Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20231213 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13TH, 2023 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Kim Raymond, Barb Pitchford, Jeffery Halferty and Kara Thompson. Absent were Peter Fornell and Riley Warwick. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Luisa Bern, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the draft minutes from 10/25/23. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4- 0, motion passes. Ms. Thompson then motioned to approve the draft minutes from 11/08/23. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson. 4-0, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Raymond mentioned that she would be conflicted on the Project Monitoring item and would leave the meeting. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Mr. Hayden noted one certificate that was issued for 414 East Hyman Ave. This was to infill a few windows and updates to an existing door, the replacement of an existing awning, the removal of an existing wall and planter and the installation of an ADA lift. CALL UP REPORTS: Mr. Hayden noted that 135 W. Francis project was noticed to Council, but it was not called up. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon reminded the HPC members that the next meeting would be on January 10th, 2024. Ms. Raymond left the meeting. PROJECT MONITORING: 227 East Bleeker Street Mr. Hayden wanted to go over some context and present staff’s findings before the applicant’s presentation. He noted that there was limited photographic or physical evidence of the historic roof materials but said that the 1904 Sanborn maps noted the roof materials on each structure. He showed the property on the map and pointed out that it identified the roofing materials as wood and metal. He went on to describe some history of the property and the previous HPC conceptual and final major development approvals in 2020 and 2021. He noted that the preservation plan in the Final Major REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13TH, 2023 Development approval included retaining the existing wood siding as well as the installation of wood shingles. He said since then the property was sold to the current owner in October of 2021 and that staff and project monitor have reviewed and approved several elements, one of which was the change of roofing materials from wood shingles to asphalt shingles. He said they are now addressing the applicant’s proposal to replace the existing exterior 1-inch-thick sheathing with a 7/16-inch fire treated OSB under the existing wood siding around the entire historic resource. He reviewed historic preservation design guidelines 2.1 and 2.3 and noted that staff does not find these to be met related to the proposed sheathing replacement. He moved onto the applicant’s proposal of synthetic roofing materials. He noted again that the originally approved material was wood shingles and that staff and monitor had recently approved a change to architectural asphalt shingles, showing examples of both. He said the applicant’s current proposal is to change to a Brava synthetic roofing material, which is a cedar-colored plastic molded in the shape of hand split wood shakes. He said that shakes were not historically seen in Aspen as by the time Aspen was developed wood shingles were commonplace. He described some differences between wood shakes and shingles and mentioned that staff finds that a proposed shake, even if it was made of wood, would not meet design guideline 7.7. Next, he noted that the plastic material tends to reflect more light than the matte finish of wood or asphalt. He showed a picture of installed Brava shakes, highlighting their reflectiveness. Referencing design guideline 7.9, he said that adding conjectural features can create a false impression of the building’s original appearance. He finished by stating that staff finds the synthetic shake inconsistent with the design guidelines and thus inappropriate for this project. Staff also is not supportive of the request to replace the existing sheathing. Ms. Pitchford asked Mr. Hayden to point out in the picture he presented of the sheathing and siding, which one is the original. Mr. Hayden displayed the picture and pointed out the vertical sheathing and noted that while he cannot confirm it is original, it is certainly old and presumably original. Ms. Simon added a bit of background of the project and noted that herself and Mr. Halferty, as staff and monitor, have reviewed a number of changes, one of which was brought to HPC before, regarding the installation of solar panels. The current proposed change by the applicant is also being brought to HPC and the request is for the board to direct staff and monitor on the decision that should be made. She noted that if the applicant is not satisfied with the board’s direction, they have the ability to file a substantial amendment application which is a much more formal public hearing. She also stated that the board is here to review if the proposed changes comply with the existing design guidelines, not whether they should be changing the policies and guidelines to address wildfires or any other concerns. Ms. Johnson confirmed that they have an approval in place that is based on representations of certain materials. She noted that this proposed change was something that staff and monitor was not comfortable making a decision on themselves because it was a change in materials. She then went over the board’s options for direction to staff and monitor. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Milo Stark – Kim Raymond Architects & Mr. Scott Hershey – Koru Ltd. Mr. Stark started by handing out a few letters that had been written regarding this project and request. He then introduced himself and Mr. Hershey. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13TH, 2023 Mr. Hershey displayed the current applicable design guidelines and noted that they mention that “not every guideline will apply to each project and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by- case basis.” Mr. Stark started with the roofing criteria and noted that they did have asphalt shingles recently approved, but one of their issues with this material comes from a sustainability standpoint. He mentioned that this project is trying to be LEED certified. Mr. Hershey noted that the Brava product has a 50-year lifespan versus a 15-year lifespan for the asphalt shingles and the Brava product is also made of recycled materials, while the asphalt is a new product. He referenced the Sanborn map that showed wood shingles on the roof originally and that they are trying to go to a wood like material. Mr. Stark moved on to addressing the sheathing request. He noted that the existing sheathing is not present around the entire house and its current condition also varies around the house. He said that they think carefully removing the existing siding, numbering it, and replacing it over proper sheathing is more than feasible. This would also allow them to introduce the “LP Flame Block” product that their client has expressed interest in as it provides extra fire rating. With this they have the ability to preserve the historic resource’s appearance with almost the same exact profile, but it would perform to modern day code and would breathe properly and would be waterproofed properly. Mr. Hershey noted that in order to lift the structure to properly dig a basement, the first three feet of siding must be removed, which has already been done. They are not proposing to change the siding but will be reusing the exact siding that was removed. They know how the removal of siding will work. He then addressed Mr. Moyer’s concern from the site visit about the breathability of the house. He said that their proposal will allow them to create an air barrier behind the siding and to create an air gap to help the historic portions of the building to breathe. Mr. Stark touched on the letters that were handed out at the beginning of the presentation (included in the agenda packet found on the City’s public records portal). One letter was from Jan Legersky, the Aspen Fire Marshall and the others were from the applicant’s friends and colleagues in support of the use of new materials. He showed a diagram of the wall assembly that was also handed out at the beginning of the presentation (also included in the agenda packet). Ms. Johnson noted that this meeting was not noticed as a Public Hearing, as it is not a decision-making hearing. She advised the members that there is no requirement for them to take public comments and that those in the community that may have wanted to give public comment may not have come to the meeting, as it was note noticed as a public hearing. Ms. Simon noted that the diagram of the wall assembly had not been shown to staff. She said that it represents an idea that staff has been resistant to and struggling with, namely the idea that all historic siding should be removed, and new sheathing and furring strips be installed that create a drainage plane. She noted that they are still waiting on the findings of the consultants that were hired to provide details of a good model and have specifically resisted this idea of furring strips because it moves the wall plane out. She realized that there was an attempt to replicate the dimensions in the field now, but staff has not looked at that yet. She was concerned of the board being dragged into such a technical discussion. Ms. Pitchford asked Ms. Simon why staff was resistance and if it was because it moves the wall out. Ms. Simon said yes and that it is also a concern that when historic siding is removed that it may break or be REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13TH, 2023 damaged in the process. She also noted that in other instances proposed to staff where sheathing is to be replaced and furring strips added, it moves the siding out, changing its relationship to trim and other details on the building. This is something that staff wants a better solution for. Ms. Surfas asked when the asphalt shingles were approved. Ms. Thompson said last December. Ms. Surfas then asked when the applicant decided to make this a LEED project. Mr. Hershey was not sure of the exact date. Ms. Surfas said she believed that the applicant knew they were going for LEED when they asked for asphalt shingles. She asked why they didn’t ask for the Brava material when they asked for asphalt shingles, knowing they were going for LEED. Mr. Hershey said that they had originally asked for DaVinci shakes which had never been approved by HPC before. With new materials on the market, they were trying again with HPC. Mr. Hershey wanted to respond to some of Ms. Simon’s comments. He said that there was precedent for the removal and repair of historic siding. He noted that 227 Main St. was approved to remove all of their siding. He also referenced the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, which is in the City of Aspen’s historic guidelines. He said it allows minimal change to a historic structure’s distinctive features and special relationships and that in trying to bring these buildings into the modern realm, their proposal represents minimal change. Mr. Stark added that their solution of taking off the siding and replacing the sheathing with a more modern material and introducing a waterproof barrier is in his eyes, preserving the historic resource more, and if not done will cause the studs and siding to rot. Mr. Moyer asked about some details of the waterproofing membrane that was depicted on the wall assembly diagram, as he did not see a membrane that would allow any water to escape from within the house. Ms. Thompson said that she vehemently opposed this being a monitoring aspect. She believed it to be a big and important issue that needed to be discussed, but that this was not the time or place. She noted that staff is working on building details to address this exact item and that it is beyond the scope of monitoring decision for this project. Mr. Moyer commented that this will be a very interesting and important discussion but agreed that this was not the time or place. Mr. Halferty said that through the previous staff presentations of proposed changes, the board and staff and monitor have been very receptive. He thought the DaVinci shingles never complied with their code when it came to historic guidelines 7.7 and 7.9. He appreciated the applicant going for LEED certification and the fire retention materials, but his biggest issue with the siding, similar to Ms. Simon’s comments, is that every time you pull it off it has the potential to break or be lost. He was also concerned with all the alterations and changes that need to be made to the siding profiles, drip edges and water table boards due to the change in sheathing. He believed the applicant’s request was above a staff and monitor approval level, which is why he wanted to rely on his colleagues on the HPC board. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson noted the two issues they needed to discuss. One being the sheathing materials and the other being the roofing materials. She said that she was opposed to the sheathing replacement being a part of a staff and monitor request and thought that if the applicant wanted to come in with an amendment to their application, they could do that, which would give the board more time and information to be able to deal with that. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13TH, 2023 Mr. Moyer and Ms. Pitchford agreed. Mr. Moyer said that when he was at the site, he paid close attention to the siding. He thought that it was important that any time someone wants to remove siding, the HPC board should be sure that the competency level of the people doing it is very high. He said that in this incidence, after his observation of the site, he believed the competency level to be extremely high. Ms. Thompson noted that the board had given Ms. Simon and Mr. Halferty, as staff and monitor, direction on the sheathing proposal. She then moved on to the roofing materials and said that she was not necessarily opposed to synthetic shingles, however she was opposed to these proposed shingles because of the difference in size and scale from what would have historically existed. The difference in size, scale and finish are three big items that she did not support. She thought that if there was a synthetic shingle that was of a more appropriate scale to this structure, she would not oppose it. Ms. Pitchford commented that they saw something like what Ms. Thompson described at the site visit and that it had just come in. Mr. Stark said they brought a sample of it to the meeting. Mr. Hayden said he would rather not discuss it, as staff had not had time to review it. Ms. Johnson wanted to clarify with Ms. Thompson that she thought a change from the approved asphalt shingles to a synthetic shingle would be within staff and monitor approval with some direction regarding size, scale, and finish. Ms. Thompson said yes. Mr. Moyer noted that he had contacted the manufacturer of the proposed shakes several months ago and he described his discussion with them. He told the person he talked to that they were going in a great direction, but the product is too thick to be considered a shingle, the cut lines are too heavy, and the color is off. Ms. Pitchford said she appreciated the site visit today and that it gave her context of the direction the owner was trying to go with LEED certification and hardening of the structure. She said she also learned the difference between a shake and a shingle. She said what they saw today was a shake and she agreed that it was too thick and did not match historical roofing materials. She did think that the shingle that arrived late and she saw at the site visit was within the scope of a staff and monitor approval. She said it is plastic but is much more consistent with historic structures. Mr. Halferty said he had yet to see a synthetic shake or shingle that was consistent with guideline 7.7 or 7.9. He understood the direction the applicant was going, but thought the issue was more of an amendment to the guidelines. Ms. Surfas said that they needed to have a serious conversation about this because, forgetting LEED, people cannot get insurance. They will need to start doing something about this. Ms. Thompson summarized the direction for staff and monitor regarding the roofing materials. She said that if they find something that is consistent with the guidelines, even if it was synthetic, she would be ok with it. She said she would define consistent as related to thickness, size, and width. The other board members agreed. Ms. Simon confirmed that the board wanted staff and monitor to look at other options and if they see something that is approvable, that it will be done, otherwise it will bump back to the HPC board. The board members agreed. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13TH, 2023 Ms. Johnson again asked that the material change may be considered insubstantial, if all the other elements fit within the guidelines. Ms. Thompson said yes. Mr. Stark noted that the materials that they had just received were shingles and not shakes and that they seemed to meet the board’s concerns. He asked if they could present them, to which Ms. Thompson said they could present them to Ms. Simon and Mr. Halferty as staff and monitor and they would determine if they felt comfortable signing off on them or not. Mr. Stack then asked about the sheathing replacement. Ms. Thompson said that would need to be a larger hearing. Ms. Thompson thanked the applicant team for their time. She then asked Ms. Simon if there was an update on the expected details from the consultants. Ms. Simon gave a brief update and said it should be within the next few weeks. There was agreement on holding a work session with the building department once the consultant’s report was in. Ms. Johnson noted that the letters that had been handed out were also forwarded to City Council as a bigger policy discussion. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Pitchford seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk