Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20221214 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 14TH, 2022 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Peter Fornell, Jodi Surfas, and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the minutes from 5/11/22 and 11/9/22. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon mentioned that she needed to work with a few members on some of their projects. Mr. Moyer then asked about “No Problem Joe’s” old house. He said he noticed a south side window was missing and a piece of plywood was put up and he was wondering if they were restoring the window. Ms. Simon said she would need to look into it. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said that the Elks Building was preparing for some restoration, including repointing, and have hired the same group that worked on the Wheeler Opera House. Mr. Moyer asked if there were any updates on the painted brick buildings in town and the maintenance manual. Ms. Simon said that a report had been put together on the painted buildings which she would present at an upcoming meeting and that the maintenance manual was still in progress. Mr. Halferty asked about an update from the siding consultants. Ms. Simon described the goals of the project and updated the progress. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon said that both the 434 E. Cooper and 520 E. Cooper items had gone to Council, and they upheld HPC’s decision and also that the porch roof at Jing item went to Council and they upheld HPC’s decision but did not let Jing install the proposed panels. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice, and that notice was provided per the code for the new business item of 500 E. Durant. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 14TH, 2022 OLD BUSINESS: 205 W. Main Street - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Growth Management Quota System, Special Review, Transportation and Parking Management – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 25th, 2023. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to continue the Public Hearing to January 25th, 2023. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in Favor, motion passes. NEW BUSINESS: 500 E. Durant – Minor Development Review and Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Chris Bendon – Bendon Adams Mr. Bendon began by introducing the Belly Up building and described a few of the tenants. He also introduced Paul Clayton and Stephen Williams from Clayton Korte Architects and Michael Goldberg from the Belly Up. Mr. Bendon mentioned that the applicant was doing mostly interior changes and he went over a brief history of the building and described its location, noting that it is not listed as a historic building and that there are no historic buildings on the block face, but the building does live in the historic commercial core district. Next, he described some of the interior changes planned. He showed the current condition of the Galena St. façade and a rendering of the proposed exterior changes, noting that this would include an extension of the elevator, the removal of an exterior stair access and also a materials refresh. He then showed the current conditions of the Durant façade and a rendering of the proposed exterior changes to include an updated window packet. A sample of the window packet was then passed around to the members. He then pointed out the proposed extended balcony compared to the two smaller separate existing balconies. The proposed balcony would extend across the whole south façade. A site plan of the ground floor was shown, and Mr. Bendon pointed out the proposed outdoor dining area. He mentioned that the redesign maintains the character defining features of the main roof gable and modernizes the materials of the balcony. Next Mr. Bendon showed a few pictures of existing buildings in the core and highlighted different ways that brick has been treated. He then described their proposed mineral wash for the brick columns and noted that it was a point that staff wanted to be discussed with HPC. He went over some of their reasons for choosing it, including that is a water-based product that is removable and does not seal the brick. Then a few samples of the product applied to brick were passed around and he noted that the existing brick on the building is a much harder material than what’s found on most historic buildings in town. He then said that they believe the related guidelines have been met and when over their reasoning for this. Mr. Bendon then turned it over to Michael Goldberg for a few comments. Mr. Goldberg mentioned that they have spent over a year developing this concept and think they have something really exciting to offer this corner of town. Ms. Thompson asked about the proposed extension of the elevator, particularly the overrun because those typically come back at permit submittal, bigger than what is originally proposed. Mr. Clayton said that there would be no overrun as they are only extending the existing Lula lift. Regarding the posts and beams proposed for the porch extension to support the upper balcony, Ms. Thompson said it looked like they had intentionally aligned them out of character with the chalet style of the building and asked if that was on purpose. Mr. Clayton said yes and described their reasoning related to the existing design of the building. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 14TH, 2022 Mr. Moyer asked who the manufacturer of the mineral wash was. Mr. Clayton said it was Chateau Domingue out of Houston. Mr. Moyer asked if a sealer was required before application and about the removal process. Mr. Clayton said no sealer is required and that it can be removed by power washing. Mr. Halferty asked how the mineral wash is applied and about its opacity. Mr. Clayton said it is applied by brush and that it is very opaque. Ms. Thompson asked if they had tested the mineral wash on the grout to which Mr. Clayton said no, just on brick samples. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon – Planning Director Ms. Simon started by noting that there had been several discussions with other City Departments prior to this meeting, including Environmental Health and Engineering related to trash storage in the alley and drainage issues on the outdoor patio on Durant. She noted that the applicant is actually decreasing the net leasable space so there is no concern that more employees would be generated. Two spinoff reviews related to Growth Management and view planes were mentioned and described. Those would take place after HPC’s review. Ms. Simon went on to describe some of the history of the building and noted that while it was not a designated historic building it does represent an important era of the development of downtown. Some historical pictures of downtown were shown. Ms. Simon then went over some things staff had pointed out in the memo related to the guidelines. These included the window design and mineral wash. She mentioned that staff is really opposed to the use of the mineral wash for many reasons. One of which is that a very strong characteristic of the downtown core is the use of natural red masonry and staff believes that this needs to be respected. She said that there is a real potential loss of identity downtown if the material compatibility continues to be erased. She showed pictures of two adjacent buildings where red brick is seen. She expressed some concern over the durability of the mineral wash and said that staff is recommending against any type of coating of the brick, which is the only condition of approval in the resolution. She said there is a lot of good here and that staff recommends approval of this with the condition to not coat the brick. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jimmy Marcus stated that this was one of the earlier buildings that his father had built and while it may not have been designed by a notable architect, they are very proud it is still here and are glad it won’t be heading to the landfill. He said this is their one chance to breath new life into the building for another 50 years and thought the proposed design honored its history but gave it a bit more of a contemporary clean look. He thought that the red brick on the building looked very dated. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson opened board discussion by thanking the applicants. She noted the main issue of discussion would be the brick. Mr. Halferty also thanked the applicants and said he thought the application met many of the guidelines. He said that whatever they do on the board he always wants to make it is retrievable. He noted that for other material types like wood siding they don’t get into colors, but for the brick here thought it should be restudied. Knowing the applicants concern about the existing brick and also staff’s comments about protecting the overall neighborhood and how the brick was used historically, he hoped there would be a way to address both concerns. He asked for a good mockup of the brick coating to be approved by staff and monitor. He was in support of the application, with more details about the brick coating and a mockup to be provided and approved. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 14TH, 2022 Ms. Surfas asked if the issue with the wash was its application or its color. She felt she was hearing both concerns. Ms. Thompson thought that staff’s concern was about any treatment to any brick. Ms. Simon said the design guidelines for the entire neighborhood talk of natural red toned bricks being important to the character of the downtown. She said the main concern is not the actual color of the coating, but more about erasing that character and definition of the brick and grout lines. Mr. Bendon said that the grout lines would still be visible with the wash, and you will still see the individual bricks and grout lines. Ms. Surfas said she was still conflicted as the concerns she was hearing from Ms. Simon were different from the concerns about washing brick with a coating and what happens to the brick. There was then some discussion about the differing concerns. Mr. Fornell said he was satisfied with the application as being presented and stated that the building is in the Historic District but is not a historic building. He said he would be looking at this differently if this was a historic asset, but the other option of the applicant would be demolition. He agreed with Mr. Halferty about the use of a mockup of the brick wash to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Ms. Thompson said her concern was with the opaqueness of the wash. She heard the applicant say that the grout lines would still be visible, but she really didn’t believe it and would like to see a sample of it applied. Mr. Moyer said he thought it was a fine project and meets all the guidelines. On this this building he did not oppose the mineral wash product. He said that if this building was in the middle of a row of historic buildings, he might be more in tune with staff’s concerns about maintaining the brick, but this is an isolated building. He asked some questions about the product details and its manufacturer. He then said that the board needed to have further discussion about washing brick located in the historic core but on non-historic buildings. He also agreed with Mr. Halferty on the importance of a mockup. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with the revision to section #1 to include a requirement that a sample of the brick finish be applied in an inconspicuous location on the building including both the brick and mortar to be reviewed by staff and monitor and to brought back to the board if an acceptable application is not agreed upon. The motion also included striking the window condition. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0: All in favor, motion passes. Mr. Moyer was assigned to be the monitor on the project. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk