Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160413ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal, Bob Blaich, Jim DeFrancia and Michael Brown. Absent were John Whipple and Nora Berko. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Linda Manning, City Clerk Justin Barker, Senior Planner Sara Nadolny, Planner Linda Manning, City Clerk Last year the Grey Lady put in a request for outdoor dining on their patio which is private space that is part of their leased restaurant space. They covered their patio with a tent. Last year the temporary use request was denied by the community development department and city council; however, they were approved for a ten day tent permit between XMAS and New Years. During the public hearings there was discussions about possibly expanding the outdoor dining program to winter. We have 27 restaurants that have private patio space that is included in their lease. We also have restaurants that lease city property. E-mails were sent out requesting who was interested in winter outdoor dining. Several are interested and some don’t think it will work with the type of restaurant they have. CCLC is in favor of the winter outdoor dining. They were against tents and you could do it with heaters. Possible a large tent down the center of the mall that would be clear and it could be rented out. This could be City sponsored. They said no tents on private patio spaces. Amy said this is similar to the airlock discussion we had several years ago. After years of struggling with their appearance of tents being applied over the buildings we have prohibited them in HPC design guidelines. We do so much to obtain the appearance of town and to have popups is something that has not been particularly supportive in the past. Maybe it can occur during the XMAS week where we have high demand in the community but not something of an extended period of time. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 2 Michael said the enclosure of private space on private sites would have been theoretically public amenity spaces. Amy said another issue is employee mitigation because additional staff would be needed. Michael said they aren’t paying the employee mitigation and they are getting credit for public amenity space which they aren’t providing. Linda said the restaurant owners that she has talked to are willing to pay the employee mitigation at some prorated rate. Patrick agreed with the CCLC that there should be no tents. Tents change the entire character of Aspen on public or private space. Gretchen said she is in favor of vitality on the mall in the winter. Restaurants need to attract customers and maintain commerce. What else would be allowed besides heaters. Amy said if it is public amenity then it should be open to the sky and only low walls surrounding it, otherwise they can furnish it like they want. Gretchen said she is in favor of outdoor dining in the winter. Gretchen said when she moved here they had tables and chairs with food and drink available and it was charming. Visually tents feel unwelcoming. Willis said in private spaces the tents are over the top. Bob said he is PRO everything except tents. Jim said tents create the sense of a closed space rather than open. Michael said he would not support winter dining on the pedestrian malls in the winter months. On private space it is not what was intended and the areas should not be enclosed. Linda said in general HPC is in favor of winter dining on private space. Jim said tents do not add to vitality because they are closed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 3 Bob said in Germany or Holland when the sun comes out the tables are set out. 534 E. Cooper – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review Debbie said the affidavit of public notice has been appropriately provided – Exhibit I Additional elevations – Exhibit II Sara said the property is at the corner of Cooper Ave. and Hunter Street, “Boogie’s retail” and in the commercial core. The current building was constructed in the 1980’s and the property is not designated. Onsite we have a two-story mixed use building with a voluntary AH unit on the second floor. In 2014 HPC approved a 3 story mixed use building with a free market resident at the top and additional commercial floor area. The applicant is scaling the design way back from that approval. They are proposing to maintain this as a two story commercial building. This is a remodel of the current building. The applicant is also proposing some exterior changes which include the removal of the corner atrium which would reduce the scale of the building down to two stories. They are looking to fill in the recessed area along Hunter Street and to bring the commercial space closer to the sidewalks edge. They propose to replace the upper story windows with punched openings and remove the second floor deck that is on the Hunter Street side and filling it in with internal commercial floor area. The proposed design maintains its primary entrance as the chamfered corner entrance and creates additional tenant entrances along Cooper Ave. and Hunter Street with one additional entrance on each side. The primary entrance is two stories with tall glazing with a parapet above the entry doors which does not include the chamfered condition. The building meets the height requirements maintaining 28 feet and has a f lat roof throughout. The floor to ceiling height on the first floor is 13 feet and 9 feet on the second floor. It has been separated into modules along each street façade where the corner module is slightly higher. Staff has a few concerns. Regarding massing the guidelines suggest that the building modules be created to reflect the traditional lot widths. Along Cooper it is 40 feet in length and sets to around 20 feet for the corner module. The modules along Cooper Street should be closer to 30 feet t o reflect the traditional lot width. The second concern has to do with scale. HPC may ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 4 want to consider the two story glazing at the primary entry corner whether it is in line with the pedestrian scale in this location. Sara said regarding public amenity two conditions include that the public amenity space be open to the sky and that it does not duplicate existing adjacent spaces such as sidewalks and pedestrian malls. The code does allow for a deficit of 25% required public amenity so long as it is no less than 10% that is provided for. Currently onsite we have 604 square feet with is about 9.6% of the site for public amenity. We are close to the 10% minimum requirement. The current application is suggesting losing some of the public amenity by filling in the space along Hunter Street. What is being proposed is 216 square feet or 3.4% that will be onsite that qualifies as public amenity. They are proposing to provide the remaining 6.6% through a fee-in-lieu payment. Staff acknowledges that it is difficult to provide the full 10% onsite. The code does prefer buildings in the commercial core to be brought close to the property edge to provide a better pedestrian experience, however staff is looking for a meaningful public amenity to be on this site. The applicant has shown onsite public amenity as a thin strip of open space between the building and the sidewalk along Hunter Street. The applicant has responded to staff’s concerns through Exhibit II. They have provided a bench and planters along Hunter Street. Staff feels there may be an opportunity to provide more onsite public amenity bringing the onsite square footage closer to what it is onsite today. If the parapet is removed it could count toward onsite public amenity. Staff is recommending that the applicant explore a way to create more onsite public amenity whether it is through the removal of the parapet or other ways. Utility and trash: Sara said the area already exists in the alley behind the building. The existing transformer is adequate. Per Environmental Health the trash and recycling area is currently adequate for the property and it is about 200 square feet if there is no commercial kitchen. If there is a kitchen for restaurant space it would require an upgrade of about 100 square feet per the standards today. To avoid future difficulties staff is recommending that the applicant provide a design that meets the code requirements prior to the completion of conceptual review. Parking: Sara said additional net commercial leasable square footage requires parking mitigation. Parking in the core is not required to be onsite and it may be ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 5 mitigated through a fee and lieu payment. The project is generating 3,479 square feet of new net leasable floor area and this is equi valent of 3.8 parking spaces. The applicant will pay fee-in-lieu payment for the spaces. Staff is recommending continuation to work on re-examining the modules along Cooper Ave. To maximize the onsite public amenity which may include the removal of the roof overhang at the corner entry. Resolve the issues of the size of the trash recycling area. Michael asked staff if the new renderings satisfy the breakup of the two story glazing at the front. Sara said that isn’t any different and hasn’t changed. Applicants: Sunny Vann, representing the applicant; Andy Wisnosky from Poss Architects; Gideon Kaufman, attorney; Jeff Ross owners representative Sunny said staff’s issues are the architecture as it relates to the roof overhang and the modules on the building. The public amenity space and the trash access area. Trash and recycling area Sunny said on aspect is the additional access to the alley and we can add another door at the rear of the property. The request that we build the larger trash/recycle area at this time to accommodate a future restaurant when no restaurant is planned has significant implications for the existing building. We would have to do the entire rear end of the building and the trash would have to be ten feet deeper and it changes considerably the architecture of the design. There is no public with a condition that says if in fact a restaurant is ever proposed then we would have to submit a compliant design for an appropriate trash area. If this was a new building I could be more understanding of what would be required to design it. A mandatory requirement that we provide for a restaurant that isn’t even proposed at this time is unreasonable and you can simply add a condition to the approval if a restaurant is proposed then the space would have to be modified. Public amenity space Sunny said public amenity space is extremely constraint. It is about 600 square feet and less than 10%. The 10% requirement applies to us. We propose to move the building edge to address Hunter Street. Our proposal is to provide 200 square feet and cash-in-lieu for the remainder. Parks ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 6 supported the proposal and it was an opportunity to use the cash -in-lieu about $41,000 for other improvements in the immediate area in particular the malls. Our client is willing to forgo the penthouse but needs to enhance the buildings functionality as 100% retail space. The building is less than the allowable in floor area cumulatively in the zone district. It meets the height requirements and it complies with all other requirement in the underlying zone district with the exception of the public amenity space. Given this I think it is a reasonable request to provide the remainder of the public amenity space with cash-in-lieu and that would also be consistent with the prior approval. The client is also willing to consider the enhanced sidewalk that was recommended by Engineering. It basically involves a bulb out and expansion of the sidewalk in a portion of the existing loading zone and additional street trees and bike racks. The reason why that was suggested by the Engineering Dept. was in connection with our transportation impact analysis. Basically we have to propose various enhancements to mitigate the additional trips that are generated by the expanded building and it is a formula. We had claimed points with the detached sidewalk and green strip and the Engineering disallowed it because they don’t feel it is sufficient enough to warrant the points that we claimed and suggested if we were to do the bulb out on Hyman that would probably go away. If we do provide the bulb out it is about 570 square feet and it is an expanded sidewalk with trees, bicycle storage and is in fact public amenity space. The regulations provide for onsite public amenity and off- site public amenity and cash-in-lieu. You can propose any combination. IF you provide off-site public amenity the value of what you divide has to be equal to or greater than that which would be required ordinarily under the cash-in-lieu. If we were to do the bulb out it would have to equal at least the $41,000 that we would be paying for the cash-in-lieu for not meeting the requirement. Assuming that the cost of doing that is reasonable then we would be more than happy to do it because it solves a couple of problems. It provides a better street scape and it solves our public amenity issue and it is far more workable than simply changing the entrance to the building and it solves our TIA problem. The question becomes what is it really going to cost to do that. If it has significant implications for the street that would have to remove and relocate the utilities, drainage improvements etc. then the cost could quickly escalate far beyond what is required as the cash-in- lieu payment but as an incentive to approve something like that we would certainly agree to some additional amount over and above the $41,000 thousand, call it $61,000 to cover additional costs. If we were able to do that we would be exceeding the cash-in-lieu payment. We would be willing to ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 7 take a condition that we should have to explore that and report back at final whether it is a viable alternative. In summary we would ask you to approve this as currently proposed which is the amount of public amenity space which takes into account the voluntary removal of the very valuable penthouse that is consistent where the community is going with its regulations. We also have a building that is in compliance with the underlying zone districts and other aspects of the code and we are willing to do the additional public amenity enhancement if we can do it at a cost that makes reasonable sense. Andy Wisnosky said we are remodeling an existing building that was designed to handle a single tenant. We are trying to rehabilitate the space to make it a functional building that responds to the historic nature of the downtown area. The building space along Hunter Street is stepped back and we are pushing that façade out to address the sidewalk in a pedestrian friendly environment. The design is to have the building operate in a more flexible manner if we happen to have multiple tenants. We have allowed three entrances with the primary entrance being at the corner. Those entrances recess of the street to offer some relief for the pedestrian experience and create another sense of vibrancy to the façade. We want this building to be functional from a perspective as to how you break the building down into multi tenants or a single tenant. The design connects the upper and lower spaces to be vibrant. The upper level has visibility and the design is sensitive to the street and has punched open ings on the second level. We aren’t asking for additional height and the massing is significant smaller than any other building surrounding it. On the Cooper Street on the lower level we the introduction of appropriately scaled entrances and series of bays of windows. We have tried to address this in proportions and heights that are more than sensitive to its context. On Hunter the areas of larger glass are an opportunity for pedestrians to get to the upper level. We feel the proportions are appropriate for an existing condition. We have also contributed to the alley experience as well and created vibrancy on that alley corner. In summary the context is way better than what we have in the existing building. Questions Jim asked staff about the overhang. Amy said they brought it up because it is different than the chamfered condition that you find in traditional buildings downtown and it interferes with that space as fully being counted as public amenity. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 8 Michael asked how many feet would it be of public amenity. Andy said 41 square feet. Bob said the location for the bike rack has been there and there is no parking there now and as a result of the proposal there still wouldn’t be any parking there. Jim asked how short they are with their public amenity space. Sunny said the requirement is 627 square feet and we have 216 square feet and the difference is made up of the $41,000. Jim said what is it if the bulb out was added? Sunny said we would be over because it would add about 570 square feet. Sunny said we don’t know the full impact of construction the bulb out as it is adjacent to a public street and as soon as we start messing around there might be utilities and other issues. To the extent if it exceeds a reasonable amount above the $41,000 we wouldn’t want to incur substantial costs for that condition when it is only being suggested was to mitigate the number of trips the project would do. We are treating this as one single commercial space; however, if you notice the layout of the elevators and stairways it will have multiple tenants and multiple tenants require clear and unobstructed access from hallways to the trash area so the net leasable will go down and we will give them a new calculation at building permit presumably when we have tenants. The trip mitigation and the issue of currently not meeting it will go away. Had we gotten credit for the new green planting are on Hunter Street we would not have this issue and they probably would not have recommended this as a solution to the problem. It is a great public private partnership if we can do it at some kind of reasonable cost it not only benefits us but benefits the City as a whole but on the other hand we aren’t anxious to write a blank check to redo Cooper Ave. We are already doing other improvements to Cooper as part of the original proposal. We are redoing the handicapped ramps, moving a fire hydrant, moving a light pole and other things in the right-of-way. We said cash-in-lieu plus 50%. Michael asked if the City could use money from their public amenity fund from other projects that have paid cash-in-lieu. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 9 Amy said that is possible. Jim clarified that the area is a loading zone right now and they put the bike racks in the street in the summer. All you are talking about is pulling the curb out and filling it in with concrete. Sunny said it is a little more complicated because the street is crowned as you go out you create drainage issues. Maybe we could do it as a joint public/private partnership if the City has funds. Willis asked how many parking spaces would be eliminated with the bulb out? Andy said none because it is a loading zone right now. Patrick clarified that the parapet is to create a horizontalness rather than a verticalness to the front doorway. Andy said if you start clipping the corner the modulation on the corner becomes very vertical in its orientation. Buildings have had overhangs and we feel the proportions are much more substantially closer to what the intent of the modulation is. Jim asked for clarification of the MMLOS. Sara said MMLOS was taken off the concern list by the bulb outs and the bike racks that were along Cooper Ave. That may or may not occur depending on the amount of trips that need mitigated for the TIA/MMLOS. Amy said the bulb out is a requirement by other obligations that applicant has and it also claim it as credit for public amenity is a concern about double dipping. Sunny said MMLOS which stands for multi modal level of service. We claimed points to mitigate our trip generation based on the entire building being retail. We claimed the green strip on Hunter Street as meeting the requirement to get the points. Engineering said the green strip wasn’t enough to get the points. We are going to do the bulb out regardless of whether we need it for the TIA assuming we can afford to do it. If in fact ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 10 the building is divided up to multiple lease spaces then the trip generation is going to go down and the MMLOS issue is going away and there is no double dipping. It is just additional public amenity space. In our case I don’t think the MMLOS issue is going to be an issue because our trip generation is going to go down when the building is divided into lease hold spaces. We would have to have bathrooms that are accessible etc. I am asking you to approve this as originally proposed with the $41,000 for cash-in-lieu and it represents significant gives on the part of this applicant to the community by forgoing a very valuable penthouse. The one behind it sold for $21 million dollars and quite a bit larger. It is a building in compliance with the code and smaller than anything around it and should be a welcomed addition to our retail downtown. Patrick asked the applicant would support a condition as far as the interior being broken up so that you would lower the trip generation that you profess to have. Jeff Ross said they do expect there will be multiple tenants in the building. The reason we went with a single retail use rather than breaking it up we don’t know who the tenants are at this point. I would rather not have my team come to you with a proposal of chopped up spaces etc. that we aren’t sure of and look at the building as one big space knowing that we are going to subdivide it. Patrick asked if they would support a condition that says it will be broken up into x amount of things that will lower the MMLOS. Sunny said he would support that with one minor addition that if for some reason that did not reduce the trips sufficiently that we would be able at building permit with the Engineering Department to substitute another measure. There is an entire checklist of things you can do we just happen to pick this particular one. Jim clarified that the approval would call for a $41,000 cash -in-lieu donation and that would make up the shortfall of your public amenity space. The issue of the bulb out you’re taking the position that you are not obligated to do that period. Sunny said Engineering was trying to help us out and they suggested something we can do to solve the problem. We could have said we want to ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 11 do XYZ and if we can up with the same number of points on the spread sheet it would solve the problem. We don’t mind looking at the feasibility provided there is some cover on the overall cost and I suggested a 50% overrun. I believe cash-in-lieu is warranted given what the applicant is giving up and the fact that cash-in-lieu was approved with the townhouse when we had the third floor. Jim said in looking at the conditions that staff raised you are saying that you would keep the roof overhang because it is not going to make a big difference and that will figure into the shortfall, you’ll pay the $41,000 to deal with the shortfall on the public amenity space, the utility trash issue you propose to be addressed by a condition that the trash area be improve if ever there is a restaurant use proposed and the bulb out goes away. They are also proposing to put in the trees for the Parks referral. Gideon Kaufman said what we are saying is that we are willing to take the $41,000 and apply it to the bulb out and if it goes up to $60,000 we are willing to do that. Jim said a sweetener would be to say we’ll take our $41,000 and increase that to $60,000 and contribute that to the bulb out and you have satisfied both the public amenity and you are contributing to something that is a broad public benefit. Sunny said we would rather spend money on something that improve the streetscape in front of our building. Michael said it is a huge added value to the building. Sunny said it would be a wider sidewalk and trees and a place to park your bike. It would be a win win for everyone involved. We will explore doing the bulb out and spent up to $60,000 and if that won’t do it we’ll talk to the City and see if they have some way to also assist in getting it done since they think it is a great idea. If we don’t do it the City gets a check for $41,000. Michael said then we agree to a reduced public amenity. Sunny said no you agreed to cash-in-lieu. Sara said their obligation is to meet 10% however we reach the 10%. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 12 Willis asked about the modules on Cooper Ave. Andy said there are no existing modules on Cooper, it is a straight façade. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Mass and scale Trash and utility: the applicant has offered to have a condition regarding any future restaurant. Fee in lieu for parking, 3.8 parking spaces - $30,000 per space Public amenity Corner entry Bulb out. Patrick greed with what the applicant proposes. The parapet above the main door is appropriate to create a horizontalness to the building. They have also been sensitive to the historic character of downtown with the windows on the first and second floor. Gretchen said the applicant has exhausted their ideas for the public amenity and it is going in the right direction. The bulb out is a good thing in that part of down and it is a busy corner. Regarding the trash/recycle that can be worked out. My issue on this building is the corner entry with the large amount of glass that is out of proportion and scale with the other commercial development of Aspen. It is a one story entry into individual commercial spaces and I think it is out of scale and height. The entry on the east façade is more compatible with the scale of Aspen. The corner entry dominates the historic district across the street. The corner entry need to be redesigned and thought out differently and the roof height needs to be addressed. The fact that the spaces on Cooper Ave. have different facades seems odd but I am not totally opposed to it. One is in and one is out. Bob said the overhang is shelter and I don’t have a problem with it. It is a great improvement over what is currently there. I have no negative feelings about this proposal. Willis said the architectural plan gestures create a lot more vitality on the street. The recessed portion on Hunter is useless space and it is nice to see ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 13 that reclaimed and reactivated. I totally applaud the applicant for getting rid of the pent house and going for a modest looking two story commercial building which will be a nice replacement. The building is being scaled back. The corner may feel out of scale just for the fact that the two wings are recessive and much shorter than what is there now. We have talked about corners and scale of corner entries and there is nothing in our guideline. I’m sure it will be addressed in the future. The corner entry is broken down and has a nice organic feel as it turns the corner. The bulb is wonderful and I would agree to the condition if and ever it should come the trash and utility etc. would be made to work at that time. You can’t plan for every what if. The bulb out and green strip along Hunter St. are great things and we should encourage that to happen. Gretchen pointed out that historic buildings don’t have two stories of glass . Jim said he has no problem with the architecture and it is a modern building and the design is an improvement. The overhang should stay and it is a sensible use in the design. The trash issue can have an addition if a restaurant is even in place it can be addressed at that time. The cash- in-lieu is fine. The Parks Dept. referral on the trees is OK. The bulb out is a good idea. You have to spend $41,000 anyway for public amenity space anyway so you are really only contributing $20,000 toward the bulb out and that isn’t very much for what would be an enhancement of that building. It should be a bigger number. In my opinion you should put it in not to exceed $100,000. Michael agreed that it is a community win to see the free market unit removed from the building. The reduced height is also nice and I like the façade of the building being pulled out to Hunter Street. That existing area is a dark cavern. I really like the punched openings on the second floor. We have seen a lot of projects with huge glazing everywhere on the second floor and you really responded to community sensibility. The alley improvement is great as it wraps the corner and having that glass come around the façade. I don’t feel this is the right space for on-site amenity but you showed us the bulb out and it is important for the community and it is good for your building. I think $100,000 is nothing especially when only $60,000 is coming from the applicant. It adds a lot and I would hate to see it go away. It is good for the corner and the community. I have no issues with the trash. I like the building design the way it is and it is a huge improvement from the way Boogie’s looks today. It is also an improvement over the design of the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 14 free market that was approved. I really like the architectural design and the architect has real talent. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #10 for 534 E. Cooper for Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design subject to the conditions that the trash area be improved if a restaurant use is ever proposed for the building in accordance with the recommendation from staff. The tree plantings as recommended by the Parks Dept. on Hunter and Cooper are implements and that the public amenity open space be deemed satisfied with the contribution of $100,000 to be applied to the bulb out proposed on Cooper Ave. and not to exceed up to $100,000. Bob second the motion. Sara said the parking mitigation is in the resolution. Debbie pointed out in connection to the public amenity issue the code does have requirements for meeting that in certain regards and there is a calculation that is done based on the amount of square footage that is to come in. This applicant has offered to go above and beyond that and I don’t know that you have the authority to require them to go up and above that as a condition of approval. You can ask them to study and consider up to $100,000 but you should approve something that is consistent with the code. AMENDED MOTION: Jim amended the motion to accept the offer to not exceed $60,000 but ask that they consider in good faith before the come back to take it to $100,000. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Bob, yes; Patrick, yes; Michael, yes; Willis, no; Gretchen, no. Motion carried 4-2. Gretchen said her concern is the entry. Bob said they might go back and look at and they might agree with certain aspects of it. 530 E. Main St. (Courthouse Plaza) Major Public Project Review Bob recused himself. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 15 Debbie said she received the affidavit of public notice and there was glitch in the publication in the newspaper. The newspaper inadvertently put the wrong heading of 534 E. Cooper instead of 530 E. Main. They published a second notification that included the proper heading. The content of the notice was accurate. Given that we have four methods of notice I believe that notice has been sufficiently provided and HPC can proceed. Justin said the property includes the courthouse, the jail building and the courthouse plaza building. The proposal is to renovate the existing plaza building as well as construct a three to four story addition that connects to the rear of the plaza building. The purpose is to consolidate a space for the vast majority of the Pitkin county offices. The project is subject to a newer process called pubic projects review that was adopted by City Council about 4 months ago. This is in order to comply with state statute requirement that any project submitted by a governmental agency would need to be reviewed by the city within a 60 day time frame and a decision provided within that time frame. There would be a hearing in front of HPC or P&Z with a final decision going to council. It is a recommendation from HPC tonight. If the decision is not provided within that 60 days the application is deemed approved. There is an option if the city denies the application in that time the applicant may over rule the decision with a vote of 2/3 by their board. There will be no final review by HPC and then it goes to council. There are three sections of the code that this application is subject to: planned development, commercial design and growth management. Staff’s main concern is the massing and height of the building on the north side which range from 31 to 54 feet depending on where it gets measured. This is a large building to be viewed from the Rio Grande side. The upper floor has been set back to help alleviate the height concerns. It still is a tall building and would be taller than what most of the surrounding zone districts would allow. The size of the addition is substantially larger than what exists on the site. Each building there range from 14 to 16 thousand square feet in floor area and the addition is 27,000 square feet in floor area. The proposed addition is 11 feet from the courthouse building. The iconic setting is the public green space surrounding it and the commercial guidelines call for retaining these settings for iconic structures if at all possible. Staff is recommending that the addition be pulled a little bit further away from the courthouse to help create the traditional setting. In terms of the architecture for this building staff feels that it doesn’t quite relate very well to the courthouse building or the plaza building next door. Some of the detailing doesn’t align and staff is recommending that it be re-evaluated to more ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 16 closely tie to the other two structures. In terms of the growth management this is an essential public facility so there are two important things to note about that. The first is that there is no annual allotment limit for this so it doesn’t need to receive an allotment other than state the amount of square footage that is provided. The employee generation is determined in this case by HPC. The code does provide a typical rate of 5.1employees per thousand square feet in the public zone district for an office use is what this typically is. Staff ran the calculations to about 101 or 102 employees that would typically be generated out of this type of proposal; how ever, it is important to note that this is a relocating of current employees that are in other spaces in town. It is not necessarily generating additional employees. APCHA will be reviewing the application at their next meeting. They will be recommending that a current audit of what the employees are now that will be working in the building and to do another evaluation within two years to determine if any actual employee generation occurs and if there is that would need to be mitigated. There is also concern from the Parks Department regarding some of the trees in Veteran’s Park and they will be working with the applicant and have that resolved by the time they submit for a building permit. Staff recommends that HPC recommend approval to City Council with the four mentioned conditions. Reduce the mass and scale of the north side of the building. Locating the addition further away from the courthouse building. Create a stronger architectural relationship to the adjacent buildings. Eliminate the corbel detail on the west façade. Michael asked what type of public outreach was done for the project. Justin said the applicant held two public meetings and they can speak in greater detail what specifically they had done in addition to that. Gretchen asked about the architectural style. Justin said the architectural style for the addition that faces Main Street doesn’t very closely relate to either the Victorian of the courthouse or the more AspenModern of the plaza building. It seems like a prairie style and it was suggested to pull some of the details from either the Victorian or plaza building styles into the addition. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 17 Michael said you indicated in the memo that the max height proposed is 55 feet and I didn’t see anywhere where it hit that height. Justin said we didn’t get the specific measurement points but that would be where the garage entrance is coming from Rio Grande up to the highest point of the top floor addition. The property does slope up toward Main Street at that point and due to the upper floor being set back it might not actually get to 54 feet and might be measured at a slightly lower point than that but if it was viewed from the Rio Grande it would be 54 feet. Michael said unlike the Police Department proposal that section is way pushed in closer to Main Street. Justin said it does get approximately to the same point back as the police station but the difference is the police station is proposing affordable housing along that back area too which is much closer to the edge of the street. I believe they are both pushed back from the Rio Grande edge of the property roughly the same. Willis asked Justin to outline the differences in the review processes between the county vs the city’s police station proposal. Justin said the code amendment for the public project review does not require city projects (police station) to be reviewed within the 60 day time frame. Debbie said the City chose to go through the process like any other applicant. Michael said the county could have opted n ot to fast track under the new state statute. Justin said they could have gone through the typical review process but they also have the option to do the public project review. It is up to the applicant to decide which one they want to pursue. At the pre-application they were provided options for both and the decision was left up to them at that point. Willis pointed out that it isn’t a new state statute it is newly adopted by the city. Willis said he recalls working on the library regarding this subject and ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 18 you can’t pick one public entity that is funded by tax dollars against another funded by tax dollars. Applicant: Kin Weil, Poss Architecture Bill Poss, Rachel Richards, commissioner; John Peacock, county manager; Dave Detwiler, county project manager; Richard DeCampo, Poss architecture; Ron Ryan, under sheriff John Peacock said as a public project this starts off in a different context. This project is about public service. What is motivating this public project is a response to providing essential public services. Those services are driven by demand of the community and state laws that set requirements as to how the services are to be provided. Regarding the sheriff’s department we are doubling the space that they are in currently but not o ne position has been added to the department. What has changed are the requirements under which that department operates and space that is required to do the job. We are also required to have certain services located in Aspen. Aspen is the designated county seat for Pitkin County and under that statute we have to keep certain offices for essential services located in the county seat. We operate under a different set of motivations and a different set of rules that is driving the proposal that is in front of you. Because we are a public entity it also drives a different process for us. We established the programming needs for the essential services and then developed a vision paying attention to the importance of civic interaction, collaboration zones, good work environments, workflow efficiency. We reached out to the public and did open houses, videos, webpage outreach, CGTV, channel 11, press releases. We had a lot of feedback and asked the community what was important. In terms of architectural considerations we needed to bridge the design styles between the old court house and plaza building. The public said don’t replicate and don’t make a new civic statement. They talked about our energy goals and after taking everything together we asked the te am to develop 4 different architectural concepts that we brought back to the public and asked for feedback in order to make modifications that the public wanted to see in their public building. We have been conscious to minimize the footprint while still meeting the minimum standards to effectively deliver the essential public services. The review process is vetted and we are following the letter of the law. Kim Weil, Bill Poss architects ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 19 The addition is essentially bridging from the courthouse plaza to the jail. Our addition connects to both buildings. We are set way back from the front of the courthouse and that was to respect Veterans Park. The Clerk’s dept. will be in the basement of the existing plaza building. The parking area will be below where the sheriff parks presently in the addition. It will be lowered 8 to 10 feet which will make the driveway less steep than it is now. On the main level are services for the public, BOCC meeting room, multi-purpose room, and Sheriff’s administration office. Community development will be in the second floor of the existing plaza bldg. Open Space and trails, assessor, IT, GIS, treasurer will be on the second floor. The third floor will hold County administration, BOCC rooms, attorney, conference rooms, HR and finance. Kim said our tallest point is 44 feet at the garage door to the top of the parapet. We are 12 feet floor to floor with a three foot floor pack. On the lower level we line up with the floor levels of the existing plaza building. The east elevation is 3 stories hidden by the proposed police station. On the materials there are cues taken out from the court house. There is brick, sandstone banding and a strong sandstone base and the vertical proportions on the windows are similar but at the same time it doesn’t replicate the courthouse. The height is to the courthouse cornice. It was important that everyone working for the county had access to some sunlight. The conference rooms on the second and third floor are glass on the outside and glass on the inside so that the light will filter through the building. The existing plaza building will be basically untouched. The upgrades include new windows and added insulation to improve energy performance. From Rio Grande Place the existing jail dominates the elevation. The Courthouse is the prominent building on Main Street. The new addition is 55 feet back from the courthouse and 80 feet back from the property line. The intent is to leave the plaza building a building of its own time. Questions and clarifications Michael asked about the process. Given this is a community project why did you opt for the 60 days rather than the traditional landuse application. Rachel Richard, BOCC commissioner Rachel said we had chosen this approach from the beginning. The public outreach was very important. We are on a time line and interest rates are important. These are public dollars that are at risk. We have to relocate all of our offices out of that building. We have signed leases in Basalt an d this ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 20 is going to be a huge disruption workwise. Time is money. We want to be respectful and hear your comments and try to respond to those in the process. The process is part of the state law. Our City and County have good relationships. The process has been open and transparent and we have been inviting the public in and discussing it on the web. We are keying off the Civic Master plan that took ten years to create which talks about having historical human uses of having civic buildings in your downtown. Michael said he has not seen one letter or read one letter. This is a huge project and we are being asked to evaluate it, take it or leave it and we’re moving on. A lot of the uses in the new building currently exist in the courthouse. John Peacock said we have 18 positions that are in city hall and 44 positions that are in the old courthouse which includes the Sheriff’s department as well as the assessor and treasurer’s office. One of the goals is to make room for additional hearing room space and more space for the 9th judicial district. The state has told us to find hearing room space. As we relocate the treasurer’s office and sheriff’s we can use the courthouse as a true courthouse. We will also secure that building. We are trying to maintain the interior of the courthouse as well as the exterior. While it is a large space it is not an efficient space. We have been talking for some time as to how to meet the essential facility needs. Rachel said communications for 911 offices will be moved to the North 40 fire department. It is a 10 year contract. That will free up 1800 square feet in the jail and that will then be availabl e for future expansion and use of the jail facility. Our current BOCC room is very inadequate facility for quite a while. Michael said he would recommend for Council to have full page renderings of each of the facades in 3D. Patrick asked the applicant if they have looked at going down one more floor to add more square footage below grade. Kim said the initial concepts had another level below but they were too expensive and we have budget constraints. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 21 Rachel also said daylight is important for employees. There was a solid decision to not put employees down below. Veterans Park is sacred ground and there are relics that are buried there. Willis asked about the north courtyard with the corbel stone regarding staff’s comments. Kim said we are willing to look at that and have options. Willis asked about the north portico on the courthouse that is an non-historic addition to the courthouse. What is it repurposed as? Dave said they are still planning with the 9th Judicial district. This location is where people are presently being transported from the jail into the courthouse. Those items that are not historic could be considered for future consideration when we repurpose the courthouse. Rachel said that is a great point raised. It might not be needed when the remodel goes forward and we could take into consideration the remove or modification of non-historic structure on the courthouse could be appropriate. There is also consideration of emergency exits. Jim said this is a confined space to accommodate the needs of the county and there is not a lot you can do with moving buildings and creating separation. The space is needed for functional purposes to deal with modern requirements. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Reduce the mass and scale of the north side of the buildings. Locate the addition further from the Courthouse building. Create a stronger architectural relationship to the adjacent buildings. Eliminate the corbel detail on the west façade. Jim reiterated that there is not much that can be done in reducing mass and moving the addition further away from the courthouse. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 22 Gretchen said she is confused whether the applicant is trying to match the architecture of plaza building or the old historic building between the sandstone and vertical element and a horizontal element. It is a good project. The skylight idea between the two buildings is really nice. Perhaps the joining element could be reduced in height which may make it look less massive. The architecture is a little bit of both and feels like there is a lot of different architecture on the site. Maybe the new addition could be quieter. The building is appropriate for the site and it is a successful project. Willis said he agrees with staff’s recommendations and proposes they advance to city council. Patrick and Jim agreed. Willis said the corbel should be restudied as it is a confusing element. Gretchen agreed. Willis suggested when they get to re-programing the Courthouse when they come back to HPC to look at the non-historic elements that have accrued over time. The path from the courthouse plaza will be about five or six feet and that pinch point is going to be exacerbated with the number of pedestrians being funneled through there. Ron Ryan said that is one of our concerns from a safety perspective. Jim said the pedestrian pattern to Rio Grande Park is through Galena plaza. There is not much they can do regarding mass and scale. Dave said they have added an overhang on the east side of Veterans Park to improve that area and adds a shelter. MOTION: Jim moved that the commission recommends approval to City Council of the Major Pubic Project Review for 530 E. Main St. Courthouse plaza, resolution #11 with the conditions as recommended by staff; second by Patrick. . Roll call vote: Michael, no; Willis, yes; Jim, yes; Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes. Motion carried 4-1. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk