Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20160425Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3 Resolution #40, Series of 2016 – Rubey Subdivision Easement .......................................................... 3 Resolution #50, Series of 2016 – Tree Trimming Contract .................................................................. 3 Resolution #55, Series of 2016 – ARC Pool Filter Replacement ......................................................... 3 Resolution #42, Series of 2016 – Accepting an Assignment of Partnership Interest in Aspen Country Inn I, LP ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Resolution #39, Series of 2016 – Prockter Open Space Stormwater Improvements ............................ 3 Resolution #53, Series of 2016 – Greens Mower Purchase .................................................................. 3 Minutes – April 11, 2016 ...................................................................................................................... 3 Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt the Consent Agenda; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. .................................................................................................................................... 3 ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 2016 – 530 E. Main St (Courthouse Plaza), MNajor Public Project Review .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2016 – Spring Supplemental Budget .......................................................... 4 ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 2016 – Fee Ordinance Revisions to Implement Seasonal Parking Pricing 5 ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 2016 – Rubey Subdivision Water Service Agreement ............................... 5 CALL UP – HPCs approval of Conceptual Major Development, Special Review, Growth Management and Viewplane Review for 533 E. Main Street, St. Mary’s Church, HPC Resolution #8, Series of 2016 ... 6 CALL UP – HPCs Approval of Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Demolition for 300-312 E. Hyman Avenue, Crystal Palace, HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2016 ...... 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 2 At 3:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the special meeting to order with Councilmembers Daily, Mullins and Frisch present. Jim True, city attorney requested Council go in to executive session pursuant to C. R. S. 24.6.402 (a), (b) and (e) to discuss negotiations. There are two items, one involves negotiations with the Power Plant applicants for the Old Power House and another involves the purchase of property he did not disclose. The members of the Power Plant applicants are here but we will discuss the other item first. Councilwoman Mullins moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. The Power Plant applicants left the room. At 4:55 P.M Councilman Daily moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adjourn the special meeting; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. At 5:05 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins, Frisch, and Daily present. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Jim Ward asked if there will be any more public meetings with locals about the power house before council makes a decision. Jim True, city attorney, stated at some point there will be a public meeting to adopt any proposed leases for the power plant with the proposed applicant. It would be done by resolution. Steve Barwick, city manager, stated we just finished an executive session and there will be a release of information soon. Mr. Ward said there should be a public meeting with all council and the mayor present. It is a community wide issue of what to do with a city owned building. It is a serious issue that should have public input. It should be more for the non-profits. 2. Junee Kirk said she couldn’t agree more with Jim Ward. She asked council to reconsider the selection of the two firms for the design guidelines and code changes. There is lots of public concern of back deals. There is conflict of interest with R&B and other firms can do the job. Chris Bendon wrote the guidelines and the code for the infill and Sara worked for the city, how can they get selected. Mayor Skadron asked how the selection process worked. What is most important is that the right product is returned to the community. Out of the three firms that responded one stood out. Ms. Kirk said once Bendon got on and wrote the code many people objected to it yet council selected him to change the code you objected to him in the first place. Ms. Garrow said Chris Bendon is not part of the contract. 3. Phyllis Bronson stated she attended all the power house meetings where many people spoke in favor of the Power Plant. The key criteria was it was innovative and different and did not have a viable home. ACES is our premier science center for our kids. The question remains people will not use an additional science center on a daily basis. Why can’t they join with the physics center that is empty half the year. The theatre people have more than one home. It is very disconcerting that none of these people have ever congratulated the young men who won and they should be supported. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Councilwoman Mullins stated she continues to advertise and promote participation in the citizen’s academy. It will start in October. She reiterated Bendon is not part of the design guideline team. There has been lots of conversation on the civic relocation project. She stands behind the project and process 100 percent but the city needs to explain how we got to where we are. It is up to us right now to get the information out there and answer the questions. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 3 Mayor Skadron congratulated the high school lacrosse team for the win at Breckenridge. We are in the midst of the Georgetown energy prize. It is a national energy competition for a 5 million dollar prize based on energy savings. Go to aspenenergychallenge.com and sign up. We are in second place behind Huntsville and Park City is creeping up on us. CONSENT CALENDAR Resolution #50 – tree trimming Councilwoman Mullins asked if there is a program in place to replant. Ben Carlson, city forester, said the trees are evaluated on a yearly basis. We will replace those cottonwoods when we need to take them out. After the trees have gone through a tree risk assessment and it has been decided it presents a risk it will be removed and it will be replanted, in most situations with a cottonwood.  Resolution #40, Series of 2016 – Rubey Subdivision Easement  Resolution #50, Series of 2016 – Tree Trimming Contract  Resolution #55, Series of 2016 – ARC Pool Filter Replacement  Resolution #42, Series of 2016 – Accepting an Assignment of Partnership Interest in Aspen Country Inn I, LP  Resolution #39, Series of 2016 – Prockter Open Space Stormwater Improvements  Resolution #53, Series of 2016 – Greens Mower Purchase  Minutes – April 11, 2016 Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt the Consent Agenda; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 2016 – 530 E. Main St (Courthouse Plaza), Major Public Project Review Justin Barker, community development, told the Council, this application is being submitted by Pitkin County for the property located on Main and Galena. It is approximately a 69 thousand square foot lot zoned public with a PD overlay. Currently it contains the courthouse, jail and the courthouse plaza building. The proposed project is to remodel the interior of the existing plaza building with some exterior updated and construct a new 32,000 square foot addition that is three stories behind the plaza building. The application is subject to the public project review. It is a new review process that Council adopted at the end of last year and the State requirement is the City must provide a decision within 60 days or the application is deemed approved. If the City denies the application the applicants governing body would have the opportunity to over-rule that decision with a two thirds vote of their board. APCHA had not reviewed the application by the packet deadline but has since and the recommendation is for two audits in a 10 year period to determine employee generation. HPC reviewed and recommended approval 4 to 1 with conditions. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Councilwoman Mullins asked about the employee mitigation. Mr. Barker replied the employee generation is determined by the HPC commission because it is an essential public facility. APCHA recommended an employee audit establishing a baseline with a study in the future. Councilwoman Mullins asked when the clock starts ticking on the 60 days. Mr. Barker stated when they first submitted the application on March 18. Councilwoman Mullins said she agrees with Staff comments on reducing the height and the design, vertical glass and the distance between the courthouse and new construction. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 4 Councilman Frisch said the recommendations from Staff are warranted. He appreciates we are on the clock. He is not sure how much credence we are going to be getting from now to second reading. It would be helpful to know what the neighboring zoning would have to go through. For the possibility of redesign of Veterans Park it would be helpful to know what is coming. Councilman Daily stated he thinks the Staff recommendations and HPC support in its approval are thoughtful and constructful. They are not just throwaway thoughts. There is more work to be done. This first step is the appropriate one. Mayor Skadron asked to discuss the overall height at second reading. He also asked for a comment on the sustainability goals and the degree to how this building is an example for the private sector as well as a comment on the carbon use. Are there traffic impacts that are generated. It is adding 24,000 square feet is there an affordable housing mitigation strategy. Several county departments are being relocated into this location and he asked for comments why it is important to have them relocated to this location. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #10, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 10 (SERIES OF 2016) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING MAJOR PUBLIC PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE COURTHOUSE PLAZA LOCATED AT 530 E MAIN STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, PITKIN COUNTY CENTER SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #10, Series of 2016 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2016 – Spring Supplemental Budget Pete Strecker, finance, stated in response to questions from first reading and the projected 7.8 million higher ending fund balance and what caused that. A portion is we achieved better revenue collections than we anticipated in 2015. The real estate transfer tax generated about 2.5 million more than anticipated, one million more in com dev and engineering fees, 600,000 in development and impact fees, and 500,000 in higher than expected sales tax revenue. We also returned some unused appropriations from capital projects and canceled projects for 3.3 million. There was also around one million in operational savings. The second question was outline what was the 29 million ask. The majority is the re-appropriation of the funding that was initially adopted in 2015. Because of Colorado law appropriations need to lapse and be re-upped in 2016. All the authority remained in fund balance and this is to re-spend that. 2.7 million is new items that were approved through work sessions and funded through fund balance or new revenue. The questions on the amount of money on the new city hall and details on the money for gondola plaza we replied to those in the email. The question around departmental savings and that some would be used for police department housing. Changes since first reading include 500,000 in additional funding. 497,000 is related to the two items that Council just saw including the transportation service at Burlingame increase to every half hour and the Oklahoma Flats trail improvement. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 5 Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #9, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 2016 – Fee Ordinance Revisions to Implement Seasonal Parking Pricing Mitch Osur, parking, told the Council there have been no changes since the first reading. Council requested the 150,000 raised is not kept but given back. You can sign up for the drive less program starting June first for the choice of a RFTA value card, We cycle pass, bike tune up or car to go membership. Sign up after June one at driveless.net or at the parking department. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Tom Marshall said charging more is wrong. It will not solve anything. The people who have the money will park anyways and the locals will get taxed for it. There are few places for locals as it is. To put this added tax will cost us more money and is wrong. The downtown pays our wages and is old and needs some care. Making less and less parking is wrong. Mr. Osur said the goal is to give more parking in town. The garage is still available. Residential is free for the first two hours. There is still car pool parking. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Daily moved to adopt Ordinance #8, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 2016 – Rubey Subdivision Water Service Agreement Dave Hornbacher, utilities, stated this formalizes the water service to three of the five lots, provides services to the unserved two lots and allows for water service consistent with the county approvals for the individual lots. The City also gets as built easements to the existing water lines and pump station, compliance with storm water regulations and there is a provision for annexation and provides for curtailment if there is a water shortage. Scott Miller is here on behalf of the property owners. Mr. Miller introduced the representatives and owners and thanked the City for putting this together. It is a good agreement for the applicants and the City. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #5, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 6 CALL UP – HPCs approval of Conceptual Major Development, Special Review, Growth Management and Viewplane Review for 533 E. Main Street, St. Mary’s Church, HPC Resolution #8, Series of 2016 Amy Simon, community development, told the Council on March 9th HPC granted conceptual design approval, growth management and viewplane review. The application is to create a social hall that will be approximately 7,000 square feet and below grade. HPC held three meetings to discuss the project. They had a number of concerns about the height and scale and asked for restudy at the first meeting. At the second meeting they also asked for restudy. The third proposal presented two options. There is an above grade entry either on the alley or along Main Street. The concern with the alley was the addition would attach to the existing church and removing an existing door. It stretches about 70 feet from the church towards the employee housing building leaving a five foot gap. Several board members were concerned with the limited space left around the proposed addition. There was more discussion about moving the addition forward. The proposal that was approved had three entries, one to the rectory, one to the new social hall and one to the historic church. The new addition would attach to non-historic construction of the existing elevator. This appealed to a number of HPC members and was approved 4 to 3 and we understood was the applicant’s preference. Council made a site visit today at noon. The applicant indicated the front corners of the proposed additions are affected by two viewplanes originating from the steps of the court house and veterans park. It is a difficult site to build on. The total development proposed for the property is about 19,000 square feet of floor area. The allowable for the site is 74,000. It is a modest project that has generated a lot of discussion. One of the things that has taken up a lot of time at HPC that is not on the table right now was the proposal to add a second form of egress out of church. An exterior staircase in various forms was discussed for the west side of the building and a struggle for HPC. It was not approved but may be in the future. HPC looked at the viewplane and did allow for the front edge of the site. They looked at parking and it was determined there is no new need for onsite parking. They have to respond to transportation impact requirements and there are a number of things they plan to do. Improvements around the perimeter of the site for the public including rebuilding sidewalks and replanting trees. The last issue addressed was growth management. The applicant represented they currently have three and a half employees that are full time. Most of which live on the site. Many of the events are staffed by volunteers and they do not need to hire new employees for the additional space. The housing authority agreed with that and recommended an audit in the future. This will come to Council after the HPC review is concluded. Father John Hilton said it is beautiful facility but is not adequate for what we do now. We work with less square feet than what we have had in our history. Patrick Rawley, representing the applicant along with Marina Skiles and Colleen Loughlin stated the church held a survey in February and 148 votes were taken at the three masses. There was an 87 percent approval of some type of parish hall expansion. There was 66 percent that said put the social hall off of Main. The church was built in 1892. The parish has three full time employees, all housed on site. There are 300 families and masses are held seven days a week. Religious education classes are once a week. There are other community groups that use the church as well. There were in depth meetings at HPC. We received a 4 to 3 approval at the second meeting but it was a confused approval so we asked them to reconsider it and came back for the final approval. Option B was Staff supported and utilized where St. Stephens was located and brings vitality to the street. The location requires minimal contact or intrusion to the historic resource. The connector will be largely hidden by the elevator. Most of the development will be subgrade. Option B works functionally. He showed an image of the viewplane with the two foot Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 7 incursion at the boundary. He showed an image of the main street façade. He showed an image with the materiality of brick and glass with the sandstone base and transparent connector. Councilwoman Mullins congratulates them on a growing and active congregation. She thanked them for the proposal where the impact is lessened by putting much of it underground. Councilman Daily said the site visit was helpful. He came away with more information and has a better understanding of what the choices are. Councilman Frisch said he appreciates we have a true public building that is important to everyone regardless of faith. He asked about the slide on the discussion at the church level of where to put the extra feet. Mr. Rawley said 87 percent agreed we need more space. There has been healthy debate and we were ok with both options. B has functional benefits to us. Councilman Frisch asked if B came about because of staff and HPC direction. Mr. Rawley said staff was helpful in that regard and in that there should be two options. When we went towards B and Main Street we fell in love with it. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Marcia Goshorn said she likes the idea of the glass building. St Mary’s has always been the first to step up when there has been an issue. She appreciates the majority is under ground and is not as impactful. She was wondering about the lilac bushes on Main Street. She does want to see this built. 2. John Kelleher said he is in and out of the church on a daily basis. The need is real. It is important for the location for the physical connection. The building committee has met for the last two years. This is the best solution. It would be a terrible mistake to put it on the alley. He is a strong supporter of option B. 3. Junee Kirk said the 4 to 3 HPC vote was not a mandate. Putting it on Main Street is a weak excuse architecturally. Option A is better and would keep the open space which is historic. It is modern glassy architecture that doesn’t use historic materials. There was a third option C that was never considered where everything is put underground with a glass top. It would be an intriguing option and the space could be as large as they want. This is one of the last historic areas on Main Street. Changing windows and doors is a minor problem. It should be pushed to the back and option A should be considered. 4. Lisa Markalunas passed out a letter and petition. She is opposed to option B. It will block substantially the west façade where most parishioners interact with the entrance. The question is how transparent it will become. Either A or B can be disconnected from the church. Four members were supportive of option A on March 9. She submitted a petition for support of option A. There was no full survey of the entire parish. It is a mistake to allow option B to take away from what we have known for over 100 years of the parish lawn. It will be incompatible and block the structure. 5. Marilyn Carol said she appreciates all the hard work that has gone in to this. She is in favor of option A. The design of the building is beautiful but not entirely appropriate for the church. Placed in the rear it will have less impact. 6. Julie Markalunas Hall said Aspen is richer for St. Mary’s. We engage more from the west side than the east side. While option B is near the front it will engage the parish with the hall it will block the west façade and courtyard. The community as a whole will be blocked from the lawn. She would like to preserve the building for the community as much as possible. She would advocate for Option A without a connector. 7. Judy Dunn stated where we started with and what we wanted to do is much different than where we are today. We do need to have a connector. If it is in the back of the building there will need to be another connection. Putting the pavilion in the front eliminates another structure. 8. Ann O’Brien said Charles and his team have gone to the mat to accommodate parishioner’s feedback. She likes that option B is connected to the front. The flow of people makes sense. She is on the finance council for the church. Every time we go back it increases the financial burden of the church. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 8 9. Georgeann Waggaman stated this has been difficult for the parish. There is a long ways to go. She thanked the city and HPC and the architects. She feels pretty good about this now. 10. Sean Kehoe said he started working here in 2000. He is here because of the parish. It is not defined because of the building but the people in it. The expansion is defined by the growth that happened in the church. It invites people in. The connection is valid and part of the building. Facades change, buildings change with the people. B is a valid approach. 11. Ivan Assar stated he was one of the people collecting signatures for option A. When you would be driving towards the church there is a brick wall that is in your face. For Option B he asked if there is a possibility for removing the brick wall and replacing it with glass. He felt like people were equally divided with A, B and having nothing at all. People are sick to their heart with change at all. 12. Mary Wolf said she is the parish business manager. Option B provides for handicap access that is much smoother. It provides for a multi-use of the building. It is not just a space issue but how the space is used and where. It is more than a reception area. 13. Toni Kronberg said change is never easy. She supports the expansion. The connector is needed. The building on Main Street is preserving the historic property. 14. Paul Noto said people get married and are buried and have life experience here. They voted 88 percent to add to the church because there is a need. Change is difficult but this isn’t change this is improving and responding to a need. 15. Susan Doddington said she was on HPC for six years in the 90’s and they always stressed additions are to the back of the lot. This is ruining the historic lot. It is ruining the last spot in Aspen. She doesn’t like all these modern things coming in. You can’t see anything past it. She is for option A. 16. Julie Becker said she is the parish part time secretary and a parent of five kids. She asked council to consider the expertise that has gone in to this. It is necessary. The hall will be used on a weekly basis and will be used. The above grade part is necessary so she can see the kids on the lawn while in there. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins said trying to preserve the historic fabric of town is very subjective. Many different things have changed and there are many different layers and one approach can be supported with this information and another approach with another group of information. It becomes more and more difficult. The biggest question here is the decision to actually do an addition and add to the church. What you have come back with takes care of the needs of the church and is much less impactful than what I originally saw. I would support option A. I was looking to the public comment and the congregation came out pretty even. It is important for the congregation to support what is going on. Council’s role is to take a few steps back. In the long term what is the best thing to happen on Main Street, not in this particular site but how does this enhance the entire Main Street. I would support option A and I would support this going back to HPC and reconsidering their decision. The original parish was built in 1882 and disappeared in 1940. The current residents of Aspen are use to that open space next to the church and that is a historic reference. It creates a setting for the church. The guidelines support the new building to be more modern so it contrasts from the older buildings. In this case it appears to be quite harsh next to the church. A reason to support option A is it would be further back on the site and less impactful to the street and buffered and screened by the lilacs. She agrees with the Markalunas’ about the view from the west side that it is prominent and an important view. If the new structure is put on Main you lose that view of the church. It would be nice if it did not have to be connected. The negative impact is much greater by having the structure along Main Street. There is more vitality by having people on the lawn then looking inside a glass box. She would support it going back to HPC and considering option A as the preferred option. Councilman Frisch stated he is at option two with it getting remanded back with Council comments. There are pros and cons about trying to empower P&Z and HPC. It is a beloved building in town that everyone Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 9 believes they have a stake in but it is part of what makes the community great. Either option will do the parishioners proud. He understands why some of the majority supports B. He thinks it works better for the church but in some ways it is worse off for the community. The open space is really important and he appreciates there was a building there some time ago. The grass is important and the breathing space. Blocking the west façade is a mistake. For the connection, he appreciates it may be better off for the daily users of the building. He is vastly against seeing the connector at the airport. It is really important for people to walk out. He understands it is worse for those with accessibility issues but it is better for the community. Lisa talked about the privatization of the yard. Going back to the design element I think there will be more freedom if it is tucked away in the back a little more. He suggests this goes back to HPC. Speaking to the glassization of Aspen. He firmly supports the differentiation of old from new there are too many buildings going overboard. The increasing technology in glass is partially responsibility. The Cooper Street building is one of the prettier buildings built in the last generation. You see it is not historic in nature but honors it. It would be better if the design could be flushed out sooner. With the importance of the building, the longevity of the building and the close vote it does everybody a disservice if we wouldn’t send this back to make sure we are really, really sure we know what we are doing and have as few regrets as possible. He appreciates we are trying to balance out community values. Yes the parishioners are important but so are community values. Councilman Daily said he very much likes the overall concept. Placing most of the addition below grade is community sensitive. The pavilion itself, in terms of above grade is a modest proposal. We looked at the story poles today and his initial reaction was this is going to block a lot of thing and we need to understand how it will work. He said he came away with a sense of surprise. He said he is not a modernist in terms of architectural preference. This is open and he loves the see through element. He said he did not want to get drawn to the design but this fits in this context and it enhances the sunlight as it hits the center of the lawn area. It better preserves the open space quality of the site. Both options are workable and would be enjoyable for the parishioners. He came away and continues to favor option B. Esthetically and functionally it is the preferred option for him. It is a good change. Overall he comes down on the side of option B. Mayor Skadron said there are lots of good things about this project functionally and design wise. Amy used the phrase least damaging to the historical resource. He said when he thinks about historic preservation he thinks about the connection to our heritage. He thinks about historic preservation that allows us to learn from the context of our past. The way we preserve our historic resources in this community differentiates us as a community. In this case I think the green space helps inform this historic experience. Preservation should speak to not just what is built but the environment around what is built. Generally he tends towards development that honors the history and culture of Aspen and in this case that is best satisfied by option A. He will concur with Councilmembers Frisch and Mullins and suggest that this be remanded back to HPC for more consideration of option A. Councilman Frisch asked if this stops Council from interacting publically and privately and it just goes back to HPC. Mr. True replied correct, it goes back to HPC for rehearing and reconsideration with Council comments. They make a final determination that is not subject to a secondary callup. That decision is final. It is just a reconsideration on their part. Councilman Frisch said they can watch the tape from the Council meeting and read the minutes to make the decision. Mr. True said you can say whatever you feel is appropriate in your motion for them to consider as part of their reconsideration but it is just a r econsideration on their part. There is no specific direction you can require them to take. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 10 Councilman Frisch moved to remand back to HPC for rehearing and reconsider of option A and restudy a non-connector option; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor except Councilman Daily. Motion carried. CALL UP – HPCs Approval of Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Demolition for 300-312 E. Hyman Avenue, Crystal Palace, HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2016 Ms. Simon, told the Council, on March 9th HPC granted conceptual design approval, conceptual commercial design review and demolition approval for a project located on the property we know as the Crystal Palace. This includes the dinner theater building and the one story structure to the east. At the call up notice we talked about how the building has changed over the years. On the corner of the site there is a Victorian era structure that has been heavily remodeled when Mead Metcalf created the Crystal Palace. He reconstructed the upper floor of the historic building and added on to it in a Victorian style. In terms of 19th century construction really it is just the ground floors facing Monarch and Hyman. HPC talked about what should we preserve and landed on the middle ground. There is a certain respect for this building. The applicant is removing enough of the existing redevelopment to go back to the footprint of the Victorian but keeping everything about the corner structure. They are making an addition to conver t the property to a lodge. Because it is a 100 percent lodge on the north side of the street it is permitted to be three stories tall. The ground floor has a restaurant and common space. The second floor has 14 lodge rooms and the upper floor has two lodge rooms and an outdoor bar and pool. The applicant described how they would address other code requirements including trash, public amenity, utility and parking. The property right now has no onsite public amenity or open space. The applicant is required to meet the minimum of 10 percent or 900 square feet of amenity space. HPC talked about options of providing some amount on site and agreed with the applicant that the best thing to do would be street scape improvements. This will be provided by upgraded sidewalks particularly on the Monarch side. They are also upgrading the trash and public amenity in a way supported by environmental health. They are providing an onside transformer. There will be no parking on site. Currently there are four onsite spaces that they can pay cash in lieu to remove. The existing Crystal Palace is under parked for what is required today. The new project will not make that any worse. The project reduces the net leasable on the site so the applicant does not owe any more parking. Other things that came up during the notice were the transition between the more historic and the new construction. The brick façade bleeds over to the metal façade. HPC talked about a more distinct vertical separation. Council asked about what can go on the roof deck in terms of structure. HPC will look at that at final and can control the placement of built in planters and features. The HPC vote was unanimous 4 to 0. One member had a conflict and two members were ill and had to leave the meeting. They were all very supportive of the project with the one condition. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, gave a history of the building. It has been changed many times over the years. He showed images of the original building. The roof collapse in the 1950’s and it had a barn door in the front. The barn door was changed to a store front window between 1950 and 1957. In 1962 there were more openings on the second floor and the mural is still there. In 1966 there were two store front windows and regular spacing of windows on the second floor. In 1980 the Mead Metcalf remodel with five punched openings on the second floor. Another remodel in 1991. While maybe today it is not historic, people relate the second floor to the Crystal Palace with a 60 foot brick bay. He showed images of the proposed design. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 11 Mark Hunt, owner, said he has a different type of preservation philosophy for this site. It is important to honor the evolution of the building rather than adapting to its use. This delineates the new from the old while preserving the scale of the landmark. There are inherent challenges when adding on to this building. As it stands today it is in a very different condition but he wants to blend the new with the old with minimal impact to the Palace. The new structure gently cradles the Palace on both sides without diminishing its proud structure. It is clean and understated and not meant to distract from the Palace. The addition is not just adding a steel building with no real purpose. For a large part of its history it was a mining supply company. The steel is a play on a mining structure. It is lower and set back from the original asset. The façade on Hyman is the main façade. They looked at the 30 foot grid and want to interlock the two structures. The corner of Hyman and Monarch is the first 30 foot grid. The middle 30 feet is the transition and the last 30 feet is set back and the 30 feet of new. HPC bought in to that philosophy. We took it as we would preserve the building as is. We thought adding a different material would be a mistake but we are looking at it. Another comment was the alley treatment. We want the building to hold together. Down Monarch where it originally ended it is setback two and a half feet. As you wrap the alley we struggled with what do you put on the face of the alley. We felt the panels would be successful. I think it needs to be contemporary. Lastly is parking. We don’t need it per code but it is tricky. It doesn’t matter what the code say with how many spots you need it is the guest experience. We will find parking for it. It is a 60 percent occupied town, 10 rooms at any given time. 30 percent will be drivers or three cars. It is a great building that has been sitting dormant for 10 years. It is an opportunity to bring life to this building, engaging the street and the building. We are very excited and proud of this application and honored to continue the evolution of the Crystal Palace. Councilman Frisch said the applicant is right. Rarely do I look at a bunch of pictures and say the 1980’s version is the best. Just because it is historic doesn’t mean it is right. Most people, if you ask will say that second part of the building is part of the Palace and trying to honor that part of the building is important. His biggest personal bummer is the loss of the red awnings. He is glad we are having the chance to have a discussion about it. He would like to see the top right corner be a little softer. The biggest thing is the middle section has relevance to the community. He is glad the sidewalk is going to be cleaned up. There is the ability to make it a better pedestrian experience. Is any of the parking going to be changed as far as a loading zone. Ms. Simon replied they have not got there yet. Councilman Frisch said it is just not great to see a 4 to 0 decision. Unanimous is great but 4 to 0 is not. He is having trouble coming up with a reason to remand this. Councilman Daily stated he likes this project. It does some really nice things to this building. It revives it. It has nice historic context to it. It is a continuation of the older and newer look. The third floor is set back and not impactful. It is a very appealing building. It is revitalizing this section of town and a nice revival. He is not concerned with the parking result. The code doesn’t require it. There is not going to be a large demand from the users. He is not supportive of sending it back on a remand. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Junee Kirk said she is concerned the fenestration to the steel windows has changed. She thought the entire outside had to stay as they are now. She suggested the entire façade be kept as is. Everyone is sick and tired of seeing boxes. If they are going to be boxes then lower the second one. She is more concerned with maintaining the integrity of the Crystal Palace itself and the use of steel. 2. Jim Curtis said he thinks it is a great project. The interplay of the different materials is delightful. The old and new is what you envision when you think about the Crystal Palace. The building is in terrible Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 12 shape and needs some TLC. That side of town is absolutely dead and needs some social interaction. It is a great plan. It will be a wonderful amenity for the whole town. Mayor Skasron closed public comment. Ms. Simon said this is conceptual review, mass for shape and the box. HPC has not reviewed fenestration. We clearly want new construction to read as new. We want to show how the town has changed over time. HPC is looking for certain proportions. Metal is certainly a historic element over town. Councilman Frisch said the bottom left section is most historic. If that is most historic the windows are changed a bunch. Ms. Simon stated none of those windows or doors are historic. Except for those sections of masonry, none of the windows and doors are historic. They cannot change the size of the openings. The building on the corner is a reconstruction of what was there at the time. It is pretty unique. Councilwoman Mullins said the way Mark explained the 30 feet makes sense. Having the return exposed makes a big difference. Referencing the windows, if we can give a few suggestions to study the fenestration that people have been use to for 40 years. For parking, she is happy to see less parking than more. She would rather see the lodge provide alternative transportation. For public amenity, the alley is pathetic and this is a great trade off. The alley is an active part of the city too. There is no relationship with what is in the back to with what is in the front. It doesn’t work to restore just two sides. It is a great project. She is very excited to see this project. Mayor Skadron said it is a lower height and setback for the new. Mr. Haas said it is 1.4 foot lower than the historic. Mayor Skadron said they have done a good job honoring the buildings history. He is not bothered with retaining the historic first floor towards the new. He does have a slight concern when trying to speak to our mining history. The sidewalk, are you proposing pavers. Mr. Hunt said he would love to see brick to the alley. Mayor Skadron asked what is the public amenity. Mr. Haas replied the Monarch sidewalk. Mayor Skadron asked is the size of the openings the same as the original. Mr. Haas replied yes. Mayor Skadron said regarding the fenestrations it would be my preference to not tend towards the suburban mall high end. Councilman Frisch moved to uphold the HPC decision with a condition to consider comments on fenestrations and the alley; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Daily moved to adjourn at 9:20 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning, City Clerk