Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20250514 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 14TH, 2025 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford, Jodi Surfas, Dakota Severe, Kim Raymond and Kara Thompson. Absent was Duncan Clauss. Staff present: Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner Stuart Hayden – Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson – Community Development Director Luisa Berne - Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear – Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Pitchford motioned to approve the draft minutes from 1/22/25, 2/12/25, and 4/9/25. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer stated his concern about the “whitening” of Aspen. He felt that many times it can be hard for people to distinguish between the historic assets and new additions and that they were losing the separation between the two. He also noted a concern about creating new openings on historic buildings for ADA compliance. He felt it should be looked at and if possible, make it harder for applicants to just open a hole in a wall. Ms. Severe thought that there had been a conversation about changing the day of HPC meetings. Ms. Thompson noted that the change was to the Planning & Zoning meeting days from Thursdays to Wednesdays opposite HPC meetings. Ms. Pitchford wanted to congratulate John and Laurel Catto and the National Historic Designation of the Berger cabin. She said she was at the ceremony and noted that it was a very rigorous application process. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: Mr. Hayden noted that he had updated the project monitoring committee list including the previously unassigned projects. He also noted that staff plan on giving the board a full update on project monitoring, insubstantial amendments that have occurred since the past update at the next meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: None CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Mr. Hayden noted that, like the project monitoring updates, updates on Certificates of No Negative Effect would come at the next meeting. CALL UP REPORTS: None REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 14TH, 2025 SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Berne confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for both agenda items. NEW BUSINESS: 130 South Galena St. - Recommendation for the Redevelopment of Armory Hall and Conner Memorial Park Mr. Anderson noted that this item was under the Public Projects Review process and mentioned that staff does not see many of these types of reviews. He noted that the Armory project dealt with a very treasured historic resource and ultimately the HPC is being asked to provide a recommendation to City Council. He said that there had been very clear statements from all councilors about the importance of HPC’s recommendation. He also wanted the HPC to know that the Community Development staff’s central role is evaluating projects based on the review criteria. He said that while staff, as well as the community and City Council want this project to be successful, it doesn’t take away from staff’s role in reviewing the project. Applicant Presentation: Ms. Jenn Phelan – City of Aspen Capital Asset Dept.; Ms. Jessica Garrow – Design Workshop; Mr. Todd Kennedy - CCY Architects Ms. Garrow started by saying that after a lot of community engagement and several meetings with City Council about this project, they are extremely excited to finally be in front of the HPC. She recognized that HPC’s role is determining the guidelines that need to be met on a project and that the balancing of guidelines is very important. She went on to review the history of the Armory building noting that the agenda packet included a very detailed historical report on the building. While showing several historic pictures, she detailed the different timeframes of the building as well as the many alterations and additions that had occurred since the early 1900s. She noted that the very small amount of brick detailing on the Hopkins side is currently obscured by the eave overhang that was added in the early 1900s. Mr. Kennedy wanted to point out that the project team, during meetings with City Council, have referred to the different “bays” on the Hopkins façade as bays #1 through #5, with bay #1 being on the west end and #5 on the east end. Ms. Garrow continued by presenting a slide that highlighted which existing windows were historic, which were not and which had been altered. Mr. Kennedy wanted to clarify that the slides show historic openings with historic windows, historic openings with non-historic windows and non-historic openings with non-historic windows. Ms. Garrow noted that they had been talking with the community and City Council for about 10 years about what the future of the Armory might be. She highlighted that there had been clear direction from City Council, through a Resolution, about the importance of a remodel and adaptive reuse of the building respecting the historic character and materials, while at the same time providing a space that is welcoming to the community and limits the public financial burden of the overall operation and maintenance. Mr. Kennedy went on to describe the site plan and entrances to the building. He noted the goal of the project was to preserve the historic Galena entrance as the primary entrance, while establishing a second primary entrance on the Conner Park side through a small vestibule addition that would meet ADA requirements. He then detailed the idea of creating a parklet along Hopkins that City Council was very supportive of. Displaying floor level plans, he detailed the planned interior programming of the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 14TH, 2025 building that had been worked on with the City’s development team as well as City Council. He noted that Councilor Hauenstein had described it as a “Student Union” for the community. Mr. Kennedy detailed some of the architectural materials and noted that that had brought samples. He stressed that the masonry and its restoration would be a huge defining characteristic of the project and that their analysis shows that the entire exterior and interior of the building would need to be repointed. He said that many of their material choices for the new additions as well as on the roof were chosen to help those areas recede into the background and create a distinct separation between the historic asset and the new additions. Mr. Kennedy then detailed each façade of the building, noting changes that had occurred over time. He highlighted that in the proposed design, the roof eave extension on the Hopkins façade was removed and he noted that this was primarily about occupying the Hopkins Ave right of way with the proposed parklet and the related drip line that currently exists off the end of the eave. He moved on to the proposed visitor center and explained the reason for its design and location. He went back to the Hopkins façade and noted that they recognized that the roof eave extension, being added in 1906, had it's own historical significance. He noted that its removal was an attempt to find the balance of how they meet the goals of the city and community for this project and create this community asset. He also noted that the removal would also expose the small amount of brick detailing on the building as well as increasing the amount of daylight coming into the building, decreasing the energy load needed for the building. Mr. Kennedy moved on to the southeast corner of the building and described the proposed addition of a small vestibule which would function as the ADA entrance as well as creating a second primary entrance. He noted the two seasonal access points on the Hopkins façade were planned in bays #2 and #5 as they were the two of the three bays that had been significantly altered over time. He also noted that amount of both visual and physical transparency into the building was an attempt to make sure it is an inviting space and would not fall victim to “out of site, out of mind”. Ms. Garrow went through a few iterations of the design that had been discussed with City Council and detailed the landscaping updates to Connor Park. She displayed the various review criteria and noted that their responses to these were included in the agenda packet. Ms. Thompson asked about the mechanical equipment related to the commercial kitchens. Mr. Kennedy said that most of the equipment would be hidden on top of the visitor center and that they would be creating a depression on the roof of the main building to place some equipment so it would be out of view. Ms. Thompson then asked where they were proposing the patinaed copper. Mr. Kennedy described the locations on the new visitor center and roof of the main building. Ms. Surfas asked Mr. Kennedy to verify that all mechanical equipment would be hidden in the two places previously described. Mr. Kennedy confirmed this. Ms. Garrow also confirmed that this building was planned to be 100% electric, which was direction from City Council. Relating to the guidelines about new openings, Ms. Raymond asked how the large new openings on the Hopkins façade and southeast corner near Connor Park maintained the structural integrity and character of the original structure. Mr. Kennedy referenced language in the guidelines that speak to secondary building faces, it allows some flexibility for consideration of new openings and that the openings as shown were smaller than in previous iterations of the design. He noted that it was a balance of minimizing the amount of material taken away and creating a stronger visual connection. He again REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 14TH, 2025 noted the changes to these bays over time, referencing that in the 1975 National Historic Registry documentation it acknowledges that three of the bays don’t represent their historic conditions. Ms. Raymond felt that in the new design the Hopkins corner was becoming the most prominent entrance to the building and that struggles with the guideline of keeping the historic front door as the main entrance. There was further discussion about the proposed new entrances versus the historic front door and how they were perceived and seen visually. Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Principal Preservation Planner Ms. White began her presentation by noting that her presentation would focus on the main concerns that staff have with the proposal regarding the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Commercial Lodging and Historic District Standards and Guidelines. She noted that in general staff is supportive of the adaptive reuse of the historic resource, creating a more useful space and benefiting the community. She reviewed the site location of Armory Hall and Connor Memorial Park and noted that given the prominent location on the corner, extra attention should be focused on the Galena and Hopkins facades. She showed an overhead view of the site. Ms. White continued by reviewing the applicable design guidelines and staff’s concerns as outlined in the “Staff Analysis” section of the memo included in the agenda packet. She showed slides of the existing and proposed elevations of the north (alley) and east façades, highlighting where historic windows were to be either removed or obscured and where existing historic brick would be removed. She noted that staff would like to continue to work with the applicant to further refine many of these issues. She then touched on the requested height variance for the proposed mechanical equipment on the roof of the Armory and the visitor center. The variance would allow the equipment to be 1’ 6” taller than the maximum allowed per code. Noting that there are still outstanding questions about the proposed design, historic materials and dimensional requirements that would be helpful in informing a potential HPC recommendation, Ms. White said that staff is recommending a continuation of the application to a future meeting. She noted that if HPC chooses to move forward with a recommendation to City Council at this meeting, staff has provided several draft conditions for consideration. These are listed in the “Recommendation” section of the staff memo. Ms. Severe asked if the HPC gave staff more time, would they be able to propose something for the ADA entrance that would be more to their liking. Ms. White said that it would be up to the applicant to propose a change to the design and staff could then work with them. Public Comment: Ms. Thompson asked the other commissioners if they had read the public comment email that was submitted. All the commissioners said they had. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson started the board discussion by thanking the applicant and staff for their work on this project and presentations and that she felt the board was anxious to see the project move forward. She stressed that while this was to be a community asset, HPC was there to review the application against the HP guidelines. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 14TH, 2025 Ms. Thompson then said that she agreed with the majority of staff’s comments, the most significant being the south eave and the changes to the windows along Hopkins and adjacent to the park. She said the while the applicant claimed the main entrance was to be on Galena, that was not apparent to her from the renderings. Ms. Raymond also thanked the applicant team for their efforts and presentations and while she thought that what was presented was a beautiful building, she did not think it met many of the historic preservation guidelines. She agreed with Ms. White’s assessments and Ms. Thompson’s thoughts on the vestibule on the Conner Park side, the oversized windows and the southern eave. She felt that more time needed to be spent looking at the windows, trying to preserve the integrity and historic character along Hopkins. She felt several aspects of the new design looked very modern and didn’t preserve the historic character. She also felt that more consistency in the application of the guidelines across the different design features and changes would make sense. She also felt that the Visitor Center addition on the alley side was potentially too big and was not fitting with the guideline calling for it to be more deferential and smaller. While she felt it was the best side of the building for the Visitor Center addition, Ms. Thompson agreed that it was too tall. Ms. Severe agreed about the location of the Visitor Center addition, but also did not see the need for an entrance at bay #2. She also felt the vestibule on the Connor Park side needed to be smaller and was also not comfortable losing three windows on that same side. Ms. Raymond felt that the roofing on the historic asset should be more in line with the original material and that it being the same cooper material as proposed on the addition tied things together way too much and doesn’t distinguish new from old. Ms. Thompson agreed that there should not be the same material and color on both roofs. She said she could see a metal roof meeting the guidelines, but just something with a different finish. Ms. Severe commented that she was not in favor of the synthetic turf proposed for Connor Park. Mr. Moyer noted the age of the existing historic structure and that changes were made over time. He said that the HPC operates from the guidelines. He felt that up until a few years ago, a proposal like this would never have been presented to HPC and that staff would have sent it back to the applicant. While he thought what was presented was a beautiful building, he felt the applicant had totally disregarded and disrespected the history of the building. He said the applicant should relook at the proposal as if they were a member of the HPC. He noted that staff did not seem to address the fact that the Visitor Center addition was directly abutting the historic structure and that there was supposed to be a connecting link. He felt that staff did a great job, and he agreed with their presentation. Ms. Severe brought up the community survey that was conducted and pointed out that a question about how people felt about preserving the historic structure had a resounding “yes” response, noting that they wanted to preserve the historic resource. She said that several of the comments submitted in the survey related to preserving the southern eave and windows. She felt the project needed redesign and that the applicant should work more with HP staff to stick to what the community had voiced. Mr. Moyer felt that if HPC was brought into the initial design, it would have been a better project. Ms. Surfas felt that the HPC asks every other applicant that comes before them to follow the guidelines, but in this case it seemed as the City felt it didn’t need to. She didn’t understand why they were here looking at this and felt it was very upsetting that this is what was brought before them. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 14TH, 2025 Ms. Pitchford agreed with all the previous commissioners’ comments and related a similar preservation project of the Wheeler Opera House. She felt it was a very similar community asset and commended the Wheeler for their preservation efforts. She added that she could not commend the City on this project. She agreed that HPC requires all other applicants to stay within the guidelines, and she asked the City to do the same. Ms. Raymond also commented on the lack of a connecting element between the addition and historic resource and felt that while a 10-foot connector was probably not possible, something to separate the two would be better. There was some general discussion about ideas to help create separation. Ms. Pitchford asked Ms. Garrow about her comments at the beginning of her presentation choosing which guidelines to follow. She asked if that was direction from upper management. Ms. Garrow noted that the Historic Preservation Guidelines acknowledge that in all cases it is not necessarily feasible for a building to meet every guideline and in this project the applicant team was attempting to balance the guidelines with the intention behind the project and the direction from the community and City Council. Considering this project’s priority and urgency from the community and City Council, there was discussion between the commissioners, staff and the applicant about when to continue the hearing until, in order to give HP staff and the HPC commissioners enough time to review any changes to the proposal and application that might be brought by the applicant. Ms. Thompson asked for a short break to allow the applicant team to regroup. Once the meeting resumed, Ms. Garrow requested HPC to set a Special Meeting on June 4th to continue this hearing to. There was more discussion as there were conflicting meetings on that date. Mr. Anderson suggested the hearing be continued until May 28th, to allow everyone to reevaluate their schedules and give clarity to noticing timeframes. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to continue the hearing until May 28th at 4:30pm. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. NEW BUSINESS: 232 W Main St. – Minor Development Review – PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Denis Chookaszian Mr. Chookaszian introduced himself as the owner of the Annabelle Inn. He then went over some history of the property and his time in Aspen. He noted that he was very dedicated to preservation. He said that they were here to ask for approval for a roof replacement. While he was committed to a replacement that honors the historical character, he recognized that the roof materials that were there originally, namely asphalt shingles, were terrible and not environmentally sound. He then introduced Ashely Satterfield from Charles Cunniffe Architects. Ms. Satterfield noted that this request was to utilize a synthetic shingle for the roof replacement and referenced Historic Guideline 1.24. She reviewed the guideline and noted the benefits of synthetic shingles over asphalt shingles. Next, she showed a few pictures of the proposed DaVinci synthetic shingles and highlighted some of their characteristics and benefits. She noted that many requests that come before HPC to use this type of material are as a replacement for actual cedar shingles, but they would ask the HPC members, in this incidence, to compare it to an asphalt shingle, as they feel it is an improvement to that product. She REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 14TH, 2025 then showed the roof plan that highlighted where they are proposing to use the new material. She noted that in areas of the roof that are not street facing, they are proposing to use a standing seam metal roof due to the low roof slopes. Mr. Chookaszian then introduced Tom from Storm King Roofing who would be doing the installation. Tom noted that his company has been installing the DaVinci Shakes for about 20 years with no failures or issues. Ms. Satterfield finished by noting that they are really looking to maintain the character and scale of the street facing façade of the building and do it in a sustainable way. Mr. Moyer asked what “fire resistant” meant and wondered if the synthetic shingles would ever burn. Tom noted that the product had a Class A fire rating. Ms. Pitchford had to leave the meeting. Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden - Planner - Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden began his presentation by going over the location of the property and the relevant standards and guidelines that were applicable. He then showed a few historic pictures of the property and pointed out the different roof materials over time but noted that it seemed to have had asphalt shingles since at least 1955. He reviewed the applicant’s proposal and noted that the proposed synthetic shakes do not meet the Main Street Historic District Standards and Guidelines. He highlighted guideline 3.14 as noted in the staff memo. He mentioned that the proposed material does not appear similar to what was used and seen historically. He went over a few examples of the differences, including coloring and reflectivity. He noted that since the new material did not meet guideline 3.14, staff is recommending denial of the request. Ms. Severe asked Mr. Hayen if staff would rather see the applicant use one of the more blended color options. Mr. Hayden said that if the HPC was inclined to approve the synthetic shakes, staff would rather it be one of the blended options. Public Comment: None Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson said she did not have an issue with the proposed DaVinci Shake in the modeled color. Mr. Moyer felt that since the roof pitches on the Inn were low, one would have to be fairly elevated to see the roof. Ms. Severe agreed with Mr. Moyer. Ms. Raymond said she would be happy with either the DaVinci product or the EcoStar product and agreed with Mr. Moyer’s comments. Ms. Surfas did not have any issues with the proposed products and did not find them shiny. She felt the EcoStar product appeared thinner and more realistic. MOTION: Ms. Raymond made a motion to approve the DaVinci shingle for the project. Ms. Severe seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0, motion passes. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 14TH, 2025 ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Severe seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk