Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160224ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 1 Vice-chair, Gretchen Greenwood called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Patrick Sagal, John Whipple and Michael Brown. Absent were Willis Pember, Bob Blaich, Jim DeFrancia and Sallie Golden. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Michael commented that the minutes do not accurately reflect the conversation in particular my comments. I thought the drawings that were presented to us were awful. I remember asking Amy if the train had left the station on these newspaper boxes and that wasn’t in the minutes. I can’t approve these. I listened to the audio on the 27th minutes and would ask that the whole tape be revisited with respect to the hearing because there are too many omissions for me to approve. I understand the motion was continued but the spirit of the whole meeting I do not think was captured. John said he also listened to the audio and Kathy might have done us justice not including all the banter that took place after the first resolution was passed. Michael said are you looking for justice or an accurate depiction of what happened. John said he is OK with what he said and if there is something that you want addressed we can address it further. Debbie said the clerk does summary minutes and we preserve the tapes for a period of time and if you don’t think they accurately reflect you can listen to the tape. The proper procedure would be to propose an amendment by you that would reflect better your opinion what you think was said and let the rest of the board vote on it. I don’t think we can have staff go back and do something. Michael said there were omissions of ten minutes of multiple conversations between the commissioner members. I cannot accurately amend these ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 2 minutes. I would ask that they be revisited and marked up for presentation to us. Debbie said that is something that HPC has to decide. John said even in the recordings we took a break and some people left the room even though it was an open meeting. If you have insight as to what you want. I just don’t know if the onus should be on them to revisit it entirely because the motion was rescinded. Is there something sticking out that you want in there. Michael said statements with respect to the public comments and with respect to FTE’s and GMQS. Specific comments with respect to parking, entry, massing. As we got toward the motion there were a lot of specific comments from Gretchen, Patrick, Willis that were not reflected. There is omission of ten to 20 minutes of tape. John said there were parts that not every detail was reflected. If you want something readdressed I don’t see why we can’t. It seems in good faith Kathy does a really good job in taking care of the minutes. We always get asked how we feel about that. In that particular meeting there are people talking over one another. It was not our finest moment. If you feel your statements weren’t clearly stated then we can amend that and tell us what you want said. Gretchen said we need some kind of solution. Michael said my statements or other members statement were not reflected in the minutes that were substantive comments. Gretchen said the minutes are coming back in front of us and it is good to remember where we all stand so we can come to some kind of consensus. Debbie said the appropriate way to do that is to have a member that is not pleased with the minutes make a motion to amend specifically not to direct Kathy to redo them just because it omits a lot of stuff. Michael asked why isn’t it appropriate to ask staff or someone within the city to re-visit the transcription and try and amend the minutes. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 3 Debbie said because it is a summary of what you have done. Michael asked what happens if none of us agree to approve the minutes. Debbie said then there are no official minutes of the meeting. MOTION: Michael made the motion to reject the minutes from February 10th because they don’t accurately reflect what transpired from the hearing. John said he understands where Michael is coming from especially if there was something that you said that were substantive comments. Michael said on February 10th he specifically thought that the exhibits that were shown of the newspapers were awful. Those comments were also agreed upon with other commissioners and they aren’t in the minutes. John said a lot of the time minutes only deal with subject ive or objective comments. Subjective opinions are often left out and that is my experience. Gretchen said we are quoted frequently in the minutes. There was a lot of contention in the meeting and good ideas discussed and it is always good to revisit that because we aren’t going to see that job again till later on. To revisit our comments is appropriate and helpful to the applicant. Michael said the newspaper boxes were brought forward by Ann and Adam from city council and asked us to address those. Nobody thought the boxes presented were good and Ann and Adam will see those across the city and asked us what happened and I didn’t approve those boxes. Debbie said typically when someone is not pleased with the minutes it is because something they said didn’t get in there. There is a specific motion to add language that was omitted because that person wanted to see it. I understand that. What we have here is general dissatisfaction and I would suggest we continue the discussion till the next meeting as we have a room full of people here. I would ask the members who were not pleased with the minutes to come up with specific additions that they would like to see. We have a room full of public waiting on the next agenda item. Michael and Gretchen requested the audio of the meeting. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 4 MOTION: Patrick moved to continue the discussion about the minutes until the next meeting; second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Gretchen congratulated Nora Berko for her 9th year of being on HPC. Nora said it is an honor and a huge responsibility. Nora said there are a lot of large signs on the Victorian homes in the West End. They are about 5 feet by 3.7. As our charge of historic preservation could we request that they be no larger than all the real estate signs? It doesn’t celebrate the Victorian, it celebrates selling. Exhibit I Amy relayed that the city is going forward with the newspaper rack that the HPC endorsed. A competition was discussed but that was put to rest. 827 E. Dean – Final Major Development, PH Debbie said the affidavit of postings is in order – Exhibit I Vice-chair, Gretchen Greenwood opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. MOTION: Patrick made the motion to continue 827 E. Dean to July13th second by John. All in favor, motion carried. 540 E. Main Street – Planned Development – Project Review, Major Development, Conceptual Review, Demolition & Relocation of designated historic properties, conceptual commercial design review, conditional use review for the provision of affordable housing growth management reviews for an Essential Public Facility and for the Development of Affordable Housing, Public Hearing. Alan Richman, represented the City Jack Wheeler, City of Aspen and Jeff Pendarvis, Rob Taylor, project manager, NV5, Charles Cunniffe Architects, Charles Cunniffe, Scott Smith, and Jim Kehoe Design Workshop, Darla Calaway Historical Society, Kelly Murphy, Lisa Hancock Debbie reviewed the affidavits of posting. The outreach data has also been included as an exhibit. The affidavit of posting is in order - Exhibit I. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 5 Jennifer said the applicant is the City of Aspen and is being represented by Alan Richman and Charles Cunniffe Architects. Jennifer said the request is to redevelop the McMu rchy/Zupancis site. The site would be developed with a new police station, affordable housing and either keep the historic resource on or off site. We will be talking about new construction and what is being proposed and request direction. Summary: Jennifer said the site is just over 26,000 square feet. It has frontage on Main Street and the property was purchased by the City in 2002. It is zoned public. It is also a designated historic property with th ree of the five structures being significant. There is an historic house from the 1880’s and a shed and a barn from the 1930’s. There is a more modern ranch house toward the front with a cinder block accessory structure behind it. The redevelopment requires a number of land use approvals. Conceptual major development, conceptual commercial design, relocation, demolition, planned development. When a property is zoned public the dimensions for the project are determined through the planned development process. Conditional use would allow for the affordable housing use on site and the determination of the number of employees generated by the proposed uses. History, demolition and relocation: Amy said the 1896 map shows the property as McMurchy which was twice the size as we are talking about today. The site appears to have been used for ranching. The first owner of the property was William McMurchy and he built a log cabin about 200 square feet in size. Not long after that he made a frame addition into the side and back of the building. It was covered with Victorian details and wood siding. Mr. McMurchy owned several mines, had an insurance business and severed on the voluntary militia company which served as the police before they were formally established. HPC needs to discuss a threshold issue related to the relocation of the buildings. It is necessary for the applicant to lift them up from the property temporarily at least. The plan is to excavate the entire site for a parking garage. The county intends to expand on the west side of the property and the city has needs as well. We didn’t discuss leaving them on the site as they currently area. HPC needs to discuss how they will be moved temporarily. The easiest is to attach a micro-lamb beam around the perimeter of the house a few feet off the ground and they remove the bottom of the siding and slide steel beams in and they lift up. In most cases the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 6 building is cut away from the original floor area and set on a new platform in its final location. The interior of the building is completely intact in terms of wall finishes and even the decorative flooring. There are all kinds of artifacts. There are also original doors and windows. If we take away some of the flooring etc. the original fabric will be destroyed and we feel there should be a better idea. HPC needs to talk about a method for lifting the building, where it should be temporarily stored. The applicant is talking about moving it to Burlingame but we normally do not allow buildings to be taken out past the S curve. HPC also needs to discuss where the buildings will go after the parking garage is excavated; to the site or relocated to Holden Marolt. Typically moving a building to a totally new location is not allowed in our program. One possibility is putting them back on the site and have them turned into a housing unit which is the applicant ’s original proposal or have them interpreted onsite as a historic house museum. At this time staff is not supportive of converting to housing. This resource is too unique and precious. We do feel there is merit of interpreting onsite. We also see advantages of placing it at the Holden Marolt because the Historical Society already has interpretation going on there and they are the right people to tell the history and hopefully it would be assembled back to its condition as it is now. These historic buildings were never part of the Main Street context and they were built three hundred feet away from the road. I don’t think moving them up and making them part of the streetscape is the right solution. There is a small piece on the historic house at the back of the corner that is more recent. It is like a lean-to porch. That is an area that perhaps can be moved to get back to the core of the building and doesn’t need preserved. There is also a shed on the building that should be preserved and a barn build in the 1930’s. There are also two structures on the site to be demolished; ranch house in the front and a concrete block garage. The ranch house is 1960 and is not eligible for designation. Staff supports demolition of those two structures. New construction and site planning: Jennifer said the police are being removed from the Sheriff’s space and they need a place to land. What is being proposed on the south of the lot toward the street is a two story above grade building with a below grade garage. The basement level will have access form Rio Grande place and a secondary exit along the alley that is between the Concept 600 and the Obermeyer development. The garage will provide parking, storage, mechanical as well as future expansion. The ground floor has an entry with a front desk and police operations to the rear. The second level includes circulation and a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 7 public meeting room and additional police operations. The property is zoned public as well as civic uses to the west. Across the street is commercial core and behind it is Obermeyer Place which is service industrial. To the east is the Concept 600 building. The building has a ten foot setback in the front yard and they are proposing a zero setback on the westerly property line so that there is a more of an open green area on the eastern side of the property. The eastern module is 27 feet tall and the western module goes up to 32 feet. SCI zone allows for 35 feet so there is mixed heights in the different zone districts. Staff has initial concerns about the height of the two story building and the second story has a high floor to ceiling height in relations to the first story. We would like to see some additional review to the location of the police station, should it be so close to the western property line or should it be a free standing building. At the rear is a multi-family 3 story building on the western side of the property with a zero setback. It will have 10 affordable housing units. Parking will be provided off-site at Obermeyer Place as the city has a long term lease for a number of parking spaces at Obermeyer Place. There are two short term parking spaces near Rio Gande Place. With regard to the affordabl e housing the concern staff has is basically the form if the historic structures are left onsite. Does it overwhelm the historic resource? There is also concern about the lack of livability for these units as there are no windows on the western façade. There is no individual outdoor living space. There are only a couple of balconies for a few of the units. Jennifer said with regard to the site planning there is a public courtyard along the police station. The current pedestrian access to Rio Grande Park will be re-routed as the ramp needs raised so that the second exit for the parking garage can access the alley. Overall the proposed uses are compatible and meet the intent of the Civic Master Plan. The Civic Master Plan allows for affordable housing as an alternative use for the site so by mixing the two uses both uses compliment the Civic Master Plan. Addition work needs to be done on the best way to re-route the pedestrian access. Parks would like to see the pedestrian plan accommodate bikes rather than just pedestrians. Also re-look at the site plan for the affordable housing component on the project. Staff is recommending continuation until March 23rd. Issues: Should the historic resources stay on the site or be relocated off site. If onsite is the proposal appropriate where it is being proposed. Is the use appropriate which is should it be used as an affordable housing unit or as an interpretation center onsite. Regarding the police building additional context ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 8 needs to be provided to better understand how the buildings fit on the site and along the block. Should the building be more free standing or butt up to the property line? There is also concern how the context looks from the rear of the lot, Rio Grande Place. There is a lot of grade differentiation. Also reiterating the floor to ceiling heights of the second floor seem tall. With regard to affordable housing look at the storage needs and massing of the building if the historic resource are removed and creating some outdoor living space. Also study how they get to their parking. If the historic resources stay on the site we would recommend looking at the rear courtyard at the back of the police station. There is a four foot screening that would potentially limit views of the historic resource. You also need to discuss the use of the historic resources onsite and offsite and temporary relocation of the buildings. Jennifer said the employee generation rate for public is based on a typical office use 5.1 per 1,000 square feet of net. When you have a public facility which might be a church it might not be based on a typical office environment. The police department has projected their needs to 20/30 and the requirement is 39. They are asking that their employee generation be at 39 which is what they are saying they operate under currently. Gretchen inquired about the preservation of the shed. Amy said it is part of the evolution of the property and it has been part of the context of the site. If HPC doesn’t consider it related to the period of significance then it doesn’t have to be preserved. At this point we are looking at site plans that include it at 540 E. Main and as part of the relocation to Holden Marolt. Michael asked about the parking spaces at Obermeyer and how man y are required with all the uses that are happening. Jennifer said they have covered the parking. They are proposing 12 and it is basically one per unit and there is one extra one for the larger unit. Alan Richman said the parking below the site will be a secure garage for the police so there is no possibility to put the affordable housing onsite. The city has a long term 40 year lease with renewable capabilities at the Obermeyer Property. Obermeyer put part of their building on land that the city leased to Obermeyer and the city got back a cross lease for 20 spaces. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 9 The lease allows for a third party lease and this is a good solution. Each party has an incentive to want to continue the leases that are in place. Alan said the project is a significant step in what’s called the Aspen Civic relocation project. This is an effort by the city to address its long term office and facility needs in the downtown area. This project would create a new home for the Aspen Police Department. Today they operate out of a less that optimal space in the basement of the Pitkin County court house and the store front of Obermeyer plaza. The current offices do not provide spaces for many of the basic tasks that offices perform on a daily basis. There is a lack of private interview spaces and inadequate long term evidence space and record storage. No secure parking for officer vehicles or evidence processing storage and inadequate space for officer training. The county is moving forward with its own new building next to the courthouse plaza and the court house plaza will become unavailable to the Police Dept. We are proposing to build the building and to set it within a public plaza. We want to allow police officers and the public to have some interaction in the plaza and also for public events to occur in the plaza. We are also going to provide a need for affordable housing and there are 10 affordable h ousing units proposed and an 11th in the historic structure. There will also be a pedestrian bike link from Main Street to the Rio Grande area which is the Hunter Street trail. There are three things we need to focus on with the HPC and the first is the question of whether the historic structures should be preserved onsite and put back to beneficial use and we propose them as affordable housing or if they should be relocated to the Marolt property where they can be restored as an interpretive site. If the structures are not preserved onsite but moved to Marolt that opens up the opportunity to relook at the affordable housing and we would have newly freed up space as to how we would orient the affordable house. Thirdly we would be looking at alternatives for pedestrian movement through the site. Jack Wheeler, Capital Assets Jack said the city purchased the site 15 years ago to fulfill needs for municipal offices and services. We feel the plan takes care of the needs of the essential Police Department function that the community deserves. We knew when we bought the site that it was historic and we are anxious to hear what the HPC has to say. Alan explained that the Civic Master Plan was initiated in 2000 and its intent was to provide guidance on the use and future of pubic owned property. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 10 One thought at the time was that the site might be traded to the Aspen Fire protection district. They decided to stay on E. Hopkins. The Civic plan recommended that the top priority use of the site be a civic use. The Main Street location will be close to where the city office will be located in the future. The property was zoned to public in 2015 by P&Z and City Council. Charles said the county is proposing a large building that is abutted to the county annex building. The idea of this building being taller is based a little bit on civic pride and to reflect the civic nature of the building but if you look at the blank wall of the county building our building disguises it somewhat. This building will be a certified WELL building and also a LEED building. Those require higher standards in terms of internal daylighting. The building steps so that light can penetrate to the interior of the space. The upper module needs to be as high as it is because it holds an array of solar collectors which is part of the LEED certification and WELL standards. If it is lower the solar collectors are compromised by the height of the county building next to it. We would like to avoid this building being a squat building where the civic pride is not fully represented. Having the historic building where the historic society can actually manage it would be better. They can’t manage a property that is remote to their operation. If it is located at the Marolt there are many other opportunities to see Aspen’s history. Darla Calaway, landscape architect for the project. Carla did a power point on the two site plans proposed. One plan is to organize a Police Station, an employee housing building, 3 historic buildings, a Hunter Street trial connection and internal circulation onsite. The Police station will abut the property line on the west side facing Main Street easily viewable which makes the Police station easily visible from Main Street and also creates a public courtyard in front of the Police station. The public courtyard is intended to be an extension of the interior lobby space so that they can host public functions. Putting the building on the west side maximizes usable space on the east. Having separation between the Concept 600 building and the Police station is desirable. The Hunter Street trail connection goes from Main Street to the Obermeyer Plaza. This will need to be reconstructed as the parking garage is constructed below. The proposed design has 13 feet of grade change through stairs and ramps. One configuration has switch backs that bring pedestrians from Main Street across the alley easement to the Obermeyer Plaza. There is also a grouping of stairs that connect to the existing Obermeyer stair case. The Hunter Street ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 11 trail also provides a connection route to the employee housing building. The elevator is an accessible route to all the units. We talked about how the residents get from Obermeyer to the building. There is a public elevator to the northeast of the Obermeyer crescent building that goes from the parking spaces to the plaza level. It is about 20 feet to 30 feet to walk from the elevator to the north side of our northern elevator. The three historic structures will have to be relocated offsite during construction of the parking garage. One plan shows the historic buildings oriented to Main Street and visible to Main Street. Because the intended use is to relate to the employee housing building it make sense that they are in close proximity to those uses. An example is that one of the barns could be storage for bikes. Other site amenities are bike racks for police and the employee housing units. There is also a small employee courtyard that is landscaped. Everything is a green roof because it is sitting on top of the parking deck. Darla explained the second site plan. The police station, employee housing and courtyard stay in the same location but we treat the Hunter trail in a different configuration. There would be a more direct stair route that picks up some of the design language of the Obermeyer Crescent building and maximumizing green space between the two properties. This site plan does not show a ramp but after meetings some configuration of a ramp is desirable. On this alternative the historic structures are not coming back to the site on this alternative. This opens up amenities for the employee housing and a larger more meaningful landscape buffer between the two uses. If we have more continuous open space we can create more soil volume and potential for trees and larger shrubs. Charles said abutting the building in cooperation with the Sheriff’s office there is a direct connection between their office and this building. They actually need to be connected. The jail would also have a connection. Jim Kehoe went over the connection between the police facility directly to the sheriff’s facility. The building justified to the west creates an open space to the pedestrian pathway. The patrol officers come into a vestibule and up to their operations area. There is an elevator in the front. There are workout facilities and staff lockers at the back. The building is organized in relationship to the site. It is pushed back to create the lobby and the vestibule is adjacent to Main Street. Pushing the building to the west we get more daylight in the building. Bringing daylight in a building affects the well-being of people. The upstairs has a deck that attached to the public ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 12 meeting room and connects to a lobby. By pulling the central core up from 27 feet to 32 we get more glazing. We didn’t want to use skylights as they typically leak. Daylight coming in from three different directions floods t he area. On this plan the housing could be modified if the historic structures weren’t there. Rob Taylor said we are trying to retain the prominence of the police station and keep the separation to the east. The county building will come in behind the affordable housing building. Charles pointed out that the alley behind the building is for emergency response only. It also serves as the second means of egress. Jim Kehoe said the housing has a front corridor with two means of egress. It steps down in the back to the Rio Grande Place. If the Zupancis house remains on site it would be a housing unit and restored and we would save all the materials. Charles said there is an existing foundation at the Marolt which might be a fit for placing the barn there. The house and shed could also fit on the site. Rob Taylor said Baily movers would treat the log house as three components. Remove the interior linings and putting a strong brace around the perimeter of the interior and sticking steel through the building to lift it. They have also confirmed to retain the interior as much as possible. Jack Wheeler stated that we are on our property line. The county annex is three feet off the property line. We are working with the county to come with a solution to close that space but right now we don’t have the ability to close the gap because we don’t own the land. Gretchen thanked the applicant for an excellent presentation. Questions and clarifications: Patrick asked about the sheriffs and police garages. Charles said they are both separate but there is a common gate and access. Regarding Homeland security we are thinking of benches out front as a deterrent to vehicles. Patrick also asked about the use of light tubes. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 13 Charles said the space on the roof is taken up and the clear story window instead of having a light tube there is a clear story from the side that allows a better way to bring light in and fresh air. Patrick asked how the design fits in with the historic character of the neighborhood, mass and scale. Charles said we are showing a combination of brick and stone for the building and we have decidedly not to imitate an historic form or historic window because this is not a typical commercial building or typical office building. It is to be represented as a Police station. John asked if there has been any talk from the Historical Society whether the historic buildings are managed onsite or offsite. Could there be a grant to facilitate the buildings from the City. Has the City reached out to help operate this? Does the Historical Society find this a burden or opportunity? Kelly Murphy, Aspen Historical Society Kelly said this could be a great opportunity and it could also be burden. We have not gotten to that level of detail. On a conceptual level will this enhance what we have at Holden Marolt from an interpretation stand point. It absolutely could and it would provide things that we don’t currently have. When we get down to who pays for what we haven’t gotten there yet. The proposal would contribute to the interpretation. Having it where it is now would be tough for us because we already manage four historic sites and with our staffing level and current budget we really can’t have another site to manage. Incorporating it into an existing site could be doable. Charles said the city would be responsible for the cost and moving of the buildings to Marolt. Jack Reed said the city would financially be responsible to bring the houses out to Marolt. We would be OK with some small investment to kick that off. We would be open to that conversation. Nora asked about public amenity space. Jennifer said it doesn’t apply to a public zone. Alan Richman said the public plaza is within the spirit of what public amenity space is all about as well as the pathway. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 14 Michael asked if the applicant had views of the north façade. Alan said that elevation has not be created yet. Michael said he would like to see a few camera angels and sketch ups of the north elevation. Michael asked about the route for pedestrians from Main Street to the Rio Grande Park. Darla said they need to realign the Hunter Creek trail so it will align up with the existing cross walks so that it is a natural connection from the other side of the street with some ramp configuration. Alan also said there would be an enhanced intersection of Hunter Street with Main Street. Darla said they are anticipating a bulb out and a flasher. Michael said in the memo the height of the north elevation is around 46 feet. Jennifer said where the parking garage is to the finished grade you are measuring from the entry of the garage to the top of the building and that is where the additional height is. Alan said the height is about 32 feet but the entire subgrade garage gets exposed on the Rio Grande side and it will be open and visible. Because that becomes exposed to view then the height measures go all the way to where the cars enter the garage and that is where you get the 46.6. The building height itself of the affordable housing is about 32 feet. Gretchen asked if the stair tower on the south side has to be that tall. Charles said if we pull it down then you would see the five foot elevator overrun. We want the height for the solar collectors and create an area that is above the shadow of the court house. John said site plan A and B show an employee courtyard that is screened with a 4 foot high fence. Do you think you would have good visibility or just see the roof line of the historic house? Would you see the historic ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 15 resource from the street? Four feet seems like it would cover up the historic resource quite a bit. Darla said you would see the resource from the street and whether it is 3 ½ feet or 4 feet the intent is to give a semi-transparent private space for the police employees. The intent is that you don’t want it to feel like a wall. You want to be able to stand up and have visibility. Vice-chair, Gretchen Greenwood opened the public hearing. Jerome Semersect representing the Romero Group for Obermeyer Place condominiums the neighbor. Obermeyer Place is supportive of the police department in this location. There are leased spaces for parking. On the Crescent elevator we may need to look at a different egress point. The elevator that comes to the plaza is a common elevator for the association but nothing has been confirmed yet. The association is concerned that the impacts in the alleyway be minimized. The ramp is a very important piece for the Hunter Creek access. Regarding the historical structures the association would not morally be offended if they were moved off-site. Off- site might be better to do something meaningful with them. Kelly Murphy, Aspen Historical Society Kelly said in 2005 the Zupancis family donated over 1,000 artifacts from the property to us. We are just waiting for the context and home to put them into. Vice-chair, Gretchen Greenwood closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Gretchen identified the issues: historic resource, site plan, affordable housing, police building Gretchen asked the board if they felt the historic resources should be with the plan presented and maintained onsite. If the building is to remain onsite there needs to be discussion what that building should be for the public and how it could be maintained and who would do that. #2 if it is relocated to the Marolt we need to discuss the method as to how that is done and the impact to the building. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 16 Location: The location has severe ramifications for the applicant in terms of their site plan. Patrick said this building has probably the most historical integrity to it as far as the interior and everything else. I strongly recommend that we move it to the Holden Marolt and keep it as an historic resource inside and out. Michael said moving it offsite sounds like a good idea as well. On the site plans that we have seen I haven’t seen one that fits the bill of preserving those structures and having them be a use to the community. Maybe there is a different variation of the site plan where those structures could be placed and have historical things put back in them for interpretation. The Holden Marolt idea sounds OK as well. Jack mentioned that the city would help get it restored and that is a nice gesture. Nora said she has a hard time moving a collection of buildings and it feels artificial. I would like to see the cabin stay there. We have no point of reference anymore of what this town was. The interior is amazing. I would like to find a way that the Historical Society could be brought on board in some way so that we could say proudly in our town this is what it used to look like without having to go out to another site in which they might not go to. It is a very unique piece and I understand the problems of the site plan and moving it. If historic preservation is about preserving something there is a context here that would be unfortunate to loose. The entire block is becoming unrecognizable. I would like to see it stay and have the City and Historical Society get together and figure something out. The idea woul d be to use it as a museum. John said the sight visit was powerful and seeing the old artifacts. My philosophy is that the barn that was built in 1930, and if it has to be moved it shouldn’t go to the Holden Marolt space. The resource and the shed would only be the two buildings to move to Marolt. The police deserve their own area. I am leaning toward moving the resource and shed only once to lessen losing the historic fabric. It would be easier for the Historical Society to maintain at the Holden Marolt space. Gretchen said the site plan with the historic resource is very interesting. If the building could be restored back to the small log cabin with the addition that would be a unique property within the growth of Aspen. The applicant has done an excellent job retaining the cabin. I also agree with John that the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 17 1930’s building detracts from the historic resource. The shed could be incorporated. The 1930’s building could go and that would add some open space and give the historic building space around it. I am in favor of maintaining it on the property. The City of Aspen can afford to pay the Historical Society to maintain it. There is something unique about the property having a glimpse of the past from Main Street through the park. I’m impressed with the site plan that allows an old building to be the focus. The applicant took into account historic preservation with that building and I would like to see that maintained. In regard to moving th e building you always move a Victorian building twice. You move it off the foundation and back on. The site plan is very successful. I wouldn’t want to see the historic building gutted. It should be maintained in its most perfect condition inside and out. It should be a small museum and it would be a nice addition and unique to the entire civic plaza. Nora said the amount of people walking through would welcome it. John asked about moving the building. Amy said there needs to be more discussion. Asset management has been discussing where to put the building. Possibly Burlingame. There might be a place nearby. Patrick also said the barn should not be retained. The cabin with all the antiques could be done very well and everyone walking down Main Street looking into the area would see it. John said he could get on board with leaving the cabin onsite but he would need some kind of commitment from the city to help with maintaining it as a museum monetarily. If it is going to be treated as a museum we need to help the Historic Society so that it doesn’t become a burden to them. Gretchen asked the board to address height and the affordable housing. Patrick said in general he agrees with staff’s analysis. The height is being used for solar and maybe they could reconfigure that and lower it and still have the solar. Having the building on the west side is good. The two parks with pedestrian access will be used a lot. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 18 Nora said she would recommend staff’s recommendation and study the height and massing. John said he is OK with the height because if there ever was a place in town that could use a tall building this is appropriate. I like the WELL and green aspect of the building. I would commend the applicant on the affordable housing. The public has done a better job than some of the private sectors regarding the affordable housing. It has a lot of light and circulation in the program coming from the front. For the record affordable housing should be a public sector job. The site and positioning are appropriate and hugging the western site line is appropriate. Having it come down a bit and with the prominence of the two building on either side and the large corridor . I am more concerned with the fence screening the resource if it stays than the height of the building. The building itself is OK. Michael said he is OK with the building being pushed to the west to open up a nice courtyard. I like staff’s comment that the second story height is almost equal to the first and I would like to see more study on that as well. I would like to see more three dimensional renderings and sketch up materials. It was really lacking frankly, particularly the north elevation. Nora also agreed that the building hugging the west is appropriate due to where the historic resource is because that opens it up and you can see it better. John said the site plan doesn’t work without the building being to the west. Gretchen said the cabin is special and it celebrates Aspen’s history. In the long run we will be happy about that. The height could be lowered somewhat and there are opportunities to drop it and still accommodate the light you want in the building. I love the design of the building. What does the stair tower with the flat façade do? You can express your own building and not address anymore flat walls of brick. There are enough tall plains of brick. Maybe you could lower that element. The project is very developed and thought out. It is 100% the right solution to have it right up against the courthouse building. The employee housing could be looked at and it is probably at the maximum height to get three stories. Looking from the Rio Grande back toward the courthouse seeing a four story building will be shocking for people. We need a rendering of that view from the north. The north is the front of the property for so many people that participate on the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 19 park and the design team needs to be ultra-sensitive to the height there and restudy it. Patrick said the housing shown and the mass and scale looks ultra-modern rather than having an historic form and possibly look at redesigning the façade. This can be addressed at final. John said the applicant has showcased the historic house and I’m in favor of the current design. It is a nice balance between old and new. Gretchen said the building has a friendly pedestrian feel to it. I don’t think it is appropriate to do something Victorian to the building given the context. We are here to preserve the historic building. Height is sensitive to Aspen. Nora also agreed that the side from the Rio Grande is important. Amy identified the issues to be addressed: Only the house and shed be preserved and not the barn The historic resource would serve as a museum Study of a better temporary location for the buildings while the project is being constructed Study of the fence surrounding the private courtyard so that it doesn’t block the view of the resources Study the height of the police station particularly the second floor level On the affordable housing study the north elevation Better renderings as to how the affordable housing fits into the context regarding the height condition on the north side MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 540 E. Main until March 23rd, second by Michael. Nora asked that story poles be added on the north side, employee housing side. Amended motion: Nora entertained a friendly amend ment to add story poles to the conditions, second by Michael. Amy commented that this is conceptual which will lock the massing in so that should not be re-visited. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 20 Michael second the friendly amendment. All in favor of the friendly amendment. Motion carried. Amy said no one mentioned if any part of the historic house could be removed, the little area at the back door. Gretchen said she would follow Amy’s recommendation. It could be removed so that there is more room on the property. John said staff and monitor can handle it. Patrick said there is the log cabin, second section and the third entryway. Amy said it is a little shelter area. Jack said we are talking about two story polls on the north end of the affordable housing. Amy asked about the historic house. Michael said he supports what Gretchen, Nora and Patrick said about the historic house. John said if Jack is willing to do what he can to help the Historic Society maintain this as a museum he is in favor. It doesn’t mean that they have to run the museum forever but to help them get their footing because it is a new project. Jack said he is willing to start the conversation and dialogue with the Historical Society. Michael said that can be addressed at the next hearing to have that flushed out. John said we do not want to pass a resolution to maintain it as a museum onsite where it is an undue burden on the Historical Society. Charles said we can have a conversation and have further clarification at the next meeting. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 21 Amy commented that the board prefers the historic house to be an onsite museum and maybe it isn’t the Historical Society that operates it. Michael said there are so many artifacts that came out of there having that interpretation on site would be really great. Roll call vote: Michael, yes; Patrick, yes; Nora, yes; Gretchen, yes; John, yes; Motion carried 5-0. Michael told Gretchen that she did a great job. It was a more robust meeting. John said the meeting was kept right on track. MOTION: Gretchen moved to adjourn; second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk