Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20251008 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 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. 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 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. 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