Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.201705311 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 31, 2017 Chairman Halferty brought the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim DeFrancia, John Whipple, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Willis Pember. Absent were Nora Berko and Richard Lai. Staff Present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Denis Murray, Plans Examination Manager Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Whipple spoke about the outcome of the previous week’s meeting regarding 232 E. Bleeker. He said he personally feels that moving forward, we need a board of enforcement or adjustment for handing out punishments. He said it’s really hard to volunteer for a board and then set up penalties for something they all care about. He stated he is not a law enforcement officer and would like to recuse himself going forward. He suggested the City needs a different plan than volunteers making these decisions. Ms. Garrow responded by saying these types of meetings are far and few between with the last one being 17 years ago, but they can work with what options they have going forward and what that process might look like. Mr. Halferty stated that he appreciates the time of the staff, applicant and board on that matter. There were a lot of things not on the HPC purview as far as typical protocol and guidelines so this has been educational for the applicant and board alike. He mentioned that hopefully there is an education piece that we can all learn from and to prohibit this from happening again moving forward. Mr. Pember commented that he thinks it is within HPC’s purview. He said the board has specific knowledge of dealing with older historic buildings. The board of adjustment or some other board without the specific knowledge that HPC has, would be totally wrong in their decision. Mr. Whipple replied that staff felt that their enforcement was light and if a heavy hand is what is needed, he doesn’t feel comfortable doing that in this small community. He stated that he will always enforce the guidelines, however. Mr. Pember also mentioned that the applicant has an appeal process they can pursue if they aren’t happy with the decision. He said the buck does not stop with HPC and it would go to city council for appeal. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 31, 2017 Mr. Halferty mentioned that he felt the City Attorney’s office handled it well and staff acted strongly in their role. This is really an educational process too. Mr. Pember asked if city council can call up their decision and remand it back to HPC and Ms. Garrow said no, that it’s a different process. Ms. Bryan stated that city council can review and recommend, but they cannot call up on something on their own. Mr. Halferty reiterated that HPC was the governing body for the decision. Ms. Greenwood mentioned that while this was unusual, applicants do come in to HPC for their help and it’s a pretty strong process and that they are here to help applicants. She said it’s appropriate for HPC to go through the process and learn for themselves as well. She said that seeing the problems and issues others have is beneficial to the board as well. Mr. Halferty stated that it is not their purview to look at all approved and every working drawing on the job site. He said it’s one thing to have a preservation plan, but they do not look at full plans. Mr. DeFrancia said that he understands that HPC isn’t an enforcement board, but it’s no different than serving on a jury. He said if you take on this responsibility, you need to be prepared. HPC has their core mission to advocate. These cases don’t come up often, but when they do, HPC needs to deal with them. Mr. Moyer mentioned that when this came up, he was stunned and said this is like corporate America. He said he feels they let staff down but he doesn’t feel that they were prepared. He said they should look at this moving forward and suggested spending some time in a work session so they are more comfortable handing down a penalty. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: 232 E. Bleeker – Ms. Simon said there are a couple of conditions in regards to removing the stop work and allowing them to proceed. She wanted to make sure that everyone understands, once the permit comes in, they as staff, scrutinize the permits. While HPC doesn’t review interiors, they most definitely require preservation of the historic structure. One of the questions staff has is about the framing that still exits and whether it should be put back in place and if they should be able to remove any additional historic framing on the upper levels of the building. This is a very unusual situation here and last week, she felt they really didn’t wrap up properly. Staff needs to know what HPC thinks about reattaching the logs and the same goes for the wood studs. Ms. Simon is not recommending reattachment, but she does recommend that HPC requires the applicant to keep the framing and logs that are left. She would like them to use a spray foam instead, which acts as a barrier instead of removing anymore original materials. Ms. Greenwood asked who was asking the question to remove more materials and Ms. Simon stated that the applicant is asking. They’ve already removed ¾ of the historic fabric and they need to stop the bleeding. She suggested they figure out some other framing methods and put the logs and studs back the way they were or what is the point. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 31, 2017 Mr. Pember said the whole log discussion is totally irrelevant and it’s up to them. Who cares about the logs and if this doesn’t impact the exterior, why are we even talking about this? Mr. Halferty agreed that this is a tough one, but it is outside of HPC’s purview. He asked if maybe they should amend the guidelines. Ms. Greenwood said that it is clear to her that the structure is their purview and Mr. Pember said that it is not structural. Ms. Simon said she meant literally. She also said that one idea they are bouncing around is the idea of using the 30,000 assurance money to come up with a standardized documentation that is required in every single building permit so that she doesn’t have to negotiate every single permit with the architects and contractors. Mr. Moyer said that he doesn’t think they can allow another stick to leave the site and it’s all part of that buildings history. MOTION: Mr. Whipple made a motion to follow staff’s recommendation and monitor, Mr. Blaich seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, no; Mr. Halferty, no; Mr. Halferty, no, Mr. DeFrancia, yes, Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Whipple, yes, Mr. Moyer, no. 4-3, motion carried. PROJECT MONITORING: 110 E Bleeker. Ms. Simon said when this project was approved through HPC, there was a fireplace in the living room that would be vented through one of the two historic chimneys. The only way to do this is to add a “power vent”. This is causing multiple penetrations on the roof. Carolyn Cipperly presented different options for venting. She feels the best option is through the original chimney. Ms. Simon said one of the three choices is to use the front most chimney and put the power vent on the backside of it. Mr. Pember and Ms. Greenwood like option 3 and painted black. MOTION: Ms. Greenwood stated they should go out the chimney straight up in black (option 3), Mr. Pember seconded. Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Whipple, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes. 7-0 motion carried. STAFF COMMENTARY: Phillip Supino speaking about updating the sign code. He handed out surveys and scope cards. He stated that P&Z will need more respondents on the survey and that hearing from HPC on historic signage would be a big help. Mr. Whipple exited the meeting. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 31, 2017 Mr. Moyer asked how historic signage can be preserved and Mr. Supino stated that this code amendment is more focused on number and type, but they need to come up with a clever way to make it work, whether it be national register plaques, etc. He stated that they can develop a category for historic signs, but it is important to hear from everyone so this can move forward. Mr. Supino reminded everyone that there will be a work session on June 13th when they will make a presentation to council and this is why the survey is so important to get some feedback. OLD BUSINESS: 210 W Main: Justin Barker presented and stated that the applicant has revised the designs since the last meeting. He has broken it down into two-story masses from three and the height showed a one foot increase instead of 32 feet as asked previously. The new footprints are more in-line with historic guidelines and the small height increase can really add to the livability to the unit and they feel this is a modest request. They feel the massing is correct now and are still asking for a floor area increase. Staff still has an issue with the roof forms and says they are still flat, but feel it’s important to show some form of sloped roof, which ties the district together. HPC needs to look at the demolition in the historic district and the smaller amount of parking. Staff is recommending a continuation. Applicant Sara Adams of Bendon Adams present with Ted Guy, property owner. The plans still show the protected interior courtyard due to noise and dust on Main St. and why Mr. Guy feels this is important. They cannot fit any more than six parking spots as they had presented previously. They were given clear direction to add more doors along Main St. and she stated that they have been meeting with staff over the last month and have come up with options A – L. They are presenting option L to the board, which they feel best meets the guidelines. They have removed one stair tower and added three front doors facing Main St. at grade. Mr. Guy has re-oriented the open space facing the Tyrolean Lodge and has still met all setbacks. They still have exterior storage in the basement with eight two-bedroom units. The roof form, which seemed to be the biggest concern, now has flat and gabled pitching, which fits in with other gabled roofs on Main St. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Mr. Guy checked on storm water treatment costs and he doesn’t want to do a bunch of drywells, but would like to do the green roofs, which means they have to be flat. By using four different heights, it will help break that mass up. Mr. Pember asked about the floor heights and Mr. Guy said 9ft 4 and the ceiling heights are 8 feet with a suspending ceiling structure. Unit four could have a higher ceiling. Mr. Moyer concurs with staff recommendations completely and mentions that once again, they are giving up another parking space. 5 Mr. DeFrancia said he agrees with Mr. Moyer and wishes that staff would give them more defined recommendations for them to accept or reject. He suggests more re-study with staff regarding mass and scale and roof. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 31, 2017 Mr. Pember said he didn’t think the last meeting ended with them needing to come back with sloped gabled roofs, particularly if he’s using green roofs, which he applauds. He said he thinks the gable roof would destroy the green roof feature and it’s replacing a building that already has a flat roof, which represented the late 50’s, early 60’s era architecture. Ms. Greenwood said she doesn’t have an objection to the roofs either, but she says if you’re on Main St., you need to wear your best dress to the party. She thinks they could build this building in Denver, Glenwood Springs or anywhere and that it’s not special to Aspen’s Main Street. She suggested they find what is the right design for Main St. She said she finds this building to be really dull and it doesn’t reflect anything about Aspen regarding era, growth and architectural ideas. She feels it needs unique attention to Main St. and the Aspen historic district. She said she knows Mr. Guy loves the interior courtyard, but it’s not going to get much sun and doesn’t think it’s working for the project. She stated she likes the height differences and the parking spaces are great, but thinks they could take it further and need additional study on those items. She asked why it can’t be a remarkable building for the tenants who live there with good curb appeal. She is going with staff recommendations regarding layout, mass and scale. Mr. Blaich said it’s an improvement over the previous presentation and likes the roofs and the multiple heights, but said they need some oomph on this building and needs some tender loving care on the aesthetics, but HPC is not here to re-design the building. Mr. Pember said he thinks this is actually pretty good as far as the parking is concerned. He said it’s a commendable response to what we asked for last time. Mr. Moyer thought Ms. Greenwood’s comment were especially good. Mr. Halferty went through the checklist from the last meeting of what needed to be changed and one by one, he said they have met the criteria for the most part. He said the applicant has come a long way and supports staff’s recommendations. MOTION: Ms. Greenwood is in favor of staff’s recommendations, Mr. Blaich seconded. Ms. Greenwood amended the motion to include green roofs and continue to work with smaller modules and rethink the site plan for manipulating your building to smaller modules and add more definition or detail along Main St. Mr. Blaich seconded the amendment. Mr. Pember said he doesn’t see a point to pursuing smaller modules. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Pember, no; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Halferty, no; Mr. DeFrancia, yes. 4-2, motion carried. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 31, 2017 Mr. Guy made a note that this building in inhabited by people who work at night so he does feel that the courtyard is critical to livability and he doesn’t think they appreciated the decades he has spent on that property. He doesn’t feel that this is a very helpful direction at this point. Mr. Barker suggested the continuation to July 12th and Mr. Guy agreed to that. MOTION to adjourn by Mr. DeFrancia, Mr. Halferty seconded at 6:32 p.m. ____________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk