Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20250723 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 23RD, 2025 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Dakota Severe, Duncan Clauss, Kim Raymond and Kara Thompson. Absent were Barb Pitchford and Jodi Surfas. Staff present: Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner Luisa Berne - Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear – Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson asked Ms. White about the review process for fenestration and materials. She noted that they are currently reviewed at final and that she had talked with previous HP staff about at least conceptually reviewing them at the conceptual review phase. She went over her thoughts and concerns that fenestration is a large part of the massing and scale which are reviewed at conceptual. Ms. White reviewed the language in the Land Use Code and noted that it may not require a code change, but rather adjusting the interpretation of the language to include fenestration in the conceptual review. Ms. Raymond again requested a work session to discuss the Preservation Design Guidelines. There was then some discussion about staffing and hiring progress for the Historic Preservation program. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Raymond noted that she was conflicted on the first agenda item. She would leave the meeting at that point. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. White noted that the Project Monitoring list had been updated and was included in the agenda packet. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. White gave the members a quick update from the previous evening’s City Council meeting where the Armory project was approved on first reading. Ms. Thompson and Ms. Raymond were assigned as the monitors for that project. Ms. White also noted that the Red Onion project was starting the paint removal, and she reviewed how the process was going. 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 agenda item. Ms. Raymond left the room. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 23RD, 2025 Mr. Moyer entered the meeting at 4:50pm. NEW BUSINESS: 406 W. Smuggler St. - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review, Relocation, Benefits, Residential Design Standards Variation – PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Milo Stark – Kim Raymond Architects Mr. Stark began his presentation by going over some of the history of their involvement on the project and the history of the property. He also noted that they realize that due to some of the oddities of the property’s construction, more investigation needs to be completed. He then described the history of the family that currently owns the property and details of when the house was moved to its current location as well as details of the lot itself. He showed several pictures from when the lot was being prepped and the house being placed in its current location. He then noted that after the relocation an addition was added and he showed an existing site plan and some current pictures of the historic resource, highlighting the new addition area versus the historic portions. He also highlighted some other areas of the building that will need restoration and more investigation. Mr. Stark moved on to present the proposed elevations and detailed the historic elements that would be restored and the non-historic additions that were to be removed. He then noted that they were proposing to relocate the house slightly on the property and he went over some the details of that process and noted that a few trees were to be removed in this process. He also described the neighborhood context as it relates to the proposed new location of the historic resource. Next Mr. Stark described the new building that was proposed for the rear of the property, noting that it would be fully detached by about 12 feet from the historic resource and about 68 feet back from Smuggler St. He also noted that the new building would function as two separate units. He continued by reviewing more aspects of the new building including parking and the roof gables while showing the proposed elevations. Mr. Stark moved on to the proposed landscape plan and detailed the various plantings. He also noted the stormwater plan which had been reviewed by the Engineering Department. He finished by showing several renderings of the proposed design. Mr. Moyer asked why they did not seem to address the staff comments in their presentation. Mr. Stark noted that their responses were included in the application contained in the agenda packet and that their response to many of staff’s comments needed to be based on more investigation into the historic resource. Ms. Thompson asked how the proposed new location of the historic resource related to the context of historic properties in the neighborhood. Mr. Stark explained their reasoning for the new site location as related to the historic neighboring properties. Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Principal Preservation Planner Ms. White began her presentation by going over the standards for relocation and noted that since the historic resource was originally located on W. Hopkins Ave. the proposed relocation will not affect the historic relationship to its current site, but the relocation was not necessarily an acceptable preservation method as the current foundation meets modern standards. She also noted that a structural engineer has yet to confirm the applicant’s determination that the building is capable of withstanding the relocation. She further explained the relocation review as detailed in the staff findings section of the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 23RD, 2025 staff memo. She showed a site plan of the proposed temporary storage location of the historic resource in the right of way. Ms. White moved on to the requested dimensional variations and reviewed the staff findings as detailed in the staff memo. She showed a site plan of the proposed basement with a highlighted area under the garage being within the setbacks. She also noted that the applicant is requesting a variation to the Non- Orthogonal Window Limit for the purpose of installing more than one non-orthogonal on each façade that faces the street. She explained why this request does not meet the intent of the Residential Design Standards as outlined in the staff memo. Ms. White moved on to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and she reviewed the staff findings related to the site planning, building materials, windows, porches, proposed lightwells and the relationship of the new building to the historic resource as outlined in the staff memo. Ms. White concluded her presentation by noting that if the HPC wished to continue the application, the next available meeting date was October 10th. She also noted that a draft resolution with recommended conditions was included in the agenda packet. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. White if she had visited the site to understand the relocation and its relationship to the street. Ms. White said that she had taken over this application just two weeks ago and had not been able to visit the site. Public Comment: None. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson began the discussion by stating that she was struggling with the proposed relocation and noted that they needed to better understand the reasoning behind the proposal. She said she was also struggling with the requested side yard setback variation as both it and the proposed relocation did not seem to meet the guidelines for preserving the historic resource. Ms. Severe agreed with staff that it was not a good idea to detach the porches during relocation. Ms. Thompson thought it would be best for an expert to do an evaluation as the porches had apparently been previously removed and reattached in 1973. She also suggested a site visit to better understand the proposed relocation and site context. Ms. Thompson then moved on to the topic of the proposed two non-orthogonal windows and noted that it was closely tied to the mass and scale of the new building. She explained her thoughts about the loss of a proportional relationship between the new building and the historic resource and why it did not meet the required form relationship. There was some discussion about proposed garage areas in the new building and the requested rear yard setback variation. Mr. Stark explained their reasoning for the request and detailed the construction plans. The HPC members all agreed with staff on the walkway from the street to the new building. Ms. Thompson clarified an earlier statement by saying that she wasn’t against the concept of the historic resource being relocated, but rather where it was being placed and how. Mr. Moyer agreed as its current location was not historic. There was discussion about what the applicant should re-study and revise before the next meeting. These included the mass and scale of the new building and the context of the relocation of the historic resource. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 23RD, 2025 MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to continue the item to the October 8th meeting. Ms. Severe seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0, motion passes. NEW BUSINESS: Pedestrian Mall Safety Initiative Refresher - Discussion - Not a Public Hearing Staff Presentation: Mike Tunte - Landscape Architect and Construction Manager, Parks Department and Margaret Plumb – Design Workshop Mr. Tunte began his presentation by noting that City Council has directed the Parks and Open Space Department to consider safety improvements on the Pedestrian Mall and that Design Workshop had been brought on as a consultant. He noted that Design Workshop had been working on a schematic design plan for the Pedestrian Mall from 2016 to 2022, including infrastructure, accessibility, public outreach and safety improvements. He said that today they would be focusing on the safety aspects of the design, and he described the continuing process this would take moving forward. Ms. Plumb proceeded to give an overview of the design process that started in 2016 when City Council prioritized evaluating the Mall considering the aging below grade infrastructure and potential ADA accessibility issues. She noted that in 2023 they were directed to add a layer to their analysis related to security issues and the potential risk of intentional or unintentional vehicle access. She noted that they are currently focusing on the Wheeler node and how security features could be implemented there to improve pedestrian safety. Ms. Plumb continued her presentation by reviewing the details of the proposed safety and security improvements to the Wheeler node, including narrowing of the road, a more highlighted crossing area including material changes to the roadway, a new 6-inch curb along the plaza edge, along with other proposed improvements based on their analysis. She mentioned that many cities around the country and world are actively attempting to manage pedestrian safety in public places with a whole range of approaches and varying levels of security. She stressed that in all the potential security improvements, ensuring the historic integrity of the Pedestrian Mall is of upmost importance. Ms. Plumb then took some time describing the four types of features that could be added to the Pedestrian Mall intersections to increase security and how each were evaluated against certain criteria. These included Meridian Barriers (currently installed in specific areas), site furnishings, bollards, and schematic design features that could include custom furnishings. She then opened things up for discussion and questions from the HPC members. There was some discussion about these features and the general safety issues related to the Pedestrian Mall. Also discussed were the implications of these features related to emergency and maintenance access, as well as the potential aesthetics of these features. Ms. Thompson noted that in general, HPC’s feedback would be to utilize the least visually invasive options that maintain the view of the Mall as it has existed. There was also some discussion about the potential impacts to the historic brick depending on which option or combination of options were implemented. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 23RD, 2025