HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20240724REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at
4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Kim Raymond, Barb Pitchford, Peter Fornell, Jodi Surfas,
Riley Warwick and Kara Thompson. Absent was Jeffrey Halferty.
Mr. Charlie Tarver noted that he did not confirm attendance. He said that he was recently appointed by
City Council to the Planning & Zoning Commission and since he cannot sit on two commissions at once,
he was officially resigning from HPC. He left the table and sat in the audience.
Jodi Surfas and Riley Warwick arrived at 4:32pm.
Staff present:
Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation
Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs handed out copies of an email exchange between Ms.
Thompson and Mr. Hayden that he had obtained through a CORA request. He said that it produced
evidence that the west addition at 205 West Main St. was actually historic, in contrast to the applicant’s
claim that it was not. He noted that, in the email exchange, Ms. Thompson noted that if the addition
was indeed historic it would need to remain. Mr. Scruggs noted that the new expedited approval
process does not allow for the destruction of any historic portions of the resource. He believed the
applicant should amended their application to retract their demolition of the addition and show how
they are to restore the entirety of the historic resource.
Ms. Thompson stated that it was Mr. Hayden that found the information. Mr. Fornell asked if the
property owner had been notified, to which Mr. Hayden answered yes. Mr. Hayden noted that he and
Ms. Raymond, acting as the monitor, completed a site visit and that applicant team had been very
accommodating with the investigation. He also noted that assistant City Attorney, Kate Johnson was also
working on the legal implications.
Knowing that Ms. Johnson was not present, Ms. Thompson requested that she give the board an update
at the next meeting.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson wanted to remind staff and applicants of the
presentation timeframes as outlined in the agenda.
Referencing a recent newspaper article about who owns various buildings in town, Mr. Moyer thought
that HPC should ask the City to take a hard look at how long these projects sit. He thought it ridiculous
that projects end up sitting for five, six, seven years.
Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Moyer and commented on the current state of the Boomerang Lodge and
the amount of various things being stored on the site. She considered the property derelict now. Like
Mr. Moyer, she agreed that there was more that could be done.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
Mr. Hayden noted that the property owners had submitted for permits as part of their ongoing repairs
to the site. He noted that some of the items stored on the site may be in the right of way and
encouraged members to report anything that had been there for a while to the City’s 311 app.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None
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 the two agenda items.
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT: 420 E. Cooper Ave. - Substantial Amendment - Public Hearing
Applicant Presentation: Mr. Chris Bendon – Bendon Adams / Charles Cunniffe – Charles Cunniffe
Architecture
Mr. Bendon began by noting that there was a project monitoring request submitted in May and that
they wanted to discuss the structural repairs that need to be addressed to be able to execute on the
approvals. He then went over some of the history of the building and background of the project and the
previous approvals. These included a 2019 minor development to join the upper floors of 420 and 418.
In this, HPC approved new openings in the east and west party walls of the Red Onion as well as
mechanical equipment locations. He described the locations of the approved openings on the 2019 site
plan. He also noted a 2023 amendment to change the openings on the east and west walls and
relocating mechanical equipment due to sound issues. He noted that these were the openings that they
discussed at the site visit. He said that they now have a better understanding of the condition of the
brick walls and realize they need to redefine the structural load calculations to keep the building upright.
Mr. Cunniffe went over the reasoning for their request noting the condition of the roof rafters and that
they are inadequate under current standards. In order to introduce additional structural elements, it
was suggested to slide new LVL beams in from the side. Mr. Cunniffe said that this would require the
removal of small portions of the brick walls, sliding in the new LVLs and then replacing the bricks. He
also described the need to remove additional brick above the two large openings between the two
spaces to install a lintel to support the brick wall above. This would also include replacing the removed
brick. He noted that in these two processes there would be some of the brick that would not be worth
saving and that they plan to reuse some of the historic brick that was removed in creating the openings
to replace the unusable brick. He noted that they would like to express as much of the historic brick as
possible in the new space.
Mr. Bendon then went over the relative historic preservation guidelines that apply here and stated that
they believe that they have been met.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
Mr. Moyer asked who the contractor was. Mr. Cunniffe said that it was Whiting Turner. Mr. Moyer then
asked if someone with that firm had their Historic Preservation BEST Card. Mr. Cunniffe said he did not
know one way or the other as he was just the architect on the project and not the contractor. Mr.
Moyer then asked if progress was being held up due to the construction issues. Mr. Cunniffe said that it
had held up his portion of the work. Mr. Moyer asked if the roof trusses were only being held up by the
existing brick wall. Mr. Cunniffe confirmed that. Mr. Moyer asked if the lintels would be supported by
the brick walls. Mr. Cunniffe said they would have some additional support as well as the wall.
Ms. Raymond asked if the entire area of brick highlighted on the site plan above the two openings would
be removed to install the lintels and LVLs. Mr. Cunniffe said yes, but the idea would be to replace the
brick so that someone would not know it was done.
Ms. Thompson asked if they had researched a matching new brick if they needed to replace removed
historic brick with new. Mr. Cunniffe said they should have enough historic brick from the creation of
the approved openings to replace any damaged pieces. In the worst case scenario, he said they would
source matching brick.
Ms. Pitchford asked for clarification of some language in the staff memo that seemed to state that 348
square feet of historic brick would be removed and replaced and that that would be against the
preservation guidelines. She agreed that it might be a better question for Mr. Hayden.
Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden - Planner - Historic Preservation
Mr. Hayden began by stating that when he wrote the staff memo it was his understanding that the
applicant was planning to remove and replace the historic brick and that at the site visit, he was
surprised to learn that their intention was to remove and reuse the brick. He noted that that is more in
line with the preservation guidelines.
He started his presentation by asking the board to ask the applicant for clarity regarding the historic
rafters. He noted that the drawings represented by the applicant here show them being removed and
the application materials they provided before the deadline showed them being preserved.
Mr. Cunniffe stated that the existing structure including the bottom cord of the truss would remain and
that they are just supplementing with additional support.
Mr. Hayden said that they are mainly looking at historic design guideline 2.1 calling for the preservation
of historic materials. He noted that staff believes that selective disassembly and reassembly of the brick
in order to install the new roof joists meets the guideline. He did point out a specific bullet point in that
guideline that suggests the removal of such a large portion of material is inappropriate and he wanted
the board to discuss it. He detailed this bullet point and staff’s concerns of whether the proposed
rebuilding of that portion of the wall constitute a large portion.
Mr. Hayden stated that staff recommends approval with conditions effectively allowing the selective
removal of brick to install the new joists. He said that staff wants to ensure that the brick is reused, and
as little new brick is introduced.
Mr. Fornell asked that when the bricks are removed if they would be inventoried to ensure they are the
same ones that would be reused. Mr. Hayden said that could be added as a condition for staff and
monitor review but that from the applicant’s handling of the historic pedestrian pavers, he was
confident in the same level of care be taken with the brick.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
Mr. Moyer asked if Mr. Hayden and the monitor on the project felt this request was more than they
wanted to take on and thought to bring it to HPC. Mr. Hayden said that prior to updates that were
included in the application the original insubstantial amendment was denied. He said that may have
been due to a misunderstanding of what the applicants were actually proposing.
Mr. Moyer went back to his past question about someone on site having the historic preservation BEST
card. He felt it very unprofessional that whoever held the BEST card was not present at the site visit. Mr.
Hayden noted that he had checked the list of historic BEST card holders and that there was presumably
two current members of the Whiting – Turner contracting company that hold the card.
There was then some discussion about whether the wall in question was still considered exterior or if it
was now considered interior. Mr. Hayden said that it has been an exterior wall, probably was an interior
wall at some point and it’s somewhat both currently. He noted that when the project is complete part of
it will be exterior facing and some of it will be interior. Mr. Moyer said he just wanted to be clear on this,
as HPC’s purview was only exterior walls. Ms. Thompson said that this interior wall will affect the other
exterior walls.
Mr. Fornell asked who originally discovered that this work was outside the scope of the approvals. Mr.
Hayden said that it was not clear, but that he would look into it.
Ms. Pitchford asked Mr. Hayden if in fact he was mistaken in the staff memo that the applicant’s
intention was to remove the brick and replace it with new material. Mr. Hayden said that in the
applicant’s written description of the proposed work it suggested to him that they were proposing to
replace the brick with new. He said that his understanding now is that they intend to disassemble the
wall and reassemble it using the historic brick once the joists are installed.
Public Comment: Mr. Charlie Tarver commented that clarity of questions was important yet often
overlooked. He noted that communicating what someone says should put that exact image in
someone’s head. He thought the HPC board needed to work on clarity of statements.
Board Discussion:
Mr. Warwick wanted to clarify that this proposal and resulting conversation were mostly about the
structural integrity of the walls. Ms. Thompson said yes. She also noted that since the roof trusses were
historic and could not be removed the applicant is proposing to sister new joists in. Also, if HPC had not
approved the creation of the new wall openings the applicant would not have to do this work.
Mr. Fornell appreciated that it came back to HPC if staff and monitor were unsure.
Ms. Thompson stated that she supported the method of the roof rafter installation as the appropriate
way to do this. The rest of the members agreed.
Ms. Thompson thought the removal of brick to install the steel lintels above the wall openings was a bit
of a grey area, but also thought it was the appropriate method to make sure the building will last.
Mr. Moyer said he was surprised that the applicant did not stress that removing the bricks above the
wall openings and rebuilding them would make the building stronger. Ms. Thompson and other
members said they heard the applicant say that at the site visit. Mr. Moyer thought it was a wise thing
to do. The other members agreed.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
Ms. Raymond appreciated the applicant coming to the HPC board with these proposals as well as for
honoring the Red Onion by showcasing the historic brick on the inside and taking the care they have
proposed in the disassembly and reassembly of the brick.
MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with the following
revisions. Condition #1 shall read “all historic brick that is removed shall be replaced with historic brick
unless irreparably damaged.” Condition #2 shall read "Installation of the heretofore partially installed
new roof joists is to be completed in accordance with the process herein approved for the north end of
the east wall and the south end of the west wall using similar brick salvaged from elsewhere on the
historic resource”. Condition #3 to read “All new brick shall be submitted to the project monitoring
committee for review”. Condition #4 to read “all historic brick that is removed shall be stored
appropriately according to recommendation of the brick specialist”. Mr. Fornell seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes;
Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0 vote, motion passes.
Mr. Moyer asked the applicant if this process was helpful. Mr. Bendon said that in working on many
projects in town, things come up that are not expected, especially on downtown historic buildings. He
acknowledged that staff had moved this item in front of HPC as quickly as they could and were very
respectful of the ongoing work
Ms. Raymond was assigned as a second monitor on this project.
NEW BUSINESS: 120 E. Main St. - AspenModern Historic Designation and Benefits, Conceptual Major
Development, Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), Major Subdivision, Planned Development,
Special Review, and Growth Management Review - PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant Presentation: Jessica Garrow – Design Workshop & Richard Shaw
Mr. Shaw introduced himself as a partner of the partnership created to own the building. He started by
going over the history of the building and noted that the partnership had owned the building since they
bought it from Pitkin County 30 years ago. He then went over their requests including the voluntary
AspenModern designation of the building and parcel. He stated that the building is about 8,000 square
feet and that there still remained a significant amount of developable potential on the property. He then
listed additional topics of discussion, including some of the benefits that go along with the designation,
some minor modifications to the building and the proposal to construct residential housing on the rear
lot. He briefly described the AspenModern program and the building’s historic significance, noting that it
was designed by Fritz Benedict and Herbert Bayer. He then described some of the significant
architectural features of the building and the importance of Mr. Benedict and Mr. Bayer to Aspen. He
continued describing the history of the building once it was finished and occupied. He moved on by
listing the five areas in which designation can be sought and applied for.
Ms. Garrow went through the setting of the building and its importance within the City. She also
described a few of the surrounding properties. She then went over the few minor modifications that had
occurred to the building since it was built in 1966. She then described the AspenModern program and
highlighted how this property met the designation criteria.
Next Ms. Garrow noted that the designation of this property would include the removal of significant
development pressure on the historic resource and that they are proposing some minor modifications
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
and repairs in-place using historic materials whenever possible. She went over the three benefits they
are requesting in exchange for the designation. The first was some variation benefits to install some
mechanical equipment on the roof for a future restaurant use and a setback variance to ensure the new
development is pushed as far away for the resource as possible. They would also like to continue the
memorialization of the stacked parking.
Ms. Garrow moved onto the economic benefits they are requesting with the designation. She noted that
they are requesting 10 TDRs be granted, representing the removal of 2500 square feet of development
from the property in perpetuity. They are also proposing two small free market residential units
detached from the historic resource and located on the rear lot. They are also requesting fee waivers, 10
years of vested rights and a six-month rescission period, noting that there was only one month left in
the designation negotiating timeframe. She mentioned that these benefits are typical and have been
granted to other properties.
Ms. Garrow then showed the various elevations of the building and described some of the proposed
modifications, including reconfiguring a non-historic deck off the rear of the building and the location of
future roof top mechanical equipment. She pointed out the location of the existing light well and noted
that they are proposing to add a second one. She noted that once the two lots are combined per their
proposal the entire parcel would be historically designated and that HPC would have purview over the
historic resource as well as the development in the rear.
Ms. Garrow continued by reviewing the Growth Management implications of the proposed new
development in the rear of the property. She detailed the size of the two proposed units and noted that
they are requesting a cash-in-lieu payment for the required mitigation be permitted.
She continued by describing the design of the proposed rear building referencing the historic guidelines
that call for the new construction to relate to two of three aspects of the historic resource. She noted
that the building design relates to the form and fenestration of the historic resource. The roof pitch of
the new building matches that of the historic as well as the design of the windows. She showed a few
elevations of the new building to highlight this. She also noted that they are proposing nine parking
spaces which meets the code requirement.
Mr. Shaw concluded by saying that they, as owners, through the voluntary designation, are committing
to not changing the historic resource without reviews, not expanding the resource on the site and to
forever change the flexibility of the owner to develop the parcel. He noted that in exchange they are
requesting the benefits that they had listed in the application and detailed in their presentation. He
referenced the two resolutions in the packet and noted that they are quite different. He acknowledged
staff’s responsibility as the Community Development arm of the City, but as owners, he felt the
application and benefits requested were well thought out and in balance with what is being provided in
the voluntary designation and historic preservation.
Mr. Warwick asked if there was any below grade space proposed for the new residential structure. Mr.
Shaw said it was all above grade. Mr. Warwick asked for clarity on the proposed parking spaces as the
application proposes nine, but it then counts out 10. Ms. Garrow said it was originally 10 spaces, but
after referral comments from the Building Department, they reduced it to nine.
Ms. Raymond asked Ms. Garrow to show the site plan again and asked about the four stacked parking
spaces. Ms. Garrow showed the site plan and said the four stacked spaces were an existing condition on
the property.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
Ms. Surfas asked about the proposed potential for a restaurant space. Mr. Shaw said the reason they are
asking for the mechanical systems on the roof is so that a restaurant could be a tenant in the future.
Mr. Moyer asked if they had purchased both lots at the same time. Mr. Shaw said the front lot was
purchased in 1992 and the rear lot was purchased in 1993.
Ms. Raymond asked about the trash and recycling area and noted that it was well under the required
amount of square footage. Ms. Garrow said the application was updated and now they are only slightly
under the required amount. Ms. Raymond asked if they had started the civil engineering process to deal
with snow retention. Mr. Shaw said that they had done a stormwater plan addressing the stormwater
runoff and snow removal.
Ms. Raymond then asked how tall the existing building was in comparison to the proposed three-story
new residential development. Mr. Shaw said the new development was designed for the height limit of
28 feet and the existing building is 19.5 feet. Ms. Raymond then asked if they had tried to place the
mechanical equipment anywhere else, as she believed it would be visible from Main Street. Mr. Shaw
described the other locations they had looked at and why the one they chose was the most appropriate.
There was some discussion about the current heating and cooling systems for the existing building.
Ms. Raymond asked if they could talk more about the design of the proposed rear residential building.
She said she was having a hard time seeing the relationship in fenestration to the historic building as
well as how it is compatible or enhances the character of the neighborhood in relation to mass and scale
of the historic building as called for in section 26.445.50 of the Municipal Code. She said the new
building is very tall and skinny while the historic building is more squatty and horizontal.
Ms. Thompson said she had the same questions and asked the applicant to further explain where their
logic was coming from. Mr. Shaw went over their reasoning, highlighting the wood siding, similar
orientation of the larger windows looking toward the mountain as well as the other smaller windows.
Ms. Raymond then asked why they were requesting 10 years of vesting rights. Mr. Shaw said part of it
was due to the phasing of multiple parts of the how a project might go together. These included the
acquisition of future tenants, a construction schedule and restoration and rehabilitation work on the
existing historic building. They felt like it was fully justified considering what the owners were giving up
in the voluntary designation.
Ms. Thompson asked about the applicant’s’ reasoning for the 6-month recession period. Mr. Shaw said
that this process is a very quick one and as owners they need the time, after the final City Council
decision, to consider what that decision entails.
Ms. Surfas asked why they were prosing all this now and not at some point in the last 30 years that they
owned the building. Mr. Shaw said that the ownership of Design Workshop had changed over time and
that they are in a different place in their lives. He noted that Design Workshop had a new office in
Basalt.
Staff Presentation: Ben Anderson – Community Development Director & Stuart Hayden - Historic
Preservation Planner
Mr. Anderson began by going over HPC’s jurisdiction in this matter and noted that this was a
recommendation to City Council. He noted that there was clear agreement from staff with much of what
the applicant presented in terms of the importance of the building. He said that the focus of the staff
memo was on the benefits being requested and the aggregation of them. He listed the many reviews
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
associated with this application and noted that the designation benefits and conceptual major
development were under the HPC per the Municipal Code. He noted that while staff and the applicant
agree most of the criteria to be met on many of the reviews, staff does differ when it comes to the
benefits requested. He pointed out the 10 TDRs requested to be generated from the commercial
building by the applicant and their request to allow the development of two market rate residences in
the rear of the property. He again noted that the aggregate of all the benefits being requested was a
significant ask.
Mr. Anderson continued by describing the TDR program and noted that it was intended and designed
for residential properties. Applying them in the context of a commercial building was not imagined by
the program when it was conceived. He again noted that staff felt that the request for 10 TDRs was a
significant ask. He then noted that coming out of the development moratorium in 2022 was a clear
statement from City Council that they did not want any new free market residential development on
Main Street in the mixed-use zone district. He said that staff did not disagree with the site planning and
relationship of the new building to the resource, yet the type of residential use was in clear conflict with
the zone district.
He then went over the site plan and noted the utilities easement between the two lots and the existing
stacked parking that staff felt was ok because it has been the existing condition. He pointed out the
requested rear setback variance on the site plan in relationship to the proposed new development and
said that staff was generally supportive of that.
In conclusion Mr. Anderson said that staff was fully supportive of the AspenModern designation and felt
the lot merger was appropriate and brought some simplicity to the lot. He said staff was also in support
of the use of the Planned Development which would allow the setback variance and the issuance of
some amount of TDRs on the commercial property. He noted that while staff agreed that residential use
may be appropriate, it should be consistent with the allowed uses in the zone district, and they believed
it should be deed-restricted affordable housing which could include Resident Occupied as opposed to
category units. He said that staff did not want to preclude a restaurant use in the resource, but felt it
was premature to discuss the landing place of mechanical equipment at this time.
He noted that if affordable housing rather than free market was recommended by HPC, staff fully
supports the other miscellaneous benefit requests, including the fee waivers and the alternate
mitigation payment request. If free market was recommended, staff felt that in aggregate some of the
requests seemed excessive due to the potential benefit of the free market use over the allowed use in
the district.
Mr. Hayden then touched on the conceptual development request for the residential development in
the rear. He noted that it was tricky matter because it was more of a benefit request and the historic
design guidelines needed to be weighed against the potential benefit to the community of the historic
designation of the resource. He noted that with the historic designation the design standard criteria
would move from the zone district design guidelines to the historic preservation design guidelines which
are a little stricter.
Mr. Fornell asked Mr. Anderson if any commercial buildings had ever had TDRs pulled off of them. Mr.
Anderson said that to his recollection he could not identify a project. He again noted that the TDR
program had almost entirely been driven on single family and duplex residential properties. Mr. Hayden
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
added that the code specifically says that the one of the primary uses of TDRs has to be for residential
properties.
Mr. Fornell then asked if a cash-in-lieu payment would be an acceptable alternative to the stacked
parking. Mr. Anderson said yes, but that it was not part of the proposal and staff felt the stacked parking
was appropriate based on it being an existing condition and that it can be considered under special
review.
Mr. Fornell asked if a fee waiver had ever been a successful part of an AspenModern designation
negotiation. Mr. Anderson said yes and noted that most of the potential fees in this project would be
related to the development on the rear of the property and that some would be waived by the Land Use
Code if it was affordable housing. He also noted that the affordable housing mitigation payments pretty
much goes away if the development was affordable.
Ms. Pitchford asked if there had been any approval for residential housing development in the mixed-
use zone in the past few years. Mr. Anderson said related code changes go back to 2012, when Council
began to act regarding free market development in mixed-use buildings in commercial zones. Most
recently in 2022 it was expanded to the mixed-use district when Council precluded new market rate or
expansion of existing market rate along Main Street. He noted that affordable housing remains a
permitted use as does commercial.
Ms. Thompson moved to extend the meeting until 7:20pm. Mr. Fornell seconded. All in favor, motion
passes.
Ms. Raymond asked for clarification of what HPC is being asked of and if their jurisdiction changed since
it would be going to City Council. Mr. Anderson said that this would be a recommendation and that
there were two resolutions in front of them. One that represented everything the applicant was asking
for and one that included staff’s proposal. He said that HPC could agree with one or the other, neither or
could agree to a mix of them. He noted that the main thing that HPC would be recommending was
related to the package of benefits being requested by the applicant.
Public Comment: Ms. Ann Mullins commented about Fritz Benedict and noted that the building took on
a personality of its own. She said that she had worked on the City’s AspenModern task force that
advocated for a historic designation process similar to the existing historic Victorian non-voluntary
designation program. She noted that it did not pass and since the City had lost many midcentury
modern resources. She noted that in their work they identified this building as one of the best examples
of the AspenModern style. She detailed Mr. Benedict’s history and work in Aspen. She urged the HPC to
support the designation of this important building, but also urged the applicant and City Council to
accept compromises to save this building.
Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Mullins if she would approve the 10 TDRs if she was still on Council. Ms.
Mullins said she may tweak it a bit and noted that she was on Council when they got rid of free market
development on Main Street.
Mr. Lex Tarumianz agreed with Ms. Mullins’ comments regarding Mr. Benedict’s influence on Aspen. He
noted that there was precedent for TDRs related to a commercial property on Main Street at 430 West
Main Street. He described the history of that property and the generation of TDRs there. He commented
that the impact of the landing of potential TDRs generated with this project was minimal since the
maximum square footage that can land on a single property was 500 square feet. He thought the impact
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
would not be noticeable in the community. He said that the owners of the building created something
special in town and should be rewarded for that.
Mr. Charlie Tarver noted that he was a friend of Mr. Benidict and commented on the building’s
importance. He noted that the proposed housing would impact him as he lived very close, and the new
building would block his porch. With this in mind, he still supported the application and thought it was
the right thing to do.
Ms. Thompson closed the public comment.
There was then some discussion about the potential process if the owners decided, without a
designation, to demolish the building. Ms. Berne said that per the code, since the building was in the
Main Street Historic District that type of proposal would come before HPC, but she cautioned the
members not to use that as part of their decision making tonight.
Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson started the discussion trying to gather a general sense of where the
board members stand and noted that she may want the applicant to come back up afterwards to see
what they might be amenable to.
Mr. Fornell noted that pages 89 and 90 of the agenda packet listed the staff recommendations that
included nine areas for conversation, and he thought they should go through them one by one.
Mr. Fornell then made a motion to extend the meeting to 7:45pm. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor,
motion passes.
Ms. Thompson asked if any members did not support the application in front of them for an
AspenModern Designation. The members all agreed and supported designation
Mr. Fornell clarified that under the requested benefits listed, he did not support designation.
Mr. Warwick noted that everyone supported designation under certain circumstances. He suggested
they start with the first listed condition of the requested TDRs.
Mr. Fornell felt that the 10 requested TDRs were appropriate. He did not see the difference between a
commercial development and residential when they are trying to save it.
Mr. Warwick also supported the 10 TDRs. He did not think it would be noticed in town when they get
spread out over 5 buildings. He felt a commercial property may not have been considered when the
program was initiated, and incentives need to be in place to preserve historic properties whether they
were residential or commercial.
Ms. Pitchford disagreed and felt that the TDR program was based on residential properties, and she was
not a big fan of it. She understood the incentive of TDRs and since she loved this building and respected
the people who have taken such good care of it, she was in support of the 10 TDRs.
Ms. Thompson agreed with Mr. Fornell and Mr. Warwick and thought granting the TDRs was the right
thing to do to preserve the structure. She was happy to recommend the 10 TDRs and have City Council
discuss it further.
Ms. Raymond had mixed feelings about it. She noted that if you cannot fit the maximum amount of
allowable square feet on a lot, you have to somewhat forfeit it. She said 10 TDRs felt a bit excessive to
her, but in the desire to save this building, she would reluctantly give them 10 TDRs.
Mr. Moyer was not apposed to the 10 TDRs and thought it was really City Council’s decision.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
Ms. Surfas thought that there were so many other things the applicant was asking for that this had to
play into it.
They moved onto the request to build two free-market residential units. Mr. Fornell did not support
free-market development due to all the efforts the City made during the moratorium determining that
free-market development was not the highest and best use.
Mr. Warwick noted that his belief was that the vacant lot was currently in the R6 zone district without
the merger and was not in the Main St. mixed use zone. Because of the current zone, they could build
free market there now and he thought that while they are offering voluntary designation and to merge
the lots, the current zoning should be considered.
Mr. Anderson noted that the back lot has a complex history and staff believe the zone district map is in
error and that both lots were considered in the previously known “office zone” district that became the
mixed-use district. Ms. Garrow agreed with Mr. Anderson but noted that the back lot is not in the
historic district.
Mr. Warwick confirmed that in his personal opinion he supported free market development regardless
of what the current Code says.
Ms. Thompson felt that free market development was consistent with the historical development in this
neighborhood, but also understood that City Council recently changed the Code to not allow free market
in this district. She stated that she would support a recommendation to Council that allowed free
market development with their review, as they were the ones that changed the Code. She said that she
would personally like to see affordable housing units and would like to see if the applicant is amenable
to deed restricting any of those units.
Ms. Raymond was not in support of free market because it is in complete conflict with the zone district.
She felt the City is in dire need for affordable housing and this would be a great opportunity for it. She
agreed with Mr. Fornell that the City has worked for a long time to eliminate penthouses and free
market in the zone district.
Mr. Moyer did not support free market development.
Ms. Surfas wondered if there could be a mix of free market and deed restricted units in the building.
Ms. Pitchford echoed what Ms. Mullins had said in that they have to do everything they can to get it
designated. She wondered what the compromise could be.
Mr. Moyer noted that this was still just a recommendation to Council and that they might think about
just saying that the board had mixed opinions on this topic, and they encourage Council to make an
appropriate decision in the interest of saving the resource. The board members agreed.
They moved on to discuss the affordable housing mitigation. Mr. Fornell noted that if Council allows free
market development, then there would be the need for mitigation. He was not in favor of a cash-in-lieu
or payment over time. He felt spreading out the payments serves no purpose for the community. He
noted a recent studio apartment that the City recently purchased for $1.2 million that mitigated 1.25
FTEs and that there are certificates in the market for purchase right now.
The board agreed that they supported staff’s recommendation except that the mitigation not be in the
form of cash-in-lieu.
The next item was the waiver of fees. The board supported staff’s recommendations on this.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
The next item was the applicant’s request seeking a guarantee that a restaurant tenant could occupy the
existing building. The board supported staff’s recommendations on this item. Ms. Thompson said she
was very hesitant to allow equipment on the roof without first reviewing and knowing exactly what that
equipment is.
The next item dealt with the applicant’s request for 10 years of vesting rights and a rescission period of
six months. Mr. Fornell referenced Mr. Moyer’s comments earlier in the meeting about all the places in
town that are sitting still. He noted that State statute requires a three-year vesting right. He believed,
historically speaking, that the primary reason applicants request more than three-years vesting is to get
an approval from a board that valuates their real estate in order to resell it. He stressed that in no way
was he accusing this applicant of that intent but had no interest in helping someone flip a lot. He said he
does not support the extension of vesting rights in any application. Regarding the rescission period, he
noted that if someone is not happy with the direction the historic designation negotiation process is
going, you can ask for an extension and pull your application.
Ms. Thompson agreed with staff’s recommendation supporting 10 years of vesting rights and a six-
month rescission period if limited to deed restricted development and no more than 3-years rights for
free market. She noted that extending vesting rights is something this board has granted for many
AspenModern project that they have reviewed, and she could see extending it to five years if it is free
market as 10 years seemed like a lot.
Ms. Pitchford agreed.
Ms. Raymond also agreed that 10 years was a little excessive as no one knows what the Code may be in
10 years. She supported the compromise of five years. While noting that this building is worth a lot to
the community, she did think the aggregate of what the applicant was asking for was a lot as well. She
wondered why it would take 10 years.
Ms. Thompson asked the members if they would be ok with 10 years if it was affordable housing. The
majority of members did not support that idea.
The board agreed to recommend a five-year vesting period no matter what way the development went.
As for the requested rescission period the board was mostly in agreement to support it. Mr. Fornell
again commented that if they get an approval, they don’t want they can choose not to use it and if they
don’t like how things are going, they could always pull their application. The board then agreed that
they were of a mixed opinion on rescission portion of this item.
The next item was the Planned Development (PD) request. Mr. Fornell noted that one needs at least
15,000 square feet to apply for a PD. He thought that in requesting a PD they were asking for setback
variances for a non-permitted use. Because of that, he did not support the request of a PD. He felt if
setback variances were requested related to an affordable housing development down the road, they
could still address that then.
Ms. Raymond asked Mr. Anderson what the implications would be if a PD was not granted. Mr.
Anderson noted that the Code allows the Community Development Director some flexibility on a PD if
the minimum lot size is not met. He also noted that setbacks are more easily dealt with under a PD as
well as the PD giving some flexibility on the TDRs. He said that without the PD, there would not be a
guarantee of the variance and if there is a decision to grant the TDRs, you would be asking to do
something that is not allowed in the Land Use Code.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
Mr. Warwick suggested that they recommend the PD as needed depending on Council’s ultimate
decisions. He noted that the PD is really connected to and latched on to a couple of the other provisions.
The board agreed.
The next item dealt with the Subdivision request. The board was all in agreement and supported the
subdivision.
The next item was the Parking & Transportation Special Review. Ms. Thompson supported it.
Mr. Fornell preferred to see the applicant pay for two cash-in-lieu spaces opposed to the stacked spaces.
Mr. Moyer noted that the stacked spaces had been there for a very long time and had never been an
issue.
Overall, the board was in support of staff’s recommendation for the Parking & Transportation Special
Review.
Ms. Thompson wanted to voice that she was not in agreement with the proposed form and fenestration
of the new construction. She felt it could be resolved but did not agree with the applicant’s form or
fenestration argument. She noted that while this was in part a recommendation to City Council on the
previously discussed items, it was also a conceptual approval of the new construction in the rear of the
property.
Ms. Raymond said that if that was the case she also disagreed with the form and fenestration of the new
construction.
Ms. Thompson moved to extend the meeting to 8:00pm. Mr. Fornell seconded. All in favor, motion
passes.
The board wondered what the best way to deal with these separately. Mr. Warwick asked if they could
just include something in their recommendation that they did not support the form and fenestration of
the new development.
Mr. Anderson said that if there were fundamental question about the form of the building, they would
need to be dealt with at this meeting. The materials and fenestration could be dealt with at final review.
Mr. Hayden suggested they deal with both the form and fenestration at this meeting.
Ms. Garrow said the applicant would be comfortable with a condition that said that the materials and
fenestration would be reviewed at final. She noted that they needed approval of the footprint tonight.
The board discussed the ideas in the historic design guidelines about distinguishing a historic resource
from new additions related to form. Mr. Moyer felt they could be a bit more flexible than they had been
in the past.
Ms. Thompson felt that existing historic structure is made up of simple materials of brick around the
base of the structure, a simple roof line consistent around the structure and strip windows in between.
She said the proposed façade of the new building has chaotic interruptions of fenestration and multiple
materials. She said that is the façade that needs revision and felt that it could be easily accomplished by
simplifying the palette and fenestration.
Ms. Raymond noted that while the roof pitches are the same, the roof form on the historic structure has
very long eaves which make the building read very horizontal. She said the new structure is very vertical
and has almost no overhang.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24TH, 2024
Mr. Fornell argued that with the height of the historic structure, one would not likely be affected by the
rear building when walking down the sidewalk.
Ms. Thompson said that she had less concern about the height and reiterated that she felt the material
relationship could be easily improved.
Ms. Raymond noted that the applicant only had to relate two aspects of the historic resource.
The board agreed to the applicant’s concession that both materials and fenestration be reviewed and
discussed at the final review.
MOTION: Mr. Fornell moved to approve a recommendation to City Council. The motion was based off
staff’s nine recommendations and included the following:
• The commission’s support of the 10 TDRs
• Deferring to City Council on Residential Development
• Not allowing a cash-in-lieu payment for affordable housing
• Not allowing a fee waiver
• Agreement with staff on the restaurant tenant potential operation
• Agreement on a five-year vesting rights period and a mixed opinion on the right of rescission
• Support for the Planned Development as needed determined by Council’s decision
• Support of the sub-division
• Support for the parking requirement as presented
• HPC reserves the right to review at final the materials and fenestration of the new rear addition
Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford,
yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0 vote, motion passes.
Mr. Fornell wanted to thank Richard Shaw and the other owners of the property for the job that they
have done over the decades and their stewardship of the property. The other members all agreed.
ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Fornell seconded. All in favor;
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk