Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Hotel Jerome Landscape Plan.A41-90ft % CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 5 30 90 �7�E ND ASI f / PARCIE_L I AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: A41-90 STAFF MEMBER: PROJECT NAME: Hotel Jerome Insubstantial PUD Amendment for a Revised Landscape Plan Project Address: 333 E Main Street Legal Address: APPLICANT: Hotel Jerome Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE: Nick ]McGrath Representative Address/Phone: 600 E. Hopkins Aspen, CO 81611 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date CC Meeting Date 2 STEP: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- REFERRALS: City Attorney _ Mtn. Bell School District City Engineer _ Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing Dir. _ Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water _ Fire Marshal State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric _ Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. _ Roaring Fork Other Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty Housing City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: CLOSING MEMO TO FILE Hotel Jerome Insubstantial PUD Amendment for Revised Landscape Plan Date: June 11, 1990 From: Kim Johnson, Planner On June 8, 1990, Planning Director Amy Margerum signed approval to allow the Hotel Jerome to revise their approved landscape plan to include decking in the garden area. Four conditions of approval are: 1. The large deck will not exceed the size shown on the plan dated 6/8/90. Planters and benches will be included as deck amenities. 2. The disturbed turf area between the large deck and the Main Street frontage must be replanted with sod no later than June 13, 1990. 3. The small deck adjacent to the Jerome Bar must be removed by October 31, 1990 unless subsequent PUD Amendments allow it to remain. 4. An application for PUD Amendment reflecting changes not included in this approval and/or the 1986 approval must be filed with the Planning Office no later than July 31, 1990. The Hotel began work without any approvals during the week of May 21. They were instructed to seek approval for their changes. This Insubstantial Amendment fulfills this requirement. MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: Jerome Insubstantial PUD Amendment Approved Landscape Plan DATE: June 8, 1990 Summary: Revising the Planning Staff recommends approval of an Insubstantial PUD Amendment with conditions for deck areas within the Hotel Jerome open space / garden area. Background: In 1986, an amended PUD was approved for the hotel expansion and renovation. Included within the approval was a landscape plan in which the open space on the west side of the hotel was to be turf, flower beds and trees. The PUD agreement filed with the County Clerk states: of all required landscaping for the project shall substantially conform to the landscape plan, annexed hereto as Page 3 of Exhibit "A" and the amended plat, which plan shows the extent and location of all plant materials and other landscape features, flower and shrub bed definition, proposed plant material at mature sizes in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant material, proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, etc.)..." A subcommittee of the Historic Preservation Committee reviewed and approved a proposed plan on May 25. At this time, it was not recognized that the approved landscape plan existed which specified turf lawn. On or about May 29, 1990, the Zoning Department issued a red tag to the Hotel Jerome for construction of decks within the open space turf area without approval of a PUD Amendment. Planning Director Amy Margerum and staff then concluded that this plan exceeded the intent of the 1986 PUD Approval in that it removes too much turf area, thus changing the "Victorian Garden" character of the originally approved open space. Staff Comments: Representatives of the Hotel Jerome (Nick McGrath, Wolfgang Triebnig, Peter Killian, and Dave Gibson) met with Planning Staff on June 7 and came to an agreement for an Insubstantial PUD Amendment for Planning Director's approval. This plan (Attachment ",PA") shows the large deck to be approximately 880 s.f., a smaller deck of approximately 250 s.f., and bluegrass lawn area of approximately 1,000 s.f. As discussed between Planning Staff and Hotel Jerome representatives, the smaller deck will be allowed to exist only until October 31, 1990 unless full PUD Amendment is approved to allow it to continue. The turf area excavated for deck construction but not approved for deck in this Insubstantial Amendment must be returned to turf as a condition of this Insubstantial Amendment approval. A consensus was reached at the June 7 meeting that the conditions of approval for the Insubstantial PUD Amendment revising the approved landscape plan shall be: 1. The large deck will not exceed the size shown on the plan dated 6/8/90. Planters and benches will be included as deck amenities. 2. The disturbed turf area between the large deck and the Main Street frontage must be replanted with sod no later than June 13, 1990. 3. The small deck adjacent to the Jerome Bar must be removed by October 31, 1990 unless subsequent PUD Amendments allow it to remain. 4. An application for PUD Amendment reflecting changes not included in this approval and/or the 1986 approval must be filed with the Planning Office no later than July 31, 1990. I approve this Insubstantial PUD Jerome's landscape plan with the 4 4" �/ A"=== Amy argerum 1J lanning Director jtkvj/jerome.dirmem 2 Amendment to the Hotel conditions listed above. ate I *IFWV -,!WkTjai�� INS Ala " 49&"l*mmfio AIR In, lamm. WNIINN a u +a � � •.Ii r� � Y ;'�i i RI TYPICAL PLANTER BOX ELEVATION PROJECT TITLE GIBSON 6 RENO • ARCHITECTS 4113 E. COOPER AVENUE • ASPEN. COLORADO elan SCALE IIn �) = I �'O I) DATE DWN BYjDRAWING NO. PROJECT NO. :08 Apples existing fl bed New Aspe A existing New G ,.., ., V-6" a a A A New FPianters New Redwom Decking IU a w F% n r•n �' h rm- va v � ■ a v exist Pinee mmint LimTM --ale 1 /8"=1'-O" ;T TITLE, 14M"rPL JPL7a 444 "".., Ono ` r AL TYPICAL PLANTER BOCK ELEVATION PROJECT TITLE- GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS 418 E. COOPER AVENUE • ASPEN. COLORADO WS" KCAL! (/2) s I �, o II °WN B`JAT PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO. J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C. 600 East Hopkins Avenue Suite 203 A Professional Corporation 611 Attomeys At Law Telephone pen, Colorado 1 n (303) 925 2612 J. Nicholas McGrath' Telecopier (303) 925-4402 Michael C. Ireland May 30, 1990 Hand Delivered Ms. Amy Margerum Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street MA)' 3 0 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Hotel Jerome deck Dear Amy: This is a request, on behalf of the Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership, for a ruling that the construction of a deck and attendant landscaping features, approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, is an "insubstantial amendment" to the existing PUD agreement pursuant to Section 7-908 of the City's Land Use Regulations. As you are aware, the Jerome believes that either Mark Feller, its engineer, or Braeburn Builders, its contractor, was informed initially that no building permit or other approvals were necessary. Subsequently a stop work order was issued specifying the necessity to process the HPC approval. Since the project was at least half completed, your office and the HPC kindly accommodated the Jerome with prompt processing of the HPC application. Our architects, Gibson and Reno, developed an acceptable plan, which was approved by an HPC subcommittee on Saturday, May 26. On Monday or Tuesday, the Building Department called with a go ahead as to completion according to the HPC approved plan. Later, on Tuesday, a new stop work order was entered because a PUD amendment was necessary. Clearly, the Jerome did not process the matter properly. On the other hand, it was in communication with various people in the planning office and building inspector's office, and no one thought to raise any issue as to an application other than as to HPC approval. Thus, the Jerome acted in good faith, and if an accommodation is necessary for a speedy resolution of the matter, one would seem warranted in the circumstances. 'Member, Colo. (1971), Calif. (1969), and D.C. (1966) bars J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C. Ms. Amy Margerum May 30, 1990 Page 2 Some sort of deck is highly desirable since the lawn area is constantly damaged in the Summer by the many events held outside at the Jerome, e.g., weddings, music festival gatherings, 4th of July parade, etc. HPC members recognized the need for a change, and ultimately agreed upon our architect's plan, which changed the original Jerome plan, to meet specific suggestions of HPC members. Section 7-908 allows you as the Planning Director to approve an "insubstantial amendment" to an approved PUD. The Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Agreement --Hotel Jerome --Renovation and Addition, dated July 31, 1986, and recorded in Book 518 at Page 921 is the operable PUD agreement. It deals with landscaping in paragraph 4. Apparently a detailed landscaping plan accompanied that document, and I believe your office has a copy. Assuming that to be so, a landscaping change in the area westerly of the hotel would seem to require an amendment. However, the amendment also seems insubstantial in light of the many other, more important matters covered in that extensive PUD agreement, keeping in mind the Jerome is only changing a portion of the landscaping. Further, none of the items specified in Section 7-908-(A)(1) to (9) is present, which nine listings specify amendments that are not insubstantial. For example, the change from lawn to deck, pavers with lawn, etc., does not change the use or character of the development, increase structures more than 3 percent, especially since the deck is uncovered, reduce open space, or increase density. We would appreciate your approval of the landscaping -deck plan as an insubstantial amendment. Normally, I would not make special time requests, but as you know, the Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership is bringing in a new partner and that event is set to close on June 5. Thus, we need to get this matter resolved, so the required opinions and representations as to land use compliance --customary in such transactions --can be given. A J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C. Ms. Amy Margerum May 30, 1990 Page 3 If I can give any further assistance, please let me know. cc: Mr. Wolfgang Tnebnig Mr. Mark Feller Messrs. Gibson and Reno j 1:marge530.ltr Sincerely, J. NICHOLAS McGRATH, P.C. By �) l J. Nicholas McGrath 0 • Hotel Jerome Landscape Revisions May 30, 1990 Kim Johnson, Planner I visited the Hotel Jerome yesterday to consider their revised landscape plan. The plan indicates installation of redwood decking in conjunction with a paver/sod surface. I feel this to be a great improvement over the all -deck proposal. The placement of the paver/sod surface near the front planting beds gives a good transition from the streetscape to the interior part of the courtyard. Reducing large expanses of sod within a landscape is a good idea for reducing landscape water consumption. This is one of the basic tenets of Xeriscaping (water conservation in landscapes.) In this case, the turf was more of a visual element rather than a functional one. The plan also indicates the addition of other elements such as benches, planters and aspens. This serves to help break up the expanse of decking and provide a human scaled environment adjacent to the hotel building. I have concern with the planters in that they appear to be placed on top of the wood decking. It would be better if they were placed in direct contact with the ground. This would allow for more efficient open bottomed drainage, and would prevent drainage from staining the deck. I would also suggest an alternative to aspens in the planters - some smaller specimen tree variety which adds character but will less likely outgrow the limited soil area and have to be removed. From a strictly visual and functional perspective, I feel the proposal before me works very well and does not conflict with open space requirements or landscape design standards. I have researched Council and P&Z minutes and resolutions from 1986 when the PUD Final Development Plan was adopted. Mention was made of open space in general but no specific references were made regarding turf areas or decks. Francis has already produced the approved landscape plan filed with the County Clerk. From my previous job experience, landscape changes were a staff review situation. The P&Z had given specific direction to this effect. If staff felt the changes were deleterious to the project, they could require the request to be reviewed by P&Z. In the Jerome's case, the area is apparently used frequently for large,active gatherings anyway. It is my opinion that this change in ground surface and planting additions does not change or detract from the original intent of the PUD. jtkvj/jerome.notes I �— GI©SON & RENO • ARCHITECTS May 16, 1990 Ms. Roxanne Eflin TIistoric T'reservation Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: PROPOSED NEW EXTERIOR TERRACE SURFACE HOTEL JEROME Dear Roxanne: The hotel Jerome proposes to change the surface material of their Main Street. courtyard from grass to redwood decking. Grass has proven difficult to sustain in good condition with the frequent outdoor gatherings which occur in this area. A 2xG redwood decking surface is proposed, which would be installed "flush" with the existing grass and sidewalk surfaces, and would match the nearby existing redwood decks. All existing ground cover, flowers, shrub and tree planting areas which presently exist would be allowed to remain and only the Kentucky Bluegrass areas would be replaced with Redwood Decking. (See attached drawing). As part of this project, a row of juniper shrubs would be added just behind the iron fence parallel to the City sidewalk. We hop( to have this improvement ready for our summer season. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Yours trul , 'David F. Gibson, AIA cc: W. Triebnig M. Feller \'. McGrath 416 E. COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO B1611 303/9255968 MEMORANDUM C,cm^ To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Minor Development - Hotel Jerome terrace treatment Date: May 23, 1990 ---------------------------------------------------------------- PROJECT SUMMARY: The Hotel Jerome is currently installing 1,951 sq. ft. of redwood decking where the lawn area used to be (west side yard). Work has been stopped in order for HPC to review and approve the development proposal under the Minor Development provisions of the Land Use Regulations. DISCUSSION: The perimeter garden areas are being preserved, in fact enhanced with additional plantings, to provide a natural buffer zone around the deck area. The deck is flush with -the ground (not raised). The applicant has stated their need for decking is due to the maintenance problems the lawn area has caused them in drainage, maintenance, etc. PUBLIC COMMENT: The Jerome's adjacent neighbor has discussed his displeasure of this development with staff, stating incompatibility and increased heat in the summer as two principal issues. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider alternatives to such a large expanse of redwood filling in the natural terrace area of the Jerome's west garden. Certainly redwood is a contemporary material, which (in staff's opinion) competes directly with the historic character of the Jerome. We are recommending a significantly reduced portion of redwood be used, if at all, with more lawn area exposed. A brick border in conjunction with the decking may be another alternative worth examining; a variety of textures to soften the contemporary impact is more compatible, in our opinion. USE OF OPEN SPACE: Staff has notified the Jerome's management that any increase in the use of open space, as previously defined in the PUD agreement of 1986, is required to be approved through the Planning and Zoning Commission. We understand they intend to increase seating and the commercial use of the terrace area. This is not an HPC issue, per se, however, has a direct effect on the need for expanded hard terrace surface. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny Minor Development approval for the Hotel Jerome's terrace development as submitted, and recommend that they restudy the proposal to incorporate a much higher percentage of vegetated, natural area, i.e. lawn. memo.hpc.jerome.terrace M E M O R A N D U M TO: Amy Margerum Tom Baker Kim Johnson 7i 1 1 Drur _; _'�cl FROM: Francis Krizmanich DATE: May 29, 1990 SUBJECT: HOTEL JEROME -- NEW DECK The recent work in the Hotel Jerome "garden" is not in compliance with the landscaping plan approved as a part of the "Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Agreement Hotel Jerome -- Renovation and Addition" filed in Book 518, Pages 921 through 953. Basically, the Agreement states that the garden will be landscaped in accordance with the plan attached as Exhibit "A", page 3 (attached to this memo). My opinion is that the current "landscaping" -- decking over the required bluegrass and planting areas -- requires review pursuant to Section 15, page 19, of the Agreement (recorded at Book 518, pages 939 through 942). In addition, if the project has not been stopped voluntarily, Zoning should issue a "STOP WORK" order until this issue is resolved. FXK/cic --� -- . - cam_ _ �'• Jr MAIN' STREET City of Aspen sidewalk (existing fence). New Wuniper- Z - Jv- Shrubs (existing Crab Apples) ? 1 �-4011 (existing flower bed) (existing Aspens) New Redwood---_Ii Decking 13' X 201 WF New R e d w o o d��® !� Io Decking -n No 100 14 (existing sidewalk)���,. (existing spru (existing deck (existing Mugo Pines) (existing pool NORTH 0 Scale 1/8" = V for'. 1b 0 0 IN 11 PROJECT TITLE. HOTEL J E R O M E GIBSON & RENO - ARCHITECTS 418 E. COOPER AVENUE . ASPEN, COLORAO0 e1811 DATE: ,�-- / , I , I DAAWING NO.