Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20241002SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford, Peter Fornell, Kim Raymond, Dakota Severe, Riley Warwick and Kara Thompson. Absent was Jodi Surfas. Staff present: Gillian White, Principal Preservation Planner Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Natalie Feinberg-Lopez commented that today was Rosh Hashanah and that it was not typical to have a meeting on this holiday. She also noted that an HPC member was not in attendance because of it and felt that person’s voice was not being treated as equal for this meeting. She also felt that because of the holiday, there was a certain portion of the community that would not be able to participate in the meeting, which was infringing on their 1st Amendment rights as well as freedom of religion. She felt this was a great disappointment and hoped we could do better. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson acknowledged Dakota Severe as HPC’s newest member and asked her to introduce herself. Ms. Severe introduced herself and went over some of her background, including experience on various historic preservation committees during college. Mr. Moyer felt it unfortunate that they had ignored a religious holiday. He also felt that many people come to Aspen because it is a wonderful place and then attempt to make it like where they came from. Ms. Severe wanted to add to Mr. Moyer comments and felt that they needed to meet Aspen where it is at and grow together, instead of constantly trying to change or mold it into what we want. Responding to an earlier question of Ms. Thompson, Ms. Johnson noted that since one of the regular members was not present, Mr. Warwick, as an alternate member, would be voting tonight. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: None Mr. Moyer asked if there had been any progress on the discussion about removing paint from historic bricks. Mr. Hayden said that staff and the board members could revisit that topic at a future work session. Mr. Moyer noted that at 535 E. Cooper Ave., paint had previously been removed causing damage to the brick. He recently noticed that the brick had been repainted and was wondering the status of that. He wondered if anything had been done to the exposed brick before it was repainted. Mr. Hayden said there was no monitor on the project since it was just a certificate of no negative effect. Mr. Moyer thought a serious conversation should be had with the people who had damaged the brick and then repainted it without authorization. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Ms. Thompson said that she was putting together a list of various topics that had been discussed over the past few years that haven’t progressed and had talked with Ms. White about scheduling a work session in the future to go over them. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None CALL UP REPORTS: None STAFF COMMENTS: None SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item. Substantial Amendment: 300 – 312 E. Hyman Ave. - Formerly known as the Crystal Palace - Substantial Amendment Application Mr. Anderson introduced the item by reviewing the history of the past HPC approvals. He noted that only Mr. Moyer was on HPC back when this project was first proposed for approval in 2016 / 2017. He continued to review the project’s history and noted that currently there is an open building permit that was first issued in 2019. He said that there were several unknowns about the building, which had been transformed many times during its history. These unknowns included potential historic materials that may exist and the integrity and stability of those materials. It was clearly acknowledged in the HPC approval that much would be found out once the construction process began related to historic materials. Mr. Anderson said the project has been closed up as it stalled out but the permit is still in good standing. He said the crux of the issue is the west wall that remains. He noted that the wall was heavily considered by HPC in 2017 and was understood at the time that it would be able to be incorporated into the new construction. He said that staff is in full agreement that there needs to be a retreat from this to acknowledge a few things. These included the fact that a portion of the wall is built in the right of way, that it is currently unstable, that there is a mix of Victorian era and 1970’s era brick and mortar and the context and collective history of the mural. He finished by stating that staff is in agreement that the wall needs to be treated differently than the current approval and realized that a deconstruction and reconstruction would need to happen to have it be incorporated into the new construction. He pointed out that HPC would be seeing in the applicant’s presentation, changes to architectural elements that were approved in 2017. He also noted that staff is not in a position to propose a resolution at this time due to certain things that they cannot support in the application. It was staff’s hope that after discussion with the applicant and staff, and listening to public comment, that HPC could give some clear direction on some of these fundamental questions about getting this project moving forward for the community. He said staff highly recommends a continuance of this meeting and hope that clear direction can be given to the applicant about where the project should ultimately land. Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams & Mark Hunt – M Development SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Mr. Hunt began by recognizing the fact that this meeting ended up falling on Rosh Hashanah and felt it unfortunate. He moved on by going over some history of their progress on this project. He mentioned that they had been wanting to come before HPC as things had unveiled themselves while they were developing what once was the old Crystal Palace. He said that they had been honored and excited to have taken over what they thought was the historic Crystal Palace and preserving it and adding a modern element. He said that they went to great lengths in cataloging many of the elements of building. He noted that once they began the construction process, things started to present themselves differently than what they had all thought during the original approval. These included cornices, brick on the second story and many other sections of the building. In each incidence, City staff directed them to send the materials to the landfill as they were not historic. He said they are now left with a compromised west wall, which he agreed was a part of Aspen’s history. He noted that the new building structure that has been built is actually holding up the west wall. He expressed that he was both excited and nervous to be here, as he had never built a fake building, but was in a situation were the Crystal Palace that we all knew was gone, more specifically it had been gone long before the 2017 approvals. He said that he did not want to be viewed as taking away from Aspen’s history, but rather adding to it. He felt that they were at a crossroads where they could either take the replication route and do a building that was sort of pretending to be the Crystal Palace or they could design a building that is authentic yet pays homage to the past. Ms. Adams started her presentation by going over some history of the building and showed several historic photos of the building over time. She then a showed a few renderings from the previous approval that included preserving what they thought were historic materials and tying in new construction. She described the educational outreach and information they provided back in 2017 about the preservation plan. She described how in the demolition process they discovered an absence of historic materials and in working with the project monitors and City preservation staff, it was determined that the existing materials were not historic, not to be restored and thus were permanently removed. She said with all this knowledge one thing they wanted to talk about was that maybe reconstructing history is not the answer for this building. She briefly went over the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for reconstruction and that it is only appropriate in certain circumstances and generally not accepted to try and fake history. She showed a picture of the current conditions and noted that there was only a bit of historic material left in the west wall and it is also severely compromised. She went over several issues with the current wall, noting the five reports included in their application from experienced conservation and structural experts. She said that it is recognized, including by Mr. Anderson, that the best way forward is to deconstruct the wall and reconstruct it using the historic brick and appropriate mortar and repairing the sandstone foundation. She said this would ensure the wall is integrated into the building and will be around for another lifetime. She moved on to their proposal stating the question before HPC is do they proceed with approvals that recreate fake history or amend them to be a product of their own time and honor what’s left of the building in an authentic way. She said the applicant felt that re-creation would be inauthentic and not Aspen’s approach to historic preservation. She then showed the south façade elevations and renderings of their proposal included in the packet. It was a mostly brick building that related to surrounding buildings but did not compete with them. She detailed some of the traditional design elements that had SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 been given a modern application in order to be a product of their own time. She then continued by going over the proposed west façade and noted that they believe they have enough historic brick to rebuild the mural and repaint it, relocating it into the center of the west façade. She also detailed a few changes to the north and east façades as well as some details about the brick application and metal materials. She also noted a few minor changes to the interior wall layout as well as to the skylights and mechanical equipment on the roof. Ms. Adams then showed another rendering of the proposed south façade and Mr. Hunt spoke to the thoughts that went into its design and characterized it as “less is more”. He felt it was an authentic design that stayed disciplined to the two materials. He noted that the previously approved design had multiple types of brick and multiple types of windows in both shape and material. Ms. Adams referenced the staff memo and noted that it contained four recommended options presented by staff as possible outcomes of this meeting. She said that the applicant would be willing to accept option number two, supporting the new architecture but that an alternate treatment of the west wall and mural is needed and acceptable. She stated that it was their understanding that staff would find it acceptable to use all available historic brick to reconstruct the length of the west side of the historic building and repaint the mural at the corner. She said that their question to HPC is if there is not enough historic brick to express the full length, should they match the brick or use as much as they have and them just stop and blend into the new brick. Ms. Severe asked about a perceived discrepancy in kick plate heights between what was in the packet and what was presented. Mr. Hunt said it was the version with the higher kick plates. Mr. Fornell asked whether their new proposal included any new additional height to the building. Ms. Adams said that there was some mechanical equipment screening that may appear taller than allowed, but they would be ok with bringing that down. She emphasized that there was no new height proposed to the building. Ms. Pitchford asked if the building exceeds the height allowed by the Land Use Code. Ms. Adams said it does not exceed the Land Use Code that the project is vested under. She noted it was vested under the 2015 Land Use Code which allowed up to 38 - 40 feet and that the issued permit for this project is 40 feet. Ms. Pitchford felt the applicant was presenting this on the basis that the building is no longer historic. Ms. Adams said that if they were saying that it was no longer historic, they would be going through the delisting process. She said they do not want to delist the property but want to discuss a new treatment of the west wall because new information was discovered during demolition. Ms. Pitchford asked if there had been any attempt to stabilize the west wall and or it’s foundation in the 7+ years they have had the permit. Mr. Hunt said they addressed it right away during initial construction and he detailed those efforts. He noted that the west wall cannot support itself and that is why they believe the best way to preserve and protect the wall is to deconstruct it and reconstruct it. He again noted that the base of the wall is 4 inches into the right of way and that the wall leans another 4-6 inches out from there. He did not want to build a building that included a wall that was leaning and created a gap of 8-10 inches between it and the new construction. He said they were asking to be able to carefully deconstruct it and reconstruct it with a proper foundation and within the property line on the same plane as the rest of the building. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Ms. Pitchford asked why it had taken so long to come before HPC with this. Mr. Hunt said that this had been a long process of going back to the drawing board and or going through the monitoring process as new things came to light during construction and things were discovered that were not historic. He said they were here to get some clear direction and support on how to move forward. Ms. Pitchford asked again why they are still wanting this to be listed as historic. Mr. Hunt stated that both the previously approved design and the new proposal would be new buildings. He noted that they could argue about what’s historic and what’s not and he spoke to the significance of the building’s history and specifically the mural. Ms. Pitchford then asked if they thought the new proposed building respects the previous structure as people knew the Crystal palace. Mr. Hunt responded that in 2016 they had designed a building off inaccurate information and false history. Mr. Moyer asked for some information about the architectural firm that designed the building and the builder. Mr. Hunt gave some information about the architectural firm and noted that current builder was Greg Woods. Mr. Moyer then asked if the current builder had their Historic Preservation BEST card. It was confirmed that they did. Mr. Moyer asked about the scaffolding that had been erected on the west wall and whether it had been attached to the structure, noting that there are 36 holes that currently exist on the west wall. There was some discussion about how the holes might have been made as well as if there were any efforts to stabilize the bricks themselves from wear. Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant could describe how they got to the new design regarding the context of the surrounding area. Mr. Hunt described the ideas behind the new design and noted that the previous design was a blend of old and new and their new proposed design is more traditional with some contemporary elements using the two main materials of brick and metal. Ms. Thomspon wanted to confirm that the proposed repainting of the mural would be using modern, non-lead-based paints. Ms. Adams said yes and that product specifics would be provided at building permit for staff and monitor to approve. Ms. Severe asked about something she noticed in the staff memo about some windows that would not be operational. Mr. Hunt said that all the windows on the south façade of the new proposal would be operational, but that in the original design there were several “fake” openings on the west wall that were based on historical openings. He also mentioned that the new design had nods to the Wheeler and Jerome. Staff Presentation: Mr. Ben Anderson – Community Development Director Mr. Anderson commented that staff understands the difficulties that the applicant is going though and the challenges in responding to the changing knowledge of what the building has turned out to be. He began his presentation by going over the request in front of HPC and the applicant’s proposals, noting that staff is recommending continuation due some distance between where staff and the applicant were on a few of the details. Staff felt that some direction from HPC was needed before proceeding with a resolution. He moved on to describing the current status of the project, the issued permit and the amount of work being done. He said that the current “stalling” on the project has much to do with the question of what to do with the west wall. He then showed a few historic photos from different years and noted that many historic buildings in town look different today than they did in their history due to changes over time. He said that this SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 building was designated in 1981, and that that designation framed a lot of staff’s responses relating to the guidelines. He then showed the conditions from the 2017 approval for reference. Next, he showed drawings of the currently approved west and south façades and described some of the elements and how they compare to the new proposed architectural design. He felt there was a fair question of what to do with the new information that differed to what they understood in 2017. He asked if the architectural references to the Crystal Palace should remain, or should, as the applicant stated, that they should acknowledge that it wasn’t what they thought it was. He said that there are patterns in the new design that show up in other places in the core and in other historic resources and that without the original approval and the community expectations of the architectural references to the Crystal Palace, this would be a fine-looking building. He said the question is again what to do with the west wall. He moved on to go over staff’s concerns with the reviewed proposal. These included the loss of all remaining integrity of the west wall; relocation of the mural to a different location on the wall; a loss of approved architectural references across the west façade; and a loss of approved architectural references in the west section of the south façade. He noted that staff could not support the reviewed proposal, mostly in relationship to the existing approval. He noted that staff is recommending continuance to November 13th, 2024. He presented on the screen a few questions and topics that may help guide HPC’s discussion related to the treatment of the west wall and the overall new architectural design as outlined in the staff memo. Mr. Fornell asked if the determination was made to deconstruct and reconstruct the west wall with one width of brick, would that resolve the right of way issue. Mr. Anderson said that in his understanding it would. Ms. Severe asked if they stuck with the 2017 approved design, would the doors next to the mural on the west wall be functioning. Mr. Anderson said he did not believe so. He noted that there was historic photographic evidence of doors existing there in the past and the 2017 design was trying to reference those. Ms. Severe then asked about the increased number of windows on the second story of the west façade and whether it was the number of windows that was staff’s concern. Mr. Anderson said that as new construction, those windows would be fine, but the bigger question is whether the new building should continue to reference the Crystal Palace and the design that emerged from the 2017 approval. Mr. Fornell asked if it was decided that the west wall should remain as is, would the City grant a permanent easement for the encroachment into the right of way. Mr. Anderson said that they would probably have to, but that the reconstruction of the wall down to a single width of brick resolves the right of way issue as well as the wall’s structural integrity issue. Mr. Hayden commented that from a historic preservation perspective, keeping the wall in its current location would be preferred. Mr. Anderson noted that over the past five years it has been the applicant and staff’s understanding that the condition of the wall was not as bad as it actually is. They thought the wall may have been able to be picked up and a new foundation built or that the wall could have been brought back into true. He said that with the current knowledge of the wall’s structure, staff’s preference would be deconstruction and reconstruction. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Ms. Raymond asked about staff’s preference to reconstruct the wall with as much historic brick as possible. She wondered if they wanted to keep the whole west wall as approved in 2017. Mr. Anderson said they would like to maintian the extent or length of it and the location of the mural. Mr. Moyer asked if staff would prefer the second-floor portion of the west wall’s design stay as approved in 2017. Mr. Anderson again brought up the general question of whether or not the architectural references to the Crystal Palace in the approved design from 2017 should continue forward and he felt there were good arguments on both sides of the question. Mr. Moyer then asked if staff knew if holes were drilled to install the scaffolding on the Wheeler or Elks building. Mr. Hayden said that this happened on the Wheeler and the alley side of the Elks building. He also noted that as approved, they removed historic brick, put in a “dummy” brick and drilled into that to attach scaffolding and then reversed the process when completed. Mr. Anderson said that he had not seen any evidence in prior staff approvals that this was done on the west wall of the Crystal Palace building. Mr. Moyer asked a few other questions about potential options to stabilize the historic wall. Ms. Raymond asked if staff wanted to maintain the references to the Crystal Palace as presented in the design of the 2017 approval or if they would rather maintain how the original historic building looked. Mr. Anderson said they are referencing the 2017 design. Ms. Severe asked if HPC agrees to keep the existing west wall and mural, how would the lead paint be treated to keep it from chipping and getting into the soil. Ms. White responded that there are ways to encapsulate it so that it would not affect the soil. Ms. Pitchford asked if Mr. Anderson could describe what “progress” meant when it comes to keeping a building permit in good standing. Mr. Anderson said that once a building permit is issued, regular inspections are done by staff to determine if progress is being made. He noted that once this project pulled out of the right of way and it seemed like progress had come to a halt, work was still being done on the inside. Ms. Johnson clarified that an inspection is triggered by a certain level of work which is governed by the building code. She said the Chief Building Official holds the discretion on whether that work is sufficient to maintain an active permit. Ms. Thompson asked if over the previous years, when it was determined that certain materials were in fact not historic, was it staff’s direction to continue with the approved application or was there direction to reconsider the design. Mr. Anderson believed that there were various opinions among staff and uncertainty of what to do about it considering how the approvals had been conveyed to the public. Ms. Thompson then asked Mr. Hayden and Ms. White whether in general historic preservation staff is not in support of reconstruction projects and reconstructing more than what current exists here would not be something they would support. Mr. Hayden responded that reconstruction is to be a rare occurrence and that strict reconstruction of the Crystal Palace and the parts that no longer exist isn’t appropriate. Staff’s focus is on the preservation of the materials in the wall that still exist. Ms. Severe again brought up the issue associated with the lead paint in the mural and how that would be addressed if the wall were to be deconstructed and moved. Mr. Anderson spoke to some of the potential options. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Public Comment: Mr. Jay Maytin commented that as this project has evolved, HPC’s preservation purview has disintegrated due to the fact that this project is not historic or very little of it that remains is. He felt that HPC needed to give up control on this project. He asked HPC to save what was historic and work with the developer. Mr. Jeffrey Halferty commented that he was on HPC in 2017 and had been the monitor on it as well. He said that in 2017 there was a lot of adjudicating about what was historic and what was not. He felt the legacy of the Crystal Palace as a place was gone historically, but the mural was special, and he commended the applicant for preserving it and conforming to the guidelines in general. He felt the most important thing for HPC is to make sure it conforms with the Commercial Design Standards. Mr. Jimmy Markus noted that he used to work with Mr. Hunt on some other projects, but no longer is associated with him. He said he was here as the owner of a neighboring building at 301 E Hopkins. He wanted to feel confident that when something is done, we can rely that it is something historic. He said that he grew up going to the Crystal Palace and had great memories of it but felt that the community has realized over time that the building and mural were not original. Moving forward, he did not what to trick the community into thinking that what is rebuilt is original when it is not, because of the building’s complicated history. Mr. Gordon Bronson stated that he has no vested interest in the building but was an Aspen native and an owner of Gravity Haus which was across the street from this project. Like Mr. Markus, he had spent a lot of time at the Crystal Palace and had great memories of it. He was not there to opine on the historic significance of the building, but just wanted to see a beautiful project that speaks both to Aspen’s legacy and its future. He felt the brick materials speak to many other buildings in town including the Gravity Haus building and the Wheeler and was in support of moving this project along expeditiously. Ms. Gretchen Greenwood noted that she was the HPC chair in 2016 and expressed the difficulty that the board went through back then. She felt like if she was on the board now, she would listen to the facts and the truth that it is no longer a historic building. She said if they had known this in 2017 it would have made the process so much easier. She felt the approvals of 2017 were based on a fallacy. She noted that she was involved in several of Mr. Hunt’s projects when she was on HPC and felt that he is a quality developer that takes the time to do things correctly. She felt this was a new building now and we couldn’t go back and replicate the past. She supported the new design and the centering of the mural and felt that the west side of the previous building always felt like a dead zone or an alley. She felt there was now an opportunity to build a better building for the community by having windows and activity on that side. Ms. Phyllis Bronson stated that she had known Mr. Hunt since he arrived in town. She felt that he was a very honest man, and his passion is beautiful buildings. She felt that an honest man and an authentic building both must be true to themselves, and you can’t just throw up a couple of boxes and say you’re done. She said that Mr. Hunt had recently brought her into the building and it felt incredibly strong and safe until you looked at the west wall. She said that she would really love to see this approved and felt this will be a good and beautiful building and while it may not be perfect it would be authentic. Mr. Fornell motioned to extend the meeting to 7:45pm. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0, motion passes. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Mr. Scott Hershey thought that the public knows the building as having the owl mural on the southwest corner and he felt that that should stay. He thought that this will just end up being a façade and felt that the three widths thick wall should be deconstructed and moved back so that it is not in the right of way and rebuilt to one width thick with the amount of historic brick that remains. He thought this was the practical approach versus trying to repair and save a wall that is already a patchwork. Mr. Bill Latosa noted that he was a preservation architect and was previously employed by the National Parks Service. He mentioned that he was one of the restoration architects on the Statue of Liberty, Tom Edison’s home and studio and numerous other historic preservation projects. He went on to detail the restoration work on the Statue of Liberty. He then noted that the owl mural is lead based paint and that there are ways to encapsulate it but that it would be an ongoing process. He suggested that the west wall should be deconstructed, the lead-based paint removed and the wall reconstructed with the historic bricks. He also did not think that relocating the mural to the center of the wall would reduce its historical significance. Mr. Craig Cordts-Pearce commented that he had spent many years on Hyman Ave and has seen the changes to the Crystal Palace over time. He thought that the decisions and procedures that have gone on with this project have only hurt the core and the businesses community in Aspen. He said it was very difficult to be in business here and he would really like to see an approval so that we can get back to normal again. He felt this project was being held up because of a wall that could be rebuilt into a beautiful art piece. Ms. Natalie Feinberg-Lopez noted that she had worked on three State capitols and numerous other historic projects throughout the state of Colorado. She mentioned Gaard Moses, the artist who painted the mural and that he had been given an award from HPC recognizing him for his work. She said that she was in favor of encapsulating the mural’s paint to preserve Gaard’s work. She also noted that lead is one of the least toxic elements that can be found in a mining community. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson thanked the applicant and staff for their presentations and all the public for their comments. She noted that there were two things in front of them. One being the remaining portion of the wall and what the most appropriate path is there and the other being the new structure. She noted that she was struggling with the proposal as presented for the west wall, primarily because it reduces the size of the mural and moves it. She agreed with staff that the wall currently exists and they should try to preserve it in that location and supported creating a one width façade of the existing mural in front of a new wall that moves it onto the property. Mr. Fornell noted that he had carefully reviewed the 2017 approval and the minutes from those meetings and felt that there were a lot of assumptions made about the building back then. He felt that if the HPC members back then had the information we have now, there would have been a very different result. Because of that he did not want to put much weight on the 2017 approval. He said that he had spoken with several community members recently, and they all said the same things, which were to somehow save the mural and get the project moving again. He felt the new design was respectful to the historic district and that he would support the application as presented by the applicant. Ms. Pitchford thought they had a bigger question than just the wall. She was wondering why delisting was not being talked about more. She questioned why the applicant still wanted to keep the building SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 listed as historic even though the new building will have no connection to the Crystal Palace. She said you can’t have it both ways, in that its either a historic building or its not. She wanted to ask the HPC members why they were talking about it as a historic resource. Ms. Johnson cautioned that they have an application in front of them. She noted that there exists a Council Ordinance from 1981 designating the building historic under the Land Use Code at that time and that the applicant has not requested to delist the property and HPC does not have the power to make that decision. Ms. Pitchford felt that sometimes it’s more about the cultural and character than bricks and mortar. She felt the Crystal Palace is iconic and that the new design was not in context, and she saw no reason to change the 2017 approved design as it meets the character of town. Mr. Warwick thought this was a simple situation. He acknowledged that the building was not historic and that parts of the wall were. He felt they should preserve the wall and mural. He felt they were walking a very fine line when talking about replicating buildings. He spoke to the uniqueness of Aspen as a historic town, compared to Vail which felt like Disney World with replica after replica. He appreciated that applicant’s attempt to be authentic while preserving the wall and thought the new design was superior to the 2017 design. Ms. Thompson agreed with everything Mr. Warwick said but thought that a few of the elements on the new design were a bit neo-classical. Mr. Warwick thought that if they stick with the 2017 design, they could be getting into a situation that in a few years they look back and say that’s obviously not historic and obviously a replica. Ms. Thompson felt the 2017 design was a conglomeration of a few different styles smashed together and that the new design works well contextually and meets more of the guidelines than the previous one. Ms. Raymond said that if she had been on the board in 2017, she would not have approved that design. She agreed with Mr. Warwick in that common sense needed to be applied here and that the building is not historic. She also felt what Mr. Fornell was hearing from the public, that keeping the mural but getting the project going was very important. She felt that the community relate the mural to what they think of as the Crystal Palace. She also felt that Mr. Hunt and his team were being very authentic by trying to create the context and save the mural. She agreed with Mr. Fornell that they needed to help move this project along as quickly as they can. She felt the new design fits nicely into the neighborhood and agreed that moving the mural to the middle did not take away from its historic significance but was a bit concerned that the mural was getting smaller. Ms. Adams noted that when the mural was repainted in the 1970s it had gotten a bit bigger. Ms. Raymond continued that since it would not be the exact same mural after getting rebuilt and repainted, she thought moving it was a good idea. She was in support of the application as presented, but thought there could be some conditions concerning details added to the approval. Mr. Moyer thought all the members should listen to themselves on the recording tomorrow. He referenced the Paepcke House project from years ago and what HPC had saved on it and that the sisters had wanted to do a lot split and build a road in the middle and that HPC turned them down. Mr. Moyer said that when he saw this proposal he wondered what was wrong with the 2017 design and why the applicant didn’t do it. He said that he was a little affronted when this came to HPC. He noted SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 that their job was to preserve history, even if it was one column, one door, or one wall. He felt that the wall had been there for 130 years, wasn’t going anywhere and he was confident that it could be secured to the new CMU wall behind it. He said that he did not particularly care for what they did in 2017, except that they were saving the west wall. He felt he and the City were insulted by this project and that Aspen has been insulted over the last many years with five other projects that are sitting empty. He thought it was awful. He agreed with Ms. Pitchford in supporting the design and approvals from 2017. Mr. Moyer continued by referring to his earlier questions about the holes in the west wall and he thought staff had been a bit lackadaisical in this regard. He wondered how this could have happened and why consolidants had not been used on the brick. He said it was hard to listen to all the comments on this project and that they are not helping in preserving history. He felt that they should retain the wall as it is because it hasn’t and will not collapse. He said that the lead paint wasn’t an issue because Gaard had used an acrylic paint over it. He said he was not prepared to give the applicant permission to demolish the building anymore. He was disappointed that it, like many other projects, has been sitting this long. He was disappointed that the Boomerang nearly self-destructed because nothing was done to it. He thought it was not their responsibility to help developers destroy the town, but to help preserve it, even if it was just a wall. He didn’t understand why the mural would be moved to the middle. Ms. Pitchford referenced all the comments that the project needs to move along. She said the HPC members were not the reason it had been sitting for all these years and that it was not their job to move projects forward, but rather the applicant’s. Ms. Severe thought that the redesign of this building was amazing. She said there were many occurrences of the word “hodgepodge” in the application packet, and she felt that Mr. Hunt had really put both the industrial and Victorian eras together. She wondered if the mural should be moved to the middle of the wall. She said that part of her would like it to stay at the corner as that is where locals remember it. She felt the mural needed to be touched up and completely sealed regardless of whether it remains in its current location or is moved. Outside of where the mural ends up, she was in complete support of the new design and felt that it really fits the context of the street. Ms. Thompson motioned to extend the meeting to 8:00pm. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0, motion passes. Mr. Warwick wondered, in terms of historic preservation, if it would it be better to leave the mural it as is, which would require more maintenance and it would potentially deteriorate faster, or to deconstruct and put it back together and repaint it. Mr. Moyer thought that they could defer that to staff to figure out and give a recommendation. He also spoke to the various methods of preserving the mural and admitted that they would have to be redone of the years. Ms. Thompson felt that they should continue to November 13th but was trying to be able to give the applicant some direction. There was discussion about the four options in the staff memo and that the applicant had said they would be ok with the second one. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the substantial amendment put forth by the applicant, approving the new architecture, the removal and replacement of the wall with one width of brick using SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 as many historic bricks as possible to be reviewed by staff and monitor and repainting the mural to replicate what existed. Ms. Severe seconded. Ms. Thomspon noted that they do not have a resolution in front of them. Ms. Johnson suggested that, if there was support for that motion, that it be amended to direct staff to prepare such a resolution for approval at the next meeting. Ms. Raymond suggested that they add a condition stating that instead of outlining how things should be done, the building is approved as presented, but the applicant would have to show how they can best move and redo the mural. Ms. Thompson said she would be a “no” on that motion and felt the mural needed to remain its existing size and the brick needed to be restored. She felt they needed more detail on the differentiation between the historic brick and the new brick and how those meet each other. She also felt a site visit was warranted to meet with the applicant and their experts as well as staff to better understand the existing conditions of the brick. She also wanted to see material samples. Mr. Fornell asked if approval of a material sample be a condition of approval. Ms. Thompson felt that it was important to see it on a site visit and have the whole board agree. Mr. Moyer spoke to the differences between new and old brick referencing how windows and other openings on historic buildings can be seen when they have been filled in with new brick over the years. He felt that was also part of the history of a building. Ms. Johnson noted that the conditions suggested by Ms. Raymond were not part of the motion that is on the table. Ms. Raymond restated her suggested condition. Ms. Johnson suggested, for clarity purposes, to continue the meeting in order to bring back a resolution with some detailed conditions. She noted that there was still a motion on the table and the meeting could not be adjourned until that was voted on. She said action needed to be taken, whether that be to table the motion until a continued date or to take a vote on it. She reminded HPC that there had been no friendly amendment to the motion and that it currently is to approve as is without any additional conditions. Mr. Warwick asked how they could add a condition to the existing motion. Ms. Johnson said that Mr. Fornell could accept a friendly amendment that would have to be accepted by both Mr. Fornell himself and Ms. Severe. Mr. Warwick made a friendly amendment to add to the existing motion that the applicant should return and present their reconstruction plan of the mural. Ms. Thompson said that technically with the motion on the table, it would be an approval. She said that the preservation plan could be reviewed by staff and monitor but they would not have to come back in front of HPC. Ms. Thompson motioned to extend the meeting to 8:05pm. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0, motion passes. Mr. Anderson said that staff recognized the desire to move this project along and that they had spent a lot of time on their presentation. He noted that under the current proposal staff believes there is a question that is raised regarding the deconstruction and reconstruction of the wall that may trigger a conversation about the demolition of a designated structure. He noted that on other projects, efforts are made on a structural basis to deconstruct and reconstruct something in the same place and those SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 tend not to be considered demolition. He reiterated staff’s suggestion that the hearing be continued to November 13th to be able to create a resolution responding to direction given. Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Anderson’s comments and felt that this has been sitting for five years and another few weeks to create a thoughtful resolution is the way to go. Ms. Raymond asked that if they vote on Mr. Fornell’s motion, it would be yes or no and that it would be binding. Ms. Thompson motioned to extend the meeting to 8:15pm. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0, motion passes. Ms. Johnson said that if the board approves the motion on the table that staff would have to bring a resolution back to HPC as a consent item to approve. She explained that an approval can be called for reconsideration by someone who voted “yes”, but both the member that made the motion and seconded it would have to agree. She also said they could vote to table the motion. Ms. Thompson and Mr. Moyer suggested they vote on the motion and see where they land. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Pitchford, no; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, no. 4-3, motion passes. Ms. Severe asked if this was a point where they could add conditions. Ms. Thompson said no and what they approved is what got approved. Ms. Raymond asked if the motion included Mr. Warwick’s friendly amendment. Ms. Johnson said it did not. Ms. Raymond and Ms. Severe were assigned as monitors. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk