Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.201702081 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim DeFrancia, Nora Berko, John Whipple, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Absent from the meeting was Willis Pember. Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Linda Manning, City Clerk MOTION: Mr. Blaich moved to approve the minutes from January 25th, 2017, Mr. DeFrancia seconded. 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. Moyer was driving and noticed that at the corner of 6th and Smuggler, there had been a lot of siding removed and replaced with a primer only and raw boards. He said they were painting in 38 degrees and that any primer should be coated within two or three days and the longer it sits, the weaker it becomes. This will need to be redone in the spring and will need to be tented, heated and finished immediately. Ms. Simon said the siding was replaced previously and there is new siding going up and suggested going over the contractor licensing guidelines regarding siding. Ms. Berko asked for an update on the state conference in Denver and Ms. Simon said that she will give an update at the retreat on the projects that were presented. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Mr. Halferty asked if there were any disclosures of conflicts of interest. Mr. Whipple spoke up regarding agenda item two and said he will not be participating. PROJECT MONITORING: Mr. Halferty asked for any project monitoring items and Ms. Simon responded that she had two items. There is one for Mr. Halferty at 980 Gibson and one for Mr. Whipple at 301 Lake. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that she will be following up with the board regarding project monitoring and have a few projects that don’t have a monitor so she will be checking to see who can pick up some. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Mr. Halferty asked if any have been issued and Ms. Simon answered no. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan stated that she submitted one for Agenda item 2 – 300-312 E Hyman and everything is in order. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 CALL UP REPORTS: There were none. Ms. Simon reminds everyone that the retreat will be on February 22nd and to meet in Council Chambers at 5 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Halferty moved along to old business item A: 533 W Hallam continued public hearing to November 8th, 2017. Ms. Simon said the property owner is considering several items. MOTION: Mr. DiFrancia moved to approve the continuance, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Item A: 232 E Main – Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design and Growth Management Review. HPC approved conceptual design of this project several months ago which involved demolishing the existing gas station on site and replacing it with a new retail building. Applicant requested and received approval to allocate more of their total allowable square footage towards commercial development and none towards residential. HPC granted authorization and allowed setback variances. Parking will be mitigated through cash in lieu as well as public amenity as 10% of the property will be available to public in the form of amenity space. Band of open area across the front and Monarch side of property. There will be landscape improvements as well. HPC now needs to look at final design review and growth management regarding the creation of new net leasable space. HPC was very in favor of the project, but concerned about the entry onto Main St. and the awning on Monarch side of the street. HPC did not want to grant a variance and now applicant has retractable awning. Mr. Moyer asked if anyone would deal with where the two rooves meet between the resource to the west and the new building to the east. Ms. Simon stated that the roof design was approved previously. Applicant Sara Adams with Bendon Adams present along with Mark Hunt and Dwayne Romero. She stated that this is a 100% commercial project located on the cusp of the commercial core district and across the alley is R6 and across the street is C1 and is just under 6000 sq ft lot. The site plan shows the setbacks and that they have added a walk way to distinguish the main street front entrance. Ms. Adams showed the landscape plan with perennials and a bike rack and made note that they want to mitigate through housing credits. There are more defined front doors on Main with a walkway along with a significant grade change towards the alley. The materials include wood for the back portion along Main St and metal panel and aluminum windows. There will be very simple light fixtures and finally the proposed final elevation showing the more defined entry. Ms. Adams states that they are very happy with proposed conditions of approval and happy to answer questions. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 Mr. Halferty asks where the glazing with the chicken wire is proposed and Ms. Adams states that it is in the front and there is a mix of different types and textures of glass. Mr. Moyer asks if the wood siding is horizontal or vertical and Ms. Adams says that it is horizontal. Mr. Halferty open up public comment and there is none and opens up board comments. Mr. Lai said he thinks it’s a great project, however, he thinks you are 95% there. He said he wanted to talk about the 5% that he did not get to see. He said the renderings are beautiful, but asked why they didn’t repeat the angle of the Cortina building located next door. Mr. Halferty states that the materials, fenestration and dimensional calculations will be verified at final permit review. Ms. Greenwood states that she was not here for conceptual approval and said she likes the building and appreciates the minutes and reading up on the project. She said she has an issue with the proliferation with the wall of glass and that the guidelines state to use components that are traditionally seen on Main Street. She feels that at night it will be full on lit up and has a real problem with that. She feels that it is wrong and not the face the Aspen and belongs in Denver or Vail and it will be a flashlight in the downtown core and that a new solution is needed and doesn’t meet fenestration guideline. Mr. Lai said he is in sympathy with Ms. Greenwood’s comment and would like to see the fenestration articulated. Ms. Berko asked for clarification on the glass and questioned if the different materials are appropriate and if more appropriate to have solids and glass. Mr. Moyer stated it reminded him of the A frames that were across from the North of Nell. He said that Ms. Berko and Ms. Greenwood are dead on regarding the glass. He asked if it is possible to have translucent glass to allow light to enter, but not one from the street to see in or some kind of curtain. Ms. Greenwood said that it is a hardship and we must deal with the fenestration. Mr. Whipple said he thinks the applicant has done a nice job of giving us varied opacities of glass. He thinks the light will be shielded going down the street. He stated he sides with staff and thinks that it is very appropriate and wants to sit in there and look out at the mountain. Mr. DeFrancia agreed with Mr. Whipple. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 Mr. Hunt stated that you can see the lighting in the renderings is not grand lighting and will not be lit from the ceilings. He said he would be willing to stipulate no can lighting other than in the mezzanine. Ms. Greenwood stated that she doesn’t understand why we have the design guidelines and they are not followed and says she is surprised that staff didn’t look at this harder. She said she likes the building, but this is a design issue. Mr. Whipple said he appreciates where Ms. Greenwood is coming from, but thinks it is unfounded. It is not going to be a Cabelas and that it is a different scale than Jerome and won’t bleed out like a spectrum of light. He likes what staff did and that they gave us different options. Mr. Blaich states that at no point has Mr. Hunt been definitive on the use and he thinks that would somewhat determine the light aspect. He said he can’t imagine this if you put wood on the upper level and thinks the problems could be resolved with the lighting. Mr. Whipple thinks the entrance is a great improvement. Ms. Berko said the quandary is the guideline, not the lighting. It is a slippery slope and at what point does the guideline hold no weight? Ms. Simon addressed the concerns by stating that it is not as if no guideline was applied. At the Cortina, there is a concrete block screen wall that has a neat perforation to it. They are doing a good job playing off of that. The mullion placement and size of each sash is very similar to proportions, narrow and tall. Is it the same approach we’ve seen in the past, no, but they are continuing to work on the glazing and creating a good relationship with all elements of the street. Ms. Greenwood replied that she does not see it. It is a solid piece of glass and that is how it is going to read and even more so at night. Mr. Whipple stated that he agrees with Amy. Mr. Lai stated that he agrees with Ms. Greenwood. Mr. Halferty stated that the fenestration as discussed has some valid points. In reference to 7.16 – I do feel like the fenestration does the vertical nature, the horizontal, not exactly. This is kind of an anomaly and I think the applicant has done an excellent job as far as playing with the fenestration and getting the mass and materials to work. They have identified the front entry and it is a different building, but understand your comments regarding glazing, but we can’t control it as the HPC board. It is something that Planning & Zoning can look into. Our purview is to administer section 7 and section 12 of our guidelines. Resolution #3 motion by Mr. DeFrancia, seconded by Mr. Whipple. Roll call vote: Ms. Greenwood, no; Mr. DeFrancia, yes, Ms. Berko, no; Mr. Whipple, yes, Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes, Mr. Moyer, no. Motion carried 4 to 3. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 Item B – 300-312 E Hyman Mr. Whipple recused himself Ms. Simon presented Item B and stated that it is the final design review to convert Crystal Palace and adjacent shop to a lodge. When HPC conducted the conceptual review, demolition was discussed as well as utility trash and new parking with cash in lieu. The applicant will not provide any public amenity on the site, but there will be street scape improvements particularly on the Monarch St. side. Here tonight for final major development review and final commercial design review. We will have another hearing on this project on March 22nd, which will be the growth management review to receive allotments for the lodge rooms. Although this building may look more Victorian than any other building in town, It’s over-the-top in its detailing and not a lot of original historic fabric here. The most historic part of the site is the very corner. There have been deterioration issues over the years that caused a partial roof collapse. There was also a substantial expansion done, mostly everything was demolished for this in the 70’s and the only thing that is original is a small section on the ground floor facing Hyman. The applicants plan at conceptual was to keep some of what was already there regardless, but were also required to provide a preservation plan for tonight. That’s what we need to discuss tonight is if we are willing to expand the concept of what demolition is on this site? It’s going to be a message that needs to be explained to the public. The alternative is to stick with where we were before and keep the construction that was done previously and just do the best to improve from there. This project is going to need some staff and monitor work. We currently need some tweaks to drawings before building permit submittal. The second most important topic of discussion is regarding the materials and windows on the new addition. In terms of fenestration, we are concerned that the windows on the ground and upper floors are the same, but there is good opportunity for the project to receive final approval tonight. Mr. DeFrancia asked how much of the corner building is from the 1970’s looking at the white owl sign. Amy stated that the owl sign is from the Victorian era, but was repainted in the 1970’s and may have shifted on the building. Ms. Greenwood asked about the two windows on the west façade, second story and if there is anything historic there. Ms. Simon said it was a best effort to replicate. Applicant Presentation: Ms. Adams repeated that this is a request for final design approval on the lodging project with a restaurant and café on the ground level in the commercial core historic district. The packet showed images starting from 1900 throughout today. The proposal is to leave the mural as it is and to restore the openings. The comments from the HPC conceptual review delineated between new and old, 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 the possibility of looking at the use of different materials and highlighting the cornice and return of the building. The preferred option is to use brick for the addition to connect new and old. The community has a relationship with the existing configuration of the Crystal Palace. Regarding windows, they think it is important to take different preservation philosophies throughout town and it keeps things interesting and dynamic. They want to create a simple and warm, decorative approach to restoring the building. The 3rd floor is setback 30 to 38 feet from the front façade. Regarding window shape, we are looking at more vertical windows as opposed to the horizontal ones presented in conceptual. Ms. Adams referred back to the slide from the 1900’s to look at the window shapes and repetitions to what is being proposed as they tried to come up with something new and fresh as an approach to an addition to a historic resource. The brick will need to be sourced and compared on site with the monitor, making sure it’s the right color, size, etc. The metal relates back to the history of the building and the mining company that was in the building before and highlights the warmth of the brick. Mr. Romero made a statement regarding the referral comments on page 7 of the agenda and stated that the Engineering department was requesting that they will need to abandon the well easement in the NW corner of the lot. For the record, that well easement runs to the benefit of a different private owner and we can’t just abandon it because it is owned by Hecht, but we will work with them. It is in all of our interests to clean that up. Regarding staff recommendation and acknowledge the conditions and one note to underscore, we would encourage and support conditions 5 and 6, which speak to the storefront and fenestration while working with staff and a monitor for assembly of the entries, bays and composition. Mr. Halferty opened up public comment: Jim Curtis stated his name and said he is currently a tenant in the building. The building is in dire need of TLC and thinks it’s a great project and a great use for the building and very very supportive of the project. On a design level, he would like to see HPC support the brick band and preferred option. He would like to hear comments regarding the metal on the east side. Let’s do it, it’s good for the town and the town really needs it. Jim Farey stated his name and said he has lived here for 3.5 years and said that this is not a small undertaking and even more beautiful than what was talked about on Main St. The brick is an outstanding option and loves the balance of the steel. Public comment closed. Mr. Halferty stated that they are in final approval and looking at items identified by staff such as final detailing to be outlined, consistency of drawings, reconstruction of the upper floor, documentation of the brick, restudy of the south and west facades, storefront cornice is identified, restudy of Hyman Ave façade, fenestration on the ground floor, cut sheets as far as doors and windows, materials at entrance regarding brick versus metal. Reviewed relevant design guidelines and stated sections that were 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 reviewed. The suggested motion is on page 8 with conditions and at this point we can move into the discussion phase. Ms. Greenwood offered her thoughts by saying she really likes this project. The development from conceptual totally matches what was talked about. The stepping back of the new façade to the old is very successful and gives us a little more history on a 3-dimensional basis. Ms. Greenwood feels that the brick is the way to go on the building. The windows of the new addition being the same and clad all in metal creates a certain positive backdrop for the resource to be front and center and very successful. She feels that introducing new windows would be a mistake. The restudy of the storefronts on Hyman could be handled through a monitor and she feels the right way to go and headed in the right direction in terms of restoration. She said it was an interesting presentation and is in favor of moving this project forward. There is nothing in the conditions she doesn’t agree with and would like to see it move forward exactly as is. Mr. DeFrancia agreed with Ms. Greenwood. He thinks it’s a great project and likes what is being done with it given what we know about the historic characteristics. Perception has a lot to do with it. The fact that you have held on to the historic character is great and you all are doing a great job. Mr. Blaich agreed that they have come a long way and this information is very important to get out to the public so they can understand what is going on since it’s a major project in the community and to keep everyone from having second thoughts about it. In favor of the project and feels very positive about it. Ms. Berko commented that it was quite a sleuthing job. Educating the public will be critical. Fine with all conditions and that is the piece that is important. Mr. Lai agrees with the general consensus. Impressed with the archaeological detective work that went into the project. Would like to see articulation between floors. Thinks there is too much glass on second floor. Mr. Moyer said he thinks it’s a good project. Mr. Halferty stated that he was not here for the conceptual and really appreciates staffs comments. The applicant presented a well-executed project. The project does conform to the standards and meets the guidelines and he supports the proposal as presented. Ms. Berko asked if the proportion isn’t a little overwhelming in thinking about Mr. Lai’s comments in regards to the east and the west. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2017 Motion: Ms. Greenwood moved to approve Resolution #4 with the conditions stated, seconded by Bob. Mr. Hunt said the project is modern. What they are trying to accomplish is exactly what Ms. Greenwood was saying. It is consistent, but in the backdrop and makes the historic structure pop. When things started out, the windows were much bigger. It is important to look at the scale of the block and the second level of the Motherlode with massive openings and as you go down to the Wheeler, they aren’t big in comparison. It’s just consistent and makes the corner pop. When you look at the scale of the block, it does fit in well. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes, Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. Motion carried 7-0. Ms. Simon called for two monitors on this project. Mr. Blaich and Ms. Greenwood will take on this project and Mr. Halferty will take on the Main St. project. Meeting adjourned at 6:51 p.m. 9