Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160309ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal, Bob Blaich, Jim DeFrancia and John Whipple. Michael Brown and Sallie Golden were absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Nadolny, Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Willis recommended that all three sets of minutes be deferred to when Michael will be present at the meeting. Nora congratulated Jessica Garrow for her appointment as the Community Development Director. Nora also thanked City Council for moving forward with the designation of the Aspen Modern properties: Yellow brick, Red Brick, Mtn. Rescue, Anderson and the pedestrian malls. John said he heard that Planning & Zoning is going paperless and possibly if the board seems it fit we should phase out paper packets. If we are preserving trees we aren’t really doing a good job of preservation. Gretchen commented that she is in favor because we get excellent presentations and we can print out the pertinent sheets that we need for the meetings. John said maybe the plans should still be printed . Linda Manning, City Clerk said there are two I Pads available from the grant that can be setup. 70,000 sheets of paper were printed last year. Amy said she will send an e-mail out regarding the hard packet and for now the printed drawings should be available to board members. John said he is conflicted out with the Crystal Palace. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 2 Debbie commented that in the future the City Clerk will be meeting with the HPC to discuss her practices and policy connected with minutes. Willis suggested that the meeting occur before we approve the minutes that were deferred. Debbie said she would try and coordinate the discussion for the next meeting. 533 E. Main St. Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Special Review and View plane Review, Public hearing cont’d from Jan. 27th Amy commented that the board has seen a few concepts for a social hall and an event space on the property. The social hall will be above grade and then there is event space below grade. There are two options for tonight. One version of the social hall sits on the alley and one moves up to Main Street. Staff supports Option B along Main Street. The foot print is about 800 square feet for the meeting area and linked to the west side of the church. We feel that it does reflect the idea that the church functions have traditionally been located off Main Street and accessed from the sidewalk. The rectory building also has a close tie to the street. We feel the scale of the social hall is appropriate and it will enliven the street and allow some transparency and public activities and participation in the church having windows etc. rather than being pushed back on the site. The social hall will be linked with a one story connector to the church. Much of the hallway is hidden behind the elevator so you only see a short length of it. Amy said in Option A with the social hall on the alley you see a lot more of the connector and it really presents the addition to the church as being about 36 feet in width. That is one of the concern by s taff regarding this particular option. Staff supports Option B. HPC should also discuss whether a connector is appropriate at all. It would not be a long distance to travel between the new social hall and the west side of the church. It would be better not connecting directly to the building and affecting windows and doors that are in place now. Amy said the second item is the new exit stair from the sanctuary space. HPC has seen a few variations of exits that come out the second floor on the west side of the church. You have seen an enclosed stairway, stairways in ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 3 various positions open to the air and not open to the air. The stair presented tonight is uncovered and runs away from the building rather than aligning up against it which we do feel has some benefit. It doesn’t directly affect the wall and windows and features of the historic building. The Chief Building Official does not believe that another exist is required by code. There have been calculations done and given the occupancy of the space there is a large staircase in front of the sanctuary and that is adequate. HPC needs to consider the possibility that the exit is not necessary. If you find that it is something that should be accomplished we have concerns about the location that is being proposed toward the alley coming out the west side of the building. It does have some visibility. Possibly the staircase could be hidden behind the existing elevator. That is not something the applicant prefers. Amy said the third item is the change to the entry element over the front of the church. This can be moved to final and is a detail that is appropriate for the next level of review. Amy said there are two view planes originating from the Court House and the Veteran’s park next to it that sore toward Aspen Mtn. and set a certain height limit. Option A along the alley completely complies with the view plane. Option B on the street does intrude into the view plane. The height of the addition is 13 feet and the view plane hits that front lot line at 11 feet. The story polls helped to see the line and view plane. Having seen that, staff’s recommendation is that it is appropriate to find minimal impact on the view plane from Option B. You really see that it sits below the parapets of buildings in the background. The view toward Aspen Mountain that is intended to be protected seems unaffected in our opinion. Sara said the applicant is proposing a trash enclosure off the alleyway. It is proposed at 11 feet. Staff would like to see this lowered if possible while keeping within the Environmental Health regulations and keeping the rollup door option. Environmental Health may reduce the height by 1 foot. This change can be reviewed at final. Regarding the affordable housing mitigation HPC needs to make a recommendation to Council on the subject. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide some sort of mitigation and at some rate. The Housing Authority is in agreement while the Housing Board feels no mitigation necessary. At the last hearing examples were requested of essential public facilities in regard to affordable housing mitigation. In 2007 there was a remodel and expansion of the Christ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 4 Episcopal Church which is in the West End and R-6 neighborhood. They were adding about 2000 square feet to the site. P&Z recommended that no additional mitigation was needed for that project. This was based on that the addition was sensitive to the neighborhood and that the renovations brought the building into compliance with the accessibility requirements that were lacking at that time. The second example was the Jewish Community Center that received final approval 2013. This site added 19,656 square feet between two different buildings on the site. The mitigation was determined by P&Z to be at 9.63 FTE’s for the site. Council approved this and allowed the mitigation to be at 44% of the FTE requirement. They had to mitigate for 4.25 employees. These were all accommodated on the site and deed restricted through APCHA. APCHA also required that an audit to be conducted after two years. If employees were found to be added and necessary then the mitigation would be required for the additional employees. HPC needs to make a decision whether mitigation is required for the additional square footage on this site and suggest a rate somewhere between 0-10.27. We would suggest an audit down the road or maybe a mix of the two. Sara addressed the TIA – Transportation Impact Analysis The applicant has submitted the TIA that was reviewed by Engineering and Transportation. Staff would like the improvements incorporated in the final design. Parks has specific comments regarding the location of the sidewalk along Hunter Street as well as the protection of the trees on that side. The applicant presented a formal study that indicated that the on-street parking that is being utilized now is adequate for the new expanded facility. Staff is recommending that HPC accept the proposal of no new on -site parking. Patrick inquired about the exit. Amy said the Chief building official addressed how occupancy is calculated and how exits currently exist in the building and presently there is not an evident need to provide another means of exiting the second floor. Patrick Rawley, Marina Skiles, Charles Cunniffe, Father John Hilton presented Patrick R. said they are pursuing an interior remodel of the church from windows to paint. The covered porch can be addressed at final and what that covering would look like. We are refurbishing the stained glass wi ndows. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 5 We have looked at various options on the secondary egress. We also have the parish subgrade hall and the above grade connection which is important to us. Patrick R. said it was suggested that we restudy the height and form of the social hall and consider moving the structure to the north of the carriage house. We have done that and it is option B which is our preferred option. You asked us to eliminate the daylighting concept of the basement and we have done that and the lawn is flat and functional. You also asked us to restudy the front of the church and restore it to the original condition and that will be addressed at final. We have no problem with the TIA. We will convert one additional space to an ADA immediately at the front of the church. We have provided an analysis of the employees that would be provided. We request that the APCHA board recommendation of an audit in two years be the appropriate path to move forward. We have two units that are on-site that are currently housing employees of the church. With the addition of the parish hall and subgrade space we do not need additional staffing. We have looked at many different options. We have talked about the egress stair and removing the acolyte sacristy is unacceptable. The functionality and sacredness of the church is paramount to us and any modification of the egress stair has to look right and work right with the church. The option of the stair tower next to the elevator that was mentioned by staff we did carefully look at and it would result in another awkward situation with the interior of the church with the removal of three pews and addition of doors which does not work for us. Marina went over the interior renovations of the church with a power point. The interior of the church is the most important part of the function of the project. There is a raised choir loft. There is a sanctuary level with doors that lead to the elevator and there is a new door proposed that leads straight off the building. Marina said the Bldg Dept. has spent a lot of time going through code issues in trying to figure out the best way to make another stair work. Patrick R. said we are putting the connector where something occurred in option B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 6 Marina said option A has no cleer story raised lawn and the lilacs remain and the elevator addition is not touched. There is a new door and a glass connection. There is also a trash container. The Environmental Health requires a 9 foot roll up door so the trash people can get in easier and then there is the housing which is a foot and a roof structure which brings us to 11 feet tall. Maybe we can reduce the height to an 8 foot door. There is also composting and recycling trash incorporated. Marina said Option A has no view plane infringement whatsoever. The existing driveway will be grass-crete. Marina said Option B has the building near the sidewalk where St. Stephens was. A survey was done and there were 148 votes. 87% of those people who cast their vote were in favor of a social hall. There is a view plane infringement of about two feet. Charles said he doesn’t want the HPC to feel they are mediating between a disagreement among parish members. The client is the parish, Diocese of Denver. Amy said the applicant is restoring the stained glass windows in the church. As a restoration I can work with the applicant. We aren’t showing you the detailing of the restoration taking place. We are trying to figure out if a storm window would be best or integrate a thermal pane in the historic sash. The board was in favor of Amy working with the applicant on the windows. Patrick inquired about the below grade footage. Marina said it is around 8,000 to 8,500 square feet. The pavilion is 700 square feet. John asked about the audit. Patrick R. said they don’t foresee any additional staffing needs with the additional space. It is largely handled by volunteers. Willis asked about the function of the pavilion other than circulation. Charles said it is also a place for people to circulate at the end of mass. It is like a air filled lobby rather than being at the front of the church. A lot of ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 7 people don’t stay and socialize because it is too crowded. It can be a place where Father can come out and greet people, a more of a social connection to the community. The doors would open to the lawn. Father John Hilton: Father thanked HPC for working with us these past months. We believe the design proposed is a better one because of the recommendations given to us. The mission and activities of St. Mary’s here in Aspen have expanded greatly in the past years and they must do so if the parish is to flourish in the 21st century and so we look for the future viability of our parish. In order to do this we must have additional space. What we have does not suffice. We welcome the engagement of the Aspen community that the Main Street option B supports. We love the idea of it being on Main Street for the engagement of the community. We know that aspects are important for the community such as night shelter and endless AA meetings that we have, St. Patrick’s Day. These engagements are enhanced by our proposal and we are happy about that. We ask you to consider the corridor either option A or B as an essential element of the proposal. They afford handicapped access on the main level year round and make the buildings far more useful for us. We thank you for your consideration and look forward to your proceeding with this project. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Stephen Kanipe, Building Official Stephen said the exiting from the sanctuary stands alone. There are very clear guidelines in the provisions of the code to calculate an occupant load. There are some developments in the sanctuary such as the choir loft that will be added. There are several variables in this. We need to focus on the sanctuary. This is going to be a math problem. When we do determine what the occupant load is of the sanctuary then we do the measurement of the stairs from the sanctuary and the formula was to allow for the .2 inches per occupant of the existing stairs to evaluate the existing building conditions for a compliant exit. When we can add the length of the pews and apply the occupant load and we look at what is going on in the choir loft that will give us a number. We compare what is there and what is proposed. Willis said right now we don’t know if a second means of egress is required or not pending the outcome of the math problem. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 8 Gretchen asked if an exercise was done. Stephen said the front exit stairs is about 60 inches and that will result in an allowed occupancy load of 300. The building is sprinkled. Jim Markalunas said he is a member of St. Mary’s church. I am basing my comments to the fire escape. That is no longer an issue since we have an enclosed structure now. We all want to do the best for St. Mary’s. My comments were in the packet. If the fire escape is enclosed that addresses some of my concerns. There is opposition to the interior egress due to the functions of the church and I disagree about the function. The accolades are young. The interior fire escape can be made code compliant. Roger Marolt said he has been a parishioner for 54 years at St. Mary’s. This is the most important and beautiful building in town to me. I am on the building committee. This needs to be a living, growing lively place for this community. Option B is overwhelming supportive by the community. Peggy Mink said she has been a parishioner for 41 years and she doesn’t mind change. Our parish is 325 families. The parish hall seems to accommodate the St. Patrick’s day dinner which serves 700 people and I question the need for what is being proposed. I’m not against it if they can prove they need it. Jim Pomeroy said he is a second generation parish member. I am an employee of the City of Aspen and I am speaking as a public citizen. I am ambivalent about the placement of the glass box. I am concerned about connecting a glass box to an historic structure and it is inappropriate. There will be adequate access for handicapped. The church should be respected and no new elements should be added to the outside of the building whether it is the staircase or the connector. We don’t know if the stairs are needed. The exiting staircase by the sanctuary gets used constantly. It could be integrated into a new design. If needed. Regarding employee generation the idea of adding 9,000 square feet and not generating any employees is impossible. Too many other projects say they aren’t generating employees and of course they do. Audits and tracking after approvals never work. Sue Twig said she has been a parishioner for 20 years. We were told that the building has to be modern and not look like part of the original. I looked at ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 9 the addition to the Hotel Jerome and it is red brick that looks just like the Hotel Jerome. Why are you requiring us to have a more modern building on a block that everything else is historic. Willis said all we ask for is a dialogue between an addition and the historic resource. We don’t compel applicants one way or another with the stylistic outcome. Aspen is rich is modern history and Victorian history. Sue Twig said we are a church and when we have events there are volunteers. We don’t hire more people because of those events. We have a good volunteer base. Lisa Markalunas said she is a 50 year parishioner. It is important that the addition be compatible and secondary to the main church building. The new addition should not compete for attention with the historic building on the site. All the various iterations of the proposed designs to date have called attention to themselves. Option B offered this evening looks like the Rubey Park bus station ran into the side of the church. While the applicant should be commended by putting the bulk of their square footage underground I believe the above grade entrance needs to be reduced significantly in size. With the basement level of over 8,000 square feet and a new lobby within the church it is hard to believe that programing and events need to take place at the above grade space entrance. The entrance should be as minimal in size as possible to accommodate circulation and the proposed circular stair. It should be physically disconnected from the church and the design and materials should be more compatible with the historic buildings that surround it. Most importantly it should not block the view by the community of the historic buildings from Main Street. While not ideal I believe a much smaller entrance structure and more appropriate on the alley side of the grounds then located on Main Street in the most prominent location one can imagine as you come west along Main Street and foresee the church. It is also important that any additions to the side be respectful of the historic church while being cognoscente of the greater Aspen community and Aspen’s overall historic and architectural heritage. The property deserves the where with all to have a design that respects its historical significance. We are looking at architecture and the site. The survey was not independent and did not encompass the entire parish community. I hope you will do what is right for St. Mary’s and at least push the development away from the front of the church and the view plane and what people first see when they come down Main Street. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 10 Tom Marshall said he agrees with Pomeroy that the glass box should not attach to the historic building. When all the blinds are pulled it will have a different look. My other concern is the entryway and they have taken away the covered entryway. The cover is a beautiful feature of the church. Marina said there will be a cover presented at final. Renee Crawford said she is a relatively new parishioner. She has lived in Aspen for 16 years. I am quite involved with the community of the church. Part of the reason is the vibrancy of the community of the church. I am in favor of Option B due to the welcoming aspect of the design. It has a view and it has a view into the back lawn area. It is open alive vibrant space. The connector is necessary due to our weather issues. If there wasn’t a connector the people wouldn’t flow as easily. Judy Dunn said she is a new parishioner for 5 years. I also participate on the building committee. I agree with Roger that we have had lively debates for the past two years as to what should be built and why. Many of our young parishioners brought up the idea of a pavilion and social hall. With the social hall being on the front of Main Street it will be used with a variety of activities. I like what Amy said about livening the community and showing what we are doing. With the social hall on Main Street it will be a lively scene and used a lot. The connection is also essential. We chose Option B and decided to locate the social hall up front on Main Street. By doing that we weren’t creating another connection to the church. The connection to the church is necessary for our children and disabled individuals and the weather. Julia Debaucher said she has been a parishioner for 4 years. I am also working part time at the church. The catholic faith is the heart of my family. We are blessed with a beautiful church that we absolutely love. I have 5 children. The social hall is absolutely necessary. As a parent and parishioner it would be wonderful if we had space for a nursery. We are a house of worship and we need extra space. We have pot lucks outside whenever possible. If we are having events downstairs in the basement I need to be able to go upstairs seeing my kids play on the lawn. Kids are always on the lawn. As the secretary all the space is necessary for our current programs. We aren’t going to need extra staff for the space. The sanctuary is a sacred space where the alter is and where the priest says the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 11 mass. I have never ever been to a catholic church where there is an entrance or exit into or out of the sanctuary. Ivan Cassar said he has been in the parish for 23 years. Maybe there could be access to the stair inside. I agree with Pomeroy that the church should be separated from the glass. Putting the new addition on the south side is probably the better idea, Option A. I’m not sure why the porch has to go because people are attached to it. John O’Donough said he has been a parishioner over 20 years. I love St. Mary’s and I consider it the most beautiful building in Aspen and hope it stands 1,000 years from now. St. Mary’s is more than brick and mortar, it is a vital pillar of our Aspen community. This is about the future not the past. I would encourage all you commissioners to support Option B for the future of St. Mary’s and all the good things St. Mary’s does now and in the future. Julie Markalunas Hall said she agrees with Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Markalunas and Tom Marshall. We are here with this project because of its historic nature. All the shepherding Father Hilton is providing for his parish is important and it needs to be done in the context of the community and our history. Blocking the west façade with a modern building even if you can see through it is not good historic preservation and definitely connecting the building is not good historic preservation. The site has two historic buildings on it and even the open space as historic value to it. I would encourage HPC to approve the most minimal on grade portion. I comment the applicant for putting as much as they did down below and that takes the stress off the church in terms of having a huge building which was originally proposed. We need to be aware of the community and the impact on the community in modifying this historic site and connecting a modern building to the old building. Mary Woulfe said she has been here since 1982. I am currently the part time business manager and very familiar with coming in at odd times. The amount of time and energy that we as the staff do tearing down and putting space back up in those classrooms on a regular basis is ridiculous. The space proposed underground is extremely important to us in terms of the sustainability of minimal staff so that we don’t need to increase our housing or increase our employee hours. That is important to understand. We are a community of part time people who volunteer our time to keep our church going and make it what it is. There are many parishes throughout the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 12 country that have gymnasiums and other space for their children to play in and use that are permanently dedicated to that purpose. Because we as a community wish to outreach and provide space for the homeless shelter and AA meetings and things like that that need private space as well. The tear down etc. takes forever. I have looked at the numbers and looked at what it will take to run this space etc. and we have looked at it and presented it to the archdiocese. They are extremely excited about the possibility of having more potential space up here to have meetings for the archdiocese. Hopefully the underground space will be energy efficient as well. Mary Ellen Seecrist said she has been a parishioner for 43 years. Mary Ellen said she is concerned about the contemporary look of the building in a very historic block. What we see right now makes it lo ok very transparent. Once you have the shades, blinds and furniture it’s not going to look that way. People will see a different view of that building. I think a more historic building would be much better for that site. I looked at the markers today and think we would lose 1/3 of our lawn and I would hate to see that go. Molly said she has been a parishioner for 7 years. Anybody who questions the need for more space doesn’t volunteer enough at the church. In regards to a modern design the art museum looks like a wicker basket and takes up a block and it is very cool and beautiful and it doesn’t seem to bother people. There is only 700 square feet of a low impact glass structure being proposed. I support Option B. Georgeann Waggaman said she was on HPC for 20 years and 43 years in Aspen. I agree with some of the statements that maybe it is a little too contemporary and could be softened a little bit. You have to remember that it will be filled with people and furniture and blinds on the windows and bright lights at night that may change the feeling a little bit. I came in here opposed to having the building on the street side but the sun will come in and use that patio a lot more if it is in the front and this might be an asset, Option B. Lets push and minimize the trash compactor so that it doesn’t impact on the lawn because the lawn is very important. Amy said letters or e-mails were sent from Tom and Ellen Marshall, Lisa Markalunas, Junee Kirk, John Kelleher, Stowman Stines, Julie Markalunas Hall. In John Kelleher letter he provided some history of the church. Time is moving on and progress requires change. Stowman said he feels the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 13 project would be a positive influence on St. Mary’s and the City of Aspen. The expansion is clearly needed. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Applicant rebuttal. Patrick R. said the pavilion will actually help the functionality of the lawn. We have no plans for the shades and blinds. The idea is to make this transparent and inviting visual contact with the pedestrians on the street. Patrick pointed out that the historic church was always without a front porch. We are intending to have some kind of light material for the covering over the front door. We would be opening a portion of the transom wind ow to the public view and improve snow shedding. We did the survey as best we could reaching out to parishioners. On the glass connector it is important to have someone with disabilities access the above grade pavilion. The glass connector is a direct connection for the ADA and for the functionality of the church. The connector is behind a non-historic addition, the elevator. We have established that the space is desperately needed. Charles said the glass connector is ADA compliant. The only access to the social hall is the existing elevator. Where the circular stair is going down there would be a chair lift that goes down from there. Handicapped people would come in the same entrance. None of the connection in plan B connects to any of the historic fabric. We would use the elevator ramp to continue the connection to the pavilion. Patrick R. said we will develop the final details for finals. We have looked at pulling some of the elements of the existing church over such as data lines, materiality and coloring. We are well aware that we need a dialogue with the historic resource. Willis identified the issues: Egress stair, Option a,b,c,d,f, parking, front entry will be addressed at final, GMQS, the applicant would like a simple audit in two years. Employee generation; there was ample demonstration of an active volunteer network at the church which would offset the need for full time employees. The view plane, Option A is out of the view plane entirely. Option B asks for two feet of the view plane. Connector piece is a yes no question. There was a lot of ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 14 presentation as to why it is needed. Trash enclosure and minimizing the height seems to be the right direction. We are talking about mass and scale and we aren’t taking about style and fenestration although it is part of the presentation in terms of the feel of the design. Jim commented on the affordable housing and employee generation. At Christ Episcopal Church which was expanded ten years ago they said there would be no new employees generated and there haven’t been any employees generated. There is absolutely a need for the space and the issue of an Audit is a perfect solution. They are only asking for two feet in the view plane and I challenge it as a questionable view plane anyway. Parking is not needed and I support staff’s recommendation which is Option B with conditions. Amy said we didn’t have all the information at the time of the memo and it would be our preference not to have to add that to the building. We hope that the occupancy doesn’t demand it. If it does we still lean hiding it behind the elevator but that hasn’t been completely worked out. Nora thanked the public for coming to the meeting and speaking. There is no question that you need more space. It is certainly necessary for expanding needs. I am looking at this from a global experience of our town and the long term impact of our community. For 74 years we have had this lawn with an open side on the west as our historic reference. The green lawn has become part of our cultural heritage. The experience coming down Main Street does speak of open space and green space. The view plane is critical and when they get eaten away at it is incrementalism. The 1992 addition is unfortunate. If we don’t need a stair case that is great. The open space corridor is very important to me. If you can snug it up against the alley as a separate building. The idea of adding attachments to the west side of the building we lose control of it. I would say no on the connector stair and I support the view plane and the trash door should be lowered. What is important is keeping the openness in the yard and the historic feeling of what is left of the side of the church and the yard. I would support Option A with no connector. Bob said we have seen several design proposals since this project first came to us. The question that we have dealt with is function and aesthetics. The functional issues have been resolved in either A or B proposal. Aesthetics can be very personal. From an aesthetic point of view I have no issues with ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 15 either A or B as long as they are in the well-respected HPC guidelines that we work with. I do respect the opinions of the people who have come here tonight and have expressed their opinions. Jim and I were involved in Christ Church and a lot of the same issues came up. The architects have listened to our concerns as we have gone through the meetings. Either proposal could be worked on and listening tonight I am leaning toward B which has green space. John said he is in agreement with Bob. My personal opinion is plan A but either one is acceptable and they fit the guidelines. After hearing everyone tonight there is an overwhelming support for B. We need people to show up and give us guidance. I am in support of plan B with staff’s conditions. On the egress our charge is historic preservation and we can’t have the burden of life safety put on us. I would defer to the Building Dept. after the math equation is completed. In terms of the affordable house mitigation I’m in favor of the two year audit. Regarding the trash enclosure in the back if the Health Dept. would be willing to accept an 8 foot door that would help the project to minimize that are as much as possible. Everyone has worked hard and it is good to see so much compassion about a project. Gretchen thanked the applicant for presenting options to the board. Our only task here is to preserve our existing history of the buildings. We are all in favor of the expansion and it will be a great asset to the community. Most of the expansion is below grade which is appropriate and a small percentage above. I really feel that the lawn belongs to the community. The smaller pavilion option A is the right choice for the building. When you look at the story polls the building blocks the view plane and completely blocks from both angles the west side of the historic church. I have lived here 39 years and the lawn is a beautiful asset to the community. I feel it is a mistake to have the massing of the new structure on Main Street. It is going to b e a glass box at night. One of the beauties of St. Mary’s is its regal presence with the windows. The lilacs bloom three weeks of the year and that is a non-issue in terms of masking the glass box. It also violates the view plane which I cannot vote for. I would be in favor of seeing the building in the back of the property, a glass box. Regarding the connector I do believe in accessibility to buildings to be equal for all parties. I see the addition as a glass box if on the rear of the property would be subordinate to the church and that is a better historical preservation concept. The addition would also hide the trash enclosure and be a building of its own time. The lawn should be kept for the community. The building blocks everything. I implore the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 16 board to potentially move in the direction of Option A. Regarding employee housing I would defer to staff if they feel a two year audit is appropriate that is fine with me. I am in favor of the link for better accessibility. It should be a subordinate property and be to the back of the property. Patrick said the basement at 8,000 square feet is great. As far as the stair if they can be used I am in favor of that and if not the preferred alternative in back by the alley is OK. Anything that is going to be built in Main Street is going to block the view and is also two feet into the view plane. Putting the addition in the back, Option A is appropriate and fits well. As far as the glass box we also need to consider the historic character. This is an historic Victorian site and a flat roof where there are three pitched roofs is out of character. Something in back would be appropriate but what is planned would destroy the character of the site completely. It should be re -designed slightly so that it enhances rather than contrasts the other three buildings on site. Willis commented that the HPC is struggling as to how we minimize the interventions of new work to the west elevation. Staff recommended to the applicant consolidation of those interventions next to what is already there, the elevator tower. If you look at perspectives from the west and you compare option A to B you can see that there is more contamination of the historic facade with A than B from Main Street. Both plans have increased the amount of activity in the historic fabric of the west façade. The elevator corridor is not an historic structure and if that were to be reviewed today we would not allow a galvanized mini pyramid on the side of the historic resource. While we aren’t asking them to move it they could consider taking that 90’s piece and putting it into the vocabulary of what they are doing now and dressing it up and take off the dormer and slip it under the eave to restore the eave of the historic resource. The preservation of the lawn is a social and cultural part of Aspen. I supported what was presented at the Jan. 27th meeting but that design wasn’t passed. I can support what the congregation wants which is Option B. Staff also supports option B. I would also prefer no egress stair if possible. We can use the exclusion from page 64 of the packet from the planning office to support the view plane exemption. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #8 for 533 E . Main Street as recommended by staff and represented by Option B with the 9 conditions as ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 17 recommended by staff. Motion second by Bob. Clarifications of the conditions. 1. HPC is in support of having the connector at grade. 2. No exit stair should be approved at this time. 3,4, ok 5. The two year audit is recommended. 6,7,8, ok 9. There is a minimal impact on the view plane in Option B. John said after the site visit he found that the buildings behind the story polls are encroaching on the view plane far greater than what is being proposed. Bob said the story polls which we asked for and got really made it clear that any obstructions to the traditional view plane are from other buildings not from this potential building. Jim said that should be inherent in the motion. Roll call vote: Nora , Option A with no connector, no; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; Jon, yes; Gretchen, no; Patrick, no, Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-3 300-312 E. Hyman Ave. – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Public Hearing Jim recused himself Nora recused herself John recused himself, conflicted within 300 feet Debbie said the affidavit of posting has been provided. – Exhibit I Amy said the property is a 9,000 square foot lot which is composed of the Crystal Palace building and a small one story commercial space next to it. The applicant proposes to demolish 2/3rds of the exiting construction peeling back to the original footprint of the Crystal Palace bldg. The property was landmarked in the 1980’s; however, it has gone through numerous changes through its history. The Sanborn map shows the 3,000 square foot lot in the 1800’s. There some photographs from that time period showing the building we are preserving and an adjacent building very similar in size and design that used to sit next to it that was demolished many years ago. Around the 1930’s the building started to deteriorate and ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 18 the roof collapsed and the owners at the time the Midnight Mine Co. decided to try and put a pitched type roof on it and continued to use the structu re. In the 1960’s Mead Metcalf acquired the building and began to operate the Crystal Palace dinner theatre. About a decade after that he began a more dramatic renovation of the building to what we see today. It appears that the ground floor was preserved facing Hyman and Monarch Street and altered everything from there up. The cigar mural is a 19th century mural that has been preserved and repainted by Gard Moses. The top of the mural comes up to the bottom of the stone ceils of the upper floor windows. The window ceil then jumps up a couple feet and there are new details that are added which are a few rows of corbeled brick. This seems to indicate the transition point and above that the building was reconstructed. Window locations and proportions all changed. Really the 19th century resource is just the ground floor on Hyman and Monarch. From the eastern edge of the historic resource toward the Wheeler Opera House they plan on taking down everything. On the corner they plan to keep the building essentially as it is even though it was altered at some point in time. Amy said the building is being turned into a small lodge and that is something the City encourages. Because they are doing that there are exceptions an allowances. The building is allowed to be three stories tall where other uses can only be two stories tall. The applicant is intending to peel back to the historic structure which has been altered and add on from there. One of the staff’s recommendation is that there be a more clear dillenation where the structure ends. On the ground floor with the masonry store fronts bleeding across onto the new construction is confusing. We don’t want to see any confusion about what is old and what is new. That demarcation is important. One option would be to do an offset in the wall plane between the new and old. There are height limits with each story. The two story elements of the new construction cannot be any taller than 28 feet. The design in the packet the applicant aligned their two story element with the existing parapet height of the Crystal Palace and that is over the height limit of 29 feet. That needs to be reduced and the applicant sent a revised drawing as an exhibit. On the Monarch Street side you see a three story expressing of the addition that is being proposed. The staff recommendation is to create a break line so that the third floor sets back from the second floor, an off set. The third issue is the roof deck. The proposal is to have commercial space on the ground floor which would be a restaurant and lobby etc. The second floor is all lodge rooms and part of the third floor is lodge rooms. There is also a large outdoor deck with south facing exposure. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 19 The applicant is proposing a railing which is required to protect the pool area all the way around the perimeter. In the renderings it appears that the railing is very visible from the street. We feel that on top of the resourc e it should be pulled back a little bit not only because it has a visual impact but having the continuous railing wrapping around the building doesn’t provide the break separating the new from the old, defining the historic resource. Sara said the first issue deals with parking. There are currently 4 on-site parking space that are accessed from the alleyway. The applicant is proposing to remove these spaces with the redevelopment of the site and they aren’t replacing them. The amount net leasable commercial space that is being added to the site is decreasing so there is no new onsite parking required. The code does not require onsite parking for lodge uses in the commercial core zone district. The applicant will be required to mitigate for the removal of the four existing spaces and this can be done through a payment-in-lieu. The trash utility area is being re-worked and the concerns have been alleviated. There is a transformer along the alley and the applicant is working with the Engineering Dept. and the size might need to be increased which will be settle before final. Amy addressed the public amenity. The requirement is 10% of the size of the lot which is 900 square feet for open space or an equilivant cash-in-lieu solution. Staff recommends the cash-in-lieu solution. The applicant will be making improvements to the streetscape. Gretchen asked for clarification about the height limit. Amy said they are allowed because the use of the building is entirely lodge and directly related amenities. That allows them the possibility of a third floor and they are on the north side of the street. This is in the commercial core zone district. Not long ago the downtown height limit was 40 feet and it was reduced to 28 feet. Specific relief was left in place for lodges because we need them. Amy pointed out that the drawings in the packet do show alterations to the historic piece of the building and we have some initial objections that will be addressed at final. There are some new window openings on the second floor facing Monarch that need to be discussed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 20 Gretchen asked if the direction is to restore the building to the closest accuracy. Amy said that would be ideal but that is not being proposed. We can’t ask someone to expand their scope of work beyond what they had in mind. You can encourage restoration. We don’t want to see more confusing changes made. Applicant: Mark Hunt, owner; Dwayne Romero, Mitch Haas Mitch said the building is 9,000 square feet all designated historic. The building on the eastern side is 3,000 square feet and was added and it is not historic. Mitch gave an overview of the streetscape on Monarch and Hyman. Mitch said on the Hyman side we are not proposing to change the streetscape but we will focus on Monarch Street. It is a “mess” for pedestrian environment given the existing conditions. The sidewalk is cracked etc. and that is where we will improve the public right-of-way. The street trees are also crowding. The public amenity of the code talks about on-site improvements or improvements to the adjacent public-right-of-way. Our proposal is to not pay cash in-lieu and to improve the public right-of- way. Our requirement is 900 square feet and we are showing about 1300 square feet of improvements in the public right-of-way. We would straighten out the sidewalk and put in street trees with walkways that get you out to the parking. We would also fix the drainage going into the alley. Mitch said on the historic portion the top floor had openings and the ground floor had a large opening and other openings. At some point the roof collapsed and a shed pitched roof was put on. In the 60’s store fronts were added and the upper floor changed. Mead Metcalf did changes to the top floor and added punched openings and a brick banding. The non-historic addition in the back will be removed. Mark Hunt explained the design intent. There are inherent challenges adding to an existing historic building. The palace has gone through several remodels over time. Our design goals are to respect the existing structure as people know it today. We want to design the addition with minimal impact. We are interlocking the two masses without diluting the architecture of the palace to unite the old and new. Our major material selection is steel and ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 21 glass and clean understated detailing to not distract from the palace. We feel the height, scale and massing proposed are consistent and compatible with the resource and with the applicable design guidelines. Mitch said we have reduced the height to 28 feet. Om the Monarch side we have widened the horizontal beam to differentiate the ground and second floor from the third floor. Mark said the glass guardrail is set back on the historic resource on Hyman and Monarch and will be completely invisible. The rail is set back 42 inches from the façade of the building. Amy brought up delineating the eastern edge of the historic resource through a modest change in the wall plane. With that we would like HPC to reconsider that recommendation. We want to maintain the brick extension as rendered in order to be true to the design. We would rather not create a visual break between the same materials just for the sake of doing so. It would be detrimental to the design. We have reduced the height to the required 28 feet. Regarding the break line we have increased the depth of the steel beam which provides a visual break and is consistent with the steel and glass throughout. Staff said they would like to see a deeper offset of the addition on the Monarch alley corner. We are currently proposing 2’4” back which hopefully satisfied the concern. By reducing the length of the existing masonry wall and creating the proposed offset we are restoring the ability to read the original building dimension on Monarch. The last was pull the roof deck railing further back from the edge. The setback as proposed is 42 inches which is what the code requires. We also plan to use in addition to this low iron ultra clear glass panels which will be virtually invisible from any perspective. We are proposing a different preservation philosophy to the Crystal Palace because it is a special building that has evolved over time to the point that the community would be surprised to learn of its original appearance. The Crystal Palace has had an array of front façade appearances. In this situation we feel it important to honor the evolution of the building rather than erase the building’s history but adapting to its use. The proposal clearly delineates new from old while preserving the original scale of the landmark and retains the extended first floor that the community has come to so appreciate with the Crystal Palace. Dwayne Romero said they believe the application is a creative repurposing of a valuable historic asset for the community. The building has been sitting vacant for 5 years. The lodge purpose itself is a creative use of an historic asset to bring it back to a public use. We look for fun uses that bring visitors ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 22 and guests to our lovely town of Aspen. We are trying to make sure that the historic asset is honored and any and all additions are trying to celebrate it. The design intent, massing, scale, proportions and the overall movements of the planes make this a creative and thoughtful application. Two new elevations – Exhibit II, III Bob said as this project moves ahead we need to communicate this to the public. A lot of the public view the existing building having been there forever. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Jim Curtis said he has been a tenant on the Crystal Palace building on and off for over 20 years. I do not know Mr. Hunt and he doesn’t know me. No one on Mr. Hunts development team asked me to be here tonight to speak. I am hear as a private citizen that thinks the Crystal Palace is a wonderful great building. I am here to compliment Mr. Hunt and the development team. The plan is extremely creative concept for the building. This is a good application. As a person who has been associated with the building for over 20 years I can sincerely say it needs a lot of TLC. In the last 7 years the building has deteriorated physically and socially and it has been sad to see. This is an opportunity in a creative way which is good for the community to bring new life into a building that needs new life. Applicant rebuttal Mitch said on Hyman will be the lobby and entrance to the hotel. Monarch and Hyman corner will be a restaurant space on the ground floor and hopefully outside seating. Willis outline the issues: Public amenity: 1300 square feet of public amenity is being proposed on the Monarch Street side. Lowering the height to 28 feet: Willis said they have revised the drawings to reflect the 28 feet. Guardrail: The guardrail is now submerged behind the cornice line and you don’t see it. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 23 Articulation of the third floor toward the Rustique side on Monarch was a question. Willis said the applicant addressed that with a revised elevation drawing. Break line on the east side of the historic resource suggested by staff. Amy suggested a break either a step back or a change in materials something that says historic building/new construction. Gretchen said her concern is the bleeding of the façade over. The openings are not the same size to the non-historic part that you are claiming to be historic and its not. The historic openings are really the corner piece. The new addition needs to have a serious relief to allow that beautiful cornice that sits out four feet to return back to some kind of ending. The relationship of the new building to the old building seems messy. The cornice turns on the east side but ends on the east side. The building needs a little more articulation and should be restored to its original façade. On the east side there is not enough articulation between what is old and what is new. The building looks good but in terms of preservation it hasn’t been taken far enough. The detailing of the cornice will get lost. Maye the corner shouldn’t die into a window. The two windows on the right mimic the historic windows but are smaller. The lowering of the railing is good and it will not be visible. Hopefully the outdoor seating on the Monarch side will work out. Amy said Gretchen is wanting a meaningful return on the east side so that you feel like there is a three dimensional historic building. Bob clarified that Gretchen would like to see a line of demarcation between old and new. There will be a new brick façade. The suggestion is doing some differential with materials, setback or whatever to show that this is not the original, the two window bays. Mark pointed out that the bleeding is what is there. So the fear is if you take that down you are ruining the façade. Willis commented that it will be great to get some life back to this part of town and the use is welcomed and needed by the community. There is a hodge/podge of iterations over time and what is historically true is one s tory of brick. They have taken the right approach to what the community thinks is the best interest in preserving Aspen’s character. It is delightful that they ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 24 are still going to call it the Crystal Palace. Their approach and the bleed is appropriate. Maybe see the layered approach on the building of the history, i.e the three corbels at the band that are painted black now. In terms of mass and scale it is well composed. Bob said he can see something happening and that is up to the design team to differentiate what is old and what is new but you have the contiguous materials etc. Most people think what the Crystal Palace was is historic. Patrick said the revitalization of the west side is needed and that side doesn’t get any sun. Regarding the context everyone knows that the four bays are the Crystal Palace. The new part should be pushed back so you can see a distinct cornice of the southeast corner on the second floor. Take everything that is black, the second floor bays and the two first floor bays and push them all back about four feet. That would radically separate the new from old. Dwayne commented that the doors are 6’8” back. Bob said he likes the entire concept of the project and these are small details that can be worked out. Willis said what we don’t see are the adjacent buildings. MOTION: Patrick made the motion to approve resolution #9, 2016 granting conceptual design approval for the project as amended. Amy went over the conditions: Demolition approval; public amenity to be mitigated by right-of-way improvements to be further reviewed by Engineering and Parks. A transportation impact be completed for final review. The applicant feels they are exempt from their requirements but our department feels they need to go through the exercise because there are small components of the transportation impact analysis that they may be subject to. Mitigate for the removal of four on-site existing parking spaces and submit for final review within one year of the state. Patrick said moving off the street of the two bays on the east and the four bays above it on the east. Gretchen said we don’t want to spell out what they need to do. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 25 Willis said we don’t want to design for them. Patrick clarified for final that more delineation of old from new be addressed. Willis said he heard the separation of a plane between the new glass and steel façade from the historic brick fabric. We aren’t concerned about the delineation of the east. Amy clarified that you are asking for some restudy of the setback of the new metal façade from the masonry. Amy said our recommendation is to create the break point at the edge of the historic building. It isn’t to push back the metal façade because you will end up with something different. Gretchen said she is saying restudy a stronger delineation from old and new. Debbie Quinn said add at final better delineation old from new. Patrick added at final better delineation old verses new. Willis clarified that the old is all the brick and the new is the black. Bob clarified that having some statement with the “less” old to differentiate but maintain the character including the brick. The two bays of brick is what people see. We are going to open up pandora’s box if we start messing with that. Amy said Bob is saying there should be some vertical distinction but not so dramatic. Gretchen said visually it looks like an old façade on a new building. If it could be richer with history and having some depth. Bob said the reference books have changed numerous times on this building. Amy said if we do the break line as suggested by staff we are actually making that up also. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 26 Bob said the city wants this kind of building to be a real draw. This building is unique and lets get something here that we can respect and use and is up to date functionally. Bob said making some definition there is appropriate. Amy said we have a condition at final to better delineate old from new. Patrick accepted Amy’s statement for the motion. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Bob, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk