rowland, Dana Ellis – Rowland Broughton architects Mitch Hass, Hass Planning Mitch said on the second floor there are 5 residences and 1 commercial space. There is a small deck area behind the fence which is our existing public amenity space. The addition is a one story and we are replacing the little deck area. The building steps down to the alley and there is a slight setback off the sidewalk to reveal the corner of the historic building. On the alley there are store front windows and planters to soften the area. There is ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 16 also a green roof proposed. We are fine with the public amenity being the planter boxes and paying the rest in cash-in-lieu. We are doing a few improvements to the public-right-of-way and putting in drainage on the corner which will be a vast improvement for the downtown. There will also be an enclosed trash area on the property. The egress stairs will on the property instead of on the alley. We are restoring a window back to an historic door. Dana Ellis, architect Dana said the vertical articulation of masonry in an abstract way balances with a lot of the corner details on the other façade. We are using vertical wood elements not in a matching color above the glass. The detailing about the class windows will be different than the existing casement but it would have the same interior glass relationship. There will be a solid partition between the green roof and the decks so that no one in the future could break through to the green roof. The alley façade is simpler and a clean feel. The 1888 historic building and the 1953 addition have merged togeth er. The green roof is not just for storm water and there is vegetation in that space with a skylight. Dana said the tree in front will remain. Dana said there was an historic door in 1953 addition that will be restored. Mitch also stated that they are well within the FAR limits. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis identified the issues: Public amenity requirement 11% - cash-in-lieu Demolition Mass and scale Commercial design standards Willis said he supports staff’s recommendation and the green roof for drainage makes sense. All tenants looking down will see no mechanical equipment and an enhanced view. There are no elements of controversy in the proposal. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #5, 2016, second by John. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 17 Michael said he pleased with the application and the improved drainage. Having this building there will be a significant improvement. Nora said having the corner brought back is commendable. Nora said she wishes zoning could do something about the heavy barrier wall. Jim said he endorses the application. Bob said he is positive about the application. John said he also supports the applicant and it is a great project. Gretchen said she is also in support and the way the building turns the corner on the alley is a good solution. Patrick said he agrees with staff’s recommendation for mass and scale. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; John, yes, Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes Willis, yes. Motion carried 7-0. Guidelines Amy said she has one more picture to add to the guidelines in the landscape design section. All approved. Election of Chair and Vice-chair Willis was elected Chair. Gretchen was elected Vice-chair MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; secondo by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk