Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20050503ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 3~ 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at NOON. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko,Valerie Alexander, Jason Lasser and Michael Hoffman. Sarah Broughton was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner John Worcester, City Attorney 426 E. MAIN STREET- MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) - PUBLIC HEARING Amy said this is a new re-model in the downtown commercial core historic district. Most of the relevant guidelines are in Chapter 13 and listed in the memo. Staff recommends approval as proposed. One minor condition of approval is listed; clarify the covering for the parking spaces for final review. Also, based on a comment made from the public in a letter they should also reflect accurately the configuration of the existing on-street parking around their building. Design review issues: HPC has found that in previous discussions in this project, that the massing and scale of this is very appropriate. There are no historic buildings on this immediate block. Based on the elevation displayed the county court house is the nearest building that is designated as a landmark. HPC found and staff's finding based on the guideline; ~hat there is no negative impact on that structure. This has all of the characteristics that we would like new infill construction to have and so we recommend approval. The memo goes on to mention some other issues that have been brought up through public comment at this meeting and the past and we have given staff responses to each so we will leave it at that and allow you to ask questions if you have any. We recommend approval. The affidavit of public notice was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Kim Weil from Bill Poss and Associates presented. What you see here is a short street scheme that starts with the bank building, US bank now and then it moves along to the subject property and then to the county court house. The county course house more or less dominates Main Street in this neighborhood. Our intent is not to dominate the court house but to kind of "point" to it, take the mountains in the background and start with the two-story building here, keep within the height limit and just point ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 3~ 2005 to the courthouse and not dominate it. This is a massive structure that approaches almost 55 to 60 feet at its tower. We are at 42 feet. Here is a site plan showing the existing US bank building. There is a bridge that connects, it is actually a defunct bridge and is used as an office for US bank and the bridge does not go all the way through but touches the property. The new property and apartment building behind are shown and the court yard with parking off the alley, Galena Street and Main Street. Kim went through the plans. The lower level will be storage dedicated to the building tenants and affordable housing tenants. On the main level which is the Main Street level there are retail spaces divided into two spaces and could be divided into three spaces. The second level contains three affordable housing units. There are two, two bedrooms and one studio apartment. The upper level has one free market unit with three bedrooms. The key guidelines on the Main Street elevation are keeping horizontality to the street and we have done this with material bands that mn through. A portion of the individual windows are reminiscent of historic proportions but at the same time the building is of its own time. We are not trying to create any architecture of any period other than the time we are in. There is lighter construction on the upper level. On the site plan it goes to the guidelines. They are very clear that the building should develop in the historic rhythm, perpendicular to their streets and come out to the building line, particularly in the commercial core which is the district that we are in. The side that faces the courthouse has a strong element on the comer. It is a mixture of masonry and stone and some metal. The storefronts are set up to replicate an historic store front in that they have kick plates; however their detailing would be more contemporary, and not replicating historic storefronts such as the Brand building. Sharon Ruhnau asked if there are two doors opening onto the green site and are they set back? Kim said they are recessed. Questions and clarifications: Michael asked if there were any changes from the last time it was presented to the HPC. Kim said one minor change; three windows were added facing to the north away from the street on the third level. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 3~ 2005 Amy clarified that windows are a final design issue. Derek asked the City Attorney, John Worcester if all of the legal issues have been resolved? John said some of the legal issues are pre-mature. He is not sure which legal issues Derek is talking about but handicapped parking is not. Derek said basically discussing any legal issues that make our ability to proceed forward with any decision. John said you are free to make a decision today. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Sharon Ruhnau said she has a couple of comments and one has to do with a legal matter which is procedural. The first time this project came up which was defeated in a public referendum. In reviewing the various code sections I noticed that after a final decision results in a denial of a development application an applicant may not resubmit the same development application or one substantially the same for one year. I understand that this project is substantially the same as was submitted~ I don't understand how this could be resubmitted and accepted for re-submittal within this one year time frame. The second one has to do with the parking that was done in lieu of payment. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties, but this is not a designated historic property, it is in the historic district. Therefore, the parking reduction and waiver of payment in lieu of fees cannot apply to this particular property. With respect to the project itself, some of the guidelines indicate that you want flat roofs and this project doesn't have a flat roof. Other things of prime importance are corn_munity character and historic traditionally of preserving streetscape. That particular comer where this project is going to be erected has traditionally been an open space. It has historic plant materials from the Victorian era and lilac trees which should be preserved. You have three mature trees on the property which also should be preserved. This commission has emphasized that they want to preserve the trees. I don't understand why this project is being considered under a different guideline. Traditionally, storefronts on Main Street were two stories; the only three story buildings were significant buildings not commercial store 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 3~ 2005 fronts. If you look along Main Street all of the buildings of commercial type that is being proposed here area two-story. I do not understand why you are willing to waive the traditional look of Main Street for this particular structure. Toni Kronberg: You are probably aware that I was one of the circulators of the referendum petition. One of the driving forces was the rezoning of the property which actually included taking out the trees on the comer. When the HPC scores a project against the criteria of community and neighborhood character and there is nothing in the code that you can score those two things against. How can you complete an application on this when you don't have the criteria that you need to score the project against, and that is basically my concern. According to the Sanbom map over a 100 years ago that comer was empty. You refer back to the Sanborn map to determine if a property is indeed historical and if the significance is to the community. While some people say we don't have a right to a protective view, it is true. Neighbors do not have a right to a view but the community does. That comer has been one of those integral parts of our community. People look at that comer as part of our community. I would like the answer as to how you can score this project if you don't have criteria to score it against. And secondly, that comer has been part of our community. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Commission comments John Worcester, City Attorney asked Gideon Kaufman to respond to the referendum question. Gideon Kaufman said staffhas addressed that adequately in the memo in terms of the differential between the same project and a different project. The application before with the Visitor Center asked for rezoning and growth management exemptions. This project before you is not seeking rezoning and will be built under the existing underlying zoning. As a matter of fact it is less than half of the FAR that is permitted under this zone. It is lower than the height and meets all of the criteria for a growth management competition which it did receive. Like apples and oranges this is not the same application, it is not seeking rezoning and therefore the contention that this needs to be addressed in some fashion than what is presented is not correct. You have the right to review this application. Also, this is not a scoring, it is criteria. As you know different people can have a different 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 3~ 2005 perspective on the criteria. I think our application as well as the staff findings and previous HPC findings all felt that we have met the criteria that is before you so you do have the ability to vote on this and find that it meets the criteria that is in the code. John Worcester said just to add, it is my opinion that the prior referendum is independent of this application. This is a different project. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director said this is not an historic landmark. HPC is not being asked to waive any parking. Parking is being handled by the Planning and Zoning Commission so the request for parking to be handled in cash-in-lieu is actually an item that HPC will not be handling and it will be handled by P&Z. Michael said he is perplexed and somewhat annoyed. This is a design review committee. This is not a legal committee. This is not the Planning and Zoning commission. We review designs against set guidelines. We have done that at least three or four times on this particular application. We've seen this particular design substantially with some minor change at least once before and we passed on it. Nothing that has been said today and nothing was written that we review in our packet changes my impression or feeling about this. If you want to stop a project fine and dandy but it annoys me that we have to keep coming back here and put up with this stuff. Jeffrey asked Michael how this applies to the guidelines. Michael said he feels exactly the same way he saw this before and the time before that and that is, this project meets the guidelines. Jason said it is good to hear that from someone who is well educated and knows what we are talking about. I couldn't have said it any differently or any better. Guideline 13.1 all the way through 13.21 as I read each guideline it meets everything. In fact, it feels like text book. Derek said on his behalf he is not aware as to how many times HPC has met at conceptual and final in this process. If all my commentary regarding mass and scale and every other guideline concern could be pressed into that I think it would be the most thorough record of what I had said the past 8 to nine months. I will say no more, except I echo my fellow commissioners and this process has been nothing but disgusting at times. ! would like to go forward. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 3~ 2005 Valerie thanked everyone for their public comment. All of your concems have been addressed here today and hopefully that will satisfy your concerns. I find the project compliant. Jeffrey said he also reviewed the proposal and it is consistent with chapter 13 and all of its guidelines concerning its relative points. We are here to look at your application with all of the public comments. I feel it does meet our guidelines for its conceptual hearing status on mass and scale and also could support its approval. John Worcester asked that the record and exhibits of prior meetings be included in the record. Jason referred to Exhibit D, Sarah Oates memo about the building height. After reviewing the previous letters, I trust our zoning officer, and it has been reviewed properly. Gideon said there is a large booklet that addressed each criteria in the code piece by piece and we also numbered memos from staff in which a lot of issues of the HPC criteria have been addressed. You are here to look at the building as it meets the criteria from the HPC. The record reflects that in your purview you have made the finding that the building is compliant with the code and with the criteria in front of the HPC and that your approval is being given based on long standing information that has been supplied to you and years of experience as well as sufficient information given to you in order for you to reach this determination that it does in fact comply with the guidelines. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #17 with the conditions as recommended in staff's memo; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: VaIerie, Jeffrey, Michael, Derek, Jason. Sharon Ruhnau said I do want to apologize. I don't want you to feel that this was just a waste of your time. I corresponded with Mr. Worcester and he told me the public hearings were the place for me to be heard so here I stand. I know you spent a lot of time on this project. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 3, 2005 MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7