Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.201701251 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2017 Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer and Richard Lai. Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Linda Manning, City Clerk Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Mr. Blaich moved to approve the minutes from January 11, 2017. Mr. Lai pointed out that his name was incorrectly listed as Robert instead of Richard. Second by Mr. Moyer. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Halferty asked for public comment regarding items not listed on the agenda and there were none. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty asked for Commission Member commentary. He commented on the excellent teamwork and volunteerism as well as the staff’s hard work. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Mr. Halferty asked if there were any disclosures of conflicts of interest and there were none. PROJECT MONITORING: Mr. Halferty asked for any project monitoring items and Ms. Simon responded that there were none. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that they are making progress on closing out the moratorium and mentioned that on Monday night the Commercial Design Standards were adopted at Council and thanked everyone for their feedback during the last meeting on Jan 11, 2017. Other code amendments were discussed that related to what uses are allowed in what zone districts, parking and affordable housing mitigation and have been continued until Jan 30, 2017. All in all, she hopes to have completely wrapped everything up by February. Ms. Simon also mentioned that Planning and Zoning have been receiving complaints regarding a food cart, which is positioned by the dancing fountain, and said the City has a program in place where people can do temporary food vending if they are on private property to perch. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Mr. Halferty asked if any have been issued and Ms. Simon answered no. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2017 OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Halferty moved along to old business item A: 403 & 407 E Cooper Avenue – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition and Viewplane Review. MOTION: to continue public hearing to April 12, 2017. Mr. Blaich motioned to approve and Mr. Pember seconded. Roll call vote: Nora- yes, Bob-yes, Jeffrey-yes, Roger-yes, Richard-yes, Willis-yes – 6-0, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Item A: 232 E Main – Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design and Growth Management Review. MOTION: to continue public hearing to February 8, 2017. Ms. Berko motioned to approve, Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Willis-yes, Nora-yes, Bob-yes, Jeffrey-yes, Roger-yes, Richard-yes – 6-0, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Item B: 517 E Hyman – Substantial Amendment to an HPC Approval of Resolution 2, Public Hearing: Ms. Simon summarized the project stating that it is a 12,000 sq ft lot, that for many years had a parking lot on the corner, the Tom Benton studio and Little Annie’s restaurant. The property was purchased around 2012 and at one point the new owner had proposed demolition and redevelopment, but we were able to renegotiate to where the developers mind was changed and the two existing structures were preserved and a new building was constructed on the corner. At that time, Council wanted to see the studio and Little Annie’s Landmark Designated as Aspen Modern Historic resources and they also wanted to ensure that Little Annie’s would continue to serve the community as a lower priced restaurant. A number of agreements were adopted by City Council at that time. A year or so later, the owner came forth with a plan to gut the interior, address accessibility issues, operation issues and the condition of the restaurant. HPC reviewed a proposal to add a rooftop deck and it was approved in 2013. The applicant has vested rights for three years, but have rethought the scope and have submitted a building permit application. Tonight you are being asked to approve less. It was decided that the rooftop deck will not be a part of the plan going forward. They will frame a new roof over the existing roof and will build CMU walls on the sides of the building to accommodate the new roof as well as adding new aluminum coping and gutters to improve roof drainage and a new, more modest lighting plan. Mr. Halferty asked about the location of the air exhaust shaft or air intake and Ms. Simon said the plan for mechanical equipment has not been decided yet. Mr. Halferty welcomed the applicants and asked them to state their name for the record – Patrick Rawley with Stan Clauson & Associates was present with Dave Rybak of Rybak Architecture and Development. Mr. Rawley referenced Ordinance #5 and most importantly, amending HPC Resolution #25 for the rooftop development. This is based on tenant feedback for a preference over interior seating rather than rooftop seating, which would require an elevator and seating room to be taken away on the ground floor. They would plan to develop the CMU walls located off the alley for service aspects of the building, which was part of the original resolution. ADA compliant access, which was part of Ordinance #5, will still be part of the project, new light fixtures that are rather modest, fire resistant 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2017 wood shakes and repainting. Mr. Rawley hands it over to Mr. Rybak to discuss the façade, which he says is to basically just repair what is already there regarding trim and flashings. They will remove a skylight and shed roof and replace with shakes. The major change to the façade would be a new front door with increased height. They will also replace the existing gutter and will have a connection to the water treatment system. Referring to the plans, light fixture A will replace the now exposed flood lamps, light fixture B will replace over scaled sconces adjacent to the front door and light fixture C will be an assembly utility light that will be near the exit in the alley. The interior floor will be removed as well as the columns that support the roof and in order to do that, they will need to replace it with a roof that spans the 30ft across the building. They have a proposed roof structure that will sit above the existing timber roof structure and will remain exposed in the building. This will also accommodate reaching the new snow loads that are required for 2015. The east and west facades of this building are concealed by the neighboring buildings so what exists today are CMU walls that run north and south from the wood façade of the front to the back of the building. We are proposing to add four courses to the height of those walls so we can enclose the new roof structure and at the alley side of the building we are removing the existing construction and creating a permanent structure. Mr. Moyer asked what the height is of the new door and Mr. Rybak answered 6’8” right now and will be adding 1’4” to it so it would be about an 8 ft door. Mr. Lai asked about what type of signage they will be using and Mr. Rybak answered that they do not have a tenant signed on at this point and Mr. Lai clarified that he was wondering about location specifically, in which Mr. Rybak responded that he can’t get that far into it at this point, but when it is time, they will submit an appropriate sign permit to the Planning & Zoning department which will meet all codes. Mr. Pember asked if the building has been structurally engineered and Mr. Rybak answered that the two stories have been, which are in for a permit. Regarding the one story proposal, Mr. Rybak has had conversations with a structural engineer about what kind of depths they need to make that span and what types of systems are available to them so on a rudimentary level, yes, but down to the actual calculations, no. They are waiting for approval before the next steps. Mr. Pember asked about the ceiling height and Mr. Rybak responded that it is 7’8” to the underside of the timber. The timbers will remain and will be increased in height. Mr. Pember asks if they previously addressed skylights and lettering and Ms. Simon answered that the name “Little Annie’s” is copyrighted so we do not have the sign preserved and she would have to look back regarding the skylights, but she doesn’t recall a previous conversation about removing the skylights. Mr. Rawley says that he can see in the 2013 approval, that it shows the skylights being removed. Mr. Pember asks for clarification regarding the copyrighting issue in which Lex Tarumianz spoke up from the public seating and said the current owner has a trademark on the name “Little Annie’s” and that the owner is willing to fight for it. The board continues to discuss the project and ask questions. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2017 Mr. Pember mentions that Little Annie’s is part of the Aspen Modern Program and asks which category it is designated to. Ms. Simon explains to the group that Little Annie’s was designated to the “rustic” category as it has the old downtown frontier vibe and is a deed restricted restaurant. Mr. Halferty opened the floor to the public: Ruth Kruger stated that the rooftop amenity is a public amenity so she asked for this to be considered and that she feels the City has given up a lot already for this property. Bob Morris stated that he owns a unit that faces directly over the rooftop of Little Annie’s and is concerned about what his view will look like going forward. He asked the architects to consider building a wall or something to block the view of the rooftop as to curtain off some of the new mechanical work. Mr. Rybak responded that the view of the rooftop will be improved from what it is now and will actually look nicer and more cleaned up. Mr. Morris agreed with not having a rooftop deck going forward and said he feels the City is retaining the Aspen flavor with restoring Little Annie’s the way it is. Lex Tarumianz mentioned that this proposal would benefit everyone in the long run. Mr. Halferty closed public comment. Mr. Halferty closed applicant rebuttal. Mr. Halferty opens discussion for a motion on Resolution #2. Mr. Lai is supportive of the proposal and points out that by having parties on a rooftop, it is not historically cogent and would like to persuade Ms. Kruger that this is a public amenity. Mr. Moyer states that he was enchanted with the rooftop garden upon first discussion and wouldn’t be against the idea of doing it in a historic building, but that he is looking forward to going back to the new Little Annie’s and believes it will be an amenity to the community. Ms. Berko states that she is sympathetic to both public comments, but she supports the revision to the project and its vision. Mr. Halferty is sympathetic as a public amenity and understands both sides of public comment, but appreciates how much effort the applicant has put in on this building. Mr. Pember makes the point that anywhere we have an affordable eatery, we should support that use, but is sad that we will never be able to see the Little Annie’s sign again due to the trademark. Mr. Halferty closes HPC discussion. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned for approval of Resolution #2, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Richard-yes, Willis-yes, Jeffrey-yes, Nora-yes, Bob-yes, Roger-yes– 6-0, motion carried ITEM C: Ms. Simon reminded everyone that we are having a two-hour retreat on February 22nd. We will be having a facilitator come to help everyone learn how to better deal with split votes and hard to come 5 by motions to help everyone work better together. Ms. Simon took suggestions from the board regarding some issues that should be addressed with the facilitator. MOTION: Mr. Blaich made the motion to adjourn, Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.