Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20181024 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Willis Pember, Bob Blaich, Richard Lai, Scott Kendrick. Absent were Sheri Sanzone and Nora Berko. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Ben Anderson, Planner Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:35 p.m. MEETING MINUTES: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Pember said he has a short observation regarding the APA awards. He said maybe it was discussed, but he wasn’t present. He said the APA recognized the downtown mall as one of the Great American places. In the synopsis, they noted the sustainable park bathrooms in the heart of downtown as contributing to the greatness and this is one of the very things the proposed plan is choosing to eliminate so he wanted to mention this to the public and to the board. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has taken care of two things already tonight and has one more item for Mr. Moyer at the end. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon reminded the board of the extra meeting in November since there is a work session with city council on November 13th. They will be doing some outreach regarding a potential agenda and the following night will be a regular meeting and then also Wednesday November 28th. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Yoon said there was one for 922 E. Cooper. This was for work being done on the non-historic section of the building replacing existing windows, so they have signed off on it. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said this is fine since the item was continued. CALL UPS: Ms. Simon said they had two call ups presented to council on Monday night. The first was 135 E. Cooper, Kristy Ferrer’s project, and the second was for 304 E. Hopkins. Council upheld both decisions. NEW BUSINESS: Lift One Lodge Subdivision Ben Anderson Mr. Anderson gave a brief overview and turned it over to the applicants. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Stan Clauson of Stan Clauson & Assoc., Michael Brown and Scott Glass of Guerin Glass Architects 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 Mr. Clauson said they will begin with a brief overview of the proposed plan and review some of the comments from the previous hearing as well as viewing the site plan on screen. The site plan represents a major change to Lift 1A Lodge that accommodated the new lift extending to Dean St. as well as a 60- foot-wide ski corridor. That has necessitated a major change in the nature of the buildings and the site plan. The historic elements are highlighted at the gantry, the skier chalet building, the ski museum and the steakhouse, which will be restored as a restaurant. We are looking at a one-way system for Dean St. regarding circulation. The west to east travel will allow for a narrow street platform with the drop off and an area for the public to get skis and move about up to the lift. There will also be a contraflow bike lane. There will be new sidewalks on both sides of the street to the east and west of the development. This has been carefully designed to provide for retention of the landscaping and the sidewalk. There will be a considerable enhancement to the street. The street will be permeable pavement for storm water purposes. Michael Brown spoke about the benefits to the community regarding revitalization of the area, interaction in the museum, reduced congestion from the gondola plaza, etc. We think the revitalization of the lift and the lodges will allow for the return of a not-to-miss spot for the World Cup ski race circuit. There is an expanded park facility as a year-round place for people to enjoy. The three parks combined are about equal to the size of Wagner Park. He showed an inspirational picture on screen of what is possible. The historic resources are a great asset to the entire development to be an anchor and become the face of the entire base of Lift 1 between the two skier chalet buildings and the restored lift and the portal looking up the mountain through Lift 1 park. He showed another image of the widened corridor on screen. Mr. Clauson said this will be a vibrant second portal accessible to the public and is very exciting. It will provide activity in the summer and winter. He showed a summer image on screen and said the gondola plaza will have a direct relationship to this area and these parks. He said they will present on how the steakhouse will meet the lodge among other things HPC asked for in the previous meeting. They will also discuss the capability of moving the historic resource. Mr. Glass said they expanded some of the drawings to focus on some of the conditions of the buildings. He showed the elevations on screen and the relationship of the steakhouse building, the grade and articulation of the lodge building as it relates to the steakhouse and how the steakhouse relates to the park. They have been working closely with parks on how to integrate all of these things. We are concerned with the relationship between the two buildings. In the previous approval, the buildings were 25 feet closer together and of similar height. We have carved out a terrace at the entry and the southside of the steakhouse, allowing for cross access from the street to the lift. This gives some separation and planted buffers on the south and north sides. There will be terraces for commercial space for the secondary level. On the north side, we have a functional terrace, bringing up the grade on this side. He showed a rendering of the corner of South Aspen St. We want to diminish the impact of the retaining wall. Mr. Pember asked what the distance is between the lodge and the skier chalet and Mr. Glass said 55 feet, almost closer to 60. Mr. Glass showed the north elevation of the skier chalet and said there may be a requirement for an elevator run. He showed the elevation for the garage entrance to the east. There is an ADA pathway that wraps around with planted buffers. This is designed to represent the way the building sits at grade 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 today. We are proposing a masonry wall and showing it as board form concrete with a wood finish up above. We’ve extended the height of this floor by two feet to make it more functional and to allow for the proper grades at this level and the transition between street and the ski lift level. All access is intended to be off Dean Street. We don’t have an internal plan yet; it is still being developed. Skier services will enter the same vestibule and will be the exit for ticketing services. Mr. Glass showed examples of a project that they did on Hyman Street and the scale doesn’t compare, but said they have all been through this before. He is confident they can work out a good plan and are surveying all other things necessary. He said one thing that came up last time was regarding the proximity of the skier chalet building to Dean Street. It came up in relation to the South Point condos among other things. We’ve looked at a couple different options and have spent a lot of time with Ski Co and Parks and we are very constrained on the south side to get the lift to operate in this condition. We are not really able to push the building back any further. We are proposing for the face of the building to be 33.6 inches back from the curb line. We are proposing to maintain the relationship on the hillside and have talked about removing the stairs. We know this might cause some heartburn, but we believe it could be the right answer for a couple of reasons. We want it to be useful and feel that it improves front access. We weren’t able to make a convincing entry for Ski Co and skier services, so we really want to make the modification to reinforce how the building is proposed to operate and increase the utility of the plaza. It helps give some relief from across the street and the stairs are not required for egress or function. Dave Corbin introduced himself and said he is the vice president of planning and development for Ski Co. He said they have examined two or three alternatives for the placement of the lift and believes the spot being presented is the most suitable. This is easily visible for skiers on the mountain and relates well to the corridor. He showed an example on screen and talked through it for the board. He said last time the board asked why the ski corridor is 60 ft and if that is sufficient, so he has prepared a presentation to answer this question, giving comfort to the board. He showed the existing Lift 1A base area on screen and described the new situation to the board. He said it doesn’t look all that attractive, but it is functional. He feels that it is adequate and comfortably sized and showed an example of our competitors at Vail and how it compares to what they are proposing. Their ski yard is similar to what we would be doing here, but we are trying to achieve something more functional and gracious than what they have. We want to have a ski return trail in 65 plus or minus in width and better than a tunnel-like experience returning to base. He showed a picture of the return going down slope and said it is a very compact site when you add all of the elements because, edge to edge, they are filling it with function and will be turning CATS around in this same facility. Mr. Clauson noted that they are in agreement with the proposed resolution with one exception regarding the removal of stairs. Ms. Simon ran through the conditions for the resolution and said staff tried to outline what they think is appropriate and are recommending that HPC recommend approval to City Council. The conditions are as follows: 1. Detailed relocation plan along with financial security provided. 2. Further information about what is being relocated and preserved and what is being left behind. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 3. Further information about exterior materials being used on the historic structures. 4. Any impacts will be completely understood at final regarding combustible materials and their proximity to the lift cables. 5. Preservation plans representing any treatments, materials and labeled photographs of Lift 1. 6. Want all discussion advanced for how the lift, gantry and first tower will be treated as well as the other two towers that may be located uphill. 7. Additional maintenance plans regarding annual inspections, etc. 8. More detail on utility meters and other mechanical equipment. 9. More explanation on the expansion of the pool house into the public restrooms. 10. Ideas for interpretative signage. 11. No alterations to fenestration, materials, or other exterior features will be made at this point and will be left for final. The idea of removing the stairs from the chalet appeared yesterday so we have not done any analysis on this yet. 12. Plant materials and landscaping unchanged at this point. 13. The original “Skiers Chalet” sign on the lodge is required to be preserved in place. 14. The original “Skiers Chalet” sign on the north balcony of the Steakhouse is required to be preserved in place. 15. The existing/original exterior paint colors for the chalet building must be retained as part of the project. 16. Regarding the two towers that can’t be kept in current place, faith that everyone will try their best to make sure they are put in the best place possible. 17. Request that the Ski Co. does what’s best to personalize the new terminal. Mr. Anderson noted that City Council started their consideration of this project this week during first reading. Second reading will be November 12th. Planning & Zoning and APCHA have both recommended the project and Open Space & Trails will be hearing it next week so HPC’s recommendation is an important component. Mr. Blaich asked about the capacity in the red zone. Mr. Corbin said he hasn’t calculated it, but we’ve designed for a ten-minute maze and this lift equipment will have excess lift out capacity and is designed for 1200 an hour. Mr. Halferty apologized for missing the previous meeting and asked if there is a plan for relocating the building and if it will be moving in one piece. Mr. Glass said there are great resources in the state and valley to assist in this process and they have not designed a plan yet as there is still studying to be done. Mr. Lai asked about the drop off area for Lift 1 lodge on Aspen Street and if there are there plans for a good turnaround to drop off people on the right side of the vehicle and Mr. Glass showed the turnaround area on screen for two different places. Mr. Moyer asked if Dean Street slopes slightly from south to north and Mr. Clauson said yes, but it will meet ADA and engineering codes. Mr. Moyer asked if they will heat Dean Street and Mr. Clauson said not at this time. Snowmelt for the sidewalks will be contemplated, but not for the 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 streets. Ms. Greenwood asked if it will be done on both sides and Mr. Clauson said he is unsure at this point. Mr. Blaich asked for some explanation of the balconies and if they will be functional and if people will need access to the stairs. Mr. Glass said they do expect these to be habitable and functional. Mr. Kendrick asked if the stairs stay and the bottom floor is raised, how they would address the difference in height on the bottom of the stairs. Mr. Glass said they had proposed landing them on a plinth. Mr. Moyer asked why they would consider taking a historic element off of the building when the idea is to preserve the historic resource. Mr. Clauson referenced a section of the guidelines about the continued utility of a historic building, sustainable reuse and functional access. If there are some minor and reasonable modifications that allow the building to be used better and have a long- term future, those can be acceptable. Michael Brown said this is stated in the City Code in the opening to the Historic Preservation section. Ms. Simon asked them to show the two renderings on screen and asked if they could keep a projecting balcony and the applicants agreed. Mr. Brown said the stairs are questionable as to whether they are original or not. Mr. Pember said that leads to his question as to whether the building was “born this way”. Ms. Simon said she did some research and she said the stairs do seem to be original. She can’t find anything to dispute the design being original. Mr. Blaich asked when the chalet was built, and Ms. Simon said 1954 and the lodge was built in 1960. Mr. Blaich said that none of it was here in 1948 when he first arrived. Mr. Pember apologized for missing the previous meeting and asked what the dramatic change in materials at the base of the building is about. Mr. Glass said that’s the proposal which is up for discussion. Mr. Pember asked if this project exists in 3D and Mr. Glass said yes. Mr. Pember asked if they have any shade and shadow studies to present and Mr. Glass said no. Mr. Pember asked how high, floor to floor, the skier services entrance is, and Mr. Glass said it will be around 11 feet floor to floor. Mr. Pember said he appreciated that there was a sense of enclosure for him on some of the renderings and said they were quite impressive. Ms. Greenwood said that on some of the elevations, a railing is shown on the skier chalet and she would like additional study on this and feels it should be added to the conditions and she thinks it will be a pretty predominant element. She thinks it should be as transparent as possible and not a wooden detail. PUBLIC COMMENT: Lisa Hancock of the Aspen Historical Society Ms. Hancock said they are slated to own the structure. Since Ms. Greenwood just spoke about the railing, she isn’t clear on what is being done to help it meet code. She said they are currently not up to code at all. Ms. Simon informed her that this hasn’t been flushed out yet. She said that if HPC is not comfortable removing the stairs, the Historical Society does not have a position on it, but she said you cannot move the building back, so you are stuck with the distance of 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 the front plaza as it is. You need to understand the give and take and weigh how big you want the plaza to be. Public comment closed. Ms. Greenwood reviewed the conditions for the board and said the main things are: elimination of stairs and the lift tower location, which are the only things that have really changed since the last meeting. Mr. Moyer said he would accept all of the resolution and supports all of it. He’s against taking away the stairs and he’d like to see more discussion about the entry to the building. Regarding the towers, it is fabulous what they are presenting. Some signage is a great idea since we can’t preserve the original alignment. Ms. Greenwood said we’ve gone through this before and think it’s an excellent project in terms of the site planning and the historic nature. It’s really a strong project. With that, she understands the adaptive reuse and thinks it’s great in this situation. It’s essential. This is a problem for the stairs and she thinks it would destroy the historic preservation if they have to keep the additional staircase on the right side of the building. She thinks this would just be a confusion of bollards and for skiers to access the building. She thinks it’s a really good solution and thinks they should study an additional balcony. The building looks much cleaner from the street. You can’t have two separate plinths holding these up. To add this back in after doing such an extensive restoration would affect the use of the building. She is in favor of the Ski Co. selecting the location of the lift tower. They are very considerate to the history of the site and she would like to see it move forward and pass tonight. She would like to see them leave tonight with the elimination of the stairs. Mr. Blaich asked if she is suggesting they vote on the stairs tonight and Ms. Greenwood said yes, it should be included in the conditions and Mr. Blaich said he would support that. Mr. Halferty thanked the applicants and said he appreciates the presentation. The site planning has been well thought out and well-studied. He would like more historic information and land planning study regarding the stair cases. Personally, he would like to see more study. The assessment and preservation of the historic resource is very important, and he is looking forward to seeing the details on this. He thinks the photographs in section 6, regarding the proposed treatment and color is a great idea to keep the same. Regarding grading and land planning, he feels everyone has done a good job of creating the space. He said the board form may look cool and contemporary but wondered if it is indigenous and historic. As far as the alterations, fenestrations and materials, he is in support of staff on this. He concurs with staff on most of the conditions. Mr. Lai said he agrees that this is a very good project. He gave his compliments to staff, Ski Co and the architects in recreating and reviving this approach to the ski mountain. This will change the face of Aspen and also the new accessibility to Aspen mountain. Regarding the ski approach, he said that whatever the Ski Co sees to their benefit and the safety of the skiers, is great with him as it is outside of HPC purview. Dealing with the 17 conditions, he is agreeable with staff that they all need to be satisfied. Specifically, on the staircase, he is agreeable with what Ms. Simon said. The tradeoff and if it’s original or not, is something that he is agreeable with. The tradeoff has to be considered in light of functionality. His third point is controversial from his perspective and he may be run out of Aspen on a rail for saying it, but he feels there are two possibilities to keep the original character 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 of the building as possible. He is referring to the fact that adding an elevator will break the pitched roof configuration of the building. It’s also hard for him to see where the main entrance to the museum is. He’d like to make a controversial option: first of all, not only the elevator, and non- descript entry – maybe what you can do is to consider to create a tower adjacent to the historic building that is markedly different from the historic element which could be its own elevator and that would also incorporate a new entry into the historic element. Ms. Greenwood said it’s not an option at this point and that it’s uncalled for to suggest another building to be added because it’s not currently on the table. Mr. Lai said it’s just an idea and another option to be considered. Mr. Pember said he applauds Mr. Lai’s suggestion as a good one and said there is not a time that’s too late since this is not going to end with HPC tonight. His point is to preserve the pure gables of the historic buildings and he feels that is a valid point. At this stage, they move things around in their sleep. Preserving the character of the gables is key and may be something that should be added as a condition in the resolution. The shortcomings of the largeness of this project is not having a 3D view of this and he’d like to see a shading and shadow studies for the areas of concern. He has seen projects half this size come through the city with council going over shade and shadow to exhaustion. He asked who is reviewing the architecture on this project and said that no other board is qualified to do this. Architecture is talked around, but not directly about. This is all very frightening in terms of the process. As far as resolution goes, it’s all pretty standard and boiler plate and it’s all fine with them. Mr. Kendrick said he appreciates the presentations and they are doing a great job directing the project in a positive direction and staff has done an excellent job of pointing out the issues. He is willing, at this point, to approve this project and he is in favor of the removal of stairs. He said he would like to see more study done on how the remaining balcony will function. Mr. Blaich said he gave his support at the last meeting. All of his points have been covered by the board. He is concerned by the staircase, not only from a historic aspect, but the safety of it. There will be a lot of ski boots going up and down the staircases, so he has serious questions about that, but this can be solved. Mr. Clauson said there might simply be a chain across saying to use the main entrance. Mr. Blaich agreed and said he has faith in the project and that everyone is capable of figuring out solutions to these problems. Ms. Greenwood summarized the main points for the board. She said there needs to be additional study as a condition for the broken gable. Regarding the entrance to the museum, they don’t have enough detail at this conceptual level. While we can’t suggest another building, we can create a condition to understand the entrances to the building and the public spaces in a more effective way as another resolution. We are suffering from not enough detail. We need to see more detail on how removing the staircases will work in terms of functionality and history. The plinth is an odd idea. Mr. Lai made a correction to what he previously said. He meant the west side instead of the east side of the skier’s chalet and he wants to emphasize that he was trying to identify an option, but it wasn’t a suggestion. Ms. Simon said she has three items that she feels will help move this along as potential amendments to move this along. Perhaps condition #8 could be amended to suggest that no mechanical 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 equipment should go on the roof, so we could add a sentence “to study alternatives to elevator overrun additions to either chalet”. On condition #11, we could amend it to say “to allow the elimination of the two northernmost stair runs, but leave the landing to be studied at final”. We can also add an addition of condition #18 to study the deck railing on the skier’s chalet. Everyone agreed on these amendments. Ms. Greenwood explained the stair resolution to Mr. Pember since he missed the last meeting. It’s not just about opening to the ski co, it was also for the people of the South Point condos. They wanted the whole building moved back and that is just not possible. Mr. Pember said it’s a “baroque stair” that you would walk through in the center. Mr. Clauson said they would support the three additions to the conditions. Ms. Simon said they could word the condition more broadly and she’s not exactly promoting demolishing those two stair runs, but she’s trying to find a middle ground. She said if the landing is kept, the expression is still there. Mr. Pember said if the landing is preserved just as a landing, that would look very odd. Ms. Simon agreed and said that is why she suggested further study, or we can push this entire conversation to final. Mr. Pember suggested a straw vote. Ms. Greenwood said the vote would be to give the applicant the direction to pursue the elimination of the two staircases that are on the right-hand side of the building. Mr. Pember said yes, the “baroque stairs”. STRAW VOTE: 4-3 in favor by raise of hand. Ms. Simon said this will now to be an amendment to condition #11 allowing the elimination of the two northernmost staircases, but to retain the landing and to be studied at final. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick moved to approve resolution #16 with the conditions as written by staff, Mr. Blaich seconded. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 7-0, motion carried. Code amendment discussion by the board continued until 7:30 p.m. Ms. Simon suggested a lunch meeting to continue the conversation. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to adjourn, Mr. Pember seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk