Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20190925 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Richard Lai, Scott Kendrick, Nora Berko, Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Bob Blaich. Absent was Sheri Sanzone. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director MINUTES: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the minutes of September 11th, Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURES: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said she will send an email to the board in the next couple of days. They will be revisiting all of the historic properties on the registry to check on their status, update forms on file about their condition, alterations, etc. This is something we have to do as a responsibility to History Colorado. We will break this project into pieces starting with the first 80 properties or so in the next month. Bendon Adams is doing the field work for us and will be issuing a press release. They will be leaving door hangars when visiting a home if no one is there so people are aware and understand what we are looking at from the street. I’m sure people will be curious why photos are being taken of their houses. We’re not sure yet how we will take on the additional phases, but we will talk to council about money. Lastly, Sarah Yoon is in London and not here with us tonight. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Simon said we submitted the first one to Ms. Bryan and will discuss the second one when we get to that point. NEW BUSINESS: 303 S. Galena Amy Simon This project affects what is known as the Aspen Block. It’s a beautiful building in the downtown and one of the oldest masonry structures, built in 1886. The early stone was quarried at Maroon Creek but was discontinued in favor of the Frying Pan and other sources. This building has been painted for many decades since the 1940’s and repainted many times. Continuing to paint isn’t something we can continue to support or be exempt from HPC review. In 2016, we asked the owners to investigate the effects of the painting on the building. They hired Atkinson-Noland on the front range, who did some testing of the permeability of the brick. Brick and stone should have their natural surface exposed to weather, so the water can evaporate naturally. When you paint these surfaces, it can trap moisture 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 behind it, which damages the masonry surface. The applicant did the investigation with some success and some concerns and the work was put on hold for a while. They did start up work again before any approvals had been given, so the city issued a stop work notice. The staff recommendation is to deny the request to paint the masonry. They’ve said yes to the woodwork and metal. It is destructive and more investigation needs to be done. We support removing the paint from the entire building. Painting historic buildings results in a loss of character. This original sandstone is a whitish or buff color, and not a red sandstone. Applicable guidelines are not met. Ms. Greenwood asked what kind of damages have been seen by the continual painting and Ms. Simon said her biggest concern is what we’re not seeing. The sugared surface, kind of tells us that the brick has blown out and we’re not quite sure the extent of the damage. Ms. Simon said they are advocating additional testing and investigation instead of jumping right in, so they can find the gentlest means to see what is being uncovered. Mr. Kendrick asked if they can strip the stonework and leave the brick and Ms. Simon said yes to finding a middle ground. That’s all part of the discussion that hasn’t completely unfolded yet, but it’s too soon to apply more paint. Ms. Greenwood asked if the brick is in good shape when the paint has been chemically removed and Ms. Simon said it can be and we will find out in doing the testing. She said the 19th century brick here is fairly soft. Mr. Moyer said he thinks it’s the same brick as was used on the Jerome. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sarah Adams of Bendon Adams, Erik Barbic, owner’s representative and Ian Walker of Walker Construction Ms. Adams showed a drawing by Herbert Byer of the building before working on it. Their objective is to paint an already painted building. This is challenging and not as linear as it may seem. We’re not here to debate whether painting masonry is a good idea, we inherited this issue. There is 80 years of paint on the building, so please consider a bunch of different factors. Please consider the impact on the tenants and the practicality of paint removal. The building was built in 1886 and the primary materials are brick, cast iron and buff colored sandstone. It was painted sometime before 1940. There are plenty of examples around town of recently painted historic landmarks. We understand the desire to remove paint from the masonry. The examples in the staff memo may not be the best comparisons for what we are trying to do. The other buildings have had a lot less paint layers and there were no impacts to local tenants. We have lead paint on this building so everything would need to be encapsulated, including the trees. This isn’t a linear conversation. She showed pictures of the patch testing that was done. They didn’t have the best results because the stone is sugaring so much. Mr. Walker said it took about a week to do that one column. Ms. Adams showed the guidelines on screen and where it states to consider removing paint but even where unpainted masonry is appropriate, the retention of the paint may be in the best interest of the building. Most important to be considered, are the local tenants. They would be forced to close to contain the lead paint. The timeframe would also be very difficult because the treatment has to be applied in 50 degrees or more. There are also limited contractors willing to perform the specified work and they would be limited to off season, weather permitting. The cost is 700k+ with an end result being potentially undesirable. Mr. Moyer asked who they contacted to do the stripping and Mr. Walker said BRS out of Denver and that they just did the Brown Palace in Denver. They are too busy and didn’t like the logistics of 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 downtown Aspen. The parks department wants the trees wrapped up. The whole building would need scaffold and you’ve got particles of lead. It is really hard to find someone to perform the work and there is no one local. Mr. Halferty asked if there has been any testing on the brick at all or just the sandstone and Mr. Walker said just the sandstone. Ms. Thompson asked if the estimate is cost and time for the whole building and Mr. Walker said yes. Mr. Walker said this building is in pretty good shape with no exterior water damage, but the brick is super soft and could be scraped with your fingernail. Ms. Adams said it was the same issue with Red Onion when they did tests to remove the paint from the bar area. It would have damaged the brick, so that is why it is still painted. PUBLIC COMMENT: Terry Butler She currently lives in this building and runs the hotel, The Residence, which is inside of the building. If she’s closed down for months at a time, she will lose her business. She loves this building. She’s become, plumber, painter and carpenter over the years. The original exposed brick is on the inside and it was built as double brick. It has held up very well. I would literally be out of business if she had to shut down, as there is nowhere else, she can move to. Looking at it, it’s one of the prettiest buildings in town and one of the most photographed. The building looks great and if it’s been painted, it’s holding up well. She’s not an expert and she’s happy with it the way it is. She’s been in that building more than anyone in the building’s history. She’s been up there 32 years now. Michelle Hurley She is the store manager at CosBar, which has been open in Aspen for 43 years and in that location for the past 25 years. We are one of the only cosmetic stores in town and we would be shut down. This could hinder our business and hurt our name brand. Being in the building for 25 years in that location, it’s part of the history of Aspen. Closing us down, would not allow us to thrive. Mr. Moyer said the Jerome wasn’t shut down and he doesn’t feel like it would be necessary here. Ms. Hurley said any type of closure on the sidewalk hinders people from coming in. Our business was affected last week when they did this testing and obviously, we were still open. People will avoid coming in if they see that any type of work is going on. Ms. Adams said there’s a cost issue as well and the applicant can’t afford to undertake a 700k paint proposal. This also needs to be considered. Ms. Greenwood asked if there are grants available and Ms. Simon said there is a state grant, but nothing from the city of Aspen. She could have a discussion with city council as a gesture. Ms. Adams said that with the state grants, the property owner still needs to put up 50 percent. Mr. Barbic said the ultimate goal is to maintain the building as it is. It would currently cost 20k for wood facia and metal trim. There would be no change of color, just maintenance. Ms. Greenwood said this is a multi-faceted issue like Ms. Adams said. We can’t have the building looking in disrepair. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 Mr. Halferty said it’s a fantastic building and well maintained. He understands and appreciates the tenant’s comments. To strip and take away lead paint is a major process. They don’t have timing and funds to strip this building. It sounds great, but our off seasons are difficult and are getting shorter and shorter. This would also affect many different departments. Painting to maintain the building is ideal in his eyes. He said they brush it and don’t spray it. He is ok with the applicant’s decision. He’s ok with letting them paint. Ms. Berko said to Ms. Butler, we all love your hotel and the building, and your flower boxes are so beautiful. We all sympathize with the short-term constraints and the money, but our charge is the preservation of the building. There are enough questions and she supports staff’s recommendation to look into it further. It’s a slippery slope. She would like to see what other solutions can be found. Ms. Greenwood said it’s very tricky. The city is recommending that they shouldn’t move forward and spend more money on testing. That’s a lot to ask of the tenants and there are significant tenants in this building. They don’t want to lose a half hour of inconvenience. She would love to see this go back to its original brick, but she thinks there has to be some process with the city. This is a big ask of the applicant. It’s a complicated dilemma. The guidelines can be unfair in many ways. The city needs to offer expertise and grants to help these applicants out. There are no incentives here that we can offer them. She, in good conscience, doesn’t see that we have the right to tell them to keep studying it. The city should spend the money on it. We don’t even know what the process would be or how tenants would be affected. Mr. Kendrick said he agrees that it’s a difficult decision to make, but he doesn’t think they have enough information yet. He doesn’t want the applicant to spend a bunch more money, but at the same time, he doesn’t want to give free license to paint the entire building. If there was a designation for maintenance or touch up, that’s one thing. There are places where the paint is chipping off and the stone is crushing under your fingertips, but he’s no expert, so he would want to know more about that. He understands it’s a difficult dilemma. Ms. Simon said there are design guidelines to apply. Everyone is getting so pulled in to the technical aspects, products, etc. The economic impact on the property owner is not one of your criteria. Mr. Halferty said it’s already painted. It’s a messed-up situation which they are trying to keep up and maintain best they can. They’ve done some studies and have spent a lot of money and now we’re going to ask them to go back to the drawing board and do more studies. He agrees with Ms. Greenwood and is wondering what their incentive is to keep paying to do these studies. Mr. Moyer concurs with staff. I f it can be proven, by a paint representative, that another layer of paint won’t damage anything, he would let them do that. Mr. Lai said it is a difficult problem. It reminds him of Solomon and the baby. He listened carefully to the comments from everyone and he doesn’t know whether he has the wisdom to referee between these points of views. He agrees with staff that the issue is the deterioration of the building and keeping the original design appearance. He is overwhelmed by the cost and the quandary of the tenants. What he thinks, and is his personal preference, he thinks the three parties should get together and find a solution. Staff, contractor and tenants need find a way to work this out together with the 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 understanding that this isn’t the only historic masonry building in Aspen. If we can get grants, that would be even better. Ms. Thompson said this is incredibly challenging. There is a benefit to the tenants being in a historic building. There is a lot of appeal in that, so we need to do our duty in maintain this structure, but she doesn’t feel comfortable saying they can continue to paint without more information. She doesn’t know if the current condition of the brick is continuing to deteriorate. Mr. Blaich said it’s important because our decision will set a precedent. He will always put in his best expertise that he can. He did a project years ago in Boston and was a building for Herman Miller. We did everything and attended the historic preservation meetings and it paid off. He said Mr. Moyer has all of these recommendations, so we need to go further with this and have them come back with recommendations that everyone can agree with. Ms. Greenwood said this is reasonable. Ms. Adams said they would like to request a continuance. She doesn’t want a denial by the board and have to start all over again. We would like to continue to January or February and have a discussion with council to see what they can figure out before they come back. Mr. Lai said he isn’t ready to vote either way. He agrees with a continuance. This shouldn’t just be among themselves but include others in the discussion. We need to come up with a policy that affects buildings like this as a template. Ms. Adams said we agree we would love to have a symposium and to have the owner foot the bill isn’t fair. Ms. Greenwood said this is a worthy discussion to have with city council. Mr. Kendrick moved to continue to February 26th, Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 301 Lake Avenue Ms. Simon said she should touch base about the public notice. This is a minor review, so a sign needed to be posted on the property and needs to be notarized tomorrow morning. This afternoon around 3:00, she started getting emails from people around the property. They were objecting that they didn’t know sooner and asked for a continuance. The applicant did post 15 days prior to this date. Ms. Bryan said it’s appropriate to add their comments into the record, but the board isn’t obligated to continue. The affidavit does need to be notarized. Ms. Simon read the emails to the board. Ms. Greenwood opened the public hearing. Mr. Lai voted for continuance and the applicant was agreeable. Ms. Greenwood called for a straw vote of moving forward with the hearing and the vote was 7-1. Ms. Simon said this is a review for the Lundy House. One item is regarding a hedgerow that has been added without HPC approval and the other item is to replace some damaged glass railing. There are two things to be considered regarding the hedgerow. The city has a regulation that applies to all residential properties that you can’t have a fence or hedgerow more than 42 inches tall forward of the façade of a building. It does meet the description of hedgerow and there is a row of planter boxes sitting on the 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 ledge of a retaining wall and each planter has a couple of trees in it. They don’t have to be planted in the ground to meet the definition. Staff finds that the hedgerow is over the height limit. You need to decide whether the hedgerow meets the design guidelines. We feel you can no longer see the home because of the hedgerow. You could only approve this if reduced to 42 inches and if it meets the guidelines. One section of the outdoor fireplace has delaminated. The applicant wants to replace this with a cable railing. Staff finds that this doesn’t meet the guidelines and we are recommending denial of both requests. Mr. Kendrick asked where the height is measured from and Ms. Simon said grade. Six feet from the top of the retaining wall up. it’s well over 42 inches. Ms. Greenwood said this is a major component and wasn’t part of the landscape plan originally approved. Ms. Simon said there is no setback violation here. Only city council can grant a height variance. The retaining wall was the only element that was approved. She mentioned in memo that at the CO inspection, a number of trees were planted in the ROW that were not approved, to screen and provide privacy. We required the applicants to remove some aspens at that time. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Joe Krabacher, representing the owner & Bill Boehringer, project manager Mr. Krabacher said he knows it’s unusual to have attorney here instead of a planner, but he has some legal type comments. It was a surprise to them that a planter bowl was considered development and he doesn’t know when the hedgerow definition was added to the code. There needs to be some balance between the owner’s expectations and their use of it and felt that this was a major issue to have that much visibility into the house. This was an attempt to provide some shielding. HPC has powers to approve and control development. He read the hedgerow definition to the board and said there is ambiguity to the language. We want something that works for everyone. If we took out every other planter, would that be acceptable? We’re unsure what would be allowed. Is this similar to regulating lawn furniture? Mr. Boehringer said there were a lot of the landscape and drainage improvements that had to be done in concert with the city. We had to remove a lot of existing plantings. Some were evergreen trees and parks did not allow replanting in the right of way with evergreens. He showed some photos of the trees in front of the house. He pointed out that they are still trying to sell this home. Imagine whoever lives here would want some privacy. Mr. Boehringer showed slides and explained what they did and why. Joe we would like to have what we have now, but we realize there is a height limit. The neighbors feel the look of the property has softened. Ms. Greenwood asked if they considered curtains and Mr. Boehringer said we found in the winter, when the shears are drawn, we feel confined to the interior. Ms. Berko is a huge supporter of this project and said it was a lengthy and difficult one. It used to be that you saw the whole house and Nancy Lundy out there painting in her wild garden. There were a lot of incentives and bonuses given with the promise that this house would be left visible. People keep asking her what happened to the Lundy house, because they can’t find it. The hedgerow obscures the house. The public can’t see this beautiful piece of architecture. The fishbowl affect is all over town, but 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 people are finding other ways to deal with it. This house isn’t big and proud like we saw on the renderings. She is in agreement with staff and this is not what HPC had in mind. She apologized for getting emotional, but this has been a huge disappointment for her to not see this house as it was presented in the renderings and it was a tough project. Ms. Greenwood said the trees look like soldiers. You’re not going to get a variance of 42 inches from the city. This is a really misplaced idea. We were on a field trip for a different property the other day and walked by and just gasped. This isn’t temporary and this house is part of the fabric of the community. You need to think about other solutions and wait until you sell it. Perhaps you need some architectural help with screening, etc. after the beautiful job that was done on this development, she can’t imagine why you would want this here. We should continue this, and you should come back. She is in favor of finding the right glass product and rethinking the fireplace. Ms. Thompson said this is a problem that you designed your way into and now you need to design your way out of. Mr. Lai said I don’t know whether it’s a good idea to use landscape to cover up something architectural. He thinks it was a mistake to put a bedroom facing the street and think you’d get away with it. Overall, he concurs with staff. Mr. Kendrick is in agreement. It’s a shame to cover up the glass and adding a cable in between the glass panes isn’t consistent architecturally. He doesn’t like the planters how they block the home. Mr. Halferty said he doesn’t have a compliant from a zoning standpoint but said the boxes do seem tall. If they were to go into the ground, he’s wondering if a landscape plan could help meet somewhere in the middle. Maybe not a shrub, but an aspen tree. He would move to continue to find a solution more natural and not so regimented. He understands the fishbowl effect, however. As far as the handrail, there are kilns that have a tempered glass that could conform to the building guidelines. He would suggest a revised landscape plan. Ms. Greenwood said the Lundy house had this wild look to it and that’s why she had a visceral reaction when she saw what was put there. She supports going in a more wild direction. Ms. Simon said if you continue the project and want to hear restudy, that’s one option or you can deny this solution and they can reapply at another time. We can assign the glass material to staff and monitor. Mr. Blaich said there should be a site visit so we can see from their point of view what is advantageous. We need to go over and take a look. He shares staff’s feelings about seeing the property and always admired that house. He admired its visibility to the community, and he shares their feelings about the roughness of the property. If it makes sense to do a sight visit, that’s one solution, but he would like to experience it from the inside as well as the outside. Mr. Moyer said the guidelines are simply not met. The Lundy house was a marvelous thing and there was already too much of a wild forest around it to hide the view. We don’t need anything else around it. I would prefer to have more trees taken out actually. It’s an architectural issue. Mr. Krabacher said he wants the project to be continued. 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 Ms. Greenwood said the planter boxes are denied and we all like the glass. When you get that information, you can run it by the staff and monitor. Ms. Simon said we need a new monitor and to approve the resolution as written and set a time frame for the planter boxes to be removed. Mr. Kendrick said he will take the project. MOTION: Ms. Berko moved to approve the resolution as stated, Ms. Thompson seconded. Mr. Kendrick pointed out that 14 days was cited in the staff recommendation. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, no; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. 6-1 , motion carried. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn, Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk