Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20240911REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford, Riley Warwick and Kara Thompson. Absent was Kim Raymond. Staff present: Gillian White, Principal Planner – Historic Preservation Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Jeff Barnhill – Planner I, Community Development Ben Anderson, Director of Community Development Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Pitchford moved to approve the draft minutes from July 24th, 2024. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs distributed a handout to the commissioners (subsequently included in the public record). He noted his previous appearances before HPC and that he was made aware of a report that Ms. Kate Johnson gave the members at the last meeting regarding the 205 W Main St project. He had listened to the audio recording of that meeting and said he respectively disagreed with Ms. Johnson’s report. He went on to detail his disagreements as laid out in the handout. He believed the applicant misrepresented that the rear addition was not historic and that HPC approved the application on that misrepresentation. Ms. Pitchford requested a more formal information update about the project taking into account Mr. Scruggs’ comments. Ms. Thompson said that she would talk to Ms. Johnson about the best way to inform the members. Ms. Lindsey Flewelling introduced herself as the Certified Local Government (CLG) Coordinator at History Colorado. She noted that she was attending as part of HPC’s quadrennial evaluation. She noted that the CLG program is a partnership between local governments, the State Historic Preservation Office (History Colorado) and the National Parks Service. She said that Aspen’s HPC has been certified since 1985, which was basically the beginning of the program. She said she would leave her contact information with Ms. White. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Flewelling what other Historic Preservation groups around the State were dealing with historic wood shingle roofs considering fire implications and insurance. Ms. Flewelling said that conversations around this have been happening at the State and National level and that she knew of a few roofs in Telluride that had been approved to use DaVinci synthetic shingles. Mr. Moyer asked if any Historic Commissions around Colorado ever meet with or observe other municipalities’ commissions. Ms. Flewelling said it is not super common, but joint meetings do occur. She also mentioned the Ski Town Forum that happens every spring. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024 COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer wanted to get an update on the 205 W Main St. project. Ms. Thompson, as the project monitor, gave a brief update on the applicant’s progress on the project and their submittals. She noted the applicant has been in for their administrative review and all the referral departments have issued comments, including herself and Mr. Hayden. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: None STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Anderson introduced Ms. Gillian White, who is the City of Aspen’s new Principal Planner for Historic Preservation. He gave some details of her background and wished her a warm welcome. Ms. White introduced herself and went over her background. She invited the members to reach out to her if they would like to meet one on one to get to know each other. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None CALL UP REPORTS: Mr. Hayden noted that the 335 Lake Ave. project had been noticed as a call up to City Council. He mentioned that City Council did not request to call up the item. Ms. Thompson requested an update be provided on City Council’s decision regarding the 120 Main St. project. Mr. Anderson described the outcome and noted that it was a positive conversation with City Council. He went over the specific aspects that Council granted the project. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Berne confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item. OLD BUSINESS: 117 North Sixth Street - Minor Development - PUBLIC HEARING Continued from the July 10th, 2024 HPC meeting. Mr. Fornell, Mr. Warwick and Ms. Thompson all noted that they were absent at the July 10th meeting but had read the minutes and reviewed the packet materials. They all felt they were up to speed and could participate in this discussion. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Jake Ezratty – Brikor Associates; Monty Earl Mr. Earl noted that they had presented their original request at the July 10th, 2024 meeting. He noted that they had originally proposed a standing seam metal roofing material as a replacement for the existing wood shingles and that HPC had rejected that proposal. He presented a sample of their updated alternate metal roofing material choice that they believed looked more like wood shakes than standing seam. He said the owner wanted to do a black roof. Mr. Ezratty noted that he had submitted the samples to Mr. Hayden. Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden – Planner - Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden started his presentation by noting that the newly proposed alternate material submitted by the applicant still did not meet guidelines 7.7 and 7.8. He said that wooden shakes were the existing, original and presumably the only roofing material used on the historic resource. He noted that the new proposed material is neither an in-kind replacement, nor is similar to the original in both style and REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024 physical qualities. He further described the differences between an actual wooden shake and the proposed new metal material. He stated that staff recommends denial of the newly proposed alternate material. Mr. Fornell asked if the applicant would be able to avoid coming before the HPC if they had proposed an alternate material that was already an approved product listed in either the preservation guidelines or the municipal code. Mr. Hayden said that a list of approvable materials may not be appropriate given that each project and situation was unique. He noted that staff had provided the applicant with a list of materials that had been approved in the past on other projects. Public Comment: None Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson said that she agreed with the feedback given at the previous meeting that the metal material was not appropriate, and that a synthetic shingle may be considered. Mr. Fornell commented that after reading the application he was disappointed to realize that the bid from Pacific Sheet Metal was over a year old. He felt that the applicant has been trying to replace their roof and since HPC could not settle on acceptable roof materials they are just spinning their wheels. He said they should be able to give an applicant an option that works both for the historic resource but also for the property owner for the purposes of obtaining insurance. Ms. Surfas said that they had pointed the applicant in the direction of what they could use and offered to continue the meeting to today to come back with something that was approvable. She said that HPC was very clear at the last meeting that this type of material was not approvable. Mr. Hayden noted that he had provided the applicant with the EcoStar synthetic shake as possible option that had been approved in the past. Mr. Fornell asked the applicant if there was something wrong with the option that Mr. Hayden had provided. Mr. Ezratty said that a black metal material is preferred by the owner of the property. He felt that this new proposed material would be somewhere in the middle as it is a metal shingle and not standing seam. He said that they did not receive an exact list of specific approvable materials, as it is a case-by- case situation. He noted that they like the metal material because it is lighter in weight and that snow will slide off it. Mr. Fornell thought that while the property owner may have a best idea in mind for themselves, they needed to remember that they purchased a property with a historic resource on it. Ms. Thompson again stated that it was very clear to her from the minutes of the previous meeting, that metal was not an acceptable material. She said that clearer direction in this case would be that replacement with a wooden shingle or synthetic wood shake in a similar color, shape and size to the historic material would be appropriate. Mr. Moyer asked Mr. Hayden about the issue with insurance related to roofs and if it varied depending on the company. Mr. Hayden said it did vary based on the insurer and the property and that there are still some buildings around town that are able to get new wooden shingle roofs insured. Mr. Moyer commented on historic methods of fire retardants being applied to wood shingle roofs in Aspen and described his experience when talking with a manufacturer of synthetic wood shakes. He felt REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024 that HPC needed to have a discussion with insurance companies as well as manufacturers of these synthetic roofing products. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant if they would be able to turn something around for the next meeting if they continued again. Mr. Ezratty said that because of insurance they would not be able to replace in kind. He and Mr. Earl asked about other possible materials like slate or a more matte metal. Ms. Thompson said slate may be appropriate on a structure that historically had a slate roof and that any type of metal would not work. The rest of the board agreed that metal does not work here. Ms. Pitchford asked that the owner be told that the new material should convey the scale, color and texture of the historic material. There was some more discussion about the current issues related to trying to insure homes with wooden roof materials and the current options applicants have for replacement materials. Mr. Hayden noted for the record that the HP Design Guidelines relating to roofing materials had been amended. He also felt that the next meeting might be unrealistic for the applicant to find a new product and for staff to have enough time to review it and respond. He suggested the October 9th meeting. MOTION: Mr. Fornell moved to continue this item until October 9th, 2024. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. NEW BUSINESS: 128 East Main St. – Sardy House - - Minor HP, Setback Variation - PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Mr. Garrett Larimer – Kramer Land Planning Jamie Brewster McLeod – Brewster McLeod Architects Mr. Larimer began by stating that this was an application for HP Minor Development and Setback Variation for the replacement of mechanical equipment. He went over a brief history of the Sardy House property and some details about the lot’s location and size. He noted that this request is to install a new HVAC system in the rear yard setback behind the boarding house on the rear of the property. He said that the equipment currently on site was approved by HPC in 2003 and received similar HP Minor Development and Setback Variation approvals. He noted that the equipment is failing and is no longer serviceable and in an effort to ensure the new equipment was appropriately sized for the building and met all current code requirements, the applicant hired BG Building Works to research appropriate units. In that research it was determined that there was nothing on the market that met all code requirements and was appropriately sized, so the best equipment available for the situation was proposed. Mr. Larimer showed a few pictures of the existing conditions and location of the existing HVAC equipment. He noted that in the 2003 HPC approval, this was determined to be the best location for the equipment. He showed a plan view of the proposed new equipment and noted that in order to keep the overall size as small as possible and still meet the load requirements of the building, two chiller units are proposed. Mr. Larimer went over the code requirements that the equipment is subject to and noted that with the proximity of the location to the property line the noise emission of the units was very important. He said that the equipment chosen had a decibel level limit that can be set when installed and would be set to the daytime and evening noise limits set in the code. He noted that with the site and location constraints, while they did select the smallest units that still meet the requirements for the building, REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024 they are still asking for a 103-inch comprehensive height variance to allow for the replacement of the equipment in this location. He believed that this proposal met the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and is the best option for replacement and is as code compliant as possible. Ms. Thompson asked if all the clearances for the installation had been checked. Mr. Larimer said their engineer checked the manufacturer’s installation instructions and incorporated them into the design. Mr. Fornell asked if the number of parking spaces currently on the property exceed the code requirements. Mr. Larimer did not have that information. Mr. Fornell felt that the number of spaces did exceed the requirements and asked if they could retire a parking space and stay inside the setbacks. Ms. Brewster McLeod said they had looked into that option but since the rear portion of the property is still a boarding house use, they had to comply with that, and the current number of parking spaces is the minimum allowed per the 1985 Land Use approval. Staff Presentation: Jeff Barnhill – Planner I Mr. Barnhill began his presentation by going over some details and history of the property and lot and pointed out the 2003 HPC approval for the size and location of the current equipment. He showed a comparison of the existing and proposed equipment and noted that to include the new buffer tank the pad would need to be slightly larger. He showed the elevation view of the proposed equipment and said that wind / hail guards and the height request were included in the resolution. Mr. Barnhill moved on to the Historic Preservation Guidelines and noted that the proposed equipment met all relevant guidelines as detailed in the staff findings section of the agenda packet materials. He then reviewed the review criteria for HPC to grant setback variations and went over staff’s response as detailed in the staff findings section of the agenda packet materials. Mr. Barnhill concluded by stating that staff recommends that HPC adopt the draft resolution, approving the requests for Minor HP Development and a setback variation of seven inches in the rear yard setback, to install the new mechanical equipment. The board members were curious about the current operation of the boarding house and had some discussion with the applicant. Mr. Larimer noted that definition of a “boarding house” had been removed from the Land Use Code and it is now referred to as a small lodge or boutique lodge. Public Comment: Mr. Charlie Tarver said that he is a very close neighbor to the Sardy House. He supported the application and urged the members to pass it. He noted that the current mechanical equipment is very noisy and disruptive. He hoped that what ever HPC approves on this is followed through on. Board Discussion: Ms. Thomspon said that she supported the applicant’s request for the setback variation. She felt that the applicant was improving the equipment that is already in the same location. The rest of the members agreed. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the next resolution in the series. Ms. Thompson seconded. Mr. Barnhill displayed the draft resolution and noted that he had added an elevation drawing to it and had corrected a scrivener’s error. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024 Mr. Anderson spoke to significant changes and updates in mechanical equipment and noted that updates to the Land Use Code had been made to give some more flexibility to roof mounted equipment as well as equipment in the setbacks. He said it was a similar topic to the recent discussions and changes surrounding roofing materials and that it would most likely be a topic that comes before HPC more often going forward as existing properties look to replace their mechanical equipment with more energy efficient units. He noted that there is a cross-department team within the City that is evaluating how to best coordinate Land Use Codes to the changes in the equipment. He said that more modern and quieter units are getting bigger. Mr. Fornell was assigned as the monitor for the Sardy House project. NEW BUSINESS: Election of Vice -Chair Ms. Thompson noted that they had briefly discussed this at a previous meeting and that Ms. Kim Raymond had said that she would accept the position of Vice-Chair if elected. Ms. Thompson nominated Ms. Raymond to be Vice -Chair. The rest of the board agreed. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Surfas commented that she would not be in attendance at the October 2nd Special meeting as it was the air of Rosh Hashanah, which is the biggest holiday on the Jewish calendar. There was some discussion about whether there would be a quorum for the meeting and if there was a possibility of rescheduling so that all members could attend. Mr. Warwick asked what the agenda topic was, and Mr. Hayden said it was 300 East Hopkins Ave. or the old Crystal Palace building. Mr. Anderson explained that this is a topic of very high community interest and taking into account some planned absences of HPC members, the Special meeting was requested in order to get this project moving. He noted that there are building permits that are close to expiring and that the applicant has landed on a path forward and staff is trying to accommodate that. There was further discussion about possibly rescheduling the meeting. Ms. Surfas asked that is not be scheduled on a Jewish holiday. Ms. Pitchford commented that, as Mr. Anderson stated, the clock was running on the applicant’s permits, but she felt that was the applicant’s problem and not HPC’s. Mr. Anderson explained the various reasons for proposing the October 2nd date, but that it was ultimately up to HPC’s discretion on when to meet. They continued discussing the meeting schedule. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Anderson to check with the applicant about the possibility of holding the meeting on October 23rd. The commissioners then had a short Q&A with Ms. Flewelling about the CLG program and a few general Historic Preservation topics. ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Surfas seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024