Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160914ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 1 Vice-chairperson, Gretchen Greenwood called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Nora Berko, Jim DeFrancia, John Whipple Jeffrey Halferty and Michael Brown. Willis Pember was seated at 4:40 p.m. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director Justin Barker, Senior Planner MOTION: Nora moved to approve the minutes of August 24th, 2016, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Michael Brown will recuse himself on 110 W. Main St. 517 E. Hopkins – Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design, Growth Management, Establishment of Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits Debbie said the public notices have appropriately been provided – Exhibit I Justin Barker said the project is a 9,000 square foot lot. It is not a designated property but in the historic district. Conceptual was approved in December and HPC approved demolition of the existing building and approved the conceptual design for a new two story building and one story subgrade. At that time the entire building was commercial and tonight the proposal has changed. The second floor is being proposed as affordable housing. Part of that is mitigation for the existing development as well as a request for affordable housing credits for the additional housing that is being provided onsite. In terms of the design for the building the module widths are slightly reduced and staff supports the reduction as it still meets the intent of the guidelines. The normal width is 30 feet. Typically the guidelines require an air-lock entry for new structures but HPC can grant approvals for some kind of air curtain and staff is supportive of that. The materials are traditional which mainly consist of brick, stone and some form of poured concrete and staff is supportive of the material selections. In terms of paving and landscaping this project was initially approved for a small public amenity site in the north east corner of the property and the rest in cash -in-lieu. The ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 2 applicant has revised that request and is still proposing the on -site amenity but is proposing some improvements to the adjacent right -of-way instead of the cash-in-lieu. Staff is supportive of that change subject to Parks and Engineering approval of the final design. The growth management is a new piece to the project that HPC hasn’t talked about at length. The existing development has 4 category one studio deed restricted units and the applicant is proposing 6 new two bedroom units. Part of those would off-set the mitigation requirement for those 4 studio units and the additional amount over that is requested for certificates of affordable housing credits. The four studio units generate a number of 5 FTE’s for the requirement and the proposed development would generate 13.5 FTE’s so there is an 8.5 FTE difference between the two. They are requesting the credits for the additional overage. The project was reviewed by the APCHA board and they recommended in favor of both mitigation units as well as the credits and the creation of those. The only request APCHA made was that three of those units be deed restricted as category two and the other they typically category a 4 rate that is required by the code. This is mainly to offset the loss of category one units. The overall difference is that one of the category two units, a portion of that goes to the existing units and the other portion of it would be eligible for credits. So actually it would calculate to 9.26 FTE’s of the category two rates. That will be outlined in the proposed resolution. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Willis said it was mentioned that the modules have changed. Justin said the modules are the same as conceptual. A typical town site lot has a traditional module width of 30 feet and they are trying to reflect that in the design pattern. The modules are slightly narrower at 26 feet and that was part of the discussion at conceptual. Chris Bendon from BendonAdams Chris said the site is a 3 plus story building now that sticks up into the view plane from the court house plus they have a basement. The space held the Building Dept. down stairs and the Daily News upstairs. There is a pedestrian disconnect from the sidewalk both vertically and horizontally. The 204 S. Galena building which has been up and running for two + years Mark built. The three proposed modules reflect the three sister buildings across the street. At conceptual the second floor was intended for office space and then moved toward affordable housing to keep the project moving forward. At some time in the future there maybe a pivot back to a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 3 commercial enterprise with the same footprint etc. At conceptual there was discussion primarily about the massing of the center section. Growth management: There is a commercial footprint that will be replaced on-site with slightly less net leasable space. In the proposal there are two floors proposed. On the basement level it is intended for a health fitness profile. There would also be a common area with a changing room, showers, bathrooms etc. On the ground floor are the three spaces with a fourth space for the vertical circulation of the entire building. The demising strategy right now is as proposed but we want to be clear that Mark is the owner and wants to be able to respond to various tenant needs over time. For example in the bottom you might see four spaces now and maybe there is a change in tenants and you would see three or even five which is similar to any commercial space in town. The affordable housing is the other review. There are four studio units deed restricted rentals, category one. The code requirement is to replace the number of FTE’s that are housed and it really provides APCHA the flexibility to dictate the form and fashion as how that is replaced. We have found it difficult to rent a category one level. Our proposal is for six two bedroom units all rental s. APCHA has suggested that they like the two bedrooms much more than the studios and they like the category two more than the category one for the replacement units. We are fine with that. There are stipulations about the rental requirements. Several of the units are above the APCHA standards. On the south you have great views and on the north you have great decks. Chris said the existing building has a small amount of pedestrian amenity on the eastern side from the corridor that goes back to the alley. It isn’t the most pleasant experience. We are going to duplicate that amount of space two or three percent of the footprint out of our 10% requirement. The remaining requirement will be with off-site requirements that are adjacent to the building. The improvements at 204 S. Galena are a representation that you could expect, detached sidewalks, street trees, irrigation and electricity. Mark Hunt, owner addressed the materials. Mark said they took the approach to build one building but read as multiple businesses. One material on the corner is board formed concrete and very textural with a brown hue. There is vertical transportation to the basement which is a health and fitness area. We would like to bring in some of the tenants that are already in the building. We desire to design it with proper ventilation and a proper area to change in and men’s and women’s locker ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 4 rooms. We want it to be a health and fitness area when people can come before lunch or after and be able to utilize the space. We have found that anytime you can create local traffic like other studios it is good for the town and it is great for the retailers on the street and it really ties in. The next façade is a more contemporary view but using traditional materials. The brick is all handmade and there is a lot of texture which gives a lot of depth. There is a simple soldier course with a simple steel cap. On the storefront closest to 204 E. Hopkins we had wood but we then looked at another brick to tie it in. It is the same form but a different color. Mark said the middle bay is set back. It is more of a contemporary approach to the architecture. Based on the glazing and the materials it is set back to create the shadow. The store fronts are simple with metal and Hope windows. It is one building but we are taking simple natural materials and tying them together with board formed concrete brick, cast stone, steel and glass to add a little energy to that street and engage the sidewalk. We lowered the entire form to be taken out of the view plane. Chris said in the resolution we would like to address the affordable housing. The housing is intended to be rental and there is a stipulation about what happens if there is a non-compliance which is really an APCHA issue. We feel there will be language in the deed restriction that outlines non- compliance. It is also our assumption that there will be plenty of time to cure the violation. In the reso three units are category two and the other three are category four. We would like the ability to have the category 4 units be a lower category or at least have that flexibility. That would give us internal ability for renting the units. That might trigger a re-calculation of the credits and we could work through that with staff. Dwayne Ramero, managing consultant with the applicant Dwayne said we have had a lot of conversation with HPC when we reviewed this for conceptual. We also had a robust conversation with City Council when they called this approval up from conceptual. The concept is having this be a integrated building with collective uses that are similar. You have an active lifestyle in the basement and active retail on the ground floor and incubator offices. This is a worthy direction to take but at the same time clearly the affordable housing is equally worthy. The moratorium may predict a different direction but at this point the affordable housing is a pathway within the code and it still has virtue and it still helps to satisfy the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 5 requirements of this project. There has been a change at the council table whereby credits or added FAR for residential projects throughout the city are no longer just able to write a check if it is over a certain amount of square footage of addition. You must go seek a credit. This is basically an internal self-help program. We would like to be on the record as stated that if the second floor changes there would clearly have to be an amendment process to do all that. We are putting it on the record today that we would be happy to have that conversation if it would happen to arise but here tonight the program and portfolio is as you see it and it ties together nicely and has a integrated approach. Clarifications: Willis asked about the faced brick. Marks said the brick is the same module but a different color . There is subtle detailing between the modules. Nora asked about the sizes of the units. Chris said they are two bedroom and the smallest is 850 square feet and the largest is 950 square feet with decks. Gretchen asked if internal bedrooms are not required to have light and ventilation and an egress. Chris said our architect is fully aware of the building code and if they have to be more of a loft style that can occur. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Details of construction Materials and finishes Signage Lighting Public amenity Landscaping ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 6 Willis said if we all can agree that the units will be rentals that will give them the most flexibility to move forward with potential changes to the land use code. Jim said the project looks terrific and they have done a good job and the proposed conditions are appropriate. Gretchen said she agrees with Jim and can support the project. That building has been an eye sore for many years and falling apart. Jeffrey said the project supports our criteria. The egress should be addressed. The materials and scale are compliant and the site coverage works. I appreciate the housing component and the building is a project of its own time. It is an excellent improvement. John said he agrees with the commissioners. It is a great project and it is a well rounded approach. The use of affordable housing is beneficial and the materiality is a good selection. Gretchen said the affordable housing is a good switch. Willis said the affordable housing is big switch from the last presentation but the architecture hasn’t changed. Willis said he supports the affordable housing and the unit sizes are great and the deck space and floor to ceiling are commendable. The ability to shuffle between categories is good to allow them the maximum flexibility. The landscape at 204 E. Hopkins is well done and possibly should migrate down the block. The continuity would be great as you looking down the block. Mark said he feels that same design should continue down the block. Chris said the landscape hasn’t been designed yet and we are fine with a staff and monitor check. Bob said he also supports the project and what he has heard from the commissioners. Nora said she is glad to see affordable housing downtown and it keeps town vibrant and keeps locals downtown. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 7 Michael concurred and it looks like a good project. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #28 for 517 E. Hopkins with the conditions proposed by staff. Section #5 to be amended to add monitor and staff to review the public amenity. Chris asked if they could have the ability to convert the credits from 4 to 3 or 2 at the applicants choosing. Jim agreed to add that to the motion. Justin said section #2 can be changed to a maximum of category 4 rate to give them the flexibility to choose a 2 or 3 if they wanted to. The second change would be in section #3 because we don’t know what category those credits would be established at. We probably should not set a specific number. Any FTE’s above the 5 required would be eligible for credits. Jim accepted the changes to the motion. Motion second by John. Debbie pointed out that 8 members are present and only 7 can vote. Jeffrey was appointed as the regular member. Michael said he thought he was appointed as a regular member. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, yes; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 7-0. 110 W. Main Street – Planned Unit Development – Other Amendment, Public Hearing Michael recused himself. Debbie said the public notice has been appropriately provided, Exhibit I. Jennifer said the property is in the Main Street Historic District. The requ est is for a planned development. This is a recommendation from the commission to city council who will be the final decision making body. The last time the commission saw this was in 2014. What was reviewed was the redevelopment of the site which included 54 lodge units, 3 onsite affordable housing units and 3 free market units that face Bleeker. The applicant is ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 8 proposing some changes to the site specific approval. One is in regard to circulation of the stairways and walkways. Parts of the lodge were not enclosed in the 2014 approvals and the applicant is requesting to enclose and weather proof these areas. Secondly, one of the affordable housing units had an outdoor patio and that is proposed to be removed to change a trash enclosure on the site. Thirdly, the height of the lodge is proposed to be increased from 28 feet to 32 feet to re-create greater ceiling heights. The pool area is also proposed to be reconfigured with a smaller pool and a more open configuration. The lodge units adjacent to th e pool area on the first floor will have their patios removed. The final change is the basement footprint which will be enlarged. Jennifer said staff has no problems with the corridor enclosure. This is a similar design that was shown except glass curt ain walls are being added to provide for a similar transparency and provide better protection from the elements for the guests of the lodge. Staff does not support the removal of the patio as it decreases the livability of the individual unit. The remova l of the patio still does not meet the requirements of the trash enclosure that was included in council’s ordinance. Jennifer said the 2014 approvals provided for a lodge of 28 feet in height and the bases of it was parts of the existing lodge were represented to be maintained and remodeled and the exterior materials changed out. The request before you is for a 32 foot height maximum. A total demolition is being proposed rather than a partial demolition. This is different from the previous representation that some portions of the lodge would remain and be remodeled. Those portions were at the front façade along Main Street. The approval of the hotel in 2014 was based on these representations. When it was a remodel rather than a demolition it put certain footprints in place. If it had been represented at the beginning of the project that this would be a complete demolition a potential different outcome for the hotel design may have been reached to better meet the Main Street historic district design standards. Staff supports the amenity of the pool and the location of the pool might have been in a different location if total demolition had been considered on the onset of this project. With regard to the basement expansion when city council passed the ordinance to set the site specific approval there was a smaller basement shown. When it came to HPC for final review the applicant showed a larger basement and what is before you is even a larger basement. Staff has no problems with the enlarge baseme nt below grade but does question some of the setbacks and if it is new ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 9 construction should it meet the setbacks of the zone district. The side yard is 5 feet and portions of the garage are at zero. What this come s to is when you amend the planned development you open up all aspects of this project. Staff is currently recommending a continuation. Staff recommends that this be restudied and or the applicant look at reducing the overall height of the hotel not to exceed the 28 feet and not demolish the Main Street facing portions of the lodge. If they are to be demolished staff believes the site should be reconsidered due to the total demolition proposed now. The board needs to discuss whether setbacks should be required on the basement. Gretchen asked is there are any kind of thresholds when an application comes in like this for changes and would they need to start over. Jennifer said usually during the review process things can change and they would need memorialized appropriately. In some of the representations total demolition was never anticipated. It was our understanding that the front portion of the lodge/lobby and pool area would remain. It seems that the representations have changed. Gretchen asked if there is anything in the code that would indicate this a new application. Jennifer said the changes are to get better head heights. This is 100% demolition as compared to keeping a portion of the building that was originally represented. John asked why staff is vehemently opposed to the changes. Jennifer said the biggest issue is that this might not have been the project that was approved if we had known that the property was going to be scraped from the very beginning which is where the historical guidelines come in. Willis said there is a huge menu of different kinds of things you have to do in the land use code based on a remodel vs scrape and replace. Jim said scrape and replace is a new project. Jennifer said if this is a true demolition of the entire site should we be looking at the site plan again. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 10 Gretchen said when you tear down a building and you have an encroachment and you do more than 40% you don’t get to keep that encroachment. Are there hard and fast rules regarding the process because this seems like another big project to review. Debbie said you need to keep in mind when the ordinance is passed by council they have the final decision regarding an amendment. John said we should hear what the applicant has to say. Patrick Rawley, Stan Clausen and Associates Bart Johnson Kim Weil Michael Brown, owner Patrick said this is a request to increase the height of the lodge from 28 feet to 32 feet. We are enclosing partially enclosed corridors for the hotel for comfort. We would like to revise the pool configuration to allow for more public amenity space for the lodge users. We would also like to modify the trash/utility area. Council would also have to approve the affordable housing credits as we over provided credits and there are additionals that we would like to create credits for. We also would like an extension of vested rights. HPC resolution 13, 2014 approved the final project and ordinance 51, 2013 approved the Planned Development. The plan is identical and the only modifications made is the enclosed corridor and revised pool area to allow for greater seating. The free markets are completely unchanged. This is a complete reconstruction. The western view of the patio is almost identical to what was approved in 2014 with a slight amount of additional height to allow for greater comfort of the rooms. The lodge was 28 feet tall and now 32 which is almost identical. We are maintaining the prominent drum lobby area. The chimney is there and the same covering over the front porch is there. It is really a question of how we are doing the remodel. 28 feet to the parapet is being increased to 32 feet. The height change does not alter the use of the lodge or the approved floor area. We are exactly where we were in 2014. It is simply to enhance the livability of th e individual lodge units. The ceiling heights would be increased from 7’10” to 8’6” which would be more desirable for guests of the hotel. It also allows for ease of construction or more efficient construction techniques and that will reduce the time and impacts of the construction which the neighborhood ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 11 would appreciate. The height is within the context of the neighborhood. 32 feet is what the Molly Gibson is across the street and adjacent buildings range from 25 feet to 30 feet. The Semrau affordable housing is at 36 feet in height. Per floor we are asking for 8 inches. This will make for a more efficient building. The 32 feet is allowed by special review in the MU zone district and we aren’t requesting any variances. This is just a reconstruction of an existing building that was built in the 50’s. We are maintaining the setbacks and public amenity spaces that we have always provided. Patrick said on the enclosed corridor we have always proposed metal screens and the glass will be behind the metal screens. The enclosure of the corridors is protection from wildlife and provides for guest comfort. The visual impacts are minor. The pool that is there now is larger than what we need. For safety reasons we want to reconfigure this area. A planter will be in the location where doors access the pool deck and meet code. The pool itself has been reduced to allow for greater seating for the guests of the lodge. The pool footprint is very similar to what you see at the Limelight Lodge. The overall area has not changed since 2014. Regarding the modified trash and recycling utility area we located a transformer into this area as was permitted by ordinance 51. The ordinance said if you just have a trash area and no transformer you can have a compacting trash/dumpster but it you co-locate with the transformer and trash area it has to be a two yard dumpster with recycling. There were two options given in ordinance 51 and we determined that the relocation of the transformer is necessary. The dimensional requirements are met. The enclosure is 10’6” deep where it needs to be ten feet and we have a 15’3” width that is required and we are at 15’1 1/2”. The setting back of the trash area is very helpful so that it allows for an unimpeded access from two egress stairs to the right-of-way. If we were not to move the trash enclosure as originally shown someone exiting the building would have to deviate from the sidewalk into the alleyway and get back onto the sidewalk. It is now a much cleaner means of egress from the building. Demolition: Patrick said the existing lobby and the west wing of the lodge will be rebuilt to the same footprint and same existing architectural character as exists today. The result will be a fully modern building and will appear to be a remodel of the existing structure. When we were going through final approval the free market units were a topic of interest and lots of changes were made up to the final approval. One concern was the setback along ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 12 Bleeker which needs to be greater. By moving the free market structures to the south that impinged upon the garage area. When the garage area was impinged upon we had a requirement of 13 parking spaces we needed to provide for in ordinance 51. To do that we pushed the garage area underneath the lobby area. Demolition is necessary to meet the council requirements. That is why we are demolishing and building back to the exact same specifications and you will be getting a modern building and the lodge will be better for it. Patrick said there is some cleanup we need to do. Staff was aware of the proposed conditions. This is a shifting south of the garage subgrade. The actual plan was attached to ordinance #51. Ordinance #51 said a five foot setback for the lodge where the drawings on the subgrade show a zero foot lot line setback. It is a clerical error, the difference between what the ordinance says and what the drawings attached indicated. Regarding the resolution we would like to amend B, which says 13 spaces are required but we are provided 14 even though 13 are required. G) Demolition and reconstruction of all buildings including all structures within the southern half of the property is recommended for approval. Kim Weil clarified that the height of the barrel corner at the entrance is staying the same. Jim said they are also asking for a 3 year vested rights extension. Michael Brown said there is no change in the floor area regarding the basement. Patrick said regarding the barrel corner at the public hearings and outreach people liked the drum corner. It is part of the fabric of the mixed zone district. Nora said a remodel allows you to keep what you have. What happens if it is a demolition. Jennifer said a demolition opens up the question as to whether this should have been a different design or a different product. When you amend a PUD even though you are asking for a little change you are opening up the planned unit development as a whole. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 13 Jeffery said he understands the design and making the circulation better. Have the mitigations or setbacks changed. Jennifer said in the ordinance that City Council approved it is definitely over what was allowed in the underlying zone district as a mixed use project. They had to do a planned development to get some of their dimensions. Nora asked what was approved for the patio and how is it now lost. Patrick said the patio is right behind the trash enclosure which is not the best place. Now there is no patio. A patio is not required to meet the affordable housing requirements. We have two other affordable housing units in the hotel that do not have patios. Bob asked about the parking for the free market homes. Jennifer said in the ordinance three are for the affordable housing, 3 for the free market and the balance is for the lodge. Jim asked how many units are in the lodge. Jennifer said they are going to 54 units. There was a deficit of parking originally for the project and they were allowed to maintain that deficit. Patrick said the ordinance says minimum off street parking and 13 subgrade spaces. Bob said he likes the character and feeling of the building . It has been there for such a long time. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis identified the issues: A. The Commission recommends an increase in height of the lodge from 28 feet to 32 feet. B. The Commission recommends an increase in the parking from 13 spaces to 14 spaces even though 13 are required. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 14 C. The Commission recommends an increased basement area and a setback of 0 feet for certain portions of the basement as provided in the exhibit to this resolution. D. The exterior corridors and stair towers are recommended to be enclosed s represented by the applicant. E. The pool area is recommended to be modified per the exhibit. F. The patio area for one of the affordable housing units is recommended for removal and the change in entry location for one of the units is recommended for approval. G. Demolition and reconstruction of all buildings including all structures within the southern half of the property is recommended for approval. Gretchen said after listening to the presentation there are two things in front of us, one is had we not gone down this road we probably would have had a better looking building and visually it would be different. After hearing the outreach with the community they really like th at corner and I am hesitant to go down that road again. It is important to increase the height of the building from 28 to 32 feet. The process is unfortunate and the City needs to figure out a way so this doesn’t happen again this way. Michael said as we got into the drawings to advance them along we saw some issues that we wanted to rectify, notably the height and enclosing the corridors. Jim said looking at staff’s recommendation for continuance on the issue of demolition when you have a revised site plan and a revised height and a full demolition as opposed to a partial demolition that is a pretty dramatic change to the project overall. The issue of full demolition vs preserving the portion that they have committed to preserve is reflective of what was reasonably presumed in the considerations of the original approval. If they had originally proposed a full demolition maybe they would have gotten two free markets instead of three. It is a package when you are doing a PUD. This isn’t just a minor change when you go from a commitment to preserve something and then you want to take the whole thing down. John said he is taking the opposite stance. We are making mountains out of mole hills here. This is a better product. If there is ever a time whe n city council could go on record to make an incentive for lodging, demolition is going to be easier to construct. A better building would be built that wouldn’t be torn down in 15 years. My recommendation to city council is ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 15 that I am going with A through F. They should demo the building and this will be a better product and there are good improvements. If the City wants to do incentives for lodges allow them to tear this down and build a better building and it will be cheaper to build and you will have more success in maintaining a viable product. I am opposed to getting into the semantics as to how we got here. It is a better building and I am in full support of it. Nora said her concern is totally philosophical. It is the precedent setting. You get an approval and you come back and it is totally different. What kind of message are we sending. John said the fabric is still there. Jim said they had a commitment to preserve something and it can be preserved. John said it will produce a better product and remodels of this nature when you aren’t restoring an historic fabric don’t make a lot of sense economically and they don’t make a lot of sense functionally. These are minor improvements and we are making a big deal out of them. Nora said she agrees with John but philosophically what are we sending. How do we move forward and not find ourselves in this situation every single time. Gretchen said we can recommend to staff that they look at this issue. Willis said City Council will be good and focus like a razor and they can unravel the conditions that we are talking about like what if it were a full demolition etc. We aren’t fully prepared to address that. John said he would agree with Nora if this building had some kind of historic value to it. We are nostigically attached to those shapes and they have maintained those shapes. Gretchen said what they are proposing is better for the project, the livability, the enclosures and the height. Patrick explained that it is the exact footprint. The difference is the minor increase in height. It is a new building. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 16 Jim said the character of the new building resembles the old building. Jeffrey said the arguments make sense but this is a classic example where there are too many. What I don’t want to do is recommend something that I know council will call up. Deliberating on something that has changed substantially is asking for a call up. Jim said they will call it up anyway. Jeffrey said the issue is a full demolition vs a partial demolition. I am conflicted on how to vote. It is a great hotel especially their price point. I am not sure of our process. John said to incentivize we will have a lesser impact on the City of Aspen in the downtown Main Street because the construction time will be drastically reduced. Gretchen said she agrees with John. With construction having that flexibility should be discussed early on in the application. Things move around regarding construction. I am 100% behind recommending approval given the public’s participation and expectation of this project on that corner. Jim said what they are proposing is comparable to what was to be preserved. The new appearance is very approximate. John said we need to cut the red tape and get a new lodge built. Patrick said the ordinance does specifically say whereas in order to authorize the demolition of structures on the southern half of the property according to section 26.415.80 demolition of historic designated properties must demonstrated that the application meets one of the following criteria. It also says that demolition is approved. They make no specifications of some buildings being kept and some not being kept. It is our belief that the original approval done in 2012 did provide for demolition of all structures. Jennifer said there were other representations and memos of which buildings would be maintained. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 17 Patrick said through the process the building shifted and the final level approvals that were made and this was never hidden and always presented that this modification was going to be made. Some of the design features of the free market units would be pushed to final and that is when this all occurred. We believe the original resolution provided for demolition. Jim said he doesn’t feel the board is in a position to make the motion stronger or weaker and maybe staff should look further into the approvals. Willis said we could say from a design point of view we can approve it and from a process point of view we have no clue and we are uncertain. Gretchen said every process is different and they are never the same. Patrick said this probably will never occur again. John said he has seen other commercial projects get a five year vested rights and this is a way more complex project and should have had a longer vested right from the beginning. MOTION: John made the motion to approve resolution #29, 2016 with the amendment that section 1 G is added in to allow for full demolition on the site and the modification of B regarding the 14 spaces. Willis asked if we could add H regarding the approval process from a planning point of view. We have no certainty that the applicant originally coming forward would end up in the same place. We have no basis for judging if this is fair. Debbie said she disagrees because Jennifer did attach the code that is relevant to this particular application. This was submi tted before our code was changed. The major and minor amendments that might kick you into a different process are applicable to this particular application. She said several of the criteria are not met. Gretchen second the motion. Willis said this memo falls short of capturing all the dimensions of the issue. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 18 John said city council will pick this apart and I feel comfortable with the motion. Debbie said you can always continue the meeting to get other information. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, no; John, yes; Gretchen, yes; Jim, no; Bob, no; Nora, yes; Willis, no. Motion failed 4-3. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 110 W. Main Street to November 9th as recommended by staff to address resolution of the criteria question and ample background of the original approval; second by Bob. Nora, yes; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; Gretchen, no; John, no; Jeffrey, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-2. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk