HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20240327
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024
Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at
4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Peter Fornell, Jodi Surfas, Kim Raymond, Charlie Tarver,
and Kara Thompson. Absent were Barb Pitchford, Riley Warwick, and Jeff Halferty.
Staff present:
Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation
Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation
Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the draft minutes from 3/13/24. Ms. Thompson seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0, motion passes.
Ms. Thompson wanted to confirm with Ms. Johnson that Mr. Tarver, as an alternate member would be
voting because 3 regular members were absent. Ms. Johnson said yes, he would be voting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Johnson about a hypothetical situation
where an applicant comes to staff with an application that staff believes “will not fly”, yet it still comes
before HPC. He asked if there was anything they could do to prevent this. He wondered if the public was
taking advantage of the two new HPC staff members, whereas in the past Ms. Amy Simon would have
just shut it down. He wondered if HPC just had to keep saying no to applicants even if they keep coming
back.
Ms. Johnson explained HPC’s options when it came to either denying an application or continuing it. Per
the Code, if the HPC denies an application the applicant is barred from resubmitting for one year. The
applicant is also only guaranteed one continuance and the HPC is not obligated to continue an
application beyond the first continuance unless they feel good cause is shown. She then said that she
believed that the City has two highly skilled and intelligent Historic Preservation staff members. She did
not have any concerns that things are getting by staff.
Mr. Moyer concurred that they had great staff members.
Ms. Surfas asked staff to clarify what HPC had approved for 413 E Main St. She felt what is there does
not seem to be what they approved.
Ms. Johnson stated that any commissioner could look at past HPC meeting agendas and minutes on the
City’s website. She said that staff would get the info that Ms. Surfas was asking about.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Raymond stated that she was conflicted on both agenda
items and would leave the meeting before the first item.
STAFF COMMENTS: None
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
CALL UP REPORTS: None.
SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed
in compliance with the Code for the second agenda item that required it.
Ms. Raymond left the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS: 227 E. Main St. - Informational Memo Regarding Alleged Violation of the Municipal
Code, Section 26.415 – Historic Preservation, NOT A PUBLIC HEARING
Staff Presentation: Kirsten Armstrong - Principal Planner Historic Preservation
Ms. Armstrong stated that this would be an information session to discuss alleged violations of the Land
Use Code and approved building permit. She began her presentation by going over the history of this
property, showing a few historical photos. She then detailed the history of previous HPC meetings and
approvals for the project. She displayed some of the approved elevations and the conditions of approval
that were placed on the project as part of Resolution #13, Series of 2020. She reviewed these
conditions. She stated that the building permit, issued in May of 2022, noted that all historic framing,
windows, and perimeter walls and roof were to be preserved in place with new structures sistered as
needed. This note was also included on the structural plans.
She then stated that on February 15th, 2024, staff received a voicemail from an HPC member with
concerns that the framer may have removed the remaining historic framing on the west roof. She
showed a picture that was taken by staff when investigating. Later that day they conducted a site visit
with the City’s Chief Building Official and the project’s architect and contractors. She stated that the
Chief Building Official issued a stop work order on the morning of February 16th. An email was sent to
the project team requesting documentation, photos, and an explanation of what happened and why.
She noted that the project superintendent does not currently have his Historic Preservation BEST card
certification. He has applied for it and passed the test on March 13th, 2024, but the certification has not
been issued as an investigation and enforcement are ongoing. She went on to review what had
happened which is detailed in the agenda packet.
She then noted that demolition calculations were requested and indicate the approved work came to
approximately 11.5% demolition, while the unapproved work, including the removal of the historic roof
rafters, totals 42.44% demolition.
Next, she reviewed the Historic Preservation penalties as written in the Municipal Land Use Code and
presented in the agenda packet. She referenced the response received from the applicant team, which
indicates their willingness to reframe the roof in accordance with the approved structural drawings and
to assist with contractor training documents.
She noted the intent here was to inform HPC of the alleged violation and provide background
information and that any discussion here should focus on what additional information HPC members
may need from staff or the applicant in order to consider penalties at the HPC public hearing, scheduled
for April 10th, 2024.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024
Ms. Thompson asked if any Floor Area Bonuses were awarded. Ms. Armstrong said there were no Floor
Area bonuses granted, yet some setback variances were granted.
Mr. Fornell asked if the contractor’s lack of credentials with the BEST certification had slipped through
the cracks. Ms. Armstrong stated that her belief was that the project superintendent had changed a few
times and the superintendent at the time the permit was issued had his BEST certification, but then left
the company. In the shuffle it was missed somehow. She was not sure why, as it happened before
herself and Mr. Hayden were with the City.
Ms. Thompson said she felt the documentation that staff had provided was sufficient. She did ask that
the existing and proposed elevations be included in the agenda packet for the public hearing.
Mr. Fornell asked if the original application and approval predated the 40% rule on demolition. Ms.
Thompson noted that Historic properties were exempt for the GMQS demolition rule. Ms. Armstrong
said that was just to provide a number for reference.
NEW BUSINESS: 227 E. Bleeker St. - Substantial Amendment - PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant Presentation: Mr. Milo Stark – Kim Raymond Architects
Mr. Stark introduced himself and Mr. Scott Hershey with Koru Ltd. who is the superintendent on the
project. He then started his presentation by noting that they are seeking two separate approvals. One is
for modifications to the historic wall assembly and the other is replacement of the historic roofing
materials.
He went over some background on the property and noted that it was covered in some asbestos transite
shingles that were chosen in the 1930s for their fire-resistant properties. He then detailed the process of
the removal of these shingles, which now has exposed the historic wood siding to the elements. He
noted that the historic interior walls studs are either attached to the historic wood siding or to some
internal vertical 1-inch wood sheathing. He showed a diagram of where the historic wood sheathing was
located in the house. He then went over some of their concerns due to the existing conditions. One
being that adequate structural sheathing is missing from half of the building. The other is the absence of
adequate waterproofing. He went into more detail about these concerns. Another concern was that the
wall assembly lacks adequate fire protection. He spoke to the current issues with wildfires and the risk
they pose to this and surrounding homes. He noted that insurance companies are now requiring fire
hardened materials and that some people are losing coverage due to a lack of these materials. He
referred to a letter from the Aspen Fire Marshall that was in the agenda packet which also expressed
concerns about historic structures and life safety and related insurance issues. He shared another letter
that they received from a neighboring property owner Karen Kribs expressing support for the project.
He moved on to describe the details of the current wall assembly, how it performs and the resultant
waterproofing issues. Next, he described the details of the currently approved wall assembly. Then he
went over some of their proposals to address their concerns while protecting the historic structure. This
includes allowing them to carefully remove the historic wood siding, storing it in a safe place, restoring it
to a paintable surface and then reapplying it after modifications to the wall assembly are complete. Also,
allowing them to remove and discard the existing vertical wood sheathing. This would not affect the
appearance or structural integrity of the house. Finally, the introduction of the adequate materials that
address their concerns. This includes the proposed fireproof sheathing called LP Flame Block and a
waterproofing membrane. They would introduce furring strips to try to emulate the thickness of the
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024
historic walls. He then read some excerpts from letters of support from Ants Cullwick, the owner of Koru
Ltd. and Rio Jacober, a project manager with Koru that were both included in the agenda packet.
He went over the Historic Preservation Guidelines relevant to the wall assembly request and how and
why they believe they are met.
Mr. Stark moved on to their next request of the historic roof replacement material. He showed the
conditions of the roof they found when they started the preservation work. He went over the history of
the prior approved materials and a change in the home’s ownership in 2022. He showed the previously
approved wood shingles and the currently approved asphalt shingles and detailed the positives and
negatives of each. He noted that they had come before HPC in December of 2023 to request an
alternative roofing material from Brava which was not well received by the board members. In January
of this year, they presented another alternative roofing material from EcoStar to the monitor and staff
and created a mockup on site. The monitor decided it was not a monitor level review. He then went
over the specifics of the EcoStar product, and it’s benefits over asphalt shingles.
He went over the Historic Preservation Guidelines relevant to this request and how and why they
believe they are met. He said that with HPC’s approval of this request they can offer a viable roofing
option that looks better than asphalt shingles and is safer than wood shingles as well as setting a
precedent for using sustainable materials in historic preservation and practices.
Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant team had any concerns about taking a historic stud that historically
had the ability to move with the exterior siding and trapping it between an exterior waterproofing
barrier and internal spray foam insulation. She asked if they had evaluated any other interior insulation
material that would allow the studs to move. She said she had not seen any wall assemblies that had
spray foam insulation on the interior. Mr. Hershey stated that they have the issue of humidified homes
where if there isn’t a vapor barrier, the moisture can make it way through, hit a dew point in the wall
and cause mold. He went on to describe how moisture can move through wall assemblies and why their
assembly will prevent moisture issues to the historic siding.
Ms. Thompson addressed the proposed shear wall and said that interior shear walls can be used. Mr.
Hershey agreed but said that their proposal adds another level of shear as well as fire protection.
Mr. Moyer asked if they were planning to back seal any of the siding that gets removed before they put
it back up. Mr. Hershey said yes.
Ms. Thompson wanted to confirm that they would be open to using the 6- and 9-inch widths for the
synthetic roofing shingles. Mr. Stark noted that the mockup they built used the 6- and 9-inch widths as
they better emulate shingles.
Mr. Hershey mentioned that they presented their proposed wall assembly to the City’s Chief Building
Official and that she was in support of it.
Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden - Planner - Historic Preservation
Mr. Hayden started his presentation by saying that staff appreciates the conversation around building
science, wall assemblies and roofing materials as they pertain to fire protection. He noted that HPC and
staff are scheduled to have a work session at their next meeting to discuss these issues in more depth.
While the HPC can act as a recommending body to City Council for any potential changes to the Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines, he asked that HPC consider the proposals in front them for 227 E.
Bleeker with the current Design Guidelines in mind. He also suggested that the applicant’s proposed wall
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024
assembly request would be best considered as two issues. One for the disassembly of the historic siding
and the other being the removal of the historic sheathing.
Mr. Hayden next stated that in staff’s assessment, the disassembly of the historic siding does not meet
Guidelines 2.1, 6.1, or 6.2. He went on to explain the reasoning for this and staff’s concerns with the
potential disassembly as referenced in the agenda packet. He said that staff recommends approval of
disassembling the historic wood siding only where necessary for its restoration, or to access parts of the
wall assembly where no sheathing exists.
He moved on to the request to remove the historic sheathing. He stated that in staff’s assessment the
removal does not meet Guidelines 2.1 and 2.4. He went on to explain the reasoning for this as
referenced in the agenda packet. He said that staff recommends approval of the installation of new
sheathing only where no historic sheathing exists.
Moving on to the request to install the EcoStar synthetic shakes, Mr. Hayden stated that staff does not
believe this meets Guidelines 7.7. 7.8 and 7.9 that call for the preservation of roofing materials and if
new replacement materials are required that they should reflect and be similar to the original as much
as possible. He then provided more detail of staff’s findings as referenced in the agenda packet. He
noted that the Ecostar synthetic shakes have an exaggerated wood grain texture that is unlike the
smooth grain finish of wood shingles as well as a reflectivity or sheen that is unlike a wood shingle. He
also noted that wooden shakes have not been evidenced as existing in Aspen around the time of the
original construction or at any other time, thus using them would create a false sense of the building’s
original appearance. He said that staff would recommend approval of a roofing material that is more
akin to the original in style, size, and color, but does not find that this product is it. He noted that staff
does not want to close the door on the possibility that a product does exist, just that they have not seen
one yet.
He then showed a slide with staff’s recommendations and said that the proposed approval conditions
allow for some level of flexibility without a full denial.
Ms. Thompson asked if staff had talked to the building department. Mr. Hayden said that they are
making no argument that the proposed wall assembly does not meet building code.
Mr. Moyer asked if siding is removed would staff have a recommendation to seal the back side before it
goes back up. Mr. Hayden said staff does not have a recommendation off hand, but something could be
added as a condition of approval.
Mr. Fornell asked if staff had a recommendation of a specific roofing material in a best-case scenario.
Mr. Hayden no, but staff looks forward to having the conversation about alternative roofing materials at
the next meeting’s work session as they feel it is a broader conversation. He said that interpreting the
current guidelines would suggest original material of wood shingles would be the preferred option, yet
there is also precedent to using asphalt shingles which were previously approved for this project.
Mr. Fornell then asked if companies producing synthetic roofing materials been able to make a
composite material that will most closely resemble a historic shingle product. Mr. Hayden said he was
not aware, but staff would be open to such a product.
Mr. Hershey then responded to Mr. Fornell’s question. He said that when they presented the mockup on
site the comments were that the size and scale were correct, but the color was not. He then presented a
few samples of the different materials and described the color and width options that EcoStar can
provide.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024
Mr. Stark asked Ms. Thompson if he could respond to Mr. Hayden’s presentation regarding the
sheathing. Ms. Thompson said yes. Mr. Hershey stated that they did not understand what staff’s
recommendation was. Mr. Stark said the question they have is that only being able to install their
proposed wall assembly in only a few locations where historic sheathing does not exist, does not fully
address their main concern, that being fire protection.
Public Comment: Ms. Thompson opened the public comment and asked all the board members if they
had read the letter from Ms. Karen Kribs that was presented by the applicant. All members said yes. Ms.
Johnson noted that she had emailed another public comment letter to the board members earlier that
day that was from a City Council member. She noted that this letter should not carry any more weight
because it was from a Council member. Ms. Thompson asked the members if they had read that email.
All members said yes.
Mr. Rio Jacober of Koru Ltd. commented that Aspen has always led the nation in many aspects of
building science. He thought that they were seeing two conflicting things happening. He thought that
doing nothing on these buildings and allowing them to just be rebuilt in ways that are not at the highest
level of building science risks some negligence. He said that he understands the difficult position of
counter acting direction from both the building code and the attempt to maintain historical integrity.
He thought at some point the community needs to start to embrace modern building techniques and
science and understand that the preservation of the town’s culture and look is achievable using those
techniques and materials.
Ms. Thompson closed the public comment.
Mr. Hayden asked to respond to the public comment. Ms. Thompson allowed his response. Mr. Hayden
displayed a technical data sheet for the applicant’s proposed EcoStar roofing material. He noted as a
point of clarification, that the product is called the “Empire Shake”, not shingle, and is described in this
data sheet as “designed to provide the look of natural cedar shake”. He said that staff believed the
product is replicative of a material that was never historically used in Aspen and is therefore
inappropriate for this project. He reiterated staff’s support of addressing issues of materials and the
introduction of new materials but encouraged the HPC at this time to consider the project according to
the current Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson opened the board discussion by stating, while not a reflection on
current staff, that she was frustrated that she had been asking staff for building consultants on this topic
for three years and progress has not been made. She also said that requests to adjust the Design
Guidelines were strongly dissuaded by former staff. She stated that they need to address these issues
urgently.
Ms. Thompson suggested the board split their discussion into the siding question and the roofing
question.
Mr. Fornell said that after hearing from the applicant regarding the condition of the historic siding, he
believed the removal, treatment and replacement of the siding will likely extend its useful life. He said
he would support the removal, treatment, and replacement of the siding if it is properly overseen.
Ms. Surfas said that she recalled from their last meeting, that there might have been an issue with the
dimensions of the siding and sheathing replacement in places, but it seemed that it had been resolved.
Ms. Thompson said that in the past there was a concern with the thickness of the furring strips, but it
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024
now seemed that the 1-inch sheathing was being replaced with 7/16-inch sheathing and 1/2-inch furring
strips to replicate the original thickness.
Ms. Surfas then said that she would be in support of the siding removal, treatment, and replacement.
Mr. Moyer said the siding could be removed, saved, and replaced, but the point is it needs to be done
slowly and carefully. He also recommended that the siding be back sealed with a water-based primer.
Regarding the proposed sheathing he said that did have concerns about the use of new types of
materials. He commented that with the building department being ok with the proposed wall assembly,
he wondered if the other members were comfortable with that. He said that he was now relying on Mr.
Stark to give them something that will work.
Ms. Thompson asked that staff have Chief Building Official provide HPC with a letter stating her support
of the proposed wall assembly details and materials.
Mr. Moyer stated his support for the removal of the siding again.
Ms. Thompson said she agreed with staff that this does not meet the current Design Guidelines, but she
believed that it is a better building science decision. She said she had no concerns about this contractor
but did not think every contractor is capable of this type of restoration and did not want to set a
precedent. She said in other projects she would want to know exactly who the contractor was.
Mr. Tarver asked about the longevity of a wall restoration if the proposed action of removing and
replacing the siding takes place versus the restoration being done in place. He asked if there was any
history of those two options.
Mr. Moyer said that if the removal and replacement is done to industry standards it will be as good as it
ever could have been.
Mr. Tarver said that he supported the removal and replacement of the siding.
Ms. Thompson moved on to discussing the roofing materials.
Mr. Fornell acknowledged that a roof had to be put on as it currently has a metal roof. He said that you
cannot put wooden shingles up, so you have either asphalt shingles, or the proposed synthetic material
and he does not like asphalt shingles. With the one option left in his mind, he questioned what its
aesthetic would be when it is installed versus in 30 years. He pointed to a lighter color sample that was
presented. He said that with the material options available and the environment that we live in, he was
in support of the proposed composite material.
Ms. Surfas asked Mr. Fornell why he thought they could not use wooden shingles. Mr. Fornell said he
thought it was a building code issue. Mr. Moyer said it was not.
Mr. Fornell then said it was an insurance issue. He then took back his statement about it being a building
code issue but said he did not want to force an applicant to use a certain material that would not allow
them to insure their house.
Mr. Moyer noted that they must look at the modern world. He referenced Trex and Hardy Plank
materials as examples of new composites that have some major issues. He said they don’t know how
long composite materials will last. He said that he had contacted a manufacturer of a different synthetic
roofing material and asked if they could replicate a wooden shingle. He said he did not get a positive
response. He said that the proposed material here is close, but it is not there. He said that as it sits, he
would reject the currently proposed material. He thought potentially in the future a product might be
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024
created that you could not tell the difference. He felt that HPC was stuck here as they had not had their
discussion on roofing materials yet.
Ms. Thompson said she felt torn on the roofing material as well. She said she would like to see the
synthetic shingles get there but agreed with Mr. Moyer that this product is not there. She also found this
challenging because she’d like to have the discussion with the whole board on the roofing materials
issue. She also said that she would not say yes to the replacement of the sheathing until the board
receives a letter from the Chief Building Official. She suggested that they continue this item, including
the roofing materials and sheathing requests, until after they have had the roofing discussion at the next
meeting. She clarified that she was ok with the removal of the siding.
Mr. Fornell agreed that they should hold off on the sheathing and roofing materials requests. Mr. Moyer
agreed.
Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Johnson if they could approve the siding removal and continue the sheathing
and roofing requests.
Ms. Johnson considered HPC’s options and wondered if they could vote on just one of the items.
The applicant team asked when the continuance would be until.
Ms. Armstrong said the next available meeting would be April 24th. After that the next meeting would be
May 8th.
Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Johnson if it would be ok to direct staff and monitor to approve the removal of
the siding. Ms. Johnson said she would be comfortable with that as this originated as a staff and monitor
item, but she looked to staff for their thoughts realizing that some board members were not present at
this meeting but may attend the next meeting. She thought that the proper procedure would be to
continue the entire item to a date certain as the public noticing would indicate that the siding would be
an item for discussion while it potentially may be taken off the table with a vote today.
Mr. Fornell said that he was always a proponent of keeping people moving forward and suggested that
they try to complete the entire request at this meeting.
Ms. Thompson asked if they could split this into two resolutions.
Ms. Johnson and the members discussed the ability to potentially split the two items and vote on a
resolution approving the siding removal and continuing the sheathing and roofing material items.
Mr. Anderson agreed with the idea of splitting the requests into two resolutions.
MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #01 of 2024 with the following revision to
condition #1, adding that the applicant is approved to disassemble all historic wood siding on the
structure and to remove conditions #2 and #3 from the resolution.
Ms. Johnson asked, with the boards’ approval, to change the first section to say “HPC approves the
applicant’s substantial amendment request to disassemble all historic wood siding with the following
conditions”.
Ms. Johnson, Mr. Anderson and staff continued to wordsmith the language in the resolution to make
sure it was clear that HPC was only approving the removal of historic siding and not the entire
substantial amendment request.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024
Mr. Anderson then said that it seemed the intention here was clear and suggested that staff continue to
wordsmith the resolution outside of the meeting, and the have the HPC Chair and the applicant review
and approve the changes before the Chair signed the resolution.
Ms. Thompson revised her original motion. She moved to approve Resolution #01 of 2024 with the
intent to approve the removal and storage of the existing wood siding with the understanding that the
second part of the first substantial amendment request related to the historic sheathing as well as the
second request related to the roofing materials be continued to another public hearing and authorizing
the chair to sign Resolution #01. Mr. Moyer seconded the motion.
Mr. Tarver asked if the Resolution would allow the applicant to work on the siding after it was removed.
Ms. Thompson said yes, it would allow it.
Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0,
motion passes.
MOTION: Ms. Thompson then moved to continue the remaining items related to the exterior sheathing
and wall assembly and roofing materials to April 24th, 2024. Mr. Fornell seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0,
motion passes.
Mr. Anderson requested to make a few comments to which Ms. Thompson agreed.
Mr. Anderson said he thought this was a very timely conversation and realized that it was frustrating for
both the HPC and the applicant in that they were caught in this place in time where Aspen has been
doing things in this arena for a very long time with a clear set of outcomes related to Historic
Preservation. He spoke about his time living in Flagstaff, AZ having to respond to wildfire threats. He
noted that the community here understands that the forest we have now is not the same as it was 25 or
30 years ago as it relates to wildfire risks. He agreed that the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines have
not kept up with the times. He stated that there is a coordinated effort across many City departments to
coordinate a response to wildfire resiliency. He said he was looking forward to having conversations
with HPC about targeted changes to the Design Guidelines.
ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor;
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk