HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20250709
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 9TH, 2025
Vice - Chairperson Raymond opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
at 4:35pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Duncan Clauss and Kim Raymond. Absent were
Dakota Severe, Barb Pitchford and Kara Thompson.
Staff present:
Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner
Daniel Folke – Planning Director
Ben Anderson – Community Development Director
Luisa Berne - Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear – Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the draft minutes from 5/14/25 and 5/28/25. Mr. Clauss
seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; 4-0,
motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer noted that one of the HPC members was not
present as she was directly affected by the flooding events in Texas. The board took a moment of silence
for all the people affected by these floods.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None
PROJECT MONITORING: None
STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Folke noted that Mr. Stuart Hayden had permanently relocated to Denver
though he would be working remotely potentially through the end of the year. He noted that staff was
conducting interviews for his eventual replacement. He then reminded the commissioners that the
Armory project would be going in front of City Council for first reading on July 22.
There was a brief discussion about employee retention and recruitment and how housing issues can
affect them.
Ms. White updated the HPC about the mural project at 435 E Main St.
Ms. Berne reminded the members to keep the discussion polite and conduct themselves with proper
decorum.
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 both agenda items.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 9TH, 2025
NEW BUSINESS: 305 South Mill St. – Commercial Design Review – Conceptual Design, Historic
Preservation Major Development – Conceptual Development Plan Review, Mountain View Plane
Review, Growth Management Quota System, and Transportation and Parking Management Review -
Special Review - Public Hearing
Applicant Presentation: Garrett Larimer – Kraemer Land Planning
Mr. Larimer introduced Mr. Craig Pearce, the owner of the Wild Fig restaurant, and the applicant in this
application and Mr. Ryan Doremus of Thunderbowl Architects. Mr. Larimer went on to describe the
request before HPC and the various associated reviews. He described the property and went over some
of its history. He then summarized the main components of their proposal. The first being to enclose the
existing courtyard area between The Wild Fig and the neighboring building, converting it to about 460
square feet of new net leasable space. The other will be to enclose an open-air walkway between the
existing building and pergola as well as about a third of the existing space under the pergola. He noted
that this second aspect would create about another 330 square feet of net leasable space. He
mentioned that they were also proposing to add a roof overhang above the area where the Popcorn
wagon sits. He also noted that they are proposing a louvered awning system to be installed on top of the
existing pergola as well as accordion style windows to be installed in the openings of the pergola. He
added that with all the proposed additional square footage, the building would still only total about half
the allowable square footage for the lot size.
Mr. Doremus went over the architecture and design intent of the project noting that the main purpose
of the additional internal square footage was to increase the amount of usable year-round seats in the
restaurant while still keeping the prominent front arch feature. He continued by going over some of the
design elements and material choices which he noted were similar to the characteristics of the
neighboring buildings.
Mr. Larimer then described the louvered awning system and noted that the system would increase the
height of the pergola by about eight inches. He showed a few images of what it would look like. He
moved on to the Land Use review items and noted that they were in agreement with City staff on
several of them but pointed out the mountain view plane review as a point of further discussion. He
showed an image of the Wheeler Opera House’s view plane and pointed out some of its details,
including the point of origin and the extent of the foreground. He noted that this site and proposal
would not be able to avoid infringing into this view plane. He pointed out where the development would
cross the view plane. He noted that the HPC is given certain discretionary review to grant height
variations if the development meets the definition of minimal impact and it is shown that the proposed
height is required for reasonable use. He then went over the criteria for “minimal impact” and
“reasonable use”, and he detailed the applicant’s reasoning for why the proposal meets them. He also
went over the design intent for the height of the new additions. He mentioned that they are trying to
take a light touch to an existing structure and if they were to have to reduce the height of the pergola it
may have to be altered to a point that it is no longer maintainable or viable. He stated that over the past
many years several temporary use enclosure requests for the pergola space have been proposed and
the consistent feedback from City Council and staff is to come back with a high quality, permanent
design solution. He believed that they are responding to that feedback with this proposal.
Mr. Larimer then went over the design review related to the proposed materials and lighting. He noted
that they are looking forward to continuing to work with staff and incorporating feedback from HPC
when refining these elements. He also detailed their request of HPC to approve the proposed roof over
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 9TH, 2025
the Popcorn Wagon space. He mentioned that the rest of the public amenity space requirement would
be satisfied by a cash in lieu payment. He then went over the growth management, parking and
transportation reviews and detailed how they would satisfy these.
Mr. Larimer concluded by stating that if the HPC agreed with their approach related to the mountain
view plane review, they would like for the first two conditions in the resolution to be eliminated and for
the proposal to be approved as presented.
Mr. Pearce noted that he and his wife Samantha are locals and are not going anywhere. He described his
history in Aspen and his connection with the town. He said that the process of a project like this can be
very daunting. He was excited to be back in this space and was looking forward to creating something
great for the town. He did not think what they were asking for was very exorbitant.
Mr. Moyer asked when the original building was built. Mr. Larimer said sometime around 1960, and Mr.
Pierce described the history of the space and its various tenants and remodels over the years. He noted
that there is currently not enough seating space inside the existing restaurant layout to make enough
revenue to service the rent. This was the reason for enclosing the proposed spaces and making the
changes to the existing pergola.
Staff Presentation: Daniel Folke – Planning Director
Mr. Folke began his presentation by summarizing the various requests. He went into some details about
the mountain view plane request. He noted that while the staff memo stated that the proposal did not
meet the definition of “minimal impact”, after the site visit, staff had some internal discussion and
agreed that the proposal had a minimal impact as it did not materially alter the observers view of Aspen
Mountain. Regarding whether the proposed development is required for reasonable use of the
property, Mr. Folke acknowledged that this can be a bit more subjective but felt that the applicant team
had been very thoughtful in their design in order to minimize the height. He noted that the advantage of
the applicant’s proposal was that the existing pergola would remain and he felt the question was
whether the allowance of the additional eight inches for the louvered roof was an acceptable tradeoff
for being able to keep the existing structure. He said that it was up to HPC whether that was
“reasonable” and noted that one could find it unreasonable to require them to remove the entire
pergola and lower it eight inches. He noted that the same reasoning could be used for the proposed
construction of the entryway. He noted that the proposal is for it to be 12-feet tall, while staff is
recommending it to be 11-feet 9 inches. He noted that staff recommended this height as it would be
new construction and could be built to that height and not break the view plane.
Mr. Folke moved on to the proposed materials and noted that one of the proposed materials does not
meet Design Standard 1.23. He went on to explain staff’s position on this as noted in the staff memo and
highlighted that the proposed metal cladding was not commonly seen in the downtown area. He also
noted that one of the recommended conditions of approval was that the applicant’s lighting plan would
need to comply with the City’s lighting code.
He concluded by reviewing the recommended conditions of approval as listed in the staff memo.
Ms. Raymond noted that in Mr. Folke’s presentation he said that after the site visit, staff had a different
stance on conditions #1 related to the height of the existing pergola and louvered roof system. Mr. Folke
said that staff felt the proposal would be minimally intrusive into the view plane and would not impact
someone’s ability to see the mountain, but they were still unclear whether it met the second criteria of
whether it was needed for reasonable use.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 9TH, 2025
Ms. Raymond asked if the purple areas on the east elevation were where the metal material was
proposed. Mr. Pearce noted that it would not be all metal and that the only metal would be the window
frames. He said that everything around the windows would either be old brick or a painted stucco finish.
Mr. Moyer asked staff if the material issue could be easily handled by staff and monitor. Ms. White
noted that the materials would be reviewed and discussed at the Final review and if at that review the
HPC still had concerns or were not happy with the design a condition of approval could be added to that
effect.
Ms. Raymond asked how the view plane was determined. Mr. Anderson went over some history of view
planes in Aspen and explained how they were created and determined.
Public Comment: Mr. Jay Maytin noted that he was a resident of the valley and a former Chair of the
HPC. He felt this building could be the most restricted building in town due to the view plane from the
Wheeler, while being a very visible property. He felt the building was needed for the vitality of the core.
He felt that variances were a tool used by HPC to promote redevelopment and preservation
simultaneously. He felt variances were a compromise to allow owners to preserve their property and
that this specific height variance would be almost nonexistent to the public. He asked the HPC to
approve this project.
Board Discussion: Mr. Moyer commented that the building was built three feet taller than the east
entry and the existing pergola. He noted the applicant was proposing to add eight inches to the height of
the pergola and he felt that the main building height negates anything built below it in terms of the view
plane. He felt the view plane issue should be dropped. He also did not have a problem with the
proposed roof over the popcorn wagon area and felt the proposed materials could be reviewed more at
the final review.
Mr. Clauss was in agreement and felt the site visit was helpful.
Ms. Surfas also agreed with Mr. Moyer.
Ms. Raymond added that she felt the building proposal would end up being a great amenity for the
community. She felt that this was a successful solution to the temporary plastic walls that had been
used in years past and was a good response to City Council’s request for a permanent solution. She also
agreed with the proposed cash-in-lieu payments where allowed as well as Mr. Moyer comments for the
proposed materials to be reviewed at the final review.
There was a discussion about amending the resolution conditions. The HPC agreed to amend conditions
#1 and #2 to match the heights as presented by the applicant and conditions #3 and #4 regarding the
materials and lighting to be reviewed at the final review.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the next resolution in the series with the amendments
discussed. There was some further discussion to clarify the amendments. Mr. Moyer amended his
original motion to include these. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes;
Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes. 4-0, motion passes.
NEW BUSINESS: 504 West Hallam St. – Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor
Development and Relocation - PUBLIC HEARING
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 9TH, 2025
Before the presentations, Mr. Moyer made a motion to reject the application and continue the hearing
to allow the applicant to come back with something that would be acceptable and not take up hours of
the commission’s time. The motion was not seconded.
Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams
Ms. Adams began her presentation by introducing Mr. Scott Hoffman, the owner of the property, and
Mr. Jack Snow, the architect on the project. She noted they had worked for over a year on this project
and appreciate the ability to present to the entire HPC and hopefully receive some valuable feedback.
Ms. Adams then listed the requests, including major conceptual development, demolition of non-
historic additions, relocation on site, complete restoration of the historic resource, a small FAR bonus
and a recommendation to City Council for the establishment of two Transferable Development Rights
(TDRs). She noted that they were not asking for any variances and that the project was under the
allowable floor area and height. She then went over some details of the property and its location. She
also noted that the lot is zoned for two detached homes and a total of around 3,600 square feet and
they are coming in around 2,800 square feet. She reviewed some of the history of the historic resource,
the research that they had done to determine what is historic and what is not and described some of
the alterations that had been made over the years.
Ms. Adams noted that while there were some unknowns about the history of the home, in consulting
with Mr. Hayden, they thought the best approach was to restore the historic footprint. She said the last
thing they wanted to do was to start making up what they thought the building was. She noted that in
modeling for a 10-foot connector, they realized that there was not enough space, as the lot was only
100 feet deep. She said the plan was to restore the historic footprint and use that as the connector as it
would read as more modern and is longer than a 10-foot connector. She showed this process on the site
plans. She also showed a side elevation and floor plan and further detailed the historic footprint of the
rear portion of the building, noting that the connecting element would be about 14 feet long which was
longer than the required 10 feet. She noted that the proposal included lifting the historic resource and
square it to the lot line. She also went over the setbacks for the property. She mentioned that the
second story of the addition above the garage was set about 63 feet back from Hallam St. which is over
halfway to the rear of the lot. She then went over the proposed floor plans and noted that because the
historic resource was so close to the property line, underpinning would not be an option. She showed
several renderings of the proposal and noted that since the new two-story addition was set so far back
that it was not visible from Hallam St.
Ms. Adams moved on to the Preservation Guidelines and noted that while many of them were met, they
were hoping to get some good feedback on the ones that staff noted were not. She detailed these
guidelines and the reasoning behind why the applicant felt they were met. She referenced the
requested FAR bonus of 71 square feet and noted that with the significant proposed restoration that
amount was very minimal but it would allow the owner to request the establishment of two TDRs
instead of just one. She went over the criteria for the bonus.
Ms. Adams concluded by acknowledging that this was a lot to digest and that staff was recommending a
continuation. She was hoping to receive some direct feedback on some of the key points including the
relocation of the resource, the restoration of the historic footprint and using it as the connecting
element, the height and width of the addition and the requested floor area bonus.
Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Principal Preservation Planner
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 9TH, 2025
Ms. White began her presentation by going over the site details and context and reviewing the
applicant’s requests. She then highlighted the guidelines that staff felt were not met and went over the
reasoning for this as detailed in the “Staff Comments” section of the staff memo. These guidelines
included 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.8 and 10.9 that all deal with the proposed addition. She noted that staff is
recommending continuance to allow the applicant to revise the application to better meet these
guidelines.
Ms. White moved on to the request for relocation and noted that in staff’s opinion the proposed
temporary relocation is not an acceptable preservation method as it would not maintain the resources
historic alignment. She mentioned that staff could not recommend approval of the relocation as it does
not meet at least one of the relocation standards and recommended underpinning as an alternative to
relocation.
Ms. White then addressed the Floor Area Bonus request and went over the applicable criteria that need
to be met as detailed in the staff memo. She also addressed the TDR request and went over staff’s
analysis of this, also as detailed in the staff memo. She noted that staff could only recommend the
establishment of one TDR.
Ms. White concluded by stating that staff is recommending continuation and the next available date for
was September 10th. She also responded to earlier commissioner comments, by stating the importance
of respecting both staff’s and the applicant’s time spent on projects and that it would be unfair not to
allow an applicant to come before HPC to gather needed feedback to ultimately end up with a better
project.
Public Comment: Ms. Laura Magis noted that she lived in the neighboring property on the other side of
the alley. She said that since she does not face Franics St. on the other side of her property, the
proposed new addition would be a large block to her view.
Board Discussion: Mr. Moyer began his comments by reiterating that HPC’s job is to protect the historic
integrity of the resource and in that job, it is ok to say no. He believed that by saying no, a better project
usually is the result. He was supportive of the removal of the non-historic additions and the restoration
of the historic resource, as well as lifting the resource in order to construct a new foundation. He was
not in favor of the relocation and felt it should be placed back in its original location. Moving on to the
proposed new addition, Mr. Moyer concurred with staff that it was overwhelming and that being on a
corner lot, the new addition was supposed to blend with the historic and not dominate it. He felt the
application violated many of the guidelines. He suggested that the mass and scale of the addition be
reduced, and a true connecting element be created. He also noted that for HPC to grant a floor area
bonus the project must be exemplary.
Mr. Moyer motioned to extend the meeting to 7:30pm. Mr. Clauss seconded. All in favor, motion passes.
Mr. Clauss felt that if the proposed connector acted as just a connector it would be smaller and would
make the new addition more compliant with the guidelines, but may necessitate the historic resource be
moved forward, which would be another issue.
Mr. Moyer noted that staff made a good point that sometime an applicant cannot build as big as they
may want.
Ms. Surfas commented that the biggest issue in her mind was that this was a corner lot and that it felt
like a very large mass on a corner. She felt the proposed connector element being part of the historic
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 9TH, 2025
resource was problematic, as it was not being used as just a connector and was proposed to be
habitable space.
Ms. Raymond did not see the new addition being overpowering as it was set 63 feet back from the front
of the lot. Ms. Surfas clarified that it was overpowering when looked at from the side, because it was on
a corner lot.
Mr. Moyer brought up the public comment from the neighbor and felt it was important to consider.
Ms. Raymond pointed out that this project was for Mr. Hoffman to live in and he is trying to create
something he wants.
Ms. Surfas felt that Ms. Raymond’s comment was somewhat irrelevant as they had heard that story
before and then a short while later the house is for sale.
Mr. Moyer reiterated that HPC’s job was protecting the historic resource, not helping the applicant.
Ms. Surfas again noted that the connecting element was her biggest issue because it was not acting as a
link and that from the side street rendering, the addition was overwhelming.
Ms. Raymond noted the three criteria of completability between the historic resource and new addition
were form, materials and fenestration. She said her feedback would be for the applicant to make a
stronger relationship between two of those elements. While she appreciated the approach of trying to
use the historic footprint for the connecting element but was somewhat conflicted as it was still not a
true connector. She knew it was a wide connector and referenced a few other examples of wider
connectors in town and felt that the applicant could bring it in a little bit so as to reveal more of the
corner of the actual historic resource. She noted that from experience, underpinning a property with a
lot of space is very hard and in this case trying to do it with only a foot and a half was nearly impossible.
She did not have a problem with them picking up the resource and squaring it up to the property line
and creating the 5-foot setback. She agreed with staff that a slate roof on the historic resource was not
appropriate. She also reiterated that the connector was still the biggest issue for her and encouraged
the applicant to investigate that further, as far as its materials and size. She agreed with Mr. Moyer that
their job was protecting the historic resource, but she did appreciate the applicant’s efforts and felt that
they would need to revisit this at a future meeting.
The other members agreed with Ms. Raymond that it was ok to lift the historic resource and square it to
the lot line.
Ms. Adams asked the board for some more clarity regarding the feedback received. There was
discussion regarding different options for the historic footprint and connecting element as well as
reducing the mass and scale of the addition.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to continue the item to the September 10th meeting. Ms. Surfas seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes. 4-0, motion passes.
ADJOURN: Mr. Moyer moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Raymond seconded. All in favor,
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk