Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20070404 LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING: JOINT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 4. 2007 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, David Guthrie, LJ Erspamer, Ruth Kruger, John Rowland. Staff present: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer No minutes to approve. No public comment. No commissioner comments. Bendon said this is the fourth draft of commercial and lodging design standards. This project started with Council asking there be more design standards in commercial review ofprojects. Winter and Company was hired to create the product Council is working for. Jennifer presented documents and explains format changes, elimination of cross-referencing, and defined character areas. Staff is recommending ability to have a referral process from both boards on issues of concern. In the future there will be a consolidation of historic preservation guidelines and commercial design objectives for applicant ease. Kruger questions board responsibility for parts of applications, will HPC be looking at all aspects of applications? Phelan replies HPC will do conceptual and final design review which includes pedestrian amenity. Ifit's a historic structure, HPC will apply historic preservation guidelines that affect that project. Kruger asks ifP&Z will see those applications and Phelan affirms not for purview of design guidelines and pedestrian amenity, but for required growth management review and anything else land use application oriented typically before the Planning Commission. Conceptual review would be handled initially and applicant can know how to move forward, then final design review. Kruger asks ifHPC will make land use decisions in the commercial core. Phelan explains HPC purview. Code will propose P&Z be given range of height. Commercial core proposal is 38-42 feet, but will be written to start at 38 feet. 1 LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING: JOINT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 4. 2007 Kruger asks ifP&Z will be looking at everything not in the commercial core, but in mixed-use, lodging district, Cl, and SCI. Phelan adds some mixed use. A. Guthrie adds the idea is to offer referrals. Phelan is hoping to take inventory of simple initial process. Nore' Winter Presentation: Character areas show boundary maps with revisions separating SCI area from mountain base. Commercial core and commercial are separated. Count of areas is seven which includes lodge preservation overlay. These are not zoned district and do not change permitted uses as defined in zone districts. They follow zone district boundaries with a few exceptions. Creation of computer model can be used to drop proposals and see how they fit into context. Guidelines are organized to reflect a two step project review process. Some are conceptual and some are final. Broad objectives are set forth for all areas. Three key objectives, page 78. Should there be questions about interpreting, you could always move up to these broader objectives to say how this project meets those objectives. There are also objectives for each of the character areas. Commercial area discussion goal is to strengthen the retail edge more similar to the commercial core, not repeat but cousin. Text on page 22 revised to reflect amended approach to building height, guideline 1.24 is key example. Chapters include photo analogies to provide examples of contemporary designs fitting into established contexts. Central mixed use area design objective idea is to reflect transition between commercial core and residential to maintain sense oflandscaping, interesting street edges, and encourage outdoor use areas. Winter identifies examples of recent contemporary infill that reflects principles of articulation of building form and mass. Winter clarifies important principles of river approach area: to think of it as an entryway to commercial core from North side of town, not to repeat but to recognize this area is different, and to focus more on orienting on natural to natural resources as well as urban street edges. Guidelines more clearly address river and street edge where conditions exist. Winter continues slide 2 LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING: JOINT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 4. 2007 presentation. Most of guidelines focus on residential lot setting and try to balance needs oflodge designs in neighborhood scale and character. Organizational structure is addressed in introductory text. Last two chapters are lengthy and detailed about context and compatibility as 90% of existing adopted preservation guidelines for two districts is brought forward. Winter proposes revision that language now in commercial guidelines relevant to variations for properties that extend over 2 parcels vary height of building between 2 and 3 stories be brought here. Main Street historic district focuses to balance mix of uses with residential character. Existing guideline is brought forward intact, adding more detail in 7.15. Each character area now has its own chapter. Idea is ease for end user. Winter generated 3 test sites to illustrate how existing standards play out versus proposed new guidelines and companion standards anticipated. 1. Parking lot behind Boogie's 2. Elevation building 3. Stage 3 Winter addresses three sites and shows interpretations of what one could do under existing conditions and extent of articulation that would be required and applying anticipated standards and design guidelines. D. Guthrie questions mass and orientation, shifting for solar access. Winter provides language to give more reasons of why to think about where massing goes. Halferty asks if there are any questions or clarifications. Erspamer questions interpretation of word "contemporary" and suggests "creative" design. Winter responds some interpret contemporary as style and that is not implied. Compatible and creative may be more comparable terms. Erspamer asks if creative contemporary is more relevant to land use code than the giving point system. What is the reason it wouldn't be contemporary? Bendon responded saying the design guidelines discussion are separated from growth management. Winter suggests clarifying definition of term to mean styles of today "current styles". Phelan advises Erspamer intent is to have a building clearly defined by the time it was built. Erspamer asks about decorative artwork. 3 LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING: JOINT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 4. 2007 Erspamer feels interconnection of sidewalks is difficult as its hard to walk 3 abreast, if raining or snowing causes water to drip off overhangs, and its not pedestrian friendly except for the mall. Winter states one option is to provide wider sidewalks to set building back to accommodate constrained situations. Erspamer questions thought for building shading streets to prevent icing two to three month of the year without using natural resources. Winter states guidelines in terms of massing the taller part of the building might be reason for shifting taller mass in one direction or other. Views, solar access, adjacency to historic landmarks are variables to consider in locating mass. D. Guthrie adds ifits one, two or three lots, you can't break one. Erspamer feels clarification of softer street corners should be added. Erspamer questions ifthere are incentives in land use code for creation of outdoor areas. Phelan sites code requirement and redevelopment there is leeway on how much is required. Zele is good example that works because there is a coffee shop, the same space without coffee in the shade may not work. Erspamer argues some places facing the mountain exist. Phelan adds that will be part of the commercial design review. Winter states public amenity space is required and there are options to pay-in-lieu. This helps to provide better guidance as to when it is appropriate on site, and if so how can it be designed to be more beneficial. It's intended to work in tandem with code requirements. Bendon states all development is required to provide some public amenity. Some cases may want space and others will improve mall areas or widen sidewalk. Broughton asks if two chapters in historic guidelines are being duplicated. Phelan's expectation for final product is only new guidelines will be in this document. Second step is to look at commercial core and Main Street and talk about what has/hasn't worked. A. Guthrie has concern with replacing existing guidelines with new chapter. Broughton feels a large percentage has been rewritten and there are very few remaining. Winter feels changes mostly clarify policies about massing and height variation. It organizes the conceptual and final steps to be in sync with other character areas. Broughton feels its confusing to reference and votes to keep all together. Winter took present text and moved to be adjacent to design topic anticipating that is how later chapters would be reformatted as well. Halferty 4 LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING: JOINT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 4. 2007 feels Broughton has a good point, references page 105. Broughton feels it's helpful not to delete but view side by side and to reference grey back to ordinance. Bendon suggests saying gray text is a replication of ordinance and prevails. Winter interjects except two key changes: setback/mass or bring to street edge but minimize and maintain sidewalk edge/public amenity space. Bendon thinks Broughton's point is to put the puzzle together for the applicant. Halferty adds that is how uniform building code refers and that format works. A. Guthrie doesn't see conflict its new information. Broughton doesn't want to get caught in tailspin of interpretation of documents. Agley feels neither version is fully complete. Phelan adds Council feels some of modulation requirements to commercial core be incorporated. She would say to incorporate preservation guidelines to one chapter on commercial core and on Main Street that includes all of existing in addition to new. Broughton deals with a specific guideline with applicant and documents are heavily relied on. Halferty adds they site the motion and chapter. Broughton comments to change image shots: opening imaging showing perpendicular parking, streetscape portrayed on page 54, and page 63 underground entry. Toni Kronberg thanks the efforts of the consultant. Kronberg asks if this document has been compared to goals of Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Phelan responds there are verbatim excerpts in several areas. Kronberg states AACP says Aspen is to be a small scale resort town and she doesn't see reference to those key words. As a member of the public she has hard time seeing where the small town character is retained and preserved. Kronberg is confused about who gets to review what applications and will public have opportunity to comment. Phelan responds public will be included in the public comment. Phelan explains conceptual and final review process. Location of project determines which commission reviews commercial design standards. Kronberg asks if applications in historic commercial core and Main Street will go before P&Z in between conceptual and final. Phelan explains conceptual and approvals ofland use applications. Kronberg has concern with system especially with HPC reviewing height, scale and massing with project. Broughton affirms that is the current system. Kronberg sites her problem and the referendum on Galena and Main. In her opinion, certain things are in conflict within the code and this is a step to pull together, but when it comes to zoning and planning and how it fits into 5 LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING: JOINT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. PLANNING AND ZONING . COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 4. 2007 the whole context of the community, P&Z should take a look in conjunction with HPC, at the height, massing and scale. Broughton is interested in which projects people have issues with and she is sure their guidelines are written to help with Kronberg's issues. Halferty does not want to get into specific projects. Kronberg feels like we are doing away with open space and turning it into pedestrian amenity. She noticed the library park plaza character is SCI and neighborhood commercial but is open space, an accomplishment of AACP. Halferty closes the public hearing. A. Guthrie is aware of limited time to look at guidelines and points staff discussion regarding lodge zone area referencing Skier's Chalet building as one mass and page 65. She is asking to what extent HPC is comfortable with staff continuing to work with consultants or address language another way. Other issue is through passageways in commercial core. A. Guthrie is not entirely sure to encourage break in street pattern. Maybe it expresses a possibility but wants HPC to be comfortable with concept. Kruger confirms mini alley before old Takah Sushi. A. Guthrie confirms and points out Aspen Grove. Broughton states code requires minimum of 8 feet wide. Kruger confirms 8- 10. Broughton wonders in reality how many will pop out. Kruger states it is not appealing, it is diminished space and not quality to retailer. D. Guthrie brings up alley commercial space. Winter concurs it is not prime retail. Ted Guy states Building Department refuses to issue permits. Ted states IBC classifies alley as public way and says HPC needs to get Building Department to support them. D. Guthrie talks about the Elks Bldg. and feels the market takes care of affordable commercial zone. Winter says it's a menu of options that may never be used but we need to ensure it's not abused, but the idea was to offer additional options for more creative uses of public amenity space on site as opposed to always opting out and having a building always maxed out. Broughton asks if we are now allowing second story public amenity space to count towards this percentage on a project. Currently that is not allowed on open space regulation. Winter confirms that would be a new option. Broughton appreciates discussion of giving a menu of ideas to encourage variety in streetscape and urban fabric. 6 LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING: JOINT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 4. 2007 Broughton feels HPC motion to City Council needs to clarify goals. Kruger stated originally second story had to be accessed from a public space. Phelan confirms it needs to be visible. Kruger and Phelan concur if it has to be a public amenity space it has to be accessible from the street. Phelan wants to bring written resolution incorporating boards' conditions. Kruger wants those present today to vote. Phelan heard to ensure great images, better amenities, location of amenity at discretion of commissions, explain importance to having menu of choices for amenity spaces that create vitality and flexibility, lodges simple solutions, historic preservation commission wanting to see all their guidelines cleanly incorporated. Erspamer requested to clarify definition of "contemporary" and "soft" street corners. Ted Guy adds recognition of A. Guthrie's concern to tighten language about midblock passageways in commercial core. A. Guthrie wants to ensure if HPC endorses this, they feel comfortable with her finessing clean up issues. Halferty okays. Kruger stated the motion to approve Land Use Commercial and Lodging Design Objectives and Guidelines to include the comment by boards tonight that refers to public amenity spaces, merge of HPC guidelines with this document, the particular photos sited by Broughton ensuring they reflect images emulated, wordsmith with "contemporary design" and "soft corners". Planning and Zoning - Erspamer makes the motion as stated by Ruth above; second by David. Halferty requests roll call. Jennifer calls: LJ yes, David yes, John yes, Ruth yes. Passed 4-0. Historic Preservation - Broughton moved to move forward with HPC recommendation for commercial zone and historic district design objectives and guidelines with the conditions as stated tonight, second by Brian. Roll call vote: Alison yes, Sarah yes, Brian yes, Jeffrey yes. Meeting adjoumed. Transcribed by Tara O'Bradovich, City paralegal 7