The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.110 W Main St.0025.2014.AHPC0025.2014.AHPC 110 W MAIN ST AN APPEAL OF HPC DECISION A.7. 3 â‚¬ c Jo d ( - 5/4 A ul 39Â£4<1 f E 01--e iti 9/0 : i 1 â‚¬.Up'- Â© -fle t#Â«30'1 1 l/.h b~v~Â«~Â«n_~~" .. THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER: 0025.2014.AHPC ~4735-124-39-215* 2735-124-39-223 7 [ 2735-124-39-315* 2735-124-39-318 ; ~ 2735-124-39-323,2735-124-39-800 PARCEL ID NUMBERS: ~ 2735-124-61-101*2735-124-61-112 ~ 2735-124-61-114*2735-124-61-122 L-2735-124-61-201 + 2735-124-61-111 12735-124-61-800 PROJECT ADDRESS: 110 W MAIN ST PLANNER: SARA ADAMS CASE DESCRIPTION: APPEAL OF HPC DECISION BERT MYRAN FOR REPRESENTATIVE: JULIANNE STEELE DATE OF FINAL ACTION: 1/7/2015 CLOSED BY: ROBERT GREGOR ON: 06/10/2015 0019Â· 20 14 - Nfo W *.Â·I Pen'mts *.-BÂ·, 7 I Â·Â· -m I ile Edit Recc'c Na.'igate Fgrm Re Dor!5 Format Iab help E . ~ Â·~~ .j.. :luÂ·rio 1 .. ..... . .1 1__.... ..._-I ... ... . ' ~Custom Fjelds Routing Status Fee Summary Acbons Routing History Permit type ahpc ||Aspen Historic Land Use i Permit #,0025 2014 AHPC Address I110 WMAIN i Apt/~~1 1 City 'ASPEN - | State CO i Zip i81611 : Permit Information y. 2 Master permit Routing queue ~ash,07 Applied ~06:21/2014 | 1 Project : 1 Status ~pending | Approved | Description A14 APPEAL OP HPC DECISION FOR 110 W MAIN ST i HOTELASPEN ~ Issued 1 1 FEE WAIVED PER CHRIS BENDON Closed/Final 4 Submitted I Clock ;Running I Days 1 61 Expires ;05/16:2015 L. Owner & J Last name ~ STEELE | First name ~JULIANNE ~ 1121 W BLEEKER ST I.ASPEN CO 81611 Phone K 1 - | Address 1 Applicant 3 1 Â® Owner is applicant? U Contractor is applicant? ~ Last name STEELE ~ FIrst name |JULIANNE ~ I121 W BLEEKER ST ~ . ASPEN CO 81611 Phone i : Cost # 29808 1 ArdreÂ« ' HÂ· Lender ~ Last n:ame Frst name 1 Phone I{ 1 - | Address E 1 1 1 Asper,Lo:95 (serve! angeles ~Gw ' 3 of 1 ALS WaluÂ·eol 0 Ly,idr . +1' ta I t+.. . w .... 9- A/ / AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE , REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 CE), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: \Co W. Fic#.4/. 9,Â· , Aspen-5 CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC REARING DATE: BC.*3 411 14 , 2- 6"*top '2014 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I A_. __ elo,- ScA\ (maine, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice. By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy ofthe-publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. A<failing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage , prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date o f the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outi-eacJi: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035. Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of die neighborhood outreach sumniar-y, including the method of public notification and a copy of ally documentation that was presented to the public is attached liereto. (continued on next page) .. Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the Current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezonii?g or text aniendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Titie and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal : description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection.in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteeil (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ie#L S- SignatuK The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 11 day of IR(~U.- , 20__, by *117â‚¬14 Se c.,-40â€ž r & 2 Wi â‚¬wg #M *Z 95~050* z omB m. 12= NFAZE:2829@Zi*g:g @~~ i piog,EARMESâ‚¬6&912 3%. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 21 &2392:311,2:293&6 2:, PR- 2-Â»58@8'1 -1Â°Evo-Â· O 5 0 0-6 .2 2 # 2. Q 0 3 2 : a. ~. 6 3 @ iii Zum 9.2 93 oR Â»:.224 2% 6.9:ohi CD - 0 a =2 m My commission expires: cAL (St L (F S~ e RS - 114370/ i=i%= u, 2 0-0 -9 8962**RE@/25--O/0 3 0 ok ..002 4*Â» 4-4 fat#.*A M.set=52:~Aihz:as: :2 - Notary Public :~22&222%10&09:2 5% 0 Â® 019-~ 3;w~ ~~ : ~% 6% ~1 2-221&:12:22*SPIi :Â§ ~ KAREN REED PATTERSON 2.333-22%9*22-239922 =G NOTARY PUBLIC 1 ~ STATE OF COLORADO l,52mmission Expires February 15, 211U ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICA-BLE: ~ NOTARY ID #19964002767 â€¢ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION - â€¢ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) e LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 junooov ueds'~ to Al!0 k 101 '6l eunr UO Sewil uedsy @41 ul Peq }Iqncl Em.~ * Fee Waiv~ Request Form City of Aspen THE CITY OF AspEN Community Development Department This form should be completed and submitted to the Community Development Director for review. You will be notified when a decision has been madeto waive or not to waive the fees regarded in this request form. For what fees are you requesting waiver? 1 BUILDING E PLANNING Julianne Steele Applicant Name: Contact Ph.# (515) 490-2182 Mailing address: 121 W. Bleeker Street E-mail address: sjulianneb@mac.com Project name & address: Hotel Aspen, 100 W. Main Street Fee Breakdown: 112[l 1:1 11 Original Fee Requested Original Fee Requested Fee Description Fee Description Amount Waiver Amount Waiver Energy Code Fee REMP Fee Excavation Foundation Fee Zoning Review Fee Inspection Fee Planning Application Fee $1,300+ 100% Permit Fee HPC Application Fee Plan Check Other: TOTAL OF FEE WAIVER REQUEST $ All staff hours for appeal Reason for Waiver: E General Fund Department D Waived or decreased by City Council (specify ordinance or other decision document) 52 Other-Please explain: Staff requested a $1,300 deposit for 4 staff hours with additional hours billed at $325. This is a $1,300+ roadblock to appeal HPC's abuse of discretion and due process at the Hotel Aspen hearing. Waiving all fees will allow Aspen's elected officials to openly hear an appeal of abuse of discretion and due process. 0-4 3-h IN 27 May 2014 lv ~ant 9(gnature Date For office use only: Type of fees waived: Total fees waived: $ 11300 EK'APPROVED n DISAPPROVED (Â«*144Â« 4 -761 1. 0/~ 1 jc~ Community Development Director Date , CITY OF ASPFN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAmEMENT FEE WAIVER POLICY ~ PURPOSE Fee waivers to eligible individuals and organizations submitting for building permit or land use application may be considered upon filing a fee waiver request form to the Community Development Department. Approval of fee waiver requests may be made by the Community Development Director, accordingto the adopted fee policy of the City of Aspen. Costs for all building permit and land use applications, other than those waived bythe Community Development Director, shall be paid as specified by the fee policy; prior to the issuance of building permits and at the time of submittal of land use applications. PROCESS Fees administered by the Community Development Department can only be waived by submitting a completed fee waiver form to the Community Development Director. The request shall contain a description of the project along with a statement expressing eligibility for fee waiver. The Community Development Director will review the request and give approval or disapproval in accordance with provisions set forth in this policy. The Community Development Director does not have the ability to waive fees administered by other City Departments or other organizations. All organizations and individuals seeking fee waiver MUST submit their written request to the City of Aspen Community Development Director priorto submittingthe building permit or land use application. The approved fee waiver must then be presented at the time the building permit or land use application is submitted to the building or planning departments. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA General Fund Departments do not pay fees to the Community Development Department for building permits or planning applications, with the exception of Capital Projects. The fees waived for these projects will be tracked by the Community Development Department (journal entries are therefore unnecessary). In effort to keep paperwork and applications consistent, General Fund Departments shall still be required to submit the approved fee waiver with all applications for building and planning applications. General Fund Departments include: Non-Departmental 001.00 A Streets Department 001.41 City Council 001.03 / Parks Department 001.55 City Manager 001.05 GIS Department 001.60 ~ r i Personnel 001.06 IT Department 001.61 ~ Special Events 001.70 3 City Clerk 001.07 City Attorney 001.09 Recreation Activities 001.71 . Risk Management 001.10 ,% Aspen Recreation Center (ARC) 001.72 70 City Finance Department 001.11 4 Ice Garden Operations 001.74 Community Development 001.13 ~ Cons. Trust FD/Lottery 001.75 Engineering Department 001.15 f *Capital projects 001.90 Building Department 001.21 .. Asset Management Plan (AMP) 001.91 Environmental Health 001.25 :CO *Tabor Capital Projects 001.94 Police Department 001.31 E Outgoing Transfers 001.95 ~ Records 001.33 ~ Communications 001.39 93 NOTE* Capital Projects are not exempt from fees 4.#Â·6~~-'~ ~*~ '~,~.44Â·~ ~.". ...... . . .. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council COPY: Jim True, City Attorney THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: Appeal of approval of Resolution #13, Series of 2014 by the Historic Preservation Commission DATE: July 14,2014 APPELLANT: Julianne Steele of 121 W. Bleeker Street, represented by Bert Myrin. SUMMARY: The Appellant is appealing the recent approval of Resolution #13, Series of 2014 by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission. The Resolution granted approval of final design reviews for the Hotel Aspen redevelopment. The appeal raises a number of issues that are identified herein followed by staff' s response. The Appellant requests that Council nullify and invalidate Resolution #13, Series of 2014. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council uphold Resolution #13, Series of 2014 adopted by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Pursuant to Section 26.316.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Council is being asked to consider the approval by HPC on May 14, 2014 of Resolution #13, based on the appeal filed by a neighbor of the project Julianne Steele Council's review is based on the record of the proceedings before the HPC only. This is not a de novo review that considers the content of the application or decision. City Council may reverse, affirm or modify the decision being appealed. Council may also decide to remand the decision back to HPC for further proceedings. BACKGROUND: A redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen located at 110 West Main Street has been in the review process for 1 1/2 years. The project was heard by Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) (5 public hearings), the Planning and Zoning Commission (3 public hearings), and City Council (5 public hearings). All three review Boards granted approvals for a project that contains 54 lodge units, 3 free market residential units, and 3 affordable housing units. City Council adopted Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2013, approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that established dimensional requirements for the project, 1 I , .. Subdivision and Rezoning. HPC's approval of final design review via Resolution No. 13, Series of 2014 is the final land use review required for this project. THE APPEAL: Julianne Steele, who lives within 300 ft. of 110 West Main Street, filed an appeal of the HPC's decision to grant final design reviews (Major Development Final approval for a property within the Historic District and Final Commercial Design Review approval) for the Ilotel Aspen redevelopment. Ms. Steele is represented by Bert Myrin. The notice of appeal submitted by Ms. Steele pursuant to the codes states that the basis of the appeal is as follows: First, that HPC failed to provide due process procedures to two issues raised by City Council and by public comment at the 5/14/14 HPC meeting. Second, that HPC exceed its discretion by failing to review the two issues raised by City Council and by public comment at the 5/14/14 HPC meeting. The two issues relate to reducing the glazing on the residences and making the three residences appear different from each other. STANDARD OF REVIEW: Section 26.316.030, Appeals Procedures, of the Aspen Land Use Code sets forth the applicable standard of review that Council should follow in these matters and the actions available to Council following the hearing on the appeal. Additional language specifically regarding appeals of decisions of the HPC is found at Section 26.415.120 and is addressed below. Section 26.316.030(E), Standard of review, reads as follows: Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision- making body authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken. A decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. As noted above, the notice of appeal states two grounds for the appeal. One involves the denial of due process. The second asserts that HPC "exceeded its discretion". Neither the Aspen Municipal Code nor any applicable law refers to a standard regarding whether a governmental entity has "exceeded its discretion." Thus, staff will address the standards set forth in the code. The Land Use Code does not define the operative terms: "a denial of due process", .. "exceeded its jurisdiction, or "abused its discretion." Colorado court cases, however, have 2 1 F .. helped define these terms as follows and since these terms are well accepted legal concepts for the review of governmental action, such definitions may be used by Council in its deliberation of the appeal: A denial of due process may be found if some procedural irregularity is determined to have occurred that affected a significant right of the appellant, or the administrative body otherwise acted in violation of the appellant' s constitutional or statutory rights. Ad Hoc Executive Committee of Medical Staff of Memorial Hospital v Runyan, 716 P. 2d 465 (Colo. 1986.)~ A decision may be considered to be in excess of jurisdiction if the decision being appealed "is grounded in a misconstruction or misapplication of the law," City of Colorado Springs v Givan, 897 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1995); or, the decision being appealed was not within the authority of the administrative body to make. City of Colorado Springs v SecureCare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244 (Colo. 2000). A decision may be considered to be an abuse of discretion if the "decision of the administrative body is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority." Ross v Fire and Police Pension Ass'n., 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986); Marker v Colorado Springs, 336 P.2d 305 (Colo. 1959). STAFF RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL: The appellant states that two issues were not appropriately addressed by HPC during the May 14, 2014 public hearing. The two issues are 1) Ordinance No. 51 (Series of 2013) set forth in Section 1 at subsection 3) where Council recommended that HPC consider a reduction of the amount of glazing during final design reviews; and 2) HPC did not properly consider Councilman Daily' s comments during the March 17, 2014 public hearing that the 3 free market residences should appear different. Consequently, appellant asserts that based on the failure to address these two issues she was denied due process and that HPC "exceeded" its discretion. Staff responds to each issue separately as follows: 1) Issue #1 : Consideration of the Reduction o f the amount o f plazing: The appeal states: "The HPC Staff memo included a recommendation to HPC to consider the following during Final design review of which item number 3 was ' Reduce the amount of glazing.' The response of staff was 'The applicant has reduced the amount of glazing proposed to be more representative of a residential use than an office use.' See pg 2 of 5/14/14 HPC Staff Memo. No further mention or analysis of before and after sketches of glazing was provided in 1 Due process claims are often based on a lack of notice to the public. In this instance, a lack of notice has not been raised as an issue. Staffbelieves that all notice requirements of the law were met. 3 1 T .. the staff memo to help HPC members give due process or full discretion to the issue of glazing. Staff Response: The chair of the H PC,followed the adopted protocol for a public hearing of a quasi-judicial proceeding as established in the meeting minutes: Staff presentation and recommendations; applicant presentation: board questions of Staff and applicant: open public hearing: public comment: close public hearing; commission member comments; action by the Commission. St aff discussed Section 1, item 3) during the staff presentation (page 3 of the meeting minutes): "Sara said all.four items that City Council identified are met...They have reduced the amount Of glazing and changing the roof.forms makes it seem more residential in feel than what was previously shown to Council. The glazing in tile gable end is appropriate and adds interest to the proposed buildings. The applicant included in their presentation a comparison of the Council drawings to the HPC proposal (attached as Exhibit Ch HPC member Nora Berko stated "City Council had asked for a reduction in glazing and I am wondering if that has been reduced. Are the elevations reflecting a reduction in glazing?" Andy Wisnowski, representing Poss Architecture and Planning, responded (page 8 of the meeting minutes) "we had proposed glazing from floor to ceiling and this proposal brings the glass up to 2 4 to 3 feet above the Hoor line. You can see the reduction particularly on the sides of Garmisch Street. Stan Clauson addressed the glazing (page 11 of the meeting minutes): "The glazing was in fact reduced." During the public comment portion of the hearing, Bert Myrin discussed the glazing (page 10 of meeting minutes): "...the glazing that was presented by staff and I request that you all look at it At council the glazing that was presented is similar to what is there now. It seems like there is still quite a bit of glazing. Council gave you direction on glazing in the staff memo tonight to address that on page 2 of the staff memo. During the HPC member comments portion of the hearing Patrick Sagal, Nora Berko, and Sallie Golden all discussed the glazing issue. HPC operated within their jurisdiction- they applied the Land Use Code. the approved Planned Development, the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. HPC applied reasonable discretion when applying these standards and review criteria. The HPC evaluated the project, took evidence, discussed the project and made a decision. Consequently, Staff asserts that proper procedures were followed, that the appellant and the public had ample notice and opportunity to address the issue; that the issue of glazing was adequately and thoroughly discussed with the appropriate amount of evidentiary support; and that the HPC did not exceed its jurisdiction or abuse its discretion. 4 f f .. 2) Issue #2: The residential buildings shall appear different: The appeal states: "The HPC staff memo did not include the minutes from the City Council meeting. Page 5 ofthe 3/17/14 council minutes indicate: 'Councilman Daily said he would like the 3 buildings to appear different from each other.' The HPC staff memo gave no mention or analysis of the request by Councilman Art Daily's to help HPC members give due process [or] full discretion to the issue of making the three buildings appear different from each other." Staff Response: Elevations and renderings of the three free market residential buildings were included in the application provided to HPC prior to the public hearing and were presented by the applicant during the applicant presentation. During the public hearing, page 6 of the meeting minutes, Staff said: "at the council meeting councilman Daily recommended that the three free market units look different. Stafffeels the proposal is appropriate for the neighborhood." During public comment, page 10 of the meeting minutes, Junee Kirk said "Art Daily's " In comment about having each individual free market different is being totally ignored. addition during public comment Bert Myrin states "...in the minutes of the council meeting, Art Daily, although it was not a condition of approval asked that the three buildings appear different from each other... During HPC comment, Willis Pember states "Art Daily's suggestion that the three buildings appear differently he did not get any support from the meeting minutes even though he -was the swing vote, none of the other council members reiterated that. HPC chair Jay Maytin stated "As jar as the three buildings not looking the same l would agree that they are similar in shape and size. The multions in the center building glazing is different than the other At'o and that helps. " HPC acted within their jurisdiction and did not abuse their discretion - they applied and cited the Land Use Code, the Planned Development approval. HPC considered Art's comments, evaluated the project, took evidence, discussed the project and mad a decision. Art's comments were entered into the record by Staff Art's comments were also entered into the record by the Appellant, Junee Kirk and Bert Myrin during public comment. Consequently, Staff asserts that the HPC followed the proper procedures during the public hearing on May 14, 2014. The request by Councilman Daily was discussed by Staff the public and HPC members. Staff asserts that HPC acted within their jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion. ACTIONS BY COUNCIL FOLLOWING APPEAL HEARING: Section 26.316.030(F) reads as follows: 5 1 ' .. Action by the decision-making body hearing the appeal. The decision-making body hearing the appeal may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, if the decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The decision shall be approved by resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings. Section 26.415.120(D) reads as follows: The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including, but not limited to: 1. Reversing the decision. 2. Altering the conditions of approval. 3. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. Please note that the appeal before City Council and the Call-up are public meetings and not "public hearings". City Councils' decision on the appeal is required to be made "on the record;" meaning that no new evidence or testimony may be considered that is not in the record before you. RESOLUTION: Attached is a draft Resolution finding that the Historic Preservation Commission acted correctly and affirms their findings approving Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Standard Review for Hotel Aspen. Also attached is a resolution finding that the Historic Preservation Commission acted without authority and remanding the application back to HPC for a rehearing of Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Standard Review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the Historic Preservation Commission's resolution was approved appropriately and that the LIPC did not deny Appellant her due process of law, abuse its authority, or exceed its jurisdiction. Staff recommends City Council uphold the HPC's resolutions by affirming the passage of Resolution #13, Series of 2014. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions must be made in the positive) 6 1 .. "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2014, (affirming) HPC Resolution No. 13, Series of 2014, approving Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Standard Review for 110 West Main Street, the Hotel Aspen." ATTACHMENTS: Resolution # , Series of 2014 affirming final design review approval for Hotel Aspen Exhibit A Letter from appellant Exhibit B HPC meeting minutes dated May 14,2014 Exhibit C Drawing presented by the applicant during the presentation showing the Council proposal. Exhibit D Notice of Appeal Hearing mailed to Appellant, dated June 13,2014 Exhibit E Affidavit of Public Notice for July 14, 2014 Council Appeal Hearing Exhibit F Staff memo May 14,2014 Exhibit G HPC Resolution No. 13, Series of 2014 7 / t .. May 27,2014 Attn: City of Aspen Community Development Department RE: Appeal to City Council of the 5/14/14 HPC approval of the Hotel Aspen This letter is to request an appeal to City Council of the 5/14/14 HPC approval of the Hotel Aspen. By this letter I authorize Bert Myrin as my representative in this appeal, The basis of the appeal is twofold. First, that HPC failed to provide due process procedures to two issues raised by City Council and by public comment at the 5/14/14 HPC meeting. Second, that HPC exceeded its discretion by failing to review the two issues raised by City Council and by public comment at the 5/14/14 HPC meeting. The two issues relate to reducing the glazing on the residences and making the three residences appear different from each other. References to the record below include the 3/17/14 council meeting & minutes, the 5/14/14 HPC staff memo, and the 5/14/14 HPC meeting & yet to be approved minutes. The data provided to HPC only enabled a rubber stamp of approval. No clear procedures were followed in what proved to be a lack of procedures and analysis in both the staff memo and, more importantly a lack of procedures and analysis on these two issues by HPC in the decision making process. The HPC staff memo included a recommendation to HPC to consider the following during Final design review of which item number 3 was "Reduce the amount of glazing. The response o f staff was "The applicant has reduced the amount of glazing proposed to be more representative of a residential use than an office use," See pg 2 of 5/14/14 HPC Staff Memo. No further mention or analysis of before and after sketches of glazing was provided in the staff memo to help HPC members give due process or full discretion to the issue of glazing. The HPC staff memo did not include the minutes from the city council meeting. Page 5 of the 3/17/14 council minutes indicate: "Councilman Daily said he would like the 3 buildings to appear different from each other." The IlPC staff memo gave no mention or analysis of the request by Councilman Art Daily's to help HPC members give due processor full discretion to the issue of making the three buildings appear different from each other. The combined total time for two members of the public to comment at the 5/14/14 HPC meeting, from opening to closing of public comment was about 8 minutes 50 seconds. The chair opened by with a restriction that nothing that had been written in letters to the HPC be covered by letter authors in public comment: "This is a public hearing, is there anyone here from the public that would like to make a comment? Junee, I see your hand, we are way over time on this application so I'm going to ask that you keep your comments to three minutes and Junee, we got your letter, I ask that you don't cover anything that is in your letter [emphasis added], please." Junee Kirk said, among other things that "Art Daily had mentioned making those three houses, and I have the notes to go, free market houses to be each different and they are not so that hasn't been followed." Bert Myrin spoke at public comment and said "My name is Bert Myrin. I want to speak to two issues that I think are the table tonight. One is glazing that I think was presented by staff and requested that you all look at. If you look at what was presented at council which Stan showed you I have a copy as well but it hard to see from there, You'll see the glazing presented at council on those houses was probably not any less than, I mean it is similar to what is there now, 1 don't think it was reduced. So you can ask about the square footage and see what was reduced but it seems like there is quite a bit of glazing still. And those drawings from council. Glazing was one ofthe issues that council gave you direction in the staff memo tonight to address on page 2 of your staff memo, # 3 on page 2. The second issue that I'd like you to address is in the minutes that I handed out at the council meeting, although it was not a condition of approval, he was the swing vote, he asked that the three buildings appear different from each other. You'll notice in your staff packet the description of the three buildings is all in one paragraph. There is not a description for each lof3 t .. of the three meaning that they would be different. Also, if you look at the three they seem fairly similar. They don't have what Art said, I think he had hoped you would have fun with it. He said I hope the applicants have fun at HPC and make each one look different than each other. It doesn't seem that there is any fun being had and any difference between the buildings. Those would be the two things I think you have control over the glazing and making the buildings look different. I hope you'll do both of those." Above, you'll see the record of two requests from the 3/17/14 council minutes and the same two requests made at public comment. Below you'll see that there appears to be no procedures to even handily apply these two requests against established procedures with the result being an arbitrary decision without due process and beyond the discretion of the HPC. The italicized text below was typed by Bert from recording after the closing of HPC public comments on 5/14/14. You can listen to the audio that Bert typed the italicized text from here: http://www.myrili.com/bigfiles/ Click on the link and once on the website right click on the website link and choose the "Save Target As" or "Save As" option that pops up to save the mp3 file locally to your computer. Once you have downloaded the file, double click to open the file with the audio player on your computer. Only one member of HPC referenced IIPC Guidelines and this member voted against the approval, The other members were short on data and analysis on the issues of glazing and making the residential buildings appear different from each other. The text below attributed to particular HPC members is a rough outline having listened to the audio from the HPC meeting but not having read the approved version o f the HPC minutes, Jay - closed public comment roughly 8 minutes 50 seconds after he opened it. Stan - Art Daily admitted that he was not an architect, and not interested in dictating architectural design by any means made that comment, there is no doubt abolit it, but on the other hand it was not adopted as a condition of approval and we agreed with stalf that having consistency of design in these three townhouses is appropriate. The glazing was in fact reduced and I did show you the slide Mle used at city council that showed floor to ceiling glazing. So we think in cd! we have responded to the condition enumerated by council when they approved this project and I think there is some question whether Ms. Kirk actually served on HPC. Jay - is going to point out the issues. This is tough because council gave us a list of things to go over. The front doors. The porches meet standards. The glazing is an issue we should discuss. It is not appropriate to do the roofforms because ive have only one to look at. I have one thing I want to bring up. The color of the screens that cover the stainvays. Myfear is time green andfluorescent pink. Due to Willis' concern put some language in the resolution about signage. Patrick-the glazing and the chimneys, Most ofthe glazing faces north which isn 't beneficial. Make the three residential John-wanted to address public concern that the residences aren't wood. The majority is wood and expensive detail wood. They are not cutting any corners with the material quality. It is commendable to put nice materials on. 2 of 3 .. Willis - I think the applicant likes this project. It shows a lot ofrefinementfrom the various iterations that ivere presented at city council. hn entirely in agreement with staffwith the rest of the application so I don't really think there 's any issues ofthefore that council asked us to talk about worth discussing anymore. The two comments I have is about the detailing which is what we are here to talk about, On the hotel there is a great effort to create frameless aesthetic. It falls apart at the front entrance ii,here metal mesh is holding the banner that identifies the hotel graphically. The entirefrustralion of the whole process, from beginning to end, flat roofs and gabled roofs and express a frustration about design in the democratic setting. We shoutdn't be designing Ihings. We should be criticizing design. It creates an outcome that is normative and precludes excellence or any kind of departure from accepted norms of what uneducated people about design think is right. Nora - I'm stuck on four guidelines and they all relate to rejlecting the human scale and largely around the windows. Guideline 5.1 1 which talked to what everyone said Art is talking about varied massing buildingforms. Varied architecture materials. 5.16 Human scale. These windows for me, andit is really hard to tell in these renderings because what we and what 11'e pass and what we see on the street is never the same but I know that the things we pass that have been big and one dimensional look huge u,hen they are up. The punch outs that occur all the way along this neighborhood are not here. So to me I can't get beyond 7.18 visual continuity along the street. Maintain traditional window and door proportions. Idon't Jind the landscape plan talks to me enough about integrating with the setting. I 'm sttickon thosefour. I Jind thefenesfrationis overwhelining. The gables are totally windowed out which I don't think you'll see anywhere in that neighborhood. Sally -Support stalfin supporting the application. I want to support Willis about carrying through the frameless architecture to the front entry. The monitor should be involved with the signage. 01 her than that I support staffs support with the application. I keep hearing Junee and 1 want to get out that I'ni not a developer, I 'm in design and building. Willis - Councilman Dailv's sujuzestion about three buildings appearing differenth), he didn't Ret (inv support based on these meeting mimites, even thoulch he was the swing vote none of the other councilman reiterated that. femphasis addedl Saily - I recognize the glazing has been reduced from all fhe renditions that I've seen before. Jay - the tree removal and setbacks are not on the table. I do disagree on the materials. I leaned over and asked John and said god this stull'looks expensive and high end and John acknowledged this and 1 appreciate this. I would agree that they are similar and shape and size. I notice the mullions in the center glazing being dijferent chan the other two and I think that helps. I do not carefor the big tall chimneys and their material. In conclusion I'd ask that you re-read the first paragraph of this letter rather than repeating it here per a standard closing. fifu__Â«j Thank you, -Nillianne Steele Supporting documents from all Hotel Aspen Public Hearings are not attached because all are accessible as part of public records: Council Staff Packets, Council Minutes, Council Audio, HPC Staff Packets HPC Audio & minutes, Pitkin County Assessor record of Julianne Steele as owner at 121 W. Bleeker. 3 of 3 , .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14,2014 Chairperson, Jay Maytin, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Sallie Golden, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, John Whipple, Patrick Sagal. Jim DeFrancia was absent. Staffpresent: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Sara Adams, Senior Planner Amy Simom, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Justin Barker, Planner MOTION: Nora moved to approve the minutes of April 23,2014; second by Jay. AH in favor, motion carried. Project monitoring - 920 W. Hallam - Non-reflective corrugated acid washed metal was decided for the skirting on the garage. Disclosure - Nora disclosed that Stan Clason's office is finishing up a family lot split but there is no conflict. WEcycle is a tenant space at 100 E. Main but does not interfere with any decisions that would be made at this meeting. Willis disclosed that Stan Clason shares the same building with him and he shares recreational time with Michael Brown owner of 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen but there is no conflict in making recommending a decision. 114 Neale Avenue - Temporary Relocation Proof ofpublication - Exhibit 1 Justin Barker, planner said the request is for a temporary relocation of the historic structure. The development approval was approved by HPC about a year ago. A sub-grade basement would be constructed under the historic house and a rear addition. The applicant has discovered that the best way to preserve the historic structure would be to temporarily relocate the structure to the north side of the property and then move it back. The relocation would go into the right-of-way and staff recommends that an encroachment be applied for and a letter o f credit. Steev Wilson said we are positive that the building can be moved because it has been moved in the past. We have our tree permits in place and we have a temporary ditch protection plan. 1 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14,2014 Patrick asked ifthe new trees would be the same size and put in the same location. Steev said new trees are being proposed because some of them are encroaching on the ditch. The area is over planted and some of the trees are sick. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion ofthe agenda item was closed. MOTION: John moved to approve resolution #12 as written; second by Nora. Patrick made a friendly amendment that the city forester be involved with the plantings once the dwelling is put back in place. All in favor of the motion and friendly amendment, motion carried 6-0. 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen - Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review, Public Hearing Debbie Quinn said the affidavit of public notice is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I. Sara Adams said the project is a 27,000 square foot lot and borders Main Street, Garmish and Bleeker. It is zoned mixed us along Main Street and R-6 along Bleeker and has the LP overlay. HPC voted 4-3 in favor ofthe project at conceptual. The majority of the hearings were centered around the design ofthe free market component of the project during conceptual. It ended with flat roofs for the free market residential units. It then went to the Planning & Zoning Commission to get a referral to City Council for the PUD review, zoning and subdivision. P&Z felt they didn't have enough time to work on the project and there were some time lines in the land use code and the applicant requested that the project just go to council to get their feedback so that they could meet their growth management deadlines. P&Z did not vote in favor ofthe project. The project changed a lot. There are three free market units that are configured more like single family homes on Bleeker Street. There was feedback from councilmen Art Daily to not have flat roofs but that was left up to HPC at this hearing. The maximum height is set at 25 feet and the overall floor area is set by City Council and the configuration ofthe buildings is set by City Council and the site plan. Tonight, HPC can approve the selection of materials for the massing that has been approved; the fenestration and types of windows, landscaping and lighting. There 2 ' 1 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 were four condition in the ordinance that city council wanted HPC to consider during final. 1. Front doors for all the residences face Bleeker Street 2. Prominent front porch that met the residential design standards 3. Reduce the amount of glazing 4. Review the roo f forms Sara said Council wanted HPC to look at the gable roof style. Gabled roofs are being presented tonight and staff supports the gabje roofs. The P&Z approved the growth management. HPC is the last board to review this project. This project is subject to two sets of design guidelines; the Main Street historic district and the smalllodge character design guidelines. Recommendations: Sara said all four items that City Council identified are met. The front porches are facing Bleeker and they actually exceed what the design standards ask for. They have reduced the amount of glazing and changing the roof forms makes it seem more residential in feel than what was previously shown to Council. The glazing in the gable end is appropriate and adds interest to the proposed buildings. Sara said the landscape plan is simple. There isn't a lot of room for the landscaping and what is proposed is appropriate. There is a pedestrian amenity space along Main Street that is new along the pool. The details of the pavers and fence can be reviewed by staff and monitor. The City Council ordinance does require parallel parking along Garmisch St. and does require a detached sidewalk. Staff finds that the landscaping plan meets guideline 7.22,7.33 and 5.17. They did not include a lighting plan in this application. We don't always receive lighting plans when we have large developments like this. lt is appropriate for staff and monitor review the plan and the lighting fixtures. This project is consistent with other projects ofthis size where a lighting plan is to be approved and reviewed by staff and monitor. Ifthere are any concerns it would come back to the board. Fenestration: They are proposing a combination of wood./metal and glass for the lodge and affordable housing building. Staff is in support o f the proposed materials and the window configuration o f the windows for the lodge. The wood and simple detail is consistent with what is on Main Street. It meets guideline 7.16 and 7.20. The texture and dimensions that are proposed relates to the wood and different clapboard siding that exists on Main Street. 3 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 Sara said the free market residential has a similar palate but a different application in which we find appropriate. They are proposing wood rain screen, metal standing seam roof and metal windows for the three residences. There is also minimal eave detail. Guideline 5.11,5.15 5.16 and 7.21 are met. Standing seam metal roofs are typically approved for new construction. Staff is recommending approval of the project with conditions. Sara said there were two letters from Junee Kirk and one e-mail from Sherrie Cutler - Exhibit II. Jay said Council wants us to approve a roof form and I only see one in the application. If this commission wants to see another option can we move that way? Sara said it is within your purview to review the roof form but the applicant is proposing the option that they prefer and that Council prefers. Willis asked staff why Council wants the HPC to review the roof form when they are comfortable with it. Sara said the drawings were in sketch form when Council saw them and I know Council respects LIPC's design abilities and they recognize that they are not a design board. After seeing the sketch they felt it was appropriate to send it to the HPC board and it was something that I recommended knowing that once we got through Council sometimes designs change and knowing that they are set with three residences in that location and that FAR. Patrick said he watched it on TV and what was intended was that the City Council didn't see it, only sketches and they wanted to make sure that was implemented rather than for us to try and change it. Jay said if we move forward we aren't considering another option. Jay asked the HPC if they were comfortable moving forward. All agreed to move forward. Stan Clauson did a project overview. The project has had several sets ofapprovals. There was a lot of back and forth about the roof forms. We initially proposed a flat roof and some members o f the HPC thought gabled roofs would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. I believe staff felt that way as well. We proposed a gabled roof and at conceptual HPC chose a flat roof. Council felt that the gabled roofs were more in keeping and 4 1 , .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 created a more diminished aspect to the project. Council was not asking the HPC to revisit flat vs gable but to look at the overall form of the roof as it has been detailed and to determine that is consistent with what they had in mind and not go back to the flat vs. gable. The PUD, subdivision and zoning was approved by ordinance 51 and then we received growth management allotments for the three free market units and the 9 lodge rooms very recently at P&Z. The final project is 54 lodge units with an average size of 300 square feet. The small size ofthe rooms enables the applicants to use certain incentives that were in the code at the time for very smaillodge rooms. Three residential units are being proposed and those residential units are considerably reduced in size from what was originally proposed. The FAR was 10,500 square feet to 8,400 square feet. That occurred at City Council and it was their determination. This also includes three affordable housing units and we will look to receive credits for those additional FTE's that are being housed. Public amenity space and the Engineering Dept. does recommend parallel parking along Garmisch. There was discussion at every board level whether parallel parking was better than head in parking than the mixed parking which we originally proposed with halfthe block parallel and halfhead in parking. Council supported the Engineering recommendation and we moved forward on that basis. Looking at the context you see the reduced scale townhome and the faQade ofthe hotel along the east and south. In plan the units are considerable separated and a smaller footprint. Some o f that reduction in footprint has been achieved by putting space in subgrade areas. Andy Wisnosky, Poss Architecture Kim Weil, Poss Architecture Andy said with the roof forms we are quite happy with the current development and its shape. We maintained a clean architecture that we felt was important and something that relates to the architecture of the hotel. We didn't want something so desperately different. Sara did a good job in her presentation on the latest iterations. We heard loud and clear that they wanted something more residential and the gabled forms from the general public were the most appealing forms. We have maintained all the residential guidelines in height and mass and those elements that are required. The architecture keeps a clean look to it due in part from the materials and the way we detailed this building. Along Bleeker Street you are seeing primarily three materials, two types o f wood siding and both are a rain screen detail. The windows are metal clad and the edge details around the windows are a metal hood. There is a standing seam metal roof with some accent details around the surrounds ofthe windows. The chimneys are metal to match the roofs. On the sidewalks along Bleeker there is a low wall that creates an entrance 5 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 feature that is poured concrete. The fenestration is very simple. There is one small amount o f glass railing that is set back on the roo f deck on the middle unit. It is not very visible. Andy explained that the hotel is wood/concrete and a metal perforated rain screen element. There is a canopy over the entry on Main Street that has solar and is a nice entry for arrival. The base materials are a vertical butt joint wood siding. There are also the vertical rain screen railings to give it some translucency. We are relying on materials to carry on some dimensions and interest in the architecture. The idea that things are a little more modern relates to the fact that there is a modern building behind us. Sara said at the council meeting councilman Daily recommended that the three free market units look different. Staff feels the proposal is appropriate for the neighborhood. Stan pointed out that it was not a condition of approval. Jay explained the way the meeting will be handled. Questions for the applicant, public comment and then you will have a chance to speak for the last time. We used to have commissioner comments then have applicant rebuttal and that has been moved. Nora asked about the public amenity. Stan said the public can access the amenity from the Main Street sidewalk. There will be tables and chairs and the ability to sit out there and have some light service from the restaurant during certain limited hours. The other aspects ofthe public amenity spaces include improvements to the front area and sidewalks and the entire area of the parallel parking. Nora asked if the apple trees will be removed or replaced. Stan said most of the trees are currently there. There is an area where a dumpster was and one or two trees will be added at that location. Nora said on Bleeker Street it says shade trees but doesn't indicate what kind of trees. 6 I Â¥ .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 Stan said they would be aspen trees and omamental trees which would be crab apples at the various residences inside the property line. The front planting would be shrubs and perennials. Willis asked the applicant to explain the material selection to the HPC board on the hotel and residences. Andy said the vertical texture wood would be on the residence. Andy had display boards for the public and HPC to view. The rain screen occurs on the sides and it is a dark brownish grey color. The windows are dark in color and will recede. The metal roof will be a darker charcoal grey. Hotel- There will be vertical rain screen around the windows. There will be butt joint siding and some privacy elements between the outdoor spaces at the street level with low concrete walls. There is a glass wall at the entry way and steel columns in the entry ofthe hotel. Willis asked if the signage has been picked out on the entrance. Sara said they have to comply with the sign code and it has not been evaluated. John asked about the metal shadow boxes found on the lodge and residences. Andy said the metal will be a darker color metal and they create a little punch. They will tie to the metal in the design. Patrick asked if 7 trees on Bleeker and 12 trees on Garmisch and 7 trees on Main are accurate in the drawing. Stan said the elevation is accurate. It reflects the existing trees on Main Street and most of the trees on Garmisch and most ofthe trees on Bleeker with the exception ofthe trees that would be added. Behind the cottonwoods on Main Street are some various evergreens and aspen trees and those would be removed and replaced because they are actually growing into the cottonwoods and disrupting the cottonwood canopy. Patrick asked if evergreens would be replaced with evergreens. Stan said we are actually not proposing evergreens because the cottonwoods are so full and to allow them to develop their natural habit rather than having large 7 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14,2014 evergreens as currently exist there we were looking more toward putting in some trees that would be ofa deciduous nature. We haven't identified them because of the proximity to the cottonwoods we would work with the Parks Department to make sure whatever we did was consistent with maintaining their requirements. Patrick said he feels the evergreens are important to the character o f Main Street whether they are shrubs o f evergreens or tall trees. In the winter they show some life there instead ofdeciduous trees without any leaves. Willis asked about the glass wall and its location. Andy said it is at the curved entry wall of the hotel. That is the only location. Nora said City Council had asked for a reduction in glazing and I am wondering if that has been reduced. Are the elevations reflecting a reduction in glazing. Andy said we had proposed glazing from floor to ceiling and this proposal brings the glass up 2/1/2 to 3 feet above the floor line. You can see the reduction particularly on the sides of Garmisch. Jay asked if there are going to be other punched openings in the roofs besides the chimneys. Kim said there is the potential for plumbing vents. Jay asked about the little fences in the front of the residential units which are very urban. What is staff' s feeling about the fence. Sara said there is a percentage of transparency that is required but the solid portion doesn't span the entire front. I would have to check to make sure it meets our zoning requirements. As far as the design staff is in support of the design. Jay said the fence as drawn is not containing the yard, it is creating an entrance to the properly. Andy said the design is creating an entry to the property. Kim said it really isn't a fence and it covers up about ten feet of the front yard and you can walk around it easily. 8 , 1 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 Jay said he hasn't noticed the fence design here in Aspen. Most fences have a purpose. Stan said the zoning code has recently changed to allow a greater variety in fences and walls and these do meet the new code. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Jay asked the public to keep their comments to three minutes. We got Junee's letter and I ask that you not cover anything that is in the letter. Junee Kirk said she is a 47 year resident and served on the historic preservation commission. The designs, great, they belong in an Urban redevelopment center in Denver. Art Daily mentioned making those three houses to be each different and they are not. That has not been followed. Secondly I am very concerned along with 500 other citizens in the community who have signed a petition about the extraction of a 70 to 100 yearold tree. Ifthe applicants were sharp they would realizes that if they could keep that tree and sell one of those residence, wrap it around and re-design it. Two houses on Bleeker Street and one facing Garmisch Street and redesign the residence to at least keep the historic tree. Jay said we cannot change the site pian and Sara went through that very clearly. We can't change the site plan. Junee asked i f the applicant can change the site plan i f they wanted to. Jay said we cannot change the site plan at this hearing. Junee said according to the design guidelines residential should be retained at all possible and this is an important factor to soften the impact on the new lodge development and its interpretation in establishing its setting. Whenever possible existing mature trees, landscaping should be maintained by maintaining a high degree of landscaping on the lodge site would help a new building. The loss of existing mature trees reduces the historic value. All along Bleeker we have mature trees. All along Main Street we have mature trees. We are taking these all out little cottonwoods. You have here the design guidelines and I will give them to you that specifically say you should maintain those historic trees. You are the Historic Preservation Commission and there is much of our history and as much of the design ofthe building as the building and structure itself. These trees are key important. We can get many more signatures. These people are very upset about the removal ofthe trees. Now, talking about materials if you look up and down 9 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 Main Street and the West End every house along Main Street 90% of them are in wood, small clad wood boards and stone or brick. You haven't looked at the houses surrounding the area at all. They are all wooden with wooden frames. These houses are all metal. Metal roofs, metal fenestration on glass and metal doorways. It is very contemporary and out of place in an historic district. We have had new modern stuff put up there nicely and tastefully that are in wood not metal in stone and brick across the street. The Aspen Orthopedic building is wood and brick and mostly brick. There are a variety o f historic materials that can be used in this project but to cut cost we have this industrial look that you people are going to approve and you are an historic commission. I beg you to look at it and work with the applicant and see that there are many other ways that we can go about things. They can make more money if they redesigned the site plan or work it in around the tree. Jay said Junee was at five minutes and thanked her. Junee submitted letters one from Sherrie Cuttler and the petition. Junee said Art Daily's comment about having each individual free market different is being totally ignored. Jay asked Junee to pass the information out so he can continue on with the public comment. Jay thanked Junee for the material. Exhibit III, petition. Bert Myrin said he wants to speak to two issues that are on the table tonight, one is the glazing that was presented by staff and 1 request that you all look at it. At council the glazing that was presented is similar to what is there now. It seems like there is still quite a bit of glazing. Council gave you direction on glazing in the staff memo tonight to address that on page 2 ofthe staff memo. The second issue that I would like you to address is in the minutes ofthe council meeting, Art Daily, although it was not a condition of approval asked that the three buildings appear different from each other. He was the swing vote. In the staff packet the description is one paragraph and there is not a description for each of the three buildings meaning that they would be different. If you look at the three they seem fairly similar. They don't have what Art said "have fun with it" and I hope the applicants have fun at the HPC and that each one look different than the other. It doesn't seem like any fun is being had in any difference between the buildings. Those are the two things you have control over, the glazing and making the buildings look different. Chairperson Jay Maytin closed the public comment portion ofthe agenda item. 10 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 Stan said the trees along Main Street are the mature cottonwoods. The significant trees that are along each street parkway are being retained or enhanced. The one tree that seems to be an issue to Miss Kirk is the larger evergreen tree that actually has some deterioration and there would be a tree removal permit sought for that tree and we believe that is not a big issue and it is clearly part of the site plan that has been approved. We will be providing considerable additional plantings and new plantings to refresh the landscape appearance along each favade. The question of a di fferent design, Art Daily admitted that he was not an architect and not interested in dictating architectural design by any means. He made that comment but on the other hand it was not adopted as a condition of approval. We agree with staff that having consistency of design in these three townhouses is appropriate. The glazing was in fact reduced. In all we have responded to the conditions that were enumerated by council when they approved this project. Jay thanked the applicant. Jay pointed out the issues. The front doors ofthe residences all face Bleeker Street and that isn't an issue anymore. The porches meet the residential design guidelines and staff has represented that they went above and beyond that. The glazing is an issue that we should discuss. It isn't appropriate to do the roof forms because we only have one to look at. Jay said his concern is the color of the screens that the applicant mentioned that might cover the glass stairway etc. Being that it is a material we might have purview over the color of it. Maybe we should put some kind of language added to the resolution about the sign that Willis brought up. Willis mentioned the signage at Main Street and on the corner. The applicant probably doesn't know what will be there yet. Discussion: Patrick brought up the glazing, chimneys and windows. The chimneys look industrial because they are metal like the roofs. The glazing should be restricted by moving the chimneys around to go up the north side which is the cold side of the building. The guidelines said that the windows and fenestration should enhance the character o f the neighborhood and at present those particular shadow box windows significantly change the character from the Victorian style to something modern. The above changes would make the three units look more residential rather than industrial so that they fit in the neighborhood more. 11 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14,2014 John said he will address the concerns from the public. The majority ofthe residences material is wood and it is an expensive detailed wood. It is not tongue and groove or board and batten. They aren't cutting corners on material quality which I feel is commendable to put up such nice materials. Willis said the project shows a lot of refinement over the various iterations. I am in agreement with staff and entirely support the application. One comment is the refined detailing. On the hotel there is a great effort to create a frameless aesthetic between the hotel and residence. Frameless in regards to the handrails and glazing in the front of the hotel. It falls apart at the entrance of the hotel where metal mesh is holding the banner that identifies the hotel graphically. There is a big frame around it. The detailing could be more consistent and would unify the project. l'm not sure these comments need to be in the resolution as they are design comments. Willis said there is frustration when things are designed in a democratic setting. We should not be designing but criticizing design. Nora said she is stuck on four guidelines and they all relate to reflecting human scale largely around the windows. Guideline 5.11 talks about the massing ofthe building forms. Guideline 5.16 talks about the human scale. It is hard to tell from the renderings because what we see and what we pass and what we see on the street is never the same. The punch outs that occur all the way along this neighborhood are not here. I can't get beyond guideline 718, visual continuity along the street and maintain traditional window and door proportions. 1 don't find that the landscape plan talks enough about integrating with the setting. I also find that the fenestration is overwhelming. The gables are totally windowed out which I don't think you will see anywhere in that neighborhood. Sallie said she supports staff and the application. Sallie also agreed with Willis' s comment about the signage and the delicacy of the frameless architecture and carrying that through to the front entry. The monitor should be involved with the signage. The glazing has been reduced from all the renditions that she has seen before. Sallie also pointed out that she is not a developer. Willis also mentioned that Art Daily's suggestion that the three buildings appear differently he did not get any support from the meeting minutes even though he was the swing vote, none of the other council members reiterated that. Jay said the tree removal, setback variances and the site plan are not on the table. Jay said he appreciates the use of the high end materials. We are seeing more of 12 f .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 the screen type material. I also appreciate the applicant's ability to build a nice building that invites people in. As far as the three buildings not looking the same I would agree that they are similar in shape and size. The mullions in the center building glazing is different than the other two and that helps. I do not care for the large chimneys and their materials. The fences in the front are a concern of mine. Removing those big trees that create a barrier between the public and the pool and having the cafd and seating area is commendable and to me makes me want to support this application even more because we are retaining a smaillodge on Main Street and that is a goal of the City. This hotel will be an icon on the corner. I am sorry to hear that the Engineering Department is supporting parallel parking because the street can accommodate more cars there. The street is wide enough to accommodate the parking the way it is. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #13 and that staff and monitor approve the screening material and chimney material and design; motion second by John. Willis asked Jay to explain his thoughts on the chimneys. Jay said his issue is that the chimney is too tall and I question the necessity to have the chimneys. Willis and Sallie said the chimney helps make the design look more residential. Sallie made a friendly amendment that she can agree looking at the material but not to redesign the chimney. John said the code takes care ofthe height of the chimney. I am in favor of looking at the materials only. Jay did a straw poll vote as to who supports his motion or Sallie's amendment. Patrick, neither John, Sallie's change Willis, Sallie's change Nora, neither Jay, Jay's motion Sallie, Sallie's change 3-3 Willis said the decision is for staff and monitor on the chimney. 13 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14,2014 Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora, no; Willis, yes; John, yes; Patrick, no; Jay, yes. Motion carried 4-2. Sallie and John are the monitors. 100 E. Main - Minor Design and Minor Growth Management, Public Hearing Exhibit I -Debbie said the affidavit of posting is partially complete. Debbie said the notice is missing the mailing list and that should be provided to Amy by tomorrow morning, Amy said this is for a remodel that is non-historic located in the Main Street historic district. It was built in 1964 and is a 6,000 square foot lot. The building was constructed for medical office. They would like to do a portion ofthe second floor into one free market residential unit. HPC is asked to approve the minor development for exterior alterations to the building and the second is growth management mitigation. The changes on the building are at the front corner where the entry is now. There will be some window changes and a second story stairease to get to the free market unit. There will also be an elevator to provide accessibility to the second floor. Staff has no concerns with the design. There is one on-site parking and the applicant will have to pay the cash-in-lieu payment of $30,000. On the growth management part they are proposing a 2,000 square foot net livable free market unit. 30% ofthat square footage has to be provided in a deed restricted unit somewhere in town. We recommend that has changes come up to the landscaping for circulation and pathway to the elevator that those changes would be reviewed by staff and monitor. Staff recommends the approval ofthe change in use with the condition that the applicant provide the affordable housing credits as required. Kim Raymond, architect Garmisch has head in parking. On the side is where the elevator will go and the public bus stop is still there. It is our intent to increase the height ofthe planters to use as part of the drainage plan and it will be a better bench. The main change is adding the glass atrium on the second story which provides access to the second floor pent house. The recycling area will be enclosed. A sidewalk will go back from Main Street to the elevator for handicapped accessibility. The elevator in the back is for the two offices. We will keep the landscaping plan and in between the two buildings is a nice row of aspen trees which will be kept and we will add the 14 . 1 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 sidewalk along the edge and keep the shrubs that are against the building. The floor area will remain the same. Amy said if they can't work out the parking space in the back they will have to pay the cash-in-lieu. John said the design is creative. I would be in favor of an encroachment for a public amenity so that no matter how high you build the planter maybe a bench can be built in front of the wall. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion o f the agenda item was closed. Kim said they are keeping with the same materials. Patrick asked if there is anything regarding glazing that the board needs to be aware o f. Kim said we are going to match the windows that are there. The new addition upstairs will have transparent glass. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #14 for 100 E. Main Street. Staff and monitor to approve the circulation, right-of-way and landscaping. HPC grants the GMQS requirement change in use approval with the condition that the applicant provide affordable housing credits equal to 1-5 employees at a category four level; motion second by Sallie. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; John, yes; Patrick, yes; Jay, yes. Work Session - no minutes - 330 Gillespie Debbie said there is no recording of a work session. This meeting is just to run ideas past the commission for the applicant. There is nothing binding. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. â‚¬kfu-~-50Â« 140-Â« Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 15 35'6" 6' 9" 31' 28' , J 32' + + iN 3: f 1 $4 . 1 ., ht Â·il Â· 1 . . . 11.- 11.. 3 1 iN 1 1. i :,k: 1 -- C ./.Ill , tr i .1 1. + Â· We are committed to working with the City and the above design for 3 homes illustrates this. Â· Whatever the configuration, a residential component to the project is essential to pay for redevelopment of the lodge. . M .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: 110 West Main Street, Hotel Aspen- Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design review, Public Hearing DATE: May 14,2014 SUMMARY: The subject property is a 27,000 square feet lot that borders Main Street, Garmisch Street, and Bleeker Street. The property is currently zoned MU Mixed Use along Main Street, R- 6 Medium Density Residential along Bleeker Street; and the entire property has the LP Lodge Preservation Overlay. The applicant proposes to demolish the majority of the existing lodge and to construct a mixed use project that includes lodge (54 rooms), affordable housing (3 units) and free market residential (3 units) uses. The applicant requests Final design review from the HPC. This is the last step in the land use process prior to submitting a building permit. Previous approvals associated with the project are described below. There are significant changes from HPC's conceptual design approvals in 2013. The primary change, and the focus of HPC's discussion and City Council's discussion, is the free market residential component. City Council's review of the PUD resulted in 3 detached free market residential units that are not to exceed a maximum of 25' in height, which is consistent with the surrounding R-6 Zone District. The lodge component is largely unchanged. Parking along Garmisch is required to be parallel and the sidewalk is required to be detached. HPC is asked to review specific aspects of the free market residential buildings in addition to the typical final design review issues: materials, fenestration, architectural details, and landscape. Staff finds that the design guidelines are met and recommends that HPC grant final major development and final commercial design review approvals. APPLICANT: Hotel Aspen, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Poss Architecture and Planning. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-61-800. ADDRESS: 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: Mixed Use/Lodge Preservation overlay Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 1 of 7 M . .. EXISTING CONDITIONS/ PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The hotel currently contains 45 lodge rooms and 1 onsite 2-bedroom affordable housing unit. The affordable housing unit was approved in 1984 when the lodge was converted from the Nugget Lodge to the Hotel Aspen. The proposed project has received Conceptual design approvals from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) via Resolution #14, Series of 2013. The P&Z heard the project twice: the first hearing was extensive background and explanation of the project by the applicant. and the second hearing included staff recommendations. The applicant requested a decision at the second hearing: P&Z voted 3-1-1 in denial of the project. A PUD plan, Subdivision, and Rezoning to MU/LP was granted by City Council via Ordinance #51, Series of 2013. The project was granted Growth Management approvals on April 15,2014 via Resolution 6, Series of 2014. ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2013, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Due to the extensive changes to the free market residential portion of the project from HPC Conceptual approval, the City Council ordinance included a recommendation that 1-IPC consider the following during Final design reviews: 1) Front doors for all residences shall face Bleeker Street. 2) A front porch that meets the Residential Design Standards shall be provided on Bleeker Street for all residences. 3) Reduce the amount of glazing. 4) HPC shall review the roof forms during Final design reviews. Staff Response: Staff finds that items 1 -4 are met with the current proposal. There are front door and front porches of an adequate size (the requirement is a minimum of 6' deep and 50 square feet (sf) in size: the proposal is 11' deep and 90 sf in size) facing Bleeker Street. The applicant has reduced the amount of glazing proposed to be more representative of a residential use than an office use. The gable roof forms are consistent with City Council's feedback and the surrounding neighborhood. FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW: Major Development and Commercial Design review is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope o f the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. The procedure for Final Major Development Review and Commercial Design Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 2 of 7 . .. report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the design guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. For new development in the Main Street Historic District, the guidelines found in the 2007 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines - specifically the Main Street Historic District guidelines and the Small Lodge Character Area guidelines (attached as exhibits a and b) along with relevant preservation guidelines within the City Of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines are applied. Commercial design review must address the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose c,f the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards, Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviationfrom the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the faqade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent ofthe guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. STAFF RESPONSE: A list of the relevant Commercial design guidelines is included in the application. Historic Preservation Guidelines to consider are listed at "Exhibit A.' Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and selection of new materials. The applicant resolved the public amenity and utility area requirements during Conceptual HPC Review and during the PUD review at City Council. Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 3 of 7 .. Landscape plan: The applicant proposes a simple landscape plan with pockets of trees and plantings for both the lodge and the free market residential components. The pedestrian amenity space that was approved by HPC during conceptual review is located along Main Street near the pool area. The details of this space - paver materials, specific landscaping, fence along Main Street - are not specified in the application. Staff recommends that Staff and Monitor review and approve the paver materials, material and design of the fence for both the residences and lodge, and landscaping for this area. Paver material for the walkways also need to be specified Considering the scale of this project, Staff finds that it is appropriate to handle these small issues as conditions of approval. The City Council ordinance requires parallel parking along Garmisch Street and a detached sidewalk as shown on the landscape plan. Staff is supportive of the proposed landscape as noted and finds that the following guidelines are met: 7.22 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: â€¢ Enhance the street scene â€¢ Integrate the development with its setting â€¢ Reflect the quality of the architectural material 7.23 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk. 5.17 Maintain a high degree of landscaping on a lodge site. â€¢ The location of a new building should minimize the loss of existing mature tree cover and landscaping. â€¢ Also include additional tree planting and landscaping within front and side yard areas. Lighting: A lighting plan is not proposed as part of the application. Staff recommends that Staff and Monitor review and approve the lighting fixtures and lighting plan as a condition of approval to confirm that the following guidelines are met: 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple and character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. Fenestration/ Materials/ Details: Lodge/Affordable Housing Buildings: The applicant proposes a combination of wood, metal and glass for the lodge/affordable housing buildings (a cut sheet is provided as sheet 19 of the application). Staff is supportive of the proposed materials and fenestration for the lodge. The wood and simple details relate to typical materials that are found in the Main Street Historic District with a contemporary application. Staff is supportive of the metal accents which provide interest and definition for the lodge Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 4 of 7 , .. buildings. The concrete board formed walls proposed for the chimney add texture and a cohesive palette of materials from the same genre. All of the materials are high quality and are durable in the local environment. The application and dimensions of the materials, fenestration and details relate to the pedestrian and the neighborhood. Staff finds that Guidelines 7.16,7.17,7.20,5.11, 5.15 and 5.16 are met. 7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. â€¢ These include windows, doors and porches. â€¢ Overall, details should be modest in character. 7.17 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. â€¢ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. â€¢ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged. 7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. â€¢ When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials and their placement. Free Market Residential: The applicant proposes wood rain screens, metal standing seam roof and metal windows for the 3 residences. Minimal eave details and simple, clean architectural details are proposed. The proposed materials address traditional materials used throughout the residential neighborhood, historic district, and the application of the materials and architectural details make subtle references to the residential context. Staff finds that the front porches, window placement and massing convey a human scale that reflects the character of the neighborhood. All proposed materials are high quality and durable in the local environment. Staff finds that Guidelines 5.11, 5.15,5.16, and 7.21 are met. 5.11 To reduce the perceived mass and scale of a building, the design should respect the setting and reflect the human scale and character of the neighborhood. This shall be achieved through all of the following: â€¢ The varied massing ofbuilding forms. â€¢ The articulation of the fagde(s) through a varied roof profile â€¢ The articulation of the faQade through varied wall planes â€¢ The use of a variation in architectural materials, and detailing. 5.15 High quality, durable materials should be employed. â€¢ The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and approved as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of materials as required. 5.16 Building materials should have these features: â€¢ Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically. â€¢ Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest ofthe fagade. â€¢ Convey human scale. â€¢ Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate. 7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 5 of 7 , .. The HPC may: â€¢ approve the application, â€¢ approve the application with conditions, â€¢ disapprove the application, or â€¢ continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that 1-IPC approve the project with conditions: 1. The free market residential units along Bleeker Street are approved as designed. 2. Public Amenity Space: a. Staff and Monitor to review and approve the paver material and design for the public amenity space along Main Street. b. Staff and Monitor to review and approve the fence design and material along Main Street 3. Lighting: a. Staff and Monitor to review and approve a lighting plan and light fixtures for the project (lodge and residential uses). 4. This project is subject to the approvals granted in City Council Ordinance #51, Series of 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution # 6, Series of 2014, and HPC Conceptual Resolution #14, Series of 2013. 5. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan. and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 6 of 7 4 .. Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 110 West Main Street, Hotel Aspen. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Exhibits: A, Small Lodge Character Area Final Review Design Guidelines B. Main Street Historic District Final Review Design Guidelines C. Application Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 7 of 7 0 L .. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN (FINAL) APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 W. MAIN STREET, HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #13, SERIES OF 2014 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-61-800 WHEREAS, the applicant, Hotel Aspen, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Poss Architecture and Planning. has requested Major Development (Final) and Commercial Design (Final) for the property located at 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen Condominiums, City and rownsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, development affecting the southern half of the property is within the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission because the property is located in the Main Street Historic District. The existing structures are not considered contributing resources within the Historic District; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be created, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the 1 1PC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, although the northern half of the property is not located within the Main Street Historic District, Commercial Design Review of this portion of the proposed development was delegated to I IPC to consolidate design review at one review board; and WHEREAS, for Final Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, ofthe Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The l-IPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and RECEPTION#: 610508, 05/21/2014 at 11:08:32 AM, 110 W. Main 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION HPC Resolution #13, Series of2014 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Page 1 0 f 3 Â¥ .. WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinacne #51, Series of 2013 approving a PUD plan, granting Subdivision approval and rezoning the underlying zone district of the entire parcel to Mixed [Jse; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution #6, Series of 2014 granting Growth Management allotments for 18 lodge pillows, 3 free market residential units, and 3 affordable housing units; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated May 14,2014, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards are met and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 14, 2014 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of 4 to 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Final) and Commercial Design (Final) for the property located at 110 W. Main Street, I lotel Aspen Condominiums, City and lownsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. The free market residential units along Bleeker Street are approved as designed. 2. Public Amenity Space: a. Staff and Monitor to review and approve the paver material and design for the public amenity space along Main Street. b, Staff and Monitor to review and approve the fence design and material along Main Street 3. Lighting: a. Staff and Monitor to review and approve a lighting plan and light fixtures for the project (lodge and residential uses). 4. Staff and Monitor shall review and approve the chimney material and design for the free market residential units. 5. Staff and Monitor shall review and approve the finish of the metal screen material. 6, This project is subject to the approvals granted in City Council Ordinance #51, Series of 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution # 6, Series of 2014, and HPC Conceptual Resolution #14, Series of 2013. 7. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). 110 W. Main HPC Resolution #13, Series of 2014 Page 2 of 3 1 4 .. Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 110 West Main Street, Hotel Aspen Condominiums, City of Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(Ah The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of May, 2014. Â£cf~II~/':;:V~~~~~llair Approved as to Form: ..n 4 09021 L- Debbie (>uiln, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: /41-l -1 1<:22'~~ A f c t. 1 < Kathy Stritidand, Chief Deputy Clerk 110 W. Main HPC Resolution #13, Series of 2014 Page 3 of 3 D Â¢ .. Continued Meeting Aspen City Council March 17,2014 Mayor Skadron called the special meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Frisch, Romero and Daily present. Mayor Skadron introduced Rolando Galli, Abetone, Italy. Abetone and Aspen are working on a sister city relationship ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2013 - Hotel Aspen PUD/Subdivision Sara Adams. community development department, reminded Council at the last meeting, March lott the applicant proposed a reduction in height and floor area to the westerly free market residential unit and a slight decrease to the floor area. Ms. Adams said this proposal requires Council to find that the PUD review criteria are met, that the project is balanced and there are appropriate trade offs for the dimensional variances requested. Ms. Adams said there has been concern about the overall site and staff finds that the reduction ofjust one building does not meet the compatibility criteria. Ms. Adams stated this is a good project that will benefit the community by updating and adding lodge rooms. Ms. Adams said staff has two options for Council and the applicant to consider; (1) reduce height ofthe middle free market unit as well to 25' which meets the underlying zone district, (2) reduce height of the middle unit to 25' in the front of the building and 31' on the back of the site. Ms. Adams stated staff does not support the option presented by the applicant at the last meeting where only one free market unit was lowered and had less floor area. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, reminded Council last week the applicant presented a change moving the westerly unit's floor area into the sub grade, creating separation and reducing the height of the unit to 25, which meets the R-6 height requirements. The other two units were unchanged at that time. Clauson said option 1, reducing the other unit, would eliminate net livable and the ability to have the incentive provided by the land use code. Clauson said option 2 could be a possibility with 25' on the first half of the building and a third story on the rear. Clauson noted the hotel portion of the project has been brought forward 5', still conforming to the height and setback limits, to provide slightly larger rooms on the third floor. The variance requested under the PUD is cumulative floor area, 2600 square feet over the special review maximum. Clauson pointed out there are 4 elements of this development; 54 lodge units at an average size of 300 square feet, 2000 square feet of affordable housing, residential component, and the amenity space for the hotel, all of these made up the cumulative floor area. The free market component allowable in the code is intended to be the incentive for a lodge project. The lodging is within the special review maximum; free market residential is under the allowable floor area; there is no variance requested for the affordable housing. The lodge units are consistent with the average unit size at 300 square feet; the residential unit size is 4400 square feet a piece and is an appropriate configuration in 3 separate units. Councilman Romero asked 1 , 4 .. Continued Meeting Aspen City Council March 17, 2014 about eliminating some or all of the affordable housing units. Clauson reminded Council the discussion has been focused on the residential units on Bleeker street. Removing affordable housing square footage would not change the residential size. The affordable housing is incorporated into the lodge building. Councilman Daily questioned the references to special review and how is it incorporated into the process. Ms. Adams said the issue is the base line being used to compare the numbers; in a PUD review, one has to figure out where the variations are compared to what is allowed in the underlying zone district. The MU zone allows certain floor area increases by going through special review at P&Z. In a PUD process, which this project is required to go through, there is no need for special review because the PUD establishes the dimensional requirements. Special review is similar to PUD but less detailed; special review for this project did not happen nor is it required. Mayor Skadron said he has worked on some formulas that would result in increased lodge rooms as well funds to finance a redevelopment at a depth to cost ratio, which Council can discuss at the lodge incentive work session. Mayor Skadron said this project will result in more cold beds than beds added to the lodge inventory. Mayor Skadron stated an unintended consequence of the lodge incentive program is an immediate return of free market development rather than a long term return of a hotel operation. Mayor Skadron said it is the role of the city to make an effort to get more lodge rooms through the incentive program. Mayor Skadron stated this proposal does not satisfy the review criteria; the appropriate balance between incentivized lodge redevelopment and preserving the residential mass and scale has not been maintained. Mayor Skadron said the cost of building an entire hotel contains efficiencies that are lost when a hotel include free market footage. Councilman Daily said the lodge project is creative and ambitious and something in the best interest of the community. Councilman Daily said his issue is to meet the minimum contextual criteria required of the free market and the neighborhood. Councilman Daily pointed out the proposed floor area is about 35% above what is allowed in the MU zone for the free market and 22% above what is allowed in the MU for the lodge portion. Councilman Daily stated if one is talking about context for PUD considerations, you have to start with what is allowed in the R-6 zone as the residential neighborhood is R-6. The R-6 zone would allow two single family homes of 2,000 square feet livable each, total 4,000 square feet. This proposal is 10,000 square feet, which is more than double what would be allowed. Councilman Daily stated the staff options do not go far enough. Councilman Daily reminded Council his suggestion was all 3 units should be reduced 700 or 800 square feet for a total FAR reduction of 2,000 square feet leaving 8400 square feet above grade and double what is allowed in the R-6 zone but is more representative of the neighborhood. Councilman Daily said the project has to be buildable. affordable and financeable and last for years. Councilman Daily stated his view on the appropriateness ofthe project has not changed since the last meeting. 2 . I .. Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council March 17,2014 Councilman Daily said he also will not support any further reduction in underground parking spaces. Clauson pointed out 6,000 square foot lots are generally the lot size for development in the west end and that allows 3240 square feet floor area and equates to a larger net livable of 4500 to 500 square feet. This would result in over 10,000 square feet. Clauson said the LP overlay would allow a two or three story lodge to be developed along Bleeker street. Clauson noted the easterly unit which is full height is only 1'9" larger than the R-6 and allows for a third story. The land use code provides on this parcel for the proposed amount of hotel development, 60% residential free market. Mayor Skadron said a hotel built at 27,000 square feet with 300 square foot rooms, subtracting the common space necessary would result in 70 hotel rooms. With a lodge incentive program, the city should be doing all possible to incentivize hotel rooms and not driving people to be residential developers. Clauson pointed out this would require a hotel building along Bleeker street, not residential units. Clauson said this type of hotel development is not financeable. Brown said the code amendment oil lodge incentives depending on experts and using real scenarios came up with what it would take in order to finance lodge development. Brown pointed out nothing new has been built with the lodge incentive in place. Councilman Romero said in the Aspen Area Community Plan most recent update, which took 4 years, one of the quality of life statements is trying to maintain a visitor-based economy and to affirm Aspen is a tourist-based economy. One of the key ingredients of a tourism-based economy is the bed base with a range of accessible rooms, inexpensive to luxury rooms. Councilman Romero said Aspen has lost many tourist beds. A consistent message through the AACP update is the need to protect the bed base, especially in the small lodge category. One of the goals of the AACP was to "minimize the further loss of lodging inventory". Councilman Frisch agreed there is concern about protecting the west end and also losing too many hotel beds. Clauson stated the free market units will not be the end of the west end; they are attractive units that will contribute to the quality of the west end. Clauson urged Council to think about the land use code in place, the incentives that are in place, and adhere to those. Council took a 5 minute break. Ms Adams told Council the applicant has agreed to amend the proposal to have all 3 of the free market residential buildings be 25' in height - the maximum height allowed in the R-6 zone, which allows a two-story building. HPC will review the roof forms when they review the project for final design. Councilman Daily asked the proposed floor area for all 3 buildings. Clauson said the floor area will be the same for all 3 buildings. Ms. Adams said the allowable floor area will be 8400 square feet down from 9700 square feet. Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. 3 , 4 .. Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council March 17,2014 Greg Irwin said this project should be in compliance. Carolyn Landis said she likes the 25'; she does not want to lose the lodge as it is much needed. Maurice Emmer said he supports the lodge project as Aspen needs lodges; however, there is value in saying "no" and it takes saying no to get to yes. Emmer said there is a code and developers should come in with projects that comply rather than have meeting after meeting. Junee Kirk said the context of the lodge is not in character with the neighborhood at three stories and Council should not approve the application. Ms. Kirk said there is no cross section of elevations or overlays in the file. Ms. Kirk said this building should fit in with the context and style of the neighborhood. Loretta Durose, owner of a lodge on Long Island, said the code is law and Council is being asked to break the law; laws are there for a reason and it is Council's job to enforce them. David Bentley said this is a case of gigantism and it is very inappropriate for the neighborhood. Sheryl Goldenberg said other neighborhoods are upset over the variances and it is not fair to give developers variances. Bert Myrin handed out a proposed ordinance containing dimensional requirements which are similar to those Council is considering adopting, like two story on the residential buildings and reduction ofthe cumulative floor area. Myrin suggested if more underground parking spaces are lost, these could be recaptured by changing the parallel parking on Garmisch to head in. Myrin said Council should send the message that applicants must adhere to the code rather than go through 18 months of meetings with a project that does not meet the code. Marcia Goshorn said she appreciates the developer going to two stories on the residential units so they fit better in the neighborhood. Ms. Goshorn said codes should be written to specify exactly what would be allowed so that negotiating sessions are eliminated. Ron Domain, 114 East Bleeker, said the yellow brick is a great amenity and has been a great ambassador for Aspen. Domain said he would like to see a physical representation ofthis, like story poles. Domain said he understands variances have to happen and he would like to know what benefit they are bringing to the community. Joanie LeBac congratulated everyone for listening respectfully and to the applicant for their good will. Cynthia Milling said she is excited about this project and it will help Aspen in the long run. Mary Hayes said approving this will set a dangerous precedent for the community. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. Clauson said the applicants are going along with the reduction in height and floorareaonthe 3 residences and they will be conforming in height and have a 2 story quality. Clauson said the parallel or head in parking is not their request. This is city property and is a request of the engineering department, although the applicants would prefer head in parking. Trish Aragon. engineer. told Council head in parking is the number 1 cause of accidents. This area is important because of its proximity to bus stop and to the yellow brick. The city needs to make sure the parking is designed in a safe manner. 4 , e . Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council March 17,2014 Mayor Skadron brought up the fee waiver request of $91,000 for parks and transportation demand management. Mayor Skadron pointed out neither city department supports the request for fee waivers. Affordable housing is fully mitigated on site. Councilman Frisch said he would like the applicants to pay those fees. Councilman Romero said he is okay with waiving the fees. Clauson stated the applicants are taking a financial hit on the free market units and the fee waivers would be helpful. Councilman Daily said it is not a large number in the context of things and he would like the fees paid. Mayor Skadron stated he does not support fee waivers. Mayor Skadron said if this moves forward at this meeting, there seems to be a final review Council is not getting and there isn't a clear picture of what will be on the site and there will be minimal impact on the west end. Ms. Adams pointed out Council is deciding the dimensional requirements, mass height, floor area, setbacks will be adopted in a site specific approval. If Council approves the project, P&Z will conduct a growth management review to calculate the affordable housing and how it is mitigated; HPC will conduct a final design review on materials, window sizes, landscaping, etc. Both those meetings will be public hearings and noticed in the paper. Councilman Frisch said his concern is to make sure Aspen retains its small town character while realizing tourism is an economic driver. Councilman Daily said he appreciates the applicant's willingness to listen to Council. Councilman Daily said he would like the 3 buildings to appear different from each other. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #51, Series of 2013, amended that the 3 free market residences comply with the 25' height limit in R-6 zone and comply with the 8400 square feet of FAR as represented by the applicant and that the request for fee waivers is denied; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Ms. Adams pointed out the maximum cumulative floor area will be reduced by the reduction of the free market residential. Councilman Romero amended his motion to include the maximum cumulative floor area be reduced to 35,500 square feet and that HPC will review the roof forms during final review; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Mayor Skadron thanked the applicant for the concessions and the public for their comments. Mayor Skadron stated he will vote against this as he is concerned about the precedential nature of it and that the appropriate balance between lodge incentivization and preserving the mass and scale ofthe neighborhood was satisfied. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, no. Motion carried. 5 . .. Continued Meeting Aspen City Council March 17,2014 Councilman Daily moved to adjourn at 7:25 p.ill.; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn Koch City Clerk 6 .. June 13,2014 Bert Myrin P.O. Box 12365 THE CITY OF AsPEN Aspen, CO 81612 RE: APPEAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Dear Mr. Myrin, As required per Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.316.030 D., Appeal Procedures, Notice Requirements, notice is hereby given that a public meeting will be held on Monday July 14, 2014, to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. The purpose of the meeting is to consider Ms. Steele's appeal of an action taken by the Historic Preservation Commission. The attached notice will be published in the Aspen Times on June 19,2014. For further information, please feel free to contact me at 970.429.2778 or by email at sara.adams@cityofaspen.com. A memo will be provided to you prior to the hearing. Sincerely, Sara Adams Senior Planner 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 .. .. SMA A A-FFIDAVIT OF P UBLIC NOTICE , REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: \CO W. Ficuu g , Aspent CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 8040.3 4.-al \ 4 1 t 6*00pm , 2011* STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 4 --1 el* Sce,=-1 (name, plcasd print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public healing. A copy ofthepublication U attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted-at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20__, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached Â·hereto. Mailing of notice, By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information descibed in Section 26,304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days pior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mailto all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the , property,subject to the development application. The names and addresses of ''. r Lptoperty owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they !- : 1 Â®jidared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A .... .copy.ofthe owners and governmentalagencies so noticedis attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conductdd prior to tile first public healing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method ofpublic notification and a copy Of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) . .. Mineral Estate Owner Notice, By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the ~ date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of Â·development The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or P-UDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially , Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any ~ way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land uss regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing o f names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection :in the planning agehcy during all business hours for fifteal (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ~,4â€¢5 -e~41 ~-~ Signatd; The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this M day of Riuvu-- , 20__, by A-417â‚¬14 Se w-<-7 PUBUC NOnCE WnNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL RE:APPEAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing ~ My commission expires: al (64 [ 9 will be held on Monday, July 14, 2014, to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., I A4pen, to considef an appeal d an actfon taken by i the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission %2!: l':;1 mt:%:ig WZ*:~Nk? ?Z i? ~ %Â«A 4-01 -4*Â»a/1 velopment. The affected properly Fs legally de- Notary Public scribed as 110 W, MaÂ¥1 Street, Hotel A,pen Con- ......V..W....t--&~ dominiums, CIty and Townsite of Aspen. The ~ KAREN REED PATTERSONI appeal is submitted by Julianne Steele of 121 West Bleeker Street, Aspen CO 81611. For further In- NOTARY PUBLIC formallon, contact Sara Adams at the City 01 As- pen Community Devdopment Department, 130 S. ~ STATE OF COLORADO Galina St., Aspen, CO 970.429.2778, or by email ~ NOTARY ID #19964002767 at sara.adams@cltyolaspen.com. ~ s/Steven Skadrun, Mayor ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: Aspen CIty Council E PUBLICATION l.192mission~x~r~tfebruary 15, 2016~j, Published Iii Ihe Aspen Times on Juno 19, 2014 (10285258) Cl!Â£0-AsemdED'39~-- OF TILE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) 9 1.â€¢10 1 wÂ· Â£22 OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 .. May 27,2014 Attn: City of Aspen Community Development Department RE: Appeal to City Council of the 5/14/14 HPC approval ofthe Ilotel Aspen This letter is to request an appeal to City Council of the 5/14/14 HPC approval ofthe Hotel Aspen. By this letter I authorize Bert Myrin as my representative in this appeal. The basis of the appeal is twofold. First, that HPC failed to provide due process procedures to two issues raised by City Council and by public comment at the 5/14/14 HPC meeting. Second, that HPC exceeded its discretion by failing to review the two issues raised by City Council and by public comment at the 5/14/14 HPC meeting. The two issues relate to reducing the glazing on the residences and making the three residences appear different from each other. References to the record below include the 3/17/14 council meeting & minutes, the 5/14/14 HPC staff memo, and the 5/14/14 HPC meeting & yet to be approved minutes. The data provided to HPC only enabled a rubber stamp of approval. No clear procedures were followed in what proved to be a lack of procedures and analysis in both the staff memo and, more importantly a lack of procedures and analysis on these two issues by HPC in the decision making process. The HPC staff memo included a recommendation to HPC to consider the following during Final design review of which item number 3 was "Reduce the amount of glazing. The response of staff was "The applicant has reduced the amount of glazing proposed to be more representative of a residential use than an office use." See pg 2 of 5/14/14 HPC Staff Memo. No further mention or analysis of before and after sketches of glazing was provided in the staff memo to help HPC members give due process or full discretion to the issue of glazing. The HPC staff memo did not include the minutes from the city council meeting. Page 5 of the 3/1 7/14 council minutes indicate: "Councilman Daily said he would like the 3 buildings to appear different from each other." The HPC staff memo gave no mention or analysis of the request by Councilman Art Dail>' s to help HPC members give due processor full discretion to the issue of making the three buildings appear different from each other. The combined total time for two members of the public to comment at the 5/14/14 HPC meeting, from opening to closing of public comment was about 8 minutes 50 seconds. The chair opened by with a restriction that nothing that had been written in letters to the HPC be covered by letter authors in public comment: "This is a public hearing, is there anyone here from the public that would like to make a comment? Junee, I see your hand, we are way over time on this application so I'm going to ask that you keep your comments to three minutes and Junee, we got your letter, 1 ask that vou don't cover anything that is in your letter [emphasis added], please." Junee Kirk said, among other things that "Art Daily had mentioned making those three houses, and I have the notes to go, free market houses to be each different and they are not so that hasn't been followed." Bert Myrin spoke at public comment and said 'My name is Bert Myrin. I want to speak to two issues that I think are the table tonight. One is glazing that I think was presented by staff and requested that you alllook at. If you look at what was presented at council which Stan showed you I have a copy as well but it hard to see from there. You'll see the glazing presented at council on those houses was probably not any less than, I mean it is similar to what is there now, I don't think it was reduced. So you can ask about the square footage and see what was reduced but it seems like there is quite a bit of glazing still. And those drawings from council. Glazing was one of the issues that council gave you direction in the staff memo tonight to address on page 2 of your staff memo, # 3 on page 2. The second issue that I'd like you to address is in the minutes that I handed out at the council meeting, although it was not a condition of approval, he was the swing vote, he asked that the three buildings appear different from each other. You'll notice in your staff packet the description of the three buildings is all in one paragraph. There is not a description for each 1 of 3 .. of the three meaning that they would be different. Also. if you look at the three they seem fairly similar. They don't have what Art said, I think he had hoped you would have fun with it. He said I hope the applicants have fun at HPC and make each one look different than each other. It doesn't seem that there is any fun being had and any difference between the buildings. Those would be the two things I think you have control over the glazing and making the buildings look different. I hope you'll do both of those." Above, you'll see the record of two requests from the 3/17/14 council minutes and the same two requests made at public comment. Below you'll see that there appears to be no procedures to even handily apply these two requests against established procedures with the result being an arbitrary decision without due process and beyond the discretion of the HPC. The italicized text below was typed by Bert from recording after the closing of LIPC public comments on 5/14/14. You can listen to the audio that Bert typed the italicized text from here: http://uuu.invrin.com/bigfiles/ Click on the link and once on the website right click on the website link and choose the "Save Target As" or "Save As" option that pops up to save the mp3 file locally to your computer. Once you have downloaded the file. double click to open the file with the audio player on your computer. Only one member of HPC referenced HPC Guidelines and this member voted against the approval. The other members were short on data and analysis on the issues of glazing and making the residential buildings appear different from each other. The text below attributed to particular HPC members is a rough outline having listened to the audio from the HPC meeting but not having read the approved version of the HPC minutes. Jay - closed public comment roughly 8 minutes 50 seconds after he opened it. Stan - Art Daily admitted that he was not an architect, and not interested in dictating architectural design by any means made that comment, there is no doubt about it, but on the other hand it was not adopted as a condition of approval and we agreed with staff that having consistency of design in these three townhouses is appropriate. The glazing was in fact reduced and I did show you the slide we used at city council that showed floor to ceiling glazing. So we think in all we have responded to the condition enumerated by council when they approved this project and I think there is some question whether Ms. Kirk actually served on HPC. Jay - is going to point out the issues. This is tough because council gave us a list of things to go over. The front doors. The porches meet standards. The glazing is an issue we should discuss. It is not appropriate to do the roofforms because we have only one to look at. I have one thing I want to bring up. The color of the screens that cover the stairways. My fear is lime green and#uorescent pink, Due to Willis' concern put some language in the resolution about signage. Patrick-the glazing and the chimneys. Most oj the glazing faces north which isn't beneficial. Make the three residential John -wanted to address public concern that the residences aren't wood. The majorityis wood and expensive detail wood. They are not cutting any corners with the material quality. It is commendable to put nice materials on. 2 of 3 .. Willis - I think the applicant likes this project. It shows a lot of refinement from the various iterations that were presented at city council. I'm entirely in agreement with stalfwith the rest of the application so I don't really think there's any issues Of the fore that council asked us to talk about worth discussing any more. The two comments I have is about the detailing which is what we are here to talk about. On the hotel there is a great effort to createframeless aesthetic. Itfalls apart at thefront entrance where metal mesh is holding the banner that identifies the hotel graphically. The entirefrustration of the whole process, from beginning to end, flat roofs and gabled roofs and express afrustration about design in the democratic setting. We shouldn't be designing things. We should be criticizing design. It creates an outcome that is normative and precludes excellence or any kind Of departure from accepted norms Of what uneducated people about design think is right. Nora - I'm stuck on four guidelines and they all relate to reflecting the human scale and largely around the windows. Guideline 5.11 which talked to what everyone said Art is talking about varied massing buildingforms. Varied architecture materials. 5.16 Human scale. These windows for me, and it is really hard to tell in these renderings because what we and what we pass and what we see on the street is never the same but I know that the things we pass that have been big and one dimensional look huge when they are up. The punch outs that occur all the way along this neighborhood are not here. So to me I can't get beyond 7.18 visual continuity along the street. Maintain traditional window and door proportions. I don'tfind the landscape plan talks to me enough about integrating with the setting. I 'm stuckon thosefour. Ifind thefenestrationis overwhelming. The gables are totally windowed out which I don't think you'll see anywhere in that neighborhood. Sally - Support staff in supporting the application. I want to support Willis about carrying through the frameless architecture to thefront entry. The monitor should beinvolved with the signage. Other than that I support sta#'s supportwith the application. I keep hearing Junee and I want to get out that I'm not a developer, I 'm in design and building. Willis - Councilman Dailv's sualzestion about three buildinES appearine differentiv. he didn't Het anv support based on these meetine minutes. even though he was the swine vote none of the other councilman reiterated that. temphasis added_J Sally - I recognize the glazing has been reduced from all the renditions that I've seen before. .Jay - the tree removal and setbacks are not on the table. I do disagree on the materials. I leaned over and asked John and said god this stuff looks expensive and high end and John acknowledged this and I appreciate this. I would agree that they are similar and shape and size. I notice the mullions in the center glazing being different than the other two and I think that helps. I do not care for the big tall chimneys and their material. In conclusion I'd ask that you re-read the first paragraph of this letter rather than repeating it here per a standard closing. Thank you. -Vulianne Steele Supporting documents from all Hotel Aspen Public Hearings are not attached because all are accessible as part of public records: Council Staff Packets, Council Minutes, Council Audio, HPC Staff Packets HPC Audio & minutes, Pitkin County Assessor record of Julianne Steele as owner at 121 W. Bleeker. 3 of 3 July 14, 2014 Council Packet, Exhibit B Page 11 Beginning of HPC Di~ssion after close of *lic Comment ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 Stan said the trees along Main Street are the mature cottonwoods. The significant trees that are along each street parkway are being retained or enhanced. The one tree that seems to be an issue to Miss Kirk is the larger evergreen tree that actually has some deterioration and there would be a tree removal permit sought for that tree and we believe that is not a big issue and it is clearly part of the site plan that has been approved. We will be providing considerable additional plantings and new plantings to refresh the landscape appearance along each fagade. The question of a different design, Art Daily admitted that he was not an architect and not interested in dictating architectural design by any means. He made that comment but on the other hand it was not adopted as a condition of approval. We agree with staff that having consistency of design in these three townhouses is appropriate. The glazing was in fact reduced. In all we have responded to the conditions that were enumerated by council when they approved this proiect. This is Wilere pll.0110 COmmerll- ended dild Jay thanked the applicant. HPC began discussing reducing glazing and making the three buildings appear different U Ulu eciC fl Ut-1151 Jay pointed out the issues. ine front doors of the residences all face Bleeker Street and that isn't an issue anymore. The porches meet the residential design guidelines and staffhas represented that they went above and beyond that. The glazing is an issue that we should discuss. It isn't appropriate to do the roof forms because we only have one to look at. Jay said his concern is the color ofthe screens that the applicant mentioned that might cover the glass stairway etc. Being that it is a material we might have purview over the color of it. Maybe we should put some kind o f language added to the resolution about the sign that Willis brought up. Willis mentioned the signage at Main Street and on the corner. The applicant probably doesn't know what will be there yet. restricted was not used, Discussion: instead "restructured" Patrick brought up the glazing, chimneys and windows. The chimneys look industrial because they are metal like the roofs. The glazing should be restrictel by moving the chimneys around to go up the north side which is the cold side of the building. The guidelines said that the windows and fenestration should enhance the character of the neighborhood and at present those particular shadow box windows significantly change the character from the Victorian style to something modern. The above changes would make the three units look more residential rather than industrial so that they fit in the neighborhood more. 11 "guidelines" wasn't used, instead "I think windows..." July 14, 2014 Council Packet, bxniui u 1-1, , A W.=1 - - Continuation oillPC Discussion after c~e of Public Comment ASPEM HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14,2014 John said he will address the concerns from the public. The majority ofthe residences material is wood and it is an expensive detailed wood. It is not tongue and groove or board and batten. They aren't cutting corners on material quality which I feel is commendable to put up such nice materials. Willis said the project shows a lot of refinement over the various iterations. I am in agreement with staff and entirely support the application. One comment is the refined detailing. On the hotel there is a great effort to create a frameless aesthetic between the hotel and residence. Frameless in regards to the handrails and glazing in the front of the hotel. It falls apart at the entrance ofthe hotel where metal mesh is holding the banner that identifies the hotel graphically. There is a big frame around it. The detailing could be more consistent and would unify the project. I'm not sure these comments need to be in the resolution as they are design comments. Willis said there is frustration when things are designed in a democratic setting. We should not be designing but criticizing design. Nora said she is stuck on four guidelines and they all relate to reflecting human scale largely around the windows. Guideline 5.11 talks about the massing of the building forms. Guideline 5.16 talks about the human scale. It is hard to tell from the renderings because what we see and what we pass and what we see on the street is never the same. The punch outs that occur all the way along this neighborhood are not here. I can't get beyond guideline 718, visual continuity along the street and maintain traditional window and door proportions. I don't find that the landscape plan talks enough about integrating with the setting. I also find that the fenestration is overwhelming. The gables are totally windowed out which I don't think you will see anywhere in that neighborhood. Sallie said she supports staff and the application. Sallie also agreed with Willis' s comment about the signage and the delicacy of the frameless architecture and carrying that through to the front entry. The monitor should be involved with the signage. The glazing has been reduced from all the renditions that she has seen before. Sallie also pointed out that she is not a developer. This is the only discussion Willis also mentioned that Art Daily's suggestion that the three buildings appear time o-f differently he did not get any support from the meeting minutes even though he buildings was the swing vote, none o f the other council members reiterated that. appearing different Jay said the tree removal, setback variances and the site plan are not on the table. from each other. Jay said he appreciates the use of the high end materials. We are seeing more o f 12 ', July 14, 2014 Co~cil Packet, Exhibit B *age 13 HPC Motion > ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 the screen type material. I also appreciate the applicant's ability to build a nice building that invites people in. As far as the three buildings not looking the same I would agree that they are similar in shape and size. The mullions in the center building glazing is different than the other two and that helps. I do not care for the large chimneys and their materials. The fences in the front are a concern of mine. Removing those big trees that create a barrier between the public and the pool and having the cafd and seating area is commendable and to me makes me want to support this application even more because we are retaining a small lodge on Main Street and that is a goal o f the City. This hotel will be an icon on the corner. I am sorry to hear that the Engineering Department is supporting parallel parking because the street can accommodate more cars there. The street is wide enough to accommodate the parking the way it is. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #13 and that staff and monitor approve the screening material and chimney material and design; motion second by John. Willis asked Jay to explain his thoughts on the chimneys. Jay said his issue is that the chimney is too tall and I question the necessity to have the chimneys. Willis and Sallie said the chimney helps make the design look more residential. Sallie made a friendly amendment that she can agree looking at the material but not to redesign the chimney. John said the code takes care o f the height o f the chimney. I am in favor of looking at the materials only. Jay did a straw poll vote as to who supports his motion or Sallie's amendment. Patrick, neither John, Sallie's change Willis, Sallie's change Nora, neither Jay, Jay's motion Sallie, Sallie's change 3-3 Willis said the decision is for staff and monitor on the chimney. 13 July 14, 20~ Council Packet, Exhibit B, Page 14 HPC Motion c~inued ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora, no; Willis, yes; John, yes; Patrick, no; Jay, yes. Motion carried 4-2. Sallie and John are the monitors. 100 E. Main - Minor Design and Minor Growth Management, Public Hearing Exhibit I -Debbie said the affidavit ofposting is partially complete. Debbie said the notice is missing the mailing list and that should be provided to Amy by tomorrow morning. Amy said this is for a remodel that is non-historic located in the Main Street historic district. It was built in 1964 and is a 6,000 square foot lot. The building was constructed for medical office. They would like to do a portion ofthe second ftoor into one free market residential unit. HPC is asked to approve the minor development for exterior alterations to the building and the second is growth management mitigation. The changes on the building are at the front corner where the entry is now. There will be some window changes and a second story staircase to get to the free market unit. There will also be an elevator to provide accessibility to the second floor. Staff has no concerns with the design. There is one on-site parking and the applicant will have to pay the cash-in-lieu payment of $30,000. On the growth management part they are proposing a 2,000 square foot net livable free market unit. 30% ofthat square footage has to be provided in a deed restricted unit somewhere in town. We recommend that has changes come up to the landscaping for circulation and pathway to the elevator that those changes would be reviewed by staff and monitor. Staff recommends the approval of the change in use with the condition that the applicant provide the affordable housing credits as required. Kim Raymond, architect Garmisch has head in parking. On the side is where the elevator will go and the public bus stop is still there. It is our intent to increase the height o f the planters to use as part o f the drainage plan and it will be a better bench. The main change is adding the glass atrium on the second story which provides access to the second floor pent house. The recycling area will be enclosed. A sidewalk will go back from Main Street to the elevator for handicapped accessibility. The elevator in the back is for the two offices. We will keep the landscaping plan and in between the two buildings is a nice row of aspen trees which will be kept and we will add the 14 July 14, 2014 ~ncil Packet Exhibit ~age 2 A Direction to conside educing glazing from Fliat left council EXISTING CONDITIONS/ PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The hotel currently contains 45 lodge rooms and 1 onsite 2-bedroom affordable housing unit. The affordable housing unit was approved in 1984 when the lodge was converted from the Nugget Lodge to the Hotel Aspen. The proposed project has received Conceptual design approvals from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) via Resolution #14, Series of 2013. The P&Z heard the project twice: the first hearing was extensive background and explanation of the project by the applicant, and the second hearing included staff recommendations. The applicant requested a decision at the second hearing: P&Z voted 3-1-1 in denial of the project. A PUD plan, Subdivision, and Rezoning to MU/LP was granted by City Council via Ordinance #51, Series of 2013. The project was granted Growth Management approvals on April 15, 2014 via Resolution 6, Series of 2014. ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2013, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Due to the extensive changes to the free market residential portion of the project from HPC Conceptual approval, the City Council ordinance included a recommendation that HPC consider the following during Final design reviews: 1) Front doors for all residences shall face Bleeker Street. 2) A front porch that meets the Residential Design Standards shall be provided on Bleeker Street for all residences. 3) Reduce the amount of glazing. 4) HPC shall review the roof forms during Final design reviews. Staff Response: Staff finds that items 1 -4 are met with the current proposal. There are front door and front porches of an adequate size (the requirement is a minimum of 6' deep and 50 square feet (sf) in size: the proposal is 11' deep and 90 sf in size) facing Bleeker Street. The applicant has reduced the amount of glazing proposed to be more representative of a residential use than an office use. The gable roof forms are consistent with City Council's feedback and the surrounding neighborhood. FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW: Major Development and Commercial Design review is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. The procedure for Final Major Development Review and Commercial Design Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 2 of 7 July 14, 2014 Council Packet Exhibit F, Page 5 Direction from Câ€ž cilman Daily - 3 bui ~ngs appear different 4 Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council March 17.2014 Mayor Skadron brought up the fee waiver request of $91,000 for parks and transportation demand management. Mayor Skadron pointed out neither city department supports the request for fee waivers. Affordable housing is fully mitigated on site. Councilman Frisch said he would like the applicants to pay those fees. Councilman Romero said he is okay with waiving the fees. Clauson stated the applicants are taking a financial hit on the free market units and the fee waivers would be helpful. Councilman Daily said it is not a large number in the context of things and he would like the fees paid. Mayor Skadron stated he does not support fee waivers. Mayor Skadron said if this moves forward at this meeting, there seems to be a final review Council is not getting and there isn't a clear picture of what will be on the site and there will be minimal impact on the west end. Ms. Adams pointed out Council is deciding the dimensional requirements, mass height, floor area, setbacks will be adopted in a site specific approval. If Council approves the project, P&Z will conduct a growth management review to calculate the affordable housing and how it is mitigated; HPC will conduct a final design review on materials, window sizes, landscaping, etc. Both those meetings will be public hearings and noticed in the paper. Councilman Frisch said his concern is to make sure Aspen retains its small town character while realizing tourism is an economic driver. Councilman Daily said he appreciates the applicant' s willingness to listen to Council. Councilman Daily said he would like the 3 buildings to appear different from each other. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #51, Series of 2013, amended that the 3 free market residences comply with the 25' height limit in R-6 zone and comply with the 8400 square feet of FAR as represented by the applicant and that the request for fee waivers is denied; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Ms. Adams pointed out the maximum cumulative floor area will be reduced by the reduction of the free market residential. Councilman Romero amended his motion to include the maximum cumulative floor area be reduced to 35,500 square feet and that HPC will review the roof forms during final review; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Mayor Skadron thanked the applicant for the concessions and the public for their comments. Mayor Skadron stated he will vote against this as he is concerned about the precedential nature of it and that the appropriate balance between lodge incentivization and preserving the mass and scale of the neighborhood was satisfied. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, no. Motion carried. 5 St ER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY â€¢ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X Baf flyl, / O Agent â€¢ Print your name and address on the reverse O Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received bv (Printed Name) C. Date of Deliyery â€¢ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. Â»f r,1-4 6 1.11 ~/9 D. Is delivery address different from item 1?/ O Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: Â¤ No * Ay'U 1 110Â· 842 11,30 3. Service Type BfCertified MailÂ® ~,Priority Mail Expressâ„¢ El Registered 0â€¢Return Receipt for Merchandise Â¤ Insured Mail U Collect on Delivery 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) O Yes 2. A~ umber (Tf~r from service label) 91 7199 9991 7030 0719 0872 PS Form 3811. Julv 2013 Domestic Return Receiot UNGED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail 1~ Postage & Fees P~ USPS Permit No. G-10 0 Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4Â® in this box0 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 St ER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY t â€¢ Complete items 1,2, and 3. Also complete A. Slgr}at\tre A A \ C-- item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. \122 0 Agent m Print your name and address on the reverse 250,>Ol"U,\.,~ C . 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by (Ainted Name) JIC. Date of Delivery â€¢ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. zE:l (00(j<full'HUK 4/zi D. Is delivery address different from item 1? I Yes 1. Affl* Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: Â¤ No ~am, 910-4 4 11A W - #114, q. . 3. Service Type . . 1,0, to 41(m 16)ertified MailÂ® ~ Priority Mail Expressâ„¢ '[I] Registered Return Receipt for Merchandise Â¤ Insured Mail Collect on Delivery 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) Â¤ Yes umber 91 7199 9991 7030 0719 0889 (!78~r from service label) PR Form 3811 .hilv 2013 Domestic Return Receiot CRRA+f4! D JL)P,~CTY(~3Â¥Nt CO 21'..9. r~]~ UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 21 JUN 20:14 PM 1 t. -" .'Â·â€¢,4â€ž__,Pegrab-evie.es, Permit No. (NO-''' 0 Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4Â® in this box' City of Aspen :ommunity Development Department 130 S. Galena Street A.pe, 0, Colorado 81611 """1'eli'iii,IWhil,ithilj.1,~mil~inp~M,;+Ii,11, ~ ~.r '44 0. ~ COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY i - â€¢ Complete items 1,2, and 3. Also complete A. Sigl)@(ure< ~ i item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Â¤ Agent 1 â€¢ Print your name and address on the reverse [] Addressee i so that we can return the card to you. B. Received bjuPrinted Name) C. Date of Delivent 1 â€¢ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, ~ or on the front if space permits. 400-Dime 06(714 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? D Yes 1 1 . Article Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: O No El94 U,P<W,ob~ 10 N. Mill,er. 3. Service Type p~ertified MailÂ® Cl,Priority Mail Expressâ„¢ D Registered -~Return Receipt for Merchandise C Insured Mail Cl Collect on Delivery 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) O Yes 2. Article Number 91 7199 9991 7030 0719 0865 Gransfer from service label) --_- ______ --- -Â·. --_-- -__ _- ______ __ PS Form 3811, July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt l~.D STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid i USPS Permit No. G-10 0 Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4Â® in this box' City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 .. June 13,2014 Bert Myrin P.O. Box 12365 THE CrrY oF ASPEN Aspen. CO 81612 RE: APPEAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC ' PRESERVATION COMMISSION Dear Mr. Myrin. As required per Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.316.030 D., Appeal Procedures, Notice Requirements, notice is hereby given that a public meeting will be held on Monday July 14. 2014. to begin at 5:00 p,m, before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, I 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. The purpose of the meeting is to consider Ms. Steele's appeal of an I action taken by the Historic Preservation Commission. The attached notice will be published in the Aspen Times on June 195 2014. For further information. please feel free to contact me at 970.429.2778 or by email at ~ sara.adams@citvofaspen.com. A memo will be provided to you prior to the hearing. Sincerely, Sara Adams Senior Planner 130 S. Galena Street ' Aspen, CO 81611 .. z ..Ii-MO-I June 13,2014 Garmisch Lodging, LLC c./0 Stan Clauson Associates THE Cm' oF ASPEN , 412 N. Mill Street i Aspen, CO 81611 RE: APPEAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC ~ PRESERVATION COMMISSION Dear Stan, As required per Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.316.030 D.. Appeal Procedures, Notice Requirements, notice is hereby given that a public meeting will be held on Monday July 14. 2014, to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers. City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. The purpose of the meeting is to consider Ms. Julianne Steele's appeal of an action taken by the Historic Preservation Commission. The attached notice will be published in the Aspen Times on June 19,2014. For further information, please feel free to contact me at 970.429.2778 or by email at sara.adams(*citvofaspen.com. A memo will be provided to you prior to the hearing. Sincerely, 9/00 Sara Adams Senior Planner 130 S. Galena Street Aspen: CO 81611 .. m June 13, 2014 6 Julianne Steele 121 W. Bleeker Street THE CITY oF ASPEN Aspen, CO 81611 RE: APPEAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Dear Ms. Steele, As required per Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.316.030 D.. Appeal Procedures, Notice Requirements. notice is hereby given that a public meeting will be held on Monday July 14, 2014, to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. The purpose of the meeting is to consider your appeal of an action I taken by the I-listoric Preservation Commission. The attached notice will be published in the Aspen Times on June 19.2014, For further information, please feel free to contact me at 970.429.2778 or by email at sara.adams@cityofaspen.com. A memo will be provided to you prior to the hearing. Sincerely, S ara Adams Senior Planner I 130 S. Galena Street 1 Aspen, CO 81611 .. Sara Adams From: Stan Clauson <stan@scaplanning.com> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:52 PM TO: Sara Adams; Chris Bendon; Jim True CC: Patrick Rawley; Aaron Brown; Michael Brown Subject: RE: Hotel Aspen Purported Appeal OK, I spoke with Jim True and apparently there is no prescribed form as required by the code. Moreover a fee waiver wastendered and approved by the Com Dev Director. Jim showed me where Julianne had stated her address. This is rather frustrating, as you can imagine, particularly consideringthe delay until the end of June. The bright side isthat Jim True states that he will take some time to instruct Council on the basis for considering an appeal and required findings, and limit the discussion to the record of the hearing. Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC From: Sara Adams [mailto:sara.adams@citvofaspen.coml Sent: 29 May 2014 15:43 To: Stan Clauson; Chris Bendon; Jim True Cc: Patrick Rawley; Aaron Brown; Michael Brown Subject: RE: Hotel Aspen Purported Appeal Hi Stan, The City has accepted the appeal and it is scheduled for June 23rd. Best, Sara Sara Adams, AICP Senior Planner I City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd floor Aspen CO 81611 970/429-2778 www.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only forthe individual orentity to which it is addressed and maycontain information that iscon fidential and exempt from disclosure pursuantto applicable law. If you are notthe intended recipient, please reply to the senderthatyou have received the message in errorand then delete it, Further, the information oropinions contained in this email are advisory in nature onlyand are not bindingon the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: Stan Clauson [mailto:stan@scaplanninq.coml Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:33 PM To: Chris Bendon; Sara Adams; Jim True Cc: Patrick Rawley; Aaron Brown; Michael Brown Subject: Hotel Aspen Purported Appeal Importance: High Jim, Sara, and Chris- 1 . I am in receipt of a letter dated May 27,9H 14 requesting an appeal to City Council offe May 14th HPC final design approval of the Hotel Aspen. The letter appears to be signed by Julianne Steele, with no address given, and presents a very confused organization of the request. It also appoints a third party as representing the appellant in the appeal. Section 26.316.030(A) "Appeal Procedures, Initiation" clearly states "Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director." Moreover, the City of Aspen "Planning and Historic Preservation Review Fees-2014" clearly prescribes payment of a one-step review fee amounting to 4 hours or $1,300. The letter in question makes no reference to payment of the prescribed fee. It would appear that this request for an appeal is deficient and untimely in several ways: 1. It is not presented on the form prescribed by the Community Development Director; 2. It does not provide the address of the appellant in support of the appellant's standing; 3. It names a third-party representative who may not otherwise have appropriate standing; 4. The prescribed fee does not appear to have been paid. On behalf of our clients, Garmisch Lodging, LLC, we respectfully request that you determine that this appeal request is not appropriately tendered and any attempt to cure deficiencies would be untimely. Thankyou. Stan Clauson Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES iNC landscape architecture . planning . resort desian 4 1 f> N Mit: S t r Â¢ 9 B, 1 2 Â· f ,; 7()/925.2323 f Â·:7( y:r -1 Pr Rease consider the environment before printing this email. 20 Facebook 2 .. Sara Adams From: Bert Myrin <bert@myrin.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:51 PM To: Sara Adams; Julianne Steele (sjulianneb@mac.com) Subject: RE: hotel aspen appeal Attachments: Appeal HPC discretion and due process to Council Signed.pdf; Fee Waiver Form Juilanne Steele Signed.pdf Good Afternoon Sara, Please see the attached signed letter and signed fee waiver form. Please let me know if there is anything else you need from me for the 6/23 City Council meeting . Thank you. - Bert From: Sara Adams [mailto:sara.adams@cityofaspen.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:01 PM To: Bert Myrin; Julianne Steele (sjulianneb@mac.com) Subject: RE: hotel aspen appeal Ok. please make sure that the letter is signed. Thanks, Sara Sara Adams, AICP Senior Planner I City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd floor Aspen CO 81611 970/429-2778 www.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuantto applicable law. If you are notthe intended recipient, please replytothe senderthatyou have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information oropinions contained in thisemail are advisory in nature onlyand are not binding on the Cityof Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: Bert Myrin [mailto:bert@myrin.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:44 PM To: Sara Adams; Julianne Steele (sjulianneb@mac.com) Subject: RE: hotel aspen appeal Good Afternoon Sara, It would be the same as what I gave Steve but since I think the hearing has to be within 30 days of submitting an appeal, we planned to submit it after 5/23 to meet the 30 day requirement. Aiming for Tuesday next week since Monday is a holiday and there is no reason to wait beyond the weekend. Thanks for the 6/23 scheduling. - Bert From: Sara Adams [mailto:sara.adams@citvofaspen.coml Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 12:17 PM To: Bert Myrin; Julianne Steele (siulianneb@mac.com) Subject: RE: hotel aspen appeal Hi Julianne and Bert, 1 You are scheduled on 6/23 for your app~at City Council. It will be the last item on f'Re agenda. Bert - you mentioned an official submittal next week? Should I expect a more formal letter than what you gave Steve Skadron, which was handed down to me? Thanks, Sara Sara Adams, AICP Senior Planner 1 City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd floor Aspen CO 81611 970/429-2778 www.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuantto applicable law. If you are notthe intended recipient, please replyto the senderthat you have received the message in errorand then delete it. Further, the information oropinions contained in this email are advisoryin nature only and are not binding on the Cityof Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: Bert Myrin [mailto:bert@myrin.coml Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:43 AM To: Sara Adams; Julianne Steele (sjulianneb@mac.com) Subject: RE: hotel aspen appeal Good Morning Sara, 1'11 be out of town June 7th to June 18th so the 9th won't work. Would it be possible to schedule this for the end of the council meeting on the 23rd or sometime in the next two weeks prior to June 7th, Looking at the next three council meeting dates (5/27,6/9,6/23) I understand the puzzle that 5/29 is early and 6/23 is toward the end of the 30 day window starting on the day we were planning to officially submit the appeal (5/28). I know it's a stretch but we could officially submit it this week and aim for Tuesday 5/27 or sometime before 6/7 if that's even a possibility for council. If that doesn't work I think 6/23 is the best option. Unfortunately Julianne will be away 6/7 to 6/27 so she will miss the 6/23 hearing but she is comfortable with me being there on her behalf. I think you might have the daytime off on Wednesdays so enjoy your day and we'll catch up when you are back. Thank you. - Bert From: Sara Adams [mailto:sara.adams@citvofaspen.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:04 PM To: Bert Myrin; Julianne Steele (siulianneb@mac.com) Subject: hotel aspen appeal Hi Julianne and Bert, We received your letter of appeal for the HPC final design review decision. There is room on the June 9th City Council agenda. Does that meeting date work for you? Meetings start at 5pm in Council Chambers and appeals are usually an Action Item at the end of the agenda. Please let me know if June 9th works for you. The HPC minutes should be finished by next week. I will send a copy when they are complete. 2 .. Best, Sara Sara Adams, AICP Senior Planner I City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd floor Aspen CO 81611 970/429-2778 www.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information oropinions contained in this email areadvisoryin nature onlyand are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate, The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. 3 .. Continued Meeting Aspen City Council March 17,2014 Mayor Skadron called the special meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Frisch, Romero and Daily present. Mayor Skadron introduced Rolando Galli, Abetone, Italy. Abetone and Aspen are working on a sister city relationship ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2013 - Hotel Aspen PUD/Subdivision Sara Adams, community development department, reminded Council at the last meeting, March 10% the applicant proposed a reduction in height and floor area to the westerly free market residential unit and a slight decrease to the floor area. Ms. Adams said this proposal requires Council to find that the PUD review criteria are met, that the project is balanced and there are appropriate trade offs for the dimensional variances requested. Ms. Adams said there has been concern about the overall site and staff finds that the reduction ofjust one building does not meet the compatibility criteria. Ms. Adams stated this is a good project that will benefit the community by updating and adding lodge rooms. Ms. Adams said staff has two options for Council and the applicant to consider; (1) reduce height o f the middle free market unit as well to 25' which meets the underlying zone district, (2) reduce height of the middle unit to 25' in the front of the building and 31' on the back of the site. Ms. Adams stated staff does not support the option presented by the applicant at the last meeting where only one free market unit was lowered and had less floor area. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant. reminded Council last week the applicant presented a change moving the westerly unit's floor area into the sub grade, creating separation and reducing the height of the unit to 25, which meets the R-6 height requirements. The other two units were unchanged at that time. Clauson said option 1, reducing the other unit, would eliminate net livable and the ability to have the incentive provided by the land use code. Clauson said option 2 could be a possibility with 25' on the first hal f o f the building and a third story on the rear. Clauson noted the hotel portion of the project has been brought forward 5', still conforming to the height and setback limits, to provide slightly larger rooms on the third floor. The variance requested under the PUD is cumulative floor area, 2600 square feet over the special review maximum. Clauson pointed out there are 4 elements of this development; 54 lodge units at an average size of 300 square feet, 2000 square feet of affordable housing, residential component, and the amenity space for the hotel, all of these made up the cumulative floor area. The free market component allowable in the code is intended to be the incentive for a lodge project. The lodging is within the special review maximum: free market residential is under the allowable floor area; there is no variance requested for the affordable housing. The lodge units are consistent with the average unit size at 300 square feet; the residential unit size is 4400 square feet a piece and is an appropriate configuration in 3 separate units. Councilman Romero asked 1 .. Continued Meeting Aspen City Council March 17,2014 about eliminating some or all of the affordable housing units. Clauson reminded Council the discussion has been focused on the residential units on Bleeker street. Removing affordable housing square footage would not change the residential size. The affordable housing is incorporated into the lodge building. Councilman Daily questioned the references to special review and how is it incorporated into the process. Ms. Adams said the issue is the base line being used to compare the numbers; in a PUD review, one has to figure out where the variations are compared to what is allowed in the underlying zone district. The MU zone allows certain floor area increases by going through special review at P&Z. In a PUD process, which this project is required to go through, there is no need for special review because the PUD establishes the dimensional requirements. Special review is similar to PUD but less detailed; special review for this project did not happen nor is it required. Mayor Skadron said he has worked on some formulas that would result in increased lodge rooms as well funds to finance a redevelopment at a depth to cost ratio, which Council can discuss at the lodge incentive work session. Mayor Skadron said this project will result in more cold beds than beds added to the lodge inventory. Mayor Skadron stated an unintended consequence of the lodge incentive program is an immediate return of free market development rather than a long term return of a hotel operation. Mayor Skadron said it is the role of the city to make an effort to get more lodge rooms through the incentive program. Mayor Skadron stated this proposal does not satisfy the review criteria; the appropriate balance between incentivized lodge redevelopment and preserving the residential mass and scale has not been maintained. Mayor Skadron said the cost of building an entire hotel contains efficiencies that are lost when a hotel include free market footage. Councilman Daily said the lodge project is creative and ambitious and something in the best interest of the community. Councilman Daily said his issue is to meet the minimum contextual criteria required of the free market and the neighborhood. Councilman Daily pointed out the proposed floor area is about 35% above what is allowed in the MU zone for the free market and 22Â°/0 above what is allowed in the MU for the lodge portion. Councilman Daily stated i f one is talking about context for PUD considerations, you have to start with what is allowed in the R-6 zone as the residential neighborhood is R-6. The R-6 zone would allow two single family homes of 2,000 square feet livable each, total 4,000 square feet. This proposal is 10,000 square feet, which is more than double what would be allowed. Councilman Daily stated the staff options do not go far enough. Councilman Daily reminded Council his suggestion was all 3 units should be reduced 700 or 800 square feet for a total FAR reduction of 2,000 square feet leaving 8400 square feet above grade and double what is allowed in the R-6 zone but is more representative ofthe neighborhood. Councilman Daily said the project has to be buildable, affordable and financeable and last for years. Councilman Daily stated his view on the appropriateness o f the project has not changed since the last meeting. 2 .. Continued Meeting Aspen City Council March 17,2014 Councilman Daily said he also will not support any further reduction in underground parking spaces. Clauson pointed out 6,000 square foot lots are generally the lot size for development in the west end and that allows 3240 square feet tloor area and equates to a larger net livable of 4500 to 500 square feet. This would result in over 10,000 square feet. Clauson said the LP overlay would allow a two or three story lodge to be developed along Bleeker street. Clauson noted the easterly unit which is full height is only 1'9" larger than the R-6 and allows for a third story. The land use code provides on this parcel for the proposed amount of hotel development, 60% residential free market. Mayor Skadron said a hotel built at 27,000 square feet with 300 square foot rooms, subtracting the common space necessary would result in 70 hotel rooms. With a lodge incentive program, the city should be doing all possible to incentivize hotel rooms and not driving people to be residential developers. Clauson pointed out this would require a hotel building along Bleeker street, not residential units. Clauson said this type of hotel development is not financeable. Brown said the code amendment on lodge incentives depending on experts and using real scenarios came up with what it would take in order to finance lodge development. Brown pointed out nothing new has been built with the lodge incentive in place. Councilman Romero said in the Aspen Area Community Plan most recent update, which took 4 years, one of the quality of life statements is trying to maintain a visitor-based economy and to affirm Aspen is a tourist-based economy. One o f the key ingredients o f a tourism-based economy is the bed base with a range of accessible rooms, inexpensive to luxury rooms. Councilman Romero said Aspen has lost many tourist beds. A consistent message through the AACP update is the need to protect the bed base, especially in the smalllodge category. One of the goals of the AACP was to "minimize the further loss of lodging inventory". Councilman Frisch agreed there is concern about protecting the west end and also losing too many hotel beds. Clauson stated the free market units will not be the end of the west end; they are attractive units that will contribute to the quality of the west end. Clauson urged Council to think about the land use code in place, the incentives that are in place, and adhere to those. Council took a 5 minute break. Ms Adams told Council the applicant has agreed to amend the proposal to have all 3 of the free market residential buildings be 25' in height - the maximum height allowed in the R-6 zone. which allows a two-story building. HPC will review the roof forms when they review the project for final design. Councilman Daily asked the proposed floor area for all 3 buildings. Clauson said the floor area will be the same for all 3 buildings. Ms. Adams said the allowable floor area will be 8400 square feet down from 9700 square feet. Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. 3 .. Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council March 17, 2014 Greg Irwin said this project should be in compliance. Carolyn Landis said she likes the 25'; she does not want to lose the lodge as it is much needed. Maurice Emmer said he supports the lodge project as Aspen needs lodges; however, there is value in saying "no" and it takes saying no to get to yes. Emmer said there is a code and developers should come in with projects that comply rather than have meeting after meeting. Junee Kirk said the context of the lodge is not in character with the neighborhood at three stories and Council should not approve the application. Ms. Kirk said there is no cross section of elevations or overlays in the file. Ms. Kirk said this building should fit in with the context and style of the neighborhood. Loretta Durose, owner o f a lodge on Long Island, said the code is law and Council is being asked to break the law; laws are there for a reason and it is Council'sjob to enforce them. David Bentley said this is a case of gigantism and it is very inappropriate for the neighborhood. Sheryl Goldenberg said other neighborhoods are upset over the variances and it is not fair to give developers variances. Bert Myrin handed out a proposed ordinance containing dimensional requirements which are similar to those Council is considering adopting, like two story on the residential buildings and reduction of the cumulative floor area. Myrin suggested if more underground parking spaces are lost, these could be recaptured by changing the parallel parking on Garmisch to head in. Myrin said Council should send the message that applicants must adhere to the code rather than go through 18 months of meetings with a project that does not meet the code. Marcia Goshorn said she appreciates the developer going to two stories on the residential units so they fit better in the neighborhood. Ms. Goshorn said codes should be written to specify exactly what would be allowed so that negotiating sessions are eliminated. Ron Domain, 114 East Bleeker, said the yellow brick is a great amenity and has been a great ambassador for Aspen. Domain said he would like to see a physical representation of this, like story poles. Domain said he understands variances have to happen and he would like to know what benefit they are bringing to the community. Joanie LeBac congratulated everyone for listening respectfully and to the applicant for their good will. Cynthia Milling said she is excited about this project and it will help Aspen in the long run. Mary Hayes said approving this will set a dangerous precedent for the community. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. Clauson said the applicants are going along with the reduction in height and floor area on the 3 residences and they will be conforming in height and have a 2 story quality. Clauson said the parallel or head in parking is not their request. This is city property and is a request of the engineering department. although the applicants would prefer head in parking. Trish Aragon. engineer, told Council head in parking is the number 1 cause of accidents. This area is important because of its proximity to bus stop and to the yellow brick. The city needs to make sure the parking is designed in a safe manner. 4 .. Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council March 17,2014 Mayor Skadron brought up the fee waiver request of $91,000 for parks and transportation demand management. Mayor Skadron pointed out neither city department supports the request for fee waivers. Affordable housing is fully mitigated on site. Councilman Frisch said he would like the applicants to pay those fees. Councilman Romero said he is okay with waiving the fees. Clauson stated the applicants are taking a financial hit on the free market units and the fee waivers would be helpful. Councilman Daily said it is not a large number in the context of things and he would like the fees paid. Mayor Skadron stated he does not support fee waivers. Mayor Skadron said i f this moves forward at this meeting, there seems to be a final review Council is not getting and there isn't a clear picture of what will be on the site and there will be minimal impact on the west end. Ms. Adams pointed out Council is deciding the dimensional requirements, mass height, floor area, setbacks will be adopted in a site specific approval. If Council approves the project, P&Z will conduct a growth management review to calculate the affordable housing and how it is mitigated; HPC will conduct a final design review on materials, window sizes, landscaping, etc. Both those meetings will be public hearings and noticed in the paper. Councilman Frisch said his concern is to make sure Aspen retains its small town character while realizing tourism is an economic driver. Councilman Daily said he appreciates the applicant's 4 willingness to listen to Council. Councilman Daily said he would like the 3 buildiys to appeal different from each other.a Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #51, Series of 2013, amended that the 3 free market residences comply with the 25' height limit in R-6 zone and comply with the 8400 square feet of FAR as represented by the applicant and that the request for fee waivers is denied; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Ms. Adams pointed out the maximum cumulative floor area will be reduced by the reduction of the free market residential. Councilman Romero amended his motion to include the maximum cumulative floor area be reduced to 35,500 square feet and that HPC will review the roof forms during final review: seconded by Councilman Frisch. Mayor Skadron thanked the applicant for the concessions and the public for their comments. Mayor Skadron stated he will vote against this as he is concerned about the precedential nature of it and that the appropriate balance between lodge incentivization and preserving the mass and scale of the neighborhood was satisfied. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch yes; Mayor Skadron, no. Motion carried. 5 .. Continued Meeting Aspen City Council March 17,2014 Councilman Daily moved to adjourn at 7:25 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn Koch City Clerk 6 Continued Meeting ~ Aspen City Council March 17,2014 Mayor Skadron called the special meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Frisch, Romero and Daily present. Mayor Skadron introduced Rolando Galli, Abetone, Italy. Abetone and Aspen are working on a sister city relationship ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2013 - Hotel Aspen PUD/Subdivision Sara Adams, community development department, reminded Council at the last meeting, March 10% the applicant proposed a reduction in height and floor area to the westerly free market residential unit and a slight decrease to the floor area. Ms. Adams said this proposal requires Council to find that the PUD review criteria are met, that the project is balanced and there are appropriate trade offs for the dimensional variances requested. Ms. Adams said there has been concern about the overall site and staff finds that the reduction ofjust one building does not meet the compatibility criteria. Ms. Adams stated this is a good project that will benefit the community by updating and adding lodge rooms. Ms. Adams said staffhas two options for Council and the applicant to consider; (1) reduce height of the middle free market unit as well to 25' which meets the underlying zone district, (2) reduce height of the middle unit to 25 ' in the front of the building and 31' on the back of the site. Ms. Adams stated staff does not support the option presented by the applicant at the last meeting where only one free market unit was lowered and had less floor area. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, reminded Council last week the applicant presented a change moving the westerly unit's floor area into the sub grade, creating separation and reducing the height of the unit to 25, which meets the R-6 height requirements. The other two units were unchanged at that time. Clauson said option 1, reducing the other unit, would eliminate net livable and the ability to have the incentive provided by the land use code. Clauson said option 2 could be a possibility with 25' on the first hal f of the building and a third story on the rear. Clauson noted the hotel portion of the project has been brought forward 5', still conforming to the height and setback limits, to provide slightly larger rooms on the third floor. The variance requested under the PUD is cumulative floor area, 2600 square feet over the special review maximum. Clauson pointed out there are 4 elements of this development; 54 lodge units at an average size of 300 square feet, 2000 square feet of affordable housing, residential component, and the amenity space for the hotel, all of these made up the cumulative floor area. The free market component allowable in the code is intended to be the incentive for a lodge project. The lodging is within the special review maximum; free market residential is under the allowable floor area; there is no variance requested for the affordable housing. The lodge units are consistent with the average unit size at 300 square feet; the residential unit size is 4400 square feet a piece and is an appropriate configuration in 3 separate units. Councilman Romero asked 1 Continued Meeting ~ Aspen City Council March 17,2014 about eliminating some or all o f the affordable housing units. Clauson reminded Council the discussion has been focused on the residential units on Bleeker street. Removing affordable housing square footage would not change the residential size. The affordable housing is incorporated into the lodge building. Councilman Daily questioned the references to special review and how is it incorporated into the process. Ms. Adams said the issue is the base line being used to compare the numbers; in a PUD review, one has to figure out where the variations are compared to what is allowed in the underlying zone district. The MU zone allows certain floor area increases by going through special review at P&Z. In a PUD process, which this project is required to go through, there is no need for special review because the PUD establishes the dimensional requirements. Special review is similar to PUD but less detailed; special review for this project did not happen nor is it required. Mayor Skadron said he has worked on some formulas that would result in increased lodge rooms as well funds to finance a redevelopment at a depth to cost ratio, which Council can discuss at the lodge incentive work session. Mayor Skadron said this project will result in more cold beds than beds added to the lodge inventory. Mayor Skadron stated an unintended consequence of the lodge incentive program is an immediate return of free market development rather than a long term return of a hotel operation. Mayor Skadron said it is the role of the city to make an effort to get more lodge rooms through the incentive program. Mayor Skadron stated this proposal does not satisfy the review criteria; the appropriate balance between incentivized lodge redevelopment and preserving the residential mass and scale has not been maintained. Mayor Skadron said the cost ofbuilding an entire hotel contains efficiencies that are lost when a hotel include free market footage. Councilman Daily said the lodge project is creative and ambitious and something in the best interest o f the community. Councilman Daily said his issue is to meet the minimum contextual criteria required o f the free market and the neighborhood. Councilman Daily pointed out the proposed floor area is about 35% above what is allowed in the MU zone for the free market and 22% above what is allowed in the MU for the lodge portion. Councilman Daily stated if one is talking about context for PUD considerations, you have to start with what is allowed in the R-6 zone as the residential neighborhood is R-6. The R-6 zone would allow two single family homes of 2,000 square feet livable each, total 4,000 square feet. This proposal is 10,000 square feet, which is more than double what would be allowed. Councilman Daily stated the staff options do not go far enough. Councilman Daily reminded Council his suggestion was all 3 units should be reduced 700 or 800 square feet for a total FAR reduction of 2,000 square feet leaving 8400 square feet above grade and double what is allowed in the R-6 zone but is more representative o f the neighborhood. Councilman Daily said the project has to be buildable, affordable and financeable and last for years. Councilman Daily stated his view on the appropriateness o f the project has not changed since the last meeting. 2 Continued Meetine ~ Aspen City Council March 17, 2014 Councilman Daily said he also will not support any further reduction in underground parking spaces. Clauson pointed out 6,000 square foot lots are generally the lot size for development in the west end and that allows 3240 square feet floor area and equates to a larger net livable of 4500 to 500 square feet. This would result in over 10,000 square feet. Clauson said the LP overlay would allow a two or three story lodge to be developed along Bleeker street. Clauson noted the easterly unit which is full height is only 1'9" larger than the R-6 and allows for a third story. The land use code provides on this parcel for the proposed amount of hotel development, 60% residential free market. Mayor Skadron said a hotel built at 27,000 square feet with 300 square foot rooms, subtracting the common space necessary would result in 70 hotel rooms. With a lodge incentive program, the city should be doing all possible to incentivize hotel rooms and not driving people to be residential developers. Clauson pointed out this would require a hotel building along Bleeker street, not residential units. Clauson said this type of hotel development is not financeable. Brown said the code amendment on lodge incentives depending on experts and using real scenarios came up with what it would take in order to finance lodge development. Brown pointed out nothing new has been built with the lodge incentive in place. Councilman Romero said in the Aspen Area Community Plan most recent update, which took 4 years, one o f the quality o f life statements is trying to maintain a visitor-based economy and to affirm Aspen is a tourist-based economy. One of the key ingredients of a tourism-based economy is the bed base with a range o f accessible rooms, inexpensive to luxury rooms. Councilman Romero said Aspen has lost many tourist beds. A consistent message through the AACP update is the need to protect the bed base, especially in the small lodge category. One o f the goals of the AACP was to "minimize the further loss of lodging inventory". Councilman Frisch agreed there is concern about protecting the west end and also losing too many hotel beds. Clauson stated the free market units will not be the end of the west end; they are attractive units that will contribute to the quality of the west end. Clauson urged Council to think about the land use code in place, the incentives that are in place, and adhere to those. Council took a 5 minute break. Ms Adams told Council the applicant has agreed to amend the proposal to have all 3 0 f the free market residential buildings be 25' in height - the maximum height allowed in the R-6 zone, which allows a two-story building. HPC will review the roof forms when they review the project for final design. Councilman Daily asked the proposed floor area for all 3 buildings. Clauson said the floor area will be the same for all 3 buildings. Ms. Adams said the allowable floor area will be 8400 square feet down from 9700 square feet. Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. 3 . Continued Meeting ~ Aspen City Council ~ March 17.2014 Greg Irwin said this project should be in compliance. Carolyn Landis said she likes the 25'; she does not want to lose the lodge as it is much needed. Maurice Emmer said he supports the lodge project as Aspen needs lodges; however, there is value in saying "no" and it takes saying no to get to yes. Emmer said there is a code and developers should come in with projects that comply rather than have meeting after meeting. Junee Kirk said the context of the lodge is not in character with the neighborhood at three stories and Council should not approve the application. Ms. Kirk said there is no cross section of elevations or overlays in the file. Ms. Kirk said this building should fit in with the context and style of the neighborhood. Loretta Durose, owner of a lodge on Long Island, said the code is law and Council is being asked to break the law; laws are there for a reason and it is Council's job to enforce them. David Bentley said this is a case of gigantism and it is very inappropriate for the neighborhood. Sheryl Goldenberg said other neighborhoods are upset over the variances and it is not fair to give developers variances. Bert Myrin handed out a proposed ordinance containing dimensional requirements which are similar to those Council is considering adopting, like two story on the residential buildings and reduction of the cumulative floor area. Myrin suggested if more underground parking spaces are lost, these could be recaptured by changing the parallel parking on Garmisch to head in. Myrin said Council should send the message that applicants must adhere to the code rather than go through 18 months of meetings with a project that does not meet the code. Marcia Goshorn said she appreciates the developer going to two stories on the residential units so they fit better in the neighborhood. Ms. Goshorn said codes should be written to specify exactly what would be allowed so that negotiating sessions are eliminated. Ron Domain, 114 East Bleeker, said the yellow brick is a great amenity and has been a great ambassador for Aspen. Domain said he would like to see a physical representation of this, like story poles. Domain said he understands variances have to happen and he would like to know what benefit they are bringing to the community. Joanie LeBac congratulated everyone for listening respectfully and to the applicant for their good will. Cynthia Milling said she is excited about this project and it will help Aspen in the long run. Mary Hayes said approving this will set a dangerous precedent for the community. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. Clauson said the applicants are going along with the reduction in height and floor area on the 3 residences and they will be conforming in height and have a 2 story quality. Clauson said the parallel or head in parking is not their request. This is city property and is a request of the engineering department, although the applicants would prefer head in parking. Trish Aragon, engineer, told Council head in parking is the number 1 cause of accidents. This area is important because of its proximity to bus stop and to the yellow brick. The city needs to make sure the parking is designed in a safe manner. 4 . Continued Meeting ~ Aspen Citv Council ~ March 17,2014 Mayor Skadron brought up the fee waiver request of $91,000 for parks and transportation demand management. Mayor Skadron pointed out neither city department supports the request for fee waivers. Affordable housing is fully mitigated on site. Councilman Frisch said he would like the applicants to pay those fees. Councilman Romero said he is okay with waiving the fees. Clauson stated the applicants are taking a financial hit on the free market units and the fee waivers would be helpful. Councilman Daily said it is not a large number in the context of things and he would like the fees paid. Mayor Skadron stated he does not support fee waivers. Mayor Skadron said if this moves forward at this meeting, there seems to be a final review Council is not getting and there isn't a clear picture o f what will be on the site and there will be minimal impact on the west end. Ms. Adams pointed out Council is deciding the dimensional requirements, mass height, floor area, setbacks will be adopted in a site specific approval. If Council approves the project, P&Z will conduct a growth management review to calculate the affordable housing and how it is mitigated; HPC will conduct a final design review on materials, window sizes, landscaping, etc. Both those meetings will be public hearings and noticed in the paper. Councilman Frisch said his concern is to make sure Aspen retains its small town character while realizing tourism is an economic driver. Councilman Daily said he appreciates the applicant's willingness to listen to Council. Councilman Daily said he would like the 3 buildings to appear different from each other. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #51, Series of 2013, amended that the 3 free market residences comply with the 25' height limit in R-6 zone and comply with the 8400 square feet of FAR as represented by the applicant and that the request for fee waivers is denied; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Ms. Adams pointed out the maximum cumulative floor area will be reduced by the reduction of the free market residential. Councilman Romero amended his motion to include the maximum cumulative floor area be reduced to 35,500 square feet and that HPC will review the roof forms during final review; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Mayor Skadron thanked the applicant for the concessions and the public for their comments. Mayor Skadron stated he will vote against this as he is concerned about the precedential nature of it and that the appropriate balance between lodge incentivization and preserving the mass and scale of the neighborhood was satisfied. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, no. Motion carried. 5 |~ March 17,2014 Continued Meeting ~ Aspen Citv Council Councilman Daily moved to adjourn at 7:25 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn Koch City Clerk 6 A 6 -0.---%* :"fa'-.-rp'.--.m"-E'- 2 mi# '44 pillirl'.4/t- - 9- -1 - ... A. Mill.. It 4. 7 . 7 . * - .4 K .iÂ· . jiilll- Hotel Aspen Final Commercial Design, Final Major Development City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 14 May 2014 'SYN C STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESME ~ 1,â€¢25-,p- .'chil-et,â€¢p.Fl,â€¢â€¢inÂ«.â€¢~,uâ€¢â€¢ ditili DOSS ~ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING Project Overview Â· Major Development (Conceptual), Commercial I Design (Conceptual) and Demolition Approval approved by HPC, Resolution#14, Series 2012 Â· PUD, Subdivision, and Rezoning approved by Ordinance No. 51, Series 2013 Â· Growth Management allotments for three free market units, nine new lodge rooms, and onsite affordable housing approved by GMQS Resolution No. 6, Series of 2014 . Final Project Configuration Â· 54 lodge units with an average of 300 SF - Maximum lodge floor area set at 24,650 SF 3 residential units - Maximum residential floor area set at 8,400 SF - Average net livable of residential 4,400 SF Â· Three affordable housing units housing a total of 4.75 FTEs (3.3 FTEs required to be mitigated by approved development) . Â· Public amenity space of 4,030 SF Â· Engineering Department recommends parallel parking along Garmsich Context h \ :1 14 0 10, 4 3---\ ~40 426 7 , \. 1 h NORTH ELEVATION 1 , EAST ELEVATION . ....... SOUTH ELEVATION HOTEL ASPEN poss â€¢PC FINAL SUBMISSION : STREET VIEWS bM Context - 0 5 . t.~01#_24~ *t MAN + JoAxy-'61-- a A##.WI.t.1-7 j t iL i ' /1 6! - - h -1.1.-< <74Â» - 0 -E- Alvvi\?4 -~ 0. -MI. i 96 3/~lii =F..'ll'll'.I- ' Aa, Â«/ ----.0,- 34162. .p 1, t.'-4 4 41 -96 ... 1.- HOTEL ASPEN HPC FINAL SUBM:SSION AERIAL PERSPECTIVES ~ / Site/Landscape Plan 7100.1/""ri//"MG"//2/41Â£7'.9'r,99"limr/M'Fillillill"'ll""Ill//Ill'll""Illimmli 7 . V.5 L . t - fE' C#5 ,-1 2 * i i - . Â·Â·;720,~222Â§&â‚¬ZAFC-- =~32.-~. ~.g- 1.1-L *ftÂ£21t3*21 4 %:W. I ' Awaki- *663 *4Â£6*2# **dwai j*r#t-415*=.*â‚¬ 1* f .tlitri 1 -8*a. ..... . V t. i ' 1 -Â£411 1 - * 4 771 . F- AP L... : , -Â£1 -- --I.-*-=--~ / cÂ» 99, J 7.-- - --..fi.' .*1'A.a,~.~ WNMS#fill'll , 2 I Et-ki 1 - 1 .7.' 0*,11 , 11.1 4 j & e 6 4- 4 0/tta - 4 - +. P--rm-- :1 , 1hz:' 1 . 1 1* 13': 19: I 1 . L, 1 1 11 u.-. . El -t . 1 1 -N . a St M ~1. 6. 4' & 51' - '), 4 /Â»,â€¢-â€¢ 1~ f ~ 4 '40'' 4.4 74 1% 4' 1 i .' 0 .: I'l='. I. PrÂ· 74 9 > - W F ag' T 1/ H 'Fmgim/ Â·1~ i ti~f --1 aka 6, , 7 4 , 1 . Â¥ - r F.:21 - 1 1 I . . 4.-I. 4.1.--f-- . 4. . ..it t. # ' - *L HOTEL ASPEN poS$ MPCFINALSUBMISSI[pt-SIT~22 '21 Residential Materials 1. , th MttAL ROOF AND ''Â·4E1AL iNIM AND - CHIMNEY COLUMNS === ..224 :.333:. --14 -1 12*./ 6.4 WOOD PAÂ·'Â·45CREEN SIC)ING ~4.....I-'--'.'- HORIZONTAL - Eâ€¢ .. CONCRETE. BOARD-FORMED VE'!AL ENTRy !2<OCR - I.1-Â£-181 l 1 -2- - -Ilm.... li . - elle -Ll 4 / r q i - - ..16- FENCE WOOD HOS'. WINDOW METAL SHADOW BOX FRAME 11 lillit , t - U ./Alitt 1 - 2.--lf- - ~ ~ L f 14 1 - ..1 4 1 - S .-g' 9 1. ..1 - a WOOD RAINSCREEN SOING WINDOWS AND DOOR: ENTRY PIVOT DOOR rA It ING 0.. A 1.5 METAL CLAD METAL CLAD HOTEL ASPEN VERTICAL poss HPC FINAL SUBMISSION RESIDENnAL MATERIALS 11,6 Residential Elevation - North -I. "-to' I. -mul. -:.M--/8- .-- a:Nallil *k (--W. --- ~r,X, i*-,1 1,- .. MEAL ENTRY ROOF /6/ // I ViA 9Â« : 1 .1 -= S'/ -1 1 ' F -.i â€¢ fit i . -li -. 1 4 - I -- All a 02 /9 - i.. ..fi .~ .1 h lul F r â€¢ 0.: :. =. . ME*#P -7 '' -- I . 1 41' Â·1?*Ii -........i.... 1 t /45 -/*21 ....~ 1 'ta. 231 . .il..... 1~â€¢04 jt' 6 *râ‚¬%â€¢, ..................' - 1 , -- -i ip--- ----P--*-*--*-----1----- Epfil. ....'- 4 + AteÂ·-1 . 2/f 11 -2. ' 4. Ul ' ' ./.1 1 . pOSE , - CONCRETE: BOARD-FORMED FENCE: WOOD HORZ. Residential Elevation - South ......1 . -- -- I ----- , *'. 1 - 71 k 4.0.-1 .1 1 1 1 2 -1 -- - - 1 -- â‚¬- --4â€ž,>?14,11Â« : =i'l- -' 14Â·011=1.----uÂ·-=-=.nu.-*-Â·r--bs I. 0 ! ,. : -1 I.-i -,-- i I -1 . 141 --1 : -â‚¬91 1 t-:7 96:i r- --ri~ 1- .,- . I L. 111 . , ' M . i. -U.Â·ruw:,10. â€¢003-012....Inc ' Â¢ , '1 I HOTEL ASPEN poss HIC FINAL SUBMISSION RESIDENTIAL SOUâ„¢ ELEVATION ~ --I- --- . â€¢. I. ..r, A. . /. --- WINDOWSAND DOOR: METAL CLAD Residential Elevation - East 11 11 1 1 1 111111111 I . int' -(-m--,---E- I., ~1111 ill 1 Lutull L'' 1 1 lilli lilli 11, 1 111*~ 11& -1 t - ... e,â€¢ METAL ROOF AND Â· ~ CHIMNEY 1 , 1: JÂ» 11 J - - 1 - 4- --1/ ' 1,1 ' -;till P S -1 1_3!~mji- _ h.â€¢t 1 11 . --............ , A- 4 . I =18 , i =.-- , â€¢ HOTEL ASPEN P'11_ --- + 09 MPC FINAL SUBMISSION RESIDENTIAL E~~ELE'~27: WINDOW: METAL SHADOW BOX FRAME Residential Elevation - West â€ž1.-. I i= 11 . , - -X- f-/.I Im 4 ... ~11 *OÂ»U wAINALâ€¢11'4 14.JING ' 7Lj~./21*21/3 VE*TICA r.- i'=-. METAL TRIM AND COLUMNS -1- i 1 1 - 1 ./ - , r . 1 9 . - 1Â¥m- Â·hÂ·-i.:'11 ,;â€ž,& '9..: â€¢ r-,44.4,"91 - < - m ''-' 7,--..-- Em , 1= R-,- -2.. -- - 1 .--. . I. HOTEL ASPEN PÂ°31- _-* HPC FINAL SUBMISSION RESIDENTIAL WEST ELEVATION 112 St. 61 11 ~ 1 Residential Elevation - Internal Elevation , -- t-*.. .- . - 7 1 A# El , 11 I 6- r=~= 0"7 ; RAILING: GLASS Ukabiliz~.0 4 --/.* A t - 4* ' - - HOTEL ASPEN -- poss -4 HPC FINAL SUBMISSION Â· RESIDENTIAL MIDDLE UNIT WEST ELEVATION ~ O -- .- 6Â£/'I) Hotel Materials ....P;. M . 1-= mi 1.1:1 '1.- - 1 -"/ **44 -- H?AV-Fl Fli Gt.ASS â€¢Â·â€¢'AL CONCRETE SOARD FORMED WALLS 111117111@1~jj~111 - il Li, 1/. R.,1-' f ......../2 . : -9 1 44 a lilli . /-1 . I.,/-/-/- %, . -t. J '1 1 ' 4 1. i Iliwilal 1 L '-ill .. WOODSÂ·DNS WOOD RA *C <EEN 1 -, t.)5 D.â€¢ETAL DERFORATED SCREEN VERTCAL EUTT PO NT vERT CAL WALL - 11 4"2 --- - 1 - i.*44 -I- All/ ....FTiy- mi l 4- 4 7/. 1 7fM' i.,4 - ;44,2 ./.-4. lifi 1. -- W NDOW'& DOOR GUARDPA L GLASS V.SAL CANOPâ€¢ W*DOW BRONZE CLAD FETAL 1*10â€¢ ANS METAL FRAME EXTE,C ON COLUMNS HOTEL ASPEN poss HPCFINAL SUBMISSION : HCTELMATERIALS 113 Hotel Elevations - South -ill-Il.-1,"IMMI".Im.Ir =30~1 #Wa 00 2, 417,1 1 !. %4 0.0 METAL CANOPV: --- .*1~04 ~Â£*U~-N~ -* .' - -r*'1OA ( WI -~*0 41!- i 1 ........1 KI' ... .... i .4--#1~ 6 El;~4~ OW: BRONZE CLAD , . I -~ liii'11 / 6,1 yaA- - I 111 0-4-1 id'.1 . ..1 . 1./.'Ff..W , 1 .1 , -â€¢I.'-mâ€¢.---- 11 - -Ij /#40... *. 1 1 - - A lift. r h.~ . 1 ~.:.*.- Ja -- --Il .. 4. - e- - - e. L r CONCRETE BOARD FORMED WALLS WOODS:D'NG VERT CAL BUTT JONI ir \ .Jf Hotel Elevations - North . ' At.**fo- ~' 11777 .. 4 Â¥ L--* bl. in â€¢ r.- t I. J trret ' 1 ... 1 4 -2,1-0 ~. L. _1 - - . r. 1- NORTH ELEVATION %4/&4./ -1 t'*2 4 -r â€¢6. at Â£ 1, 9 j.!a A.*P/ /4. 0 - .h 4, L --11.9. 1.1 - METAL PERFOPATED SCREEN WALL WOOD SONG: VERr,CAL BUTT JO NT . Hotel Elevations - East ill '1111111!111 - 71 -,MIll 'wia 1 1 11'g 1,11#'lill'!1 - VEFT CAL V.ETAL CANOF" - -g.* O.0 roc- â€¢Uâ„¢ I ... Ill' .(41- f- 1 -IJ~ , -I-lili'- -- - 1 - P . 3 r --5-14,~ I 1-1 -n rl ru-- L ' 16 ' 10* , U,-i-~li:.'*--1 r|LI. I. 1 4 1 U -9 1 -1 1,~. >drr-i -.,I, 1 4 Â· I- /1. . I -.+4-J/L-J, -_. , 4/- â€¢-~' -i -1Â«â€¢~*~,M'~4hri~ ..'., A. # V A 9///r im...... 0 4 1...pr 4 . 1 -1 7. -6.. -- P . 4. 1 1 1 1 FRAV.ElESS GLASS WALL METAL TRIM AND ,Â·11 A U. vETAL PERFORATED SCREEN COLUMNS .. Hotel Elevations - West U".-.1 ~2-1 3..9 ** V 97â‚¬t + . 4. *- 4 F-'' 'AL: / -6/ *d//lid/1/I ..*~fi,~r, L- CON.PEJE EC*2 FORVED WALLS * r.,C.. Râ€¢ NIC@laâ€¢ . ... 40â€¢ - 0.09[Â»L ...UE-~I Â·Wor-1 - -Cl.- C... Wl~re-~ .INTCAL -1 Â· Â· a~K-~ ........... *.-.- . -7_9--f Â· : 2.-IC_11._ 1 0 Â°1-TI- | 6...1---,- 1 Frr- 1 , , . ..U-, I....7/1 ....1 .-0 ./.1 ..rY.â‚¬U~-,t . . 11 - .4-- -- WOOD SONG- VERT CAL BUTT JOINI . 1 Floor Plan - Lower Level 0 _ L li 0 0 I r- - - 9- -1 - . 3_â‚¬1 -+1 -r[~-râ‚¬ - 9 .... - 1 -.I:.-//---'El--1-2 ''. tit"H -1,-1 - - - .It L 11 1 ~ -- - - f A.--P--- : t ri - i] 21,- ]1 L M t.i 11 ,-- i ra~ -1 6 1 , 1 f- 1 1 , 1 .. 2 I. #4 1 1- E. r 4 1 - - - hÂ»- r - - -- i .-Irc i I- . PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - l,1 , HOTEL ASPEN poss - HPC FINAL SUBMISSION PROPOSED LOWER lEVEL PLAN <-I '. W./ I. 4 ' d-2-R' 1 E. - Floor Plan - Level 1 GARMISCH ST. , I .. . . ..... . 4 . -MI *- '. 1 ' r-*I. 1 -4 -J -7.- 9- 1. -1 1 - . - ..1. - - ==3 -1 - 1 i =7= '. 4 -/ i. . 1. *1 --1-1 -- I -11.*411#{11.5/ - 1. - -1-4 1 4 0 4 1L .4 11 1 - ti i I *-1 11 - . ' 71 -1 "4 - f' a 4 r-1- 1 -1- . â€¢ , - 1 E F |---'--r =1 - i k --It== i = - j 4.-1 1-L j I : 1 -7-- ..=D ...=4-r. ..h..2 N -- ~ . , 12'Vy= - - U.: . i-1 _ 1 - 11 . Uâ‚¬=-/ 1 U 1 1. 1 I ' .4 14=11 â€¢ I C. -F h 4 ... Â·.1-1/ I--, 4- : leÂ·g. ....." -- ' 1 -- 1"1 1 - - 1 i 1- , 1 . * 1 . 7, - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LI 1 HOTEL ASPEN poss - HPC FINAL SUBMISSION PROPOSED LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN ~,~ JA ... CD J i -â€ž9 11 AS NIVW . + 11 ' 11. ' -2- &j7~ - - Floor Plan - Level 2 GARMISCH ST. .. - I . . lili ' J'-27 -4--6 4 1 - A t -l- - -- - - i -1 t= e tr 4 1 11 1 e 12 . Fl - Â· 1 i. , 7 1. .. .E 10 -1 171 . p r i q , hl_nÂ· 11- - -.... a â€¢ ee"...r- - i. -:i =5= =.= - .r -4 1 jÂ·Â·=f b==mi 2-1 T ~ :-1 1-1 [1 9 - =1 E i f 1 : . -4- -r . - L.C LA - ./.--- 1 0 ?3 61 -. P -- 1 1 11-1 . =Pi . 1 . 1 Â¥-V\=U -1 . - . I , 7 = 1r = ~.. â‚¬. , -1 . 'I....I- to-=4 - 5 - 11 -â€ž I ,â€¢sâ€¢,3 .......i . .....t I . .. , LA - -I- , k tr= . - ....,.10.4/ f le--5- . _ -: --: I ..../6.9- I 4-- -- - .1.- -- 1 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LY HOTEL ASPEN poll- --- - Her FINAI SUBMISSION : PROPOSED LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN ~ ~ â€¢..An-- ..9,â€ž.. 8, 1.1Â¥- Rf-1 Floor Plan - Level 3 GARMISCH ST . .. 1 It Â£ T li 1 11 . 1 1 . 1 Â»-9 1-1 . UX = = i = = 1 = th-4- 0 .T ... i = 5,- 1, , 1 4 j ' 10 | 1 I j P | r 9 . * - . 1 1 - 4 i-' - Ilitilili~lilijl. .-- h .lpÂ·-- 1 Ej 1 122-2 V 01.--p.2 1 41- J' = - , M , ... 4 4. t . t 1 . I --7 - *42 44 - 1.2.-i~ * I ..2-7.. 1 'Â· R leâ€ž-,11 - R . y , * ~: 11 rÂ· i - 1 ti' .1 --I- 1 4-- - /51 E,4.1 - 1 -2- - 0 14 .. -4- f 1 = i -6.. e -=- -1 -~-L_ , --- & 41â€ž ..... I *. - . 1 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN , O HOTEL ASPEN PÂ°32- ---_ - HPC FINAL SUBMISSION PROPOSED LEVEL 3 FlOOR PLAN - ~â€ž 10 4 , - Floor Plan - Roof GARMISCH ST . ...--- -- . U . --7 1 - - 1, 1 - -1 !]: ! 1 tr 14 - - v '4 - r S'-- 1 . . .23. 4 4: . 1 2.' , 1 > . 1 1 - 1 *4â€¢ --- + ---- - le - M .1 I r. - - - -:7 R ' 1 . .4 . 'It' , .-I -/*S ... i 1.f.7,4 r------ 1- ' - i - 4 3 --t 1 .. . 1 1 *I- ' -- - /i, *,*-.* EL 4 , , PROPOSED ROOF PLAN HOTEL ASPEN poss - HPC FINAL SUBMISSION Â· PROPOSED ROOF PLAN ~ -... 15 NIVW ... . AH Units 0 F 4 4 1 . 1 - - 1 = - 9 r _ =* r =4 - 3.L .IC= 12- I 'F 11111 1111114 i .-- '0.- . > - + ==1 I - -- -. =96- 1-1 2 . 9 1 n F )1,1.1.4 111 IN - 04 9-, 5 ~1 r~ ~ 1 3 F'El 2 A)40 3 ENLARGED PLAN , _LEVEL 1 AHU 2 ENLARGED PLAN , LEva 1 + AHU 1 ENLARGED PLAN HOTEL ASPEN - HPC FINAL SUBMISSION ENLARGED AHU PLANS |~ . *~~ ..~. 1 4 Il I . SketchUp Model 1 . 9 fÂ« i.- *9, 4 -1 . 1 6 . .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: 110 West Main Street, Hotel Aspen- Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design review, Public Hearing DATE: May 14,2014 SUMMARY: The subject property is a 27,000 square feet lot that borders Main Street, Garmisch Street, and Bleeker Street. The property is currently zoned MtJ Mixed Use along Main Street, R- 6 Medium Density Residential along Bleeker Street; and the entire property has the LP Lodge Preservation Overlay. The applicant proposes to demolish the majority of the existing lodge and to construct a mixed use project that includes lodge (54 rooms), affordable housing (3 units) and free market residential (3 units) uses. The applicant requests Final design review from the HPC. This is the last step in the land use process prior to submitting a building permit. Previous approvals associated with the project are described below. There are significant changes from HPC's conceptual design approvals in 2013. The primary change, and the focus of HPC's discussion and City Council's discussion, is the free market residential component. City Council's review of the PUD resulted in 3 detached free market residential units that are not to exceed a maximum of 25' in height, which is consistent with the surrounding R-6 Zone District. The lodge component is largely unchanged. Parking along Garmisch is required to be parallel and the sidewalk is required to be detached. HPC is asked to review specific aspects of the free market residential buildings in addition to the typical final design review issues: materials, fenestration, architectural details, and landscape. Staff finds that the design guidelines are met and recommends that HPC grant final major development and final commercial design review approvals. APPLICANT: Hotel Aspen, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Poss Architecture and Planning. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-61-800. ADDRESS: 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen Condominiums. City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: Mixed Use/Lodge Preservation overlay Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 1 of 7 .. EXISTING CONDITIONS/ PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The hotel currently contains 45 lodge rooms and 1 onsite 2-bedroom affordable housing unit. The affordable housing unit was approved in 1984 when the lodge was converted from the Nugget Lodge to the Hotel Aspen. The proposed project has received Conceptual design approvals from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) via Resolution #14, Series of 2013. The P&Z heard the project twice: the first hearing was extensive background and explanation of the project by the applicant, and the second hearing included staff recommendations. The applicant requested a decision at the second hearing: P&Z voted 3-1-1 in denial of the project. A PUD plan, Subdivision, and Rezoning to MU/LP was granted by City Council via Ordinance #51, Series of 2013. The project was granted Growth Management approvals on April 15,2014 via Resolution 6, Series of 2014. ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2013, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Due to the extensive changes to the free market residential portion of the project from HPC Conceptual approval, the City Council ordinance included a recommendation that HPC conside# 9. the following during Final design reviews:~ 1) Front doors for all residences shall face Bleeker Street. 2) A front porch that meets the Residential Design Standards shall be provided on Bleeker Street for all residences. 3) Reduce the amount of glazing.~ 4) HPC shall review the roof forms during Final design reviews. Staff Response: Staff finds that items 1 -4 are met with the current proposal. There are front door and front porches of an adequate size (the requirement is a minimum of 6' deep and 50 square feet (sf) in size: the proposal is 11' deep and 90 sf in size) facing Bleeker Street. Eha applicant has reduced the amount of glazing proposed to be more representative ofÂ« residential use than an office use, The gable roof forms are consistent with City Council's feedback and the surrounding neighborhood. FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW: Major Development and Commercial Design review is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the LIPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. The procedure for Final Major Development Review and Commercial Design Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 2 of 7 .. buildings. The concrete board formed walls proposed for the chimney add texture and a cohesive palette of materials from the same genre. All o f the materials are high quality and are durable in the local environment. The application and dimensions of the materials, fenestration and details relate to the pedestrian and the neighborhood. Staff finds that Guidelines 7.16.7.17, 7.20. 5.11, 5.15 and 5.16 are met. 7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. â€¢ These include windows, doors and porches. â€¢ Overall, details should be modest in character. 7.17 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. â€¢ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. â€¢ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged. 7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. â€¢ When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character o f historic materials and their placement. Vree Market Residential: The applicant proposes wood rain screens, metal standing seam roof and metal windows for the 3 residences. Minimal eave details and simple, clean architectural details are proposed. rrhe proposed materials address traditional materials used throughout the residential neighborhood, historic district, and the application of the materials and architectural details make subtle references to the residential context. Staff finds that the front porches, window placement and massing convey a human scale that reflects the character of the neighborhood. All proposed materials are high quality and durable in the local environment. Staff finds that Guidelines 5.11, 5.15,5.16, and 7.21 are met. 5.11 To reduce the perceived mass and scale of a building, the design should respect the setting and reflect the human scale and character of the neighborhood. This shall be achieved through all of the following: â€¢ The varied massing of building forms. â€¢ The articulation of the fagade(s) through a varied roof profile â€¢ The articulation of the faqa(le through varied wall planes â€¢ The use of a variation in architectural materials, and detailing. 5.15 High quality, durable materials should be employed. â€¢ The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and approved as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples o f materials as required. 5.16 Building materials should have these features: â€¢ Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically. â€¢ Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the fagade. â€¢ Convey human scale. â€¢ Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate. 7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 5 of 7 .. The HPC may: â€¢ approve the application, â€¢ approve the application with conditions, â€¢ disapprove the application, or â€¢ continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the project with conditions: 1. The free market residential units along Bleeker Street are approved as designed. 2. Public Amenity Space: a. Staff and Monitor to review and approve the paver material and design for the public amenity space along Main Street. b. Staff and Monitor to review and approve the fence design and material along Main Street 3. Lighting: a. Staff and Monitor to review and approve a lighting plan and light fixtures for the project (lodge and residential uses). 4. This project is subject to the approvals granted in City Council Ordinance #51, Series of 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution # 6, Series of 2014, and HPC Conceptual Resolution #14. Series of 2013. 5. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date o f issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded. as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation ofa vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance. the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan. and the creation of a vested property right. valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 6 of 7 .. report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the design guidelines. The 11PC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. For new development in the Main Street Historic District, the guidelines found in the 2007 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines - specifically the Main Street Historic District guidelines and the Small Lodge Character Area guidelines (attached as exhibits a and b) along with relevant preservation guidelines within the Cio, of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines are applied. Commercial design review must address the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation #om the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviationfrom the standards. B, For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial. Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent Of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. STAFF RESPONSE: A list of the relevant Commercial design guidelines is included in the application. Historic Preservation Guidelines to consider are listed at "Exhibit A." Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and selection of new materials. The applicant resolved the public amenity and utility area requirements during Conceptual HPC Review and during the PUD review at City Council. Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 3 of 7 .. Landscape plan: The applicant proposes a simple landscape plan with pockets of trees and plantings for both the lodge and the free market residential components. The pedestrian amenity space that was approved by HPC during conceptual review is located along Main Street near the pool area. The details of this space - paver materials, specific landscaping, fence along Main Street - are not specified in the application. Staff recommends that Staff and Monitor review and approve the paver materials, material and design of the fence for both the residences and lodge. and landscaping for this area. Paver material for the walkways also need to be specified Considering the scale of this project, Staff finds that it is appropriate to handle these small issues as conditions ofapproval. The City Council ordinance requires parallel parking along Garmisch Street and a detached sidewalk as shown on the landscape plan. Staff is supportive of the proposed landscape as noted and finds that the following guidelines are met: 7.22 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: â€¢ Enhance the street scene â€¢ Integrate the development with its setting â€¢ Reflect the quality of the architectural material 7.23 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk. 5.17 Maintain a high degree of landscaping on a lodge site. â€¢ The location of a new building should minimize the loss of existing mature tree cover and landscaping. â€¢ Also include additional tree planting and landscaping within front and side yard areas. Lighting: A lighting plan is not proposed as part of the application. Staff recommends that Staff and Monitor review and approve the lighting fixtures and lighting plan as a condition of approval to confirm that the following guidelines are met: 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple and character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. Fenestration/ Materials/ Details: Lodge/Affordable Housing Buildings: The applicant proposes a combination of wood, metal and glass for the lodge/affordable housing buildings (a cut sheet is provided as sheet 19 of the application). Staff is supportive of the proposed materials and fenestration for the lodge. The wood and simple details relate to typical materials that are found in the Main Street Historic District with a contemporary application. Staff is supportive of the metal accents which provide interest and definition for the lodge Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 4 of 7 .. Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 110 West Main Street, Hotel Aspen. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Exhibits: A. Small Lodge Character Area Final Review Design Guidelines B. Main Street Historic District Final Review Design Guidelines C. Application Hotel Aspen 110 W. Main Street- Final HPC Staff Memo Page 7 of 7 .. This letter is to request an appeal to City Council of the 5/14/14 HPC approval of the Hotel Aspen. The basis of the appeal is twofold. First, that HPC failed to provide due process procedures to two issues raised by City Council and by public comment at the 5/14/14 HPC meeting. Second, that HPC exceeded its discretion by failing to review the two issues raised by City Council and by public comment at the 5/14/14 HPC meeting. The two issues relate to reducing the glazing on the residences and making the three residences appear different from each other. References to the record below include the 3/17/14 council meeting & minutes, the 5/14/14 HPC staff memo, and the 5/14/14 HPC meeting & yet to be approved minutes. The data provided to HPC only enabled a rubber stamp of approval. No clear procedures were followed in what proved to be a lack of procedures and analysis in both the staff memo and, more importantly a lack of procedures and analysis on these two issues by HPC in the decision making process. The HPC staff memo included a recommendation to HPC to consider the following during Final design review of which item number 3 was "Reduce the amount of glazing. The response of staff was "The applicant has reduced the amount of glazing proposed to be more representative of a residential use than an office use." See pg 2 of 5/14/14 HPC Staff Memo. No further mention or analysis of before and after sketches of glazing was provided in the staff memo to help HPC members give due process or full discretion to the issue of glazing. The HPC staff memo did not include the minutes from the city council meeting. Page 5 ofthe 3/17/14 council minutes indicate: "Councilman Daily said he would like the 3 buildings to appear different from each other." The HPC staff memo gave no mention or analysis of the request by Councilman Art Daily' s to help HPC members give due processor full discretion to the issue of making the three buildings appear different from each other. The combined total time for two members of the public to comment at the 5/14/14 HPC meeting, from opening to closing of public comment was about 8 minutes 50 seconds. The chair opened by with a restriction that nothing that had been written in letters to the HPC be covered by letter authors in public comment: "This is a public hearing, is there anyone here from the public that would like to make a comment? Junee, I see your hand, we are way over time on this application so I'm going to ask that you keep your comments to three minutes and Junee, we got your letter, I ask thmt YOU dionst cover Eavthing thEE is in Your letter [emphasis added], please." Junee Kirk said, among other things that "Art Daily had mentioned making those three houses, and I have the notes to go, free market houses to be each different and they are not so that hasn't been followed." Bert Myrin spoke at public comment and said "My name is Bert Myrin. I want to speak to two issues that I think are the table tonight. One is glazing that I think was presented by staff and requested that you all look at. If you look at what was presented at council which Stan showed you I have a copy as well but it hard to see from there. You'll see the glazing presented at council on those houses was probably not any less than, I mean it is similar to what is there now, I don't think it was reduced. So you can ask about the square footage and see what was reduced but it seems like there is quite a bit of glazing still. And those drawings from council. Glazing was one ofthe issues that council gave you direction in the staff memo tonight to address on page 2 of your staff memo, # 3 on page 2. The second issue that I'd like you to address is in the minutes that I handed out at the council meeting, although it was not a condition of approval, he was the swing vote, he asked that the three buildings appear different from each other. You'll notice in your staff packet the description of the three buildings is all in one paragraph. There is not a description for each of the three meaning that they would be different. Also, if you look at the three they seem fairly similar. lof 3 .. They don't have what Art said, I think he had hoped you would have fun with it. He said I hope the applicants have fun at HPC and make each one look different than each other. It doesn't seem that there is any fun being had and any difference between the buildings. Those would be the two things I think you have control over the glazing and making the buildings look different. I hope you'll do both of those." Above, you'll see the record of two requests from the 3/17/14 council minutes and the same two requests made at public comment. Below you'll see that there appears to be no procedures to even handily apply these two requests against established procedures with the result being an arbitrary decision without due process and beyond the discretion ofthe HPC. Only one member of HPC referenced HPC Guidelines and this member voted against the approval. The other members were short on data and analysis on the issues of glazing and making the residential buildings appear different from each other. The text below attributed to particular HPC members is a rough outline having listened to the audio from the HPC meeting but not having read the approved version of the HPC minutes. [INSERT ANALYSIS FROM 5/14/14 HPC - SEE END OF LETTER FOR THIS TEXT] In conclusion I'd ask that you re-read the first paragraph of this letter rather than repeating it here per a standard closing. Thank you. - Julianne Steele Supporting documents: Council Minutes, Council Staff Packet, HPC Audio & minutes when drafted, HPC Staff Packet [SEE BELOW FOR ANALYSIS BY HPC MEMBERS AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT] Jay - closed public comment roughly 8 minutes 50 seconds after he opened it. Stan - Art Daily admitted that he was not an architect, and not interested in dictating architectural design by any means made that comment, there is no doubt about it, but on the other hand it was not adopted as a condition of approval and we agreed with stajfthat having consistency of design in these three townhouses is appropriate. The glazing was infact reduced and I did show you the slide we used at city council that showed floor to ceiling glazing. So we think in all we have responded to the condition enumerated by council when they approved this project and I think there is some question whether Ms. Kirk actually served on HPC. Jay - is going to point out the issues. This is tough because council gave us a list of things to go over. The front doors. The porches meet standards. The glazing is an issue we should discuss. It is not appropriate to do the roOfforms because we have onty one to look at. I have one thing I want to bring up. The color of the screens that cover the stairways. My fear is time green and fluorescent pink. Due to Willis' concern put some language in the resolution about signage. Patrick-the glazing and the chimneys. Most ofthe glazing faces northwhichisn't beneficial. Make the three residential 2 of 3 .. John-wanted to address public concern that the residences aren'twood. The majorityis wood and expensive detail wood. They are not cutting any corners with the material quality. It is commendable to put nice materials on. Willis-Ithinkthe applicantlikes thisproject. It shows alot ofrefinement fromthe various iterations that were presented at city council. I'm entirely in agreement with staff with the rest of the application so I don't really think there's any issues of the fore that council asked us to talk about worth discussing any more. The two comments 1 have is about the detailing which is what we are here to talk about. On the hotel there is a great ejfort to create frameless aesthetic. It falls apart at the front entrance where metal mesh is holdingthe banner thatidentifies the hotelgraphically. The entirefrustration of the whole process, from beginning to end, flat roofs and gabled roofs and express afrustration about design in the democratic setting. We shouldn't be designing things. We should be criticizing design. It creates an outcome that is normative and precludes excellence or any kind of departure from accepted norms of what uneducated people about design think is right. Nora - I 'm stuck onfour guidelines and they all relate to reflecting the human scale and largely around the windows. Guideline 5.11 which talked to what everyone said Art is talking about varied massing building forms. Varied architecture materials. 5.16 Human scale. These windows for me, and it is really hard to tell in these renderings because what we and what we pass and what we see on the street is never the same but I know that the things we pass that have been big and one dimensional look huge when they are up. The punch outs that occur all the way along this neighborhood are not here. So to me I can't get beyond 7.18 visual continuity along the street. Maintain traditional window and door proportions. I don'tfindthelandscapeplantalks tome enoughaboutintegrating withthe setting. I 'm stuck onthosefour. Ifindthefenestrationis overwhelming. The gables are totally windowed outwhich 1 don't think you'll see anywhere in that neighborhood. Sally - Support sta# in supporting the application. I want to support Willis about carrying through the frameless architecture to the front entry. The monitor should be involved with the signage. Other than that I support staffs support with the application. I keep hearing Junee and I want to get out that I'm not a developer, I 'm in design and building. Willis - COMPECilly@a@ Dailv's .Ragge#tiofy @bo]74 2%?'ee bÂ·MEfd&Â·2.Rf? @9.j~egriftiv differ.e.*49 ke didiliDE Ret *47 Â§88-@Port based.0.R.*es.e mge#ag.minutes, even.tho.MEE ke was *e swing vote lize_Mg of the otber, 9Â©ain.COMELE Feiterated thÂ« temphasis addedl Sally - I recognize the glazing has been reduced from all the renditions that I've seen before. Jay - the tree removal and setbacks are not on the table. I do disagree on the materials. I leaned over and asked John and said god this stuff looks expensive and high end and John acknowledged this and I appreciate this. I would agree that they are similar and shape and size. I notice the mullions in the center glazing being dijferent than the other two and I think that helps. I do not care for the big tall chimneys and their material. 3 of 3