Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20161130ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 11:30 a.m. Commissioners in attendance were Jeffrey Halferty, John Whipple, Jim DeFrancia, Bob Blaich, and Gretchen Greenwood. Absent were Nora Berko and Michael Brown. Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Justin Baker, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of Oct. 26th as amended; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. 310 & 330 E. Main Street – Planned Development Detailed Review, Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design Review, Public hearing continued from Nov. 9th Justin said this project has gone before the board two times already, Oct. 26th and Nov. 9th. There was discussion that the building did not strongly relate to the Hotel Jerome and the applicant made modifications. On the Nov. 9 th the discussion centered around the fenestration of the new structure as well as the first story design as it related to the courtyard. The applicant has done a number of revisions since then differentiating between the floors to relate to the façade of the Hotel Jerome. Modifications to the storefront have also be provided to relate to the courtyard. A taller element of the storefront has been added as well as opening up the north east entrance to create a storefront design similar to that of the J Bar that accesses the Hotel Jerome. The applicant has been working extensively with staff and staff supports the project and design. There are two small design suggestions one on the southeast corner window to simplify that and remove the center mullion to relate to the first floor windows on the south side of the Hotel Jerome. Staff is supportive of the design and moving the project forward. Willis said part of the reason we got “sideways” on this application is because it is technically an addition to the Aspen Times building but in actuality it is an addition to the Hotel Jerome or it looks like a free standing building. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 2 Justin mentioned the noticing and the start date is the issuance of the development order. Sarah Broughton, RowlandBroughton architecture presented for the applicant. Sarah said we have been working on this project for three years and we have made significant modifications and one is the elimination of the third floor on the north wing of the hotel and preservation of the Aspen Times building. We agree with staff that we have addressed the concerns from the last meeting. Sarah presented a plan view of the project. The non- historic addition will be removed from the Aspen Times building. Mill Street, Main Street and Monarch St. surround the project. There will be an addition behind the Aspen Times building and the Aspen Times storefront will be preserved. We looked at the ground floor plan on the east elevation related to the commercial design standards and the fenestration on the addition relating more to the Hotel Jerome. On the addition we looked at the second and third story punched openings and we have come up with a pattern where the second level has three punched openings and above four punched openings and that relates to the south elevation of the Hotel Jerome. In the center portion we have ganged the openings much like you see in the center portion of the Hotel Jerome. We have also strengthened the corner . On the ground level we have increased the height of the windows. The corner will also have a store front. The material of the addition will be wood siding and a wood screen element. The lighting will be minimal and not be a decorative item as needed on the addition. Gretchen asked Sarah to elaborate on the material selection. Sarah said we are being consistent with the proposal of wood siding on the addition. It is a stained wood siding. We have stripped down trim that responds back to the Hotel Jerome and a trim piece at the top. The wood screen element is meant to have greenery growing from it. The window boxes will also have greenery. The Aspen Times and the Hotel Jerome are singular in their materiality and we believe it is important for this building to have a singular materiality to it. We are proposing a bronze color window. Gretchen said the intent is to have greenery a few months out of the year. Bob asked what material will be between the space between Carl’s and the addition. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 3 Sarah said the gap exists today and responds to where the prop erty line is between the two buildings and we are maintaining that gap and the material will be gravel for drainage. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Gideon Kaufman, attorney for the applicant said they have worked hard to improve the building and address the concerns and we hope you approve it. Commissioner discussion: Willis thanked the applicant for the presentation. This is a singular icon ic structure in downtown and it is being built to two stories. The fenestration, materials and height are being discussed as it relates to the guidelines. Justin said the main focus is the design of the building, fenestration and materiality and the first floor relationship to the courtyard. Jim asked the applicant if they were OK with the resolution and conditions. Sunny Vann said the conditions are acceptable but we would prefer to keep the mullions if possible. Willis said at the last meeting there was a lot of discussion on guideline 10.6. Justin read 10.6 – Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of an historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. Note, that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 4 high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. Willis said the key word is “relates strongly” which is the parameter for the fenestration. At the previous hearing there was concern if they were to elect to use wood as the primary siding material that the fenestration needed to relate more strongly to the Jerome. The introduction of balconies is no where found on the Jerome. There was also concern with the ground floor height. The applicant has come back having revised the height of the ground floor, simplified the fenestration and made a boxier corner. They have been successful in addressing the boards concerns from th e last hearing. This building is under scrutiny due to its location and height. Guideline 6.61 talks about the palate of materials within the core should reflect masonry brickwork and natural stonework of this area. Part of the prolonged conversation is that the applicant has not made a demonstration why brick is not being considered or masonry for the exterior palate. Being an icon in town you need to say why we aren’t doing brick. This is essentially a wooden building and I don’t see the dialogue with the 19th century palate. The windows are fine and mullions on the ground floor are vastly improved. I am in support of the resolution as written. Jim said he supports the resolution as written and they have done a commendable job and it adds a real distinction to the historic building, the Aspen Times and it creates an attractive public space. Gretchen said the changes are in a better direction. The corner now has a stronger feel to it. I am disappointed that there is no brick on the building and it doesn’t relate to the rest of the brick that has been done on the Jerome building. With the screen the plants will be dead in the winter and I don’t see the screen as a strong design element to the Hotel Jerome. It is the wrong product of its time. The new window fenestrations are appropriate. I feel brick should have been used as a secondary material or as the base of the building. I am disappointed that you did not follow that guideline. It is the wrong material for downtown Aspen. Jeffrey said he appreciates the applicant’s response to some of our comments. I am in disagreement with part of the board. The material is respective of the Aspen Times building in its proportion and this is a product of its own time and adheres to our guidelines Chapter 10, product of its own time. The Jerome will do a fantastic maintenance plan. I am ok with the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 5 proposed fenestration changes. Even though it is more glass for the applicant I feel that the prior submittal was more of a response to the Hotel Jerome. We have wider window bays which I am OK with. I am OK with the mullions suggested by the applicant. The south east corner is an improvement and I can support the resolution as is. This is an excellent project and is supportive of our guidelines and what we are trying to do from a preservation standpoint. We talk about it as a public space but it is private because of its interior relationship. All the urban standards that were talked about at the last meeting are not applicable. The applicant has responded in making this building a product of its own time. I also feel the rain screen is appropriate and the absence of the brick in this application responds to the restoration of the Aspen Times building. The proposed lighting is also appropriate. MOTION: John moved to approve resolution #34 as written, second by Bob. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; John, yes; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; Gretchen, no; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-1. 422 & 434 E. Cooper Ave. Final Major Development; Final Commercial Design Review, Substantial Amendment, Growth Management, Public Hearing cont’d from Oct. 26th Amy said staff is not recommending approval for the project. The design in the packet is not what was presented conceptuall y. The second floor is pulled back from the street and a few other things that have departed from the previous conversation. We don’t feel the massing is appropriate for the site nor has there been an analysis why this would be a good direction. HPC didn’t ask for this type of change of pushing it back from the street. If this were to go forward we feel the surrounding buildings should be looked at and understand how this fits in the composition of the downtown. This is an important site and a high traffic intersection. Staff feels that a more substantial building is warranted here with at least more of the second floor at the street level at the front lot line. The massing is the primary reason we are not recommending approval at this time. With regard to fenestration we would like to see more studies about how the width of the storefronts and heights of the storefronts relate to the historic buildings downtown. We didn’t see the elevations until yesterday and we haven’t had time to analyze them. The board talked at length about the bilateral symmetry where the two facades on Galena and Cooper were basically identical and the board thought that was inappropriate. There has been restudy of that and now ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 6 there is a wide storefront proposed on Cooper Ave. and that extended storefront is taking the project in a different direction. We appreciate the restudy of the materiality of the building and switching to the use of bricks which is a better fit downtown. The detailing of the brick work may need some study. The project no longer has an entry into the corner element which we think is not characteristic. The project includes a portion of the Red Onion property to the west, the former poster chop which will primarily become circulation to serve the Bidwell building. The front of the poster shop will be preserved and a second floor will be added and it is very quiet in its detailing which we support. There is some confusion on the renderings which needs clarified. There are a few mitigation issues that HPC needs to talk about, the TIA analysis. We feel it is somewhat double dipping where the applicant has the TIA with some streetscape improvements but they also would like to claim that for public amenity and that is a concern by staff. In terms of the calculation of growth management mitigation, parking there is an idea in the application that a credit that is generated on the Red Onion site should benefit the Bidwell site and staff does not support that because they are two separately owned properties. The Bidwell site will create the need for more affordable housing and the Red Onion site will have a credit as the result of this project and we don’t feel they should be carried across the lot line. Chris Bendon, bendonadams consulting Mark Hunt, owner, Dwayne Romero Chris said the Red Onion annex building has an existing approval for a three story building, pent house and a small commercial space on the ground floor. We went to city council to ask them to extend the vested rights to allow us to come up with a different plan. They extended the vested rights and we have to be in for building permit around May 1, 2017. We need to make a decision quickly whether that project goes forward as the penthouse or if we can do something with it. Council was excited about us doing a two story building and staying under the 28 foot height limit and getting rid of the penthouse. Chris thanked the HPC for doing a special meeting. Chris said at the last meeting we had a two story building that was right up to the street and it was a bold building with strong corner expression. We heard that it was too bold and was trying to be something that it isn’t. It was stated that it was massive and the symmetry was off and the building was too “muscular”. We did a lot of rethinking as to how to approach this ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 7 property and building. We took several steps back and looked at the block historically. Looking down Galena St. you see one story expressions and larger two story expressions and three stories. We came up with the concept where there is a combination of one story, two story elements. Everything is reduced by one floor. It is a one and two story building with a second floor deck and an elevator going to the second floor. We simplified the building throughout and tried to make it a background building while still trying to make the sure the corner is treated well. The facades are mixed up to address the bi-lateral symmetry. The building is now much calmer. On the existing street there are one and two stories. The third floor is completely gone and now a one story plus a deck with a two story mix with an elevator that goes to the second floor. Mark Hunt said at the last meeting we spend a lot of time with materials. In order for that building to work it had to be a 25 foot building. There is a significant grade change on this site and to hold the property line with a two story building we were getting very pinched on the second floor down to a 7 ½ foot ceiling. When we looked at changing the materials th e second floor read very horizontally and it looked like a mistake. We then decided to focus on the ground floor and the importance of the corner. We took some inspiration from the buildings around town including the original building. The material selection is brick and we have very simple openings. It is simple and elegant and very textural, like tone on tone. We will also incorporate some of the old Bidwell brick back into the new building. The brick will change on the alley and we will finish it with the original brick. The columns will be brick/stone with shadows. We are trying to have fun with the windows. Through the transom windows we will add ultra clear non-reflective glass and randomly we will throw in a panel of chicken wire glass so the light hits it differently and adds a lot of interest. On the overall building we tried to create a two story element in certain portions and bring the building down. There is a wraparound deck upstairs. The columns will be capped with a metal cap. To the top of the columns including the parapet wall is 21 feet. We would like to see curved glass for the store front on the corner and we can discuss that. Chris said we have 4, 5,6,7, 9 feet widths on the bay windows. We do have a sense of urgency in incorporating the Red Onion annex into the project. The building is now calmer and quieter but still holds the corner. On staff’s analysis the land use code does allow for growth management and parking credits to be applied to adjacent buildings under the same ownership. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 8 Dwayne Romero pointed out when he was on council they saw three different applications for this site and one was 2 ½ stories taller than what you see today. All of them had free market residential in them. Heights are very important today and this application responds to that. This application moves a few more feet out of the view plane. You have the opportunity to push this application forward. The Bidwell project was always put into context with what was going on across the street at the Paradise Bakery. Time is of the essence and we would like this to progress. Willis said this is conceptual and final. Amy said we have issues with the sudden change in massing and this will go to council for a call-up because council has not yet seen the massing. John said he has been in support of the previous iteration. 22 feet in height was presented at the last meeting and I was in favor of that. This is an improvement. I realize it doesn’t fall in the normal guidelines of what we do for conceptual and final but the mass is actually being reduced and the view planes are being reduced. I do like the glass chicken wire as it brings messy vitality back. The building is subdued by the historic buildings that surround it. The design is sympathetic to the Paradise building. The applicant has put in a lot of work and I am surprised that they could turn this around so quickly. I do think there will be differentiation between the two sides of the street especially with on side being the pedestrian mall and the other a street. I am in favor of this project and would love to see it move forward. John recused himself. Bob asked about the use of the upper deck. Mark said most likely it will be a restaurant. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Toni Kronberg said with the moratorium we wouldn’t be in the moratorium right now if the public had been able to have their three minutes of time. City council will be thrilled with this new rendition. This is a prominent corner in Aspen. The fact that you rounded the building helps and you ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 9 reduced the building height. This past week council said they want to see more nooks and crannies utilized. Right now Aspen is going through a character defining with the land use moratorium. The one thing on the design is that it is too symmetrical on both sides. We want people to not walk by but to walk in the stores. Maybe flip flop the design so that you have an open courtyard and have the building mass on the top. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Jim said he understands the commentary about the first rendition being overpowering and I agree that it was. The changes have thoroughly addressed that concern. The building relates well to the street and to the Paradise Bakery building. The brick and general character of the building fit in well with the street. The brick relates to the Elks Building on the next corner. I like the idea of the entry not being on the corner. The design is good and I have no problem with it. Bob said this is a great improvement. I do understand where staff is coming from. I am looking at this as compared to the p revious presentation and it is an improvement in mass, materials and I like the idea of getting rid of the entry on the corner and making it more of a focal point. I like the idea of a restaurant on the upper level at that location. It is an overall impr ovement and change for the better. When you look at the street level there is a lot of building there in general and the materials are a great improvement. I also support the previous comments made by fellow commissioners. Jeffrey thanked the applicant for making the improvements. The comments from the prior meeting have been addressed. The vertical columns help the two facades read well. The mass and scale meet our guidelines and the material palate is much more simplified and uniformed to the site. The chambered corner is an improvement and the recessed top deck is nicely orchestrated and the brick detailing adds some nice shadow lines. As far as the land use code allowing credits from one site to the other I can support. Architecturally the proportions and scale, materials are nicely executed. The lighting proposed here is very simple and meets our guidelines. Gretchen said she opposed the last building because it was a replica of the Brand building. I really commend you for completely changing the design. With the changes it allows our historic fabric to be the important buildings in town. This is a huge improvement and I would not want to see the process ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 10 get in the way of progress for this project. The applicant has really studied it and analyzed it and have taken our comments and come to the right solution. The curved part of the building addresses the square and reinforces the importance of the building. The information kiosk could be moved over. Some of the caps on the columns could be refined a little and I like the concept of the metal and glass. I could support the application today. I am also in favor of Red Onion annex design and its incorporation into the project. Gretchen thanked the applicant for really studying the site and understanding what is necessary for this corner. Willis suggested the applicant show the other intersections of the corners as they go forward. The caps on the pilasters are somewhat deco architecture. The curves are enough to suggest deco. On the Cooper Street elevation the glass sizes to the right and left of the entrance seem enormous. The corbel detailing is a little aggressive. The tumbled brick is a little cheesy looking. It is kind of “off limits” in terms of using masonry in downtown. We are not supportive of tumbled brick. Tumbled brick is not in the spirit of separating new form old. Bob said one thing the applicant has done is listen to our input and you went back and really studied it and thought about it and that is commendable. Amy said there has been a lot of late delivered information and I have never seen the brick samples before or we would have said we have a policy against faux aged brick. I feel like there are a lot of loose ends. There are policy issues that have not been discussed and whether you are accepting their TIA analysis and they have asked for the public amenity to be off site where it has been approved for cash-in-lieu. I am not sure how to deal with some of those things that are very up in the air. There are elevations that don’t match each other. Gretchen said generally they had a lot to address from the last meeting and we need to cut them some slack and work this out. We never all agree and all of us agree on this application. I would like to see the board, staff and monitor do what we can to let this project move forward. No one on the board has any issue with the cash-in-lieu or the TIA. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 11 Amy said staff has issues with the TIA and we have had limited discussion about it. Jim echoed Gretchen’s position. I respect the good faith of the applicant and am satisfied between the applicant, staff and monitor we can resolve the issues. Gretchen, Jim and Jeffrey said they are OK with what is being proposed on the GMQS. Gretchen said we could have dual monitors. Chris said we can get good documentation for staff and monitor to develop good documentation of the decision and making sure there isn’t conflicting information. Having a decision allows Mark to switch his team from a construction set on the Red Onion annex building to this project going forward. Amy said we don’t know if HPC is accepting the TIA, streetscape improvements, GMQS and allowing a credit which is not a typical method from one property to another. You are also requiring less affordable housing than what is needed. Gretchen said we can vote and then the resolution can be written the way we are voting. We are all in agreement that we want this to go forward. Jim said we could move the fundamental approval with the discussion and the minutes that are taken today then staff can prepare a resolution and the chair can review the resolution. We could have dual monitors. Bob said we are dealing with design, mass and scale and the other issues have been recommended. Willis asked for a straw poll on the design and then the resolution can be approved at the next meeting. Gretchen said she doesn’t want another meeting on this. Jeffrey said he doesn’t want to burden staff but at the same time the applicant has responded. I agree that we need to be consistent with our approvals. We could vote on the architecture and improvements. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 12 Willis said we have domain over these things but they haven’t been vetted properly. Gretchen said they presented it to us the way they want it. Jim said he is in agreement. Staff can write the resolution as we approve it. Jim pointed out that sometimes we are on different sides of staff. They have the information to craft a resolution. Amy identified the issues: applicant has received approval for cash-in-lieu for public amenity and they would now like to instead do streetscape improvements. That is not staff’s recommendation and they are also asking for that as part of their TIA. Willis said staff is denying streetscape improvement because the mall improvement process is underway and cash-in-lieu should go there. Amy said the issues are the TIA, public amenity, growth management and parking. The issue on public amenity the applicant has previously said they would provide cash-in-lieu and they now would like to do streetscape improvements which they are also providing in their TIA. Chris said our opinion is that it is not double dipping. Engineering has some desire to see changes on Galena Street. We also feel Galena Street is important and would like to see improvements. Gretchen said developers should have the ability to do some of their own streetscape and not give it all to the city. Jim agreed. Mark pointed out that we are taking this building down by 20 plus feet and opening it up to the mall and there is so much beautification based on what we are doing. We have lost significant square footage and we are getting rid of free market and you can come back and say but we want this and we want that and pay for our sewer and pay for out plumbing and electric. It is not just the mall. Jim said it is the economic exchange for the concessions that you have made is why you would seek improvement on Galena Street. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 13 Gretchen said you have given the community a better building and we appreciate the time and effort you have put into it. I am in agreement for what they want. Amy said they are creating a credit on the adjacent property and want to use it and reduce the employee housing on the primary site. It is taking away affordable housing. Chris said the code allows for a credit to be used on the same parcel or an adjacent parcel under the same ownership. Actually it is the same project. We can talk this through with staff. Jim said we can adopt the resolution and if it isn’t allowed it isn’t allowed. That would also be true with the growth management and parking. Draft resolution: Amy said HPC wants staff and monitor to work with the applicant on the architecture. TIA would be accepted. Public amenity for the 434 parcel would be permitted as off-site improvement and anything not accomplished would be cash-in-lieu. The issue of growth management and parking credit generated on the Red Onion site can be transferred to the 434 site would need further determination by the community developmen t director. Willis added the additional conditions: Detailing and final brick material to be determined by staff and monitor. No tumbled brick. Steel pilaster caps should be eliminated. Historic references to architecture that was never developed need pu rged. Restudy the scale of the Cooper Avenue side storefront around the entry to be looked at with staff and monitor. Use of chicken wire glass is approved. Match up the renderings and elevations. There will need to be a call -up by city council because it is a change to mass and scale. Jim True said HPC is passing a resolution that has been outlined subject to the drafting of the resolution by staff, city attorney and the chair. MOTION: Jim moved to approve the drafting of resolution #35, 2016, second by Bob. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; Gretchen, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-0. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 14 MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn, second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk