Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20250611 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. 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. 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. 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 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