Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20130109 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9 2013 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Sallie Golden and Patrick Sagal. Jamie McLeod and Jane Hills were absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sallie moved to approve the minutes of December 12th, second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Willis said he will recuse himself on 110 W. Main— Hotel Aspen as he has a strong personal relationship with the owner. Traffic light CDOT— referral comments Tyler Christoff, Engineer Trish Aragon, City Engineer Amy said the code requires referral comments anytime CDOT desires to do a public improvement plan. All four corner traffic signals at Mill and Main need to be replaced. It is a CDOT funded project. Your comments should be around the style and placement of the poles. Costs are a major concern to the city and CDOT. Tyler said the poles that exist have been damaged by vehicles and they are undersized. CDOT needs to meet their standards. There are some aesthetic concerns. One proposal could be fluted similar to the pole at Galena and Main. That pole was installed in 2001 or 2002 and it was a city project. At that time it was determined that we could use a non-standard type pole. Jay asked if the traffic lights had to be over top the lanes. Tyler said with the width of Main Street 60 to 70 feet they would have to be over the roadway. Either pole would have the same amount of signage and signals. Jay said he supports the fluted pole design because the vertical stanchion is smaller and would have less mass. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Tyler said the new design would be to the north of the ramps on the corners. Amy said if the column is fluted the city would have to pay for it. The one at Galena is staying and it doesn't mean that the other poles have to be the same. Patrick inquired why it has to be moved north. Tyler said it was recommended due to vehicle collisions. Patrick said he would prefer an antiqued pole, something similar to corten to fit in with the historic period. Nora asked why the arm has to come out further. Trish Aragon said the standard pole has to go out that far per the code. The fluted one doesn't because it doesn't meet the standards but CDOT allows us -to use a non-standard pole which the city would pay for. If we use the CDOT standard pole then it has to meet their standards. We have much more flexibility if we buy the pole but we still have to meet some of their standards and conditions. Tyler said the quote for the 4 poles is around $100,000. Amy pointed out that the next two intersections will need to be done in the future and you would be setting a pattern for $100,000. an intersection. Tyler also pointed out that the city would be responsible for the maintenance with a non standard pole design. Jay asked about the crossing light controls and maybe we have the opportunity to clean up the urban clutter. Tyler said with the location we can put some of the push bottoms on the poles. Amy said the poles at Galena Street were done five years ago. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Tyler said the state has changed their standards in terms of weight loading and dimensions etc. The case is 20 feet deep and 8 feet in diameter. Willis said HPC doesn't encourage fabricating history when it didn't exist. I would avoid a fluting pole. Jay said the fluted allows the vertical column to be shorter and therefore it is less mass against the beautiful buildings. Ann said the fluted option is smaller in mass. Galena has set the precedence and we should go with the existing color. Willis said the pole itself is much wider than the fluted. MOTION: Jay made the motion to have a shorter slender pole and curved bomb and no decorative base but a little detail could be incorporated. Color to be consistent with existing light polls, greenish color. Motion second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. 419 E. Hyman — Paragon building Exhibit I—proof of notice Amy said this is a remodel for the roof top deck. The building has commercial on the ground floor and residential above. Ten years ago they asked for roof top access with an elevator and staircase to access the roof. The building is over the height limit. The new owner would like to remodel and the new height limit is 28 feet. Council can only give height variances. HPC should focus on how it looks and referencing the guidelines. Height variances have to meet the standard of hardship. Amy said there is an existing skylight on the roof which they want replaced with a smaller one but a little taller. They would like to infill the hole with a raised roof garden. They would also like to construct a trellis with an awning that would overlay it with outdoor seating. The deck is proposed to be raised so it is continuous. They would also like to move a hot tub and install a fire pit and expand the length of a kitchen counter and create a new cabinet that can store snow melt equipment etc. Most of the project is below the parapet wall and not visible from the street. The one feature that staff is concerned about is the trellis and awning which reaches to 12 feet at its high point. It is hidden on the back side of the staircase enclosure. Outdoor tables etc. can provide the same shading needs and not require a variance 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 and not be an object that is up all year round. Staff is not recommending approval of the trellis and awning. Heat lamps are installed all around the edge of the front of the building and they are on an arm. From staff's point of view they can use portable heat lamps on the roof because they don't require a variance and they aren't attached. These heat lamps are latched to a plate that is mounted to the back side of the parapet wall. They are affixed to the building and there has never been an HPC approval for them and they are very visible from the street and attached to historic masonry. Whether HPC deals with this or we do a separate enforcement this was not approved when the roof deck was permitted and we would like to see this fixed now. Staff recommends approval of everything except for the trellis. Patrick asked about raising the deck. Amy said it would only be a few inches and almost everything would be under the parapet. City Council has final review of raising the deck and they could deny it. Mitch Haas, Hass Planning Mitch said nothing in the proposal is at the front of the parapet on Hyman Ave. Nothing in the proposal can make the deck any bigger than it already is. The current owner feels that the heat lamps are temporary. They are mounted on a plate that is mounted to the brick. Each mounting plate has an outlet below. There could be a city enforcement separate from this process or a condition that attaches to a city council approval. HPC approval is useless unless city council allows the height variances. My client feels he can't accept a condition that the heaters need to be removed within 30 days when it is attached to an approval that he can't use or rely on. Staff is recommending approval of everything except the trellis. The parapets are rather tall and the requests are below the parapet. The skylight is a little taller but it is so far back that you can't see it from anywhere than up above. The trellis would be the same height as the bulk head for protection of the seating. It would be on a sensor that would open and close it. Our fall back plan instead of a wood post and beam structure and then an awning that closes and opens above it would be a retractable awning that gets permanently affixed to the back of the elevator enclosure. Realistically 98% of the time it would be closed. It is reasonable that an owner would want to do a modest remodel now and again. Exhibit II—photographs of heater plate attached to the wall Exhibit III — example of a retractable canopy 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment section of the agenda item was closed. Willis clarified that anything above 28 feet has to go to city council for a variance approval. Amy said everything that they are doing now will need a height variance from city council. Nora said if the awning is only going to be out there 2% of the time is there any reason why we shouldn't go to plan B for the canopy. There is a lot going on that roof. Patrick said he agrees with staff's recommendation. Also the trellis or awning should not be approved. I see in the future that area turning into something like Jimmy's. Also enforcement of the heaters should be recommended. Referencing guideline 7.3 which says minimize the impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices I would also like to recommend that we have a setback from the edge of the parapet so they can't put things there that is onerous and visually detracting from the street or the Elks building. Debbie Quinn said you could condition the heaters as long as there is a record as to why you are doing it. Jay mentioned all the environmental impacts of the heaters and you are putting a fire place and fire pit on the roof. We should not increase our carbon foot print. The heaters should not remain on the roof. Nora agreed with staff's recommendations. Sallie agreed with no trellis but allow the retractable awning, option B. Ann also agreed with staff's resolution. Willis said he supports the application. Willis could not make a determination on the heaters without further photo documentation. Amy pointed out that the heaters can be seen. Response: 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Mitch said his issues are that the heaters need to come down within 30 days of this approval. We might not get to council within 30 days of this approval. This approval is meaningless unless city council approves these requests. I am asking that the heaters be required to come down within 30 days of city council approval if granted. If not granted let my client argue about whether they are enforceable or not. Patrick pointed out that the heaters should never have been put up there in the first place. Jay said all the heaters attached to the wall should be removed within 15 days of council approval and the historic brick be repaired in whatever method is used in historic preservation. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #land change the language of#3 condition that the applicant is required to remove all radiant heaters installed along the parapet within 15 days of council's decision and that the applicant repair the damaged brick using current preservation techniques; second by Nora. Ann said she can't support the motion because we don't know now much damage is done to the brick. Sometimes repairing it is more harmful than leaving the brick alone. Amy said the heaters that are attached to the building needed HPC approval and also a height variance. Mitch said if they are considered temporary the only thing that should have been approved by HPC is the mounting plate. Willis said the enforcement is over the fact that they are potentially permanent. Amy said the damage that she is worried about is the wind load that has been pushing on the heaters. Sallie pointed out that if they don't get approval Amy can move forward with enforcement. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Amy said they could start the enforcement issue tomorrow but the reason she brought it up is because it has more force behind it if HPC feels it is important and part of one of the approvals. Mitch said he wants it dealt with like a normal enforcement issue. Patrick said what has typically been done they take the brick dust and add plastic to it and fill the holes; otherwise with rain the holes would become bigger and erode over time. On the photos the holes are in the brick because mortar won't hold anything. Amended motion: Jay said within 15 days of council's decision and after the removal of the plate and heaters the holes be filled in a proper manner to protect the historical integrity of the brick. No second. Nora retracted her second on the first motion. Patrick second the first motion. Amy stated that the motion as is in the staff memo with an amendment to the third topic in the staff memo. You are approving the sky light, raised garden, deck, hot tub, fire pit, outdoor kitchen and the snow melt cabin because they meet the design guideline as depicted. You are denying the trellis and a retractable awning. You are requiring that the applicant remove all of the radiant heaters within 15 days of council's decision on this application and requiring that the applicant repair the brick as needed as determined by a staff's site visit. Willis made the motion asking for a friendly amendment to allow a retractable awning; second by Sallie. Motion carried 5-1. Patrick voted no. Vote on motion and friendly amendment: Patrick, yes; Jay, yes; Nora_ , yes; Willis, yes, Sallie, yes; Ann, yes. Motion carried 6-0. Mitch said if the applicant does not use this approval are the conditions still enforceable and I do feel raising an issue and putting conditions on something that was not part of the application is an abuse of discretion and exceeding your authority. Ann said Mitch can appeal the decision. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Willis recused himself. 110 W. Main Street— Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition, Public Amenity— Public Hearing Proof of publication— Exhibit I Amy gave an overview of the project. This property is in the Main Street historic District and the property is 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen. The property stretches from Main Street to Bleeker Street and encompasses what used to be an open alley. It has multiple zone districts overlaying the property. There is unresolved issues as to which zone district will apply. It has mixed use zoning on the Main Street side and R-6 on the residential side, West End side. It has a lodge preservation overlay. It is considered a PUD process and those boards can define the appropriate heights and setbacks for this project. The goal is to help the applicant develop something appropriate. It is a small lodge and the city has a lot of policies in place to encourage small lodges. Most of the property will be demolished and replaced except the lobby portion that you enter now and the portion of the building right behind the pool. There are 47 lodge units now and the end result will be 53. They are small size units under 300 square feet. The site will also have three affordable housing units and on the Bleeker Street side there is residential development proposed in the form of two duplexes. All the new development will have parking underneath. The alley runs into the side of the Hotel Aspen property and turns toward Bleeker Street. HPC's role is to review this according to the design guidelines: Commercial design guidelines and small lodge guidelines. The primary things to talk about are the height of the residential buildings along Bleeker Street. It is proposed to be 32 feet to essentially a flat roof. It is abutting a residential zone district which has a 25 foot height limit and we think that the residential buildings proposed which have three usable floors are a little out of scale. This block has three Victorians adjacent to the Hotel Aspen and we think some reduction in height is appropriate. We are also worried about the footprint on the buildings on the ground. They don't have quite the setbacks from the property line that is normal for the neighborhood and they don't have the distance between the buildings that is in the neighborhood. There is the concern that it is too much along the frontage. Another issue is the head in parking along Garmisch St. It is actually off the project site but relevant to the project. Staff is recommending to re-establish 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 the curb line and have parallel parking and trees etc. to improve the character on Garmisch and reduce some of the car/pedestrian conflicts. The project will accommodate some parking underground. There is a large tree on Bleeker Street and Parks is inclined to allow the removal of it. The alley has considerable utilities underground and there is concern how the applicant can excavate for a garage and build on top of it. The Fire Department and Building Dept. have concerns about the amount of separation between the buildings. Stan Clauson, Clauson Associates Stan said in the Aspen Area Community Plan it addresses having lodges with units of different sizes. With the zoning lodges that have rooms that are smaller than 300 square feet average get a package of benefits under the zoning code. There are four zones here, R-6, MU, LP overlay with a PUD. The total lodge development is 20,041 square feet and the average size of the lodge rooms is 292 square feet. The owners believe that there is a strong market for this and they have had a good reception for the small rooms. That size lodge room allows for 60% to be residential development which would be 10,249 square feet. In this particular case we are proposing to use 9,900 square feet. The subject site is 27,000 square feet, almost half a block. The townhouse height exceeds the 32 foot limit by 10 inches due to 3 stories. It is hard to do 3 stories in any less than that. There would be 14,056 square feet of affordable housing. The hotel is 28 feet in height. The existing lodge units are going to be reconfigured and restored to their original condition which had balconies. The balconies were subsequently enclosed making the units larger and that enclosure would be taken back and balconies restored to their original condition. The units would increase from 45 to 53 units. Stan said the height of 32 feet is not consistent with the R-6 which is 25 feet but would be carried through as part of the PUD. The affordable housing is being increased by 1,200 square feet. 2,600 square feet would be for the pool and bar which is accessible to the public. Stan did a power point identifying the different buildings and design. Stan said Poss and Associates did the design and the site plan was done in their office. Some of the significant changes are the residential units along Bleeker, two townhome structures. There would be considerable improvement to the entry and new landscaping all along the public ways. There would be enhanced sidewalks. There are no new curb cuts being proposed. All the new parking would be sub-grade. There is head in parking and on the other side of the street head 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 in parking for half of the block then parallel for the continuation. This street is quite wide. The height of the building at Main Street is 23 feet rising up to 29.5 and that height is set back 24 feet from the front fagade. The next section of building is at 28 feet and the highest point are the town houses at 32 feet. The townhouses do not have a full third floor and it is stepped back quite a bit. The parapet wall on the front is at 23 feet. The townhouses step back 10.5 feet on the alley side and 3 .5 feet on the front fagade. The middle elements are also stepped back 23 feet. 18% of the parcel is public amenity and a large part is where the buildings step back. The canopy will enhance the entry of the hotel but then we lose public amenity space which brings us to 13%. The monitory value difference can be put into improvements which would include Main Street, Garmisch and along Bleeker. We would also propose landscape islands incorporated with the head in parking. There would be 15 new sub-grade spaces including two handicapped spaces. The requirement for the new development is 9 spaces. There is an excess of six spaces yet on the other hand there is a huge parking deficiency with the whole project. We would give up three spaces for the islands to soften the head in parking but we point out Garmisch Street has the widest right-of-way of all the north/south street and it was formerally called Center Street and it is the dividing line for east and west. Garmisch has a lot of head in parking on both sides of Main Street. Going to parallel parking would be the loss of seven or eight parking spaces. Amy said staff's concern are the Bleeker Street townhomes which are taller and wider than the neighborhood allows. Jay asked about the square footage of the town homes. Stan said they are around 12, 000 square feet. Kim Weil said the rooms are around 265 to 325 square feet. The rooms that face the pool are larger. There are eight of those. 100 square feet was added when they enclosed the balcony. We are proposing to open up the balcony again and that would make them about 325 square feet. Patrick said with the parallel parking 7 or so spaces would be lost. Kim Weil mentioned that parking is a concern on this site as most people drive here and the number of parking spaces is a big deal to a lodge like this. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Stan said in general the landscaping on Main Street is rather dark with tall trees and very little at the fence line. There are various kinds of evergreens and aspens that intersperse with the cotton wood trees. The general idea would be to have a landscape plan that puts more interest on the ground plane. Sallie asked where does the application go from here. Amy said HPC needs to look at mass and scale of the site plan and it could be reduced or increased as they go through the process. Right now they don't have enough open space as required and what should they do about it. Currently there is 18% open space and it would be reduced to 13%. Staff's proposal is to re-establish the curb and have all parallel parking which makes them lose 7 spaces but with their plan they would lose three spaces and we are only talking about four spaces basically. Maybe there is a middle ground and instead of having the islands they could have significant usable open space. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing comment section of the agenda item was closed. Issues: Height of residential units on Bleeker Setbacks inadequate Public amenity The reduction and cash-in-lieu Demolition Parking and existing vegetation Nora applauded the owner for having a small lodge and small rooms. I also like the idea of finding more green space in the back. The townhomes are huge and the houses in that area are small and we need to see that brought down and a little more broken up and smaller. Jay said he feels the height of the townhomes can be handled on that corner. The alley gives some breakup. They are losing public amenity because they are having an awning up high. With the push to keep this a small lodge in the historic district I am willing to overlook the 5% open space amenity. It 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 is nice that the round space on the corner is being kept. I feel the parking should remain as is and I am in support of the project as drawn. Sallie also said the small lodges are needed and she would take parking over open space any time. People are going to drive and need a place to park. The public amenity in the West End is parking. On the height and setbacks of the townhomes it could be reduced a little and I want this project to go through. Get the scale to appear a little smaller. Patrick said he likes the general setup of the project. Possibly look at half parking, half parallel or angled parking. The setbacks and heights should be relooked at. It is a great project and I hope it goes through. Ann said the guidelines for small lodges say they need to fit into the neighborhoods and convey the character and scale of the neighborhood. I don't have enough information about the context. We need a site plan. I need to understand more about what that neighborhood is. The alley is broken up to the east and then becomes very strong to the West. Heights and setbacks need to be looked at. I would also like to see an alternative to the parking. Parallel parking gives a protective barrier between the sidewalk and the street. Pull in parking is more intimidating. From Main Street to the Red Brick is an important circulation route. If you look at the small lodge guidelines there are more things that need to be restudied to adhere to those guidelines. Sallie said it would be good to have a sketch-up or 3D. Ann also suggested a site visit. Stan said in the context of the other small lodges in the area when you look at the Molly Gibson, the Annabelle Inn I think this project is very consistent with the other lodges but has its own unique detailing. It maintains traditional roof forms and materials. The curved entrance is one of the most distinctive features. We will be happy to work on the parking and we are eager to move this on. We can use the city flyover for the next meeting. MOTION: Ann made the motion to continue 110 W. Main Street until March 13th; second by Patrick. Motion carries 3-2. Sallie, no; Jay, no; Patrick, yes; Nora, yes; Ann, yes. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Jay said this is the kind of development that we want to help along if you look at the big picture. It has an amazing effect on the city of keeping small lodges. The room amenities with windows floor to ceiling are going to be so much better. Sometimes you have to give a little on the financial engine to get what we need. This could go through with a restudy. Ann said this is an important location and in the Main Street Historic District. There are too many things that need restudied and everything is integral to each other. Nora said her concern is not the lodge it is the residential side. I am worried about that height on a small block and near one of the most used parks in town. My concern is the compatibility in the R-6 zone. Resolution regarding conflicts of interest Debbie Quinn, Attorney said Planning & Zoning has adopted the same resolution. MOTION: Jay moved to adopt resolution #2, 2013 as written; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Amy inquired about a special hearing for the Hotel Aspen. Amended motion on 110 W. Main — Hotel Aspen: Ann move to amend the motion to have a special HPC meeting on the Hotel Aspen February 20th; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13