Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20230201 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1ST, 2023 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:40pm. Commissioners in attendance: Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, and Kara Thompson. Commissioners not in attendance: Barb Pitchford, Jeffrey Halferty and Sheri Sanzone Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes from 1/11/23. Ms. Surfas seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Mr. Fornell stated that he had introduced the buyer and seller on this property and like at the conceptual review, he would be recusing himself. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon commented that the new hire for the Historic Preservation Principal Planner position has backed out. She was disappointed but the position will continue to be posted. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: NEW BUSINESS: 315 E. Hyman Ave. Minor, Commercial Design and View Plane Review - CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 8th. Ms. Simon stated that this item does not actually need to be continued as the applicant has scaled back their proposed exterior changes to such a minimal scope that it is being assigned to staff. Ms. Johnson commented that this item will be withdrawn from the HPC agendas. Peter Fornell left the meeting at 4:47pm. NEW BUSINESS: 1020 E Cooper Ave. - Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Simon introduced the item and remined the Commission that it had been a while since they approved the conceptual review and design for this property. She noted that final review includes REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1ST, 2023 landscaping, lighting, materials, and details of historic preservation. She then turned it over to Sarah Adams for her presentation. Applicant Presentation: Sarah Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams started by introducing herself, Mr. Brian Beazley from DJ Architects, and Ken Miller who will be the project manager on this project. She then described the timeline for the Conceptual Design review in 2021 and recapped the project. She went on to describe the elements that were in front of HPC for Final Review. The landscape plan is exactly the same as what was presented at the Conceptual Review and included a simple planting plan around the landmark property. She then showed a view of the proposed rear of the property including the trash and recycling area, two parking spaces and other details. Next, she went over the preservation plan and commented that the historic building is a mystery. She had searched all over to try to figure out what it looked like and even the interior framing doesn’t tell them what it originally looked like. They are basing their preservation plan on the existing footprint. She mentioned that Mr. Beazley and his team had put together some architectural details for the commission’s consideration and that they were a starting point for the building permit and working with staff and monitor. She then went over a few conditions in the resolution that they would be amenable to continue to work on. She described a small porch on a non-historic section of the landmark that they would be adding as an entry to the rear unit in that building. This would include simple porch columns to differentiate it as not being historic. She moved on to describe the proposed materials for both the landmark building and new building and Mr. Beazley passed around several samples to the commissioners. These materials are consistent with what was presented at the Conceptual Review. She showed multiple views of the project and went over how the proposed materials and fenestration related to form in relation to the guidelines. She also showed a few renderings of the project and highlighted the materials. Next, she highlighted conditions 4-7 in the resolution which are different than what is typically seen and noted that they are amenable to all of them and happy to work with staff and monitor on them as well. Ms. Thompson asked if the proposed roofing material for the front porch on the historic resource was to be standing seem metal. Mr. Beazley said it was originally proposed as such but is now proposed to be cedar. Ms. Thompson then asked what the roof slope was on that porch, to which Mr. Beazley said 3. Ms. Thompson then asked if that was something HPC or staff asked for, to which Ms. Simon said she always asks for that and that her understanding is that if you have at least a 3:12 slope you are ok. Ms. Thompson then asked if the proposed windows for the addition and non-historic portion of the landmark building were aluminum clad wood. Mr. Beazley said yes, but that they could do fully wood interior and exterior windows on the historic. Ms. Thompson then asked if they had spoken with the City on the electrical service for the project, to which Ms. Adams said yes. She said there was ample service, especially since they had reduced the number of units. Mr. Moyer asked if it was a metal skirting at the bottom of the siding on the historic resource to which Mr. Beazley said yes and pointed it out on the drawing and referred to a sample that was provided. Mr. Moyer then gave some advice for the installation of the siding and skirting. There was then some more discussion about the siding and skirting. Mr. Moyer then gave some advice on the metal railings and suggested that they be powder coated. Mr. Beazley confirmed that they are planning on a powder coating for them. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1ST, 2023 Staff Presentation: Amy Simon - Planning Director Ms. Simon started by reviewing the conditions of approval included in the resolution. First, she went over the first three conditions and stated that they are just a repeat of what was in the Conceptual approval. She then went over the next four conditions. These included the accuracy of the fenestration plan; the applicant providing cut sheets for the proposed doors and windows on the historic resource; that the posts on the front porch of the historic resource would be modeled after other Aspen Victorian structures and were to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor; and that the roof of the historic resource be fire rated cut wood cedar shingles of uniform length and coursing. She then finished by noting that staff is recommending approval. Ms. Thompson asked if there was any way that the original porch posts could have been a simple square post. Ms. Simon said it was possible. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Johnson wanted to state for the record before Board discussion, that the public noticing for this project was provided in accordance with the code as it wasn’t stated earlier in the meeting. Ms. Thompson asked if there were any comments from board members before discussion. Mr. Moyer said he concurred with staff and the conditions. Ms. Thompson commented that she normally didn’t like to approve wood shingles on a 3/12 roof pitch. She asked if the other commissioners would mind if that was left up to staff and monitor. Mr. Moyer said he was fine with it being reviewed by staff and monitor and that they needed to have a discussion with regards to wood shingles, knowing the environment we live in with respect to wildfires. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the next resolution in the series with a revision to condition #6 to note approval by staff and monitor of the porch posts prior to building permit submittal and well as a revision to condition #7 to note the front porch roof material to be a fire-rated cut wood cedar shingle of a uniform length and coursing, or an alternative to be approved by staff and monitor. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Thompson volunteered to be the project monitor for this item. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk