Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20180509 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Richard Lai and Sheri Sanzone. Absent was Scott Kendrick. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Ben Anderson, Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes from April 25th, Ms. Sanzone seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko mentioned the Zupancis house is looking really good so if you are in the area, go look. Ms. Simon agreed and said they will be painting it soon as well in the original colors. Ms. Berko also asked what is happening with Main Street Bakery. Ms. Simon said she doesn’t know and needs to follow up on what has slowed down their progress. Ms. Greenwood mentioned that Leslie Rudd, the owner, just passed away as well. The head office from Wichita has been coming out and working on the project. She also said she is the project monitor for that project. Mr. Moyer said he would like everyone to start thinking about giving HPC awards to spec projects. The more he thinks about it, he thinks they shouldn’t. If they are just out to make a buck, they shouldn’t be awarded for that. He looked at a project on Race Street and said it was second rate and the workmanship was shoddy and the contractors don’t give a rats about what HPC is up to. He also said he would like some input on old houses that have many layers of paint. He said you can sand it all off or you can leave the old paint on with a bond and retain the historic patina. It’s something to think about. Mr. Blaich said ideas like this could be put into the information going to developers working on historic buildings so they are aware of the possibilities of paint, etc. Ms. Simon said we will talk about all of this at length in the next meeting when they are updated on the permit improvement process, which will end up with them developing a few new manuals and best practices. In two weeks we will talk about all of this so keep all of this in your head for next time. The consultants who were hired by the city to improve the process will also be attending the next HPC meeting. Mr. Pember asked if this includes the subject of locating vent pipes on the roof and Ms. Simon said yes. Ms. Greenwood agreed that she is interested in getting information from different stages that isn’t presented to HPC. Mr. Pember said his Carbondale Library project was published recently in Arc Daily, which is an international online journal, so he is very excited about this and as a result, other online journals want to publish it as well. 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018 DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Mr. Halferty said he is stepping down for 300 W. Main. Ms. Berko said she is stepping down for 232 E. Bleeker. PROJECT MONITORING: 232 E. Bleeker PRESENTATION: Milo Stark of Kim Raymond Architects with Bill Boehringer representing the owner. Mr. Stark said he is presenting options for the pipes that need to be vented and they know where they stand with HPC. The options are written down in the packet along with renderings and photos. The radon pipe has been shown on the plan, so the option #1 here is going back to its approved location or it can stay in the same location on the additional roof. The plumbing stack cannot be moved and is located on the west end of the new roof. It has been cut to six inches and painted grey so it’s not so much of an eyesore from the street or the tenants. The fireplace flues are a bigger problem and they have been working with Ms. Simon on where they can vent these. They proposed them going out the west façade, which is shown on the rendering, but going out the historic façade was not the best option so they tried to put them out the gable, but that was an eyesore so they reintroduced putting them out the west façade. The boiler vent options show them coming out the east façade for option #1. This isn’t ideal, but can be painted to match the siding. Option #2 for the boiler vents is creating a shroud. This is not our preferred option, but hopefully these options are sufficient for review. Ms. Simon said if anyone needs more information, we can walk through the options again. Page 9 of the packet shows what is there now and a photoshop image was included with the new options. The two direct vents on the west side, we discourage, but if you all think it’s the best solution, ok. Mr. Halferty asked what staff’s opinion is of the shroud. Mr. Stark said the shroud will reduce the height of the boiler vents because they can terminate them horizontally so it won’t be above the ridgeline and see from Monarch. If the shroud isn’t there, you will see at 36-inch pipe. Ms. Greenwood said she doesn’t think this is appropriate on a Victorian house. She asked if they ever tried removing the plumbing stack on the eve of the dormer. Mr. Stark said yes, it can’t go down and it’s coming up the other side of the dormer. It cannot slope back down and then out due to manufacturer instruction. Mr. Moyer said the shroud would be pretty damn awful to look at and he doesn’t want to create an architectural element on the roof. Ms. Greenwood agreed and said this is very obtrusive. She is happy to see they made some effort to reduce the pipes because it looks very bad. She thinks their proposal is a viable solution, except a shroud is completely unacceptable. This is not the intent of the building code much less a historic resource or addition to a historic resource. She’s in favor of the option given on page 9. Mr. Pember agrees with her and so does Mr. Halferty. He said they are doing their best now. Mr. Pember said planting a bush is a good idea. Doctors bury their mistakes and architects plant bushes. Mr. Blaich said he’s been frustrated since day one with this project and there have been a lot of problems. This is a skin and bones problem here. We can live with the bones. Mr. Greenwood agreed 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018 and said they do not want to add to it. Putting penetrations on the side of the building is doing that and it’s a visible problem. Mr. Pember made a comment about being responsible and locating vents and showing those before the permitting process. One can look at framing and understand a plumber’s needs. This is not all done on paper. Ms. Sanzone asked if the boiler vent is heated. Mr. Stark said on page 8 is the spec for the power vent. There is heat to it, but it wouldn’t affect the intake there. Ms. Sanzone said she prefers the non-shrub version of the plan and supports the direction the board is headed. Mr. Lai said he agrees with the board and he thinks the proposal on the top of page 9 is making the best of a bad situation. Ms. Simon said the board can give direction to herself and Mr. Blaich to move forward with this plan. Ms. Greenwood clarified they are speaking about page 9 with the picture at the top of the page. Ms. Simon said the side vents are shown on page 10 along with the roof scape and elevations. PUBLIC COMMENT: Howie Mallory Mr. Mallory is a neighbor and asked what the process is to be a part of the discussion. When a change is being requested, he thinks it should be permitted. Ms. Simon explained there are a lot of conditions involved after this goes through HPC. This issue has never has been a part of the public process and has always been a project monitoring issue. There is no noticing that goes out. It’s up to Ms. Greenwood as to whether she wants to hear comment or not, but it is not part of the typical process. Ms. Greenwood said she encourages public comment and Ms. Bryan said it’s up to her. Mr. Mallory said he lives at 211 E. Hallam. He thanked the board for their time and all they do. The comments he’s heard is that the shroud would not be visible, but he feels that it would be. The applicant is suggesting a double standard and it’s all about curb appeal. He feels the applicant is not considering the neighbors who have to look at it from a 365. He asked for them to consider the aesthetic. These projects are trying to get quickly sold, but by putting up unsightly add ons, it suggests an improper standard and aesthetic. He’s asking the board to be mindful of this. Ms. Greenwood said she’s in concert with him on that thought and she always brings this up to the board. She said HPC doesn’t just look at one area and they are not going to approve the shroud. She said Mr. Mallory is very affected by that roof. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said there was nothing further. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned that at the next meeting, they will have an update on the permit process. She mentioned the upcoming discussion of Lift 1 and reinvigoration of access to the mountain and redevelopment. On May 15th there is an important work session, so please do not attend since you all will be future decision makers on this project. We have completed a history paper about Lift 1, which is a synopsis of how it came to be built and will be posted on the city’s website. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018 Ms. Greenwood asked if they can move the finalization of the HPC awards to the end before adjournment. She also said some of them have had some changes they want to make on the awards. Ms. Simon said to please also attend the council meeting for the awards on the 29th. Mr. Pember said he receives Ann Mullins newsletter, which said that City Council completed a review of the boards and it was a very non-descript review. He asked what actually happened in that review. Ms. Simon said they are looking at each board and their processes to make sure there is a line of communication, etc. They will have an individual meeting with HPC in the future. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon said they are working on several, but she hasn’t issued any yet. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she has 400 E. Hopkins and she needs the other two. Ms. Yoon said the applicant for 520 E. Durant has the affidavit for public notice. Ms. Simon said the applicant for 300 W. Main has theirs so once they arrive, she will get it to Ms. Bryan. CALL UPS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 400 E. Hopkins Ben Anderson Mr. Anderson said this is a minor development for La Creperie. There are a couple of designs in front of the board for commercial design and pedestrian amenity. Everyone is familiar with this intersection in town, which is Mill and Hopkins and is in the commercial core district. The canopies that are down in the space, are the subject of the review this evening. This is the third review for the canopies. They were granted temporary use by Council for the summer of 2016. After that, the Durly’s asked them to approve annual seasonal use of these canopies. Staff made the determination to issue a certificate of no negative effect. The real topic is that this space (courtyard) counts as pedestrian amenity. After a couple of years of going through this process, it’s arduous. Putting up the canopies, taking them down, storing them in Basalt created a situation where the Durly’s decided they wanted them to be installed permanently. This triggers a change in the commercial design review and to the pedestrian amenity review. The pedestrian amenity basically gets lost by installing the canopies full time. There are pictures of the courtyard in the packet. The canopies are down right now, but the plan is to go back up within the next couple of weeks. They are made of rustic wood and weathered corrugated metal sheeting. You can’t see them from the street, but only from the staircase. There needs to be mitigation for the loss of public amenity space and a building permit is needed. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. New building permit process to handle structural loads for winter 2. Cash in Lieu fee ($13,400) for the loss of public amenity space Ms. Sanzone asked if this would be tied to this restaurant in particular or would it be permanent for someone else coming in. Mr. Anderson said the applicant just signed a long-term lease. It could be something we can add if the board wishes, but it wasn’t something they considered. Ms. Berko asked what happens to the cash in lieu. Ms. Simon said it goes into other pedestrian amenity improvements in the downtown area. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018 Mr. Anderson said they are not encouraging future construction of these subgrade courtyards. This space is seen as vibrant and a desired seating area. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Patrick Rawley of Stan Clauson & Associates alongside Ryan Doremus of Thunderbowl Architects. Mr. Rawley said he has the existing structure boards and plans if anyone wants to view them. As Mr. Anderson pointed out, the plans have been approved twice and are now seeking permanence. He said the permanent installation provides activity to the street and additional seating for the restaurant. This is a meaningful addition and helpful to them so they don’t have to keep taking them up and down and storing them. The rustic nature of the canopies works with the restaurant theme and will be specific to this business. In regard to the cash in lieu payment, they are requesting some type of reduction of this fee. This space really doesn’t add to the public space of the downtown core. With that, possibly a reduction could be provided. This is a locally serving business and a local restaurant, which creates more vitality than if it were just a dense space. Mr. Doremus said these spaces aren’t intended to be enclosed, but open air. They were never enclosed with any other materials and it never will be completely enclosed, but always open to the public. He agrees with Mr. Rawley from a cash in lieu prospective since it is a significant amount on top of the permitting fees they are paying, it would be nice to have a reduction of the fee. Mr. Pember asked what the construction costs are and Mr. Doremus said it’s the permit fees and they don’t currently pay the fees with the temporary permit. Mr. Pember asked about the material of the canopies. Mr. Doremus said it’s rustic wood and corrugated metal, which meets codes. Mr. Halferty asked if they are going to substantiate it with footings and Mr. Doremus said no, they have spoken with Mr. Murray in the Building Department and he suggested an adhesive pad to the concrete. It will be a steel footer on the concrete slab and the snow load is minimal and will slope off with snow fencing. There will be no excavation. Ms. Greenwood said they are making it sound as if they don’t have the ability to change the cash in lieu fee, but it doesn’t sound bad to her because she enjoys the Creperie a lot. Mr. Anderson clarified that in the code it says the fee amount is determined by whichever is less; property or square footage tax. Discretion is given to City Council and it is not about the amount of the cash in lieu figure, it’s about whether or not the pedestrian amenity is being lost and if it’s more than 50 percent, it must be approved by City Council. Ms. Greenwood asked if it’s more about whether we agree or don’t agree that the pedestrian space is lost. Mr. Rawley said that is correct. Ms. Sanzone asked if they feel the structural engineer will come back and say they can’t use the original wood members because they need to be upsized and Mr. Doremus said potentially that could happen, but the engineer won’t review it until we get HPC approval, but it may need additional joists and rafters. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Mr. Moyer said this is all very amusing. If there wasn’t the hole in the ground and it was street level, there would be an amenity to walk through. Since the restaurant has gone in, it has become a marvelous example of messy vitality and besides, the food is good. He concurs with staff to approve this and he is very upset about them having to pay 13,000 for that. He finds this is what makes people mad 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018 about government. It’s absolutely bloody ridiculous, but it’s ok because we have a marvelous city and we have to keep it that way. All we can do is express our distaste that the City is charging them money. The public amenity exists regardless of what they are doing with the space. Mr. Halferty is in agreement with staff and the board, but not necessarily on the fees. The fees are really high and this is a small-town operation and barely have any seats inside. Allowing them some relief would be highly encouraged. They’ve done a nice job there and he remembers when it was a jewelry store and it was just an empty courtyard with no vitality and no amenity. Ms. Simon asked to add some clarification for the board. She said she also enjoys the restaurant as they all do, but asked them to keep perspective of how other people have been forced to comply with design guidelines as well. The Mi Chola trellis is an open weave trellis that is open to the sky. Grey Lady has retractable canopies that keep things open to the sky so we are seeking consistency. It is not within HPC’s purview to reduce this fee. Just bear in mind there is a lot of history to this. Mr. Moyer said there is one difference to this space that is unlike any other. It’s a hole in the ground. If it was street level, it would be different. It’s a unique, tiny little spot. Mr. Pember said when they were reviewing the new guidelines, he vehemently argued against this open sky provision because there are multiple occasions when the amenity is enhanced in this climate with extreme regularity. it’s a contradiction in terms calling it a public amenity only if it doesn’t have a covering. It hardly makes sense given the provisions and the support of things like porches. It seems at odds with life as it’s lived. His opinion didn’t matter or evolve, but he still believes it in this situation. Ms. Greenwood said that is an excellent point. Mr. Pember said he still doesn’t love the material. Ms. Simon looked at the code language regarding the cash in lieu fee. HPC has the authority to decide what methodology is used to address public amenity. The options are onsite pedestrian amenity and offsite solutions or you can pay cash in lieu. HPC only has the option to reduce cash in lieu when it is a landmark designated property and there is a preservation benefit. Neither HPC or Council have the right to reduce the fee otherwise. Ms. Sanzone said she is concerned about line of site and the amount of stuff they have added to the top and it’s already a difficult area to walk through. She feels this is a big ask and we need something on record that says we don’t want to see this again. She agrees with Mr. Pember and said the material is great, but it cuts your line of sight. If there is some opportunity to make it more open, it would help the space to be a pedestrian amenity. She loves the owners and loves their dog even more, but she would not feel comfortable sitting in those chairs or at the bar. She agrees with the direction the discussion is going. He particularly likes what Ms. Simon said about it being possible to have a retractable awning. With the opaque materials that they have right now, he doesn’t see it as a public amenity and if it stays all year round, he’s not in favor of reducing the cash in lieu payment. If it’s retractable, everyone would win; certainly, in the summer. Ms. Berko has a hard time with where the next person comes along taking over this space. It’s a slippery slope regarding consistency. She said that because the applicants will no longer endure the cost of taking down, setting up and storing the canopies, it will pay for itself so she doesn’t quite understand the question of the cash in lieu fees and does not feel qualified coming up with an appropriate fee. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018 MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to grant the request by the applicant and follow staff’s recommendations, Mr. Blaich seconded. Mr. Pember asked for the recommendations to be read. Mr. Moyer read aloud the recommendations by staff. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Pember, no; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes, Mr. Lai, no. 5-2, motion carried. Mr. Blaich volunteered to be the project monitor. NEW BUSINESS: 520 E. Durant Sarah Yoon Ms. Yoon stated that this is a non-historic building located in the commercial core historic district. This is a minor development review to consider a painted mural on a secondary brick façade, which faces the street alley. The artist plans to apply a clear coat on the brick before using household grade exterior acrylic paint. There will be a level of durability associated with the materials that have been chosen. Creating an appealing alley scape is encouraged in the design guidelines. HP staff has discussed in the past the preference for unpainted brick in the commercial core area, but in this case, the mural is not proposed to be on a primary façade, but on an alley facing facade. Examples of historic wall paintings and images have been provided in the packet. One concern staff had was regarding maintenance of the murals, which is dependent on the building owner. Staff recommends approval with one condition of approval: 1. The mural be maintained to prevent appearances of neglect, such as peeling paint until the owner decides to remove the mural. Mr. Moyer said if you’re concerned about future removal, to seal it first with a clear sealant. Ms. Yoon said the applicant will address different methods. Mr. Moyer said that paint is easier to remove from modern brick than historic brick. Ms. Greenwood asked what the subject matter is and Ms. Yoon said HPC doesn’t have purview over content. The applicant has a presentation. Ms. Greenwood said she feels we should have some purview over what goes up there because you can’t just go paint advertisements and we have a sign code. This is quite a large façade for a tiny town. Ms. Yoon said the sign code applies here and the applicant has confirmed there will be no text on this mural. Mr. Moyer said there are some new murals in town and they never came before us. Ms. Simon said one of them is painted on a piece of plywood and is non- historic and the other is painted on stucco. We have typically looked at public art as being exempt from review as long as it’s removable and doesn’t damage any building material. This one is before us because they are painting directly on the brick. Ms. Simon said we do control finish, for example, the white wash we had to approve for O2. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Katie Kiernan Ms. Kiernan is a local who grew up in Aspen and has been in the art community for a long time and is a supporter of cultural tourism. She has been wanting to bring public art to the community for a long time and has been looking for ways to turn that unattractive wall and alley into an iconic space. The project would occur between June 25th and July 1st. Shepard Fairey is an internationally renowned artist. He does large murals all over the world and shows at the Pace Gallery in New York City. It has taken three years to get the artist to consider Aspen to be a part of the global mural project. He is the artist that did the hope stamp for the Obama administration. He does use his art as a platform to bring 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018 value to communities all over the world. Ms. Kiernan showed samples on screen of Mr. Fairey’s work and murals, which are currently in cities such as, Miami, Detroit and Paris. His messages is all about peace, hope, community and bringing people together. He has recently done the “We the people” posters, which he handed out to the public for free. PUBLIC COMMENT: Michael Brown Mr. Brown likes this project and walks this block daily and loves the idea of art in unexpected places and thinks it’s really cool for the city. He said the bear on the backside of Zane’s always gets overlooked and he really likes it. He has a hotel in Sun Valley they are painting three murals on and after finishing the first one, people really responded to it. It’s amazing that an artist like Shepard Fairey would paint here in Aspen and it has potential to be iconic and long lasting. He knows the building owner and said they are very particular about the way the grounds are kept and feels very confident that they will not allow the paint to erode or fade. He thinks it’s great for community and then added that he and Mr. Pember have beaten the owner of the building, Steve Marcus, multiple times in tennis. Ms. Yoon sent out an email to the board earlier in the day of an additional public comment, which was also positive feedback. Mr. Lai applauds this project and said it’s a great idea. He asked about timing and if it is possible to have it complete during Food and Wine. Ms. Kiernan said the only window we could confirm with the artist were the dates that were given. The artist is very sought after so we got earliest dates that he could manage. It’s taken a couple of years to get this commitment. Mr. Lai really believes in public art being open to the discretion of the artist, but when we look at this site, it’s unusual. It’s a long narrow space that people may or may not go through. You see just one portion from Galena and his suggestion to the artist would be to consider he uses his creativity to take advantage of that stretch. Ms. Kiernan said the artist has had them photograph that wall extensively from every angle and viewpoint so he could prepare for the undertaking from a compositional perspective. Mr. Moyer pointed out the cross street is Hunter rather than Galena. Ms. Greenwood noted that it will be done during the Ideas Festival so that seems like a perfect time in her opinion. Ms. Berko said the mural at the Crystal Palace bugs her and said she doesn’t feel that it fits into old town Aspen. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve, Mr. Halferty seconded. Mr. Moyer amended the motion to include the conditions listed in the resolution, Mr. Halferty seconded the amendment. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; 8-0 motion carried. Ms. Sanzone volunteered to be the project monitor. NEW BUSINESS: 300 W. Main Amy Simon Ms. Simon reminded the board that this is a 1940’s log cabin and was designated historic many years ago. Last December, there was a discussion about demolishing and replacing the 1980’s addition that is on this cabin. It is a 9000-square foot lot and the cabin sits right in the middle of it and is surrounded by 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018 the most enormous trees in Aspen. The cabin cannot be relocated so the proposal discussed in December was to be associated with the Annabelle Inn and turned into a lodge. It struggled with HPC due to compatibility issues so now we have a revised concept and the hotel application has been withdrawn. The cabin will now be kept as a single-family home, which is what it is now and recladding the 80’s addition. There is little point in tearing down this 80’s addition. Staff has a number of concerns and the applicant responded very well and resolved the problems so we are now changing our recommendation from continuance to approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant restudied the roof pitches and created taller ridgelines so HPC needs to take a close look to make sure they don’t feel the historic resource is being overwhelmed. 2. Continued discussion on a connector. 3. Make a revision to the basement staircase so it has a cap and doesn’t need head height. 4. Staff would like the parking space that is in the City right of way, be removed. Ms. Simon said on page 87 of the packet, there are more conditions listed, such as, showing all mechanical vents and flues on the plans and providing information on how original historic aspects will be restored and repaired. There is also a floor area bonus request. The exterior stair well to the basement increases the floor area, which would be a 40-square foot request solely for that purpose. Staff supports the floor area bonus as it’s a difficult property and the applicants are already making a number of compromises. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions on page 87. Mr. Lai asked about the high ridge line and if it’s in permissible bounds. Ms. Simon said yes. Mr. Pember asked how many feet the additional height is and Ms. Simon said the architects need to respond and she said it’s not necessarily more height, just more development up to that point, but she is assuming it’s to the 25-foot height limit. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Ashley Satterfield and Rich Pavcek of Charles Cunniffe Architects. Ms. Satterfield said the historic log cabin is currently zoned as a single-family residence and they are asking to re clad the existing addition, make alterations to the roof and propose the basement stair. The front elevation is towards 2nd street, even though the address is on Main Street. The cabin is obscured by the historic trees on site. They will work with HP staff to return the roof to its original condition and cedar shingle. There are many gables and they would like to simplify the roof massing in the midst of re- roofing. Ms. Satterfield continued to talk through on screen images. The footprint of the addition will stay as is and all exterior walls will remain in place. The current basement is unfinished and they are proposing the encroaching parking space be removed and replaced with grass. They are proposing a standing seam metal roof in a dark grey color and a charred wood siding. They will be using a ribbed metal panel that references the horizontality of the log cabin and they brought samples of all of the materials with them as well. As far as the proposed lighting, there are five exterior light fixtures currently, but they are not shielded so they want to reduce this down to four. Mr. Moyer asked where they are proposing to buy the wood and Ms. Satterfield said there is a manufacturer out of Texas, Delta Millworks who sources the wood. Mr. Moyer said the Japanese always use Japanese cedar, which burns deeper. Ms. Satterfield said It’s a deep burn and she showed an example. You can install it untreated with a clear coat finish. The example they brought is also clear coated. 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018 Mr. Blaich asked if the vertical glass is a clear glass. Ms. Satterfield said they are proposing at garage level, that it be translucent and above that, on the second floor, we could do translucent or clear. It’s a bedroom and we are proposing clear. Ms. Sanzone asked if the site and landscape features are existing and Ms. Satterfield said yes and the patio will be concrete or stone. Ms. Sanzone asked about bringing down the height on the fence since it’s taller than what would normally be allowed. Mr. Pavcek said they didn’t talk too much about it and are leaving as is, but the client is open to discuss the fencing and it would require some extra study. He said it was never part of the historic property to begin with. Ms. Simon agreed and said it’s something they didn’t push since it’s already existing. Mr. Pember asked if there are new conditions included in the resolution and Ms. Simon said pages 100 & 101 include all conditions they envisioned would be needed so you should start with these and see what needs to be taken out or added. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to extend the meeting past 7:00 p.m., Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Sanzone asked if they’ve had preliminary discussions with Engineering on storm water issues and Mr. Pavcek said yes, right now everything we are doing falls outside of their purview. PUBLIC COMMENT: None Ms. Greenwood has issue with the gutters. It doesn’t seem like a permanent solution. Ms. Simon said we need to see the info because engineering may require this. Mr. Pember said they will grant exceptions for historic resources. We should just say no gutters on the resource. Ms. Greenwood said they are super sensitive to the mechanical vent issue and don’t want to go through that again. She continued to read back all conditions to the board. She feels the 40 square feet for the lightwell should be approved. Mr. Lai said he agrees with staff. One thing he would like to add as a compliment to the owner, the fact that they didn’t ask for the 500-sq. ft. bonus. This is the first project he’s seen where the applicant didn’t ask for that. This is the standard he would like to go by. Right now, he feels, they give everyone everything they want. Ms. Simon said this project is subject to the new guidelines, but it doesn’t meet some of the guidelines so we are trying to work within what we have and what is already existing. MOTION: Mr. Pember motioned to accept resolution #8 with a change to the second condition to qualify that the gutters aren’t on the resource, Mr. Lai seconded. 7-0. Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Lai will be the project monitor on this project. Ms. Simon addressed the HPC awards and said they’ve already gone on site visits and we’ve made decisions. They’ve been passed on already so we can’t change anything. 549 Race was forgotten 11 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018 unfortunately. The choices are: 211 E. Hallam. 229 W. Smuggler, 110 E. Bleeker. The Historical Society is receiving the Elizabeth Paepcke award for their archives project and Harry Teague is receiving a design award for his whole body of work. The only reason the awards are being talked about again tonight is because she forgot to have the board look at 549 Race. Ms. Sanzone asked about the Red Brick project (110 E. Bleeker) and the board collectively feels that it should be judged on restoration only. As for 549 Race, Ms. Greenwood said they did a very good job maintaining the framing and they devoted a lot of effort to it, but not sure if we should get into the details of it. The award is the award. We need to come up with a different method for acknowledging restoration only somehow, but not the addition. Mr. Pember asked for clarification on what is being presented to Harry Teague. Ms. Simon said it is called the Welton Anderson Award. He was an architect who passed away around the time that HPC started giving the awards and it has been given only a few times. Fritz Benedict received it in the 90’s, Robin Molny, etc. It is in regard to making a lasting design contribution to Aspen. Mr. Lai went back to 549 Race and said the reason he wouldn’t vote for it is because although the restoration was excellent, the old building seems like a tail to a dog and is overwhelmed by the new addition. Ms. Greenwood said that is an interesting point. Mr. Pember said the tail is wagging the dog. Everyone laughed and agreed on this that it is overwhelming. Ms. Simon said they don’t need a vote on it, just sounds like the board is not awarding that project. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to adjourn, Ms. Sanzone seconded. All in favor, motion carried. 7:23 p.m.