Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20250827AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 27, 2025 4:30 PM, City Council Chambers - 3rd Floor 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 I.ROLL CALL II.MINUTES II.A Draft Minutes - 6/11/25 & 6/25/25 III.PUBLIC COMMENTS IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PROJECT MONITORING VII.STAFF COMMENTS VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED IX.CALL UP REPORTS X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XI.SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT XII.OLD BUSINESS XIII.NEW BUSINESS XIV.ADJOURN XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER minutes.hpc.20250611_DRAFT.docx minutes.hpc.20250625_DRAFT.docx TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 1 (1 Hour, 15 Minutes for each Major Agenda Item) 1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (at beginning of agenda) 2. Presentation of proof of legal notice (at beginning of agenda) 3. Applicant presentation (10 minutes for minor development; 20 minutes for major development) 4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes) 5. Staff presentation (5 minutes for minor development; 10 minutes for major development) 6. Board questions and clarifications of staff (5 minutes) 7. Public comments (5 minutes total, or 3 minutes/ person or as determined by the Chair) 8. Close public comment portion of hearing 9. Applicant rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) 10. Staff rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) End of fact finding. Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed. 11. Deliberation by the commission and findings based on criteria commences. No further input from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. (20 minutes) 12. Motion. Prior to vote the chair will allow for call for clarification for the proposed resolution. Please note that staff and/or the applicant must vacate the dais during the opposite presentation and board question and clarification session. Both staff and applicant team will vacate the dais during HPC deliberation unless invited by the chair to return. Updated: March 7, 2024 2 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 11TH, 2025 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Duncan Clauss, Kim Raymond and Kara Thompson. Absent were Barb Pitchford and Dakota Severe. Staff present: Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner Stuart Hayden – Planner - Historic Preservation Daniel Folke – Planning Director Luisa Berne - Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear – Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer mentioned that he had read an article in the Old Home magazine about cedar shingles that come attached to panels. He said he was trying to talk with someone from the company and would keep the board updated as to what he finds out. Ms. Raymond noted that she had talked with Jan Legersky, the Aspen Fire Marshal and that Ms. Legersky is very much in favor of composite shingles. Ms. Thompson said that she had met with Mayor Richards and that the Mayor was very open to the idea of holding a joint work session. The Mayor had also said that she would be accepting comments from HPC members related to the Armory project at the next Council work session. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None Ms. Thompson noted that she would be moving the various staff update to the end of the agenda. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Berne wanted to remind everyone that at public meetings in the City of Aspen, civility and respect are expected. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Berne confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for both agenda items. NEW BUSINESS: 435 E Main St. – Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development - Public Hearing Applicant Presentation: Katie Kiernan, Kiernan Inc Ms. Kiernan handed out her presentation packets to the HPC members. She introduced her business partner, Ms. Redwing and started her presentation by noting her history and work in Aspen over the years. She said that this mural project is not just about public art, but about adding something lasting to Aspen’s cultural legacy. She listed the pertinent Commercial Design Guidelines that she had addressed with this project. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 11TH, 2025 Mr. Moyer asked if there was a lining being placed under the paint. Ms. Kiernan said yes, and she described the layer that will protect the brick from the paint. There was a quick discussion of the specific type and brand of paint that would be used. Ms. Raymond asked if there was a final design that would painted. Ms. Kiernan noted that the final design process had just begun and that several options would be shared once they are ready. Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Principal Preservation Planner Ms. White began her presentation by going over the request for minor development and reminded the members that while the applicant has stated that the mural will not be commercial in nature and will not include any branding, the overall content of the mural is not up for review. She highlighted the building on a map, went over some of its history and details and noted that it was subject to the Commercial Design Guidelines. She showed the various elevations that included the proposed location of the mural on the Galena St. façade. She noted the proposed size of the mural and detailed the brick surface. She went over the specifics of the paint to be used and noted that the applicant had stated that the mural is completely removable with no lasting damage to the brick. She mentioned that while staff cannot verify this without further testing, the 2018 mural at 520 E. Durant used the same materials and application methods as this proposal and is still in good condition. Because of this staff believe the proposal partially satisfies Guidelines 1.23 and 1.24. She continued by going over staff’s comments regarding the Guidelines as noted in the staff memo. She finished by stating that since the mural is proposed to be applied to historic unpainted brick in a prominent location in the district, staff was unable to recommend approval, but if the HPC chose to approve the request, staff recommends the conditions included in the draft resolution. Public Comment: Ms. Thompson asked the other commissioners to confirm that they have reviewed all the public comment emails, and the ones submitted at the beginning of the meeting. All commissioners confirmed. Mr. Mike Haisfield noted that he was the owner of the building, and he thought the proposed mural was going to be awesome and would greatly benefit the town. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson opened the discussion by noting that some of the discussion and approvals regarding previous mural requests centered around whether the paint was removeable and she liked the included condition of a test area. She said she was in support of this project. Ms. Raymond agreed as long as the wall is protected. The other commissioners agreed. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next Resolution in the series with the included conditions. Ms. Raymond seconded. Mr. Moyer felt that testing may not be necessary, because the brick was a harder surfaced modern brick. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0, motion passes. Mr. Moyer was assigned as the monitor. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 11TH, 2025 NEW BUSINESS: 304 W Hallam St. – Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development – Public Hearing Applicant Presentation: Steve Clisset, Clisset, LLC Mr. Clisset began his presentation by noting that he owned a roofing company out of Paonia and was representing the property owner, Ms. Isabel Melvin. He gave some history of his involvement with the project and noted that Ms. Melvin contacted him as she was concerned about the fire hazard her existing wood shingle posed and wanted to move to some type of metal roofing. He described the current conditions of the non-historic addition which is where the metal shingles are proposed. He noted that Ms. Melvin wanted to explore colored options for the shingles as the siding of the non- historic addition had a red tone and she was hoping to highlight and compliment it. He showed a sample of a red shingle and noted it was proposed to be spaced in a random pattern amongst a majority of slate colored shingles. He passed the sample around and noted that he had designed the product. He then described some details of the shingles. He pointed out that because of the narrow property there was only one view where both the historic and non-historic portions can be seen together. He showed pictures of each side to demonstrate this. He noted that because of this, someone would not be able to compare the historic and non-historic in reference to one another. Ms. Thompson asked how snow stops would be integrated. Mr. Clisset noted that he had a patented snow stop that integrates into the shingle installation. Mr. Moyer asked about how the coating was applied to the shingle and about the longevity of the product. Mr. Clisset said that it was a factory applied coating and that the coated shingles usually have a 40-year warranty but can last up to 80 years. Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden - Planner - Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden began his presentation by describing the property location and some history of the historic pan abode. He also described the 2003 approval of the non-historic addition. He showed a few pictures for context and noted that the view of the roof on the addition does change seasonally and that in the fall and winter things are more visible. He then went over the applicant’s request to install randomly arranged burnished slate and red diamond shaped metal shingles on the non-historic addition. He stated that staff finds that the proposed material does not meet guidelines 10.3 and 10.6 as outlined in the staff comments section of the staff memo as well as the staff findings included in Exhibit A of the agenda packet. Mr. Hayden finished by stating that because the proposed materials do not meet guidelines 10.3 and 10.6, staff is recommending denial of the application. He noted that staff did include an approval resolution in the packet that included a condition that the red shingles not be installed. Ms. Raymond asked Mr. Hayden to further explain why he found that with the proposed shingles, the addition would become the primary focus of the property. Mr. Hayden said that adding the extra detail of the red-colored shingles would create more visual interest in the back. Public Comment: None Before the board began their discussion, Ms. Berne reminded them that if they were to deny the application the applicant would not be able to come back and apply for the project or anything substantially similar for one year. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 11TH, 2025 Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson began the discussion by saying that she felt the proposed product looked stylistic up close, but from afar it just looks like a shingle. She felt there to be some subjectivity in guidelines 10.3 and 10.6 and she did not have any issues with the shape of the shingle. The other commissions agreed. Ms. Thompson said that she was still somewhat undecided on the proposed colored shingles. Ms. Surfas agreed with Ms. Thompson about the subjectivity of the two guidelines and felt that if there were fewer colored shingles mixed in it might be more palatable. Mr. Moyer felt it should be all the same dark colored shingles with no colored shingles mixed in. Ms. Thompson felt it would draw too much attention and while minimally visible from specific angles, it would be more visible depending on the seasons. Ms. Raymond felt it would bring a bit more interest to a rather simple building shape. She agreed with Ms. Surfas that if less of the colored shingles were included it may not appear as prominent and would be more palatable. Mr. Clauss felt the rendering made the red colored shingles really pop and he would be interested to see what it may look like after aging. Mr. Clisset described that the shingles would not really patina over time but would appear slightly more matte as dust and dirt collected over time. Mr. Moyer noted that he would be ok with some colored shingles. Ms. Thompson agreed with Ms. Surfas that 25% of the shingles being red was a lot. Mr. Clisset said that if the hearing was continued, he could work with Ms. Melvin to come up with a rendering with a lower percentage of the red shingles. Ms. Thompson thought they could include in the resolution that the percentage should be under 20% and that it would be up to staff and monitor review. The other commissioners agreed. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with a modification to condition #1 that the red shingles shall be under 20% and the final layup will be reviewed by staff and monitor. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0, motion passes. Mr. Clauss and Ms. Surfas were assigned as the project monitors. PROJECT MONITORING: Mr. Hayden noted that he had updated the project monitoring list as included in the agenda packet. He then noted that there were several insubstantial amendments that had occurred since the last meeting. He went on to detail each. There was some discussion on a few of the updates. STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Hayden noted that there was some work done to a historic window that was outside an insubstantial amendment approval at 420 W Francis St. He said that in January, staff noticed that some of the historic materials had been altered. Staff notified the project monitor of the apparent violation and asked the applicant for a detailed account of the incident. He noted that the general 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 11TH, 2025 contractor mentioned that given a language barrier, the framing crew misunderstood the instruction to keep the historic material. The general contractor suggested that sections of the Historic License training manual be offered in Spanish as well as English. Mr. Hayden noted that staff has been looking at offering the BEST card training and guidelines in Spanish. Ms. White noted that City Council would be holding a work session next Monday centered around the Armory and that the Council would be entertaining public comments from HPC members. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Mr. Hayden noted that updates on these would be provided at a future meeting. CALL UP REPORTS: None ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Raymond seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 25TH, 2025 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford, Duncan Clauss, Kim Raymond and Kara Thompson. Absent was Jodi Surfas and Dakota Severe. Staff present: Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner Stuart Hayden – Planner - Historic Preservation Luisa Berne - Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear – Deputy City Clerk Ms. Surfas entered the meeting shortly after roll call was taken. MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson noted that herself, Ms. Raymond, Ms. White and Mr. Folke had met with the Armory applicant and an email update would be sent to the other HPC members. Ms. Pitchford asked for a brief update on the Crystal Palace project as she felt nothing was happening there and that it looked derelict. Mr. Hayden noted that they have a change order currently under review. Mr. Moyer felt it was time for the HPC to write a letter to City Council regarding the buildings that have been sitting derelict in town for years. He did not feel the situation acceptable to the community or the HPC. Ms. Pitchford noted the Boomerang building as another derelict building in town. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Thompson noted that she was conflicted on the second agenda item and would leave at that time. PROJECT MONITORING: None STAFF COMMENTS: None CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None CALL UP REPORTS: None SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Berne confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for both agenda items. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT: 135 E Cooper Ave. – Substantial Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 25TH, 2025 Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams began her presentation by going over the details of the project and request to install a metal shingle roof on the historic resources. She also noted that they are also planning on installing a different metal shingle roof on the non-historic addition which was already approved. Next, she went over some of the background of the previous project approvals from HPC and noted that the two historic resources on the property were originally approved for a wood shingle roof. Ms. Adams moved on to the proposal and described the applicant team’s mindset and approach behind it. She then displayed the roof plans for the property pointing out the two historic resources and the non-historic addition. She noted that the property owner had recently lost his house in the California wildfires, and this had made a significant impact on the design of this project. She said that the option of asphalt shingles was brought up to the owner, as they are usually an acceptable material, but because of the environmental practices associated with them, it was not something they wanted to go with. Ms. Adams continued going over the proposal and showed several renderings and noted that currently the proposal is for a Freedom Grey metal on the historic resources and a patinaed copper to be used on the non-historic addition. She referenced some mockup examples of the materials that they brought to the meeting. She then moved on to reviewing the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and noted that they were amended the previous year to recognize fire protection and homeowner’s insurance issues related to wood shingle roof materials. She highlighted Guideline 7.8 and felt that the applicant team had done their best to meet it as well as the other relevant guidelines with the metal roof option. She did not see how an asphalt shingle was any more appropriate than a metal shingle. She also highlighted the negative aspects of the process of treating wood shingles for fire protection and noted that metal roof materials tend to have anywhere from 80 to 100-year lifespans. Ms. Thompson asked about the different metal material samples. There was some discussion clarifying the various materials and where they are proposed to be installed. Mr. Moyer asked if the Freedom Grey metal material proposed for the historic resources had seams. The applicant team said there were actual seams and explained the fabrication process noting that each metal shingle was hand bent in Basalt by GZO Roofing and Sheet Metal. They mentioned that with the customization of the metal shingles, the design intent was to mimic the size and shape of wooden shingles. There was some discussion about the historic layout of the buildings on the site. Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden - Planner - Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden began his presentation by giving some details of the property location and layout of the historic resources and the new addition on the lot. He also went over some of the history of the property and noted that it is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. He showed some historic pictures of the property and noted that on closer inspection, the historic roofing material was wood shingles. Mr. Hayden moved on to reviewing the relevant Guidelines, starting with Guideline 7.7. He noted that since wood shingles are the existing and original roofing material the proposed metal shingles were neither an “in kind” replacement nor “similar to the original”, thus they do not meet Guideline 7.7. He went over some of the characteristic differences between the original wood shingles and the proposed metal ones. Next, he referenced Guideline 7.8 and noted that the proposal did not meet this Guideline as the metal shingles did not “maintain or restore the character of the historic roof”. He explained staff’s 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 25TH, 2025 reasoning for this as detailed in the “Staff Findings” section of the staff memo. He also went over Guidelines 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6 and explained staff’s reasoning why the proposal did meet these Guidelines, again as outlined in the “Staff Findings” section of the memo. Mr. Hayden concluded by stating that staff recommends continuing to August 13th, to allow the applicant to restudy the proposal to better meet the Guidelines. Mr. Moyer asked if staff had talked with the design community about working with the manufacturers of alternate material shingles. He felt that the manufactures of “plastic” shingles have made no attempt to make a product that looks like an actual wood shingle. He did not feel the proposed metal shingles had the feel of a wood shingle. Mr. Hayden noted that of the many manufacturers of synthetic roofing materials, they mainly produce replicas of wooden shakes and not shingles. He felt there needed to be more proactive work in that field. Public Comment: None Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Adams if the bellyband section was proposed to stay wooden shingles. Ms. Adams confirmed that the bellyband would stay wooden shingles and that the main roof and porch roofs were proposed to be metal shingles. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson agreed with Mr. Hayden that the proposed metal materials for the historic resources and new addition were too consistent and did not differentiate the two structures enough. She felt the patinaed cooper roofing was appropriate for the non-historic addition, but she had issues with the scale, size and color of the proposed material on the historic resources. Ms. Raymond agreed that the color, even of the weathered sample, appeared too bright. She wondered if it could be a color that was closer to wood and have the thickness closer as well, as it did not resemble a shingle. Ms. Thompson felt she could be on board with a metal shingle but did not think this example was it. Ms. Pitchford felt there was no attempt to maintain or restore the character of the historic roof. She felt the proposal was nowhere close to the shape, size and color. She felt the proposal did not meet Guideline 10.3 as it seemed the primary historic resource was now imitating the non-historic addition. Mr. Moyer commented on the wildfire situation in Aspen and noted that it is different from that of other parts of the country. He said that we don’t experience the high wind speeds that contribute to the intensity of wildfires that other parts of the country experience and that is where many of the people coming to Aspen are from. He also felt that this property’s roof is one of the important features when looking at it or any other Victorian. He felt that until there existed alternative roofing materials that actually replicated wood shingles, he supported keeping wooden shingle roofs on all Victorians. There was a short discussion about the possibility of creating a metal shingle that better replicated a wood shingle and ideas of how it may look. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to continue the item to the August 13th meeting. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 25TH, 2025 Ms. Thompson left the meeting for the next item. NEW BUSINESS: 623 / 625 E Hopkins Ave. – Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and Relocation - PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams requested a continuance to September 23rd, 2025. MOTION: Ms. Raymond moved to continue the item to the September 23rd meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes. 5-0, motion passes. Ms. Thompson rejoined the meeting. ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 11