Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20220928 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022 Vice Chair Halferty opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:35pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell and Barb Pitchford. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director (virtual) Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant MINUTES: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the minutes from 8/10/22 and 8/24/22. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer made some comments related to dark sky issues. He talked about the amount of birds that are killed at night flying into a lit window. He wanted to make sure these aspects are taking into account when making decisions. Mr. Halferty thanked Ms. Yoon for all her hard work and wished her luck in her new job in California. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Mr. Fornell mentioned that he was an owner at the Aspenhof for about 10 years and sold the property about 4 years ago. He was responsible for placing some of the tenants that are still there. He asked Ms. Johnson if that would be a conflict of interest. Ms. Johnson said that as long as he did not have any direct financial interest with the applicant, nothing that he mentioned would conflict him from hearing this particular application. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned that there had been some transition in staffing which may lead to a difficult to manage meeting. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice, and that notice was provided per the code for both agenda items. NEW BUSINESS: 413 E. Main St – Minor Development Review, Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Yoon introduced this agenda item as 413 E. Main St. – Jing Restaurant. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022 Applicant Presentation: Gavin Merlino – Kuullastudio Mr. Merlino stated that the goal of the application is to replace the front four panel slider which is pretty dilapidated and doesn’t open very well. It also has a step up to get up and over it. The plan is to replace it with a more modern four panel slider and bring the threshold down to the actual floor. They would also like to replace the window on the right side of the building. He showed pictures at different angles of the exterior of the building. These will match the black trim that is already in place on the upper part of the building. Staff Presentation: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Ms. Yoon started by reviewing the applicant request and details of the building. She showed pictures of the current conditions and described the details of the slider and window replacement. She sighted guideline 10.6 and stated that staff believes the changes comply. Staff recommends approval of this application as proposed. Ms. Surfas asked about the ADA compliance. Ms. Yoon said that would be something reviewed by the building department, making sure the threshold would comply. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Halferty went over the considerations for HPC to discuss. There was no discussion. Mr. Halferty asked if there was a motion. MOTION: Ms. Pitchford moved to approve the next resolution in the series. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 5-0: All in favor, motion passes. 520 E. Cooper St – Minor Development Review, Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Pitchford brought up that her son is a partner with the owner but not in this property. Ms. Johnson asked if Ms. Pitchford had any direct financial interest in the outcome of the application or this property. Ms. Pitchford said no. Ms. Johnson also asked if Ms. Pitchford felt she could be impartial, to which Ms. Pitchford said yes. Ms. Johnson said what was disclosed did not represent a conflict of interest according to the code. Ms. Simon apologized for the late packet and accidental omission of the application. She said she had spoken to Sara Adams and again apologized to her and Mr. Guth. Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams mentioned that Brian Beazley (DJ Architects) was on his way with material samples. She then introduced the application and project and mentioned that she is representing the Aspenhof HOA and HOA president, Bill Guth. She then described the property as being in the Commercial Core historic district but is not a contributing structure. She said all HOA member tenants are on board with the application and proposed changes to the façade. Ms. Adams went on to describe some of the background of the building, noting that it was built in 1970 and designed by Ted Mularz. She believed this building was not one of his best works and that it is not on the listed on the AspenModern map. The proposal is to remodel the existing façade, modernizing it a REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022 bit. She then went over the prosed changes by showing the existing and proposed line drawings and renderings. They are proposing to replace the failing triangle windows with flat ones, to remove the vertical flue and replace some existing materials. There is also a reconfiguration of the Pitkin County Dry Goods storefront, including new awnings. Mr. Beazley arrived. She went over the existing and proposed floor plans and mentioned that the removal of the flue lets them expand the planter to include a new bench. She also mentioned the change of two windows to doors on the second floor. She continued to go over proposed changes to the façade including a warm lime wash of the brick, replacement of the existing stucco with a composite wood, and replacement of the existing metal railings with clear glass. She described the awning drainage details. She then went over the design guidelines referenced in the staff memo in detail and how the applicant team interpreted them in relation to this project. Details of the proposed materials were described, and samples were shown to board members. She also showed examples of other brick in the downtown core. The applicant team feels strongly that the building will still be recognizable as the same form and that the changes relate to what’s already there. Ms. Adams said that they are ok with the resolution that was included in the packet but would request amendments to the conditions of approval and staff and monitor approval of the lime wash. Mr. Fornell asked if the proposed new brick above the Pitkin County Dry Goods space and the proposed lime washing of existing brick would cause a matching situation. Ms. Adams said they did not have any concerns about this. Mr. Fornell then asked if any changes were to be made to the north elevation, if that would come back to HPC, to which Ms. Adams said yes. Ms. Surfas asked for more details about the glass proposed for the railings. Mr. Beasley said the sample that was shown was the exact material that would be used. Ms. Surfas then asked if the railing cap material would be real wood, to which Mr. Beasley said yes. Ms. Surfas asked if the glass proposed to replace the existing triangle windows the same as proposed for the railing. Mr. Beasley said no and that it would be a storefront commercial grade window glass. Ms. Pitchford asked if they could explain why they wanted the triangle windows to go away. Mr. Beasley went on to explain their dilapidated condition and the difficulties in their maintenance. They still want to have the natural light and windows to be in the same configuration, but that the current design is not working for the functionality. Ms. Pitchford said that the original triangle design seems to be a signature part of the building and asked if there was any consideration to keeping the original design. Mr. Beasley said they had looked into keeping it just on the face, but it just wasn’t working. Ms. Pitchford then asked (not directed to the applicant) if this building would in the future choose to be landmarked as AspenModern if the removal of the triangle windows would affect that. Mr. Halferty said they could address that in staff’s presentation. Ms. Pitchford asked if the limewash in any way would damage and or keep the brick healthy. Mr. Beasley explained it’s application, that it does not damage the brick and that it can be completely taken off if needed. Mr. Moyer asked if the composite wood materials proposed would be exposed to the weather, to which Mr. Beasley said yes. Mr. Moyer asked if the material had been used enough to know that it won’t self- destruct. Mr. Beasley described the material and mentioned it had a 50-year warranty. Mr. Moyer asked if the composite wood materials would be installed over the existing stucco, to which Mr. Beasley said that was yet to be determined. Mr. Moyer asked a few questions about the durability of the wood REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022 railing cap material. He then asked about the slope of the awnings. Mr. Beasley went over the details of the awning slopes. Mr. Moyer asked about the current condition of the existing brick. Mr. Beasley said there may be some type of sealant that might need to be removed before applying the lime wash. Mr. Moyer asked a few questions about the application and make-up of the lime wash. Ms. Adams said it is hard because they can’t do any testing on its application until they get approval of the concept of using lime wash. Ms. Surfas asked if the applicant is planning on adding the horizontal relief elements on the brick as seen in the renderings. Mr. Beasley said they were planning on these to pay homage to the many historic horizontal elements in the façade. Mr. Halferty asked about the fire rating of the windows proposed for the stair tower because it is an egress. Mr. Beasley said they would be able to use fire rated glass. Next Mr. Halferty asked the reasoning for the two different heights of the vertical window elements. Mr. Beasley said again it was intended to tie into the other horizontal elements in the building. Mr. Halferty asked if the proposed routering of the brick will cause any further deterioration of the brick. Mr. Beasley said it was an experiment and if it doesn’t work, they would replace the brick. There was some discussion about the vertical tower flue regarding its original intent and architecture. Mr. Beasley said he believed it was only designed there originally out of function and necessity. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon – Planning Director Ms. Simon started by going over the difference in required standards versus guidelines when it comes to Commercial Design Reviews. She then showed a slide of and reviewed the proposed materials. She mentioned that staff had reached out to the HOA about the potential for AspenModern designation and encouraged it. While this review does not apply a preservation lens, there are compatibility topics that should be met in the downtown historic district. She pointed to a guideline that speaks to, when in a renovation, respecting the underlining character of the building. Ms. Simon said historic or not, this building has certain architectural statements. She stated that staff does not support the proposed use of lime wash for several reasons. The preservation staff has been resisting for many years, any kind of coating applied to masonry for several reason including the possibility of causing deterioration and in their opinion, the “dumbing” down of the masonry where the distinction between the masonry and the grout lines gets erased. She noted that the downtown core is predominantly red toned masonry, and that new or remodeled architecture is to respect that. Staff does not support moving away from that. She then spoke to the use of the composite wood material and noted that HPC has allowed it to be used in a residential project on a new construction element, but the guidelines talk about relating to the materials of the surrounding district and any new materials need to be carefully considered. She noted that this material is not, to her knowledge, been used in the downtown historic district and asked HPC to consider this when it comes to the characteristic of the downtown. Ms. Simon said that the proposed use of clear glass for the railings as opposed to a tinted glass resolves staff’s concerns there. She then presented a few slides going over mandatory standards and guidelines for materials and described staff’s related thoughts and concerns. She stated that staff is recommending continuation of this. Staff does not believe these elements, particularly the lime wash to be something to be pushed to staff and monitor to resolve. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022 Ms. Adams pointed out that one of the guidelines (2.14) Ms. Simon mentioned only requires for two of the qualities to be met. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Halferty went over the relevant guidelines for discussion. Mr. Fornell stated he believed that the mandatory standards are being met and was satisfied with the lime washing of the brick. He thought that if we like different heights of buildings in downtown why do we not like different colors of buildings. He appreciates the difference and was willing to approve this as presented. He thought that if the owners, in changing the color to their satisfaction, actually shorten the life of the bricks, it is a financial matter for them only. Ms. Surfas didn’t have any issue with the use of the Trespa (composite wood material), due to its sustainability. She wasn’t crazy about the horizontal lines on the brick. She thought it was an interesting update to the building. Ms. Pitchford didn’t have any issue with the use of Trespa but did have an issue with the brick towers. She thought the proposed changes really change the feel of the building and referenced guideline 1.35, which says the design should relate to the existing design and form. She was ok with the lime wash and materials, but the flattening out of the triangle windows goes against the guideline. Mr. Moyer was not opposed to the lime wash, providing its real lime wash. He commented on the addition of composite materials in the downtown. He wasn’t sure if it was good or bad for the community. He was ok with the removal of the flue tower and thought the building was better off without the triangle windows. Mr. Halferty acknowledged that this is a challenge. He supported keeping the flue as it is a vertical feature that was a design feature. He discussed his thoughts on the required standards versus the guidelines. He was not sold on the lime washing because of concerns of the ability to take it off without damaging the brick and that it does not appear in the downtown. He thought the majority of the application complies with the guidelines, but the challenge for him was the lime wash and the vertical flue. He thought that the amount of glass railings proposed will alter the appearance. He agreed with staff that the lime wash would make the brick look more monochromatic and that the entire board should be voting on the lime wash and not just a monitor. He could support the majority of this project but thought that the triangle windows were an architectural feature that were intended by the architect and not a mistake. He would recommend that these stay the same in scale and appearance. He thought the routering of the brick was an interesting concept, but he had serious concerns. Mr. Fornell mentioned that there is at least one other building on the block that has glass railings and not all buildings in the downtown are red brick. He reminded everyone that this is not a historic asset. Ms. Adams stated the two most important things to make this project happen are the removal of the flue tower and the lime wash of the brick. They can do the triangle windows and use real wood as opposed to composite, but the removal of the flue and the lime wash are non-negotiable. She said the HOA does not want to replace the brick and the City talks about working with what you have and the best way to do this is to lime wash the brick. She acknowledged that it does aesthetically change what it looks like, but that this is not a landmark and not one of Ted’s best buildings. Ms. Simon repeated that the boards main concern here is the historic district. Mr. Moyer asked if the board could take a straw poll of where the members stood on the various issues. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022 As for the flue tower Mr. Fornell, Mr. Moyer, Ms. Pitchford, and Ms. Surfas were ok with the removal of the tower. Mr. Halferty was in favor of keeping it. All members were ok with the use of composite wood materials. Ms. Pitchford, Mr. Fornell and Ms. Surfas were in support of keeping the triangle windows. Other members did not comment. Mr. Fornell and Mr. Moyer were ok with the glass railings. Other members did not comment. Mr. Moyer and Mr. Halferty were against the routering of the brick. Mr. Fornell agreed. No other members commented. Mr. Fornell, Mr. Moyer, and Ms. Surfas were ok with the lime wash as long as it did not deteriorate the brick. Ms. Pitchford would prefer to keep the original brick, but it was more important to keep the triangle windows. Mr. Halferty was concerned with what the lime washing of this building would do to the district. Mr. Fornell said he thinks this represents a change of character and considers it a positive. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the next resolution in the series with added conditions. Condition #1: That the triangle windows remain or are replaced in kind with the exception of the skylight feature at the top. Condition #2: The removal of the horizontal routering of the brick. Mr. Moyer seconded. Ms. Adams asked for a short break to discuss with her client. The board said OK. Ms. Adams returned and requested a continuation to October 12th. There was discussion about how to handle the first motion. Ms. Adams asked if the HPC approves this resolution with conditions, can the applicant request that they rescind it at the next meeting. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. Ms. Yoon asked Ms. Simon the question about the applicant asking the board to rescind the approval. Ms. Simon responded that she believed a board member who approved the resolution would have to motion for reconsideration and that it is not at the applicant’s discretion. Ms. Johnson stated that the way the code is designed is that if a board member has regret or feels that a wrong decision was made, they can call that issue back up, but not at the request of the applicant. Mr. Beasley commented on a discussion he had with Mr. Bill Guth over the phone about the details of the replacement of the triangle windows. Mr. Fornell moved to rescind his original motion. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes. Mr. Moyer moved to continue this item to the October 12th meeting. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; 5-0, motion passes. ADJOURN: Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk