Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20201111 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020 Vice Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Scott Kendrick, Kara Thompson, Roger Moyer, Sheri Sanzone, Gretchen Greenwood. Commissioners not in attendance: Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Ben Anderson, Principal Long Range Planner Jim True, City Attorney Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Thompson stated there needed to be a spelling error fixed. Mr. True stated that the minutes from October 14th needed to be amended to say Ms. Sanzone is not the project monitor for the Red Onion project. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Simon reminded the commission that there will be a special HPC meeting on Wednesday, November 18th. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None PROJECT MONITORING: None NEW BUSINESS: Lift One Lodge, Historic Preservation, Final Major Development Plan Review. STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Anderson showed a rendering of the site plan and stated that there are three elements to the Lift One corridor project. The first is Gorsuch Haus which is going through concurrent review with the Planning and Zoning commission, the second is Lift One Lodge which is the subject before HPC for approval and is currently in concurrent review with P&Z, and lastly is the City Park and Dean Street Interface. Mr. Anderson said that this project has been the topic of discussion and community interest for many years. Mr. Anderson gave a brief review of the history of the project. He stated that in 2011 Lift One Lodge received approval by Ordinance #11-2011. Mr. Anderson said that the project was put on hold for a few years to address a few amendments to the Lift One Lodge approvals. Mr. Anderson said that in 2016 Gorsuch Haus's application was submitted for that project and this is what sparked the conversation in the community to bring the lift down closer to town. In 2018 a revised application for Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus was submitted and the Lift 1 corridor project review began. Mr. Anderson stated that HPC reviewed this project and passed Resolution #016- 2018 for conceptual approval. He further explained that City Council approved the ordinances referring the project to a public vote and passing. Mr. Anderson stated that the development review committee and Open Space and Trails Board both recommended approval for the park design and now the project is at final review for HPC and P&Z. He explained that if HPC and P&Z approve the project, after 180 days there will be an approval of document review leading into building permit. Mr. Anderson explained that P&Z and HPC are both working on the same review but focusing on different aspects. P&Z is looking at planned development and detailed review, and final commercial design, while HPC is looking at final major development review focusing on relocation and preservation of the Skiers’ Chalet Lodge and Steakhouse, Historic Lift One structure, and park context and design. Mr. Anderson showed a rendering of the final lot split and configuration between the City Park and Lift One Lodge. Mr. Anderson stated that REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020 he wanted to clarify that the HPC review authority because there is a lot of detail going on and with P&Z as well. He explained that HPC is being asked to look at Lot3 the City Park, providing context to the Skiers’ Chalet, Historic Lift One structures, and the Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse. Mr. Anderson reviewed the HPC Resolution #016-2018 and stated that staff has looked at this resolution and followed the conditions of approval and will continue to do so as the project advances. Ms. Greenwood asked if the public will have access to the Dolinsek Park as a drop-off. Mike Tunte with the Parks Department stated that the design of Dolinsek Park has a ways to go and there is a concept and plan to develop over the coming year. There is no final design for the park. He further explained that forms that are shown are roughly what will there, but final details have not been flushed out yet. Mr. Tunte stated that he does not foresee a dropoff along Monarch St. and that a dropoff would take up a lot of space in an area with a lot of spatial constraints. APPLICANT COMMENTS: Stan Clauson of Clauson and Associates representing the applicant and Scott Glass of Guerin Glass Architects, Laura Kirk with DMH Design. Mr. Clauson outlined the approved scope of the lodge project consisting of a mix of fractional ownership and hotel rooms, residential units, underground parking for public and lodge use. Mr. Clauson stated that the Skiers’ Chalet building will be renovated into the long-awaited skiers' museum, ticketing, and skier services along with ski lockers open to the public. Mr. Clauson said there would be street improvements to Dean Street with an added bike line and skier drop-off. He stated that there will be renovations on the historic Lift One gantry and towers. Mr. Clauson said that the new lift will be a Telemix lift, which is a mix of chairs and cabins. Mr. Clauson listed the community benefits for this development. He said that this will become a second portal for Aspen Mountain, revitalizing the area, gaining a piece of Aspen history with the new museum, and with the new lift world classing races will return. He further explained with a second portal will help the congestion on Gondola Plaza. Mr. Clauson stated that visitors to the base will be greeted by the three key resources the Skires' Chalet, Gantry, and Steakhouse, creating an exciting base area. Mr. Clauson further stated that new lodging will provide rooms lost over the years. Mr. Clauson showed a map of the pedestrian amenity plan that includes the new city park, patios, walkways. Mr. Clauson stated that Dean Street will be improved considerably with a 12-foot wide one direction road and with a 6-foot counter flow line for bikes. There will be a major drop off area added with restored sidewalks. Mr. Clauson stated that the historic Gantry would be restored along with its original color. He explained that a preservationist has given detailed instructions on how to accomplish the finishes. Mr. Clauson said that the historic left towers would be relocated to two proposed locations on the mountain. The first location would be at the top of Lift One to show the original alinement. The second tower would be relocated to what is called midway to show where the original Lift One ended. Mr. Moyer stated that the historic lift should be properly stripped and refinished properly. He explained that encapsulating the lift would only kick the problem of refinishing and restoring down the road. Mr. Moyer said that this should be a condition of approval. Ms. Greenwood asked if HPC will get to see the materials presented and landscaping. Mr. Glass stated that they will be covering materials and landscaping. Mr. Glass showed a rendering of the Lift One project and stated that the historic resources are the prime actors and that they frame the portal and become the front door. He further said that the historic resources allow the wrapping of the new lift in a historic and new architecture. Mr. Glass showed a rendering of the relocated Skiers’ Chalet with the new parking garage entrance. He stated that after the relocation their mission will be to restore the essential elements of the Chalet. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020 Mr. Glass said that they will be restoring the balconies around the permeator of the building and restoring the colors on the build. Mr. Glass stated that the Chalet is fairly buried in the ground and for the relocation to work the Chalet will need to be exposed to its lowest level. Mr. Glass explained that they will be addressing this in a few different ways. The first will be extending the landscape around the base of Chalet. The second remedy will be taking the Chalet off its original CMU block and place it on a board form concrete pour. Mr. Glass said that it is important to keep that masonry material but with an upgrade to intergrade naturally with the surrounding site. Mr. Glass stated that some of the outside staircases will be persevered. The lower staircase will not be fictional since it no longer reaches the ground and will lead into a flower bed but will remain for esthetics. He explained that the double staircase that sat in front of the building will be removed since it did not make any sense with the new location and it would block any access regimes that the building required. Mr. Glass stated that the Steakhouse will be sitting in a very similar footprint only a few hundred feet down and will sit on a series of terraces that will integrate with the landscape and surroundings. He said that there will be more extensive terracing to the northside of the resource for restaurant seating and that they have worked with the Parks Dept. to integrate the landscaping. Mr. Glass stated that there is a staircase on the back of the Steakhouse that is being removed since it is not functional and does not serve a purpose. Mr. Glass showed a rendering of the site plan with different terracing with landscaping and access point to the historic landmarks. Mr. Glass pointed out that the bathroom building has been relocated next to the historic Skiers’ Chalet. Mr. Glass stated that with the help of the Aspen Historical Society they were able to understand the evolution of the Steakhouse. He explained that the proposal is to quiet the building down a bit and bring it back to its simple pure form. Mr. Glass stated that there are a couple of levels below grade that house a kitchen, locker rooms, and bathrooms. They will also connect to the hotel and parking. Mr. Glass went on to describe the layout of each level of the restraint. Mr. Glass stated that they have worked very closely with the building movers and their structural engineers on how to relocate this building while maintaining the building and the new configuration. Mr. Glass said that they have settled on an upgraded foundation that fits into the landscaping and sits up a little to keep off the ground which is keeping up with how the Steakhouse sits historically. He further explained that there will be a steel frame that is threaded through the interior of the building with a moment frame to help get the form back to being true and be able to open the space up. Mr. Glass stated that there is not a lot of new modifications to the Skiers’ Chalet exterior. He referenced a few photos showing the double staircase that will be removed and said that they will take all the elements restore them and properly replicate them if needed. Mr. Glass compared the historic fenestration to the proposed fenestration of the front of the Chalet and said that all the fenestrations are in similar placement and that changes that are happening down low where there is a new door on the base. Mr. Glass stated that on the westside they will be adding a door and windows on the base for skier services. He said on the southside there will be added windows for the museum and café. Mr. Glass showed floor plans of each level of the Skiers’ Chalet that included skier services, and skier museum. Mr. Glass stated that the framing of the Skiers’ Chalet can be left intact and his team will thread through the framing a series of a new structure while sister the studs, adding wood beams, sister the rafters, and joist while preserving the building. Mr. Glass stated that material for the exposed foundation will be a board form concrete pour and is replicated around the elements. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Glass to talk about the elevator overrun that has been added. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020 Mr. Glass stated unfortunately elevators need overruns. For the elevator to access the top floor of the Skiers’ Chalet it is in the best spot to hide the overrun and will be clad in a material that hides the visual impact. Ms. Kirk stated that permeable pavers are being considered for the Dean Street walkway and pedestrian zones. She explained that Dean Street will have a herringbone pattern while the pedestrian zones will follow an ashlar pattern, both will be in the same color scheme. Ms. Kirk showed a rendering of the planting plan and stated that there will be simple planters around the historic buildings helping ground them to the landscape while not compete with the architecture of the resource. Ms. Kirk stated that they are working with the Parks Dept. on a grass mixture for the ski area creating a mode are that transitions up to a natural grass and planting area. Mr. Glass showed a rendering of the preliminary lighting plan and stated that they will not up light the historic resources. He said all lights will meet the Dark Ski requirements and local codes. Mr. Glass said they will be installing shielded lights on the historic gantry. Mr. Glass stated that the overall feel for the light design is a modern minimalist light feel nothing too fussy. Mr. Glass said that there will be a few wayfinding signs attached to the Skiers’ Chalet and throughout pedestrian walkways for convenience to the guess to help navigate and identify landmarks. Mr. Halfery asked if Mr. Glass could talk about the Chalet greets the ground. Mr. Glass stated board form concrete will be the base of the Chalet to connect it with the other aspects of the project. Ms. Thompson asked if the railings at the Skiers’ Chalet and around the Steakhouse are glass. Mr. Glass stated that the railing on the terrace of the Steakhouse is glass. He said they chose glass because it is the most contemporary and translucent. The railing does not touch the resource. Mr. Glass stated that there is another glass railing between the new elevator shaft and Chalet. And again, the glass is not touching the resource. Ms. Thompson asked how the lighting fixtures were going to be integrated with the glass railing if there is no uplighting. Mr. Glass stated that there are two options. The first being the light fixture attached to the bottom part of the railing with an edge condition or fix it to the deck and light it horizontally. Mr. Clauson stated that the glass railing was apart of the original approval from HPC. Ms. Greenwood asked if the City Lot a landmark. Ms. Simon stated that it was. David Corbin from the Aspen Skiing Company. Mr. Corbin stated that he confirms what Mr. Clauson stated about the relocation and preservation of the historic towers. He further said he does not see any additional approvals needed from the Forest Serves or Pitkin County. Mr. Tunte stated that Parks and the applicant have been working very close to make sure the goals and vision of the parks and open space are realized. STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Anderson reviewed the final review criteria that included site planning and landscape design, rehabilitation of historic buildings, new construction, accessibility, lighting mechanical equipment, service areas, and signs. Ms. Simon reviewed the new conditions that were added. The added conditions can be found on pages 21-22 of the HPC packet. Mr. Anderson reviewed the last condition for the location and design of the lift shack. He said that the understanding of the lift shack is to house the control panel, storage, and be general support for the lift. Mr. Anderson showed a rendering of the location of the lift shack which is REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020 adjacent to the new lift terminal. He stated that there will be an administrative PD approval for the building. Ms. Thompson stated that HPC did not see any detail about the public bathrooms, and asked if they would be under the same review. Mr. Anderson stated that could be a possibility with HPC direction. He explained that the bathrooms are apart of Lift One Lodge's responsibility to bring the building down, then it becomes part of the Parks Dept to manage. Ms. Greenwood asked where will the bathrooms be located. Mr. Anderson said that the structure will be located southeast of the Skiers’ Chalet above the garage opening. Ms. Greenwood stated that this should have been apart of the final review. She further said that this should be an added approval. Mr. Halferty stated that the bathrooms are directly adjacent to the resource and is in the purview of HPC. Ms. Simon stated that the lift shack and bathrooms can be handled any way the commission feels fit. She said this can be staff and monitor or bumped up to the full board. Mr. Halferty stated that he is more concerned with the building adjacent to the historic resource. Mr. Anderson stated that staff is recommending approval of the final major development review. He explained that approval would confirm the role of previous approvals and conditions, establishes new conditions based on the devolving design, and recommends approval of the planned development and commercial design review to P&Z. Ms. Thompson asked if the Steakhouse upper-level balconies will be accessible. Mr. Glass stated that the balconies will not have access to them but will be preserved. Ms. Thompson stated that she read in the packet that the railings will be increasing in height to meet code. Mr. Glass stated that there has been dissection with the Building Dept and an agreement to keep the railings at the current height. PUBLIC COMMENT: None COMMISSION COMMENT: Ms. Greenwood stated that she is elated that the historic building will be moved into the park area and preserved. She said she is disappointed that HPC does not get to review the new buildings and that there is no visual relationship between the historic buildings and new ones. Ms. Greenwood stated that she does not agree with the elevator shaft and that it was presented as an afterthought and is a massive monolithic structure that sits right in between the historic resources. She explained that this should be listed as a condition or come back to the board after a restudy. Ms. Greenwood said that the materials that are being used on the elevator shaft relates to the buildings further up the hill and should not be brought down to this area. Ms. Greenwood stated that this reminds her of post-war brutalist architecture and does not belong. She said that this needs to be restudied and redesigned and needs to come back to the whole board. Ms. Greenwood pointed out that the elevator shaft does not meet Design Guideline 1.19. Mr. Halferty stated that the elevator shaft is needed for the project however the location next to the historic resource is problematic. Mr. Halferty said that there needs to be extra thought with the Steakhouse, restaurants come with hoods, scrubbers, etc. against the gentle roof slope of the roofline and penetration. He stated that staff’s comments about the preservation of windows were excellent and a very important piece to this project. Mr. Halfery stated that all ski lifts need a lift building, however, this is a very predominant lift building, one of the first ski lifts in Colorado, REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020 and that HPC should have a say on this building. He said the landscape design plan is coming along and is almost there and would like to see the lighting plan not so aggressive. Ms. Sanzone asked to see the rendering of the elevator overrun. Mr. Glass stated that his response about bout the cladding was about the overrun Ms. Thompson was asking about not about the elevator shaft Ms. Greenwood was talking about. He explained that the shaft is thought to be a concrete structure with a certain amount of detail. He further explained that it would be very difficult to change the scale and material. Ms. Greenwood stated that she has a problem with the elevator shaft. She said that there needs to be some articulation or add a clock tower aspect. Ms. Sanzone stated that she loves the relationship between the historic and modern architecture presented. She said she likes that the landscape plan, it is quiet and that the resources need to be able to stand out from the planters. Ms. Sanzone stated that she likes the use of the historic stairs going into the planter. Ms. Sanzone said she likes the datum line referencing what the grade used to be. She proposed that the planters be tipped back and allowed to come out and to ground the landscape with the resource. Ms. Sanzone stated that she likes the board form concrete and that it is being carried through to all the features. She said that the paving materials feel a bit complicated and that the Design Guideline speaks to a simple paving pattern. Mr. Kendrick stated this will be a great addition to the town. He agreed with Ms. Sanzone about simplifying the pavers. Mr. Kendrick said with some small tweaks and adjustments to the materials the elevator shaft could be resolved. He stated that he likes the functionality of this project and would like to see it move forward. Mr. Moyer stated that there are two issues for the Skiers’ Chalet in the winter. First, he said the base of the building is very cold and foreboding. Second, he stated that the monolithic elevator next to the resource. Mr. Moyer proposed the elevator shaft be transparent. He said there already two in the community the Aspen Art Museum and Riverside Condos. Mr. Moyer stated that he agrees with the comments about keeping the pavers simply. Mr. Moyer said the garage entrance and landscaping take away from the Chalet and mixed with the base it is very reminiscent of a military base. Mr. Moyer agreed with Ms. Greenwood’s comment about hiding the rooftop mechanical. Ms. Thompson asked if removing the second floor of the Steakhouse was done administratively. Ms. Simon stated that they normally do not review interiors. Ms. Thompson stated that she would like to see the balconies utilized like they were in the historic photos that were presented rather than just decretive. Ms. Thompson stated that she likes Mr. Moyers's comment about the elevator being all glass and that the shaft as presented now is foreboding and unwelcoming and that there needs to be a restudy of massing and material. She said she would like to see a rendering of what is happening on the backside of the Skiers’ Chalet concerning the landscaping and bathrooms. Ms. Thompson stated that the bathroom building and lift building need to come back to the board. Ms. Thompson proposed a condition for more information about the lighting plan specifically around the resources. She said she agrees with the comments about the pavers and with Mr. Halferty’s comments about the Steakhouse venting penetration of the roof. Ms. Greenwood asked if these concerns could be worked out with staff and a few monitors or is this something that needs to come back to the whole board. Ms. Thompson stated that most of these concerns can be staff and a few monitors however the elevator, bathrooms, and the lift building need to come back to the board. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020 Ms. Simon stated that the code allows two monitors on a proposal. She suggested that they could have two monitors on lot one, two monitors on the park, and two monitors on lot three or assign a couple of the members as monitors and instruct that the bigger issues need to come to the board not as a public hearing but as a check-in. Mr. Moyer stated that there are three aspects that need to come back to the board. The first being the south side of the Skiers’ Chalet, the second is the lift build, and finally the elevator. He said the rest can be handled by staff and monitors. Ms. Thompson stated that there will be additional conditions regarding lighting, landscape paving, and the restrooms and lift the building to come back to the board. Mr. Moyer asked if they needed to add a condition about not encapsulating the historic lift. Ms. Simon stated that how it is written, it will fall under staff and monitor. She explained if the board wants it to be specific they should list it as a condition. Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Sanzone if she thinks the landscape plan should come back to the whole board or staff and monitor. Ms. Sanzone said that she would be fine either way and that there is a path for multiple monitors should be fine. She said it seems that the hot topics are the southside of the Chalet, elevator, and lift building. She further stated that they should come back to the board. Ms. Greenwood asked how can the board approve the project and still have an aspect come back. Ms. Thompson stated that condition 11 is an amendment to whatever is approved, and this could be used for the bathrooms and the elevator. Mr. Anderson stated that this is an option or let staff and monitor have their role and bring it to the board for an update in a nonpublic hearing before issuing the final administrative approval. Ms. Greenwood moved to extend the meeting; Mr. Moyer seconded the motion. All in favor 5-0, Motion carried. Mr. Clauson reviewed the origins of the three areas of concern and who is responsible for each one. He said that working with staff and monitor followed by confirmation from the board is a nice solution. Ms. Greenwood reviewed condition #11 and stated that they should add the elevator and bathrooms to this condition. Mr. Anderson stated that adding in language for a restudy about simplifying landscaping and lighting to the conditions. Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #023-2020 with added conditions; Ms. Greenwood seconded. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes; Ms. Thompson, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. Staff monitors Steakhouse- Ms. Thompson and Ms. Sanzone Skiers’ Chalet- Mr. Moyer and Ms. Sanzone Park- Ms. Sanzone Lift building – Mr. Halferty