Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20170426ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2017 Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai Absent was Jim DeFrancia. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney MOTION: Ms. Greenwood motioned to approve the minutes of March 22, 2017, Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: none. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: none DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS: Mr. Halferty recused himself from the first item on the agenda because he lives within 300 feet. PROJECT MONITORING: none. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that on Monday night, there were five Aspen properties designated as historic. Thank you for your effort and thank you to Ann Mullins for pursuing this with Council. This is a great thing to have happen. She meant to send email about 232 E Bleeker behind Hotel Jerome. They had issued a stop work order and are looking at having a special meeting on Wednesday May 311. Ms. Berko noted that she will be absent on May 24th and will not be able to attend for 232 E Bleeker due to conflict. Mr. Moyer asked if they should have a site visit at 232 E Bleeker and Ms. Simon answered yes. Mr. Halferty asked if the contractor has done some work to protect it from the elements and Ms. Simon answered yes, they issued a second permit to button it up. They did an inspection today to make sure the site has been secured. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon issued one for a new ADA compliant door to Bidwell Building. There is a shop called "Kith" in the front and there was an opportunity to change a window into a door and get accessibility into that space. Right now, there are a couple of steps you have to go up to enter into the shop. This has been an outstanding issue that the building department has tried to correct for a long time. That building is slated to be demolished and replaced anyway. Mr. Halferty asked if we have public notice for the agenda items and Ms. Bryan stated that she has seen the notice for 500 W. Main. Sara Adams with Bendon Adams is bringing the notice for 210 W. Main. CALL UP REPORTS: none. HPC TYPICAL PROCEEDINGS: none. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 26. 2017 OLD BUSINESS: Item A: 500W. Main—Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review and Variations: Mr. Halferty left the room. Ms. Simon began by saying this project was seen a little over a year ago for conceptual review. This has the biggest false front building left in Aspen. A year ago, you saw a proposal to make a two-story addition on the west side. The property is owned by Roland & Broughton Architects and this would be their new headquarters. After the initial approval, they had to consider the cost and scaled back the project. The new proposal is to leave the historic building in place along with an existing partial basement that will be preserved. She would like HPC to consider design, special review related to floor area, variations related to parking & setbacks, onsite pedestrian amenity, transportation impacts and trash area. Staff is recommending approval as before. This is subject to old commercial guidelines, but the new HPC guidelines. We think this is modest in scale, well placed and only about 20 feet wide. We are asking for set -back variations for the front yard and side yard. They are allowed 6000 feet of floor area, but can only get to that number by combining residential and commercial space. There is no longer residential space being built, but they would like to maximize square footage on the lot and will all be used as commercial space and staff is supporting this. Related to parking, there is only one parking space on site and is larger than the normal width. The rest of the alley is for trash storage and a bicycle path. They should be providing four to five spaces and are asking for a parking reduction from HPC. They are planning to restore this back to the previous historic design. Mr. Pember asked Amy to explain why staff thinks eliminating parking spaces is a good idea and she responding by saying that with trash and a transformer on site, there is just not enough room. They have the option to pay cash in lieu for what they cannot provide. $30,000 per space. HPC can waive that cash. Ms. Greenwood asked if Ms. Simon discussed public amenity and Ms. Simon answered yes, they need to provide 650 square feet and they are providing a 1000 square feet so no variation needed there. Mr. Blaich asked the question of where everyone is going to park and the balance of how this will work. Ms. Simon advised the applicant to go over this in their presentation. Ms. Greenwood asked about the general Planning Dept opinion on these commercial buildings that have residential and commercial space. Ms. Simon responded by saying that the zoning of the neighborhood is mixed use. The new code no longer allows mixed use, but they could choose to do a residential unit, but they do not want to and it won't be any different in form and mass. John Roland and Dana Ellis presenting on behalf of Rowland and Broughton. Ms. Ellis described how they dug deeper into the historic potential this time around. They looked at the historic footprints of the building, but dealing with today's setbacks and keeping the commercial feel of the building. It will have a false store front and idea of the mesa design concept. They will have a green roof, which is both modern and harkening back to what was there where grasses and plants native to area can grow. They are ambitious to move through conceptual review as this will be the future home of their offices so have some added pressures, etc. The parking that they currently have is 3 spots and will not be adding 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 26. 2017 employees so they have a rotation for these three spots. They are getting a fleet of bikes and consider themselves a walking office. They have a carpool spot and no one is concerned about losing one parking space. Mr. Blaich asked where the parking for contractors and clients will be Mr. Roland responded that they will have to fend for themselves and they aren't sure where they park now at their current space. He stated that they also go to their clients for meetings at their homes or meet in outside places. Mr. Pember asked if they did a traffic study and Ms. Simon stated that they were not required to Ms. Greenwood asked if they get housing waived and Ms. Simon stated that they should do a growth management review to do that calculation, but they do get some breaks on that. Ms. Ellis noted that the transformer is not on the site plan and is something they found out about later, but does not impact the massing of the property. She said it is setback 24 inches from what the board is looking at on their site plan. Mr. Pember asked how many of their employees live in Aspen besides the principles and Mr. Roland answered seven not including himself and Sara. There are people in Snowmass who drive or carpool and a lot of people in Carbondale who take the bus or carpool. They are not expecting to expand with more employees at this point. Mr. Pember asked if the connector has grown since the last presentation and Mr. Roland said it is the same size and same concept. It is glassy and transparent with the view looking into the kitchen. The main window on new faSade will be the main conference room and you can see the activity going on inside. Mr. Pember asked if there is some expansion of the second -floor landing in which Ms. Ellis said yes. Ms. Greenwood asked if that is a roof over the open space over the two buildings and Ms. Ellis said yes, but it will appear smaller. Ms. Greenwood asked if it is accessible and Mr. Roland said yes, they will use as a deck and to have meetings outside. Ms. Greenwood clarified that it is a different level than the roof garden and Mr. Roland confirmed and said the garden cannot be accessed. PUBLIC COMMENT: none. Ms. Berko is in support of the project, but has a real problem with the parking. The residential areas take a hit on supporting the commercial use. Cash in lieu is great, but it doesn't solve the problem of cars and is her only concern with this application. Mr. Blaich stated that he is comfortable with their answer and think it will balance out. No one is living in that neighborhood so no one is parking there, in his opinion. He hasn't seen any kind of an overload problem over there. He respects what Ms. Berko said and agrees, but would speak up if he thought it was a problem. He likes the design and cut back on it makes it better from original proposal. He thinks it respects the site and honors the history of the Mesa when it was a bakery and just ate a cookie in honor of that. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 26. 2017 Mr. Moyer agrees with staff and thinks they have done a marvelous job, however, the cars aren't going to go away, but we approve all of these projects with no parking. It doesn't make sense. It is silly. He suggested that they have a special meeting just on parking alone and give recommendations to council. Mr. Pember said he tends to agree with Ms. Berko. He said the whole question of garbage cans and the transformer seems 11th hour and if they looked at alley more closely, it seems like an awfully big ask with people coming and going, clients, employees, etc. This is very annoying to not have any spots available. He would hate imposing mayhem on the street scape and asked them to look more closely at getting rid of some garbage cans and adding some spots. Ms. Greenwood agreed with Mr. Pember and said she would like to see less of a linking element. It seems like the west facade of the building will be obliterated and the upper deck doesn't have to be there. It seems like a lot of mass added onto the side of the building and agrees with the parking issues. Motion: Mr. Pember made a motion to continue with a denial of the waiver of the parking cash in lieu if they do not have come back with same parking spaces from previous approval and come up with a one story linking element. With a May 10th continuance, Ms. Greenwood seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, no; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Mr. Pember, yes. 4-2, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 210 W Main: Conceptual Major Development Review, Demolition, Special Review, Residential Design Standard Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review Mr. Halferty has rejoined the meeting. Ms. Bryan received the legal notice and said ok to proceed. Justin Barker started by saying that this property is located right on Main between First and Second Streets and is a 6000 square foot lot. Contains one hybrid commercial and residential space and one affordable housing unit. The proposed project includes demolishing the existing development and replacing with eight affordable housing units. This would be a little shy of 7,400 square feet of floor area with six parking spaces located in the alleyway. The requested approvals would be: demolition, Conceptual design review, special review for increase of floor area and parking with a deficit of one space as well as a waiver, asking for height increase to 32 feet. This project was submitted before the moratorium went into effect. The staff is concerned that they restudy mass and scale to relate to historic development modules and mining era buildings. Building placement and setbacks would be the second concern, relating to Victorian historic development. Staff would like to see some sloped roof elements added as well and an entry door located on the front facing unit. Staff is supportive of the parking reduction with a cash in lieu payment, similar to what was granted for the Fornell affordable housing project down the street. They would also like a FAR increase or height increase, but staff is not in support of what's being requested at this time. Staff recommends a continuation. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 26. 2017 Sara Adams of Bendon Adams and Ted Guy who is the architect and property owner are present. Ms. Adams speaking first said this is a request for a 100 % affordable housing project. They are not looking for a vote tonight, they know lots of discussion needs to happen and are looking for a continuation for the end of May. The commercial unit would be removed so the deed restriction would be lifted and then would become eight free market residential units. Mr. Guy has owned the building since 1994 and it was originally called the Flower Garden Apartments. In 1995, they moved her salon into this building making it mixed-use. He said he has had a passion for affordable housing and has been thinking about this project for the past 15 years. It's currently being used as affordable housing and there are currently ten tenants. Will provide a car on property as "car to go" program as part of their rent. It's a great location and close to people's jobs. Ms. Adams said there are a variety of styles and roof forms in this area and there are not many other historic buildings around this one as it is in a gap area. There are high density lodge uses in this area. They are planning to maintain the same number of parking spaces and she says they meet all of the setbacks. Mr. Guy really wanted to create an interior protected courtyard to have some livability off of Main Street. Mr. Guy's goals are to keep this project affordable and livable and there will be storage for all units provided. All units will have washers and dryers and he's creating it as if he would be living there. The third goal is contextual design and this building will serve as a background building to support the architecture going on around it. There are a mix of landmarks, inspiring new design and then some background buildings so it fits into the district and blends in, but will be a little bit taller than the Annabelle Inn. They will plan to use a hybrid vertical collector— tromb wall, which is a highly efficient way to heat in the winter and then in the summer to bleed heat out of the building. There would be solar collectors on front fagade. Ms. Adams said they would like feedback on the site plan, architecture/mass and leed (solar collectors) Mr. Halferty asked what Mr. Guy was thinking about the windows and he responded that it would be a low reflective glass and right now it looks misleading on the plans and featureless. Mr. Pember asked if the tromb wall will be heating water or space and Mr. Guy said probably both and will do space heating and cooling. Ms. Greenwood asked how many design variances are required and Mr. Barker replied that it is just one. Mr. Halferty asked staff if they feel the criteria has been met and Mr. Barker replied no, not on mass and scale. Ms. Greenwood asked what the reason is for the additional 1400 square feet and Mr. Guy responded that each unit must be 900 square feet to meet category 3 requirements and there are eight of them. Mr. Pember asked if the objections from staff are looking through the lens of current code and Mr. Barker said it is based on the old guidelines. There is not a lot that has changed in the code as far as scaling and FAR. The height is really the only thing that has changed. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 26. 2017 PUBLIC COMMENT: Brodie Kettlekamp speaking on behalf of his family and they have owned historic miners house behind the existing structure and was purchased in 1968. Brodie currently lives in the home behind the proposed structure and has a beautiful view of Aspen Mountain and feels their view would be diminished if this building is built at 32 ft. Pierre Willie owns the Tyrolean Lodge and has a couple of concerns. He feel that the car to go is a bad idea and will take up another parking space. Mr. Guy downplays the parking problem and should be considered five parking places instead of six and with eight units it will add traffic to the side streets. He is concerned about Mr. Guy being the project manager. This project will be super high impact on his hotel so would expect this to be done in a speedy manner and he also thinks his view will be obstructed. Mr. Barker mentioned the email received from Todd Kettlekamp and was forwarded to HPC members and has been added to the record. Mr. Guy shares Pierre's concerns as far as quickness and thinks it will take about 10 months. He also noted that he will not be the project manager and will hire someone to do that. The existing building is 24 feet tall and has been a flat roof building since early 70's. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Greenwood doesn't think it comes close to being built on Main St. regarding mass and scale. The structure needs a sloping roof and the protected courtyard is forcing building to be too tall with area that could be used for living space. She thinks six parking spaces are ok, but it's uncomfortable for her to see a three story building on Main Street. Mr. Lai agrees in part with Ms. Greenwood where the three stories bothers him and says it's not ok on Main St. He does appreciate the interior courtyard, but feels it has sacrificed living space. He likes the six parking spots, but is not sure about the car to go. He disagrees with Ms. Greenwood on the view from the back alleys. The facade bothers him, but he really enjoys the affordable housing idea and thinks it's very beneficial to the community. Ms. Berko supports everything from the staff memo. She is looking forward to seeing this when it comes back, but says as stewards of the historic district, she feels it is totally out of scale with the neighborhood and Main St. and would like to not have it higher than 28 ft. Mr. Pember does like the interior courtyard, but thinks there is a big price paid for it. He applauds the approach to technology and desire and wants to see lots of graphics regarding the tromb wall for us to understand and get behind it and is fine with the flat roof. Mr. Blaich makes motion to extend, Mr. Moyer seconds. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Moyer agrees with staff and is ok with variance. He applauds the green technology, but feels this is new Aspen and not old Aspen. He said maybe they could get more height with a sloped roof and hopefully not block neighbor's views. He has no issue with parking and recommend continuance with all of comments from staff. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2017 Mr. Blaich doesn't disagree with anything he's heard and feels that all other buildings in the neighborhood have character. He thinks this is a practical and functional building, but it doesn't have any spirit. He says to come back with something more acceptable and Mr. Guy has been in the community a long time and has a good feel for how to do this. Mr. Halferty referenced chapter 7 in the guidelines which talks about mass and scale and said this is the deciding factor for continuation. He also echoed the architect and designer for the green technology being used and appreciates it, but said there is a price to pay. He liked the size of the units and the storage for each unit. He said he is ok with part of the flat roof, but a possible mirage of sloped roofs to help conform to the guidelines. He said he is ok with the parking and thinks the car share is an interesting concept, but maybe make an extra space to take the burden off of the lot and streets. He thought he height on the alley definitely seemed tall on site today after looking at the other buildings. He said we can make sure it's a good fit into neighborhood. Mr. Blaich motioned to adjourn, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried at 7:10 pm. Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk