Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20260225 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25TH, 2026 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Duncan Clauss, Kim Raymond and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Gillian White – Historic Preservation Officer Ben Anderson – Community Development Director Luisa Berne - Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear – Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes of 1/14/26 and 1/28/26. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0 vote, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Raymond noted that she was conflicted on the agenda item and would leave for that portion of the meeting. 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. Ms. Raymond left the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 406 W Smuggler St. - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Final Review and Recommendation for the Establishment of one (1) Transferrable Development Right Certificate Applicant Presentation: Milo Stark – Kim Raymond Architects Mr. Stark began his presentation by briefly reviewing the project from the conceptual review and went over some of the details and context of the property. This included their proposal to remove non- historic additions as well as relocating the historic resource to the southeast corner of the lot to dig a subgrade basement addition. Once complete the resource will be placed back in its historic location. Mr. Stark then reviewed the proposed rear addition and noted that at their continued hearing in October they had come back with a reduction in the mass of the addition and restudied fenestration. He REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25TH, 2026 continued by going over a few other approvals from the conceptual hearings. He noted that the lightwell floor area bonus that was approved allowed the unused area to be served by a TDR. He mentioned that the calculation materials for this request were included in the packet. Mr. Stark moved on to their landscape plan and highlighted many of its features, including new trees, shrubs and perennials as well as a 12-inch gravel border around the historic resource to protect it. He noted that many of the plantings were proposed to screen mechanical equipment, storm water drains another site features. Next Mr. Stark went over the hardscape plan, including details of the walkways to the historic resource and new addition. He also went over the lighting plan for both the historic resource and the new addition. He reiterated that they are still proposing a composite shingle as the roofing material for the historic resource that will replicate a historic wood shingle. He went over some of the product’s specifics. Mr. Stark then described the material pallet for the new addition that would provide a clear visual distinction from the historic resource. He concluded his presentation by noting that through careful demolition, thoughtful relocation, reduced massing and a restrained material pallet, they believe this proposal fully complies with the Historic Preservation Guidelines, protecting the integrity of the historic resource while ensuring the overall development is compatible with the neighborhood context. Mr. Stark passed around the various materials samples and described each of their proposed locations on the historic resource and new addition. Ms. Thompson brought up the gravel border surrounding the historic resource and asked if there was one step up onto the right-hand porch. Mr. Stark said yes. Ms. Thompson also asked about the proposed new deck on the north side of the historic resource and wondered if the gravel border did not go along that edge because there was no historic material there. Mr. Stark said that was correct, but noted that while the border did not go around the new deck, it did go under it and along the historic resource to protect it. Staff Presentation: Ms. White began her presentation by reviewing the context of the site location and noted that there was a slight update to the relocation of the historic resource in order to keep it out of the dripline of a few trees. She also said that the Parks department was onboard with the relocation plan. She then reviewed the various materials proposed for the historic resource and new addition, noting that the applicant is proposing to restore most of the historic materials to the extent possible. She said that the majority of the proposed materials meet the guidelines and she went over the various materials and their proposed locations. Referring to the proposed composite roofing materials, Ms. White said that while the guidelines state that historic materials should not be replaced by synthetic materials, staff understands the difficulties in roofing materials options as they relate to insurance issues and fire safety. Ms. White then reviewed the proposed lighting for the walkways and other various locations on the historic resource and new addition. Ms. White brought up the applicant’s request that the HPC provide a recommendation to City Council for the creation of one TDR and went over the available square footage calculations that resulted in the request for the TDR recommendation. She noted that, if HPC would like the severing of this floor area to REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25TH, 2026 be permanent and not allow future floor area bonus benefits to be requested on this property, it should be included in their recommendation to Council. Ms. White concluded her presentation, noting that staff is recommending approval with the condition included in the draft resolution. This condition related to the approval of replacement materials for historic materials that were found not to be salvageable and was in addition to the approved conditions included in HPC Resolution #11 of 2025. Ms. Thompson asked about the proposed rear deck on the historic resource. Ms. White noted that typically staff would just require wood material and not synthetic, as it is on the historic resource. Public Comment: None. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson opened the board discussion noting that she appreciated the extra details regarding the relocation and shoring plans and well as the comments for the Parks Dept. She was in general support of the project but wanted to discuss the rear deck, roofing materials and the TDR recommendation request. Starting with the rear deck, she said she was struggling with the proposal as it was to be painted wood, similar to the front porches and would be uncovered. She said that HPC had approved these when they are at-grade patios with a step down from the resource. It would be a different material that is not trying to replicate something on the rest of the resource and be consistent with the landscaping. Mr. Moyer felt it was a good idea since it is not part of the original resource, and he would suggest it be made from cement or stone. Ms. Thompson felt the approval of materials for the deck could be a staff and monitor review. Ms. Thompson moved on to the proposed synthetic roofing materials and Mr. Moyer noted that there are two homes that he walks by on occasion that both have synthetic roofs. He said that at street level, you could not really notice they weren’t actual wood. There was some discussion about the irregularity of the installation pattern of traditional wood shingles and that the synthetic options did not fully capture that look. Ms. Thompson felt that they could assign two monitors to this project and ask for a mockup of the roofing materials to be installed and reviewed by staff and the monitors. Regarding the TDR recommendation, Ms. Thompson felt that since the project was already granted the unique lightwell floor area bonus, that any future floor area bonus eligibility should be severed along with the TDR. The rest of the members agreed. Ms. Berne reminded the members that it would just be a part of their recommendation and that even if Council supported the recommendation, a future bonus may still be eligible as it was part of the Code. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the next resolution in the series with the following adjustments. First, the addition of language to Section 2 stating that their recommendation to City Council regarding the establishment of one TDR includes that Council add a condition within the deed restriction to prohibit the potential of a future floor area bonus for the property. Next, the addition of a condition that the rear deck to be restudied in materiality and elevation for review and approval with staff and monitor. A final condition is that a mockup of the proposed synthetic roof materials to be installed on the south facing roof to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25TH, 2026 Mr. Moyer and Ms. Thompson were assigned as monitors. Ms. Raymond reentered the meeting. Discussion on 2026 HPC Goals: Ms. Thompson opened the discussion by noting that they would go over the list of goals to make sure everyone was on the same page and to prioritize items for further development with staff. Ms. White displayed the proposed list that was included in the agenda packet. The commissioners discussed each goal and topic with staff and gave some of their thoughts, comments and direction on each. When it came to the topic of policy and details for building enclosures on historic resources, a subcommittee of Ms. Thompson and Ms. Raymond would continue working with staff. On the topic of creating a maintenance manual for owners of historic resources, there was an agreement that help on this could be outsourced to a consultant. Mr. Anderson noted that there was an opportunity for the HPC to be included in a joint work session with City Council. He said that staff had already scheduled the Planning & Zoning Commission to meet with City Council and that the Mayor had suggested that HPC be involved as well. All the members agreed it would be a good idea. ADJOURN: Ms. Raymond moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk