Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20250603 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 3RD, 2025 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Duncan Clauss, Barb Pitchford, Dakota Severe, Kim Raymond and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner Ben Anderson – Community Development Director Daniel Folke – Planning Director Jim True – Special Council Tracy Terry – Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Severe asked about the painted trim on the building next to the Red Onion. Staff mentioned it was approved as it was non-historic brick. Ms. Pitchford asked if there was an active building permit for the Boomerang. Ms. Thompson said that there was no permit, but the owner was completing the required maintenance. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: None STAFF COMMENTS: None CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None CALL UP REPORTS: None SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. True confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item. OLD BUSINESS: 130 S. Galena St. & 525 E. Hopkins Ave. - Armory Hall and Conner Memorial Park - Public Hearing Applicant Presentation: Jessica Garrow – Design Workshop, Todd Kennedy – CCY Architects Ms. Garrow began her presentation by going over some of the direction that the project team has received from City Council that has influenced many of the design decisions. She then reviewed previous Council Resolutions ranging from 2022 to 2025 that provided this direction to various City departments. These included an alley visitor center addition, a secondary entrance vestibule off Conner Park, as well as specific direction to remove the southern eave extension on Hopkins. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 3RD, 2025 Mr. Kennedy then reviewed the window report that was compiled from paint sampling, photographic records and visual inspections. He noted this resulted in three varying window conditions: historic openings with historic windows, historic openings with non-historic windows and non-historic openings with non-historic windows. He then identified these varying window conditions on each façade and noted which would be affected by the new design. Ms. Garrow then went over some of the updates to the Conner Park landscaping elements, focusing on the feedback from staff and the HPC relative to the alternative grass materials. She reiterated that in conversation with the Parks department, they really feel that actual grass is not a viable option due to the large spruce tree which is why the design team is proposing synthetic grass materials. She then went over a few other alternative options and showed some renderings. Mr. Kennedy moved on to the architecture and noted that they spent considerable time reviewing the preservation guidelines and noted that they believe the vast majority of applicable guidelines have been met. He said that while there may have been a few guidelines that the applicant team interpreted differently than City staff or the HPC, they have certainly not been ignored. He also reiterated that the preservation guidelines also mention that not all guidelines have to be met. He then went over a few specific guidelines that were discussed at the last meeting. These included the roof materials for the Armory and the new addition to which Mr. Kennedy noted that after HPC’s feedback, they are now proposing synthetic shingles for the main Armory building. Next, he reviewed the visitor center and the transparency of the “connector” element that was brought up at the last meeting. He showed the updated design of this element. He mentioned that they believe the visitor center addition is appropriate per the guidelines and he described the reasoning. Mr. Kennedy moved on to the vestibule entrance on the Conner Park façade. He detailed the changes that had been made to the proposal, resulting from the feedback received at the last meeting. He noted that the applicant team welcomed more feedback on these elements but stressed the importance of creating transparency into the building given its new use. He went on to further explain their reasoning for the current proposed design for this secondary ADA entrance. Mr. Kennedy moved on to the Hopkins façade and further explained the reasoning for the removal of the eave extension. He noted that while there are guidelines suggesting the eave has gained historic significance, they believe there are other guidelines that support its removal. He highlighted these reasons. He then described their updated proposal for the treatment of Bays #2 and #5, based on the feedback received at the last meeting. Ms. Garrow displayed another alternative design to the Hopkins façade, while noting that the applicant team prefers the design that Mr. Kennedy just described. She also prefaced that they are trying to balance the feedback from HPC with the direction received from City Council. Mr. Kennedy further described the direction from City Council as striking a balance between the commercial viability of the building and the design guidelines. He concluded by stating that the applicant team sought to develop a compelling, attractive adaptive reuse of the building that balanced preservation and commercial viability. Ms. Garrow noted that they are presenting to City Council at a work session scheduled for June 16th and requested some very clear direction and a recommendation of conditions that HPC would like to see so that it can be shared with City Council. Ms. Severe asked if the doors on the Hopkins façade still open vertically. Mr. Kennedy said that the framing was updated to better reflect the historic detailing, but they still open vertically. He further SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 3RD, 2025 detailed the design of the doors. There was some further discussion about the door openings on Hopkins and near the vestibule on the Conner Park side. Mr. Kennedy noted that the two door openings in bays 2 and 5 were not meant as main ingress and egress access points but rather would only be opened by the building operator in good weather to allow a more casual way in and out of the building. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Kennedy to explain the plate height of the two additions. Mr. Kennedy said it was mainly driven by the Commercial Design Standards. Ms. Garrow further explained the Standards and the reasoning behind the chosen plate heights. Ms. Raymond asked if there were any design options that still included the historic south Eave. She understood the spot that the applicant team was in regarding the direction from City Council to remove the eave but noted the community’s familiarity and attachment to it. Mr. Kennedy said that the eave was part of some early designs, but its proposed removal stemmed from discussions about overall viability, energy efficiency and the idea of Conner Park growing into the Hopkins Ave right of way. He noted that the drip line from the existing eave was right in the middle of the right of way and any future hardscape and landscape design in that area would be abused from dripping and would create the risk of snowfall off the roof. He said that for safety reasons he could not support a design that created a public space parklet in the Hopkins right of way and kept the eave. Mr. Moyer noted that some of the previous work and renovations on the Armory were before the creation of the Historic Preservation program. He asked where the direction for the Armory re-use and redesign came from and noted the change in the current City Council and recent change of City Manager. Ms. Garrow went over the history of how the idea of the redesign and new re-use of the Armory came to be, noting the roughly 10-year conversation between the City and the community and the extensive public outreach resulting in the idea of creating a community space that included a food hall. Mr. Moyer said that the basic premise of Historic Preservation is that you leave the exterior of a building alone. Ms. Garrow responded that she and the entire design team were guided by the Historic Preservation Guidelines, Land Use Code and direction from the community and City Councils in order to create a viable adapted re-use of the Armory. Ms. Pitchford asked if the previous five City Council Resolutions related to the Armory re-use were part of the Public Projects process. She wanted to know how the Resolutions got to Council before there was a review of the project. Mr. Anderson responded that the five resolutions were giving direction to the design team as to what the City Council perceived as the community’s best interest and seeing a successful project. He reiterated the many years of discussion that led to the current project and detailed the Public Projects process again. Mr. True described a similar process that occurred regarding a potential project at the Wheeler Opera House many years ago, in which many of the design processes were done on the public record. Mr. Moyer asked if, during the many years of discussion and subsequent design, there was any thought of involving the Historic Preservation Commission. Ms. Garrow noted that there was a request to the City Manager at the time to hold a work session with HPC, but it was denied. Mr. Moyer asked if during the design process, the team acknowledged that the design went against many of the guidelines. Ms. Garrow said that during the many work sessions with City Council, the design team mentioned that they were pushing up against some of the guidelines and that some balance needed to be considered. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 3RD, 2025 Mr. Moyer asked if the entrance to the visitor center would be a sufficient ADA access entry to the building. Mr. Kennedey noted that there may be times when the visitor center may be closed during normal operating hours of the Armory. Ms. Raymond asked about the glass walls in the proposed visitor center and what was behind them as well as the height of the roof and mechanical screening on top. Mr. Kennedy went over some of the design details. Ms. Raymond then asked Mr. Anderson if the Resolutions passed by Council were a mandate to the design team and if they had to follow them. Mr. Anderson believed the design team took them as a mandate because the resolutions drove the contract and design choices. He noted that the resolutions were a way to get Council’s direction on the record, as Councils do change over time. Mr. True clarified that the Resolutions were formal direction from Council for staff members to move forward in a particular direction. Ms. Garrow stated again that Council has expressed its interest in the HPC’s recommendations and direction to weigh into their decisions and that they could always change their direction to staff after hearing from HPC. Ms. Surfas asked where the WeCycle station was proposed to be. Ms. Garrow noted the proposed location in the alley. Ms. Severe asked if the design team had reviewed the many comments that the public had submitted during the outreach efforts that spoke at length about their feelings around the outside of the building. Mr. Kennedy said that they referenced the community feedback in all their work but reiterated that there were many things to balance here. Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Principal Preservation Planner Ms. White began her presentation by going over the request for HPC to provide a recommendation on the proposed development and noted that this item was continued from the May 14th meeting. She then went over the details of the property and its location. She presented a rendering of the applicant team’s updated design for the Hopkins façade. She highlighted the southern eave and noted that its removal was staff’s most principal concern. She continued by highlighting specific Historic Preservation Guidelines and the staff analysis of each as described in the “Staff Analysis” section of the staff memo. She showed renderings of the facades and features of the building highlighting certain areas as she went over staff’s Guideline analysis. She also spent time reviewing the applicant’s alternative design and staff’s high-level analysis of it, again as detailed in the “Staff Analysis” section of the memo. Next, she listed the items that staff still has concerns about including the proposed removal of the southern eave, the vestibule addition, the plastic shake roofing materials, the Hopkins Avenue canopies, the proposed materials for Conner Park and the size and style of the new fenestration. She noted that HPC is encouraged to make a recommendation to City Council for either approval, approval with conditions or a denial with the basis rooted in the review criteria presented. She then showed a list of proposed conditions to be included in the recommendation resolution be it for either approval or denial. Mr. Moyer asked why staff did not address the connecting link to the visitor center addition. Ms. White responded that it is technically not applicable per the guidelines as connecting links are only required for additions that are taller than the historic resource and in this case the visitor center is shorter than the Armory. She noted that staff felt the increased transparency struck a good balance. Ms. Raymond asked if staff would be more open to a composite shake roofing material if actual examples were provided. Ms. White said that if the applicant provided a material option that had not SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 3RD, 2025 been seen before on other projects, staff would be open to reviewing it, but staff does not believe the technology of synthetic roofing materials has gotten to place where they are appropriate in this setting. Public Comment: Ms. Thompson asked the members to confirm they had received the public comment email from Helen Palmer. All members confirmed. Mr. Ward Hauenstein noted that as a previous City Council member he had been involved with this project going back to an advisory vote in 2015. He wanted to address some of Mr. Moyer’s comments on who was responsible for this and how we got to where it is now. He did not feel that City Council owns the building, but rather the citizens do. He said the Council tries the best they can to listen to feedback from all stakeholders and the public in order to make the Armory function as best it can for what the public wants. He understood the guidelines and HPC’s role and feelings about protecting the historic asset. He acknowledged HPC’s apparent frustration that they were just a recommending body in this process. He also noted that in his years of involvement on the project, Council members had always been concerned with the interior programming and what exterior changes would have to be made in order to make it viable. He hoped that the historical integrity could be maintained while delivering a lively community center and gathering place, as the public has expressed. Mr. Moyer commented on his thoughts on the proposed ideas for the interior programming and felt that it would be interesting to see if it will work. He then asked Mr. Hauenstein if in his years dealing with this, did getting HPC involved ever come up. Mr. Hauenstein noted that HPC is involved now and that returning the Armory to a functioning asset for the community is what City Council, the community and hopefully what HPC wants. Ms. Severe asked Mr. Hauenstein about his personal opinion of the proposed changes to bay 2 and the eave. He said that he liked the idea of bringing light into the building The board took a short break. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson began the board discussion by acknowledging that this is a challenging process and they are all having trouble providing direction given this is atypical to their normal process of being involved earlier in the process. She understood the Council’s focus that the new use of the building performs for the community but stated that HPC’s role and responsibility is focused on preserving the building beyond the current proposed use so that its most historic form lasts into the future. She hoped to provide recommendations tonight and she started the discussion with the windows. She felt the proposed windows on the Hopkins façade were architecturally and visually tied to the style of the proposed vestibule and visitor center additions which is not consistent with the guidelines. She felt the proportion of the new window / door openings was consistent with the new construction and not the historic resource and that that was one of the most challenging things for her. Mr. Moyer said that their job was to make sure no historic brick was removed from the building. He felt it shouldn’t even be a discussion. He felt that their role was to preserve the historic building and not to help someone transform it into something else by tearing out parts of it. Ms. Surfas felt that you could still create the new layout and programming for the interior of the building without disturbing the exterior or removing any existing brick. Ms. Severe felt that if the eave was ultimately going to be removed, keeping bay #2 intact would retain more of the historical feel of the building. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 3RD, 2025 Ms. Raymond reiterated Mr. Moyer’s comments and felt that HPC’s job was to preserve the building as much as possible. She also acknowledged that the applicant team’s job was to make it as commercially viable as possible. She felt the Hopkins and Galena facades, being the most prominent, should be preserved the most. She noted that her original issue with the wraparound canopy was whether intentional or not, it created the sense that the vestibule entrance facing Conner Park was the main entrance and the historic door on Galena was now a secondary entrance. She felt there needed to be a way to make the Galena entrance more prominent if it was to be perceived as the primary entrance. She agreed with Ms. Thompson’s comments on the windows on Hopkins and did not feel they worked for her. She also acknowledged Mr. Moyer’s comments about saving every brick but realized that woudl not be possible if the building were to be a financially viable product for the community. She ultimately felt the windows on Galena and next to the vestibule entrance needed to be proportional and smaller. As for the roofing materials, she agreed with Mr. Kennedy that by putting a standing seem metal roof on would seem like a really nice detail was missed and may seem cheap looking. Mr. Moyer felt that people could enjoy the building without all the windows and stated again that their job was not to transform a historic structure so that people could have fun. Ms. Pitchford felt that it was the interior programming of the building that would draw people in, not the exterior. Ms. Thompson agreed with Ms. Raymond about the roof overhang on the vestibule. She understood the need for the vestibule to remain in some form but expected the opening in the brick to be as minimal as possible to achieve the ADA code requirements. Ms. Pitchford, like Mr. Moyer, felt it was their job to preserve the historic resource as much as possible while still making the building functional. She acknowledged the hard work that the applicant team has invested in this project and the conflict they are in. She stated that she fully agreed with staff that the roof eave should remain and in getting rid of the canopies. She felt there should be another way to address snowmelt and functionality and felt that the proposed design marginalized the main Galena Street entrance. She did not want to sacrifice the eave for natural light and stated again that it was the inside of the building that would draw people in. She said that she disagreed with every one of the City Council Resolutions giving direction. She noted that Council had interviewed each member of the board before appointing them and tasked them with preserving the history of Aspen through its buildings. She said that Council had violated at least twenty-nine guidelines and standards on this project. She felt that the proposed design was attractive, but it was no longer the Armory. Ms. Surfas felt the applicant presentation was very compelling and that the members of Council at the time the Resolutions were passed, may not have known all the Historic Preservation Guidelines. She agreed with Mr. Moyer about their job of preserving the building and felt that the inside of the building still works if you remove all these elements of the new design. She felt HPC’s personal opinions did not matter and that they were ultimately there to review the project against the guidelines. Ms. Thompson felt the direction she would give to the design team would be to remove the three large window units on the Hopkins’ façade, that the canopies needed to come back from the Hopkins’ façade and the awning needed to remain. She also agreed with Mr. Raymond that the vestibule addition on the Conner Park side should remain but with the roof pulled back and the visitor center addition getting a different window style. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 3RD, 2025 There was some discussion about a potential motion and the proposed conditions. Ms. Thompson wanted to add conditions that no integrated gutter system was to be installed and that a one-foot gravel border around the historic resource be installed. MOTION: Mr. Moyer made a motion to deny the application as presented given the applicable guidelines and standards that have not been met. He noted that HPC finds the seven conditions proposed by staff in the memo, adding an eighth condition that no integrated gutters be installed, need to be addressed before a recommendation for approval can be revisited. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Ms. Raymond commented that she agreed with Ms. Thompson that the Conner Park vestibule could remain if made smaller and without the adjacent window. She felt the eave should remain and that the applicant team should work with staff and monitor on the roof materials and the ground cover materials in Conner Park. Ms. Thompson noted that HPC had previously denied many applicants in the downtown area that requested to install turf and felt they should not make an exception here. Ms. Severe agreed that she would prefer artificial turf to more hardscape but would rather see real grass if possible. Ms. Garrow displayed a few renderings on the vestibule and proposed window on the Conner Park façade and there was some discussion about the existing windows that were to be removed to accommodate the vestibule. Ms. Garrow noted that the windows to be removed were added in the 1970s and were not historic. After some more discussion of ideas for the vestibule, Ms. Thompson called for a vote. Roll call vote: Ms. Severe, no; Ms. Raymond, no; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Thompson, no. Mr. Clauss abstained. 3-3, tie vote, no action. Mr. Moyer felt that staff had done a great job on their review and he was sure they had gotten a lot of pressure not to do so, as it was a City project. He felt that when staff does a great job HPC should go with their recommendation. Ms. Thompson said that they don’t always have to agree completely with staff. Mr. Anderson wanted the HPC to think about the power of conditions in their recommendation. He felt where HPC landed on the conditions would give City Council clear direction in their decision making. Ms. Thompson moved to extend the meeting to 7:15pm. Ms. Severe seconded. All in favor, meeting extended. There was then some discussion about potential amendments to the conditions included in the previous motion. MOTION: Mr. Moyer amended his original motion to include the changes and additional language discussed and then detailed by Ms. Thompson. Ms. Pitchford agreed. Ms. White then reiterated the entire amended motion including the amended conditions. There was then more discussion to further clarify some of the included conditions. Mr. Moyer and Ms. Pitchford both agreed with the clarifications. Roll call vote: Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. Mr. Clauss abstained. 6-0, motion passes. SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 3RD, 2025 ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Severe seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk