Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20260114 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 14TH, 2026 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford, Dakota Severe, Duncan Clauss, Kim Raymond and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner Luisa Berne - Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear – Deputy City Clerk Ben Anderson – Community Development Director MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the draft minutes from 11/12/25. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson distributed to each member a list of topics that have previously been discussed and was hoping for the board to come up with a plan to address them in the coming year. She asked board members to email her directly any feedback on the topics. She also asked Ms. White if an initial conversation could be added to the agenda for the first meeting in February. Ms. Severe noted that she had heard about TikTok influencers going around to cities and hitting golf balls at historic buildings. She noticed that they were recently in Aspen. Ms. Raymond noted that the Sate of Colorado is mandating that local jurisdictions adopt the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code and felt it would be a factor when they are looking at historic buildings. Ms. White noted that while the City of Aspen code already meets these updated requirements, they would be adopting the new code. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. White noted that they would move the administrative updates to the end of the meeting. 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. NEW BUSINESS: 320 West Main St. - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development Review and Commercial Design Review (Approval) and Planned Development Project Review and Growth Management Quota System Review (Recommendation to City Council). Applicant Presentation: Sarah Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams began her presentation by introducing the owners and representatives from Forum Phi Architects. She then noted that the owners who purchased the property in 2021 have a background in restoring and running historic Bed and Breakfasts. She noted that the request was to convert the property into a Boutique Lodge with six lodge keys and to approve some minor exterior changes to REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 14TH, 2026 comply with ADA and Commercial Design Standards. She also noted that HPC was being asked to make a recommendation to City Council for the Planned Development, a variation to allow only six lodge keys when the minimum required is ten lodge keys and growth management mitigation. Ms. Adams then reviewed the history of the property. She noted that the building was zoned Residential until 1989, when it was changed to Office Use and that the 9,000 square foot lot was subdivided in 2002 into two 4,500 square foot lots. She pointed out that the subdivision and plat had a condition of approval that all parking requirements for the lot containing the historic resource were to be waived due to space constraints. She further reviewed the history of the property including zoning changes and a request in 2019 to convert the property back to Residential that was denied. Ms. Adams then reviewed the proposed minor exterior changes, including relocating the front walkway, moving mechanical equipment, providing a new trash enclosure and bike storage. She also reviewed the parking spaces, proposed new lighting, new kitchen hood venting and changes to the rear porch to comply with ADA access to the ADA lodge unit. Ms. Adams moved on to the requested recommendation to City Council for the Boutique Lodge use. She noted that they had landed on six lodge keys as that would require the least amount of interior changes to the historic resources. She then reviewed the proposed new floor plans. She also went over the Planned Development and noted that as part of the balance of variances and community benefit the owners are ok with the conditions to preserve many of the historic interior finishes. She then detailed the various approval conditions related to the interior finishes and showed a number of interior pictures. Ms. Adams then detailed the history and conditional review criteria of the Boutique Lodge Use that was added to the Land Use Code in 2017. She also reviewed the amenity spaces that will be included as well as the importance of the required management plan and development agreement. She noted that as part of this management plan, there would be an onsite manager to handle all aspects of the Lodge. Ms. Adams finished her presentation by going over the growth management recommendation, noting that they are requesting to pay cash-in-lieu for this requirement. Ms. Thompson asked if they would be required to add an interior sprinkler system for fire suppression. Ms. Adams said that after meeting with the Fire Department, that was not a requirement. Ms. Thompson then asked if they needed fire ratings between units and wondered if that would impact any of the interior wall finishes. Mr. Kurt Hartmann from Forum Phi noted that only new walls would have to have a fire rating. He went over the floor plans to highlight these. Ms. Thomspon then asked about the new front walkway and if its width differed from the existing. There was some discussion about the differences and Ms. Adams noted that they would be reusing the existing sandstone pavers. Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Principal Preservation Planner Ms. White began her presentation by going over the requests in front of HPC, including the Minor Development Review, Commercial Design Review and a recommendation to City Council for Growth Management and Planned Development Review. She noted that while the proposal includes minimal alterations to the historic resource, there is a request to vary the required minimum number of lodge keys from ten to six and that this is in the best interest of the preservation of the resource as it requires no expansions or additions. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 14TH, 2026 Ms. White continued by going over the requests in front of HPC in more detail as outlined in the staff report. She noted that staff were in support of a recommendation to City Council for the Planned Development and Growth Management Quota System and proposed method of housing mitigation. She then reviewed the proposed exterior alterations and noted that these were fairly minimal and met all Historic Preservation Guidelines. She said that staff are in support of the Minor Development Review and Commercial Design Review. She also noted that since the interior of the historic resource is not part of the property’s historic designation staff recommend conditions of approval that speak to preserving significant interior features to formalize the applicant’s intent. Without these conditions in place, the applicant would be able to reconfigure and/or demolish the interior of the resource without preserving any of the existing interior elements. These conditions were included in the draft resolution. Ms. Thompson asked if the project currently meets the parking requirements. Mr. Anderson first described the difference between parking spaces and parking units, noting that parking units can be a mix of spaces and off-site mitigation. He said that currently a lodge of 6 units would require three parking spaces and he went over the history of how this calculation came about. He mentioned the lot split plat note that Ms. Adams referenced and said that it really shouldn’t have been part of the original notation. He noted that today they try to keep plats as clean as possible as anything included on them run with the plat forever. He confirmed that the plat note related to parking requirements still holds and the two spaces meet the required parking. He emphasized that with the property being in the Mixed- Use Zone, if it was not a boutique lodge, it could be a restaurant, office building or some other commercial use building that could have different parking requirements than the proposed use. He reminded the board that the intersection of residential and commercial zone districts happen all over town and impact parking in those areas as well. Public Comment: Ms. Thomspon asked if board members could confirm that they read the public comment emails that were received. All members confirmed this. Mr. Bill Toler introduced himself and noted that he lived at 327 W. Bleeker St. which is directly behind 320 W. Main Street. He then distributed a handout to the HPC members that summarized his remarks (included on page 176 of the 1/14/26 meeting agenda packet found in the City of Aspen Records Portal). He thanked the members for their service and noted that he knew the owner of 320 W Main St. and felt he was a nice person. He then noted that his and his neighbors’ objections to this project were included in the agenda packet. He felt that if HPC were to approve the Boutique Lodge proposal and the reduction in rooms, it would be problematic for affected property owners, including issues with insufficient parking, delivery vehicle access and overall alleyway congestion. He noted that while the building is zoned for commercial office space, since 2018 it has been used by the previous and current owners as personal residential use, including short term rentals, which has provided real world experience into the impacts of a Boutique Lodge. He continued by going over other various concerns as outlined in the handout. Mr. Kevin DeCarlo introduced himself as the property manager at the neighboring Copper Horse. He noted one of his main concerns would be the parking in the back and delivery vehicles potentially blocking the alley. His other concern was the narrow space between the two buildings and how the proposed walkway in that space could deal with drainage and snow removal issues. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 14TH, 2026 Ms. Raymond asked how many employee housing units there were at the Copper Horse. Mr. DeCarlo said there were 13 units. Ms. Pitchford then asked where the residents park and Mr. DeCarlo said they all park in the neighborhood. Ms. Thompson asked if Ms. Adams would like to respond to the public comments. Ms. Adams noted that the current owners had reached out to many of the neighbors when the project was coming together. She also said that she and the owners feel that this is an opportunity to correct many of the previous issues, by having a manager onsite to oversee things and the required management agreement with the City on record to allow enforcement of the regulations related to a lodge use. Ms. Severe asked Ms. Adams to clarify that the ADA access at the back porch would only access the ADA lodge unit and not the rest of the lodge. Ms. Adams confirmed that it would only access the ADA unit. She noted that all other guests would access the lodge through the front door. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson opened the board discussion noting that there were four main topics to go over. She started with the Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development which included the minor exterior changes. She did not have any issues and felt all the proposed changes were within the guidelines. The other commissioners agreed. Ms. Thompson then moved on to the Planned Development review related to the approval of six lodge keys instead of the code required ten. She felt that with the existing building and the benefit of the interior preservation efforts, this was an appropriate request. Most of the members agreed. Ms. Surfas was concerned about how this would be any different from a short-term rental situation. Ms. Thompson noted the management agreement that would have to be filed with the City for the lodge use and that it could be used for enforcement. Mr. Anderson commented that this building is currently a commercial building and that it was not on the City’s enforcement radar as an illegal short-term rental situation. He was not aware of any formal complaints made about short-term rental activity at this address. He noted that the Boutique Lodge was created as a conditional use with many requirements in place to preclude buildings in certain zone districts from being de facto single-family residences. He felt that the question being asked of HPC to recommend was whether there was confidence that the Boutique Lodge provisions would create a product that is completable with the neighborhood. He reminded the commissioners that Main St. is a commercial zone and that many other commercials uses could be in this space. He felt that the preservation of the exterior and interior of this building was the reasoning behind staff’s support for the Planned Development. Mr. Moyer voiced his general concerns about short-term rentals, but felt that by having this be a Boutique Lodge, there would be many more rules and regulations that would prevent many of the issues with short-term rentals. Ms. Severe liked the preservation efforts and was generally ok with the six keys but felt it might be better to have 5 keys with a manager living there full-time. She thought this application was a great way to ensure the preservation of the resource and was in favor of approving it. Ms. Thompson moved on to the request for the affordable housing mitigation to be paid via cash-in-lieu. She felt that this was not something that HPC historically made a recommendation on and felt that they should defer that decision to City Council. The other commissioners agreed. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 14TH, 2026 Ms. Pitchford said that she loved the project in terms of the preservation and was in support of the six keys but still had concerns about the potential parking and alley issues. Ms. Thompson felt that some of those issues could be addressed in the operating agreement that gets worked out between the applicant and the City. She also encouraged the applicant to involve the neighbors in those efforts. Ms. Raymond understood Ms. Pitchford’s concerns about the parking, but felt it was an issue all over town and not just because this lodge may be there. Ms. White noted that it could be appropriate to include comments and concerns in HPC’s recommendation to Council. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series revising condition #1C to include historic transoms and to add #1G to include historic hardware. She added a second condition to Section #1 that the applicant will submit a detailed preservation plan to be reviewed at Final. She also revised Section #3 to say that HPC does not take any formal position on the mitigation method of fee-in- lieu. Finally, she added a third condition to Section #1, stating that any additional historic elements that HPC and the owners agree upon after a site visit will be preserved. Ms. Severe seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0, motion passes. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. White handed out a list of the current Project Monitoring assignments, and the commissioners assigned a few projects that were without a monitor. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. White noted that staff had approved some Certificates of No Negative requests and she went over the details of each. These included: • 214 W. Bleeker St. • 217 W. Bleeker St. • 917 E. Hyman Ave. • 602 E. Hyman Ave. • 520 E. Hyman Ave. • 221 E. Main St. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. White reminded the commissioners of the Permit “Mix and Mingle” that was scheduled for later in the month. CALL UP REPORTS: None ADJOURN: Ms. Raymond moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 14TH, 2026