HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20221012
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at
4:35pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Peter Fornell, Barb Pitchford and Kara
Thompson.
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Planning Director
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant
MINUTES: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the minutes from 9/14/22. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call
vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0,
motion passes. Mr. Fornell moved to approve the minutes from 9/28/22. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call
vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes. 3-0, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs commented that he had received notice of a major
development at 205 W. Main St. which is in his backyard, and he was interested in participating in the
hearing. He heard the Oct. 26th meeting is being held in person and he will be out of town. He asked if he
could call into the meeting or if the meeting could be held virtually. Ms. Simon mentioned that the
standard protocol, being that the meetings used to all in person, is that Mr. Scruggs would be allowed to
submit written comment if he would not be able to attend. Mr. Scruggs said would he avail himself of
written comment, but said that being present, either virtually or by phone would be preferable. He said
if the Commission is not going to have a virtual meeting that they should allow call in to get participation
of citizens. Ms. Thompson said that they are pushing for that, but at the moment the City does not have
the resources to hold in person meetings with WebEx participation. She understood and appreciated his
comments, but that meeting is in person and that the members are very diligent in reading all written
comments. Mr. Scruggs said that he had brought this up to a few City Council members. Ms. Simon said
that the ability to hold hybrid meetings is something that is being discussed but is not something that
they are not able to do. She also mentioned that the Oct. 26th meeting has been publicly noticed as an
in-person meeting and his best option would be to attend in person or submit written comment.
Mr. Fornell asked if written comment from the public can be read during a meeting by staff. Ms.
Johnson said that if written comments come in before the packet is published, they are included in it,
but if comments come after the packet is published, they are usually read into the record during the
meeting.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer commented on the building next to the White House
Tavern and that it used to have two employee housing units. He said it was another example of buildings
sitting for a long time with no activity. Ms. Simon mentioned that the units were extinguished with
credits. A permit is in for the redevelopment of the site, and it was granted an extension due to supply
chain issues and that it is just about the time that they need to start taking action on the site.
Mr. Moyer then asked if the City had policies regarding “up-lighting” in the core. Ms. Simon said there a
number of policies in the lighting code and that at the November 9th HPC meeting, staff will be coming
to the board with an overhaul of the lighting code.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
STAFF COMMENTS: None.
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.
OLD BUSINESS:
422 - 434 E. Cooper Ave. – Substantial Amendment to Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING
CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
Applicant Presentation: Chris Bendon – Bendon Adams
Mr. Bendon started by stating that he would have to leave the meeting at 5:30pm and that Sarah Adams
of Bendon Adams would stand in if needed. He then reviewed the prior 2016 approval of the project and
went over the resubmission of the application reflecting adjustments made from the September 14th
meeting. One of the adjustments made was in response to Guidelines 2.9 and 2.10 regarding recessed
entryways. He noted that in the last meeting Ms. Pitchford called out that the entryways on both the
Galena and Cooper sides were not proposed to be recessed. Mr. Bendon showed a few slides of the
changes made from the last meeting to recess both entryways and noted that staff’s memo mentions
that they do now comply with the two guidelines for recessed entryways. He went on to discuss the
skylights and first showed a rendering of the skylight layout proposed at the last meeting and noted that
there were mixed opinions from commissioners regarding guidelines 2.3 and 2.4 regarding skylights. He
then showed a few examples of existing skylights in the core and talked to the benefits they have. Next,
he showed a rendering of the roof of the building referencing the redesign and reduction of the number
of skylights made since the last meeting from five to two. This showed the main larger skylight and an
additional second skylight remaining. He went over the benefits and reasoning for both skylights that
they kept in the design, mainly being to bring light into all levels of the building. He mentioned that since
the secondary skylight is set back so significantly that any concerns of pedestrian viewpoints were
lessened. Addressing commissioners’ concerns of nighttime glow in the last meeting, he showed a
rendering of what they expect the nighttime conditions to be. He then showed an actual picture of a
building the applicant had built in Napa where there were similar concerns of nighttime glow. They are
intending to use a type of product called dynamic glass which is a new technology that allows the glass
to go from clear to almost a limo glass. He showed a picture of samples of the glass in three different
tint levels and then showed a video of the glass as it changes noting that the darkest tint is about a 98 or
99 percent opacity. He mentioned the product is controlled by a computer program that has many
different timing options. Referencing concerns from neighbors about glare, he said they would be using
an anti-glare coating. He mentioned that the design team used the very lowest pitch possible for the
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
skylight so that it would not show from pedestrian viewpoints and showed renderings from ground
level. He finished by saying they are looking for HPC’s support of the entryway changes and the skylight
plan.
Ms. Thompson asked if a sidewalk is in their scope of redevelopment and what the material would be in
the recessed area of the entryways. Mr. Bendon said that there is a pedestrian enhancement
requirement that is being handled in part by a fee-in-lieu and that saved pavers from the Cooper Mall
would be used in the recessed entry on Cooper and that the entry on Galena would be an extension of
the pavement of the sidewalk.
Mr. Moyer asked what the roof materials would be and if the mechanicals on the roof would be visible
from the street. Mr. Bendon said the material would be a built-up membrane and that they specifically
pushed the mechanicals toward the back of the building to avoid being seen from the street. Mr. Moyer
asked about the longevity of the glare coating on the glass. The applicant team said it would extend to
the lifetime of the product. Ms. Thompson said she believed it was applied between the panes and not
on the exterior.
Mr. Halferty asked about the dynamic glass details. Mr. Bendon went over the options of how the
program works to change the opacity.
Mr. Fornell asked about the powering of the dynamic glass. Mr. Bendon said the product they are
proposing uses electricity to effect the change. Mr. Fornell then asked if there were skylights proposed
in the 2016 plan and approval. Mr. Bendon said there were not and described the design evolution. Mr.
Fornell asked if the reduction of skylights was in response to neighbor concerns. Mr. Bendon said it was
in response to both neighbor concerns and HPC’s discussion.
Ms. Pitchford asked if the secondary smaller skylight would use the same dynamic glass. Mr. Bendon
said yes.
Staff Presentation: Amy Simon – Planning Director
Ms. Simon started by presenting the proposed resolution and went over the staff recommendations.
Staff finds that the concerns over the recessed entries have been met and that the reduction in skylights
and use of dynamic glass has helped to address concerns that HPC has mentioned. She stated that staff
would have no way to enforce how the dynamic glass is used. She said that staff is supporting the
redesign of the application and went over the conditions of approval in the resolution noting that three
conditions had been stuck from the previous resolution since they had been resolved.
Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon to go over condition #8 regarding the brick to be used. Ms. Simon said
in 2016 HPC had not allowed the use of a tumbled brick and had required the steel pilaster caps to be
removed. They are now proposed to be brick.
Mr. Halferty asked about the use of airlocks. Ms. Simon described what is allowed and noted that
exterior “tents” were not allowed to achieve an airlock at entries. Mr. Halferty questioned why staff
could not enforce the use of the dynamic glass. Ms. Johnson noted that it may be outside of staff’s
capacity to enforce when it is used, but it would still have to comply to the provisions of the lighting
code.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Simon about the difference between “up-lighting” and skylights. Ms. Simon
responded that there are certain requirements that individual light fixtures cannot be pointed towards
the sky but there is no prohibition on skylights.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Jim Horowitz – Founder, President, and CEO of Jazz Aspen Snowmass.
Mr. Horowitz described the planned JAS multiuse facility for performance, education, special events and
recording located adjacent to the RH building and above the Red Onion. On behalf of the board of
directors and staff of JAS, he urged the HPC to give the full approvals needed to begin construction on
the RH gallery and rooftop restaurant. He described the benefits of the project and gave support to RH’S
intent for the space.
Mr. Bart Johnson – Attorney representing a neighbor of the project.
Mr. Johnson stated that while the neighbor sees the skylight changes as an improvement, he remains
concerned about it. He spoke about the comparison of the skylight on the neighboring building that Mr.
Bendon pointed out and the proposed skylight on this project. He noted Ms. Simon’s comment of the
ability to enforce the use of the dynamic glass. He asked that if HPC approves the resolution that they
include language to give the City more teeth to enforce it’s use. He made some suggestions to this
effect.
Ms. Adams addressed the enforcement comments. She referenced section #2 of the resolution, Material
Representations, which talks about all material representations made by the applicant as being
incorporated into the approval. She stated that the applicant is representing that the very expensive
glass will be used as intended will be darkened in order to not have light spill at night.
Ms. Simon responded that she still thought it would be difficult to enforce and said that if something
clearer wanted to be included in the resolution, like a specific time to darken the glass, then HPC could
do that.
Ms. Adams said that the applicant and building owner want to be good neighbors and are willing to
work with the neighbors and community.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson went over the items for discussion, including the skylights and the
recessed entries.
Mr. Halferty said he believed that guidelines 2.3 and 2.4 were met and he had no issues with this
proposal and would be voting in the affirmative. He wanted to adhere to the neighbor’s concerns but
felt the applicant has expressed a willingness to be neighborly. He was in support of the resolution as
written.
Mr. Fornell said he was very happy with what the applicant has done and was satisfied that they have
made an effort to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors. He suggested that the wording “can be
used” could be changed to “shall be used” when talking about the use of the dynamic glass in the
resolution and added that sunset could be used as a general time for it to be implemented.
Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Fornell and Ms. Thompson and appreciated Mr. Johnson’s comments and
the applicant’s compliance with the recessed entryways. She thought the skylight was very large and
would feel more comfortable in the approval process if the language in the resolution was tighter and
liked the idea of using the word “shall”.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
Mr. Moyer agreed with staff on all points and believed the language should not be “can” or “shall” but
rather “will have dynamic glass to be darkened at night”. He would be in support of even stronger
language if possible. He said that if they can change the wording, he would vote in the affirmative and if
they can’t he would vote in the negative.
Ms. Simon showed the resolution as written to allow wording changes and noted that the resolution is
written to only allow the one main skylight and if HPC would like to allow the secondary skylight they
would have to amend the language.
Ms. Thompson appreciated the reduction of skylights and the revisions to the entryways. She would be
interested in understanding how a mechanical airlock would be installed.
MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with revisions to condition
A as follows. The first sentence shall be stricken and the language of the second sentence should read
“The approved skylights will have dynamic glass to be darkened at night and must have a glare coating
as represented in the October 12th, 2022 application”. Mr. Moyer seconded.
Ms. Pitchford wanted to clarify that Ms. Thompson’s motion included approval of the second skylight.
Ms. Thompson said yes.
Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes.
5-0: All in favor, motion passes.
Ms. Thompson moved to take a 3-minute break. All in favor. Motion passes.
Ms. Thompson restarted the meeting and noted for the record that she had listened to the entire
recording and read the minutes from the previous HPC meeting and was up to speed on the application
packet for the next item on the agenda.
520 E. Cooper St – Minor Development Review, Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING
CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
Ms. Simon reviewed the status of this application which was continued at the applicant’s request in
order to discuss the proposed conditions of approval with the HOA.
Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams
Ms. Adams started by mentioning she would be going over the two options for consideration at this
meeting and not be spending a lot of time going over the details from the last meeting. She then
reviewed the history of the building and the architect Ted Mularz. Next, she reviewed HPC’s feedback
from the last meeting and what aspects received support. These included the triangle windows; bringing
the vertical windows to the ground; no horizontal banding on the brick; the storefront; the removal of
the flue; the proposed materials, awnings, and architectural details. She then showed a picture of the
building in its current condition for reference. She said they have come back with two proposed options
for triangle windows and showed renderings and up-close architectural drawings of the two window
designs. She noted that option #1 cannot be mitered glass and would have to have a metal section to
join the two pieces of glass. She also noted that option #2 was the preferred option of the HOA and
while it is a slightly different kind of window design, still captures the essence of what Ted Mularz was
doing. She then went over each option, showing renderings at different angles of the building façade.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
Moving on, she went over guidelines 1.35 and 2.14 noting that 1.35 was what HPC was most focused on
previously. She finished by noting that staff is recommending option #1 and while the applicant can live
with either option, they would prefer option #2. She asked HPC to consider removing the condition that
there is an onsite mockup for the entire board to review, noting the importance of ordering materials
early and the delays that a full HPC board site visit could cause.
Mr. Bill Guth introduced himself as representing the owner’s association. He thanked Ms. Simon and the
HPC members and said they were excited to enhance this building which is needed due to it not being
maintained as it should have been.
Ms. Thompson asked for the renderings of the two options be show again and asked for some more
details of the window construction on option #2. These were shown and details were given.
Mr. Halferty asked about the differences in the metal cap construction at the top of the windows for
each option. The applicant team described the differences.
Mr. Fornell asked if the applicant preferred option #2 for functional or aesthetic reason. The applicant
said both.
Staff Presentation: Amy Simon – Planning Director
Ms. Simon started by showing the resolution and going over the staff recommendations. She said that
staff is recommending approval as proposed and are supporting option #1, being that it is closest to the
appearance of the existing condition of the windows. She then went over some of HPC’s concerns from
the last meeting regarding the proposed lime wash and use of Trespa composite wood materials. Staff is
requesting a site visit to verify those materials.
Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon if staff is now approving the lime wash of the brick. Ms. Simon said she is
repeating the direction of HPC from the last meeting, but that staff is still concerned about adding any
type of new finish to brick, reiterating the importance of a site visit. Mr. Moyer suggested that instead of
a mockup, since the brick flue tower is to be demolished, maybe a section of it could be used to apply
the lime wash for better viewing.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson again said she had listened to the last meeting and agreed with
where the board landed. She opened it up for member thoughts on the shape of the windows.
Ms. Pitchford appreciated the applicant’s response to their concerns and understood that the current
windows are not functional and need to be replaced. She said she would be ok with either of the two
window design options and is more concerned about the lime wash at the moment.
Mr. Fornell was satisfied with either option and would go with the board majority here. As far as the
lime wash, he said he was not attached to the idea of consistency in the color of brick work in a non-
historic building and that the lime wash was acceptable to him.
Mr. Moyer said he favored option #2 and was fine with all the other issues except the lime wash and
that he was torn on the lime wash, being that it is such a dramatic change to the building. He noted that
the building is non-historic and that he would probably go along with the board majority.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
Mr. Halferty said he would be favor of option #1 as that was the original design intent. He said he was
torn on the lime wash as there is a good amount of brick, but it is not a historic building. He said a site
visit would help him and that he was still in favor of leaving the brick flue tower. He said he could
support the application with the alterations made and thought it does comply with guidelines 1.35 and
2.14.
There was then some discussion about the possibility and location of a section of the building to be used
for a mockup of the lime wash. Ms. Adams did ask for the Trespa material to be approved so it could be
ordered.
Ms. Thompson said while she didn’t see the sample at the last meeting, she was familiar with the
product and did not have an issue with approving it. She also asked Ms. Adams if it would be acceptable
if a site visit is scheduled at the applicant’s convenience. Ms. Adams and Mr. Guth Mr. Moyer thought
that would be fine.
Mr. Moyer said that the composite wood materials were really an issue. He went on to explain his issues
with using them and mentioned that in his business he has not seen one that hasn’t failed. He said he
was very hesitant to approve any type of composite material.
Ms. Thompson thought Mr. Moyer had some good thoughts on it, but that HPC’s primary focus is on the
aesthetics of the materials and that it was more on the development group to select a material that will
last.
Mr. Halferty suggested that if there is a site visit to see an example of the lime wash that it should be
done on a south facing section of the building as something done on the alley side would not have the
same light.
Mr. Guth voiced some hesitancy about using a south facing section as the full construction may not
happen for some time and didn’t want the sample section to be visible to the street for that long.
Ms. Simon mentioned that at the last meeting it was discussed that the lime wash was removable. There
was then some discussion about the ability to remove the lime wash without leaving a residue.
MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with the following
amendments to the conditions. Condition #1…the window columns as shown in option #2 of the Oct.
12th application be approved. To add a condition that an onsite mockup of the lime wash to be applied
to the masonry shall be coordinated with staff and monitor for board approval prior to construction. Ms.
Pitchford seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes.
5-0: All in favor, motion passes.
ADJOURN: Mr. Fornell motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor;
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk