Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20231025 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25TH, 2023 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Barb Pitchford, Jeffrey Halferty, Kim Raymond, and Kara Thompson. Absent was Roger Moyer, Peter Fornell, Jodi Surfas and Riley Warwick. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Pitchford motioned to approve the draft minutes from August 23rd, 2023, and September 13th, 2023. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll Call Vote: Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-0, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Raymond noted that she would be conflicted on the 135 West Francis agenda item. Ms. Thompson noted that she was conflicted on the project monitoring agenda item, so Mr. Halferty would take over as Vice-Chair for that item. Ms. Thompson left the meeting. PROJECT MONITORING: 110 W. Main Street Ms. Simon introduced the item as amendments to the White Elephant hotel project and noted that a summary was included in the agenda packet. She said that this project has gone through a long review process and that the original concept was for the applicant to keep the front portion of the previous building, which drove many of the decisions of the project. A late change was to demolish the entirety of the building. There have been some recent proposed materials changes that she and Mr. Halferty as project monitor felt should be reviewed by HPC. These mostly dealt with the materials for the proposed “fins” at the entry of the new building. She said these were approved to be a terracotta material and are now proposed to be metal. She then explained her concerns. Mr. Halferty spoke to the reasoning for his concerns, again related to the “fins” as it is in the Main Street Historic District. Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams began by introducing herself, and members of the applicant team. She then said she would start by showing a comparison of the approved and proposed plans on the monitors and then let the members look at the materials samples for the approved and proposed plans. She showed a rendering of the “rain screen” at the front entry and noted that the profile of the proposed metal “fins” would be the same as the approved terracotta ones. She also noted that the main reason to switch from REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25TH, 2023 terracotta to metal was that terracotta would show more damage and would be harder to repair than metal. Mr. Dan Artiges commented that with the sourcing issues that they have been dealing with, the aluminum material would also be easier to replace and easier to clean. He noted that the curved profile of the “fins” allows for better control of the light and that the metal material would also give more options for finishes. He said they are going with a more matte finish that will minimize glare. Ms. Adams continued by showing various renderings of the building. Mr. Artiges then went over sourcing changes in some of the proposed wood and metal materials on different sections of the building. Ms. Adams then showed several renderings of these sections. The members then got up and were able to look at the currently approved and proposed material samples side by side. Ms. Adams and Mr. Artiges described the differences between the materials and answered a few questions from the commissioners related to material finishes and sourcing. Ms. Raymond asked about the sustainability of the metal versus terracotta for the entry “fin” feature element. Mr. Artiges said the terracotta was going to come from New Jersey and the metal is more locally sourced. He also spoke to the sustainability aspects of the “fin” design related to reducing solar heat gain during the day and reducing light coming out of the lobby at night. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Halferty started by noting some of the Main Street Historic District design guidelines that he had concerns over as the monitor. These related to the new proposed brick and other materials and their consistency in the Main Street District. He thought the initial approved brick material was appropriate but had some concerns about the texture and design of the newly proposed brick material. He also had concerns about the metal “fins” proposed on the entry corner. He thought the change of the wood materials was ok. Ms. Pitchford had the same concerns about the new proposed brick material and thought the originally approved brick was more subtle. She was also concerned about the potential reflectivity of the metal “fins”, noting design guideline 1.23. She also did not think the proposed materials changes met guidelines 3.10 ,3.11 and 3.12. She thought the use of metal for the “fins” was too out of character for the Main Street District. Ms. Adams mentioned that they had a “plan B” of using a wood material for the “fins” due to their concerns of using terracotta and not knowing how the HPC members would feel about the metal. Ms. Raymond thought that the matte finish on the metal was not as shiny as the terracotta. She thought the use of metal made it seem more modern, but while she did not think that was a bad thing, it did not follow the guidelines of using primarily wood materials. She understood the concerns of using terracotta and would not encourage it’s use. She did like the option of using wood but had concerns about the longevity of the wood and because the “fins” were long elements, she thought they would not look as good over time. Because of this she thought the metal was a good idea. She also had concerns about the new proposed brick material. Mr. Artiges said they could work with the new brick supplier to change the finished look and color of the brick. He then presented a sample of the wood material for the “fins” and Ms. Adams noted that it would still be painted a matte white. Ms. Simon went over some details and history of the project’s approvals over time, resulting in where the project is today. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25TH, 2023 Mr. Artiges passed around the wood sample of the “fin” and detailed how it would be produced and its dimensions. Ms. Raymond explained her concerns about the wood material. She thought that an element that long and skinny made of wood would not be as stable and may curve and twist over time. Ms. Pitchford said the terracotta material was still the most visually acceptable option as well as the originally approved brick. Ms. Raymond thought the new proposed brick just needed to be visually calmed down a bit. She would be ok with using metal for the “fins” as opposed to wood or terracotta as it will continue to look better. Ms. Pitchford said the guidelines don’t talk about using metal and that HPC’s responsibility should be on the historical aspects and not the practicality side of things. She felt the wood and terracotta materials met the guidelines better. Ms. Simon reviewed the next steps and direction for the applicant and staff and Mr. Halferty as monitor. Mr. Halferty agreed with Ms. Raymond’s concerns about using wood or terracotta for the “fins”. He did agree that their concern is not the maintenance of the “fins”, but it was a practicality issue. Ms. Simon noted that Ms. Adams had requested that Ms. Raymond be added as a monitor, due to her design background. Ms. Pitchford again raised concern over the monitors potentially basing material approvals on sourcing and long-term maintenance issues. She noted again that none of those issues are mentioned in the design guidelines. Ms. Johonson noted that while this does involve some level of subjectivity, the design guidelines are guidelines and are supposed to be weighed and considered fully, but that certain members will take different perspectives based on their own subjective reasoning. Ms. Raymond explained that since the curved “fin” design element at the entrance is already approved, it’s now just a question of the materials. The reason she did not like the wood option is that they want to be proud of this building when they drive by in 10 to 15 years and if wood is used it will not maintain it’s cool look. Ms. Pitchford mentioned her concerns over the visual changes that have occurred on Main Street over the years and noted that this and the hotel building across the street are very big buildings that you see when driving into Aspen. Ms. Simon stated that staff had gotten direction that there are three particular materials that are unresolved and that herself and Mr. Halferty would stay as staff and monitor. Ms. Thompson reentered the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Armstrong noted the Special Meeting planned for Wednesday, November 1st at 4:30pm to discuss past projects. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Armstrong detailed two Certificates that had been issued. One at 105 South Mill Street to replace four non-historic doors. Another at 400 East Cooper to add a recessed entryway on the east side of the south façade. Ms. Simon noted that a few other Certificates had been issued for this location and there would be one more change coming that staff would be bringing to HPC soon. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25TH, 2023 CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon noted both the 420 West Francis and 820 East Cooper projects were noticed to Council and neither were called up. Ms. Simon did note that Council did discuss their feelings about the setback variations granted for the garage structure at 420 West Franics. Staff informed Council of the minimum required distance between buildings and that the spacing requirements between the garage and the back of the main house pushed things toward the alley, contributing to HPC’s grating of the variation. 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: 517 E. Hopkins Avenue – Substantial Amendment/GMQS, CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO DECEMBER 13th, 2023. MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to continue this hearing to December 13th, 2023. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 3-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Raymond left the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 135 West Francis St - Minor Development, Relocation - PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Patricia Weber – Kim Raymond Architects Ms. Weber introduced herself and noted that this property came before HPC previously with a request for Major Development, but since has decided to go in another direction. They are here today with a Minor Development request for a basement remodel. She described the lot and property and showed a few pictures of the current conditions, noting that most of the conversation would relate to the north and west façades. She presented a slide showing the existing basement floor plan as well as the proposed expansion of the basement underneath the historic resource. She noted that they are requesting minor development to expand the non-historic basement, add two egress window wells and to replace an existing exterior stair with a window well. She noted that the exterior stairs that access the existing basement were an issue pointed out in the staff memo. While not the applicant’s preference, they would comply with staff’s requests and remove the stairway and the opening will become a window well. She showed the existing and proposed site plans and noted that they are not moving the house and the only exterior work would be removing the stairwell. She then went over some details of the proposed basement expansion and said that nothing is really changing on the main and second levels of the house, except for the addition of an interior spiral staircase to access the basement. She showed each of the elevations and noted that the applicant has agreed to remove the two wood and acrylic window roofs on the south façade. She reviewed and addressed staff’s comments and recommendations from the memo. Ms. Thompson asked if the existing foundation wall under the entire historic resource was cinder block. Ms. Weber said yes. Since they would be using a concrete foundation for the expanded basement area, Ms. Thompson asked if they could make the entire foundation consistent and potentially clad the existing cinder block to match the new concrete foundation. Ms. Weber said they would do this as well as creating a boarder around the historic resource to help with drainage. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25TH, 2023 Mr. Halferty asked how positive drainage was be achieved. Ms. Weber showed a picture and noted that the ground is flat at the street, but there is a swale in the right of way that they would need help from the City on addressing. Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden, Historic Preservation Planner Mr. Hayden thanked the applicant and Ms. Weber for their flexibility and taking staff comments into consideration in their design. He then went over some history of the property, while showing a few historic pictures of the house. In 1983 an addition was added on the rear of the historic resource that included a partial basement accessed via an exterior stairwell on the west façade. He noted that being on a corner lot, the prominence of the west façade makes the exterior stair, wood guardrail and acrylic shed roof readily visible, which conflicts with guideline 10.4. He went on to describe guideline 10.4 related to this property and the exterior stair. He said that removing the exterior stairs was the preferred alternative. Next, he addressed the wood and acrylic shed roofs over the two windows on the south façade and noted they do not meet guideline 10.7 that relates to roof materials. He noted the applicant’s presentation and said because of the new proposals, most of this no longer applies. He went on to explain staff’s support for the addition of the three lightwells and the underpinning and excavation under the historic resource for the expansion of the basement. He said that staff recommends approval with conditions, and he then went over these conditions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson thought that the application looked great. Other members agreed. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the resolution with the removal of conditions #1 and #2 as presented by staff. She also wanted to add language to condition #3 that the design of the new foundation materials be consistent around the entire resource including the non-historic portion. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson. 3-0 vote, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk