Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20161109ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 1 Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Jeffrey Halferty. Gretchen Greenwood, Bob Blaich and Michael Brown. Absent were John Whipple, Nora Berko and Jim DeFrancia. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Michael will recuse himself on 110 W. Main (applicant) 533 W. Hallam – Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation and Variations, Public Hearing cont’d from Oct. 26th MOTION: Willis moved to continue 533 W. Hallam to February 8th, 2017; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. 4 -0. 110 W. Main Street – Planned Unit Development, Other Amendment Public Hearing continued from Sept, 14th Jennifer Phelan said the applicant received a Planned Development approval to redevelop the site with 54 lodge units, 3 affordable housing units. The lodge and affordable housing are on the southern part of the site. The northern portion of the site will have three residential units. The applicant is proposing total demolition to rebuild the front portion of the lodge and construct the lodge at 32 feet. The previous approvals were up to 28 feet. They also propose to change the design of the pool area, enclose circulation areas, remove the patio associated with the affordable housing unit, re- configure the trash and recycling area next to a housing unit. They also intend to change the front location of the affordable housing units. HPC is a recommending body and council will make the final decision to amend the planned development. Jennifer said the major concern is whether this request to demo the entire site and rebuild at a higher height should go back to conceptual review. The reason behind that was demolition of all structures was not indicated initially ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 2 in the original approvals. If we had known in the beginning that total demolition was proposed it may have resulted in a different site plan that better fits the historic districts requirements. In the memo there is documentation that portions of the buildings on the site were to remain. This was brought up at numerous public hearings. Jennifer said the primary issue is demolition and replication of the project at a higher height. There are three options for HPC to consider. 1. Approval of the total demolition and replication with a height of 32 feet. 2. You can make a recommendation of denial of the demolition. 3. You could recommend approval of demo reconsideration if all of demolition occurs, so basically going back to square one. Staff recommends either 2 or 3. There are other associated requests which include redevelopment of the pool area, enlarged basement footprint, modification of lodge unit patios adjacent to the pool and enclosure of the exterior corridors. We do not recommend the removal of the affordable housing patio to accommodate a bigger trash enclosure. We feel it could be accommodated elsewhere on the site. Jennifer said the biggest issues were with the record and was it represented that portions of the existing lodge would be retained. Moving the work forward and getting a permit and contractors onsite it probably became obvious that it would be easier to demo and replicate vs maintain and remodel. Stan Clausen, Clausen and Associates Bart Johnson, attorney Aaron Brown, representing the ownership group Stan did a power point of the proposed development. Stan said they have issue with the staff presentation. We did not apply for demolition at this time believing that demolition was handled at the final HPC meeting. We believe demolition has been permitted. We are proposing a 32 foot height request which is relevant to the livability and viability of the lodge and also some minor requests to enclose corridors etc. On Nov. 9 th the staff memo said if the structures were to be demolished staff believes this is a significant departure from the original representation and should be reconsidered as a new application as complete demolition could have resulted in a different building and a site plan that better meets the historic guidelines. On April 24, 2013 staff said they found no conflicts with the conceptual guidelines relative to the hotel and affordable housing elements. They said they had ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 3 more concerns with the rear development. So staff finds no conflicts with the conceptual design guidelines so how can something be better bet if there is no conflict at all. This becomes a hypothetical question. The existing lobby and western wing will be rebuilt to the same footprint and the same existing architectural character as it exists today. The result will be a fully modern building that will appear to be the remodel of the existing structure. The original lodge design and the proposed lodge design are identical except for the requested 32 feet. Stan said at the council meeting we had considerable discussion about the free market units. There was discussion about the free market units being reduced in their FAR above grade and that allowable FAR being able to put subgrade. At that meeting Sara Adams said if council chooses to approve the project there would be a recommendation to HPC to address the design issue during the final review. Mayor Skadron said he wasn’t sure he was looking at something that actually represents the changes at the meeting. Stan said Sara responded that council is deciding on a dimensional requirement of mass, height, FAR, and setbacks which will be adopted in a site specific approval as indeed they were. At HPC final design the basement showed the extension of the garage under the front building footprint and the need to demolish. In the early meetings with HPC we felt that demolition was not necessary but after the council session that the garage needed to be extended under the existing building and to accomplish that the existing buildings would need to be demolished. The plans were submitted May 8, 2014 and HPC reviewed and approved final commercial design review by Resolution #13, 2014. At the council meeting Art Daily said the project has to be buildable, affordable and financeable and last years. He also said he would not support reduction in underground parking space. That told us clearly that a portion of what had been free market floor area was to be relocated subgrade. The expansions are under the existing building. That was also reviewed at HPC which clearly shows the need for the underground parking garage to extend under the existing building. We feel that full demolition was approved at the HPC final presentation. Staff memo of Nov. 9th 2016 said the floor plans attached indicated a hatched line which indicated the existing remaining building footprint not the existing building. The new building has the same footprint as the old building and that is what was understood at HPC final. Stan said what is before us is the modified trash recycling area which includes a transformer. The trash enclosure meets the dimensional requirements and it was moved slightly to the east to allow for sidewalk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 4 egress and a patio area was never required of the unit. We believe the patio can be eliminated. Stan said the requested increase in height is 32 feet. It is allowed by special review and will meet the guidelines. The architectural design will be unchanged. The additional height will hardly be visible by any street view. It will allow for higher ceiling heights and a better guest experience. The 2014 approval allowed for a 7’10” ceiling height. The proposed 8 inches additional will create ceiling heights in the guest rooms of 8’6”. That is a modest height for any hotel. We want the hotel to be a livable and attractive appearance. The Molly Gibson lodge will be at 32 feet and adjacent buildings range from 25 feet to 36 feet. Stan said the over view is to increase the lodge from 28 to 32 feet; enclosure the exterior corridors; revise the pool configuration and a modified trash/recycling facility. Aaron Brown said fundamentally we are here for the height increas e. We are not going to build a hotel that has 7’10” floor to ceiling rooms. We do not want to have rooms that are dated the minute they are finished. That was a mistake we made as a team originally. If you wind back to the meetings they were contentious and where we ultimately got to with city council with a grand bargain where we reduced the height of the residences and expanded the footprint of the basement to get more livable area and we changed the configuration of the free market and we were able to get something that everyone is happy with. That decision necessitated full demolition. Bart Johnson, land use attorney Bart said we have a resolution from HPC indicating demolition of the structures on the south half of property. Now a representation is being made that it isn’t true. Stan said it was determined by staff that this building met all the requirements for the commercial design standards. Questions: Bob asked staff why they are taking this position. Amy said throughout the review process other staff members handled the review process. We feel there were a number of representations made that ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 5 the front part of the building was staying. If it was a complete replacement there might have been a different solution. This process was very difficult. The reason the word demolition was used is because anything more than 40% of the building being moved is called demolition. Maybe we should have said partial demolition. Jeffrey said the applicant is saying that the entire project was to be razed and they were going to reconstruct to match the existing conditions. Amy said the interpretation was that the front portion was staying. Stan said initially at conceptually the thought was that the front most building would be retained and we said that; however, there were no benefits conferred by virtue of doing that. The resolution stated that the structures on the south portion of the property maybe demolished. Clearly it came up later largely at the city council meeting when we had to make changes to the rear portion of the property which had the free market units and that necessitated the expansion of the garage under the structure and clearly moved us to full demolition. Gretchen asked why the applicant wanted to keep the front at the beginning of the process. Aaron said we thought we could save on construction costs if we tried to keep parts of the building. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis commented that demolition and conceptual go hand in hand. At the last hearing the question was brought up, is this applicant by virtue presenting one thing accruing benefits for their application that they wouldn’t otherwise get. What we are here for is to make sure no one has undue advantage of the process. After hearing Stan and staff I am comfortable going forward in supporting this application. Bob and Gretchen said they have no problem with the design of the building. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 6 Gretchen said the process was the motivating force keeping the building the way it is. If the process was more streamline we might see a better solution. MOTION: Gretchen moved to approve resolution #33; second by Bob. Motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, Gretchen, yes; Bob, yes; Willis, yes. 310 & 330 E. Main Street – Planned Development Detailed Review, Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design Review, Public Hearing cont’d from Oct. 26th Michael was not seated. Justin Barker said HPC voted to continue the meeting largely due to the addition proposed behind the Aspen Times. Most of the discussion is that the addition did not relate well to the existing hotel. There were several details that were not relating to the component. Several of the details such as the eye brows over the windows were eliminated. The column on the south east corner of the building was eliminated and the planter boxes were reduced in size and the materiality slightly modi fied with the rain screen being more of an applied material on portions of the building and the wood siding being extended through the first floor as well. Staff feels the design is successful as it creates a strong relationship to the hotel. The courtyard gallery space was approved by HPC. The two awnings over the gallery space are 23 feet wide and extend 9’9” away from the edge being a retractable awning. One concern was the store front design of the Aspen Times and that has been simplified. The revised east wall has a barn yard door that would slide. The light fixture is to be approved by staff and monitor which will be a condition. Sarah Broughton presented Sarah said we have been working on this project for 3 years. We hired two historic research experts and have done exhausted research with the Historical Society. The current proposed shows a longer preserved building and an addition onto the back. We are preserving the false store front on the Aspen Times building. We will reconstruct the store front window pattern and eliminating the non-historic additions. We will maintain the 53 feet of the Aspen Times building which preserve the continuity of the building. We will restore a significant portion of the east wall and we will preserve the Aspen Times signage on the store front. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 7 Sarah said guideline 10.6 talks about additions being distinguishable from historic buildings and visually compatible with historic features. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource. It is very important for us to have a simple rectilinear form that responds to the form of the Aspen Times and the simple rectilinear forms of the Hotel Jerome. We have introduced and layered over the addition a vertical screen element that is a modern interpretation of wood siding that is on the Aspen Times building and provides for greenery to grow up the side of the building to respond to the relationship with the courtyard. Overall the compatibility of the addition has been very important to us. We understand the significance and its position next to the Aspen Times building. We honor that position next to these important buildings and that is why we are proposing a wood addition to our building that we feel is subservient to the painted wood siding of the Aspen Times and is compatible in color and scale of the masonry of the Hotel Jerome. We have listened to your comments from the last meeting and have worked very hard to simplify the detailing of the addition. We have exposed the east wall of the Aspen Times building that has not been exposed for years. Sarah said we will preserve the materials of the Aspen Times building and re-building the storefront windows in the pattern from the early photography. We are proposing a spandrel mullion piece on the side window. A metal roof is proposed with painted trim. The addition is a wood sided building that relates to the Aspen Times building and we are offering a very simple detailing of the wood siding. The landscape plan is very simple and we are preserving the front lawn. The fence will also be retained along Main Street. The pool will be relocated. The courtyard will have a combination of red flagstone and brick. The lighting can be reviewed with staff and monitor. Sarah went over the elevation changes. The windows will be reconstructed along Main Street and the sliding barn door will be in the closed position most of the time on the east side of the Aspen Times building. Sarah also presented photos of 1911 showing awnings on the library space of the Hotel Jerome. Facing the courtyard are two French doors that flank sliding glass doors in the middle. This is a functional request so that there can be an indoor/outdoor relationship with the gallery space. We will also retain the storefront lettering on the Aspen Times building. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 8 Bob asked what you would see when walking by on the Aspen Times building. Bob said at one time he was an owner of the Jerome with John Gilmore from the 70’s to the 80’s and then we sold it. At the time the addition to the back was very contentious and as a result you have what is there now. It would never have met any of the criteria that we deal with today. For the record my personal interest does not impair my decision to objectively make a decision. Sarah said on one side a barber shop is being proposed and on the other side there is a stair that goes down to a speakeasy space. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis said we are looking at fenestration and materials. Mass and scale has already been approved. The issues are the sliding barn door on the Aspen Times building, awnings, and the replacement of French doors with sliders on the west façade of the Hotel Jerome as it faces the courtyard. At the last meeting HPC was fine with barn door, awnings, sliders and the issue was the articulation of the fenestration and materials and details. Guideline 10.6 (4) has to do with additions. Perceptually this is not an addition to the Aspen Times building, it is a much larger project. It is an urban design. There is nothing in our guidelines that talk about urban design that the addition raises. I read this as an addition to the Hotel Jerome primarily. This is a third addition. Urban design standards should be raised due to the space that is being created. The fenestration and materiality depart significantly and is challenging. Gretchen said she feels the space is becoming an internal street. They are asking for awnings that you don’t typically see inside a courtyard. I understand the functions of the awnings but it gets into more of an urban design. In terms of the commercial design standards for buildings in an urban setting there are certain height issues at the first floor level that the Hotel Jerome has and this building is lacking. I also do not feel this building relates to the Aspen Times building. It has language that relates to the Hotel Jerome, the height of the building and massing. It is not an addition to the Aspen Times. It is a beautiful project and the location of the building is perfect and the site planning is excellent. It feels like a residential office building complex and doesn’t fit. I do appreciate the changes made to the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 9 building but there should be more language of the materials of the brick and stone. This building is relating to the Hotel Jerome. I appreciate the breakdown of scale and the simplicity. The rain screens are within the 30 foot width dimensions which is exactly the width of the Aspen Times. The windows need to be taller like the face of the Hotel Jerome. That type of scale needs to be on the addition first level. The simplification of the detailing makes the building much more attractive. The building needs to relate to the Hotel Jerome and have a stronger dialogue. Willis said on the south elevation you read four vertical bays and there are no vertical bays on the Hotel Jerome. All the windows on the Hotel Jerome are consistent. This three story building will be under scrutiny from the public. Make the fenestration speak to the Hotel Jerome. Jeffrey said he disagrees with the commissioners. I see the context with the historic Aspen Times building. The scale and materials are simplified and the detailing is good. Urban planning should have been addressed at conceptual. We are at final to discuss fenestration, materials. The building not only needs to talk to the Hotel Jerome it needs to talk to the Aspen Times building. The materials are simplified. The reducing of some of the detailing and minimizing some of the window boxes are very much conforming with our guidelines. I do feel that the current application does meet our guidelines. Stone or blue clapboard would not warrant better architecture for this building. The amendments they have made with the fenestration on the Aspen Times building is very commendable including the fenestration of the barn doors and the existing roofs conforming how it looked prior is also in conjunction with our guidelines. The glazing is well done and there isn’t too much glass on this building. The punctured openings are nicely pointed and has a nice rhythm and cadence to it. It plays off the annex and Hotel Jerome as well as the Aspen times building. The proposal or the courtyard as well as the improvements for the pool and landscaping could be approved. I also could approve the lighting being reviewed by staff and monitor. This is an excellent project in which we have manipulated a lot and it does speak of a product of its own time. It is a connector piece between the Aspen Times and the annex and I could approve the project for final. Bob said he sees this building as a separate entity and more related to the Hotel Jerome. The materials are a good solution. Regarding the streetscape when you walk by it will be a great improvement. It is a private space and ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 10 not a street space. I have listened to all the statements and the applicant has made improvements from the first presentation and I am very positive about the project and would like to see it move ahead. Willis said the fenestration does not connect to the Hotel Jerome as tightl y as we would expect. The building is vertical but the rhythm is way too fussy. Gretchen said the scale of the ground level is a concern. This building is part of one business and feels residential. Jeffrey said it is not on the street it is a courtyard. I don’t feel this application should come back to the board and they have done an excellent job. It is a bookend and nicely appointed and well detailed. If the fenestration is an issue we could work it out with staff and monitor. Bob said you don’t see a lot of the building because of Carl’s being adjacent to it. At street level you have the façade of the Aspen Times in front as you walk by. Gretchen said it is not addressing our commercial design standards. The building is in the commercial core. It has a sidewalk and people will want to stroll in there like it is a street. Jeffrey said the applicant could have come back and clad the building with crappie brick and gotten an approval from this board and that is not in our best interest for historic preservation. Tony Deluca, general manager said we wanted to honor the Aspen Times building and the garden. We were afraid to put brick on this building and that it would look like a bad annex. We wanted it part of the garden not the Hotel Jerome. We have been in this process for over 3 years and we put in a lot of time and effort with the neighbors, staff and the community. This is an important project to us and we are happy with the design. It is our feeling that we do not want this building to be a brick building. Sarah Broughton said the fenestration of the Hotel Jerome windows has a lot of verticality. The building has a destination and you are coming here for a function of the Hotel Jerome. We have gone to great expenses to remove an electrical transformer that are in the courtyard that we do not need to be doing so that more of this building can be viewed to the public. While I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 11 appreciate your comments I respectfully disagree with them. This is a very difficult building and we 100% understand the importance of the urban design behind this. We have spent a lot of time designing this building. We looked at doing this building in brick and it was not appropriate. This is a building that we are all going to be proud of and I take a lot of pride in what I do as a professional and as someone that sat in your shoes for 8 years. I am not going to suggest or submit something that we don’t think is appropriate. Sunny Vann, Vann and Associates said we need to get a building permit in order for this project to go forward. If in fact we are facing another tie we would need to be on another meeting. If that can’t happen we will have to ask HPC to vote to recommend a denial and appeal to council in a timely manner. Gretchen said the building is clearly designed to be part of the Hotel Jerome complex visually. We are having fenestration issues. MOTION: Willis moved to continue 310 330 E. Main to November 30 th. Motion second by Gretchen. Applicant to address fenestration, commercial design guideline 10.6 on the ground floor development. The building is way too fussy and way too active. It is not just about verticality. The bay widths are about every ten to 15 feet and there is not respect for the 30 foot modules that are in the guidelines. Roll call vote: Bob, no; Jeffrey, no; Gretchen, yes, Willis, yes. Tied motion, no action taken. MOTION: Bob made the motion to extend the meeting, second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve 310 330 and work with staff and monitor to resolve the fenestration issues. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Gretchen, no; Jeffrey, yes; Willis, no; Bob, yes. Bob suggested moving the application forward and hopefully there will be more members here to give input. MOTION: Bob moved to continue the application of 310 330 to November 30th; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 12 Meeting adjourned at 7:07 Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk