Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160928ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 4:30 Commissioners in attendance were Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko and John Whipple. Absent were Jim DeFrancia, Bob Blaich, Gretchen Greenwood and Michael Brown. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk HPC thanked Debbie for her support and guidance on the HPC board and wished her “happy trails” on her retirement. 534 E. Cooper Ave – Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review, Public Hearing Debbie said the affidavit of public notices are in order – Exhibit I Amy said this is final review for a substantial remodel of the building that has been occupied by Boogies. HPC granted conceptual approval with an interior remodel that will fill in some of the atrium spaces that exist now and also an expansion of the building out onto the open decks that face Hunter Street and a replacement of all the exterior materials and windows. Through this process the applicant has abandoned an approval that would have added a third floor to the building. At conceptual HPC had four conditions: Public amenity with a bulb out and the applicant has committed to paying for the entire improvements which is in condition #1. Condition #2 is parking mitigation through cash-in-lieu. Right now we feel they have 3.8 space but that won’t be tallied till they are through the building permit where there is a final tally of net leasable. Condition #3 relates to the trash area if a restaurant comes in that area will have to be addressed. Condition #4 discusses the planting of two new trees one on Hunter and one on E. Cooper. Condition #5 involves the Engineering Department and certain things that they will want addressed in the building permit. Condition #6 is new information. There are a few things that could be conditions of approval. We need a roof plan and an exterior lighting plan. Regarding the windows on the project on the upper floor there are some single units and some ganged together. We are concerned that the proportions are not quite right ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 2 and we would like some restudy. Vested rights is also in the resolution and we recommend approval of the project with possible restudy of the entry. Jeffrey asked about the windows. Amy said if they are ganged together they should be more narrower and taller. Amy said the angled front is not something that we see downtown. You would have more of a solid upper floor. Amy said basically the roof plan and lighting plan are the only other issues. Gideon Kaufman, attorney represented Thor 534 E. Cooper Ave LLC This building has current vested rights for a previous project that was approved for a third story building with a third floor pent house. The new proposal is a much more sensitive design which mirrors the current community desires. This building used to be a bowling alley in the 50’s and then it was the Shaft restaurant and then it became Boogie’s building. The new proposal does not demolish the whole building. The third floor has been completely eliminated. You now have a 100% commercial building in the CC zone district. There are also no variances being requested. This building meets the desire of the community and is deserving of HPC approval. Andy Wisnosky, Poss & Associates Andy went through a brief summary of the last meeting . This building fits within the context of the block. By pushing the facades out to the street we have new store fronts and it can be more of a captivating experience. The glass entry reflects the old Boogie’s entrance and we have reduced the amount of glazing. There are hyphens between the two masses. We feel we have maintained the clipped corner in a sensitive way. The windows are fixed windows with a broken line to emulate the sash of the window. The ganged double hung window system is something that does appear around town. The Isis building has them. When we modulated the building and tried to break it up into smaller componen ts and we wanted to respect the clipped corner. If you clipped it to the sky you would have an odd looking corner. We carried the cornice line out to the corner which provides some solar protection to the upper level. The braces are visually ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 3 important for the composition of the corner. The glazing on the upper level is a little taller on the corner. We feel this project is a great addition to town. Site plan: Andy said there will be three new street trees. The corner has been bulbed out and there is also a bike rack in that area. It will now become a collecting space for people who want to sit there on a sunny day. There will also be a park bench in the area. The paving pattern is proposed to be a mixture of pinkish sandstone and concrete. Everything will be snow melted. Materials: Steel and brick are incorporated into the design. We also have a steel canopy. The subtleties when you are walking along the street make a huge difference in the way you perceive the building. Andy said with the second floor elevation we are living with what was existing in terms of the second floor elevation. We are maintaining the second floor level the same as the existing building. In a perfect work the lower level would have been higher. Amy said the brick material should be confirmed with a sample down the road. John said mass and scale is fine. Is the southern façade similar in height to the existing Boogie’s building. Andy said the existing atrium is significantly higher than this building. The parapet at the corner is slightly higher but we are still within the height limit of 28 feet. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis said the issues are the windows and cornice entry. Willis said Gretchen commented at the last meeting that her concern was 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 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 4 redesigned and thought out differently and the roof heigh t needs to be addressed. Willis said we need to focus on the corner entry. Nora said she is pleased to see that no third floor is proposed and no pent house. Willis said Gideon said in his opening comments all the great things this project is doing: getting rid of the third floor, no pent house, entirely commercial, the glazing is reduced and the east edge from the urban design point of view is immenantly better than it has been under the current configuration. Mass and scale is vastly improved. The corner is the issue. John said he is favorable with the public amenity space. There are new trees and a new bike rack. I do like the chamfered entry point. The glazing adds a little nostalgia to the building. I also like the braces. A lot of cities that have earthquake problems braces are very customary. You see that in restorations of old buildings whether it is internal or external. It is a good project and nicely proportioned. The frosted glass awning is also appropriate. Jeffrey said he is familiar with this block and this building. The applicant has conformed with the guidelines not just with the mass and scale but with the glazing. The material palate is consistent with our guidelines. The windows can be sorted out with staff and moni tor. The glazing on the chambered corner is respective of our guidelines and also does homage to that corner. The diagonal bracing and steel struts is an added extra element that causes a dynamic architecture feel to it. The material palate is within our guidelines. The applicant has done a good job with the massing and I can support the project. Willis said the issue of the double hung windows and the square proportions can be worked out. Regarding the corner the question is whether the scale is appropriate in the historic context of Aspen. I would have expected more discussion on that corner. If you look at 19th century entries you won’t find one that is a double height glazed corner or a double height expression. I don’t see a compelling reason for a two story glazed expression. All new retail coming in wants to be the fanciest and so they all adopt this bilateral approach to the corner. Streets have a hierarchy in Aspen. Streets are not ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 5 the same, there are a major and minor and most of the sensible commercial buildings acknowledge that. This is a question for the commercial design standards. The real issue is should they explore with staff and monitor where there is a portion between 8 feet and 12 feet in the residential code or maybe 13 feet and 16 feet on this corner. Maybe the brick comes out at midlevel and establishes a corner and you get a more richer layering between brick, steel and glass. The use of the steel bracing is fine and it is typical of a lot of new architecture. My hope is toning down the reading of the double height glazed entry. You can do great modern architecture with a one story entry. The Art Museum has a one story entry. The entrance strikes me as the Mall of America or Dick’s Sporting goods entrance. This design is creeping into downtown with the double height glass expression. The design can be worked out. Nora said she would support some sort of break on the front entrance. Jeffrey suggested that the spandrel come around. Willis said it is the scale of the glazing that is an issue. John said he is trying to be objective. That is a major corner and has the prime view of the gondola and to minimize any kind of view looking out from that building is going to do injustice. I am comfortable with the design. If a restaurant were to come in the glazing would be important. Willis said he doesn’t see a continuance to look at that corner again. Staff and monitor can review the issue. It is also in the resolution and staff is on board with it. Amy said there are guidelines that say the ground floor is more glassy than the upper floor level. There is also a design guideline that says corners should be fun. There can be a balance. Willis said the scale of the entry needs reduced. The design team won’t disappoint us and it will be a fun corner. Nora said Willis is not saying get rid of the glazing. Maybe do a spandrel to break it up. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 6 Jeffrey suggested a horizontal element across the floor plate. Nora said restudy to reduce the scale of the glass. Gideon said we are in a tough position. Our vested rights on the other approval are coming up. We have proposed a 100% commercial bldg. With all the good that is here we can’t be in the position to go to staff after we have given up our ability to do something else. In terms of what the community is getting what is here I hope you can approve it as is. We don’t want to be in an uncertain situation and live in a generic situation. Andy said as an alternative to consider if we were to extend the line that occurs at the double hung sill height and add a mullion through that section of the windows that way we are creation some continuity of the sill course of the building. Willis said they can get the permit with no delay and work with the monitor. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #29 with the modification to #6 restudy the corner entry that reduces the scale of the glazing two story to one story. Nora second the motion. Willis said they can leave the exact amount of glass. Amy said on condition #6 we are dropping the language about the upper windows and adding restudy the corner entry so that it reduces the scale of the glazing from two story to one story. John said he is happy with the application as is and appreciates the glazing. Jeffrey said he is wondering if the direction is strong enough for staff and monitor. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, no; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; John, no Motion 2-2 no action. MOTION: John moved to approve resolution #29 as written with the removal of the double hung windows; second by Jeffrey. John said this application conforms to the guidelines. I am good with the double glazing because it exists there now even in a larger scale. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 7 Debbie said John is removing the restudy of the corner in his motion. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; John, yes; Willis, no; Nora, no. Motion 2-2 no action. Gideon said we would like to propose the understanding if we accept Willis’s motion we would need to understand the timing associated with that and how quickly a monitor would be appointed and how quickly we could get an answer because we have drawings that we need to get submitted and the Building Dept. won’t accept drawings until you have your approvals from the HPC. We are in a time constraint in terms of choosing which project. Could Willis be the monitor and how quickly can you and Amy give us an answer so we aren’t put into a situation where we have to choose between this project and the other project and everyone loses which is what we don’t want to do. Is this a one week or two week. John said you get a monitor appointed at the end of the meeting then normally we get back to you within a week. Willis said you are about to get an approved resolution tonight so there is nothing stopping you from applying for a building department. Amy said maybe we can agree that there will be a finding within a week after you give us information and there may have to be a second round which we would also respond to in a week. Amy said we all agree with the goal and there should be no more than two rounds of review with the response time of a week. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #29 with the modification to #6 restudy the corner entry that reduces the scale of the glazing two story to one story. We all agree that everyone embraces reducing the scale of the glazing and there would be no more than two rounds of review with the response time of a week. Motion second by John. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; John, yes; Willis, yes Nora, yes; Motion carried 4-0. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 8 Willis is the monitor. 845 Meadows Road – Final Major Development and Planned Development Detailed Review, Public Hearing Debbie said the affidavits have been appropriately provided – Exhibit I Amy said there are two parts to review tonight, a planned development review detailed level and final major development. HPC reviewed the project and then it went to city council and they wrapped up some of the larger issues such as transportation, onsite parking and affordable housing etc. You are here tonight to discuss final which includes material selections etc. Council supported HPC findings. At conceptual you asked the applicant to move the north addition back and only touch new elements such as the Plato restaurant and that was accomplished. The second issue was how the restaurant expansion would occur. The applicant figured out how to float the new addition over the top of the old so that we can still see the structural roof system and experience the transition. The third discussion was the proposed new pedestrian bridge and that did not get wrapped up and HPC will discuss it tonight. Amy said right now there is a stair case that comes off the historic building and takes you down onto the patio area. That was added when the Plato restaurant went in and it is required egress. The applicant would like to get rid of that but they still have to address the access problem. They are proposing a pedestrian bridge that projects from the kaleidoscreen to the new addition. HPC gave direction that the bridge should not contact the historic structure. You wanted it to land in the knuckle of the new restaurant addition. What they are proposing does not exactly comply with your direction but staff supports their proposal because we think it is the most sensitive to tuck the new element to the side and not have a lot of visual impact. The second issue is that they are receiving construction estimates and they may have to rethink how much basement they build under the new restaurant addition and the existing building. If they choose a smaller basement it is actually more floor area. Council is aware of this and they approved some extra square footage in the applicant’s approval only for the basement. The third issue is that we need some follow-up on the architectural lighting plan. Number #4 is the material palate of the new addition. There are two fabrics proposed that don’t exist right now on the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 9 property. We feel the project should be modest in the entire approach. Herbert Bayer made the simplest think beautiful. There should be discussion on the porcelain tile that is proposed to completely surface the decks and patios on the new construction. That is a new fabric and we feel concrete might be better. Composite decking is also proposed for the cantilever deck that slopes down to the river. Maybe that decking should be reconsidered. Amy said there needs to be discussion on the railings associated with the Plato’s deck that are painted white metal. The applicant is neutral whether that railing should be repeated or maybe the panels should be a steel grid rather than painted metal. Staff said they are ambivalent but the fabric should all be the same. There are two windows facing west leading to the deck that need to be turned into doors. We need cut sheets on how that conversion will happen. Staff had mentioned that a lot of vegetation has grown up in front of the building to the extent that you can’t see the historic structure. We would like some ongoing consideration of limbing up the trees with coordination of the Parks Dept. Amy explained the changes on the model. Jim Curtis, represented the Aspen Institute Jeffrey Berkus, architect Nick Keptura, architect Jeffrey B. said the stairs were a concern at the last meeting and they have been simplified. It has been pushed back and in plane with the pavilion. In the front the T’s are all exposed. The bridge connects to the end of the building and is very narrow. It will be made of steel and open and very identifiable. The bridge sits on four columns and is its own architectural element. On the terrace the surface has always been concrete and it is not ideal and cracks. The porcelain paver looks like concrete. On the rails we are proposing stainless vs painted. Jim Curtis said the boulder retaining wall has nothing to do with this project. It is existing today and constructed with the Meadows Trail. We are in discussion with the Parks Department about making drainage improvements to the trail and grade reduction to the trail. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 10 Jeffrey B. went over the material samples. The colors of the windows are exactly the same as the Doerr Hosier which is basically Dove grey or Bayer grey. The bridge material would be all metal instead of concrete. It is a very light and airy structure. They are coming up with glazing technology to the UV protection to get closer to the glare glass. We desire to get away from the darker glass. The architectural lighting are ballards and we are trying not to do any exterior lighting on the building. We really don’t want to light the terraces. When people are out there the night skies are great. Jim Curtis said they are happy to discuss tree trimming with the Parks Department. We aren’t inclined to remove trees. Jeffrey B. said on the western façade where we are adding the doors we are making the doors out of steel to match the window assemblies. Willis asked what the material is on the window frames on Plato’s and the windows on the historic structure. Nick Keptura said Plato’s has anodized aluminum and the Meadows has painted steel mullions. Jeffrey B. said we are trying to keep the light on the surfaces only. Any lighting outside will be step lights. Nora inquired about the porcelain vs the concrete for the floo r. Jeffrey B. said concrete floor throughout the pavilion isn’t going to be appropriate. The concrete cracks like crazy as you can see all over the institute. We have tried everything on stained concrete floors to have them not crack. Jim Curtis said when the pavilion opens up Jeffrey would like the inside and outside to flow together and look the same as one open space. Jim Curtis said we are showing the arrival court and a walkway connection from the terrace to the Meadows trail. We want to do the arrival court but that is budget depending and we would like that optional. We are also having discussions with the Parks Dept. and Engineering Dept. about running a new sewer line. We would tie into the connection sewer line that services Shady Lane. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 11 Nora said her concern is that the bridge doesn’t touch the historic structure. Jeffrey B. said it touches it but there is a reveal. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis identified the issues: Material palate – porcelain deck pavers Guard rails Windows to doors – they will match exactly Wood vs synthetic decking Color of the material palate – dove grey metal for the doors and windows Bridge connection Willis said with the three periods of construction it is hard for me to understand how the colors and materials will react Plato’s to the Meadows to the new addition. Maybe if we had a palate board it would be easier. Amy said she did put in a condition that a site inspection of the samples is needed. Willis said all the neutral colors are appropriate. The hardy plank is OK. The porcelain tile is also OK. The composite decking in front of Plato’s is OK as long as it is not Trex which would warp and have a wood texture. The door proposal is OK, condition #6. On the railing material the detailing is fine and whether the mesh is stainless or white should be left to the discretion of the monitor and staff. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to extend the meeting to 7:15 second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Nora said the model helps. Nora said she can support staff’s recommendation. Regarding the railing it should be consistent throughout. Regarding the trees it would be nice to see the building. We have way too many pine trees in town. John said he is in agreement with Nora. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 12 Jeffrey agreed with staff’s memo. The railing should also be left up to staff and monitor. How the pedestrian bridge fastens or details to the historic resource can be looked at with staff and monitor. I can support staff’s memo and the project. MOTION: Nora moved to approve resolution #30, 2016 as written; second by John. Amy said condition #4 should say the materials have been approved by the full board. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; John, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes Motion carried 4-0. Jeffrey is the monitor. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk