Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20161012 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2016 1 Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Jeffrey Halferty. Gretchen Greenwood and Jim DeFrancia. John Whipple, Bob Blaich and Michael Brown were absent. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Disclosure: Jeffrey will recuse himself on 500 W. Main Michael and John are absent due to conflicts. MOTION: Gretchen made the motion to approve the minutes of September 14, 2016; second by Jim. All in favor motion carried. 411 E. Hyman Ave. Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review, Public Hearing Jim True said the public notices have been appropriately provided – Exhibit I Justin Barker said HPC reviewed the project in June 2015. It is a two story building with commercial on the first story and the second story is a one bedroom free market unit. HPC approved demolition of the existing structure as well as construction of a new one story commercial building in its place. Exemption from the Mountain View plane was also approved. The use of affordable housing certificates can be used for mitigation of the loss of the one unit that won’t be replaced. Cash-in-lieu has also been approved for the required public amenity of the site. Justin said there were three condition from conceptual. Study the store front entrance to increase the height to align with the more traditional store fronts that are seen in downtown. Study the detailing of the cornice and study the alley façade. The applicant has addressed all three conditions. At conceptual what was presented was an 8 foot tall store front. There is an historical building just to the east of this project. The height has been increased to 13 feet to align with the historic building next door. HPC had concerns that the cornice was too heavy and not appropriate for the proposed ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2016 2 design. The design now has a soldier course of bricks instead of the molded cornice design. Staff feels this is a simple design and is appropriate. On the alley façade the applicant is proposing to drop one third of the building in the rear to be about one story tall. This creates interest in changing the massing in the back and also accommodates the onsite trash and recycling requirements. The materials include hand molded brick and glass. There are a few painted metal details at the rear of the building. Regarding the public amenity the applicant is requesting to modify that and provide off-site public amenity instead of cash-in-lieu. The off-site improvements would not occur on the block face of the mall and would probably be in conjunction with some other project in town. Staff does not feel this meets the intent of the offsite improvements. In addition the city is looking to do a massive upgrade on the pedestrian malls coming up soon which might be an appropriate use of the cash-in-lieu. Regarding the lighting, two lights are in the public right-of-way and would need encroachment licenses and approval of the design will be handled by staff and monitor. Staff would like to add one more condition of approval that the proposed trash and recycling area have an onsite route to the recycling area. Jeffrey said the new design of the soldier course seems less heavy. Chris Bendon from bendonadams represented the owner. Mark Hunt Dwayne Romero Chris said this is one of the simpler projects that we have brought before you. On the block this end is more contemporary. Across the street a re two story structures that are contemporary. The conceptual presented a heavier cornice and lower storefront. For final we have a higher storefront and a redesigned cornice. The existing signage indicates the tenancy but the tenant discussions are ongoing. This project might not go forward until the current tenancy expires several years from now. We would like to eliminate the cross hatch and just make it simple. The materials are handmade brick. The awning is very simple. The trash enclosure has a gate. We are comfortable with the recommended conditions. We can add a door to make the accessible path to the trash recycling area. Regarding the cash-in-lieu we did want to provide a public amenity offsite with an actual improvement. It is difficult here because we don’t control the mall and it is very prescribed in its design. There is pride of ownership ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2016 3 around what happens with the money and that was our idea. That being said the mitigation is very small and the cash-in-lieu is acceptable to us. It isn’t a large amount of money. Mark Hunt said the design is tenant specific with some of the details and a lot can happen with three plus years with the existing tenant. The form and cornice does not compete with the historic building to the east. We also did raise the storefront. A suggestion would be to drop the canopy below to the underside of the soldier course. You would get a little more texture if that was done. It would read a little lower but qualify for the height of the storefront. The cross hatch would be out of the same brick only turned on its end vs a pink glaze that would be very specific. Chris said the interior space doesn’t go all the way to the alley and then there are doors to the trash and recycling. Willis asked if the hatch will be eliminate and the pink glazing. Mark said we would continue the hatch but eliminate the color. Chris said we will eliminate the bakery sign and we will need to comply with the sign code. Mark said exposing the soldier course would be better by lowering the awning. We would attach it on the bottom side. Nora said the cash-in-lieu for the mall redo is appropriate. Jeffrey asked if the cornice is in the same plane as the brick with a metal cap. Willis asked about the light location. Chris said the light proposed is above the sign. Chairperson Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis identified the issues 1-3 in the resolution. #4 would be the accessibility to the trash and recycling area. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2016 4 Willis said the outstanding issues are the cross hatch pattern and the pink color; moving the awning down under the soldier course and opinions on the cash-in-lieu. Amy said in the land use code an awning should project from a building 3 to five feet. Justin said on the plan sets it indicates the awning is out four feet. Willis said he likes the cornice change. We should approve the plans in a neutral color way but retain the cross hatch pattern. The awning color should be chosen by staff and monitor. Jim said he would endorse the cross hatch pattern. The awning meets the dimensional requirements. I favor the cash-in-lieu and it should go into the larger pot to contribute to broader benefits. Gretchen said she is pleased that the applicant responded to the historic corbel. The redesign is in a very quiet manner. The crown detail looks somewhat unfinished and maybe there needs to be a better transition between the horizontal and vertical. That can be handled by staff and monitor. The quilted effect on the front is appropriate and some kind of color should be incorporated because that is the dark side of the street. With a little color it would call attention to the building rather than something neutral and safe. Regarding the awning it would be much more successful if the awning was placed between the two columns so the columns read. The height of the glass is a huge improvement. The goose neck light will create a lot of shadow on the building and that should be rethought. Willis said the goose neck light will be decided by staff and monitor. Gretchen said she likes the project and the cash-in-lieu is appropriate. Jeffrey agreed with the board that the cornice needs a little more detailing to ensure the relationship. Maybe do a reveal which could be successful. The height and massing complies with our guidelines. The comment from Gretchen about the awning is well respected. The cash-in-lieu response is fine and the ADA compliance regarding the trash area is acceptable and meets our criteria. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2016 5 Nora agreed with the commissioners. A little more integration of the cornice to the horizontal layer is appropriate. Pulling in the awning was a good suggestion. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #31, 2016 for 411 E. Hyman Ave. approving the final commercial design and final major development with the conditions as recommended by staff including the condition that the applicant find an onsite accessible route to the trash area. Light fixture A is not approved. The cross hatch pattern is approved and the color be approved by staff and monitor. Further detailing of the cornice be reviewed by staff and monitor. The awning to be inside the columns. Motion se cond by Willis. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Roll call vote: Gretchen, yes; Nora, yes; Jim, yes, Jeffrey, yes; Willis, yes. Justin said he has three additional conditions, hatch pattern required and the color to be approved by staff and monitor. Final details of the cornice to be approved by staff and monitor and the awning should be located below the header and between the columns. Gretchen is the project monitor. 500 W. Main Street – Conceptual Major Development and Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Public Hearing Jeffrey recused himself. Jim True said the notice was published in the paper, however the applicant did not bring the affidavit. In the past we have let the applicant proceed under the representation that they have done the notice properly and will deliver the notice to the clerk’s office tomorrow. Amy said the Mesa Store building is located at 500 W. Main Street. It is the largest false front building from the Victoria era remaining in Aspen in a highly profile location. The building sits on the corner and a little bit past the property lines and there is a wraparound porch that sits in the right -of- way. The building will be left where it is today with some stabilization of the foundation in the existing basement. The application is proposing an addition on the west side of the building. That addition will attach under an ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2016 6 existing historic exposed staircase down the side of the building and the bulk of the addition will sit in the west side yard where you currently see parking. This project sits adjacent to the Fornell affordable housing project which has a miner’s cottage adjacent to the new addition. The attachment is an appropriate way to link the two together and the addition is pushed way back on the site. The addition is about 20 feet wide and has a flat roof with a deck on top and a little further back there is a gabled roof second floor where a residence is proposed. At this level a few things need addressed. 6,000 square feet is the maximum allowed on this site but within that there are limitations on the maximum amount of commercial and the maximum amount of residential space. This project is proposing more commercial than typically allowed and less residential than is allowed. They are staying within the total but exceeding the commercial cap. They are allowed 4,500 square feet of commercial space and they are just slightly exceeding that which is something HPC can allow through special review. They are at 4,807 square feet. The total project is at 5,856 square feet. HPC is being asked to approve the special review. Staff is recommending that HPC grant a complete waiver of the front yard and the east side yard setbacks for this project. The applicant has 6 or so parking spaces on the site. In this project they are expected to provide additional parking or cash-in-lieu payment. We have calculated a shortfall of three parking spaces. HPC can waive the requirement of the parking spaces and can waive the cash-in-lieu payment of $30,000 per space. That is an incentive for landmarks and staff’s supports it. This building has had some alterations over the years and it needs some care and maintenance. We support any opportunity that the city can partner with the applicant and make some of that more manageable. We have one condition and at final we would like to see some restoration efforts. The upper floor windows used to be single double hung or ganged together double hung windows and now they are changed to a window that isn’t historically correct. We would like to see the applicant look at that restoration and or look at the porch and its detailing. It used to be a delicate bead board skirt. The applicant is required to provide trash and recycling onsite. That area is slightly smaller than the requirement from Environmental Health. E.H. is willing to accept the area that they have indicated but they want it corralled by a fence. It doesn’t have to have a roof but it needs to have a fence to keep wildlife away. The applicant is exceeding the requirement for onsite public amenity. They will have a substantial amount of open area surrounding the edges of the property. They are required to address transportation impacts and it seems that they have actually over mitigated. They only have to mitigate for the new space they ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2016 7 are creating and they provided mitigation for the entire project. We did receive referral comments and Engineering may require repositioning of the walkway that leads from the sidewalk to the front of the new addition. There are tree and sidewalk accessibility issues on the edges of the property. Staff is recommending approval of the project. John Rowland, Rowland Broughton architects Dana Ellis, Rowland Broughton architects John said their current office that they lease, the Mountain Forge building on Monarch and Hopkins is up for sale but it was too expensive and we walked away from that deal. The opportunity for the Mesa building came up and after six months of negotiations with the owner we purchased it. This is an exciting time for us to control our destiny and move into an historic building. The overall goal is to not only be a great steward of this historic resource but we want to create an exemplary project in which the HPC and `the town can look back and say they are proud of. John said the historic photos showed two false front small buildings ne xt to the Mesa building. In 1955 the building was in disrepair and there were ganged double hung windows with a skirt type design of the front portico. The next significant date was between 1955 and 1963 the upper windows had been changed but the portico was not changed. Today there is a handicapped ramp that goes around the portico and it was a project driven by CDOT. There is an historic stair going up to the upper level and currently the side yard is being used for parking. The building sits a couple of inches over the property line. With current zoning we have a ten foot setback on the front yard and a five yard setback on the alley. We have adhered to all the setbacks but we stepped it back even further so the addition nestles and tucks back in behind the staircase. We kept a very simple form rather than gaining more square footage in the back. In our design on the addition we are proposing another storefront but in a modern way. The storefront would extrude up 15 feet which would line with the cornice line of the existing portico. The second volume would be at the alley with a flat roof deck area. The basement would be for conference room and storage. From the alley side there is a stair coming up the back side with a glassy connector. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2016 8 Peter Fornell said he supports the project fully. We have experienced no issues with parking in that area. A parking variance for this project is appropriate in this part of town. Maybe use a little more height in the false front which would hide the higher part of the new structure and give the front façade a little more prominence. We asked for a variance on the Eljen property but it wasn’t granted. Maybe the addition should move forward to give similarity to the historic asset. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Willis identified the issues: FAR Cash-in-lieu fee waivers for parking 0 ‘ setback Restoration of the windows on the upper floor Revised trash and utility plan for final Working with the Engineering Dept. and Parks is ongoing Final development plan within one year Dana said we are still fine tuning the exact numbers for the special review. Amy said they are representing on the plans that they are exceeding the allowance by 300 square feet. John said the back unit is a free market and the elevator connects to all floors. Nora said she favors the double hung windows coming back. John said they would definitely like to do that. Jim expressed his appreciation for the applicant’s sensitivity to the building. It is a unique building and reflective of our 19 th century heritage. The approach is appropriate and creative. Nora said she is fine with everything and would like to see some restoration as part of the exchange for the parking waiver. Maybe the beading can be addressed and brought back. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2016 9 Willis said there is a big difference between the two roofs and the scale of the addition. Gretchen said she feels the building should be restored. The building was designed to have an addition on the side. The ten foot setback is 100% appropriate. The façade should go back to the original design. The waiver of the fee could be used for the window restoration on the second floor and the front porch. The front porch would have to change in order to get th e windows in. Amy pointed out that CDOT will be involved with the portico since it sits in the Main Street right-of-way. Willis commented that the two structures that were there were brought to the street edge. Maybe that should have been explored moving the addition forward as an option. Gretchen said she is not in favor of bringing the addition forward because the addition is not historic. A new building doesn’t necessarily have to have the same language. John said pushing the addition back exposes the corner of the historic building and it lines up with the building next door. Willis said maybe the glass connector could be smaller to minimize the disturbance to the historic fabric. Jim said it is tucked under the stairs and is concealed. Gretchen said the addition is clean and simple and shows respect to what was there before. The parking waiver is appropriate as long as restoration rules are adhered to. Willis said fenestration and detailing with be addressed at final. Maybe some detailing should occur on the gabled roof. John said they would like some feedback regarding materials. Gretchen said you should discuss materials with staff and utilize the guidelines. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2016 10 MOTION: Willis made the motion to approve resolution #32, 2016 as written; second by Jim. Roll call vote: Gretchen, yes; Nora, yes; Jim, yes; Willis, yes Motion carried 4-0 Peter Fornell said he took an historic cabin and restored it at 518 E. Main to its original condition as well as restoring it to local living. If this board saw fit for that property to be deserving of an award for its historic redevelopment I would make myself available to accept it. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk