Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20250910 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2025 Chair Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:35pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Duncan Clauss, Kim Raymond and Kara Thompson. Absent were Jodi Surfas, Dakota Severe and Barb Pitchford. Staff present: Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner Luisa Berne - Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear – Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the draft minutes from 7/9/25. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson had noticed the upcoming board and commission interviews scheduled with City Council for the end of September and that there were two alternate positions advertised for. She asked about the process to participate in those interviews. Mr. Sear noted that the typical process was that the Clerk staff member handling the application and interview process would notify the staff liaison for a given board that there were applicants for open positions. In HPC’s case, Ms. White would be made aware in the event that City Council would be interviewing for HPC. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: None STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Berne said that she would be emailing HPC members regarding the attendance rules for the Commission. She remined the members present that per the Code, members are allowed four absences per year. Ms. White noted that she had sent members the dates of the upcoming NAPC trainings. Ms. Raymond asked if there would be a virtual participation option for the trainings. Ms. White said that they would be held on Zoom as the trainer would be presenting virtually. Ms. Raymond asked if virtual participation was an option for HPC members to attend a regular meeting if they could not attend in person. Ms. White said that after conversations with the Attorney’s office, it was mostly a staffing issue to be able to offer a virtual option similar to City Council. Ms. Berne noted that an IT staff member would have to stay late to manage the virtual meeting and make sure it was operating properly and that currently that staff capacity was not available. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. White noted that the Wild Fig item was presented to the City Council for Call Up, and they decided not to call HPC’s decision up for further discussion. 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. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2025 Ms. Thompson noted that she had listened to the recording of the previous meeting for this item. OLD BUSINESS: 504 West Hallam St. – Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and Relocation - PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams began her presentation by introducing Mr. Scott Hoffman, the owner of the property. She noted that they have re-noticed as there is an additional request they are presenting. She mentioned that they had made some major changes since the previous meeting and that Ms. White had been very helpful, and they feel they now have staff support for the project. She then went over the requests made at the first meeting and noted that they are no longer requesting the Floor Area Bonus but are still requesting the recommendation of the creation of two Transferable Development Rights (TDR). She also said that because of the changes made to the project, they are also requesting a rear yard setback variation for a lightwell. Ms. Adams continued by reviewing the details of the lot and noted the feedback received at the previous meeting to reduce the mass and scale of the addition. To achieve this, they are now proposing a one-story addition and reducing the garage from a two car to one car, utilizing the existing access from 4th St. She reiterated their plan to restore the front porch, remove the non-historic additions, and repair the foundation when they relocate the structure to the setback. She then went over the existing conditions and their preservation plan, including the areas to be removed. Next, she detailed the proposed changes to the plans and layout of the new addition, including the requested variation for the proposed lightwell. She noted that the current proposal was about 780 square feet below the maximum allowed floor area for this size lot and was well under the height limit. Ms. Adams then presented several renderings comparing the proposal that was presented in July and the current proposal. She went over the form relationship of the new addition to the historic resource. She then went over the relevant historic design guidelines and explained the reasoning behind why they felt they were met. She went into more detail about guideline 10.9, related to the connecting element and why they felt some compromise was warranted. She noted again that they were not requesting a Floor Area Bonus but were requesting that a condition be included in the resolution that would allow them to apply this project and the restoration efforts to a potential future Floor Area Bonus request. She then explained the reasoning. Then she reviewed the request for a recommendation of two TDRs. Ms. Raymond asked how wide the proposed connecting element was. Ms. Adams noted that it was the width of the historic footprint and almost as wide as the historic resource. There was a discussion about the roof form for the connecting element. Ms. Thompson asked about the existing curb cut on 4th Street and there was some discussion about its relationship with the new one car garage and that the width of the cut would most likely be reduced. Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Principal Preservation Planner Ms. White began her presentation by reviewing the requested Land Use Approvals. She presented renderings of the previous and current designs and noted that after the first meeting the applicant and staff had met several times to ensure they were working towards a design that better aligned with applicable guidelines. She mentioned that the applicant was very open to the feedback received and REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2025 made significant changes to their proposal which resulted in a design that staff is now supportive of. She reviewed the changes made to the design. Next, Ms. White went over the relevant design guidelines for the Major Development review as outlined in the staff comments section of the staff memo. She then addressed the requested relocation and noted that given the site conditions on the property, staff find that the relocation is an acceptable preservation method in this instance. Moving on to the requested variation for the proposed lightwell in the rear yard setback, Ms. White noted that staff find that the placement of the proposed lightwell prevents an adverse impact on the historic resource, as not allowing it would likely impact the overall design and may result in a less desirable addition. Because of this, she said that staff is supportive of the requested variation. She then reviewed the floor area calculations and noted that there was still enough undeveloped floor area to create two TDRs. Ms. White concluded by stating that staff is recommending approval of the conceptual review with conditions. These included that the placement of mechanical equipment be specified on plans at Final Review and that after Final Review and approval, selective demolition would occur on the addition to be reviewed by staff and monitor to ensure no historic materials were present. Ms. White then addressed the applicant’s requested condition regarding the application of the restoration efforts towards a potential future floor area bonus request. She also noted that staff supportive of the recommendation to City Council for the creation of the requested two TDRs. Ms. Thompson asked about the condition regarding the placement of the mechanical equipment and wondered why they couldn’t grant a setback variation for it at this meeting. Ms. White explained that while HPC could grant a variation for mechanical equipment to be located in the setback, a few comments for referring departments noted that recent applicants were not able to make certain modern equipment fit within the height limits. Public Comment: Laura Magis noted that she was Mr. Hoffman’s neighbor on the other side of the alley. She said that she was in full support of the new design and the driveway access from 4th Street as opposed to the alley. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson started the board discussion with the relocation request and said that she was in support of the relocation to rotate it and place it five feet from the neighboring property. She thanked the applicant for the revised design and agreed with staff almost across the board. She noted her only concern was the roof form of the existing historic footprint section between the historic resource and new addition. Ms. Adams responded that while they are fairly certain the existing structure on top of the historic footprint is newer material, it currently has a flat roof and they figured that instead of guessing at the historic roof form, they would keep it the same. Ms. Thompson said that she also supported the lightwell variation and the creation of the TDRs. She noted that she would be open to granting a floor area bonus, even though the applicant was not requesting one. Ms. Raymond agreed with Ms. Thompson and also appreciated the significant changes made to the design. She also supported the lightwell variation, relocation and TDRs. She felt that HPC should make sure it was supporting restoration efforts on this and other projects by offering incentives and that she would also be ok with discussing grating a floor area bonus. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2025 Mr. Moyer commented on the fact that this project did not have a traditional connecting link and felt that they should be very careful with what kind of precedent it may set. He also felt that granting the floor area bonus now may make things less complicated in the future. He was in support of all the other requests. Mr. Clauss agreed with the other commissioners’ comments and felt that the intention of the connecting element was there. He was supportive of the project as redesigned. Mr. Moyer wondered how the first design of the project was so large and overwhelming and then the redesign ended up being much more in line with the guidelines. He also wondered about how to avoid a situation like this where a project that has had a lot of time spent on it, comes to HPC and gets continued for being out of line with the guidelines and not approvable by the board. Ms. Thompson said that you could have the most experienced architect, but the client just says they want to come in and ask for what they want. She noted that an applicant has the right to do that, and staff cannot just automatically deny something. Ms. White described the process an applicant and staff go through before a project comes before HPC. She noted a number of meetings happen between the applicant and staff before an application is even submitted. She noted that staff will then provide comments after an application is submitted and it is then up to the applicant to come in and discuss those comments or not. She said that occasionally an applicant, knowing that staff is not recommending approval, will stick with their design. Ms. Berne reminded the commissioners that whatever staff’s recommendation may be on a project, HPC is still the ultimate deciding body. There was some discussion on the process of approving a potential floor area bonus and Ms. White noted that she would feel more comfortable if that approval was revisited at the Final Review. She said that way she could take the time to double check the numbers and calculations. There was then some discussion about the roof form of the connecting element and potential ways to alter it so that it reads more as the connector. Mr. Moyer again raised the question of how allowing this project not to have a true connecting element could be precedent setting. Ms. Berne reminded the members that since every project that comes before HPC is unique, their decisions do not set precedent. She also reminded them that the guidelines only require a connecting element when there was a two-story addition and this project’s addition was only one story. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with the addition of a new section stating that HPC approves a floor area bonus of 375 square feet, subject to verification by staff. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk