Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20161214ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 1 Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were John Whipple, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko and Bob Blaich. Jim DeFrancia and Gretchen Greenwood were absent. Staff present: Andrea Bryan Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 9th, second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 30th, second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. 529-535 E. Cooper - Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design Review, Growth Management, Special Review, Public Hearing Justin said the project was granted unanimous conceptual approval in January. The project is to pull off a small section of the building along the alley side and replace it with a new commercial addition, trash enclosure and a one story addition. There will be a removal of a free market unit currently on the alley. There are also a couple changes related to public amenity and parking. Overall staff’s concerns are the relationship of the new addition to the historic structure. There could be stronger elements. The concrete columns extend above and through the wood parapet which is not in line with the older portion of the building. The wood parapet is a much thicker banding than what you would see. The fenestration has large glass frontages for the storefronts where traditionally they are broken down into smaller elements. Staff is recommending that those be further divided and have a stronger relationship in terms of the scale and proportion of other storefront entrances. Regarding the public amenity on the alley side of the addition there used to be more glass facing the alley and staff suggested to the applicant to reduce the amount of glazing that was facing the alley side. The applicant has responded and replaced the center section with a solid wood wall. The public amenity has been reduced from 113 square feet to 89 square feet. A small portion of a planter box is being eliminated in the new proposal. Regarding the parking cash-in-lieu was proposed. On the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 2 Benedict addition there used to be a larger storefront that faced Hunter Street. Staff is suggesting the applicant look into a full storefront restoration that is indicated on an old photograph. In response the applicant has requested a parking waiver as an incentive to help with that restoration work and off-set some of the costs. HPC has the right to waive those parking fees and staff is supportive to help restore the storefront back to what was originally there. Regarding the Growth Management there are two pieces, first is the expansion of the net leasable space and the other is for the removal of the fee market unit. On the expansion it generates a total of 4.49 FTE’s. As an historic resource they have the opportunity to a one time to not mitigate the first four employees that are generated and then the next four employees would have a discounted rate of 50% rate of mitigation. After those reductions the total mitigation rate comes to .15 FTE’s. The applicant has a right to mitigate through the code a form of housing credits and that is there proposal for the commercial space. They are also requesting growth management allotments for the new commercial space and staff is in favor of that. For the removal of the free market there is a one bedroom 880 square foot free market unit that sits on the ground floor facing the alleyway. This requires 1.75 FTE’s of mitigation and they can do that at a 50% rate through the multi-family replacement requirements. This can be done through credits if HPC makes it a determination that the onsite replacement units would be in conflict with the parcel zoning or if it would be an inappropriate solution due to the sites physical constraints. The only area for onsite housing use would be on the second floor so in order for them to meet the zoning requirements with onsite replacements it would require a second floor addition. Staff does not feel that is an appropriate solution considering the historic resource and adding mass along the back alley. Staff is recommending HPC allow the use of the credits to offset the removal of the onsite unit. Staff recommends continuation pertaining to the design elements but as far as parking, growth management, public amenity staff is comfortable with all those aspects. Willis said the second floor window in the photograph looks trapezoidal which is very progressive of an architect. Justin said on the older version of the window it had the slant on the top. Mitch Haas, Haas Planning John Rowland, rowlandbroughton architects Dana Ellis, rowlandbroughton architects ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 3 Mitch said we have been working cooperatively with staff and there are only two issues left. On the parking it is a fraction of a space that is required of this project. We had originally proposed to pay the cash-in-lieu but staff found an older photograph done by Fritz Benedict and asked if we could do the full restoration and that is why we are requesting the parking waiver and not make us pay that fee. On the affordable housing it did go to the APCHA board who also supported staff’s recommendation. Conceptual dealt with height etc. We are focusing on the material selection and fenestration. John Rowland, rowlandbroughton architects John said it is our intent to continue the retail experience as you turn toward the gondola. We wanted to bring a sense of lightness and openness and a sense of fluidity. Dana said the Benedict addition featured a trapezoidal window and also vertical siding that our proposal is representing. The first floor being restored has a commercial experience. With the gondola Hunter Street has become a commercial retail thoroughfare and the restoration brings that back. There is context along Hunter Street that we feel is appropriate and should be mentioned in our design. The idea is openness and the light fixtures are simple and planters would be in the public amenity space. The plantings are all native. The Benedict addiction of 1966 had the store front windows filled in. Justin found a 1952 photograph that showed what the building had looked like originally. We have tied the rhythm of the windows to the original photograph and then added the contemporary addition. There are 18 window types currently on the building. John said the façade continues and feathers out toward the alley and adds lightness and transparency at the corner. Dana said the single store element at the alley is appropriate. The architecture tells the relationship between very old historic, mid-century historic and today. We also feel the banded wood or a rather modern cornice is appropriate. The addition is set back. On the interior we are proposing a skylight that creates a canopy shadow on the interior. Green roofs on all of the additions for storm water are proposed. Mitch said the addition is somewhat of a transition concept. There is the historic building late 1800’s. Then the Benedict addition in the late 60’s and now a modern building at the alley. There is a transition in time as you ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 4 come down Hunter Street. The design tells the evolution of the building. The different dimensions of the storefronts do work well with this design. Jeffrey asked about the green roofs. Dana said there are two types of green roofs, one has a shallower grow base and you can only do things like sedum and grasses and we are hoping to do one that has a six inch to 11 inch base of soil that will be engineered. The shallower bases don’t look good after a year and the deeper base would allow for hardier plants etc. Jeffrey also asked what plantings are proposed. Dana said (bitter brush) is being proposed for winter which is bushy then seasonal plantings will be added. Jeffrey also asked about the trash enclosure. Dana said it goes up to 18 feet due to the grade slope in the alley. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Frank Hegar said he has lived here for 25 years and has a jewelry store. Frank asked what the square footage is on the addition. Dana said 638 square feet of commercial space is being proposed and the average construction cost is around $700. a square foot. John said there are also improvements to the property and the trash enclosure which are additional costs. Frank said the jewelry store in this space had to leave and this is just another nail in the coffin for little businesses. You will have to rent the space for $350 to $450 a square foot. There is no little business that can afford that. The traffic backs up out of town back to First Street. Telluride has one corporate store, ACE hardware. It is a charming place to visit. Big corporations are destroying the character of Aspen. Willis said franchise stores are a hot topic and I would encourage you to attend those hearings. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 5 Mitch said the existing spaces in the building will remain the way they are. Willis said staff and the applicant have addressed the growth management regarding parking, TIA etc. The tradeoff guarantees full restoration of the Benedict portion of this project. The other issues are the cornice, windows and pilasters going through the roof line. Bob said the presentation regarding the materials etc. have answered all the functional questions. This addition is a jewel box and stands on its own. It will be a nice addition to the environment and a fresh approach. The presentation on the history of the building was a good clarification. John said he totally agrees with Bob and having one more wall space instead of glazing gives you some flexibility with the space. Free market will take care of itself and as much as it pushes out one shop owner a project like this feeds a lot of people in this community and puts a lot of food on the table. There are positives to the refreshing and preservations of these buildings. When we have regular planning of affordable leases you can s ee what is happening with the Highlands which is failing. Some of the anchor stores are shifting and moving out due to the internet. I can support this project as presented. Jeffrey said he feels the applicant has adhered to the design guidelines. There proposed architecture is consistent with the way the relationship of the materials and the historic resource is well represented. It is clearly a product of its own time. The restorations to the original Stein building and the Benedict addition are well thought out restorations. The Hunter Street façade is definitely well thought out and complies with our guidelines. The cornice is consistent with our guidelines and I could support it and the window additions are well thought out. The green roofs and deck spaces suggested are also well thought out. Jeffrey echoed John’s comments when the City has come in and tried to do affordable leases on certain spaces such as Cooper Street restaurant that is sitting empty it is unsuccessful. As far as the big box design codes it is at a grassroots level. We are looking at this application as to how it pertains to our design guidelines. There are a lot of people being supplied by this design change and I could support this proposal. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 6 Nora said we are all sympathetic to the public comment made. The concrete columns were a concern but now that we understand it as part of the deck railing it can be supported. I can also support substituting the parking for restoration is a great solution. The alley solution is also for better safety and I continue to support the project. Willis commented that he supports the project as presented. This is clearly a contemporary addition to a 19th century building and there is nothing in the guidelines about widths of cornices. The scale of the project is small and diminutive and it is a jewel at midblock development. MOTION: Willis made the motion to approve resolution #36, second by Bob. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; John, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 447 E. Cooper Ave. – Final major development, Final commercial design, and Growth Management review, public hearing. Amy said we will be discussing the TIA assessment, pubic amenity and growth management. HPC granted demolition of the existing structure directly west of CasaTua and replacement with a new commercial structure. The only changes made are that a trellis over the central b ay has been deleted. The windows were arched and now have a square shape to them. Those were not locked in at conceptual, they are final review issues. Staff has identified a few things that we feel need restudied. The first is the composition of the storefronts. This is an unusual project because it has exposure on the Ruby Park side and the Cooper mall. The applicant has always wanted some interest on the alley side. Staff feels the alley side is more successful in some ways than shown on Cooper. The idea that you have two bookends with a one-story piece in the middle isn’t really typical in downtown. We have suggested that the store fronts create a little more variety as you see on the alley façade where you have a mix of doorway locations and window dimensions. We would also like to see taller upper floor windows that is more typical of downtown. We also think there needs to be some visit of the multi-paned windows that are on the central bay on the ground floor level and upper floor level. In terms of window divisions, perhaps have a clear transom but not dividing the entire store front window into small panes. We have also suggested a restudy of the cornice which is very Victorian in character and perhaps is confusing in terms of the construction date of the building. Perhaps less light fixtures in the central ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 7 bay. We also feel the application is missing some specificity about materials. The proposal is to use a tumbled brick and typically HPC has not been in favor of approving a material that has a faux age to it. The choice of the cornice material also needs identified. Getting down to the details of the building we would like to see a restudy and continuation. Amy said we did discuss the TIA assessment but it needs to be tightened up at this level. It is calculated by how many daily trips would be generated by the activity on the site. It is calculated at 48 trips a day. The applicant doesn’t have the opportunity to improve cross walks etc. because they are at a mid block location on the pedestrian mall. They are in a position to do cash-in-lieu payment for this part of their review. More works needs to be done with Engineering because they are proposing to eliminate some residential units. That payment is around $6,000 per trip. Construction management and storm water also need addressed. Amy said at conceptual public amenity was discussed. The applicant is required to provide the equivalent of 10% of the site either as physical open space or some other form of mitigation. At conceptual the applicant received approval for a cash-in-lieu fee. They have asked tonight to have that as off-site improvements. We have a significant pedestrian mall reconstruction coming up. The applicant has suggested to re-visit their form of mitigation and we are not supporting off-site improvements. Cash-in-lieu is appropriate and we need it for the pedestrian mall improvement project and they don’t have any place to do off-site or have they proposed anything specific tonight. Amy said there is also confusion about the size of the lot. The representation indicates a 9,000 square lot but we are not sure in fact if it has been separated from Casa Tua and that effects some of the calculations for mitigations. Amy said the last topic is Growth Management. This project creates more commercial net leasable space than we have today but they are also demolishing existing dwelling units on the site. On the new net leasable space they are generating a need to mitigate 29 full time employees. They are electing to do that by credits which would be affordable housing constructed elsewhere in town. The applicant themselves is creating affordable housing elsewhere and they would like to mitigate for new net leasable by credits and that is something that they have the right to choose to ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 8 do and staff supports it and APCHA supports it. The bigger issue is the demolition of the existing housing on the site. There are three free market apartments and three affordable dorm style units in the basement. The land use code is very specific about these kinds of small units which may have been housing for locals over the years. Demolishing them is a big deal and we want to make sure that they don’t just disappear. There is a strong preference for those demolished units to be replaced on the site where they existed. You don’t have to replace them 100% but basically half. The applicant does not propose to do that, they propose to do credits. The APCHA board supported credits and possibly tie it to the project across the street. The Planning staff doesn’t support any of those proposals. We do not want to see any project tied to another one that creates complications for which one has to be done first etc. We also feel it is important to provide some mitigation onsite. Willis said at the beginning of the presentation Amy talked about the symmetry restudy and how that would be introduced. Amy said as a suggestion on the alley façade or south facing façade you don’t see centered recessed doorways flanked by two windows, there’s a little more variety and a little less symmetry. That is one approach and they have achieved that on the back side but not on the front. Jeffrey asked Amy to go over the growth management mitigation. Amy said the applicant gets credit for the existing commercial space that they are demolishing and replacing. They get to do that without mitigation. On top of that they are creating approximately 12,800 square feet of new net leasable. You figure out how many employees per thousand square feet and you have to mitigate 60% of that and it ends up just over 29 full time equivalent employees that they have to replace or find a home for. They are proposing to do that with affordable housing credits which they will present at building permit. Staff and APCHA support this. The bigger question is the demolition and replacement of the multi family housing, three free market units and three dorm style affordable units. The code prefers that they be developed on the same site as which demolition has occurred unless the owner demonstrates to HPC that the replacement of the units onsite would be in conflict with the parcels zoning or an inappropriate solution to the sites physical constraints. This is an important provision that we have upheld on many projects. We don’t expect all of housing to be replaced on site but at least some of it. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 9 Chris Bendon, bendonadams.com Mark Hunt, owner Dwayne Romero, owner representative Chris said they recognize the issues that need to be dealt with at some level. We also have threshold issues that we are dealing with. The existing building has commercial on the ground level and residential up above and it is 21 feet tall. There are two view plans that affect this property. One projecting from Wagner Park and one projecting from in front of the Wheeler. View planes were part of the moratorium discussion. View planes are more centered on restricting heights. The changes in view planes are to capture all the properties on the mall. There are no landmarks on this side of the block. The Red Onion is the only landmark on the mall. On this side of the mall is the Casa Tua building, 447 building and then the Gorsuch building and the Chocolate Factory. Those buildings will never be higher. The current discussion regarding view planes is a 15 foot building including mechanical. Chris said we are trying to relate in context to the Casa Tua building and the Gorsuch building. The existing building has commercial on the first floo r and in the back there are dorm units. On the upper floor there are three units; two, two bedrooms and one 4 bedroom. They are free market units. The demolition of these units trigger a whole set of mitigations. Chris said the proposal is three floors of commercial. Basement, ground floor with three bays and a second floor. We are around 30 FTE’s for mitigation that is coming out of the commercial. The replacement of the dormitory units is 3.5 FTE’s. APCHA was comfortable with the housing not being on this parcel except the 3.5 FTE’s which is two one bedroom units at 1.75 per unit. One of the logistic of the project is introducing another use to the building, the two units. The decision was to push the floor toward residential and take the credits and push those credits back into the portfolio. APCHA said they liked the idea of producing credits here and using them at on another project. Chris said the remaining issues are the TIA and down the road materials. The major issues are the overall mitigation which is a burden on the project which is not HPC problem to fix. We also have an issue with the overall fit and feel of this building knowing that the Gorsuch building is never getting ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 10 taller. We are at 28 feet and the Gorsuch would be at the same height or smaller than what is currently there. There is also confusion regarding the property. It is not clear whether it is one property or two. We are under contract for both sides. We aren’t doing anything with the Casa Tua building. There is an opportunity on this mall to invigorate the Cooper Ave. mall in connection with out properties across the street. We are struggling overall how this project works and makes sense physically and design wise. Mark said we are not here for a final vote but bringing up things with this project. Working on this and given direction I feel this is the wrong building for the site. My goal is to come up with the best building. Looking back we had to throw six buildings into the process due to referendum one and another three buildings in because of the moratorium. There are more changes coming down the road. I actually think this building is too big. On the vote HPC was split and City council was a split vote. We took the comments like to activate the mall and the fact that the height on the mall isn’t going higher. I have a building that fits a lot better but do not have anyone to show it to. Planning said if there are changes we need to start over. I’d like to show the HPC the ideas. I would like not to start over and waiting for a year. Chris said there has been a lot of exploration that could be incorporated here. We want to bring excitement to the mall and we have some exciting ideas. Amy addressed the process. HPC doesn’t do work session anymore and you have a clear policy that any new information comes to you 24 hours before the meeting. You also have a conceptual approval for this project that is binding. The idea of introducing another project is not OK even though we want the best product. This project was submitted before the moratorium and we cannot change a project and still be under those rules. If this application isn’t good it should be withdrawn and a new application should come in with new rules. There are a lot of changes to the mitigation and design guidelines. Procedurally this can’t go anywhere. Dwayne Romero with the Red Onion annex at the last meeting the comments were a direct response to ongoing community issues such as height, mass and scale, context and fit. This site does not respond well to all the community issues. We are hoping we can show the alternative image to you. We would just like feedback to see if this new plan is worth going forward. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 11 Bob said if we look at the proposals all we can say is interesting or not interesting. Amy said we do not do work sessions and what they may show is completely inconsistent with conceptual. The planning staff wil l recommend against a change under the old rules. Dwayne said this would be a valuable time together. Willis asked why the imagery wasn’t in the packet to follow the process which is 24 hours before. Dwayne said the changes are less is more. Chris said in the end it should be the product that we are monitoring and being proud of. The process can handcuff a project. Amy said there was a conceptual approval that approved the mass and scale and that subject is done. This is a kind of go around o f the process and it is not appropriate when we have a moratorium in place. Mark said some people want to see a two story building but it is inappropriate. To build it, the shell is 5 ½ to six million dollars. The mitigation originally came back at 12 million and now 10 million. Lets get rid of the floor between one and two and how it would be a one story building. Maybe there should be an exception to the rule if you are literally listening to comments and listening to the community and actually makin g something smaller. How many other people come here and ask to make something smaller. If we have to go with this building and make something smaller can we at least blow the floor out and loose the second floor of square footage and shave 5 million dollars off something that we don’t want to build anyway. I want to be on the record that it is inappropriate and we can do better. At least let us get rid of the floor plates. Willis asked the attorney if it is within the HPC’s purview to review staff’s determination that it is not consistent with the previous application. Jim True said it’s the applicant’s obligation to present something to the HPC and that specific project has to be consistent with the conceptual approval. It ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 12 sounds like the applicant is asking you to redesign the project. The way this process should work is that the applicant presents a plan. If the floor is to be blown out then the applicant should present a plan indicating that and it needs to be consistent with conceptual approval. It sounds like the applicant wants you to review something that is not in front of you. Chris said we have a building that has issue to get to the building permit and is under water and we are trying to rescue a project on this property and we would like to explore ideas and visions how the project can evolve. We aren’t asking HPC to design anything. We are asking for the ability to explore those alternative plans. Jim pointed out that submissions have to be consistent with what was already approved. If it is not consistent then HPC can’t approve that project and you would have to go back to a different conceptual approval. Amy said we are hearing this now and we have a policy for submitting things at least 24 hours in advanced and its being ignored . You need to propose something that is consistent with conceptual. You can’t hang onto the old rules and show a new project. John asked where it is coming from that you can’t break from procedure and there are times that we have broken from the procedure. Amy said it is coming from the land use code. Conceptual is meaningful in terms of mass and scale of the project and we expect final to be about details, lighting and materials and fenestration not that we are going to change the massing now and making it a different building. Jim said we don’t know right now if what they have to propose is minimally consistent with the conceptual approval. Willis said conceptual is mass and scale. Jim said the applicant is putting us in a position of not having st aff the opportunity to review anything that is before the HPC. Dwayne said he feels the code that was point in place and governed mass and scale consistency was probably put in place to prevent an applicant from going big to super big. It is interesting that an applicant has approval for ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 13 mass and scale and I’m interested in moving it to less mass and scale. What we want to present is a two story structure that is not perfectly matched with mass and scale and still has the bays. We just want feedback. Mark said we would literally blow off the second floor. Nora said this is very uncomfortable and she hears everyone’s concerns but as a volunteer this is something that I would like counsel to help us out with. John said we should always have the best interest in the community for producing a better design. The elimination of work sessions came from the lack of a public notice. I also feel work sessions were valuable and helpful for the community to get feedback. Jeffrey said he appreciates the applicant asking us to think outside of the box but on the other side of that I honor staff’s commitment and how we present projects and there is a consistency. There is a procedure that is precedent. Bob recused himself. Jim said you could listen to additional plans but what is difficult is committing a reaction to it when staff hasn’t had a chance to comment. We need to be concerned that staff has to have the chance to review it and comment before HPC puts themselves in a position of taking positions on a project. To react to a project without staff having an opportunity is not appropriate. Willis said he would be happy to look at it but uncomfortable commenting on the project. Chris said we want to move forward. Nora suggested they go through staff and be continued and come back to the HPC. The applicant needs to go through staff. John said we are working without some pieces of the puzzle. John said he is conflicted about his volunteering efforts right now. We could be doing more rather than being cut between the red tape and bureaucracy. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 14 Amy said we often see projects having a minor tweak but this was not the case. Mark said he can easily make an argument that the intent was there. Jim said there is a process and if staff believes it is not consistent with the conceptual approval there is an appeal process to go to city council. Chris said a lot of people don’t come forward and want to make a project smaller. Amy said the planning office is trying to be consistent as to how everyone is being treated. Dwayne said our intent is to get something in within the time frame we are sitting in. The administrative appeal is on the procedure of the review not due process. MOTION: Willis made the motion to continue 447 E. Cooper to January 11, 2017 second by John. All in favor, motion carried 4 -0. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Willis, yes; John, yes; Jeffrey, yes. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn, second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk