HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20251112AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
November 12, 2025
4:30 PM, City Council Chambers -
3rd Floor
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, CO 81611
I.ROLL CALL
II.MINUTES
II.A Draft Minutes - 10/8/25
III.PUBLIC COMMENTS
IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PROJECT MONITORING
VII.STAFF COMMENTS
VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED
IX.CALL UP REPORTS
X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
XI.SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
XII.OLD BUSINESS
XIII.NEW BUSINESS
XIII.A
500 W. Francis St. Lot 1 – Recommendation to City Council Regarding the
Establishment of Six (6) Transferable Development Right Certificates
minutes.hpc.20251008_DRAFT.docx
500 W Francis Lot 1 Staff Memo
Draft HPC Resolution 13, Series of 2025 Recommending Approval
1
1
XIV.ADJOURN
XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
Draft HPC Resolution 13, Series of 2025 Recommending Denial
Exhibit B. Staff Response to TDR Review Criteria
Exhibit A. Application.pdf
TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS
(1 Hour, 15 Minutes for each Major Agenda Item)
1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (at beginning of agenda)
2. Presentation of proof of legal notice (at beginning of agenda)
3. Applicant presentation (10 minutes for minor development; 20 minutes for major
development)
4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes)
5. Staff presentation (5 minutes for minor development; 10 minutes for major
development)
6. Board questions and clarifications of staff (5 minutes)
7. Public comments (5 minutes total, or 3 minutes/ person or as determined by the Chair)
8. Close public comment portion of hearing
9. Applicant rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes)
10. Staff rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes)
End of fact finding. Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed.
11. Deliberation by the commission and findings based on criteria commences. No further
input from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if
there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may
provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to
re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. (20 minutes)
12. Motion. Prior to vote the chair will allow for call for clarification for the proposed
resolution.
Please note that staff and/or the applicant must vacate the dais during the opposite
presentation and board question and clarification session. Both staff and applicant team
will vacate the dais during HPC deliberation unless invited by the chair to return.
Updated: March 7, 2024
2
2
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 8TH, 2025
Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at
4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford, Dakota Severe, Duncan Clauss, Kim
Raymond and Kara Thompson. Absent was Jodi Surfas.
Staff present:
Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner
Luisa Berne - Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear – Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the draft minutes from 7/23/25, 8/13/25 and 9/10/25.
Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Clauss,
yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the
draft minutes from 8/27/25. Ms. Severe seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes;
Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0, motion passes with Ms. Raymond abstaining.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson asked if someone had interviewed for one of
the open alternate positions on the board. Ms. White confirmed that someone did interview with City
Council the previous week, but no decisions had been made yet.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Raymond noted that she was conflicted on the agenda
item. She would leave the meeting at that point.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. White noted that staff had approved some Project Monitoring requests,
but she did not have an overview of them to present at this time.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. White introduced Thanh Vo, who just joined the Community Development
Department as a Historic Preservation Planner. Mr. Vo introduced himself and went over some of his
background. He was excited to be part of the team and eager to learn.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. White noted that staff had approved some Certificates of
No Negative requests, but she did not have an overview of them to present at this time.
CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. White noted that the 504 W Hallam item would be called up to City Council at
the October 28th meeting as well as the item being heard at this meeting if it were to be approved.
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.
OLD BUSINESS: 406 W. Smuggler St. - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major
Development Conceptual Review, Relocation, Benefits, Residential Design Standards Variation –
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 8TH, 2025
Applicant Presentation: Milo Stark & Marcus Hanlon - Kim Raymond Architects & Interiors
Mr. Stark thanked all the members who had attended the site visit and noted that since this was a
continued hearing he would mainly be addressing the talking points in the staff memo. He then
referenced the section of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines that speaks to balancing the
guidelines and that each project is unique and brings its own specific attributes.
Mr. Stark moved on to the proposal and changes that have been made since the last meeting. He noted
that there was previous interest in the neighborhood context of the resource. He then went over some
of the other properties on the block, noting their history and redevelopment. He hoped that with this
context in mind the HPC would agree that relocating the resource forward on the lot was an appropriate
step to revitalizing the resource within the block. He noted that the request to relocate approximately
10 feet forward would allow the full detachment of the historic resource from the new addition. He said
that without the move the only option would be to incorporate a connecting link joining the two
structures. He also went over the request to relocate the resource west to accommodate the new
addition in the rear of the property and allow it to comply with the Residential Design Standards. He
noted that the entry walkway to the new addition had been revised since the previous meeting to
comply with Historic Design Guideline 1.7 and is now a straight 3-foot-wide layout.
Mr. Stark then addressed the comments heard at the last hearing regarding the project’s perceived
mass and scale. He showed elevations of the previous design and the revised proposal, noting that the
gabled roofs were lowered by over a foot and that the shed roof that spanned between them was
replaced with a lower flat roof. He also noted that mechanical equipment screening and chimneys were
removed and relocated and a few windows were reduced in size to better match the size of windows in
the historic resource. With these changes, Mr. Stark felt the revised mass was in better compliance with
the guidelines and will aid in ensuring that the historic resource remains the focal point on the property.
Mr. Stark then discussed the roofing materials and noted that since the historic resource was originally
located outside the City limits there was no Sanborn map to reference the historic roof materials. He
said that without evidence of the historic roofing materials, they were proposing a completely new
synthetic shingle roofing material. A sample of the shingle was passed around, and Mr. Stark noted that
more specifics of the material could be shared and discussed at the Final review.
Mr. Stark noted that the rehabilitation of the historic cabin being free of an attached addition was the
preferred and best preservation method and that they believed the exemptions requested were in line
with the benefits outlined in the Land Use Code and Historic Preservation Guidelines. He listed and
detailed the requests including the west side yard setback variation, rear yard setback variation and
lightwell exemption. He finished his presentation by thanking the members and noting that they feel
they have responded to the feedback provided at the last meeting and that the project was an example
of careful balancing of the guidelines.
Ms. Pitchford asked what the total above grade square footage was of the new structure. Mr. Stark
noted that not counting the garage, it would be approximately 2,300 square feet.
Ms. Thompson asked about the floating lightwell and if there was a requirement to have railings around
it. Mr. Stark noted that if it was three feet away from the walkway, it was not required to have railings.
Ms. Thompson also asked about the fire rating requirements, since the buildings were close to the
neighboring one. There was some discussion about the requirements and that they would be achieving
them by utilizing two layers of interior drywall.
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 8TH, 2025
Mr. Moyer asked if they had interviewed a contractor yet and if they had a BEST card. Mr. Stark said
they had selected a contractor and they did have a BEST card.
Ms. Thompson asked if they had reached out to the Parks Department about the existing tree that may
interfere in the temporary relocation of the historic resource. Mr. Stark had not reached out just yet.
There was some further discussion of this.
Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Principal Preservation Planner
Ms. White began her presentation by reviewing the applicant’s requests for conceptual major
development, relocation and benefits that include setback variations and a floor area bonus. She then
went over the standards for relocation and noted that the relocation will not affect the historic
relationship of the resource to its current site or adjacent properties but is not necessarily an acceptable
preservation method. She pointed out that the applicant has noted that the relocation will allow the
new detached building to meet the Residential Design Standards. She said that staff believes that it is in
the best interest of the resource to have a separate building on site as opposed to having an attached
addition that may necessitate removal of historic material.
Ms. White then reviewed the proposed temporary relocation of the resource into the right of way. She
then went over the proposed setback variation requests as outlined in the staff memo. Next, she
reviewed the requested floor area bonus lightwell exemption as outlined in the staff memo, noting that
while the proposed lightwell is eligible for this benefit, the proposal does not meet all the required
criteria to grant a floor area bonus. She suggested that HPC discuss this requested bonus as the criteria
can be complicated to apply in this scenario and that if granted the applicant has expressed that they
plan to request a Transferable Development Right (TDR) since the exemption would result in an
additional 412 square feet.
Ms. White continued by noting the proposed design of the new building does not meet guideline 1.1
and explained this further as referenced in the staff comments section of the staff memo. She also
spoke to guidelines 2.1 and 2.6 related to the existing additions on the historic resource and noted that
the applicant had made changes since the first hearing to better meet guideline 11.3 regarding the
massing of the new building. She then spoke about the proposed roofing materials for the historic
resource and relayed staff’s comments on this.
Ms. White concluded by acknowledging that the applicant had made changes to the design from the
first hearing to better meet the majority of the applicable design guidelines. She noted that staff had
included recommended conditions in the memo, should the HPC choose to grant approval of the
proposed conceptual plan.
Mr. Moyer asked if a BEST card is required on this project. Ms. White noted that any historic project was
required to have a BEST card holder be on site at all times during construction. Mr. Moyer noted that
almost all projects in town have “wraps” around the site and wondered if they should require that a
window be included. Ms. White noted that it would be a building code question but felt it was an
interesting question.
There was then some discussion about the required drainage in lightwells.
Public Comment: None
Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson started the discussion with the relocation request and associated side
yard setback variation. She felt the site visit was very helpful in understanding the aspects of the
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 8TH, 2025
relocation and tree removal. She was in support of the proposed relocation and related side yard
setback variation as it was a productive preservation outcome to keep the two buildings detached.
Ms. Severe, Mr. Clauss and Ms. Pitchford agreed. Mr. Moyer also agreed and noted that it was a bonus
not to have the new building be an addition to the historic resource.
Ms. Thompson then referenced the feedback that HPC provided the applicant at the last meeting
regarding the mass and scale of the new building. She appreciated that they had brought down the plate
heights and made other changes to the fenestration and structure. In light of these changes and the fact
that the new building was detached, she felt the new proposal met the guidelines.
Ms. Severe thought the updated proposal looked much better and appreciated the change to the roof
form on the new building. She was in support of the updated design.
Ms. Pitchford appreciated the applicant’s response to the feedback, but she was still struggling with the
size of the new building. She felt it still overwhelmed the historic resource.
Mr. Moyer said that if this was a corner lot he would completely agree with Ms. Pitchford, but he felt
that because of this property being in the block he did not think that someone standing on the street
would be able to see much. He felt that reducing the plate height was very helpful and he was in
support.
Ms. Thompson moved the discussion to lightwell exemption and Floor Area Bonus. She felt the location
of the proposed lightwell was not visible from the street and did not detract from the historic resource,
so she was in support of the exemption. The other members felt the same. She also felt that there was a
significant amount of restoration effort that was planned to take place. Because of those efforts she felt
the proposal met the criteria for the floor area bonus. Again, the other members agreed.
Ms. Thompson then brought up the $30K financial assurance condition and noted that it was a topic that
HPC had discussed in the past and felt the standard amount was fairly insignificant. She mentioned that
HPC had decided to consider these on a case-by-case basis, and she felt that in this instance, the amount
should be increased. She thought that for this project the amount should be doubled with the ability to
release half when the structure is set on the new foundation and the other half when the project is
completed.
Ms. Severe felt that $60K was a fair number. Ms. Pitchford also agreed with the increased amount. Mr.
Moyer felt even the $60K amount was incredibly low and asked that since most of the financial
assurance amounts were done through a bond, why couldn’t they ask for, say, $200K. He noted that this
amount may not apply to this project but was more for future consideration. Ms. Thompson felt it was
something that should be studied more for the future.
Ms. Severe thought that applying these amounts on a case-by-case basis was preferable to a copy and
paste for all projects.
Ms. White thought that this would be a good topic for a future work session.
Ms. Thompson then moved on to the proposed synthetic shingle roofing material for the historic
resource. She asked about how the product was delivered and how it was installed. Mr. Stark discussed
how the synthetic shingles were constructed and installed and noted that the manufacturer had
weathered a sample shingle that they could get to the HPC before the final review hearing. He also
mentioned that they come as single shingles and not as sheets.
Mr. Moyer noted that there were a few places in his neighborhood that had synthetic shingles, and he
felt that once they are installed it is hard to tell they are actually a synthetic material.
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 8TH, 2025
There was continued discussion about various color options for these synthetic shingles, as well as what
roofing materials may have existed historically on this house. Ms. Thompson felt ok with the synthetic
shingles as an alternative roofing material, unless more evidence of the historical roofing materials were
discovered during selective demolition. The other members agreed.
Ms. Thompson noted that she would like to see a stabilization plan and more input from the Parks
Department regarding the relocation when the applicant comes in for final review.
MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series revising condition #5 to
require a $60,000 financial assurance, with half refundable when the building is placed back on the new
foundation and the other half at project completion. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer,
yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0, motion passes.
Ms. Raymond reentered the meeting.
There was then some more discussion about the options for altering the financial assurance
requirements.
ADJOURN: Mr. Moyer moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor,
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
7
Page 1 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com
Memorandum
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
FROM: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer, Principal Planner
THROUGH: Dan Folke, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2025
RE: 500 W. Francis St. – Recommendation to City Council Regarding the
Creation of Six (6) Transferable Development Rights Certificates
Applicant/Owner:
Blue Magpie, LLC
Representative:
Alan Richman
Planning Services,
LLC
Location:
500 W. Francis St.
Lot 1
Aspen, CO 81611
Legal Description:
Subdivision: 500
WEST FRANCIS
ST HISTORIC
LANDMARK Lot: 1
Parcel
Identification
Number:
2735-124-10-008
Current Zoning &
Use:
R-6 – Residential
Proposed Use:
No Change
SUMMARY:
The applicant requests recommendation from the HPC regarding the
creation of Transferable Development Rights Certificates.
Figure 1. 500 W. Francis St. Lot 1 – Site Location Aerial Image
8
Page 2 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com
BACKGROUND:
Legally described as Lot 1 of 500 West Francis Historic Lot Split Subdivision Exemption, the
subject property is a 3,000-square-foot lot located in the R-6, Medium Density Residential zone
district in Aspen’s West End neighborhood. Although it is a distinct parcel, the subject property
shares a street address with the property it was severed from. As stipulated therein, Lot 1 has
maximum allowable floor area of 1,593 square feet, which includes a 500 square foot FAR
Bonus granted by HPC Resolution #14, Series of 2007. The plat thereof is recorded in Book 86
at Page 25 as Reception No. 545759 of the Real Estate Records of Pitkin County. No
entitlements appear to have been granted for this property since.
REQUEST OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
The Applicant is requesting the following:
• Transferable Development Rights (TDR) (Section 26.535): for a recommendation from
the HPC to City Council regarding the creation of TDR certificates.
The Historic Preservation Commission is a recommending body for this request.
Figure 2. 1904 Sanborn Map showing 500
W. Francis St. Lot 1 outlined in red.
Figure 3. Historic photo showing a home existing on the
now vacant lot.
9
Page 3 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The subject property is currently vacant, but has the ability to develop to a maximum allowable
floor area of 1,593 square feet. The property has not always been vacant, as shown on the
Sanborn Map, with the last residence on the property having been demolished prior to the 1970s.
The applicant is requesting the creation of six (6) Transferable Development Rights Certificates,
which would sever a total of 1500 square feet of allowable floor area from the property. Should
this request be approved by Council, the property will have a remainder of 93 square feet of
allowable floor area.
This request has come before the HPC as required Per Sec. 26.535.070(j) Review criteria for
establishment of a historic transferable development right, which states that “HPC shall provide
Council with a recommendation.”
STAFF EVALUATION
Staff would like to note that the applicants request (LPA-25-087) for a recommendation to
Council regarding the creation of six (6) TDR’s does not have a specific review procedure within
the code as it relates to the HPC; this is because the request is not tied to a designation
negotiation or a major/minor development project. However, the request has been reviewed by
staff through the lens of the City’s historic preservation program goals, and the intent of the TDR
program and its associated review criteria.
Given that the historic lot split resulted in two lots with specific developable floor area allotted to
each property as conditioned in the resolution, it is clear that the decision to split the lot included
discussion related to what would be appropriate infill for this location. The resolution also
includes a condition that the two lots would be limited to three residences, one property with a
Fig. 4. Existing lot (approx. within the yellow box) as seen from W. Francis St.
10
Page 4 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com
duplex and one with a single family residence. The meeting minutes associated with the historic
lot split mention that the intention of the 500 square foot FAR bonus was to prevent further
development on the historic resource located on Lot 2, and instead have that development
happen on the vacant lot. This granting of a FAR bonus of 500 square feet for Lot 1 further
supports that there was a vision for this lot to potentially be developed with a modest sized
residence.
Based on language in the Land Use Code Section 26.535.070 Criteria for establishment of a
historic transferable development right, Staff questions if the 500 square foot FAR bonus should
be included with the requested severing of square footage, as that was previously granted with
the intent for the site to be developed. The code states that the unbuilt development right shall
not include the potential of the sending site to gain floor area bonuses; essentially, the spirit of
this language is that FAR bonuses should be utilized for development purposes and not with the
intent of creating a TDR. Staff recognize the FAR bonus was awarded, however it seems the
development intent has changed. This does not preclude Council from granting the full TDR
request, but the Commission is encouraged to discuss if the preservation outcome has changed
and if the FAR benefit is still appropriate to consider for the creation of TDRs when discussing
the recommendation.
Staff see the benefit to this lot retaining its development rights and the potential construction of
a modest residence, as this would be consistent with how the property existed historically. Staff
also acknowledge how leaving the site vacant would align with overall historic neighborhood
development patterns, given there were vacant lots surrounding this site as shown in the 1904
Sanborn Map image below (Fig. 5).
Per Sec. 26.535.030 of Aspen’s Land Use Code, the purpose of the Transferable Development
Rights program is “to encourage the preservation of historic landmarks” and “to accomplish a
community goal of preserving Aspen's heritage as reflected in its built environment.” Staff find
that the severing of six TDRs from this site is not necessarily encouraging preservation of a
designated resource, rather it is encouraging the preservation of open space. Should the request
for TDR’s not be approved, and instead a residence was developed, the same amount of
preservation would be accomplished as it relates to designated resources. However, an
argument could be made that the severing of development rights helps to preserve Aspen’s
heritage/neighborhood context so as not to have every lot built out, which would align with the
historic neighborhood pattern. As the argument can be made that there are potential benefits to
developing the site and to severing TDR’s, the HPC is encouraged to discuss both options in
depth as they relate to the intent of the original lot split, the preservation program, and the intent
of the TDR program.
11
Page 5 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com
REFERRAL COMMENTS
The application was not referred out to other departments.
MOTION:
The recommendation decided on by the HPC will be provided to Council at the first reading of
the associated ordinance. Should the HPC choose to provide a positive recommendation to
Council, the following motion may be made:
“The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the request and recommends that
Council approve the creation of (number of TDR’s the HPC deems appropriate), severing
(amount of square footage) from the property located at 500 W. Franics St. Lot 1.”
Should the HPC choose not to recommend approval, the following motion may be made:
“The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the request and, finding that it does
not meet the intent of the TDR program, recommends that Council deny the request for
TDRs for property located at 500 W. Francis St. Lot 1.”
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution #13, Series of 2025
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Staff Response to TDR Review Criteria
Fig. 5. 1908 Sanborn Map of the surrounding neighborhood
12
HPC Resolution #13, Series of 2025
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION # 13,
(SERIES OF 2025)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
PROVIDING RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
CERTIFICATES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 W. FRANCIS STREET
LOT 1, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS SUBDIVISION: 500 WEST FRANCIS ST
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT: 1, ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-10-008
WHEREAS, the applicant, Blue Magpie, LLC, represented by Alan Richman, Alan Richman
Planning Services LLC, has requested a recommendation from the HPC regarding the creation of
Historic Transferable Development Rights for the property located at 500 W. Francis St. Lot 1,
Subdivision: 500 WEST FRANCIS ST HISTORIC LANDMARK Lot: 1, Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.535.070 of the Municipal Code states that for any request to establish
historic transferable development right certificates “HPC shall provide Council with a
recommendation;” and
WHEREAS, for recommendation to city council, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report, and any additional evidence presented to determine the project’s conformance with
Section 26.435.070 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may
provide a recommendation for approval, denial, or approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance
with the applicable review standards; and
WHEREAS, the HPC reviewed the request on November 12, 2025. The HPC considered the
application and the staff memo and found the proposal consistent with the associated review
criteria and therefore by a vote of X to X (x-x) recommended that Council approve the request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends that Council approve the request for the establishment of historic
transferable development rights for 500 W. Francis St. Lot 1, Subdivision: 500 WEST FRANCIS
ST HISTORIC LANDMARK Lot: 1, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado as follows:
Section 1: Recommendation
The HPC recommends that council establish (number of TDRs deemed appropriate by the HPC)
historic transferable development right certificates. As each certificate represents 250 square feet,
the total square footage severed from the site equals (250 x number of TDRs recommended). The
property has a remainder of (remaining sqft) of allowable floor area.
Existing allowable floor area 1593 sq ft
Floor area recommended to be severed
13
HPC Resolution #13, Series of 2025
Page 2 of 2
Remaining floor area
Section 2: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of November
2025.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
__________________________________ ____________________________________
Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
14
HPC Resolution #13, Series of 2025
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION # 13,
(SERIES OF 2025)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
PROVIDING RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
CERTIFICATES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 W. FRANCIS STREET
LOT 1, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS SUBDIVISION: 500 WEST FRANCIS ST
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT: 1, ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-10-008
WHEREAS, the applicant, Blue Magpie, LLC, represented by Alan Richman, Alan Richman
Planning Services LLC, has requested a recommendation from the HPC regarding the creation of
Historic Transferable Development Rights for the property located at 500 W. Francis St. Lot 1,
Subdivision: 500 WEST FRANCIS ST HISTORIC LANDMARK Lot: 1, Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.535.070 of the Municipal Code states that for any request to establish
historic transferable development right certificates “HPC shall provide Council with a
recommendation;” and
WHEREAS, for recommendation to city council, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report, and any additional evidence presented to determine the project’s conformance with
Section 26.435.070 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may
provide a recommendation for approval, denial, or approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance
with the applicable review standards; and
WHEREAS, the HPC reviewed the request on November 12, 2025. The HPC considered the
application and the staff memo and found the proposal inconsistent with the associated review
criteria and therefore by a vote of X to X (x-x) recommended that Council deny the request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommend that Council deny the request for the establishment of historic
transferable development rights for 500 W. Francis St. Lot 1, Subdivision: 500 WEST FRANCIS
ST HISTORIC LANDMARK Lot: 1, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado as follows:
Section 1: Recommendation
The HPC recommend that council deny the request to establish six (6) transferable development
right certificates, resulting in the property retaining 1,593 square feet of allowable floor area.
Section 2: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
15
HPC Resolution #13, Series of 2025
Page 2 of 2
Section 3: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of November
2025.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
__________________________________ ____________________________________
Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
16
Establishing Historic TDR
Review Criteria
Staff Findings
500 W. Francis St. Lot 1
City Council, First Reading of Ordinance
Page 1 of 4
Section 26.535.070 – Review criteria for establishment of a historic
transferable development right.
A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant to
adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met:
a) The sending site is a historic landmark on which the development of a single-family or
duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts.
Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible.
Staff Finding: 500 W. Francis St. Lot 1 is a landmarked property and single
family and duplex uses are permitted in the zone district. Staff find this criterion
is met.
b) It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for
either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty (250)
square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates requested.
Staff Finding: According to HPC Resolution #14, Series of 2007, 500 W.
Francis St. Lot 1 is allowed a maximum floor area of 1,593 square feet. This
includes a 500 square foot floor area bonus that was granted with the intent to
develop the lot. To the extent that the existing development represents less than
that, the owner may apply to sever Transferable Development Rights in
increments of 250 square feet of floor area.
The request is for six (6) TDRs, equaling 1500 square feet of allowable floor area
to be severed. This would leave 93 square feet of allowable floor area for the
property.
Staff recommend that the intent of the historic preservation benefits program and
the TDR program be considered when determining if the previous 500 square foot
floor area bonus should be included in the TDR request. Staff recognize the FAR
bonus was awarded and the sending site has unbuilt development as required by
this criteria; however, it seems the development intent has changed. The floor area
bonus was to accommodate a new dwelling unit, the proposal to transfer the floor
area will essentially keep the lot vacant. This does not preclude Council from
granting the full TDR request, but it is encouraged to discuss if the preservation
outcome has changed and if the FAR benefit is still appropriate to consider for the
establishment of TDRs.
c) It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a
nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not
increase the specific nonconformity.
Staff Finding: No non-conformities will be created by the establishment of
17
Establishing Historic TDR
Review Criteria
Staff Findings
500 W. Francis St. Lot 1
City Council, First Reading of Ordinance
Page 2 of 4
TDRs. Staff find this criterion is met.
d) The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development,
any approved development order, the allowable development right prescribed by zoning
for a single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the potential of the sending
site to gain floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential development incentives.
Properties in the MU Zone District which do not currently contain a single-family home
or duplex established prior to the adoption of Ordinance #7, Series of 2005, shall be
permitted to base the calculation of TDRs on one hundred percent (100%) of the
allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. This is only for
the purpose of creating TDRs and does not permit the on-site development of one
hundred percent (100%) of the allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized lot in the R-6
zone district. If the additional twenty percent (20%) of allowable floor area exceeds five
hundred (500) square feet, the applicant may not request a floor area bonus from HPC at
any time in the future. Any development order to develop floor area, beyond that
remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall
be considered null and void.
Staff Finding: Staff recommend that the intent of the historic preservation
benefits program and the TDR program be considered when determining if the
previous 500 square foot floor area bonus should be included in the TDR request.
Staff recognize the FAR bonus was awarded and the sending site has unbuilt
development as required by this criteria; however, it seems the development intent
has changed. The floor area bonus was to accommodate a new dwelling unit, the
proposal to transfer the floor area will essentially keep the lot vacant. This does
not preclude Council from granting the full TDR request, but it is encouraged to
discuss if the preservation outcome has changed and if the FAR benefit is still
appropriate to consider for the establishment of TDRs.
e) The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the
property (the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the allowance for a
single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor
area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates established.
For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses, the
maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall
be the floor area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus
two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies by the number of historic
TDR certificates established.
The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a square
footage reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex residence,
as may be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible for certain
floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use Code,
as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be
18
Establishing Historic TDR
Review Criteria
Staff Findings
500 W. Francis St. Lot 1
City Council, First Reading of Ordinance
Page 3 of 4
acceptable to the City Attorney.
Staff Finding: Should the request be approved, the deed restriction will follow
the form approved by the City Attorney.
f) A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant
requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of historic TDR
certificates to the sending site property owner and that property owner shall execute and
deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject
property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the
County Clerk and Recorder's office.
Staff Finding: Should the request be approved, a closing is to be scheduled at the
conclusion of the review.
g) It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide building plans
and a zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built
floor area.
Staff Finding: 500 W. Francis St. Lot 1 is currently vacant, therefore building
plans were not provided.
h) The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of transferable
development rights certificates shall be recorded in the real estate records of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the City of Aspen
Community Development Department within five (5) days of such transfer. The report of
such transfer shall disclose the certificate number, the grantor, the grantee and the total
value of the consideration paid for the certificate. Failure to timely or accurately report
such transfer shall not render the transferable development right certificate void.
Staff Finding: The applicant is obligated to report the sale to the City as described
above. This shall be included as a condition of approval in the associated Ordinance.
i) TDR certificates may be issued at the pace preferred by the property owner.
Staff Finding: N/A
j) City Council may find that the creation of TDRs is not the best preservation solution for
the affected historic resource and deny the application to create TDRs. HPC shall provide
Council with a recommendation.
Staff Finding: Recommendation from the HPC will be provided to Council.
19
Establishing Historic TDR
Review Criteria
Staff Findings
500 W. Francis St. Lot 1
City Council, First Reading of Ordinance
Page 4 of 4
20
Page 1
Memo
To: Gillian White
From: Alan Richman
Date: October 22, 2025
Re: Supplement to TDR Application for Lot 1, 500 West Francis Historic Lot Split
This memo provides you with supplementary materials for the land use
application we have submitted requesting the issuance of TDR certificates
for Lot 1 of the 500 West Francis Historic Landmark Lot Pit. The purpose
of this supplement is to address the following two points you have raised:
• The application should provide a response to Criterion J in Sec.
26.535.070 of the Land Use Code; and
• The application should describe how the request to issue TDR
certificates will be a benefit to the property and the Historic
Preservation program in general, providing references to the
relevant sections of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
Sec. 26.535.070.J of the Code reads as follows:
J. City Council may find that the creation of TDRs is not the best preservation solution for the affected historic resource and deny the application to create TDRs. HPC shall provide Council with a recommendation.
The applicant believes that the creation of six (6) TDR certificates from
this property is the best preservation solution for this property and for
these historic resources. By approving this application, HPC and the City
Council would be eliminating all development potential from Lot 1.
Doing so would be entirely consistent with the City’s decision in 2007 to
grant a historic landmark lot split to this property and would extend and
enhance the historic preservation benefits achieved via that lot split.
Alan Richman Planning Services
21
Page 2
In 2007, this applicant requested an historic landmark lot split for this
property. At the time, the property consisted of a single 9,000 square
foot lot, containing two historic structures. A 9,000 square foot lot in
the R-6 zone district has an allowable floor area of 3,660 square feet for
a single family residence and 4,080 square feet for a duplex or two
detached dwellings. Since the existing floor area on the property was
just 2,987 square feet, a significant addition could have been made to
the historic structures prior to the lot split.
As a condition of granting the lot split, HPC and the City Council
assigned floor areas to the two lots. The maximum floor area of Lot 2
was limited to the existing floor area, thereby removing any future
development potential from these historic structures. The remaining
floor area on the lot (1,093 square feet) was assigned to Lot 1. In
addition, HPC granted a 500 square foot bonus to Lot 1, citing the
benefit the applicant had created by removing the future development
potential from the historic resource.
By issuing TDR’s from Lot 1, HPC and Council would be furthering this
benefit by not just eliminating the potential for an addition to the historic
structures but by also removing the potential for that development to
occur adjacent to these structures. This will create a meaningful side
yard open space buffer adjacent to these historic resources and will
ensure the preservation of the mature trees which grace Lot 1 (see
attached photo). Generous side yard setbacks were a common
development pattern throughout the West End prior to the City’s
adoption of its “infill” strategies and Lot 1 has functioned as the side
yard/open space buffer to the historic structures for many years.
Preservation of Lot 1 as open space by issuing all of the requested TDR’s
would therefore be consistent with the following Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines:
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or
context of the block, neighborhood or district.
• Setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the
historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful
open space visible from the street.
• Side and rear yard setback patterns created distinctive patterns
and contribute to the overall open space and rhythm of a
neighborhood.
22
Page 3
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and
consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small
unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement
the historic building.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site,
particularly landmark trees and shrubs.
11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of
the development potential from the historic resource and place it in the
new structure(s). This should be kept in mind when determining how
floor area will be allocated between structures proposed as part of a lot
split.
Finally, we would point out that by eliminating all remaining floor area
from Lot 1, the City would be eliminating the possibility that one more
short term dwelling unit is developed in the City. When the City first
created the historic lot split program, there was some hope that the
resulting smaller houses might create housing opportunities for local
residents. Recent experience would indicate that a small unit on a
property such as this would more than likely be rented to visitors short
term. The applicant does not want to see this lot, which he has
treasured for many years, become one more tourist-oriented property.
For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that the HPC
recommend approval of the issuance of the requested TDR certificates.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
2,257
376.2
Legend
1:
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet0376.2188.08
Notes
500 West Francis Vicinity Map
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee
concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability
of the content represented.
Map Created on 5:05 PM 06/03/25 at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Road
State Highway
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Service Road
Rivers and Creeks
Continuous
Intermittent
River, Lake or Pond
Parcel Boundary
County Line
Town Boundary
Federal Land Boundary
BLM
State of Colorado
USFS
62
63
64