HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20241113REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at
4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford, Kim Raymond, Dakota Severe,
Riley Warwick and Kara Thompson. Absent was Peter Fornell.
Staff present:
Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner
Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation
Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the draft minutes of 9/25/24. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll
call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion
passes.
Ms. Thompson moved to approve the draft minutes from 10/2/24. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call
vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer commented that an aspect that he felt was holding
HPC back on making good decisions was the amount of square footage allowed on a lot. He felt that it
was a topic that should be seriously looked at by City Council.
Ms. Thompson noted that she had asked staff to look into scheduling a work session in January and she
listed some of the topics she would like to discuss, including training, the different types of applications
that come before the board, meeting attendance and times, standard draft resolution language and
other policy ideas to discuss with staff.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None
Mr. Hayden requested that the staff reports and comments be moved to the end of the agenda to
respect the applicant’s time.
SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed
in compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item as it was previously noticed and continued.
She noted that she had emailed links to prior meeting materials and recordings, as a few board
members may not have been at the two previous meetings. She wanted to confirm on the record that in
order to vote on this item, members have reviewed the materials. All members confirmed that they
were either in attendance at the previous meetings and or had reviewed the materials and recordings.
OLD BUSINESS: 325 W. Hopkins Ave. - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, and Variations
Review - Public Hearing – Continued from 9/25/24
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams & Wheeler Clancy – DJ Architects
Ms. Adams began her presentation by stating that this was the third time before the board on this item.
She agreed with Mr. Moyer’s previous comments that when an applicant works with HPC a better
project usually is the result. She thanked the members for their feedback and noted that she would be
concentrating her presentation of the board’s direction for redesign and not the other items that the
board has already signaled support for.
Ms. Adams reviewed the conceptual major development and relocation requests. She noted that they
are still proposing to fully restore the historic landmark, they are not asking for a floor area bonus and
that the project is under the allowable floor area and allowable height limit. She reviewed the items that
had HPC support at the previous meetings. She moved on to the redesign of the new construction and
noted that for this meeting they had simplified the roof forms and materials and restudied the
fenestration to better relate to the historic landmark. She then showed and reviewed some historic
pictures of the property, and the site plans presented at the two previous meetings as well as the
redesigned current site plan. She reviewed the roof plans from each successive redesign, highlighting
the current changes. She then showed the updated elevations and renderings and reviewed the roof
form and material changes.
Ms. Adams then reviewed the design guidelines, highlighting guidelines 11.3, 11.4 and 11.6 and why
they felt they were met. She also went over the change from the proposed crawlspace under the
landmark to the currently proposed 2 bedroom / 2 bathroom basement under it. She noted the
condition of approval in the draft resolution to have the relocation of the landmark for purposes of
digging the basement to not be in the setback. She felt this was somewhat out of the ordinary as it is
easiest to just shift the landmark straight back from where it is currently located. She invited any
comments on that.
Mr. Clancy finished by stated that they really tried to reduce the massing as well as create a stronger
relationship to the landmark.
Ms. Thompson asked about the lightwell proposed for the landmark and what type of railing they would
be using. Ms. Adams said they don’t have a specific treatment just yet, but that it would be brought back
at final review.
Ms. Pitchford asked if the shed roof addition to the historic resource had been reduced in size. Ms.
Adams said it was the same size as what was presented at the last meeting which was based on the
Sanborn maps.
Ms. Severe asked about the width of the front door proposed for the new construction. There was some
discussion about the exact dimensions of the door.
Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden – Preservation Planner - Historic Preservation
Mr. Hayden started his presentation by going over the relocation standards. He noted that the
temporary relocation is an acceptable preservation method, and he went over the relocation criteria. He
detailed staff’s thoughts about the temporary location of the resource as outlined in the recommended
conditions of approval and noted that it was out concern for the space the resource may need during
construction and that of the neighbors. He said that staff would be ok removing the condition if HPC did
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
not find it necessary. He moved on to the requested dimensional variations and noted that staff felt
them appropriate due to the historic setting of the resource.
He then went over the relevant historic preservation design guidelines and noted that staff had
identified several that could not be considered at this time, and they were included in the
recommended conditions in the resolution. He noted that many of these would be able to be addressed
once the selective demolition gets underway.
He continued by highlighting other design guidelines that staff found to be not met or partially not met
as outlined in the staff memo and that warranted further consideration. These included guidelines 1.1,
6.4, 6.5, 11.3 and 11.6. Mr. Hayden went over each in detail and why staff found them not to be met or
partially met. He noted that these were also addressed in the recommended conditions of approval. He
finished his presentation by stating that staff is recommending approval with conditions.
Ms. Raymond asked about the setback-to-setback issue (guideline 1.1) and wondered what staff’s
thoughts were as she felt it was a large part of the design which should have been addressed from the
very beginning. Mr. Hayden noted that it had been staff’s position from the very first meeting that the
project did not meet this guideline.
Public Comment: None
Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson thanked the applicant and staff for their revised presentations. She
was ok with the relocation of the historic resources straight back, staying in the setback as it was a single
move instead of two. A few other members agreed. She felt that they had already exhaustively
discussed the restoration of the corner element on the historic resource and given the applicant the
direction of support, so she did not have any additional comments on that.
Ms. Thompson then addressed Ms. Raymond’s setback-to-setback question noting that in this proposal
the historic resource and the new construction are two separate structures. She felt that is the best
restoration outcome they could have and that it provided in her mind a bit of flexibility in their
application of the guidelines for this project. She appreciated that the applicant had further revised the
roof forms and lowered them again and she was ready to make a motion of approval with some revised
conditions.
Ms. Raymond agreed with the porosity and liked the separation between the historic resource and the
new construction. She had no issues with the layout of the site and thought it was quite nice. She
acknowledged the rear addition to the historic resource had been talked about at length and was ok
with it. She commented that she liked that the front door on the new construction was slightly larger
and different than the historic resource. She was also ok with all the setback variances and noted that
having moved resources before acknowledged that it would be best to move it straight back. She
appreciated the new roof lines and massing on the new construction and felt it related nicely with the
historic resource.
There was then some discussion about the non-orthogonal window on the rear portion of the new
construction and whether it was considered to be located on the front façade and met the historic
preservation design guidelines or not. Mr. Anderson noted that the Residential Design Standards related
to non-orthogonal windows refers to all street facing façades and allows for one non-orthogonal
window.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
Mr. Moyer commented that he believed the windows on the historic resource should stay the size of the
historic windows and the door should remain the same size as well. He thought that since there were no
historic pictures of the porch it should be restored to blend in with the other historic porches in the
area. He did still think the mass and scale of the new construction was enormously large, but felt there
was nothing they could do about that. He commented on window wells and offered other options for
their design versus just having a pit in the ground.
Ms. Thompson then went over staff’s recommended conditions of approval, highlighting her proposed
edit to condition #1 and removal of conditions #2 and #5a.
There was some more discussion about the non-orthogonal window and Ms. Thompson felt it could be
dealt with at Final review.
Ms. Adams noted that the resolution did not include the dimensions of the setback variations which
were important and requested some feedback on the fenestration. Ms. Thompson said that it seemed
that the non-orthogonal window on the rear portion of the new construction was generally acceptable
by the board.
Ms. Surfas noted that she had to leave to attend another meeting but agreed with Ms. Thompson’s
proposed edits to the resolution. Ms. Surfas left the meeting.
Mr. Clancy displayed the 3D model of the project, and the board further discussed the fenestration in
order to give feedback. Ms. Thompson again stated her opinion that since the new construction was
fully detached from the historic resource the applicant had more flexibility to not fully relate to every
single window proportion on the new construction. She said the only thing that bothered her was the
asymmetrical window on the rear of the structure.
MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution on the series with the removal of
condition #1, replacing it with language that states that during demolition and relocation of the historic
resource, if additional historic material is discovered that is evidence of a different original footprint, the
applicant will revise the proposal to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Her motion also included the
removal of conditions #2 and #5a and the addition of a condition to include setback dimensions as
presented in the application. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes;
Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes.
OLD BUSINESS: Discussion concerning rescission of Historical Preservation Commission Resolution #9,
Series of 2023, Granting Minor Development and Relocation Approval for Property Located at 205 W.
Main Street.
Ms. Johnson introduced the item by stating that she requested of the Chair that this item be added to
the agenda as it was her impression that one or more members may want to consider recission of a
prior resolution. She remined the members that her office had provided legal opinions during an
executive session regarding the legal implications of what the resolution meant and the discovery of
potential different information after the fact.
Ms. Johnson went on to note that the consideration of recission hinged on the factual question of
whether the approvals were based upon an error, regardless of how that error came to be. She said the
City Attorney’s office believes that if a majority of the commissioners wanted to consider recission that a
public hearing be set in order to allow the applicant and staff time to prepare, present information and
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
be heard. She noted that public comments from the applicant’s representative had been provided to
each commissioner as well as comments and a proposed resolution provided by a member of the public
(both included in the 11/13/24 HPC meeting agenda packet). She said that she had not had time to
review that resolution and that it should be considered as public comments as it was not provided with
the support of the City Attorney’s office.
Ms. Thompson wanted to confirm that members had received the public comments. All members
confirmed that they had received all comments. She invited Mr. David Scruggs to give public comment.
Mr. Scruggs began his comments by asking the HPC to address the facts. He noted that the approvals
had been based on the representation that the west addition was not historic. He also noted that staff
had subsequently discovered that the representation was probably in error. He then reviewed the HPC’s
duties as laid out in the Land Use Code and Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. He referenced the
resolution he had provided and asked the members to past the resolution and retain the entire historic
structure.
Ms. Thompson started the discussion by noting that Mr. Moyer had requested this item be added to the
agenda. She also noted that while she was working with the applicant on their administrative review,
she had no indication that the applicant had falsely represented any information. She understood there
was a question about the historic nature of the addition but felt that the representation was not done
with malintent. She noted that the applicant had relied on the approvals for over a year now and that
she had no appetite to rescind the approvals. She felt applicants needed to be able to rely on HPC’s
decisions and that it would be a learning experience for HPC and their resolutions.
Mr. Moyer commented that HPC’s one purpose was to save historic structures. While he realized that a
mistake was made, the only reason he wanted to make a recission was because of HPCs one and only
job, to save the historic structure. He did not feel that they should just move forward while a mistake
was made.
Ms. Thompson argued that they don’t have any definitive information on whether the addition is
historic or not, as that research had not occurred.
Ms. Severe agreed that there was no malintent on either side and that there was not enough evidence
to prove that it is historic. She did not feel it fair to the applicant if there wasn’t more proof.
Ms. Pitchford felt that there was reason to open it up for a public hearing to see if it warrants recission.
She felt there was some indication that it was historic. She agreed with Mr. Moyer in that it was not
their job to take care of the applicant, but rather to take care of the historic resource.
Ms. Thompson said that while she did not want to minimize Ms. Severe’s input here, she did not find it
appropriate for Ms. Severe to vote on this as she had not participated in the previous meetings on this
item.
Ms. Johnson noted that Robert’s Rules of Order allows anyone to vote regardless of which way they
voted or whether they were present at previous meetings. She noted that Ms. Severe was present at the
executive session and felt that she was informed enough and there wasn’t anything to prevent her from
voting.
Ms. Severe said that she understood where Ms. Pitchford and Mr. Moyer were coming from but noted
that she had done her research on this project.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
Mr. Warwick felt they had this board for a reason and that was that things are not always black and
white. He said that factors come into play that cannot always be solved by strictly following the book or
just following staff’s recommendations. He said that he did not have a stance either way on this as he
understood both sides.
Ms. Raymond agreed with Mr. Warwick that it is very complicated but felt that the applicant has had
these approvals for over a year and have moved forward based on them. She said she would find it
difficult for HPC to go back a year and a half later and say no. She felt there was no malice from the
applicant and that while there was a lot of differing opinions on the Crystal Palace it should be taken out
on this applicant.
Mr. Warwick felt that the ability to rescind an approval at any point down the road takes away HPC’s
credibility. He acknowledged that they made a mistake by not gathering the correct information, but
that this should be used as a learning experience. He felt it was too far on to go back and rescind. He
wasn’t sure how future applicants could rely on HPC’s decisions if this were to be rescinded.
Ms. Thompson agreed and felt that there was not a perfect decision here.
Ms. Severe asked what the timeline was from when the approvals were given until the new information
about the west addition potentially being historic was discovered. Ms. Johnson said it was about nine
months.
Ms. Raymond agreed with Mr. Warwick’s notion about HPC’s credibility if approvals were able to be
rescinded. She felt it would be a dangerous precedent to set.
Mr. Moyer felt the applicant had as much responsibility to do the research on the structure as staff
does.
Ms. Pitchford reminded the members that there are not voting on whether to rescind or not tonight, but
rather to set a hearing in order to gather more information from both sides.
Motion: Mr. Moyer moved to set a hearing regarding 205 W. Main in order to allow both sides to
present their arguments as to the viability of the historic structure.
Ms. Johnson requested that the motion be to consider a resolution of recission. Mr. Moyer agreed with
that language. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe,
yes; Mr. Warwick, no; Ms. Raymond, no; Ms. Thompson, no. 3-3 vote, motion failed.
Ms. Pitchford wanted to make a further commissioner comment and ask a procedural question. She
asked Mr. Anderson that since the Crystal Palace is designated historic was it subject to HPC guidelines
for demolition. Mr. Anderson said that it is now subject to the approvals given at the October 2nd
meeting. He said that, as has been discussed, the Crystal Palace has a complicated legacy. He noted that
it is designated historic, was redeveloped in the 1970s and that there were many assumptions of what
historic materials remained after that redevelopment. He also thought that perhaps at the time of
designation in the 1980s as well as the 2017 approvals there was a misunderstanding of what historic
materials were remaining in the west wall. He noted that at the October 2nd meeting, the applicant’s
proposal raised some questions about certain review criteria, but that the motion and approval of the
application is what now stands. He further clarified that the October 2nd approval did not consider these
criteria and that at that meeting staff did not present a resolution as they wanted to continue to work
with the applicant to craft a resolution that all parties could agree to, based on applicable review
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
criteria. He stated that staff and the applicant have an understanding that as this project moves forward
to a change order to the existing building permit, that there will be discussion about what the most
appropriate treatment is for the west wall.
Ms. Pitchford expressed disappointment and disillusionment that HPC members have review criteria and
guidelines that they are expected to follow, but this situation has proved to her that they do not need to
actually follow them.
Mr. Moyer had a few questions of staff related to the 2017 approvals, his recollection of them as well
and questions about the monitor on the project back then and the holes in the west wall that he
referenced in the October 2nd meeting. Ms. Johnson said that since there is no application in front of
them at the moment and for the sake of time that those be asked directly to staff outside of this
meeting.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. White reviewed the past approvals at 333 W. Bleeker and noted that the
main approvals she would be focusing on in this report where the removal and restoration of the
historic windows while keeping the historic window framing intact as well as the sistering in of new
framing with the historic framing. She displayed the approved wall assemblies showing the sistering of
new framing and noted that during a site visit staff found that this work was not done according to the
approved plans. She then showed images of the actual work done that was observed at the site visit.
Ms. White moved on to note that staff recently met with the applicant team to discuss their findings and
while the applicant did acknowledge that they did not build according to the approved plans, they did
not explicitly take responsibility for the violations, nor did they offer any restitutions or settlement to
avoid potential penalties. She said that staff is requiring the applicant to update their drawings to reflect
the changes that currently exist and also let them know that staff would be bringing this to HPC’s
attention.
Ms. Pitchford asked what happened to the historic window framing. Ms. White said that the historic
windows still exist, are currently stored and are going to be restored, but that the historic window
framing was gone.
Mr. Hayden noted that both historic structures on the property were relocated and that there was a
$45,000 bond submitted for their safe relocation. He said that he did an inspection to determine that
they were properly relocated back on a proper foundation and after that is when the violations
occurred. Thus, the bond had already been given back.
Ms. Thompson felt that a fine was appropriate.
Mr. Moyer wondered if the monitor did not catch this soon enough and if there were not enough
inspections done. Mr. Hayden admitted that he did notice some work being done when he did the
relocation inspection and that he did not check soon enough to make sure things were being done
according to the plans. He noted that they typically don’t have regularly scheduled inspections, but that
that was something they discussed with the applicant, regarding ways that staff can improve their
processes to insure this doesn’t happen.
Ms. Thompson said the wall assembly was discussed in depth with the applicant’s representative at the
original meeting and felt like a fine was appropriate.
Mr. Warwick said the applicant team should know what they are doing.
Ms. Berne went over the process to request a fine be imposed through Municipal Court.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
Ms. Johnson then went over the options and penalties HPC could pursue. These included a potential fine
through Municipal Court, a recommendation that the Chief Building Official revoke the contractor’s
license, to potentially revoke any benefits or variances that were originally given and to, after a public
hearing, deed restrict the property preventing any future development on the property for up to 10
years. Ms. Johnosn noted that this report serves as notification of the violations to the HPC.
Ms. Thompson asked staff to communicate to the applicant that the HPC is considering pursuing
penalties and see if they come back with some sort of restitution.
Ms. Raymond suggested that they recommend the Chief Building Official to red tag the project. She felt
that is a strong way to get the applicant team’s attention. Ms. White said that the project had been
verbally issued a stop work order, but it had not been officially red tagged. She further noted that staff
had told the applicant to stop working on any historic portions other than protecting and securing those
portions.
Ms. Raymond said all work should stop on the project, not just the historic portions. The other board
members agreed that staff should pursue a red tag on the entire project.
Mr. Moyer thought it very important for the community to know when violations like this occur. He
suggested that in order to learn from this, they should require more regular inspections and not release
any bond until the entire project is completed. He wanted to make sure this applicant learns from this
and that other contractors learn from it as well.
Ms. Johnson suggested that HPC could also ask that the applicant provide them with a written plan on
how they would prevent the future destruction of historic materials as well as an explanation of why
and how this happened.
Ms. Thompson clarified that the HPC would like staff to pursue a formal red tag to stop work on any
portion of the project other than protecting the historic resource and that the contractor team or
applicant come back to them with a proposed plan for remediation or restitution for this.
There was further discussion of the potential penalties and options going forward for this violation as
well as ways that staff and HPC can learn from this and put steps in place to hopefully avoid something
like this happening again.
STAFF COMMENTS: None
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None
CALL UP REPORTS: Mr. Hayden noted that Notice of Call Up was provided to City Council for the project
at 300 – 312 W. Hyman and no action was taken to call it up.
ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Warwick seconded. All in
favor; motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024