Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20120821 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 21, 2012 Comments 2 Minuets 3 Conflicts of Interest 3 122 E Durant, Conceptual and Final Commercial Design Review 3 1 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes August 21, 2012 LJ Erspamer opened the regular Planning & Zoning Meeting in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30 with Ryan Walterscheid, Keith Goode, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs and LJ Erspamer. Jim DeFrancia was not in attendance. Staff present were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow, Claude Salter and Sara Nadolny, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Cliff Weiss stated that he sent an email related to enforcement's attention. Cliff talked about the 6 foot fence on Cemetery Lane and P&Z told them where the fence could be put and what kind of planting because of the safety of pulling out of that intersection; it is incredible dangerous. Cliff said there was a new homeowner and they planted huge evergreens and the site is blocked and more dangerous. Cliff said he did not want to wait for a survey; enforcement should be taking care of the problem of no trees. Cliff said the design code says nothing over 42" in height; he said it was a dangerous place but he is frustrated and those trees need to come out of 1397. LJ Erspamer and Bert Myrin agreed with Cliff. Bert wanted to follow up on the code amendments and the process. Jennifer said she would follow up. Bert said the Housing Authority was putting employees into the Mother Lode affordable housing. LJ asked about the Planning Conference. Jennifer said the days were on a Wednesday, October 3rd until Saturday October 6th and there was some response. The Annual Conference was being held at the Viceroy in Snowmass and Com Dev would like to know who wants to go and you can pick which topics you want to go to. Jennifer said that Cliff brought this up a while ago for the volunteers and provided some perks for P&Z;just email Jennifer. Stan Gibbs asked why resolutions were not recorded with properties. Jennifer answered that if it was a recommendation to City Council then they are not typically recorded because they are not final; the actual final document would be the Ordinance. Stan asked if the Ordinance would be required to be recorded. Jennifer replied that the Ordinances would be noted. Debbie Quinn stated that she would look into the recordation. 2 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 21, 2012 Minutes MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to approve the minutes of August 7rh with the change on page 12 from Stan; seconded by Ryan Walterscheid. All in favor, APPROVED. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest None stated. LJ said that he met with Michael Beherant and Pierre Wille about economy when he was campaigning and really has nothing to do with this hearing it was just a disclosure. Continued Public Hearing: 122 East Durant— Consolidated Final Commercial Design LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing on 122 East Durant, Final Commercial Design Review. LJ, Stan, Ryan, Bert, Sara, Jennifer and Debbie Quinn were at the site visit. Sara Nadolny said this hearing was continued from August 7th; the former design that was introduced had issues with height, trash and recycling area, building massing, the heaviness of the cantilever over the front entryway, the front stair tower could be broken up with materials to lighten up the overall building. Sara said with the new design it no longer exceeds the 38 foot height limitation for the development density for the lodge zone district. The applicant has agreed to expand their trash and recycling area to meet the code of 15 linear feet. Regarding the building's massing the new design has a lighter color for the wooden siding and the linear massing of the stair tower has been broken up with the solar shade type of collector awning. There is also a redesign of the front stair railing and entryway and cantilevered balconies which have created a more open feel to the front of the fagade. The front fagade has been stepped back into the 4th story roof and a module has been created recessing that wall giving the building articulation on the western fagade. Sara said the new roof forms are gabled to achieve the 38 foot height for the 4th floor; there are a great many different styles of architecture used and staff feels that this lacks a consistent architectural vocabulary. Sara said they were following the design guidelines for the mountain base area earth forms should be used to reduce the perceived scale of the street designs and roof. This design creates the perception of a larger scale particularly at the front stair tower even though it does meet the 38 foot height requirement; the height space that is required for the 4 th floor egress creates an additional height and the roof form creates an additional 3 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting —Minutes August 21, 2012 linear mass. Sara said the design issues related to height really have not been solved with this new design. Sara said there were many different types of materials introduced into this design; staff has determined that they are the quality needed and do reflect the character of the area. The quite a number of materials used in this design that creates this busy feeling that could be calmed by the use of fewer materials to reflect the human scale that is the goal of this design guideline. If the railings on the front fagade of the building matched it could create a calmer feeling. Sara utilized power point to show the aerial view of the building and the roofscape; the forms seen from above should reinforce the street's fagade. This roofscape is varied and interesting however it lacks a cohesive relationship with the resident scale of the street fagade. Sara said the overall height remains a key issue in this design in particular the stair tower by the egress to the 4th floor. Staff's recommendation is that we continue this for further consideration. Sara said at this point it was meeting the setbacks, public amenity space but were concerned with the design objectives of massing and scale. Bert Myrin said that you have to look at the mountain base character. Jennifer said that was a required review. Cliff asked on page 3 if staff wanted to go back to what they had before so you are looking for a more cohesive form, not just for this gable. Sara replied yes. Stan Gibbs asked if this goes to City Council. Jennifer replied that P&Z was the final and there will be a Commercial Design Review Call up by Council that is an automatic call up. Jennifer entered the applicant power point as an Exhibit P. Phillip Ring representing the applicant introduced himself and Ken Adler was the architect and Brian Schaffer is the owner and operator of the Hotel Durant. Phillip said they were increasing the room sizes and adding amenities and allow the Schaffers to own and operate the hotel for a long time. Phillip said they want to maintain the unit count so they don't lose the bed base in the hotel or town of Aspen. They are adding roughly 100 square feet per room and need to add amenities that dramatically improve the energy efficiency of this building. Phillip said they cannot do anything about the stair towers or floor heights; without the rooftop space they would have 1 fewer room and fewer amenities to offer guests. The exercise room is really a multi-purpose room intended to have seating; a place where they can serve their wine and cookies in the afternoons, it could be a special 4 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 21, 2012 events space or a community space; exercise is only one use of that space. Phillip said they have a very sophisticated metrics energy efficiency program; clarification on the roof forms that shows 3 and staff shows 5. Phillip said that after the last meeting they were specifically directed to make different roof forms, change out the materials to help soften the building in some way. Ken illustrated through power point showing the view from the roof top and stated how it will benefit the hotel from a marketing standpoint. Ken spoke about the current entry and the low floor to ceiling heights and the small rooms. Ken said they are trying to use the existing shell of the building as much as possible and the plumbing on the Westside can be in the addition. They are leaving the floors in tact but are removing the roof and Westside wall to expand the building out. Ken said that they are calling this Option C and meets all of their programming needs. This stair tower is rid of the shed roof and added a gable form and is about as low as it can go and get the 7 foot code clearance for the stairs coming down. The elevator got pushed back about 15 feet will help reduce the apparent mass of this street side; the material is a wood rain screen with a lighter stain of natural cedar or just lighter. The stair towers are lowered; the front stair tower is at 38 feet, so they are not asking for that extra 5 feet. The grade drops off on the rear so they are asking for a 3 to 31/2 foot, which is allowed in the code up to 10 feet. Phillip said from the ground level everything was stepped back that you really can't see it from the street. Ken showed the current building superimposed on the new building; they were going up a floor on the new building about 4.5 feet from the gabled building. Ken said that the glass can have a reflectivity index and you can only go so low for the energy standpoint for efficiency. Ken said staff wanted to simplify the number of different roof styles and this goes back to the character, design objectives and guidelines and the sense of human scale. Ken said it was page 66 Mountain Base area includes the greatest concentration of the most intensely developed sites within the city with some buildings rising to 4 stories. Ken said the design objectives on page 67 kept the small building for this hotel; he didn't see how they did not meet these guidelines with the objectives to enhance hotel and lodge space and facilities. Ken explained 2 weeks ago they had Option B and what it entailed. Ken stated the guidelines state to divide the building into modules and at the base of the mountains and this roof form has a pitched roof profile has a heritage with the city and presents one effective medium for the variation of the roof form and reduction in scale; the articulation of the roof forms and variation in architectural 5 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes August 21, 2012 materials and detail. Ken said the roofscape should be very interesting; it should be designed with secondary elevations of the building. There were more structures to reflect the relation and character of the building; use materials to compliment the facades and roof gardens areas to be un-obstructive and un-intrusive from the street. Ken wanted to know how P&Z stood on the rooftop deck and they can't do the project without the rooftop deck. Phillip said that they designed this building with the Code Book on one side and the Mountain Design Guidelines on the other and they felt they were doing something that was in the code and guidelines; they went and reduced the roof top spaces, the unit and community spaces are reduced in size. Phillip said they changed the roof forms to meet that 38 foot restriction because it didn't seem like anybody would support it at 40 feet. Jasmine left at 5:40pm. LJ asked staff if they had anything to add at this time. Sara replied that she contacted Stephen Kanipe but Stephen didn't have enough information at this point to comment on energy efficiency issues. Jennifer stated this was a final decision for this project so if you don't feel where you need to be it can be continued. Jennifer said staff does believe that they don't meet the height and scale of the building and reduce the height of the stair towers for this project. Cliff asked about elevator having 2 entrances or 1. Ken replied that there was one entrance with ADA accessibility to the building and then the rest of the stops were on the inside of the building. Cliff asked what specifics justify the 4th floor and revenue generating amenities. Phillip answered that they see this as an opportunity to host events up there such as a Wedding Reception or a cocktail reception for the Aspen Magazine, you could do a number of outside events and you could use that outside elevator entrance without disturbing anyone in the hotel. Cliff asked where the lobby desk was located with the kitchen off the east side. Phillip answered it was for the limited amount of food prep; a continental breakfast and cookies and wine in the afternoon. Ken said they were expanding the kitchen about 2 feet. Ken said the existing lobby desk is just a small desk and with the new expanded lobby they didn't know where it will actually be located. Ryan asked what the occupancy load was on the roof. Ken responded Option C was about 50 people. Ryan asked why not make the entry at grade when you walk into the building and have the elevator right there and then have the stairs. Ken 6 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes August 21, 2012 replied that it makes good sense and the reason why they didn't they would lose valuable space that is converted to units down below. Stan asked for a plan of the front stairs and if the front of that building needed to be that tall; does the top of that gable have to be that tall. Phillip stated there might be long term maintenance problems and not an attractive solution from your perspective. Stan asked about the cantilever in front and in the previous proposal there was a similar beam and light and why did you choose to do the cantilever as opposed to just a vertical. Ken replied that they didn't want a plain boring building and the decks are a shelter and entrance. Ryan asked if the stairs had a separation. Ken replied yes the lobby opened to 2 floors. Ryan asked if the previous version had a single pitch, was that height based off of 7 feet of that landing. Ken answered that it was a little bit higher because they were looking to get a 2 foot line above that door. LJ asked if they planned on putting that deck railing back on the deck. Ken responded that have it showing about 51/2 inches to the edge. LJ asked what the elevator height above the elevator is. Ken answered 44 feet 3inches to the peak and as measured by code to the halfway point which is 43 feet 5 inches. LJ said on page 66 of the Design Guidelines was pretty much like your building. Bert said on page 23 of the memo talks about the view planes that are not met; which view planes. Sara said there was no formal view plane and staff was concerned with the ability to see through the buildings which was one of the guidelines. Jennifer said we are talking about seeing through a site not necessarily above a site. Bert said on page 30 DRC talks about curb and gutter. Jennifer said the applicant will need to meet any Engineering Requirements for a building permit and for drainage. Public Comments: 1. Bill Hine said he lives at 124 East Durant which is right next door to the project and is directly affected. He and Brian have talked throughout this project and before the drawings came out and when the first option came out he liked what he saw and there are 6 units in his building. Bill said he was in favor of the project and the hot tub on the other side would be better. 2. Helga Matuska said she lived at Southpoint and liked the building and was a big asset to Aspen. 3. Paul Taddune, attorney for Lift One, said the discussion from the first meeting with the first set of drawings the heights were at 43 feet and the 7 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes August 21, 2012 objection was to the 4th floor. Paul asked if there was a basement. Ken replied it was 3 feet exposed on the front and you really can't see it from the back. Paul asked how deep the basement was. Ken answered it was the typical floor height of 9 feet and was residential garden level rooms. Paul said that staff was correct that the 4th floor presents a visual difficulty; the owner would probably be better to take the existing building down that doesn't work and that is the difficulty. Everyone wants the Durant Hotel to remain. Paul said there would be a reduced reflective glass but not non- reflective. Paul asked to refresh the comments that were made for each additional meeting. 4. Jack Crawford said that he lives in Southpoint. Jack said that this was an improvement to the building and tearing it down was not economically feasible for the owner. Small hotels and lodges are becoming an endangered species and the City is supposed to be encouraging improvements and keeping lodge owners in business. 5. Jeff Rice, City of Aspen Utilities, said that Brian Shaffer came to him a little over 3 years ago and talked about his building having old electric baseboard heat and the city Utilities Department reached out to these owners of buildings to have a discussion about energy efficiency. Jeff said the Hotel Durant is part of contest that they have associated these property owners with professionals to go through this process of rebuilding the most energy efficient buildings; part of their first proposal was the green roof design. It lowers the volume of the building on less conditioned space and reduces the carbon footprint of the building and reduces the energy intensity of the building. Jeff said that they will work with the building department and clean up the building as a whole. Commissioner Comments: Cliff said P&Z is here to interpret code; this is a streamlined process of conceptual and final. Cliff said what it was coming down to was making sense out of the 4th floor. Cliff asked for the west elevation of the building. There was a south facing gable and noted that would come right down that roof into the elevator which is not a good idea. Cliff said the 4th floor was okay. Cliff said that code can apply to just this one project and he wasn't concerned about see through because this is not in one of the 7 protected views. Cliff said it was a matter of combining roof forms, why can't you combine dormers; the one of the front railings is glass and the other is wrought iron; why not do the same thing on both sides of the balconies. Cliff said the roof that is over the south facing stairwell and ties it into whatever is in the back. Cliff said that meeting space or gathering space was needed to help bring in some extra revenue. Cliff said the bigger the lobby space the better and now you 8 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes August 21, 2012 have a distinct entry and you need a desk when you arrive for someone to help you. Cliff said we are trying to create something that is interesting and not overbearing; he can see why you are not changing fenestration on the east end; varying heights on a block and this project had too many broken up pieces. Ryan said he agreed with a lot of what Cliff said and supports small hotels and lodges and he was fine with the 4th floor and you do not have a protected view and you have opened it up. Ryan said that he liked Option A but if you don't pick a style and stay with it rather than mixing it up; you could use the same roof point; the project is just too busy. Ryan said to meet the intent of the code; in doing a remodel you are saving the structure which is limiting you but there is no way that you could scrape this building and build a new lodge from scratch. Ryan said that you were adding insulation and comments regarding materials was good; you should step back and take a look at it and reduce the height. Keith said he agreed what was said and the railing has to be setback 42 inches. Keith said he was for the rooftop accessory to the hotel. Stan said the property was well taken care of considering its age; you can see how much the owner values providing a small lodge. We need to support this project because time after time these small lodge projects get converted into huge projects so we have an opportunity to help keep this contributing to our lodge base. Stan said when the addition is put on it will almost look square from the front; while the heights sound higher than they are they are only 4 feet higher but the building got wider and it personally won't look that tall. Stan said he liked the gables in general are more of an Aspen style. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to continue the meeting to 7:35 seconded by Stan Gibbs; all in favor APPROVED. Stan said the new design with the front roof will look taller than the shed roof and the elevator seemed tall and the roof in the front needs only one design style and the stair tower should stay with the design and liked more uniform design to the front. Bert asked if it was possible to move the stair tower. Bert said that he preferred the earlier options with more solar up on top; page 22 of the staff memo talks about the stair tower not meeting the sense of human scale. Bert can't support staff on page23 Views to the mountains; page 26 he agreed with the number of roof types; he agrees with the 4th floor feeling out of context with the surrounding buildings in 9 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 211 2012 the neighborhood. Bert said that the Engineers should come up with the solution for the curb and gutter for drainage. U appreciated what everyone said and the mass and scale should be darker. U said the guidelines were ambiguous. U asked if this would stay affordable lodging. U said with the flat type of roof seems less in mass and scale. Cliff said that he was looking for something simpler; there were too many towers; there were a lot of elevations, a lot of changes from one elevation to the next. U said the building looked compartmentalized. Ken replied to the concerns about the roof and agreed it was compartmentalized; if we can't go back to flat roofs unless you can grant us that 2 feet. Ken said what justifies the 2 feet is that this building makes a demonstrable improvement over energy efficiency alternative. The green roof justifies the code allowance; we are approving energy efficiency in this building regardless with great insulation and the flat roof justifies the energy efficiency; if P&Z is amenable to moving the penthouse space to the front of the building at 38 feet. Stan asked if the stair tower back to a shed roof you would still not be above 40 feet. Cliff asked about the comment about a green roof and you have justified the 4th by telling me it is a vital element of hospitality. Cliff said the flat roof that was over the south stairwell looked like something out of a fort and there were 3 of them and he was just asking them to look at simplicity. Phillip stated that if there was a countenance they were up against a timeline of the beginning of May and if we bring back a plan that has a shed roof on that stair tower which can be moved around; we don't have a project without the 4th floor. Phillip said that decks on the east to those proposed on the west side were okay and leave the elevator in place and try to connect that roof form pushed back from the street; connect that roof form the best we can. A flat roof over that space and bring us back to asking for a 2 foot variance as we are back to the gables just because of the way the code it written and connecting the north stair tower back in as best we can and try to get a more cohesive roof forms is that going to do it. U answered we won't know until we meet. Phillip asked if there were any issues that were tripping anyone up. U asked that the balconies to be equal; asked about the amenity space. Stan said if you go back to asking for a variance, he personally thought the gabled back part worked better and if you do a shed roof over the stair tower you still don't go over the limit and he sees as an advantage. Cliff said the said the structure in the back needs to be gabled. Stan said shed roof in the front, gabled in the back. 10 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 21, 2012 U said to redesign the trash/recycle area; reexamine materials above the stair tower. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to continue the public hearing on the Hotel Durant to October 2nd; seconded by Cliff Weiss. All in favor, APPROVED. Adj ou•ned 7:3 Spm 9ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11