Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20260211 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11TH, 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, Duncan Clauss, Kim Raymond and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Daniel Folke – Planning Director Luisa Berne - Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear – Deputy City Clerk Ben Anderson – Community Development Director MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Pitchford commented on the very short notice of the site visit. Mr. Folke apologized for the short notice and noted that staff would better coordinate site visits moving forward. There was some further discussion about the scheduling of site visits. Mr. Moyer commented on the increase in corporate ownership of residential properties in resort communities around the country. He was concerned that this trend leads to losing families and a sense of community in town as well as the properties potentially being neglected. He hoped that the City Council would be aware of this and how it is affecting Aspen. He gave some examples of this in town and felt that HPC should potentially send a letter to City Council asking that they look into what could be done about this. Mr. Anderson responded by noting that the trends Mr. Moyer highlighted may have begun happening in Aspen before many other places. He said that staff have been attempting to respond to these dynamics for a while now, through regulations and other tools at their disposal. He noted that these topics were something on City Council’s mind. Ms. Berne also noted that it is very difficult to restrict who can own property. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None STAFF COMMENTS: None CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None CALL UP REPORTS: None SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Berne confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item. NEW BUSINESS: 212 N. Monarch St. - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review, Relocation, and Benefits. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11TH, 2026 Applicant Presentation: Garrett Larimer – Kramer Land Planning / Brian May – Brian May Architecture & Interiors Mr. Larimer began his presentation by reviewing some details of the property and its location. Displaying a survey of the lot he pointed out a steep hillside at the rear of the property, the driveway and locations of existing trees. He then went over the history of the property and historic resource, including the voluntary historic designation in 1981 and noted previous HPC actions. These included the approval of the gravel driveway and the 2021 approval of the issuance of two TDRs, severing 500 square feet of floor area. He moved on to their plans and requests of HPC. These included the removal of non-historic additions, the restoration of the front porch, creation of a basement addition and an above grade addition at the rear of the resource and restoration of the historic resource. Mr. Larimer noted that based on staff comments regarding their rear yard setback variation request, they would be willing to pull the subgrade space back to meet the existing rear yard setback but are still requesting a north side yard setback variation. He showed a site plan highlighting the various setbacks. Next, he went over the details of the removal of non-historic additions and showed a picture from the 1950s showing the historic massing of the structure and noted that elevation drawings included in the packet highlighted the non-historic additions proposed for removal. He also detailed the proposed restoration of the front porch and realignment of the front walkway. Mr. Larimer noted that currently the basement is just a crawl space and he detailed their proposal to create a full height basement addition by removing the existing stone foundation, excavating for the new space and pouring new foundation walls. He noted that the historic resource would be lifted in place during this work and then set back down in its historic location. He then went on to describe the new one-story addition to the rear of the resource and went over some of the design features and concepts, including the roof form. He showed a street facing elevation that highlighted the resource in blue and the new addition to the rear in orange. He also went over the details of the proposed restoration of architectural details of the historic resource, including the historic horizontal wood siding and scalloped siding between the first and second levels, historic doors and windows, and decorative ridge cap. Mr. Larimer then brought up the historic design guidelines and noted that they really used them to drive and dictate their overall design and that they were mostly in agreement with staff’s findings and perspective of compliance with the guidelines. He went over some of the reasons why they felt the various guidelines were met regarding the historic resource and new rear addition. He then moved on to the requested benefit of the 250 square foot floor area bonus. He pointed out that the deed restriction that was recorded when the two TDRs were created in 2021 stated that the severing of development rights through TDRs does not preclude other benefits from being requested or received. He then detailed the criteria that needed to be met related to the floor area bonus request and noted that they feel all these have been met. He also noted the setback variation requests they are proposing and showed a chart of the required and requested setback dimensions. Ms. Thompson asked about a perceived discrepancy between the renderings and the historic photos regarding the spacing of the front porch posts. Mr. Larimer noted that the intention for the restoration is to match the historic photos. Ms. Thompson also asked if they had opened up any of the interior walls to see if there was any historic framing for the hip roof. Mr. Larimer noted that there is an attic space under that roof area and that after an initial site visit with staff, historic framing does exist. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11TH, 2026 Ms. Raymond asked if any mechanical equipment would be in the setbacks. Mr. Larimer said that there wasn’t anything planned at the moment, but it would be further studied and brought back at final review. Ms. Pitchford asked what was to happen with the historic foundation materials when they excavate the basement and pour a new foundation. Mr. Larimer noted that the materials would be salvaged and used to create a veneer that would be applied to the new foundation wall so that the appearance would be of the historic foundation. Ms. Pitchford followed up, asking if the current historic foundation was proven to be unstable and in need of replacing. Mr. Larimer noted that a structural engineer had been out to the site, and they found that the current foundation would need to be replaced due to the proposed new basement. Ms. Pitchford then asked about the 10-foot connecting element that the guidelines call for to separate the new addition from the historic resource. Mr. Larimer noted that in his reading of the guidelines, a connecting element was only required when the new addition was more than one story. Ms. Pitchford also wanted to know the height of the new addition and historic resource. Mr. Larimer noted that the addition was 18 feet and 9 inches in total height and the height of the historic resource was about 29 feet. Mr. Moyer asked if there had been any insurance issues related to what the roof material may be and whether they had considered including any wrought iron fencing on the property, similar to the sections that still exist on the property. Mr. Larimer said that insurance was an issue in regard to the roof material and that they could consider potential wrought iron fencing. Mr. Clauss asked Mr. Larimer to go over the changes they had made to the rear foundation wall as it related to the rear yard setbacks. Mr. Larimer detailed the changes, noting that the foundation wall would be pulled back to meet the current setback requirements. Ms. Raymond asked if they could speak to the three elements of relatability, namely fenestration, materials and form. Mr. Larimer mentioned that they were relating to form and materials. He noted the roof form of the new addition relating to the hip roof on the resource and that the materials on the addition were to be similar wood siding to the resource but oriented vertically to be more of a product of its own time. Staff Presentation: Daniel Folke – Planning Director Mr. Folke began his presentation by reviewing some of the context of the property by showing an ariel photo of the lot and surrounding neighborhood. He went over the various requests in front of HPC, including the major conceptual development, relocation, setback variations and the floor area bonus benefit. He displayed several artist renderings of the proposed project from various directions and described the different elements of the restoration and new addition. Mr. Folke moved on to the site plan and went over the variation request for the garage portion of the new addition and noted that staff was in support of the requested side yard setback variation as it was a benefit to the historic resource by allowing some separation between the driveway and the home. He also went over the relocation request to lift the home and excavate a full basement and he detailed the related criteria. He agreed with the applicant that the existing historic foundation was not failing, but its removal was based on the desire to dig and create a basement. He moved on to the requested variations and noted that staff was supportive of the side yard setback variation as previously stated and was pleased that the applicant had removed the subgrade encroachment into the rear setback, but would rather they come with a design for the new addition that REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11TH, 2026 fit within the existing setbacks without requiring any above grade variations. He described the specific dimensions of the requested setback variation requests. He also detailed the floor area calculations, including the requested floor area bonus and noted that the square footage of the new addition was less than the historic resource. He addressed the issue of the floor area bonus related to the previously created TDRs. He reiterated that the code does allow any TDR sending sites to still be eligible for any benefits and bonuses allowed to historically designated landmark properties. He showed a slide of the floor area bonus criteria and noted that staff felt that this project met those criteria and were recommending the bonus be approved. He concluded his presentation by displaying the recommended conditions of approval in the draft resolution and going over each. Ms. Raymond asked about criteria D for the floor area bonus and Mr. Folke described staff’s findings of this criterion and why they felt it was met. Ms. Pitchford asked about the historic foundation and wondered why it seemed to be ok to destroy it when it wasn’t failing. Ms. Thompson noted that she had read in the staff memo that the historic foundation materials were to be reapplied as a veneer to the new foundation wall so as to be visually consistent with the historic appearance. Ms. Raymond noted that HPC had approved this method on numerous similar projects in the West End. Mr. Moyer asked if Mr. Folke was familiar with the previous owner’s intent when they served square footage through the creation of the TDRs. Ms. Berne stepped in and noted that whatever the previous owner’s intent was related to the TDRs, it should have been put into the deed restriction. She said that the deed restriction is clear that the property would still be eligible for all benefits and bonuses. She stressed that it was not HPC’s role to go back and try to infer someone’s intent. Mr. Moyer then asked why staff did not require a connecting element between the historic resource and the new addition. Ms. Thompson read preservation guideline 10.9 that notes only additions that are taller than the resource are required to have a connecting element. 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. Bert Myrin introduced himself and noted that he was a next-door neighbor. He went over his concerns with the proposed setback variation requests, noting he felt the northeast corner that is closest to his property was pretty tight. He also referenced the survey and stated his concerns for the root ball and dripline of one of the evergreen trees on a neighboring property that overlaps the proposed site plan for this project. He referenced several pages in the agenda packet that highlighted this tree’s location. He then referenced the possibility of opening up the existing City alley and felt that it would allow the addition to be shifted to the south, creating better access and protecting some of the existing trees. Mr. Walt Madden stated he was Mr. Myrin’s husband and was also the next-door neighbor to this property. He detailed some of the history surrounding the neighboring alley and City Council’s concerns and thoughts about opening it to Monarch St. He felt it might be an appropriate time to consider opening it up, to allow this project to shift so it would not not encroach on his property or require variations. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11TH, 2026 Mr. John Markalunas noted that he had lived in town for a long time and he thanked the HPC for their work. He commented on the proposed project and felt the new addition was out of character and scale for the neighborhood. He noted that he knew the previous owners very well and felt that their intent was to keep the house the same. He commented that the existing foundation was still intact. He implored HPC to do what they could to preserve Aspen. Ms. Lisa Markalunas stated that she was an Aspen native and had been a member of the HPC in the early 2000s. She felt that the historic fabric of Aspen was being gutted by one construction project after another and it was all about maximizing everything. She also felt the previous owner’s intent was to always protect the home. She felt that the restoration efforts did not warrant the floor area bonus and that the new addition was not compatible with the historic resource. She also felt that the current owners were not good stewards of the property. Mr. Moyer asked staff about the roof form on the new addition as it was shown to steeply pitch toward the historic resource and he wondered about snow load and drainage. Mr. Folke noted that staff had not discussed it but acknowledge the potential issue. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson opened the board discussion by reviewing the relocation request. She felt the related criteria were met as the relocation was to lift the house in place and dig the new basement. Ms. Raymond agreed with Ms. Thompson that the relocation in place was appropriate. She also felt that HPC needed to be consistent with previous relocation approvals to dig basements. She did acknowledge the dramatic changes to town over the years but also felt the new owners had purchased the property and were proposing what they wanted to do. She noted that they were going to keep the house looking the same from the outside. Ms. Surfas and Mr. Moyer were also supportive of the relocation as planned as long as it was just lifted and then set back in place. Ms. Pitchford was not in support of the relocation and felt that in previous approvals that she had been involved with there was a need to stabilize the existing foundation which necessitated the lifting and relocation. Mr. Clauss felt the proposed relocation was consistent with other requests that had been granted. Ms. Thompson moved on to the new addition and related floor area bonus and felt that projects requesting a floor area bonus should be held to a higher standard. She did not feel at the moment that the proposed addition warrants consideration for a bonus. She felt that it was really a one and a half story addition that did not have any relation to form of the historic resource and did not engage with it. She also felt that for a floor area bonus to be considered, the massing needs to be reduced so that at least one side of the addition is not visible. Mr. Moyer did not support the bonus or the new addition as it was designed. He would be ok if the addition was reduced so as to not protrude on either side of the resource and that it had a connecting link. Ms. Pitchford noted that while she understood the code related to the issuance of TDRs not affecting the ability to request bonuses, but felt it did not make any sense, since the idea of TDRs was to sterilize the property. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11TH, 2026 Ms. Thompson felt that a floor area bonus was a benefit that could be granted to entice owners to actively participate in the preservation and restoration of their properties. Ms. Surfas felt they needed to focus on the addition, and she did not feel it was currently in a place where she could approve it. She felt it was too big and that one side or the other needed to be reduced. Referring to the guidelines, she did not feel the addition allowed the original proportions and character of the resource to remain. She also agreed that the addition was not really one story and felt that compatibility to the historic resource was a stretch for her. Ms. Raymond also agreed on the new addition and felt the roof was not compatible because it was too tall and made the massing appear too large. She suggested a much more simple roof form. She also did not like the addition sticking out on both sides but was ok with the garage side. She felt it could be made more subordinate to the resource as currently it draws too much attention. Mr. Clauss also agreed about the addition sticking out on both sides and felt that was his main issue. Ms. Pitchford was confused why other HPC members were ok with the removal of the historic foundation and noted that typically if a historic wall exists, it is required to stay and be worked around. Ms. Thompson felt that it allowed subgrade development that they would not see. Ms. Surfas responded that while guideline 2.1 calls for the preservation of historic materials, they were planning on reusing the historic foundation materials as a veneer. Ms. Pitchford stressed that her job was historic preservation and that in many instances it felt that they were asked to bend to the applicant’s wishes and accommodate them. While she noted that she would be motioning for a continuation, Ms. Thompson addressed a few conditions in the draft resolution. First, she felt the financial assurance should be raised to $60K. She also wanted to make sure the preservation plan included both excavation and stabilization plans and asked the applicant to further study, with the City’s Parks department, the root systems of a few of the surrounding trees on the north side of the property. She also wanted the restoration of the front porch to be reviewed by staff and monitor so that it is accurate to historic photos. Ms. Thompson said that the commission would take a short break to allow the applicant to determine what date they would prefer the meeting to be continued to. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to continue the meeting to April 8th, 2026. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair: Ms. Berne introduced the Election item and went over the process and the various voting options. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to retain Ms. Thompson as Chair and Ms. Raymond as Vice-Chair. Ms. Surfas seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11TH, 2026