Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160824ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Nora Berko, John Whipple, Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood and Michael Brown. Jim DeFrancia was absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Suzannah Reid, Preservation Planner MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of August 10th; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: John will recuse himself on 533 W. Hallam St. and 305-307 S. Mill Street. Public Comments Scott McDonald said he graduated from Aspen High School in 1966 and he has owned a number of properties in Aspen; 300 W. Main, the log cabin restaurant; the Elisha House at 320 W. Main and the family house at 1000 E. Cooper. I inherited the Cooper house from my Mother who is mentally ill and in a home. Adjacent to the house a new house was put in at 1006 E. Cooper. It is a modern house put on an historic property with an historic front. Our house has been compromised by the infill that the new construction put in. It is about two feet up from the grade of our house. In the 50’s there was a fence in the front and a fence between the house and the garage at 100 E. Cooper which essentially my mother bought and lost that particular part of the property line. There was never a fence between the two properties. They put the retaining wall in a straight line from the front fence to the back. So what has happened is that the infill which is road bed and then sand on the road bed for pavers with an 18 inch retaining wall. They added about a foot of infill against the foundation of our house essentially going up to the wood. We warned them and then they put in the 18 inch retaining wall. If they put a fence up it will inhibit any servicing of the back wall of our house. Egress for fire won’t be good either and there never was a fence there historically. The property has been compromised and somebody needs to remove the fill. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 2 The second thing is my Mother had a court appointed conservator and the conservator Air and B’d the property under the auspicious of the vertically integrated contractor Leo Carmichael and in any case his property manager Red Deer Management didn’t know about it. Antonio Cooper who is a renter fraudulently represented herself that she had the right to air and b the property in the excess of $25,000. a month. At the same time they were doing this the garage turned into a little apartment, 400 square feet and the cost was $200,000. The back porch of the main house was removed and it had been there since the 60’s and had historical columns. It was removed because a foot of it was on city property. On the Birdseye map the surveyor who laid out the city screwed up as far as the north elevation goes. The conservator signed off on a revocable right to have the house as its stands. That is unacceptable to us to have a revocable clause in the deed. Under the HPC overview the historical columns were gotten rid of and a stoop was put in and we essentially lost all of our property rights with this revocable clause. I’m sure I will be seeing a lot more of HPC in the future. I am hoping by this introduction that the HPC can have an action item in regards to the issue that the grade needs fixed as winter is coming up and the property line needs addressed in regards to the fence. I am happy to meet the new HPC. Willis asked Scott if he met with staff. Scott said he has worked with Amy and the HPC for many years. Michael and Jeffrey were seated. 980 Gibson Avenue – Project Monitoring Amy said final was approved a few months ago. There were conditions placed on the approval and one was that the applicant was to restudy the proportion and placement of some windows on the new house that is being built on the site. A miner’s cottage is also being restored. The second condition was to simplify the material palate down to two siding materials. Amy said she met with Nora and they approved the window design but they weren’t comfortable with the material restudy. We also need a permanent monitor. Mitch Hass, Hass Planning Eric Westerman, Bill Pollock , Zone 4 architects ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 3 Mitch said there were three conditions: one to study the historic house, windows, doors and roof for historic character and that has been done to satisfaction. The condition to study the reduction of materials on the new house is being addressed tonight. Originally we had stone, wood and metal siding. The metal siding has been completely eliminated. The historic house sits 23 feet away from the element where the stone is. The historic resource is closer to Gibson Ave. It is about 60 feet before you get to the addition. In context we don’t feel the stone can overwhelm the historic building. The wall we are talking about is 20 feet tall and 23 feet away from the historic resource. Our hope is that the stone veneer design is satisfactory. Bill Pollock said the only elevation in question is the façade that goes up two stories to 20 feet. The material was approved except for this one element. The peak of the neighboring historic cabin is 18 feet. There originally was wood, stone and metal and we went with stone and wood. We feel the stone element breaks up the scale of the façade. Amy said when she and Nora discussed the material it was mentioned that one option would be to bring all stone down to a wainscot height. That isn’t the owners first choice but is a possible solution. The surfaces of the walls were asked to be limited to two materials. Bob said the stone is the same on the front porch. Amy said originally the stone was thin and now it is proposed to be an ashlar larger appearing blocks similar to what you would see during the Victorian era. Eric presented a sample of the stone. Jeffrey asked if the applicant ever considered running the course across which is a little higher than the wainscot to break up the façade. Bill said there was discussion and we studied it. If we did that the window would end the stone and we felt it was an odd spot. Also if we did that the window on the other side would sit on the stone. Amy pointed out that there is a lower band of stone that we would approve which would carry around the building. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 4 Gretchen suggested using stone only. John said it is nice to see a detached dwelling and if there was a ten foot connecting link there would be an issue with the stone. This proposal meets my interpretation of the guidelines because it is 23 feet apart and it looks much better than what we have seen before. Gretchen said the stone is nice in the center but having two levels of wainscoting on a building isn’t needed but I would approve it as is. Nora said it might be 23 feet away but it is very predominant and looks like a huge stone wall especially in a light stone and that is why I wanted to see it somehow broken up. Willis said he agrees with John’s comments. They have done what we asked and eliminated the materials to two. It looks more harmonious than what we looked at before. This is the proposal they want and I would vote to go forward as is. Gretchen agreed. Willis made the motion to accept the design as presented, second by Gretchen. Michael, no; Nora, no; Bob, yes; Willis, yes; Gretchen, yes; John, yes; Jeffrey, yes; 5-2 Jeffrey is the monitor on 980 Gibson. Resolution creating a policy for meeting adjournment Amy said the policy has HPC’s meeting ending at 7:00 unless extended by the board. We need to tweak the language a little that states you are not required to go to 7:00 p.m. MOTION: Gretchen made the motion to accept Resolution # 26; second by John. All in favor, motion carried. 7-0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 5 845 W. Hallam - Reconsider a condition Michael recused himself. Amy said we have a request to reconsider one of the conditions of approval for 834 W. Hallam. Debbie said there is a condition regarding the timing of an approval of the Si Johnson Ditch Co. Part of my job is to represent the Aspen Utilities Department. The City owns the majority of the rights in the Si Johnson ditch Company and we have had extensive conversations with the applicant trying to come up with a solution where the ditch goes through this property. We feel we will reach a solution. Our thinking is if there were any issues what the ditch company required the applicant may want to talk to City Council about it so it makes sense to us to have the condition at the same time it went to council. The ditch relocation is costly. We would like HPC to reconsider resolution 24 for the sole purpose of changing condition #4. Right now it says prior to city council review and instead of that it should say prior to submission of final review the applicant shall obtain approval from the Si Johnson Ditch Company. MOTION: Bob made the motion to reconsider resolution #24, 2016 ; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Bob made the motion to amend resolution #24 stating prior to submission of final review the applicant shall obtain approval from the Si Johnson Ditch Company. Motion second by Jeffrey. All in favor motion carried. 533 W. Hallam Street – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variations, Public Hearing cont’d from July 13 th John recused himself. Michael was seated. Suzanna Reid represented for staff. Suzannah said the project falls under the old guidelines for a corner lot. The applicant was asked to restudy the massing of the new addition. All the other aspects of the project, the onsite relocation, demolition are the same as they were before. The applicant has brought in an optional two car garage ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 6 instead of a one car garage. They would like approval of either option. Elevation 210.5 shows the old and new proposal. The plate heights have been lowered on the west wing of the project and 6 inches overall on the ground floor and 1 foot at the second level bedroom. The west facing drops down a total of 18 inches. The architect has also added an overhang at the second level which causes the piece to project 18 inches out beyond the original location of the first floor wall which creates a shadow line across reducing the perceived height of that wall. The garage option extends the one car garage to the west to add the second garage with the same design of the volume. This does increase the variance for the rear yard for the basement and the deck. The historic outbuilding has been located in the southwest corner along the alley which was the preferred location. Patrick Leeds, architect for Studio Leeds Patrick said the concerns from the last meeting were about the two -story west facing façade and the view from the southwest corner, the position of the garden shed. We were able to adjust the first floor to the second floor height. Adjustments to the height of the building were also made. The back piece height went from 7’6” to 7 and in the middle piece it went from 7’6” to 7’3” due to the limitation of the stairs. Over the bedroom the height was reduced from 7’6” to 6’6”. The overall effect is a 1’3” drop on the west face. There is an 18 inch projection creating a shadow break to break up the façade. The garden shed was also relocated per the July 13 th meeting. We have gone back and forth regarding the one car garage or two car garage. If we have the one car garage the second car would be parked out in front of the building. If we have the two car garage the car would be inside. We are proposing either one and if we go with the two car garage there is a net loss of square footage due to calculations. Visually since it is on the alley side we are OK with the two car garage and it seems to fit with the broader concepts of the building. Functionally the floor plan suffers a little bit with the two car garage. The modifications make the project better. We are looking for your support. Suzannah said the variances are for the shed and the deck on the second floor over the garage. The garage can be at the 5 foot setback and if you have usable space on top then it needs to be a ten foot setback so the variance is for the five foot difference. Patrick said if you are trying to control mass and scale that volume is still there because it comes out to the garage setback. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 7 Michael clarified that the shed wasn’t necessarily on this site originally. Suzannah said that is what we have determined so far. Michael said there is a lot of stuff crammed onto this site. Does the shed have to stay on the site? It looks like it is wedged onto the site. Patrick said they would be happy to remove the shed. Nora said the deck needs a variance and can you pull the garage in? Patrick said the deck doesn’t extend the entire width of the two car garage. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Christen Henry said she lives at 525 W. Hallam which is the property immediately to the east. I was here at the last meeting and the changes that Patrick has made are much better. The question is have there been changes to the east facing façade? Patrick said it has dropped in height but the plan dimension have not changed. Christen said the plan is much better. Chairperson Willis Pember closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Willis identified the issues: The first condition is boiler plate. The second condition is a single or two car garage option. The third is variations for the basement, roof deck and garden shed. The fourth is to check in with the Zoning officer to confirm the FAR calculations. The fifth condition is boiler plate. Michael said he is having trouble with the amount of program on the site and how it works with the resource. There is a lot. It’s hard to consider some of the smaller points, the setback and whether the garage should be one car or a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 8 two car garage when it looks like a tremendous amount of programming and size vs the resource and the site. It looks big for the site. Willis said there are no TDR’s and no FAR bonus requested. There is also a net reduction in FAR from the first meeting. Patrick pointed out that the site coverage is 39%. Nora said she appreciate the attempt to reduce the height a little bit. Guideline 10.6 is not complied with. If this building were in the middle of the block I could probably get on board. When you look from the Historical Society garden it is massive. I understand it is within the guidelines but the aesthetic of this building I can’t get beyond 10.6 or 10.7. The character of the historic resource has not remained prominent. Bob said he had concerns at the last meeting and part of them have been addressed. There is a house across the street that is pretty big and that helps balance the neighborhood. Nora pointed out that the house across the street is set back. Bob also said it has a lot of land around it due to the museum. I could feel more comfortable if the scale is down but it is staying within the specific guidelines. I prefer the two car garage which is a better solution. Patrick added that the plate height adjustments are below the height limit from 2’3” to 3’3”. When you say it is big we are under the square footage and well under the height limits. Bob said when you look at the property there is a lot going on there. There are a lot of structures and it is confusing. This plan is an improvement for that neighborhood. Nora pointed out that you are working with a small resource and there has to be something complementary. Willis pointed out that it is rare that we see a two story structure coming in with a plate height less than 8 feet. The second floor plate height is low. This is a good approach and he has taken to heart the new regulations regarding corner sites whereby all the mass is located in the extreme south ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 9 east corner. There is a one story expression with the trellis and deck on the west side. I look favorably on the mass and scale. Gretchen said she doesn’t think this project is as good as it could be. The linking element is wasting two facades of the historic building. Even though the height has been lowered it doesn’t change the massing and the fact that it definitely overwhelms the historic resource because there is no small element or roof line at a one story or one and a half story level that helps break the mass up. The building is very cavernous next to an historic resource. The massing between the two buildings don’t relate regardless of the stacking. They look like two separate projects. Michael pointed out that design guideline 10.7 says it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than an historic building and set it back substantially from significant facades and use a connector to link an historic building. Maybe the problem is that it isn’t substantially set back from the façade. The tall element and where it is so close to the façade of the historic resource is what is crowding out the site. Gretchen said with the low connector and very tall addition it creates conflict between the massing of the Victorian which is 1 and ¼ story in height. The connector itself really isn’t a connector. It is destroying two parts of the historic resource which typically we only do one. Suzannah clarified that the existing addition actually gloms onto the south east corner of the historic house up to the bay window. All that is being taken off and restored. We are gaining some of the historic house back that is currently buried into the existing house. Patrick clarified that the two walls will have the exterior siding on the floor to ceiling glass on the linking element. Gretchen pointed out that she feels the two buildings don’t marry well. They are still too tall with the flat facades and there is no breakdown in scale of the two story forms. The building should absolutely have a two car garage with that amount of bedrooms to get cars off the street. The relationship with the three elements is harsh. Willis pointed out that they have met the guideline regarding separation. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 10 Jeffrey commended the applicant for the modifications that have been made. The majority of the guidelines have been answered, 2.1, 5.5,6.1,6.4, 7.1. The proposal to relocate the historic building is appropriate. The proportions of the roof line are consistent and compatible with 10.9 and 10.6. The addition is compatible in size and scale and the roof form is in compliance; the pitches are similar and the flat roof elements are a product of its own time and is a new architectural element. The restoration of this building is commendable. The proposal is under what the FAR and height requirements are. The link is clearly shown and meets our guidelines. The two car garage is also favorable. Getting a car away from the building and off the street is preferable. I can support the project as proposed. MOTION: Willis moved to approve the resolution as written; second by Bob. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes, Gretchen, no; Bob, yes; Nora, no; Michael, no; Willis, yes. 3-3 fails Michael said he would make a motion to continue to study the design guidelines 10.4, 10.6, 10.7 and restudy the connector. The second story element needs restudied. Nora commented that you are working with a small resource not a two story resource. This is really an important corner. Gretchen said the mass needs to occur on the ground level even if it is taking up more site. It doesn’t have the relationship to a neighboring Victorian building. Maybe move some of the upper level mass to the lower which would bring some of the roof lines down. Willis commented that the mass is where the guidelines say it should be. Michael said through a continuance some of the design guidelines could be addressed and the project could be improved. Willis said the massing is simple and it meets the guidelines and staff supports the project. MOTION: Michael made the motion to continue the project to October 26th; second by Nora. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 11 Jeffrey said this is a small historic resource and yes the addition seems large but it is also well enough set back and in my opinion meets the guidelines on its separation, restoration, mass and scale. Gretchen said she disagrees. You have a deck above a living room and that creates a blocky mass and that could easily have a scale break down. It doesn’t go far enough for me in terms of relating to the mass of the Victorian. I am not in favor of seeing these tall narrow buildings behind the Victorians in town to continue. Willis said we are not at our best as a board when we re-design. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, no; Gretchen, yes; Willis, yes; Bob, no; Nora, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 4-2. 305/307 S. Mill Street – Final Development, Final Commercial Design and Grown Management Review, Public Hearing Debbie said the notice has been provided – Exhibit I Amy said HPC granted conceptual review for a remodel and expansion of the existing building where the Popcorn wagon, Jimmy’s and Grey Lady are located. That approval was granted in September 2015. HPC is here tonight to review landscape, lighting, fenestration and materials. There are also a few ends that need tweaked from conceptual and growth management needs reviewed. This particular property has limitations on re-development because of its location right in the sight of the Wheeler View Plan. In this proposal there is a larger basement. HPC set a strict condition that no aspect including mechanical equipment could be taller than 13 ½ feet. The applicant also needs to have all mechanical set back 15 feet from the street facing facades. The roof plan does comply. There is an elevator overrun but it still complies with the condition. At the last meeting direction was given to provide a more detailed Transportation Impact Analysis which is required for all developments like this one. The analysis identifies how many trips are generated by this development and it comes to 14.3 a day. The applicant is required to provide a certain amount of public amenity on the site. They represented that they could not accommodate physically with open space on the property and they would like to pay a cash-in-lieu fee and that is allowed if HPC accepts it. Since then the applicant has decided that they would rather do off-site improvements which means they will spend the same ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 12 amount of money or even more but they get to decide where those improvements happen, probably adjacent to the site on the mall in coordination with the Parks and Engineering Department . They want to be pro-actively involved. In terms of architecture we find that the project meets the design guidelines and it is very successful and adds variety downtown. It is nice to have a one story building. The applicant has done a good job of balancing and distinguishing new from old and playing off some of the vocabulary that you find in the older architecture downtown. Regarding growth management they are just under 3,500 square feet of net leasable space which requires mitigation. The mitigation is for 7.4 full time employees and they propose to do that with housing credits. Units will be built elsewhere in town and credit certificates will be issues and cashed in at building permit time. This site is not feasible for onsite housing. The applicant is required to provide mitigation of cash-in-lieu for the parking because they are not physically able to provide it on the site. 4.9 spaces need to be mitigated during building permit. Regarding the public amenity 834.5 square feet shall be provided onsite and the remaining balance will be through off-site improvements instead of cash-in-lieu fee. The applicant will provide bike racks on the mall and the rest of the mitigation will be in the form of a cash-in-lieu payment. There is the possibility that they will have to provide a transformer and there might need to be a modification of the design. There are certain conditions that other departments are interested in. There is also a certain amount of snow storage that happens around this site in the winter and it could impact some of the circulation ideas. Before they develop the plans too much further they need to take that into consideration. The lighting plan is very simple and meets the lighting code standards. The trash area is 10’ wide x 30’d x 10’h. With the conditions staff recommends approval. Gretchen asked if a restaurant is proposed how far out are they allowed to go and who approves the umbrellas? We are seeing this without the embellishment in front if it is a restaurant. Amy said there is no review on movable umbrellas as long as they are on their own property. If it expands they are subject to a mall lease which is reviewed by the Commercial Core & Lodging Commission. There are rules about anything becoming a structure. Jeffrey asked about the offsite amenity and were would it land. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 13 Amy said in most cases it is adjacent to the property. Michael asked what the trip mitigation fee is. Amy said she believes it is about $6,000 per trip which would amount to $55,000 in addition to some bike racks on the mall. Applicant, Mark Hunt, owner of 305/307 LLC Chris Bendon, BendonAdams Chris said conceptual was granted almost a year ago. This is a very prominent site on the edge of the mall. The significant item at con ceptual was the view plane and this property is severely impacted by the Wheeler view plane. This meeting is focused on the conditions that have been set by the HPC which is the location and setbacks of the mechanical units. The design team spent a significant amount of energy addressing this and this plan complies. Everything is 13’5” or below and set back 15 feet or more. The southern section of the roof that faces the park has nothing on top. Some of the mechanical units will be down below and hung from the ceiling on the basement level. We are still working with the mechanical engineer to see if we can make things smaller and pull them back further if we can. Screening will be around the units. The application includes an expansion of the basement. There is an existing basement on about 1/3 of the property. The building will remain during the dig out of the basement process. This triggered the requirement of an elevator. The building design is the same you saw at conceptual with the additional basement space and the additional elevator. Mark said aesthetically there is not a lot of change. We have gone through a handful of iterations. We are taking the approach of taking the best of what is there and cleaning it up. The arched form and building near the park will be cleaned up and additions will be added. There is a lot of activity at that site and we want to create a rhythm with individual facades but they are all tied together. On the corner across from the Wheeler we are looking at something that is steel and glass with a very simple form which is light and airy. It is set back significantly. The building with the arch will have a metal panel that also ties in with the color of the steel window grid and as you go closer to the park we are doing a wood façade with steel windows. Each façade has presence on the mall. The plaster with the arch will stay as it is which is quite successful. We are proposing Hope steel windows which are double pane insulated glass. We are proposing to have a profile of an ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 14 inch in width. On the building facing the park we are playing around with a white barn wash which would tie into the arched plastered building. We would have an operable window that you can open up on the building facing the park so you get the feeling of indoor outdoor when you are at the park. Some of the facades on the mall side will open up. The white brick arch will remain. Chris said we have a public amenity requirement in the resolution and we hope to do that off-site. The mall already has a lot of public amenity already and it is tricky to find items to contribute to. We were looking at an enhanced cross rock between this property and the Wheeler Opera House but that needs to be finalized with the Engineering Department. We are hoping that can be handled with staff and monitor review. On the affordable housing we have 7.47 FTE’s and we plan to mitigate that through housing credits. As we move into construction drawings the net leasable count may move slightly and we would like to have recognition that there will be a final count and that number might need adjusted. We can’t physically provide parking so we already have to pay cash-in-lieu to not provide the parking and in addition we need to provide mitigation for the vehicle trips and we would like to provide bike racks because there is a serious deficit of bike racks on the mall. The bikes would only provide 5 trips regardless of how much bike parking you provide and we would like to continue that discussion with the Engineering Dept. We might find other off-site options that we would like to pursue and not come back to the full HPC commission. Our final request is a construction technique request for the brick archway. It is an important feature of the property now and is important as we go forward. We would like to be able to secure it and box it and wrap it in foam so that it doesn’t move and then crane it and store it off site. The reason for that is, we are worried that with the construction activity and small footprint and the brittleness of the brick form it might get damaged. The property is not an historic resource but the arch is cool and we would like to be able to protect that and make sure it doesn’t get crushed during construction. Questions and clarifications. Michael asked what the result of the popcorn wagon is and has a location been found. Chris said they are looking for a location. We have reached out to the city and the potential for it to go over to the Wheeler parcel across the street. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 15 Maybe allow for something on the mall or maybe something at the ARC. It partially sits in the right-of-way right now. It is a great amenity for downtown and the mall. We have also reached out to commercial brokers. Mark said it is important that the popcorn wagon find a home but we do have a setback where the wagon could fit in. There is an overhang so we might need to get some kind of overhang permit. If we can’t find anything better we could house it on site. Gretchen said she likes the project. With the amount of glass in the building is there any discussion with the Planning Dept. about the amount of energy it will take to operate the building. It will be difficult to meet the energy code. Mark said they are proposing Hope windows which are energy efficient. Willis said the millenial tiles will be on the roof of the archway. Jeffrey mentioned the awnings that open up over on the park side over the property line and would that be treated like a retractable awning. Amy said they will have to deal with building code implications. Bob said the crosswalk is a problematic area. People do not know where the mall ends or where the street begins. If they come up with concepts that would be helpful from a safety point that could be considered a public amenity. There is a lot going on in that location. Chris said that discussion has been ongoing with Engineering. Chris pointed out that beyond the arched entrance is plaster on a brick. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Gideo Kaufman, attorney representing six people in the building next to the proposal. No one notified the neighbors of the significant change in the basement that has a significant impact on us. At the last meeting the access off the rear of the building would be secondary and limited for emergencies and not a significant entrance. In the changed plan with the increased basement this will not access ground level and basement with additional commercial space. We would like that representation reiterated and confirmed from the last meeting. With the digging and shoring due to the closeness of our building we will be impacted. We would request that the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 16 construction management plan require the owner to address the imp acts from noise and basement construction on the adjacent building. Jay Maytin, public said there have been many attempts to improve this corner and they have failed. This is the best solution we have seen. To have a developer come in and respectfully represent what our community has been so strongly vocal about, and that is small scale, respect to view planes and an inviting project is commendable. This project creates vitality. The project also creates more business opportunities for our community with more rental space and more units. It also cleans up the space between the two buildings. To not support a project like this would be disingenuous to Aspen. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comment section of the public hearing. Applicant rebuttal: Chris said he understands the neighbors not wanting people to hang out in the alley exit. The primary entrance to the basement space is through the center portion and you go down the elevator. We have to have a second means of egress out of the basement. We can explore whether or not it can be a panic door for emergency only. We would need to make sure that is code compliant. The access just gets you out of the building. It is not used for deliveries etc. We will do everything that the city requires regarding construction mitigation. We will reach out to the neighbors regarding construction prodigal. Chris said regarding his own property he documented his neighbor’s property with photographs etc. before going into construction. Nora said the applicant is intending that to be an emergency access. Chris said that is our goal but we are not sure we can commit because we aren’t building code experts. It is not intended to be a primary access. Willis identified the issues: Landscape, lights, fenestration, materials, details, commercial core design standards. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 17 Amy said on condition 1we should leave the door open a little for the public amenity until Engineering makes a decision. On #3 we should just state that they will mitigate the 14.03 trips because the mitigation hasn’t been totally figured out yet. Jeffrey thanked the applicant for the thorough presentation. The materiality and plate heights are compliant. It would be nice to see some consideration on the popcorn wagon in finding it a good location. The changes to the resolution mentioned by Amy are appropriate. Jeffrey pointed out that there is a major drywell where the elevator is proposed that was done at one point per the Sanitation District. The vested rights, view plane view, demolition, commercial design review, major development are all compliant. I would encourage the applicant to work with the tenants next door with their construction management plan. I can support this application. Gretchen said she watched this project from day one and the entire process has been a successful one. This project definitely meets our current guidelines and it will be exciting to see the project built. I am in favor of the resolution and the boxing of the arch up and moving it off site. The material selection feels like they belong to each other and I can support the project. The corner building will add vitality to the Wheeler and to this block. I am in favor of the resolution with condition #8 boxing up of the arch. Willis said he supports what has been spoken. Willis said he questions the fenestration a little bit. The various small panes of glass are not typical to Aspen. This vocabulary seems to be the 40’s industrial. Our industrial heritage comes from the 19th century. The structural bays are very fine. The gridded glass should be reviewed by staff and monitor. The textured glass that appears on the norther piece should also be reviewed by staff and monitor. Bob said he disagrees with Willis on the glass. The small glass is very appropriate and it works well and is very fresh looking. I feel strongly about this project and it is very well thought out and it retains some of the character that exits now. I also like the transparency and it is a commendable project. The existing buildings are a hodge podge and I congratulate the applicant for the rethinking of this whole location. Willis agreed that the structural clarity is great. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2016 18 MOTION: Michael made the motion to extend the meeting for 7 minutes, second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Nora thanked the applicant for keeping the buildings low and keeping the view plane. The resolution as written is fine. I was never a huge fan or the arch but I can grow to love it. Nora thanked the applicant for preserving the arch. Gideon’s comments are part of the construction mitigation. Michael agreed with the fellow commissioners comments. The project looks good as proposed and the glass is appropriate and could be polarizing but many things in Aspen are. Amy pointed out that there are a lot of buildings that have the transom window with a lot of little squares of glass surrounding a slightly larger pane. That is what the reference is to me and that is why I didn’t raise an objection. Willis suggested that the wall sconces on the southern block be looked at and they could be made a little more contemporary. Bob said he would support that restudy. Willis also pointed out that the scale of the millenial tiles around the arch should be large and reviewed by staff and monitor. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution # 27 with the addition of #8, boxing up the arch and moving it off site during construction. #9 Any special glass treatments be reviewed onsite with a mockup by staff and monitor. The exploration of the glass size of the p anes be reviewed by staff and monitor. The light fixture be restudied to be more contemporary. The scale of the millenial tiles be reviewed by staff and monitor. Motion second by Gretchen. Roll call vote: Michael, yes; Nora, yes; Bob, yes; Willis, yes; Jeffrey, yes; Gretchen, yes; Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk