Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20141203 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 Vice-chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, John Whipple, Nora Berko and Jim DeFrancia. Sallie Golden was seated at 5:06. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: John moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 12, 2014, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. 101 W. Main St. aka Moly Gibson Lodge and Lot 2 of 125 W. Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split Sallie said she is working with John Cottle on a project and she has no _personal interest or financial gain on this project. She can be completely impartial and biased. Jim echoed Sallie's comments. He is working on a project with John Cottle also and has no financial interest in this project and can be impartial. Sara said the project is for the re-development of the Molly Gibson. The reviews for tonight are conceptual major redevelopment because a portion of the property is in the Main Street historic district, demolition, residential design standard variances for the two single family homes that are proposed along Hopkins and conceptual commercial design review and growth management review. The two reviews that are recommendations to city council are planned development project review which establishes the dimensional requirements for the project and subdivision review which is requested to merge the vacant lot along Main St. where the Molly Gibson is currently located. We find that the applicant has addressed all of our concerns and we are supportive of the project. The applicant restudied the two story module which is adjacent to the landmark and they are proposing two different roof forms, a flat roof and a gable roof. The applicant prefers the flat roof option. Staff prefers the gable roof as it is more literal and an obvious relationship to the historic landmark. They have also created a 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 porch element. We are also supportive of the subdivision to merge the two lots and the review criteria are met. A setback variance is requested for the side yard that is closest to the landmark. Parcel II is the two single family homes. The applicant has really squeezed the two single family homes and they have lost about 1,000 square feet of FAR. They were asking for four variances per house and now they are just asking for two per house. Staff is comfortable with the two variances per home. They have also reduced their site coverage. They have.increased the side yard setback to 7 feet to give relief on the two residences on either side of the property. Their site coverage went from 56 % to 51%. The review criteria are met and staff recommends approval. On the RDS's they need a variance from secondary mass and inflection. Stan Clauson & Associates Michael Brown, owner John Cottle, Cottle & Yaw Architects Stan said they will address the changes made from the responses at the last hearing. Michael said this project is consistent with our small town character. It is the lowest density of any lodging project and it is the lowest in height of any project. We have 53 rooms now and we will go up to 64 rooms. We have two free market homes on Hopkins and one condo within the hotel. We also have on-site affordable housing and there is a detached sidewalk on Main Street which is a major improvement to Main Street. We are not requesting building fee waiver, affordable housing waivers, parking waivers and both buildings conform to the height in their respective zone districts. Stan said the delivery area is in a portion of the alley. The alley has a 20 foot right-of-way which allows a delivery to be stationed to the building and on Parcel II the setbacks have been increased and there is a decrease in floor area and the Residential Design Standards'have been reduced by 50%. The western module on Main Street has been modified. Option I includes a flat roof and a step back first floor element which creates a porch which reflects the porch on the Victorian and a connecting element. Option 2 has those, qualities but adds a peaked roof to the design. John said there is a five foot overhang on the second story that ties into the elements of the Victorian next door. We feel the flat roof is more successful 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 and.is tied to the Herbert Bayer design era. The gable roof although ties into the Victorian over time will not be successful. It will feel like the post modern has come back. The flat roof is more consistent with the building and it ties into Aspen's strong rigorous design heritage. The side yard setback has been increased from 5 to 7 feet. Stan said the narrowing of the buildings resulted in the total reduction of 1,000 square feet of FAR. John said the front door is ten feet back rather than 13 feet back. Stan said there is public space inside the lodge and there is an 8 foot sidewalk. The Main Street elevation will be a vast improvement over what is there now. Jim inquired about the flat roof. Michael said they would prefer the flat roof because it relates to the building better; however, we feel good about both roofs. Patrick inquired about a duplex functioning better because then you wouldn't have to have the ten feet inbetween the two buildings. John said we wanted to return that side of the street to single family homes. Willis opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: This is a comprehensive review The subdivision will be referred to city council The planned development is also a recommendation GMQS Commercial Design Review Residential Design Standard Variances Willis identified the issues on Parcel I Setbacks along Main Street - They are asking for a cantilever on the second floor that triggers a variance. The delivery area has been identified 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 Willis identified the issues on Parcel II Reduction of 1,000 square feet of FAR RDS's have been reduced from 4 to 2 Site coverage and setback requirements have been increased Willis said staff feels the gable roof better represents the incentives for the lot split. The gable is a little richer overall and Shakespearian. The setbacks are fine and the delivery area has been identified. The 7 foot setback works for the residence to the east but not quite as well on the west. Sallie said this is a good project and she has no issues with any of the setbacks or design standards. The flat roof is simpler and easier on the eye to look at. Jim said the flat roof is entirely appropriate. This is a great project. Nora said the flat roof ties into the project. I am grateful to see a project in which we are not talking about parking and height. John said on Parcel II you are giving the neighbors an additional two feet, 7 total. Returning the neighborhood to its intended us is great. The reduction of 1,000 square feet total is really generous and probably not necessarily needed. On Parcel I when you look at the pictures the gabled end pops out instead of the Victorian house so the flat roof is a better design. It is a successful project and I am looking forward to having it built. Patrick said he feel the gabled roof is more appropriate because of the nature of the development. Eaves in the soffit are also recommended so that there is more of a transition. On Parcel II the shapes are the same on the outside but the setbacks are different. Willis said the conditions on either side of the houses are different. The setbacks could potentially be different on either side. John said the applicant has made a real effort to give the neighbor more space and if the neighbor was concerned about gaining a two feet of setback and wanted more they would have voiced their concerns. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 Willis said there is plenty of breathing room on the house to the west but less so on the east. Sallie said hours and hours of study have been put into this. Jim said there have been a lot of concessions and this is a good project. John agreed that the concessions should be considered. Nora said we have design standards that need met. Willis said variances are there to create design excellence and a better situation. Nora said if this becomes a flat roof is the integrity and intent of the lot split lost. Sara said applications are on a case by case determination and the HPC needs to balance what is presented and how that relates to the historic resource in order to meet the lot split criteria. Sallie said the lot split relieves more development that could happen without it. We need to look at projects on an individual basis. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #3 5 in the format as drafted by staff with the condition that the flat roof is approved; second by Sallie. VOTE: Jim, yes; Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; John, yes; Patrick, no; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-1. 232 E. Main — Planned Development Project Review, Demolition, .Growth Management, Conceptual Commercial Design, Conceptual Major Development in a Historic District, Waivers and Variances, cont'd from Nov. 19th Mitch Haas Mark Hunt Charles Cunniffe Spiro Tsaparas 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 Sara said this is a continued public hearing from Nov 191h. The project is Base 2 lodge at 232 E. Main Street. HPC is a recommending body for all of the reviews on this project to City Council. The applicant has done studies and analysis of the neighborhood. Staff is in support of the application and it does meet the review criteria. The height variation is about 4 1/2 feet and it is for the proposed gable which needs the variation. They could do a flat roof that would meet the underlying zoning for height but in staff's opinion we strongly feel that the gable roof contributes to the historic district and creates interesting architecture that Aspen has a history of having. Having a flat roof might not be the best solution for this corner. The applicant will show a vehicle access plan regarding the parking situation. They are providing parking off-site either in the Rio Grande Parking garage or in a similar situation. The applicant is offering to do a valet service to get the cars parked in the garage. There are also two loading spaces in front of the lodge. The gas station will be eliminated and there will be more on-street parking. HPC spent a lot of time talking about snow shedding and the applicant will address that. The code does not allow snow to be landing on.a sidewalk. Staff feels this is a successful project. It is important to remember that there will be a building built on this site and a redevelopment. We think this is a very exciting project. When you are proposing a lodge with small rooms and large density you end up with a pretty high mitigation rate. That is something that council will have to balance and weigh when they get this project in front of them. Sara said the Parking Department is comfortable assigning two loading spaces for the lodge in front of the entrance because we don't want cars stopping in the street. The public parking along Carl's will be parallel. Nora inquired about the height of the Jerome Hotel on Bleeker and Monarch. Sara said it is 50.4 feet high. Jim asked about the affordable housing. Sara said their requirement would be either 3FTE's or 1.78 FTE's depending on the generation rate that is used. They are requesting a waiver. Sallie said when they came the last time there was no a commitment to off- site parking and there was no valet and this time there is. Jim inquired about the parking garage arrangement. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 Sara explained that the parking would be for both lodge projects. It would be between 40 and 50 spaces in the winter, fall and spring and in the summer between 20 and 25 spaces. It is generated at % parking space per lodge unit. Sara went over the conditions in the resolution. Sara said the public amenity space is the proposal for a publically accessible roof top deck. We find that it is a creative space and a huge asset. A permanent easement would be drawn up. The roof top space cannot be enclosed with walls and windows. John asked about the urban runoff plan with 0 setbacks. Sara said that is handled through the Engineering Dept. and they would have to meet the standards. Mitch Haas said the team chose planned development instead of rezoning because we are not looking to vary the underlying uses in the mixed use zone district. It-is a better solution to put the parking off-site. The development is at the property line with a 0 setback today and because it is a gas station cars are coming and going all the time. The traffic impacts will significantly decrease with our proposal. From the pedestrian perspective we will have detached sidewalks, trees and landscape strips. Right now the property is 100% impervious with concrete. The Cortina and Carl's pharmacy is lot line to lot line. The roof steps down to the Cortina Lodge to inflect. The roof deck is just under 600 square feet and is open to the public and is well above the required public amenity requirement. The basement will also be open to the public. A waiver is requested for the affordable housing single one bedroom apartment. The code sets up incentives for lodge development. There is not a lot of lodge diversity in this town. This is a 6,000 square foot lot if you want affordable lodging you have to swallow some variations. We are doing this because the community asked for it: If the community can't handle this it will be something else. Mark Hunt said we feel we are trying to put our best foot forward. A lot of things in the code are tired to the bed count. The costs are heating and cooling for each room so per square foot a lot of these costs go up and along that same path we are trying to come up with something affordable. The size and mass fits in and overall the peak pays respect to the West End and the Modern Ski Chalet. In the slow season on average there are 140 cars 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 that come in and out of the gas station per day. In the busier season it is 208 cars. Lets say the average stay in Aspen is 3 1/2,days. Using the math it is 74 cars a week at full occupancy. With the,creation of the sidewalk and the. building the benefits far out weight what people are perceiving right now. If the architecture is not compelling we"can go back and explore the 32 foot flat roof. At the end I hope you feel that the benefits for the community out weight what we are asking for. Charles said in terms of affordable lodging if the lodge isn't in this location where do we have the opportunity to do something that is appropriate. Jay Maytin said they had a meeting.with the Ski Company representatives and gave them the presentation and they did commit if the lodges are built we will have a specific incentive plan with the Ski Company for the guests of the lodges to be able to purchase their products at a discounted rate. Spiro Tsaparas said they did a study assuming they had parking onsite. Because this is a guest experience the cars do not park themselves, the valet parks the cars. The valet driver will have to take a right on Main, right on S. Aspen and a right on Bleeker and a right on Monarch and come into the alley and take the car down. At that point that car has travelled 1, 330 feet. If the car goes to the Rio Grande the valet driver will make a left on Main and Mill and enter the parking garage. At that point the car as travelled 841 feet and has not travelled through any residential area. Regarding the 25 spots in the summer we will probably valet them because the cars still have to go somewhere. We will just have to pay a little more. Willis said the board received 4 letters - Exhibit I Sara said there were two letters against the project, one from John Feza and one from Joe Haloll. There were also two letters of support one from Dana Horton and one from Kerri Simms. There was a letter in the packet against the project from Barbara Reed. Vice-chair Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Ben Genshaft, attorney representing the two owners at 117 W. Monarch. We applaud the applicant's creativity. This lot might not be the right lot for the project and the building is out of place in the neighborhood. This looks like a rezoning and perhaps it should have come in that way. If the project is 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3 2014 approved the five foot setback off the alley would help my clients if that can occur and give them a little more sunlight. A few feet lower in height can also make a difference. People don't always like the valets to take their cars and you are going to see parking around here. If it wasn't a lodge you wouldn't have loading zones and you would get three or four more parking spots. David Roth said he lived at 219 N. Monarch for 19 years. The traffic from the gas station is crazy on that corner. There are no curbs where people can just walk freely. I see nothing negative about this project. The hotel would be an improvement on that corner and I am surprised about the negativity. Mitch pointed out that if it was rezoned it would be a lesser process than the planned development. Spiro pointed out that a fence up to 6 feet could be built on the property line. By removing the gas station we are removing a bunch of unexpected creativity of the various drivers coming from every direction. Mark said you can't force someone to valet park but this has to be valet parking regardless if it is onsite or offsite. Vice-chair, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Willis said the board needs to discuss the dimensional variance requests and whether C zoning is applicable at this corner. It is a mixed use underlying zone district which has different dimensional requirements. We should also discuss snow shedding. Issues: Parking Affordable house Balance whether the community benefit is there vs any perceived drawbacks. Willis said the presentation was Ivery good and many of the arguments are compelling. The board reacts to design quality and not having to swallow things. This is a hotel and by definition can be bigger and taller than other program types. The streetscape has improved. The community benefit of having small hotel rooms and affordable is exactly what the Aspen Area 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 Community Plan has been asking for forlen years or so. The traffic study numbers are astounding. The issue with the snow is a technical issue that will need addressed. We might want to discuss the alley and the transition to the R-6 zoning and the five foot setback. Nora pointed out that at the end of the day when the building is done it is judged on its mass and scale. Jim said from the polling solicitations coming from the Community Development Dept. on incentives for lodges the three things that were overwhelming they did not favor significant concessions on parking, affordable housing and height. This project is asking for numerous waivers. What is offered in exchange is by designing economy lodging. The traffic and parking bother me the most. I suggest the traffic won't decrease it will just change. You will have two pickup spots. There is no assurance that the guests will show up two by two nicely, you will have six show up at one time. They will double park in the middle of the street. Human behavior indicates that people don't like to give up their cars and will park two blocks away. We should get something back as a public benefit. They should provide the one bedroom unit. You need to look at what you are getting in exchange for the waivers. John said the roof top is the largest public amenity this board has ever seen. If not here then where would you put the lodge. This is a dangerous street corner on the cusp of the downtown core. Nora said this is mixed use therefore we need to adhere to the dimensions of the mixed use. If there is too much program and they need all the variances than the program is too big. I understand the 10 foot setback on the front but on the sides and back I am having a difficult time approving it. This project is also blocking the Smuggle Ridge line. The people will be parking in the West End and there isn't any space there. The building should be a little more welcoming and not so massive. Sallie said the parking plan is the perfect solution. The economics of the project is not my charge but if it is going to be more expensive to park your car than stay in the room that entire thing won't work. I feel you have solved my issues. One concern is the alley and all the ice etc. Maybe have a canopy to give some relief. Maybe you could push a canopy on the front out 10 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2.014 five feet for people to walk underneath. Sallie said she doesn't have a problem with the height or roof John said there is a lot of good here and a lot of community members have applauded this project. When I can't find parking I know that the two bottom floors of the parking garage are empty. The group found a solution for the parking. This building is in the right location and in the sweet spot. The concealed gutter and snow fence are a good resolution. The project will not take away from the Hotel Jerome. Staff did a good job in reviewing this project and I also support it. Patrick agreed with staff and supports the project as is. As far as the parking if they don't want valet you can give them a pass and they can drive into the parking garage by themselves therefore they won't think about parking in the West End because they have a parking pass for the garage. As far as mass and scale the benefits out weight the setbacks. Patrick thanked the applicant for getting in touch with the Ski Company and they should publicize that they are doing a packet commitment. If a building is three stories tall and within the setback it is still going to create the exact same ice in the alley and the exact shadow in the winter. If you are at the gondola the sun sets at 2:00 p.m. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #36 as written with the condition to study the rear yard setback to the north; second by Patrick. Jim asked for a friendly amendment to include that the affordable housing be mitigated onsite or cash-in-lieu or housing credit. Willis made the motion and Patrick second it. John said we are talking about 2.9 or 1.7 FTE which is a small amount of money. Roll call vote: Jim; no; Sallie, no; Patrick, yes; John, no; Willis, yes MOTION: Sallie move to approve reso 36 and to study the rear yard setback, second by John. Patrick, yes; John, yes; Willis, yes; Sallie, yes, Nora, no; Jim, no. Motion carried 4-2. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. KathyStrickland Chief De ig 11