Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20250625 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 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 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. 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