Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160608ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 1 Vice-Chairperson, Gretchen Greenwood called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, John Whipple, Bob Blaich, Nora Berko and Michael Brown. Jim DeFrancia and Willis Pember were absent. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Nora moved to approve the minutes from My 11, 2016; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Amy said the applicant is requesting continuance of 533 E. Main until July 27th. The applicant would like to be heard in front of a full board. John Whipple has a family conflict that will draw him away at the end of the meeting. Patrick Rawley, Stan Clauson & Associates represented St. Mary’s Catholic Church. Patrick asked for a continuance of 533 E. Main Street to July 27th. We would like to have a full board with people who have heard the project previously. Patrick asked if there are appropriate or inappropriate reasons for a continuance since we have a quorum today. Jim said the determination of what is appropriate or inappropriate in a request for a continuance is up to the commission. There is no obligation to grant a continuance and no obligation to deny a continuance either. It is just a discretionary determination. The application is before you and it is your discretion whether or not you want it continued. There is no criteria set forth for you to evaluate that request. Jim said someone can make a motion to continue the application to July 27th and if that fails you can either move to continue it to a different date or you can ask the applicant to proceed at the time they are set to proceed. Historically when you have less than a full board and a six member board as you have here, commissions, boards and council have tended to grant a continuance, but it is discretionary. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 2 Gretchen said we need to discuss whether it should be continued or to go forward. John pointed out that there may or may not be a full board on the 27th. John said he is OK with continuance. Bob said if the applicant comes back on the 27th and we don’t have a full board can they then ask for a continuance until they get a full board. Gretchen pointed out that we have a quorum. Jim said you can’t proceed if you don’t have a quorum. John said for the second agenda item he will recuse himself and there will be five members voting. Jim reiterated that it is discretionary and up to the board. You can also take discussion from the applicant or any party that is here if the HPC wishes. Often when a matter is going to be continued and someone is in the audience that has shown up and can’t come to the continued date then you take those comments. Patrick said at the last meeting it was brought up that certain applicants were waiting until a certain group of people who were on the board that day or that week because they were more favorable to their application. It has nothing to do with this group and that was roundly criticized. To wait for a full board when we rarely have a full board is specious to me because we rarely have a full board. Gretchen said she feels they aren’t expecting a full board, it is more of an expectation of who is on the board. We have had close votes on this application and we never have been a board that has agreed on a solution. Michael said he is wondering if the same request would have been made if two of the dissenting members of this board weren’t here this evening from the March 9th hearing. I’m pretty sure that the request would not have been made. I will not support a continuance of this hearing. I started at 4:30 this morning to get back here for this meeting. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 3 John said he respects that and will leave it up to the members that will be hearing the item. Patrick agreed not to continue. We are booked and we are trying to get three items on the docket. To have everything prepared and to decide at the last minute that they would like a continuance is inappropriate. Gretchen said the applicant has had quite a bit of our time and there have been many lengthy meetings. Amy said we are booking out as far as Sept. 28th but we tend to book more than one slot for each particular item knowing that many don’t get through in one meeting. July 27th was reserved for this applicant and we aren’t displacing anyone else. Michael said we are here and the applicant is here and it would be a shame for tonight’s slot not to get used by a project. Patrick pointed out that it was in the paper and the public is here. Bob said they may not be prepared to deal with the application tonight and I would like to know that. Gretchen said she has spent time on the application and that is not our purview. Nora also pointed out that it is rare that we have 8 people on the board. John said it is virtually impossible for someone to determine who is actually going to show up to the meeting. Gretchen said we pretty much know a few hours before the meeting. Gretchen asked what the procedure is regarding the public. Is it appropriate or not appropriate to hear them. It sounds like the general consensus of the board is that we are not in favor of a continuance. Jim said if you are going to continue it and there are public here that can’t be at the next meeting I would recommend that you take public comment. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 4 John said no motion is necessary unless we are continuing. MOTION: Bob made motion for continuance of 533 E. Main to July 27th second by John. Roll call vote: Michael, no; Bob, yes, Nora, no; Gretchen, no, John, yes; Patrick no. Motion denied 4-2. 124 W. Hallam – Final Major Development, Public Hearing Jim said he reviewed the public notice and it appears to be appropriate - Exhibit I. Amy said this is final review for an addition to a Victorian house that is adjacent to the Yellow Brick School. HPC had two conceptual hearings and granted approval February 10th. The Victorian house needs a lot of restoration and the Board looked at the character of the addition to the historic building. It does have a flat roof which is different than the historic resource. At final we will look at landscape, lighting and restoration. Staff supports granting final approval. Additional elevations were provided addressing some of staff’s concerns, Exhibit II. With a project like this of discovery once they begin the project and start removing certain finishes and finding things we didn’t know were there, there will be a lot of discussion between staff and the monitor. Recommendations: 500 square foot floor bonus 5 foot rear yard setback only for below grade space for the basement On-site relocation, the Victorian house will be lifted two feet east and six feet forward and set on a foundation. $30,000 assurance that the relocation will be done safely. We also want information from the house mover that the relocation will be done safely. We also need a structural report how the building will be stabilized for moving. There are about 12 original windows left on the Victorian house but it has so many additions and alternations that are tacked on all sides of it that some replication will have to be done. Some will be based on physical evidence that is left and some will have to be the best recreation using other Victorian’s in town as a model. Staff has a concern about some of the proportions of the re-created windows. Typically they are about twice as tall as they are wide. In the initial proposal we felt some looked a little squattier in proportion and not appropriate. We ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 5 recommend that the condition remain understanding that there will be more dialogue as we move toward the building permit. Condition #5 – most of the Victorians had two front doors at the porch. At this time the applicant is not showing that but they might find some information in the framing when they begin construction. We recommend that condition stay. Amy said the largest window on the front has been revised to show a traditional double hung window very much like other Victorians in town. You can strike condition #6. #7 condition has been addressed and there is a dormer that faces the street above the front porch that we have historic pictures of which is gone now. The applicant will be rebuilding it and include the spider web trim detail that is in the gable end. #7 can be struck. #8 condition, continue to work on an appropriate re-creation of what would have been the original front porch. We have no detailed photographs of this house. They will have to come up with an appropriate reconstruction. #9 condition is to label clearly on the building permit which materials are original and will be preserved. #10 condition. Right now there is no information about any roof top venting that would happen on the historic building. There is a fire place shown on both levels of the historic house right at the front and we are concerned about what kind of chimney placement would be proposed. I believe at this time the applicant is planning to drop the chimney idea. If they add something later we will have to talk to them about vending. #11condition is a clarification. There is a nice sandstone foundation under the house right now and when it is lifted up that sandstone should be salvaged and cut down to use a veneer on the new concrete. #12 condition. There was some confusing information about the fence proposal. There was a rendering that showed a fence around the whole property and now there is a six foot tall privacy fence only down the sides and along the back entirely behind the front façade. The elevation is in the packet. #12 can be struck. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 6 #13 was a condition asking what the material will be for the front steps and front walkway. Typically HPC is looking at this to be a native stone or something very neutral that was used historically. The applicant has called out Basalt stone so HPC needs to talk about whether that is appropriate. #14condition. The applicant has studied the scale of the walkway pavers so that they are a little bit smaller and in proportion with the historic porch. #15condition. The applicant is showing some lights that are embedded in the steps leading to the porch. They have cut down the number of those lights. There are four lights in the steps and you need to talk about whether that is appropriate or not. #16 condition. We asked for a restudy of the landscape plan immediately around the house to slightly reduce the depth of the planting beds and bring more traditional sod up to the base of the house. To some extend that has happened. They have also removed some water features that were coming up to the base of the Victorian at the bay windows on the east and west side. Those have also been deleted from the plan. #17 condition. The applicant has gone over their outdoor deck calculations and they were initially over the limit and that has been changed. #18 condition. This is the standard vested rights which is 3 years to rely on their approval. Amy said this is a good project and the applicant has done a good job of pealing back to the original and it will be a nice contribution to the street along with the Victorian to the east. We recommend approval with conditions. Gretchen said this is a complicated project and the conditions are very thorough. Patrick said he is appreciative of the applicant commenting on the condition before the meeting so that things can be worked out. Applicant presentation: Zack Rocket – Rocket Design Bill Guth, owner ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 7 Monique Spears, Elements landscape architecture Zack said we will continually work with the monitor and staff to fine tune the conditions. We will identify the framing and re-create the historic resource as we investigate what was originally there. We will pick up the historic house and align it with current setback requirements. The large double hung window will not be in the plane of the façade of the building and the edges of the windows will align. We have added the spider web trim in the upper dormer. We will work with staff to finalize the detailing appropriately. On the rear façade we have modified the upper window at the north gable so that it is now a pair of double hung windows. We have removed the small gable on the front façade. By moving the Victorian closer toward Hallam St. to have a relationship with the front setback we are freeing up the most square footage available in the rear yard which is where the new addition is proposed with a link and an exterior courtyard. The addition is a two car garage and a bedroom suite. In the Victorian upstairs is a bedroom suite. We are also proposing a green roof deck. We are excited to bring the Victorian back to its former glory. We want to work with the addition in a quiet manner with materials and form to set off the Victorian to the street. We have brought down the height of the addition and are two feet below the ridge of the Victorian. On the base of the addition it is clad wood siding and the upper portion is clad in a quiet frosted glass. The garage is accessed from the alley. Zack said the primary components of the Victorian are to re-create what was there at that time which is wood siding of different patterns. The gables will have a certain type of siding and for the base we have a horizontal siding with various trims. We are also working to retain the sandstone base and we will reapply it around the new concrete base. For the addition we are looking at a lightly stained cedar siding and developing a two part glass cladding which is effectively siding. That would be in combination with cedar strips coming up in between the panels. Windows and doors are also proposed for the upper level of the addition. The courtyard paving and walkways will be a gray Basalt stone. At the back of the garage will be a gray concrete apron. There will be a gray metal trim on the windows. There will also be a privacy fence separating the two lot lines which would be a cedar planking. Monique Spears, landscape architect ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 8 Regarding the landscape plan our first goal was to open up the front elevation by removing the existing fence and keeping the privacy screen on both sides. Some of the existing evergreen trees will be removed. We then tried to create an approach to the front door. The walkway will be jogged slightly in order to save the evergreen. We have brought the feeling of sod close to the foundation of the house. Perennial plantings will be in the front planting bed. On the walkway we feel it is important to have safety measures with some subtle lighting. We have eliminated half the lighting that we proposed. We have two options for lighting the pavers. We have also eliminated some water features and we will preserve the cluster of Aspen’s to the east which provide filtered light. The front entry planting bed is poppies, peonies, flox, tulips which are appropriate historic planting beds. Monique said there are two options, 4 pin lights which are very subtle way finding lights or a directional light for the walkway. We prefer the pin lights as it is quite dark in the winter. There are only two lights proposed on the architecture which are up in the soffit on the front entry porch shining down. There are also some LED strip lights that would be integrated into the fence and shine down on the plantings below. Three spruce trees and a crab apple tree will be removed to open up the front. Zack said they are proposed two recessed fixtures in the ceiling of the front porch and we are proposing a few sconces one at the kitchen door and a pair at the garage doors and one at the exit door. They would be down lighting and work with the verticality of the addition. Bill Guth thanked the HPC for spending time on this application. Monique said the pin lights are about a quarter of an inch in diameter and the other lights are three to four inches wide and are more directional. The pin light could be considered an up light. Amy pointed out that it is good to have two options on the table for lighting. The pin light could be an issue with the lighting code. John pointed out that you will get less lumens with the pin lights. Patrick asked about snow melt. Monique said snow melt is proposed for the walkway. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 9 Amy said normally there wouldn’t be any lighting on the walkway but with the Aspen tree this might be a unique circumstance. Zack said there is no street lighting and no sidewalk and the walkway comes out to the street and we are trying to do minimal lighting on the walkway respectfully and add a factor of safety on the walkway. Vice-chair, Gretchen Greenwood opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Gretchen commended the applicant for the historical restoration portion of the project and the strong difference between old and new. It is an excellent solution. Lap siding is proposed for the historic resource and wood shingles for the roof. Gretchen suggested more sod around the building. The other comment is regarding the lighting. The building concept has a strong old and new concept and I find it in conflict to see a modern lighting concept and a modern walkway to the historic resource. The modern amenities should be kept to the rear of the property and keep the historic detail in the lighting for the landscaping and walkway. A wall sconce on the entry porch is suggested which would give a different quality of light to the porch. Maintain the downlights to the rear. The walkway dimension is fine. Patrick said he appreciates how they have done all the down lighting because it creates a museum effect so that the structure is more easily seen at night. The landscaping and restoration of the historic resource is great. The lower level cladding is fine on the addition but the second floor material needs re-visited. The proposal has high reflectivity which is basically a mirror and would be appropriate behind an Aspen Modern resource but inappropriate behind a Victorian resource. The second floor should be something that is quiet. John said he is respectful of the lighting and landscape plan. The second floor fabric is an integral part of the project. It will reflect the surroundings. This project is way more thought out than any of our other applications that have been presented to us. It is a very cohesive design. The large block view of the neighborhood helps visualize the project. The materials are really nice and once seen in completion will probably be eligible for an award. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 10 Gretchen also agreed that she likes the reflection. Bob said he also likes the reflection. Nora said this is as great project. My only concern is about the modern lighting and possibly it could be more compatible with the Victorian. John said he has installed the Bega light and as you approach the house you will see a lot more light wash. The little pin lights keep you from tripping and they are very unobtrusive. Michael said he loved this project when it came through for conceptual and the applicant has done a great job responding to staff’s concern. I’m a little torn on the walkway lighting. It is nice to have safety along the walkway. If staff is supportive that it is acceptable I could go with the lighting as proposed. Amy said condition 6,7 and 12 have been addressed. On the east facing gable end the fish scale shingles come all the way down to the eave. The way it is drawn the fish scales stop part way up the gable end. The shingles need brought all the way down to the eave. MOTION: Bob moved to approve resolution #18, striking 6,7,12 and modify 15 that the lights be approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Michael. Roll call vote: Michael, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, no. Motion carried 5-1. Nora is the monitor. 533 E. Main Street – Remand of HPC approval granting Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Special Review and Viewplane Review, Pubic Hearing Jim True, City Attorney said the public notice has been provided – Exhibit I John recused himself. Patrick Rawley, Stan Clauson & Associates ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 11 Marina Skiles, Colleen Loftman, Charles Cunniffe from Charles Cunniffe architects Father John Hilton Amy said after the third hearing HPC chose Option B by a 4-3 vote. That approval went to City Council to allow them to have input and their determination was that they believe HPC should give more consideration to a placement on the alley Option A and HPC should also give more consideration to having the new construction completely detached from the church. Amy said at the third HPC meeting there was discussion on Option A & B and staff felt that the applicant had done a good job in reducing the scale of the proposal and reducing the height of the proposal and being very thoughtful about what they needed and what they could provide below grade. The overall area proposed is about 8,000 square feet and only 1,000 is above ground. This is a small addition on a large property. Staff has supported since March 9th Option B on Main Street. We feel that it impacts less historic fabric. The way that it is connected to the building is more sensitive and does not remove historic materials. The significant buildings on this site have always addressed the street and provided an entrance on the street. The carriage house that was built in the 90’s is pushed back because it is primarily a garage and garages should not be part of the street scape. The social hall that is being presented tonight has a life to it. It is meant to be an entry point into the building and we don’t feel philosophically that it ought to be pushed to the back to be screened and not seen. Having it to the front is a good thing and it is in keeping with the historic characteristics of downtown. In terms of Option A it causes the moving around of doors and windows on the historic building and it is awkward and there is no room for it given the size that the applicant is looking for. It is almost within arm’s reach of the existing carriage house building and cuts off pathways that exist through the side which is something that is encouraged through the design guidelines. It also creates a wall along the alley and we have not seen a version that we feel is appropriate. HPC has options tonight to give the applicant more input. We had initially suggested that a connector would be best if this was not connected to an historic resource which is less impact but the applicant has stated the functionally of it. So much of the proposed square footage is below grade and this could have been a much bigger project that were are sitting here talking about. We feel they have complied with the guidelines. Staff recommends that HPC support the previous March 9th decision approving Option B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 12 Gretchen said we did have a 4-3 vote. The board was not cohesive in their decision. Michael asked for clarity on the curb cut on Main Street. Amy said early on Engineering wanted to see the curb cut that services the carriage house abandoned. It has never been officially permitted and has been there for decades and they felt this is the time due to the scope of the project to have it addressed. The applicant approached CDOT and they were inclined to have the cut stay. The applicant is proposing to change the driveway surface to grass-crete to downplay the visual aspect but the access point will remain. Michael asked if staff or the applicant considered Option B with no attachment. Amy said early the connector was discussed and possibly it should not be connected. That is a discussion to have with the applicant. The applicant has indicated that it is important to them in terms of circulation and overall modest size of the project to have it connected. Gretchen said the issues at hand are the location, Option A or B. The programs that St. Mary’s has do not change based on the building. Michael said in an e-mail that the board received it alluded to a score card of sorts that commission members might be keeping. I can assure you that I am not keeping a score card for and against this. We want to understand the issues that are important to this project. Gretchen said our role here is to preserve the eroding history of Aspen and that has to do with the building, historic context of that building, how the community uses the building and the lawn and visual impacts of what is being proposed. Those are the issues that we think about here. We are completely in favor of the project and most of it is below grade and sensitive to the overall building of this particular property. We are looking at Option A & B and we are representing not only your church but the citizens of Aspen who have a relationship to this piece of property. Patrick Rawley said they received notification that CDOT will approve our permit and it is a two set process. We are moving forward. St. Stephens ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 13 was built in 1882 and St. Mary’s was built in 1892. We are here to request that HPC reaffirm the previous approval of Option B because it is the best option for us. Patrick R. said there are 5 tenets that characterize Option B 1. No impact to the historic fabric. Option B preserves the view of the western façade. 2. This is based on historic precedent how the site plan had St. Stephens in the roughly the same location which was used as a parish hall. 3. Improve access to the lawn. We will have a portal that allows people to see into the lawn and provide a human element to invite them in. 4. Improved pedestrian interest/activates Main Street. We want to improve pedestrian interest with a beautiful building that has the opportunity to have a dialogue with the historic church through materiality. 5. Highest functionality for parish use. Patrick R. said we have had parish outreach and the majority of support is in favor of Option B. After Council’s remand we looked at A & B again. Option B requires no modification to the historic resource and it uses a Victorian approach and invites people into the lawn and creates pedestrian interest and functions the best. ¾ of the façade remains unchanged in option B. The elevator tower was done in 1990. The majority of the development is located subgrade with an 800 square foot pavilion located above grade. Marina said none of the windows would be changing on the church. Patrick R. said with Option A located off the alley the pavilion building would cover up a large portion of the western façade that we want to preserve. We would also have to relocate a door to where a window is on the western façade of the church. Patrick R. said the lilacs will be relocated onsite. The historic resource will be standing by itself and the pavilion will be a subservient structure that will compliment. Marina said the intent with the new building is to make it as harmonious as possible with the site and the historic resource. Patrick R. said the pavilion enhances the lawn and it is an open lawn and an invitation for people to come in. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 14 Charles said the south facing orientation of this building allows the sun to penetrate the entire building. If it were on the alley there would be no windows to let the light in and the building itself would cast a shadow. Patrick R. said the connector is largely hidden behind the elevator. Patrick did a video walking down the street. Patrick said and you are faced with a very dense hedge of lilacs. Father Hilton said he is grateful to the city for originally recommending that we look at Option B. As we did so we became very excited that it is less impactful to the historic west façade of the church and a far superior design regarding functionality. We are concerned about what serves our community best for our elderly, handicapped access, parents with children. Having direct access to new and old is very important to us. Questions and clarifications: Patrick asked how often during the winter is the lawn used for gathering space. Patrick R. said kids periodically play on the lawn. The difference with the pavilion if we have the south facing exposure the pavilion will be used year round. Maybe the activation in the winter is not that great but with Option B we will use it throughout the winter. It would be used in either option because it is going to be integrated; however, it would be much more usable and pleasant to use in option B given the southern exposure. Patrick R. presented a video going west to east along Main Street. Michael pointed out that at the front of the façade it screens the historic resource more. Michael asked if the applicant had a rendering of Option A without the building connection. Marina said they were presented in January but we do not have them with us. Charles said even in that location by the alley the kitchen door would have to move. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 15 Michael said our charge is the historical relationship of the building and your job is to create and meet the historical needs. Charles said Option B has absolutely no impact to the historic building. Gretchen asked what detail is in the alley with Option B and show us the proposed development such as the trash enclosure. The lawn is being surrounded by development. Patrick R. said there is a transformer and new trash enclosure on the alley. There are also stairs that come out of the egress subgrade. The stairs are like a light well with a wire railing which will be snow melted. It is a second means of egress. Gretchen said we are hearing a lot about Option B and we aren’t getting any presentation on Option A. Patrick Rawley said that is for a very good reason as we are asking for a re- approval of Option B. Gretchen asked what the overall length of the building in Option B is. Marina said it is just over 35 feet facing Main Street. Charles said Option A blocks the service from the alley which makes it difficult and then possibly the driveway would have to be used for service. In Option B the service would access from the back of the kitchen. Vice-chair, Gretchen Greenwood opened the public hearing. Roger Marolt – Roger said he has been a parishioner of St. Mary’s his entire live. This is an important building in town and it is not just a building but a living breathing community within our community that is very vital. Option A does not lend itself well in fulfilling our mission and purpose which is to grow and reach out to the community and be inviting. Option B would serve our purpose much better. Monique McCay –Monique said she is the ministry coordinator at St. Mary’s and she lives on the parish campus. On a daily basis I get to observe the communal use and people walking through the lawn. Site B option ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 16 would allow the existing flow and people also take advantage of the St. Francis prayer garden which would remain untouched or moved slightly with the site B option. I also coordinate all our children’s ministries and I find the site A option to be an obstacle for me. Site B as the coordinator of these ministries allows for a central location where I can greet parents, take their children and manage children who arrive late and allow for a functional flow to the sanctuary space. Site A would mean two different location and also means in the middle of the classes we would have to bring children from inside outside and back inside. I also live on the campus and site B allows for greater privacy for the employee housing there. Site A would be within an arms length of my front door. Site A bldg. would come up halfway to the west windows of the employee housing. The majority of our community is in favor of site B. Laura Sedmeyer – I have been a parishioner since I was born. I have never seen St. Mary’s flourish like it has since I returned from college and I am so proud of this parish. I am excited to see where this parish is going. Site B location would be essential for the youth. This town is growing and everything in this town is growing and we have to change with it. Option B allows for the functionality of this church and the parish and community and it would prove to be a real asset for Aspen and attract even more tourist to this town. Dan Emerson – I have been here for 17 years as the caretaker. Being in favor of option B the enclosure is important and necessary. During the winter there are avalanches that fall off the roof and that enclosure would prevent an extreme hazard in the winter. Option A danger would be the action in the alley and seeing the cars zip through with all the children around. Lita Woulke – I have lived here for 26 years and for 24 I was a member of the secular community her in Aspen. I have lived in a lot of doors in this town to find a place of support and love that reaches to not only a specific group of people but to everyone. Two years ago I found that at St. Mary’s there had been times I tried to walk through the front door to find a better version of myself and a better version of all of us in this town. I believe this town has heart and soul. I didn’t make it through the doors because I found it incredibly daunting and scary and unwelcoming and uninviting. It was only by the grace of God that I met Father Hilton outside of St. Mary’s that I was able to find my way in. It is important in considering Option B to ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 17 realize and to hear our voices from the outside of people and we want to open this up to everyone and not just people of St. Mary’s because I want all my friends there and most of them are not part of St. Mary’s. Ellen Marshall – It comes down to preservation of what I think is an incredible, historical site. I am in favor of Option A. A&B are very close in functionality of the building. I have no problem walking down the sidewalk looking at the lilacs and that should not be a big issue. What you do to the preservation of the church Option A or B is forever. Other things can be worked out. Junee Kirk – Exhibit I was entered into the record. The addition to the church is not just a parishioner issue but a community issue. Any application should be to preserve our past, the valued history of St. Mary’s church while allowing for expansion for future needs in generations. The character of our town and this historic district is best seen from Main Street where citizens and guests drive up and down to appreciate the open spaces, parks, Victorian houses as well as Post World War II structures. The open park and view of its interesting façade from the west side. By moving the modern glass addition to the alley Option A HPC can best preserve St. Mary’s heritage with its own separate entrance. This is moving the parish hall to the back of the alley so the historic western façade can be enjoyed by many. Susan Dodington – I belong to St. Mary’s and I am for Option A because the modern addition is too modern to be next to the historic building. The addition needs to be at the back of the property so as to not impact the historic structure in the front. Linda Morehead – I’m in favor of Option B. Lisa Markalunas – I have been a life long parishioner and I applaud you for your efforts in this regard. I would encourage you to vote for Option A along the alley without a connector to the church. Option A toward the back of the site and preserve the lilacs has less impact on the significant west façade of St. Mary’s church. Open space gives the church a setting and breathing space. Supporting Option A is the least impactful. Arguments for Option B seem to hinge of access. Access can be the same in Option A or B from the sanctuary space into the large underground pavilion. The only difference is the above grade access. It is not necessary to alter historic ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 18 doors and historic windows. All that can be handled above grade using the existing entrance by the elevator. St. Stephens was torn down in 1942. We as a community understand the lawn and seeing the beautiful west façade of the building. City Council strongly supported Option A by voting 3-1 in support of the alley option. In reality Option B should also be disconnected from the church because it covers a section of the historic façade. We live in a mountain environment and people need not be sheltered at every moment from the wonderful outside world. It cuts off an existing walkway that is used on a daily basis. Option B privatizes the yard and excludes the community. We are to protect the historic character of Aspen and St. Mary’s and to make sure any and all submitted proposals have the most minimal impact on the two significant 19th century buildings onsite. Jim Markalunas – What is the snow load for the glass box. Charles said 120 square foot minimum. Jim Markalunas said Frank Kralich got up on the roof in 19 56-57 and shoveled snow off the roof and if that didn’t occur there wouldn’t even be a St. Mary’s. The surface of the roof has been changed so we don’t have that problem anymore. The lilacs need to be saved and they are a beautiful amenity and they are Gods creations. I would refer Option A. Michael – St. Mary’s is for everyone, not catholics only. Option A is a better fit for the church especially for the study programs. I have no conflict with Option A or B. The church is for Aspen and everyone and everyone can stop by. Moly Mix – The physical landscape of Aspen is changing every day in ways that are progressive and modern. The square footage and placement is minor for the proposed Option B. The decision to place the addition in the alley is based on subjective opinion and aesthetic while the Main Street entrance shelters our parishioners and is based on fact and reason. Bob Delicio – I’m mostly concerned about the feeling that remain after this meeting with my dear friends throughout the parish. Plunking an ultramodern structure on Main Street between two very historic structures is to my view ridiculous. Destroying open space on Main Street and only two remain Paepcke Park and St. Mary’s that people come into and out of this town can view. It destroys the historic aspect of our church and rectory. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 19 There won’t be any lawn to speak of because there will be a structure between the lawn and the rest of the world. It takes away views of Main Street which most of us hold precious. I have been a resident and member of the parish for 30 years and have spent a lot of time in civic service, hospital board member for two terms etc. Georgeann Waggaman – I support B. One thing I am hearing is that it will be too modern. Quite honestly the architects really haven’t had a chance to design that building. They are using a computer rendering. Only the shapes are marked and we need to give them time to actually design it. Toni Kronberg – Toni thanked the HPC for taking a thorough look at this application. I would like to encourage you to support your original decision which was a 4-3 vote in support of Option B. This will be my 42 year as a member of St. Mary’s church and resident of Aspen/Pitkin County. HPC is charged with looking at the historical building itself, the historical context and community use of the lawn and visual impact. Option B is the only option that doesn’t change the architecture of the building and you are preserving the lawn. Option A will change the door going into the kitchen and a window would need changed and it would take away the St. Francis garden from the lawn. I applaud everyone for becoming involved in this. Option B provides safety and security for the children also. Julie Markalunas Hall – I would like to express the importance of the materials which could significantly change how open and welcoming Option B would feel and could significantly block the community visibility of our historic structure, the church. Either Option A or B the parish will continue to be dynamic and meet people’s needs. Opaque glass would change the impact of the communities interaction with the historic structure. If it was a grid like structure like the Art Museum that would also have a significant impact on the way the community interfaces with the historic church. There is access through the elevator down through the parish social hall that is underground. With snow melt you could provide ADA access to the actual entranceway to the social hall. I am in favor of pushing it to the back especially with issue of the unknown materials. It looks invisible but I am not sure it will be invisible. Karen Garalca – I have been a member of the parish for 9 years. I would like to speak as one having teenage children. We are looking at this building being an historical building and when I get great history lessons from those ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 20 who have lived here far longer than I have I hear the stories about what these buildings used to be. This parish needs to be an active parish and keep out children engaged. Things have changed in the schools and we have a modern Aspen Middle School. Plan B would keep the children engaged and I like the openness as you go into the church. Our suicide rate is the highest in the country here in Pitkin County. If they can see other kids interacting in the pavilion from Main Street and see what is going on inside that is positive I think our kids will come. If it is hidden it will be more difficult to find. It would be nice to bring what we do on the inside to the outside so people could see us. Jack Hatfield – Every project has its positives and negatives. I have had the opportunity to serve the community at three different levels of government. As a parishioner I have had a roller coaster ride and now we have acceptable projects before us with the exception of the location. I fully support Option A. I am so concerned about what this means to the connection of the community to the historic structure by blocking it with a modern structure. We need to look at what is happening to Aspen and our character. Alternative B detracts from the historic structure. Judy Dunn – Judy thanked the HPC for allowing the public to be here. St. Mary’s will celebrate their 130th anniversary next year. We started this project 2 ½ years ago. We took into account what the historical implications to this project from the history of our church to the future. I want this parish to be here another 135 years and that is why I support the building of this and Option B. It does need a connection and does need to be visible and it hasn’t been designed yet and that is all open for discussion. The first renderings were brick and we were told we had to go modern and contemporary. If you told us today go traditional and look like the church we would do it but we want the opportunity to do it and do it on Main Street. John Kelleher – The importance of Option B is that the connector needs to work. There is less impact on the historic church with Option B. Children need to be brought in off Main Street rather than the alley. Option B is all about the people. Option A is all about building. Evan Kasarrow – I am a parishioner of St. Mary’s but I am also an Aspenite. Aspen has become a modernist town. How do we preserve the historic architecture instead of walking in front of concrete and glass. I am for Option A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 21 Tom Marshall – It is very simple in my mind. If you are going to put a modern glass box against this historical building I would rather see it at the back Option A. Gretchen said all the comments made were great and varied which is really important to us to hear. A variety of ideas and reasons. It is important to our process. Patrick said I hope you share your passion with other boards and other things that are going on civically. Michael said it is refreshing to see the civility that you have treated each other with. In our appearances it is refreshing. Amy said we received letters from Julie Markalunas Hall; Lisa Markalunas; Maryellen Secrist; Dawn Ryan; Susan Dodington; Nicholas and Sabrina Kertz; Ines Vegara – Exhibit II Applicant rebuttal Charles said the lawn is more preserved with option B but St. Francis meditation garden has been there forever and that would be lost along with Option A. Patrick Rawley said the lilacs do transplant well. There will be some openings created for the building to be built. In Option A the alley hedge of lilacs would be lost. The view from Main Street are already impacted. We have not had the opportunity to fully design the building. We are simply looking at the location and the box. If it is on the alley it will be a structure that is hanging out there that has no relationship to anything. Vice-chair, Gretchen Greenwood identified the issues: Gretchen said City Council has remanded this building back to us to consider Option A. The site plan on this building is in discussion. The first building we saw was on the alley and we got a great presentation about how that building was the building that we need to be considering for the addition to St. Marys. Now it is being argued to be in the front of Main Street. Like a good attorney all sides can be discussed and argued for or against. Is it Option A or Option B with the location. The programs and functions and the future of St. Mary’s is intact regarding each option. It is really the site ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 22 planning of the building. City Council has remanded this to us with a 3-1 vote that they are in favor of Option A. They have asked us to reconsider our almost split decision from March 9th. Patrick said he appreciates everyone’s comments. It is greatly appreciated that the 7,000 of the 8,000 square feet is going to be below ground. The 1,000 square feet wherever it goes will be utilized. This is conceptual which is mass and scale. What the walls etc. look like will be at final. We have a full half block of Aspen on Main Street which is of a Victorian character. 99% of the people who see it are on Hwy 82 and they glance at it from a 45 degree angle. The primary façade is on the north and east. Option A bring traffic off Main Street. It is my opinion that it would be safer to drop them off in the alley as traffic is buzzing down Main Street. Whether Option A is attached or detached I am in agreement either way. The lawn will be used in the summer either way. Gretchen said it is a stretch to say Option B has any relationship to the historic pattern that was established by St. Stephens. St. Stephens is a rectangular building with a gable front facing Main Street which is typical of the fabric and visual history of Aspen. It has a lawn between it allowing St. Mary’s to have space around it and you can see the magnificent building. There are symmetrical windows all around the building. Option B is in the opposite direction as the block. The historic lawn has become an entity to itself both visually and with the open space. It would be an historic error to put a modern building on the front in that lawn lengthwise extending almost directly to the driveway. I have seen the flag polls when we did the site visit and it was evident to me that the building should be to the rear of the property. An architect can figure out all the intracries. You figured out how to do most of the building below grade which is a wonderful accomplishment. The next direction is to take this building to the back. That is where we originally saw the first design. As I remember HPC didn’t like the massing of it, and it was too tall and too big. I don’t think there is any improved access to the lawn because the doors to the welcoming building that feels like a retail space is on the lawn side. Patrick Rawley said there are two door on the Main Street entrance. Gretchen said the impact to the historic lawn is blocked by the new building and totally blocks the west façade of the historic church. I have been here 39 years and I have seen our historic fabric erode and that is why I am on ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 23 this board to stop it. We should go back to the roots and keep it at the back of the building and solve the problems with your function and the linking and in the long run we will all be grateful that there is some assembleance of the visual history of that lawn that has remained. I will be voting for Option A. Nora thanked the public for their comments. I have listened carefully over many many meetings and I hear everybody. All the comments could be achieved in either location from the functionality to the usage. There seems to be a balance that we need to strike between the need for the cultural landscape and the needs of the parish and both can be achieved. Our purpose is representing the community and what is important for the community is also important for the parish. For me to have part of the cultural landscape of the town, the little that is left not be on Main Street. The lilacs can be trimmed so that they are not a wall. Open space is part of our cultural heritage. Coming down Main Street from Paepcke Park and the Sardy House there is very little open space left. The program can be achieved in either place with no connector therefore not disturbing the fabric of the building and it sounds like that is achievable. I’m in favor of Option A. Michael said this is a terrific group of people which makes the decision very difficult. From a functional standpoint Option B is more cohesive with the church flows. Unfortunately that isn’t our charge. For me you had a chance at City Council and it would have been for them to deviate from the rules and they didn’t. In our process a few of us have talked about there is a mistake of process in our community with this board. As appointed officials being the final authority on decisions that are huge in this community and the City Council not having the ability to keep a check and balance on those that they have appointed is a mistake. I understand the functionality of the church and if there was a deviation from our design guidelines 10.3, 10.4 it would have been Council to do it not us. I am for Option A detached from the historical resource. It is incumbent of the design team to create something that is great for the parishioners and great for the community. I’d like to see a lot of design thought go into Option A to create an excellent project. Gretchen said she always thought that the driveway was limiting the design of the site. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 24 Bob said form follows function which is attributed from Louis Sullivan who was a famous architect of the 1880’s. I’m an architect and designer and have lived in this community a long time. I came here in 1948 as a high school ski racer. I voted for Option B in the last meeting and it was 4-3. I’m not going to change my opinion. I’m coming down on the side of function. I would like to see this resolved amicably. There is a lot of merit to the B solution but I also hear a lot of good arguments for Option A. I can only hope that we can come back with a solution that meets the requirements of everybody concerned; people in the church, the community and our board. MOTION: Patrick made the motion to agree with City Council, Option A detached. Jim True said he is concerned about the detail or lack there of for the motion proposing because he was not part of the previous meetings so I don’t know what detail there had been offered in previous meetings for Option A. Gretchen said we don’t even have a set of drawings for Option A and we aren’t giving them conceptual approval of Option A. Amy said there are detailed drawings in the record representing Option A, nothing that shows it detached. There is not a clear representation of what that would be. Gretchen said she was surprised that Council was making design decisions without a full presentation and I don’t think the detached option is something that we should be discussion. Michael said they were more advocating for a continuance to study Option A with the detachment. Gretchen pointed out that we have given them conceptual approval. We are reconsidering our conceptual approval. Jim True said you are reconsidering your original conceptual approval that considered two particular options, A & B. I think you would have the authority to approve Option A detaching it which council asked you to consider but detaching it may require further consideration at another meeting. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 25 Gretchen said we are reconsidering our conceptual approval, re-voting on it as City Council asked us to do and we are approving Option A as presented to us on March 9th. Jim True said it is a reconsideration of Option A and you should consider the detachment. If you don’t feel you have enough information to consider that, that is your choice. Gretchen said she doesn’t feel we have enough information to consider the detachment. Patrick said it seems it would be a continuance of A if we were going to have it detached. Jim True said if you don’t feel you have enough information on the detachment and you wish to do that then you would have to continue the meeting. MOTION: Patrick said his motion would be to approve option A as described March 9th as was presented to us which was attached. Gretchen said we can’t approve something that we haven’t seen. Bob said there was a lot of discussion on the connection or no connection. I really think it has to be looked at again. We really didn’t resolve it because we weren’t dealing with it. It would be A revised. Jim said the question is if you wish to approve Option A you continue the meeting to consider further the detachment and can Option B be put back on the table and it probably can. There would be no further call up if you adopt Option A. Jim said it wouldn’t be appropriate if you continued the discussion amongst yourselves to a later date to consider the detachment. I can’t tell you the commission is precluded from considering Option B as it goes forward and given the fact that the makeup of the board changes from meeting to meeting I just can’t tell you and it would not be appropriate to say that you had a way to preclude the discussion of Option B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 26 Amy said the biggest option to Option A was the damage that was caused by the connector and the length of it and proximity to the affordable housing. If you were going to support Option A we would like to see it restudied but Jim is correct that it leaves the door open for all options on the table. Michael said he would be in support of Option A detached from the church. Gretchen said the decision council wants us to make is that the building is going to be to the rear of the property. Jim said he is at a disadvantage because I do not know the extent of the discussions and Amy indicated that there has been no real presentation of information in regarding Option A detached. Amy said Option A detached is something that staff would support rather than Option A attached but the applicant might want to look at the distance that they are left with to cross out in the open with the detached option and they might want to shift it around. Gretchen pointed out that Option A detached does not exist. Gretchen said she feels we should leave it as Option A as we were presented by the applicant. Jim True said the question is whether the board can get enough information to justify a decision that involves Option A detached. If you don’t think you can, you can approve Option A attached or continue the meeting for further consideration which could then lead to opening the discussion of Option B. Jim True said the alternatives are Option B, Option A attached because you have had substantial discussion on what that appears to be or you keep discussing the matter here to see if you can obtain enough information to justify the decision for Option A detached. It sounds like it is significantly lacking information at this point. Gretchen said when we approve a building here we don’t say we’re going to approve it with a redesign, we approve what was presented that meets the guidelines with a few conditions. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 27 Jim True said you need to decide whether you want to send the applicant back to bring back information on Option A detached. Gretchen said they have not presented a detached drawing and that would be unfair to the applicant. We need to make a decision on Option A to the rear of the property as presented. MOTION: Patrick moved to resolution #19 for Option A attached as presented on the March 9, 2016; second by Gretchen. Bob said they have to come back to us with an Option A solution that we can agree on because we might not agree on a connector or detached. Gretchen said this is our first remanding and I am assume we are able to change our vote to give them conceptual approval for A as presented March 9th and they finish their site drawings etc. and will come in for final. Jim True said a remand is a request for you to reconsider. Roll call vote: Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Nora, yes; Bob, no; Michael, yes. Motion carried 4-1. Michael suggested that staff direct City Council to look at this project in its totality for process and see the errors of process that we have and look to fix it. It is not right that we would have the final authority over this and they don’t have the purview to get what they wanted. Gretchen said she doesn’t agree. If I’m volunteering my time and don’t have final authority with what I do then why even bother to do this if we aren’t making some efforts and getting some results. We are appointed. MOTION: Gretchen moved to adjourn; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 a.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk