HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20170927ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:37 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Richard Lai, Roger
Moyer. Absent were Gretchen Greenwood and Scott Kendrick.
Staff present:
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 23rd
Mr. Moyer moved to approve, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Pember noted that he will be leaving at 6:00 p.m. He also mentioned
that the project that his company received, the AIA award, has been published in Architect magazine so
he is very excited and told everyone to go out and get a copy. The project they were recognized for was
a half-duplex attached to his house. Ms. Berko said that it was a wonderful project and is a neighbor,
watched it happen and says it looks great.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she took care of two items before the meeting and she has one
for Mr. Halferty after the meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said she sent an email out today with the upcoming meetings for rest of
the year. HPC will have some cancellations due to the holidays and less cases coming in. On Monday,
Sara, the new preservation planner starts so HPC will meet her on oct 11th.
CALL UPS: Ms. Simon stated that on Monday night, she went to city council and let them know about
the recent approval of the Hayes house in the west end, so council called it up and the discussion
occurred on Monday night as they were very concerned about the variances. Since it is a duplex, they
were already given a floor area boost and floor area bonus and set back variances, etc. Council thought
it added up to too much. They came close to remanding it back to HPC, but didn’t so they’ve now asked
for a work session to further discuss. Council want to sit and talk some more with the different boards
due to a lack of communication. They want to discuss policy and help improve various situations.
Mr. Halferty said he, as well as a lot of the other board members, were involved with the Hayes house
project and coming up with those incentives. He appreciates if council thinks they are giving out free
stuff, but it’s our job to help promote the preservation of these great projects and it seems like we’ve
given some, not a lot of incentives, so he would hate to see if council wants to revoke what we have
given. I hope that isn’t an issue. We aren’t being cavalier when giving out incentives. Ms. Simon said that
she doesn’t think they want to revoke them, but they didn’t necessarily think that one project should
get all of them so that’s what we need to talk about. With the AspenModern program, we need to make
the incentives better than what already exists, so it’s just escalating.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS: None.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan says she has reviewed them and everything seems to be in order.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: 432 E. Hyman
Amy Simon
This is a minor review and the work that is proposed tonight is alterations to windows on a non-historic
addition could have qualified for a staff level review, but it’s a unique building and not a perfect fit for
any of the typical policies and guidelines. This is a Victorian era structure that housed Aspen Drug for
decades. It was built in 1887 and the entire upper floor was destroyed by a fire 1917. In the 1970’s, the
two upper floors in the west addition, were designed by Rob Roy. After this, the building was
landmarked. The topmost floor of the building is what is up for discussion and the new windows being
proposed on the east, west and south. She is asking to keep a unity to the 70’s fenestration because
they don’t want another contrast on the building. The southern façade needs the most discussion and
we feel the board needs to make this decision.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Dave Rybak representing the Woods Family Partnership along with Mr. Greg Woods
There are four existing skylights on the roof that they want to eliminate that cannot be seen from the
street. Along with that, the east façade is showing on screen. Regarding the third-floor addition, the
south bay was an open pergola or an open promenade, which was eventually enclosed. We want to
bring some uniformity to the bay fenestration and go with three French casements in this space so that
they match the northern two. We do want to replace all of the existing windows with similar panels of
the same size. Along the west façade, which faces the interior courtyard of Alina down below and is not
readily seen from the street and we’d like to eliminate the two existing sliders and replace with two new
existing windows, which work better with the floorplan. This is an insignificant change and difficult to
see from anywhere. On the south façade, the revision we are proposing is to add a column that aligns
with the stair column.
Ms. Berko asked if the west sides ones are fixed and Mr. Rybak said one is proposed fixed at the north
end and a pair of casements in the center and to the south, those would be fixed.
Mr. Halferty asked if they are residential or commercial window units and Mr. Rybak said they are
residential.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Mr. Moyer moved to approve, Mr. Lai seconded.
Ms. Berko noted that it is an improvement.
Mr. Lai commented that the rhythm of the new façade is more in keeping with the existing façade of the
ground floor and he isn’t a fan of the second and third floor addition, but the improvement is subtle, yet
good.
Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr.
Pember, yes. 6-0 all in favor, motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS: 122 W. Main
Amy Simon
This is a unique property and a 13,500-sq. ft. lot. On the far west end of the property, you have two
Victorian era homes that were moved together and linked together and remodeled in a way that makes
them rather confusing as historic resources, but is nonetheless a landmarked property. This is an office
building currently. In the early 90’s the owners who developed the building we are discussing tonight,
condominiumized the building and then sold it. There have been hours and hours of hashing between
the applicant and staff to try to bring this together as something for HPC to approve. Most of the fun is
over and now we are focusing on design review so will be subject to the Main Street guidelines. On the
second floor, the use will change from commercial office to lodge and a loft space will be added. There
are exterior architecture changes we will talk about, land use code provisions, growth management,
transportation impact analysis, pedestrian amenity, and second tier space, which is a new provision.
HPC just needs to understand the analysis that has been done and we’ve recommended some
conditions of approval related to all of these standards. There are a few changes on the south façade
with the lodge on second floor, and there is a desire to add some mountain facing windows and outdoor
space. On the ground level, the bank would like a more noticeable entry and the walkway is being
moved to one side with a ramp to provide accessibility. Page 54 of packet represents the existing south
façade and the proposed. On the first floor of the bank, the windows are more horizontal in orientation
and are not similar to those of the rest of the building. In the resolution that Ms. Simon passed out, she
included a condition, which they are free to amend regarding the horizontal windows and the entry. In
the proposal, the applicant wants to extend the porch by 2 feet and to add an upper deck outside of the
lodge unit. This created a depth out of character on Main Street and reduced the pedestrian amenity.
The design was amended so they are staying with the footprint of the existing porch, but there is still an
upper floor deck so we have added a condition of approval to reduce the upper deck in size. It’s a fairly
minimal space to stay consistent with the neighborhood and we feel, better meets the guidelines.
Regarding the dormers being added to the back of existing roof, there is an existing lightwell. When you
have a lightwell that large, height is measured from the bottom of it, so the dormers are over the height
limit, but that issue has been solved. In the new land use code revisions, there is something called
“second tier space”, which is basically councils attempt to keep quirky spaces available for businesses. In
this case, the basement and the second floor are considered second tier spaces and the applicant must
retain half of the area in the remodel. The basement has been designed to meet all criteria and it has its
own separate entrance with a lobby and an elevator of its own. Regarding parking, there are 14 spaces
that were required, but, today’s parking requirements are referred to in units. This development
reduces the onsite parking requirement for a lodge because they generate less parking than commercial
so it facilitates the applicants request to revert a unit to a trash area. We want to formalize this space to
an enclosed health department requirement. This is listed as a condition of approval on the resolution
to continue to work with Liz Chapman in Environmental Health. Regarding growth management, since
this is a conversion to a lodge, it requires lodge pillows from a pot. There are a certain amount of new
commercial space units, residential and lodge. As projects come through, we deduct from the pool. This
is all part of the structure to make sure town is growing at an acceptable pace. Each year, there are 112
lodge pillows available so each room is worth two lodge pillows. In this case, there are three bedrooms,
which equals six lodge pillows. This is an unusual lodge project since there are only two units so its
smaller than any other lodge. Residential free market use is no longer allowed, so they cannot have an
apartment over an office any longer according to the new code.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Sara Adams of Bendon Adams and Gilbert Sanchez, architect
Ms. Adams mentioned that Timberline bank is the new owner. The proposal shows the extended deck
that we’ve proposed with an ADA ramp. There is some basement commercial space as well. Mr. Sanchez
said they are creating a new home for Timberline Bank and creating a transparent and open building to
what it is now. The bank is more connected to the community and wants to reveal the inside of the
building to create transparency. Ms. Adams said that as far as materials, the windows will match the
existing, which are metal clad and the wood siding will match the existing. The entry is a bit more
contemporary. The balcony and deck sliders are metal. There will be a shingle roof for the dormer. The
lodge, which they will use at much as they can, has been submitted under the current code, which is
fully compliant with the lodge definition. There are no onsite amenities proposed and will be maintained
by a property management and check in will be provided with an onsite kiosk, which meets the code.
The lodging space will be rented mostly by out of town bank employees and will be open to the public
when it’s not in use. The building form is very traditional with the wood shingles and fits in well with the
Main Street fenestration. Mr. Sanchez noted that there are some openings that have changed and some
that we have kept the same to tie the facades together to present a cohesive design. To address the
second story deck, there are some second story decks facing Main Street that aren’t super small and
larger than a traditional deck size and it’s not for residential use since it’s a mixed-use building. We
believe that this building adds vitality to the street and think it’s a nice addition to the remodel.
Regarding the trash, we saw a chance to formalize and saw the opportunity to have an enclosed space
for environmental health’s requirement.
Ms. Berko asked about the ramp and wondered if it is needed because it’s a bank and said it might be
out of context with historic Main Street. Ms. Simon commented that the accessible route was in the
back and according to today’s standards, that is no longer acceptable and everyone should come in the
front door. Mr. Sanchez, said the ramp is pretty modest and they would work with a landscape architect
to soften it up a bit. Ms. Berko asked how many nights rental can a lodge have and Ms. Adams said it is
no more than 30 consecutive days by one person. A person couldn’t max 90 days a year and cannot be
rented by an owner. Ms. Simon said it’s not about how many nights a year, but what’s the longest
anyone can stay.
Mr. Halferty confirmed that this lodge cannot be used by local employees and Ms. Adams said it is for
visiting employees only who are coming in from out of town. Mr. Halferty clarified that they will have
type B units for the restrooms and Mr. Sanchez said yes, that this was drawn before they got input from
Denis Murray in the building department so they will be widening the restrooms.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Ms. Adams pointed out the conditions of the resolution to the HPC board. She said the conditions in the
resolution are just reiterations of the current code so they want to make sure they aren’t being singled
out and this is a fair process. She read condition #8 to the board and said they want to be vested under
the code they applied under. If the city comes up with a rule suddenly, they don’t want to be affected.
Once the code changes, we shouldn’t be expected to change our project and want to make sure that
staff aren’t trying to implement policy before it’s adopted and that our clients are being treated fairly.
Mr. Halferty said that as far as the issues being identified, a resolution has been given to us and he
summarized for the group.
Mr. Halferty said he doesn’t have a problem with the lodging area and said the idea of having mixed use
in Aspen is a good thing. He noted page 55 of the packet and said he feels a bit uncomfortable with the
window façade and the upper floor deck. He thinks the second floor and wide expanse of the glass on
the second floor, aren’t in keeping with historic district. He would suggest that perhaps, you might
consider making the windows somewhat smaller, in keeping with the Victorian tradition, to shrink the
usable balcony. This is his suggestion which he thinks is reinforcing what staff recommended. He also
wondered why they changed the material from wood to metal and suggested that it is not congruous
with the Victorian character of the district. He also suggested changing the size and material of the
railing.
Mr. Moyer said that regarding the color and materials and beige siding with white trim, you see a railing
with an addition. When you see a black railing against two soft colors, everyone’s attention goes right to
the railing. You see a railing, therefore, an enormous deck with a house behind it so he said they would
be far better off getting rid of the black. Get a softer color and it won’t look so big and ominous. He
noted that the windows are tall and Mr. Sanchez said the existing window headline is 7 ft. and this is
about 9. Mr. Moyer said that when you look at the building, you see massive glass, which is great for
NBA players, but the average person isn’t 7 ft. tall. He doesn’t think they need conditions 1 and 2, but as
far as 8 and 9, he would make an amendment regarding the verbiage. He said he wouldn’t like this if I
were the applicant and Aspen is noted for this. He feels that the code should not change on them and he
recommends taking out the last part.
Mr. Blaich agrees on the railing, which he said should be softened to make it more integrated with the
house itself would be refreshing. The attempt to contemporize is a good move, since it’s a commercial
building and he thinks the application is a refreshing idea. It’s very nice to incorporate the lodge space
and said it is a strong statement with all of the glass on the second level. He appreciates the point the
applicant makes by showing the other Main Street businesses and said he supports the direction they
are going. He said it brought back some memories regarding the basement space because the mayor
and council at the time, wanted to have a little grocery store in the building. Planning & Zoning voted
against it, when Mr. Blaich was chair of the HPC. He thinks the transparency is alright and it is functional.
Mr. Pember said it doesn’t bother him to have a large second floor and he advised the HPC board not to
be scared of a black drawn railing on white paper. He said that black wrought iron around Victorians is
traditional and thinks it’s fine as it is. Nothing bothers him about this project and he thinks it’s a big
improvement. If anything, I think it has the scale of an institutional building and there are some things
that need to be clarified so we have to use our imaginations but don’t be fooled about a black drawing
on white paper.
Ms. Berko said she is in support of the resolution, particularly #2. She said the huge porches remind her
of a New Orleans feel and said the porch is her only sticking point. She would like to see it smaller and
more in scale with Main Street.
Mr. Halferty said he does understand staff’s comments on the deck size and thinks it’s a valid point, but
the fenestration suggested, he feels they should continue to discuss or vote on it. All of the tiered spaces
have been addressed by staff and is fine. The lodge use is an interesting thing to him and doesn’t think
the bank wants to be in the lodge business. If it’s for their employees, that’s fine, but doesn’t see how
they are going to rent to the public. Architecturally, he is ok with it and the dormer. Architecturally,
since it’s not historic, the deck is ok, as long as it is in scale with the rest of Main Street. He is ok with the
trash and recycling enclosure and said he could approve as presented.
MOTION: Mr. Pember moved that they approve 122. W Main Street as proposed and go through
conditions in the resolution and mark them up as we go down, Mr. Blaich seconded. Mr. Willis said that
was pretty vague and asked if they should go through the conditions first. Mr. Moyer asked about
conditions 8 and 9 and asked if they should put a period after “municipal code”.
Ms. Bryan said she sees concerns of the wording of 8 & 9 and suggested that she can continue to reword
the language with staff if that’s acceptable to everyone as middle ground. She can understand the way
it’s drafted would lead to confusion in the future and suggested the board continue if they are
interested in rewording this.
Mr. Pember says the words should be dropped just to avoid any future confusion and reminded
everyone that conditions 1 and 2 are already struck since they have been met.
Ms. Simon said she would not recommend striking any of the wording from 8 & 9.
Mr. Halferty confirmed that when HPC is presented with other new applications, they will all come in
with this same wording on them and Ms. Simon said yes.
Ms. Berko said she doesn’t feel comfortable commenting on conditions 8 and 9 and said she won’t vote
on 8 & 9 or she’s going to abstain from voting. She noted that she is not a lawyer or a planning & zoning
officer and doesn’t feel she is qualified to vote on this if they will be striking any language.
Mr. Pember motioned to leave everything as is and strike 1 and 2, Mr. Blaich seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr.
Moyer, yes. 6-0 all in favor, motion carried.
Mr. Blaich motioned to adjourn, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
______________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk