Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19801216Aspen Historic Preservation Committee RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS December 16, 1980 100 Leaves The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee held a special meeting on Tuesday, December 16, 1980 at 1:00 PM in the Aspen City Council Chambers. Members present were Jon Seigle, Mona Frost, Richard Cicero, Terry End, Gaard Moses, William Clark and Georgeann Waggaman. Sunny Vann, Planning staff representative, was also present. NEW BUSINESS Sunny Vann said the reason this meeting was called to order was because last week, for the regular scheduled meeting, there was nothing on the agenda and it was traditionally called off. Since that time, the applicant before the board today anticipated submitting a residential GMP proposal in January, which is the normal submission deadline Instead of this GMP application involving just one site, it involves two sites, one of which contains the employee housing portion of the project. At this point, that housin~ site is located on Main Stree~ where the Swiss Chalet cabins Sunny said that because of the moratorium which is in effect on Main Street, this body can give no approval at this time. He said they are in the process of working out a way they may submit, and obtain their HPC approval following the submission of the GMP application. The municipal code says that if HPC approval is required, it must be received prior to receiving the GMP allocation. He said that as a courtesy to the applicant, rather than allowing them to continue in a blind direction, Sunny suggested they sit down with the HPC and discuss their proposal, to get some idea as to what they are doing and also for the board to give the applicant some direction as to some potential problems the HPC might have following their GMP application. The GMP process is such that if they receive an allocation they have to obtain HPC approval with only minor modifi- cations in the submission. Therefore, it is imparitive they get a clear understanding of direction from this body prior to submitting that application in January. Sunny said it has always been the practice of this commission to meet as a service to the applicant and that is why this special meeting was called. Mark Danielson, appearing on behalf of the applicant Hans Cantrup, said that what is being proposed at this point in time is to locate 24 low income employee housing units on the site of the Swiss Chalet cabins on Main Street. Sunny said that about three or four months ago, Mary Perkins, went through a lot split with the city, separating her residence on the corner as a separate parcel. The remainder of the property, which contains the actual cabins, has been sold to Hans Cantrup. Bill Clark asked how many lots were sold to Cantrup and Danielson said there are ? lots. Danielson said they would like to put 24 units on those ? lots while keeping three of the lots as open space. He said they are keeping the options open as to whether they will keep those three lots as open space or whether they will donate those lots to the city for a park. Bill Clark asked which three lots he is talking about as open space and Danielson said they would be lots G, H and I. N.o 47 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Bill asked why the owner would be willing to put low income housing units right on Main Street. It is such a valuable piece of property which a great location. Sunny said there is a very good explaination for this. He said the applicant can do a two site solution and Hans has this particular parcel available. Under the GMP for residential competition, the name of the game is employee housing. The more employee housing provided, the better chance the applicant has for getting an allocation. The way the points are allocated is dependant upon the ratio of employee floor area to free market floor area and employee bedrooms to free market bedrooms. For purposes of discussion, say that 50% of the project's floor area was employee floor area. For each five percent of the project that's deed restricted to low income guidelines~ the applicant receives 2 points. If he deed restricted 50%, that would be 20 points. For each 10% of the project that's deed restricted to moderate income guidelines, he gets 2 points, so he would only get 10 points. And for each 15% that's deed restricted for middle income guidelines he gets 2 points. Therefore, the lower the income category: the more points he receives. Bill asked if all of the units would be low income rental units and Mark answered yes. Georgeann asked what Cantrup was goint to use his points for. Sunny said that today there is no application for the GMP. He is not sure what the free market units are or where the other site is. But, of the two sites, this one falls within the HPC corridor and therefore must receive HPC approval prior to submission of the GMP application. However, since there is a mora- torium in effect on Main Street this year, those rules are being changed slightly and the applicant is simply seeking guidance as to what would be approved. If he in fact receives and allocation for his project, it would be contingent upon him satisfying the requirements of the HPC without substantially changing the nature of his submission. Therefore, it is important that the applicant has some direction from this body. In other words, if he got the allocation and the HPC required some major changes in his project, it would void his entire GMP application. Sunny said the applicant is also considering an additional site that is not on Main Street. Mark Danielson said his client is trying to go for the points yet create a quality developmental product that s~ serves not only to gain free market units but to satisy the employee housing problem. He said it would be deed rest- ricted to low income, however, that does not necessarily mean that it has to be architecturaly deficient in any way or have a negative impact. Sunny said that if they do use two sites~ one with employee housing and the other with free market units, the two structures have to be architecturaly compatible and similar. In other words, the code will not allow anyone to go out and build a slum to gain the points on one site and then build $600,000 condominiums on the other site. William Clark wanted a little guidance from Sunny. He said that one of the criteria that HPC should follow is a highes~ and best use question. Sunnysaid that was not necessarily true. He said this board has a responsibility to review potential new projects within the HPC districts. For N.° 5O RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves consistency with the guidelines that have been adopted. In this case, the board is looking at new construction that's a temporary design solution that is consistent with the concept of Main Street and the adjacent architec- ture and that complies with the HPC guidelines. Obviously, three-story flat dormitories are inconsistent with some of those guidelines. What the applicant is looking for, is some comments on the schematic or preliminary architec- ture. The question is, how will the applicant construct 24 units on what amounts to four lots in a manner that is consistent with the Main Street corridor and the guidelines of the HPC. Bill then asked Sunny if he was concluding that it would be inappropriate for the HPC to consider highest and best use in approaching their analysis of this project. Sunny said he thought it was outside of this committee's realm to question whether or not employee housing is appropriate on this site. In other words, it is permitted as a permitted use in t~e zone district and zoned for multi- famzly development. [The applicant is coming in under the underlying zone requArements. Sunny said it is this commission's responsibility to evaluate the nature or characteristic of th~ development, not the use. Sunny said he thought it w~uld be appropriate for the board to comment as to the api~ropriateness of a design which encompasses 24 units might not fit within For example, there al not take 4 or 6 lot : Therefore, the board zone district and th~ the ~ssue of whether condom%niums is irrel Bill asked what body traffic, numbers of ] of what he considers Sunny said those lot~ Perkins split, under to no more than a du ment. Any proposal requires growth mana the GMP process. In housing, quality and which are scored on, impact on the transp¢ of concerns which Bi] consideration in the that because of the ¢ although this projec~ score high enough in atlon. Bill asked how the p' who may be immediate a project under cons in that particular location. It certain characteristics or guidelines. ~e guidelines which say the town does ;olutions with uniform roof heights. can look at the character of the nature of what they're proposing but it's low income, moderate or $650,000 .evant to the HPC's review. if any, does consider the impact of ~eople, density of use in an area is a very valuable piece of property. ~ that are left over after the Mary the city code, have an inherent right ,lex, free and clear of growth manage- 'or development over and above a duplex iement approval and must compete under addition to the criteria of employee quantity, there are additional issues such as availablity of utilities, rtatiQn network and the same types 1 was voicing. Those are all taken in~ scoring of the project. Sunny said ompetition, it is quite possible that may receive HPC approval, it may not the rankings to warrant a GMP alloc- blic gets the word, or the neighbors y impacted by this, that there is deratmon. Sunny said that happens twice. Ordinarily, f it were not for the moratorium,' the HPC's reveiw of ~he project would necessitate both the preliminary approval land final approval, which is a public hearing. So, !those neighbors would have the oppor- tunity to appear before the board with regards to the things that concern ~he HPC. In this particular case, that would occur after th~ GMP process. The GMP process also RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves involves a public hearing, at which the Planning and Zoning Con,mission scores the applications as submitted. The applicants make a presen- tation, there is an opportunity for conment from the public at large, the Planning Office provides its reconmendations, and they are scored. The P & Z does not grant an allocation, they simply rank the projects on the basis of certain criteria. Those are in turn forwarded to the City Council, the City Council has the sole discretion as to whether to approve the projects and how they allocate the quota. So, there are several opportunities for public input. Sunny said the way this particular scenerio would fall out, assuming they received an allocation, they would still then be subject to the HPC process. They would have to obtain both prellmJ_nary approval and final approval of the design, and that would necessitate another public hearing. If the design were such that the HPC required substantial changes in it, there is a very good possibility that it would negate their growth management application in so much that you cannot modify your GMP application after January 1. That would be to insure fairness amoung all of the applicants. Bill said this has been an issue that has concerned him. That is, boiling down to the question of public notice. Bill said he has been on the committee for about eight months and in all of the public hearings that have been advertised, only one person has ever shown up, and that was Nora Burns, a former member. Therefore, he questions whether the so-called public hearing process gives due notice, in fact, to the members of the conmunity; and also, if it doesn't, if there isn't a better way to do it, such as the posting of a sign on the property. Sunny said the requirements vary by nature of the application. For the HPC, it only requires as ordinance adoption by the City Council: notification in a paper of general circulation 15 days prior to the public hearing. This is the same process the City Council uses for all of its public hearing processes. Certain types of application, such as conditional uses or zoning changes, require notification of adjacent property owners within a certain distance. However, based on the city's code and its charter, it varies from application to application. Jon Seigle suggested that the applicants make their presentation and then the committee can talk about procedural matters afterwamds. Mark said the architect, Dave Gibson, is trying to put together a project that will satisy all conerns and will result in sc~nething that will be of good impact and go along with the rest of the Main Street corridor. At this point, Dave showed sc~ne slides of Main Street and discussed them. Sunny was asked when the moratorium will be removed from Main Street and he thought it would be sometime around the end of January. Gibson said that as you turn the corner at the West end of Main St., you have been through a menagerie of experiences. You've been through open space, recent development, across bridges and there bas been nothing coordinating about the experience. Its been interesting, but not orderly. At the corner, things start to change. You come onto a two lane road and dramatically, you come very close to Shadow Mountain. For a person who is not used to coming so close, it is very exciting. Gibson went on to describe other aspects of Main Street~as it is now. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Gibson then began his consideration of the site itself. He said it is one of the most significant sites on the street. It is one of the last major pieces of open spaces on the street and it has some fantastic views across it. The members of the con~mittee conmented on Gibson's slide presentation and thought it was very good. Gibson said they ahve been trying to mass the buildings toward one end cf the site and leave the other end as 9Den as possible, three lots, possibly three and one-half lots. These lots may be transferred to the City as an official park. At this point, Gibson showed some plans of 42 studios that started at three-story configuration and stepped down to finally one and one-half stories with two cour~ards, a parkJ_ng garage and a main entrance. He said it is kind of a village feeling in a modern vocabulary. There was a pool in the hack. He said this is a very dense development. Sunny said the 42 studio unit solution would also necessitate of the applicant receiving what amounts to approval under the City's residential bonus ordinances to increase the density of the lot. That would depend on such things as the i~pact of the surrounding area, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and they would really have a rough time. Gibson's second solution was an attempt to keep the individus], building house type of feeling. THere were individual porches, entrances, and gables. This solution had 24 individual units. Sunny interrupted Dave to say a couple of things because he had to leave the meeting. He said there could be no approval of anything at this time. He also said the zone district on the number of lots the applicant is discussing may well have an underlying capacity to carry 25, 24 or 30 units or whatever. If the HPC feels the density, and the resulting design configuration, is inappropriate for its guidelines, the HPC is not bound with the density that the underlying zone permits. Sunny said mass and bulk is under the consideration of the cu~,~,~ttee. Jon said he believed the applicant could keep the open space quality, not by donating three lots to the City, but by mirroring what is there. That is, putting the units on the hack of the property and stretching them out. He would not like to see anything tall on that site. If you come down Main Street, there is suddenly a break in any tall buildings and he would like to see that break preserved. Mmrk said that basically, they are trying not to use the Chalet site as part of the GMP application. He said that over the past three weeks they b~ve been going over the area and trying to find another way to go about the employee housing project. He said the site on Main Street does have some very good characteristics toward lending itself to an employee housing site. Bill Clark said from his viewpoint, he would to see a break in the middle, rather than leaving two or three lots open on the east end, which really aren't meaningful and the area would not be big enough to be utilized. He'~ rather see a lower everything, spread it over seven lots, and keep an open cut right through the middle of it. Mona asked about the parking. Gibson said they would have underground parking with the same number of spaces as units. Jon said the higher the units are, the more problem he will have with RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves the solution. Georgeann said she would like to have the massing to the cast because the street slopes toward that way. Basically she agreed with everyone, that the space in the front should be open, but she doesn't think it would have to be a public park. She thought the buildings suggested were too big. She suggested that, although it would make it more expensive to design, but she could see a unit that had eight apartments in it, one with six, one with twelve, whatever adds up to the right number, so there would be a different configuration. She disagreed with Bill's suggestion of having a corridor that went all the way through the middle. Gaard agreed with the philosophy of keeping it high on the east end mather than on the west end. He believed that the Mitchell house is a very massive building from beth angles. Gibson asked if there was any preferance for the village type of feeling or the separate building house type of feeling? The committee thought the separate buildings would be more historic. Gaard said he would like to put in a vote for a more Victorian looking face. He would also like to see less than 90 degree gables, if that were the final solution. Richard and Mona both said they would like to see the individual buildings with the g~een space in front. thanked the committee and said the input was very helpful.