Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20260408AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 8, 2026 4:30 PM, City Council Chambers - 3rd Floor 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 I.SITE VISIT II.ROLL CALL III.MINUTES III.A Draft Minutes - 3/11/26 IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VII.PROJECT MONITORING VIII.STAFF COMMENTS IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED X.CALL UP REPORTS XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XII.SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT XIII.OLD BUSINESS XIII.A 212 N. Monarch St. – Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review, Relocation, and Benefits. HPC Site Visit - Aspen Pedestrian Mall at 12:00pm on 4/8/26 Meeting place will be at the Dancing Fountain across from the Wheeler Opera House minutes.hpc.20260311_DRAFT.docx 1 1 The applicant has requested an additional continuance to June 24th to allow for more time to work on the updated design based on direction from the HPC. XIV.NEW BUSINESS XIV.A Work Session Project Specific Questions on Pedestrian Mall Brick XIV.B Discussion on Best Practices for Quasi - Judicial Boards XV.ADJOURN XVI.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER PedMallBrickMemo.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 MARCH 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, Dakota Severe, Duncan Clauss, Kim Raymond and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Gillian White – Historic Preservation Officer Daniel Folke – Planning Director Luisa Berne - Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear – Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes of 2/11/26. 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 vote, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer said he had heard that there was a conversation with City Council about the stalled projects in town. Mr. Folke noted that Ben Anderson, the Community Development Director, and Bonnie Muhigirwa, the Chief Building Official, presented the topic to City Council at the most recent Council work session. He said that it was a good conversation that focused on reasons some projects can stall out and potential ways to address the issue. He described a few of these potential options and noted that he would share the staff memo from the presentation with the HPC members. There was some discussion about the limits of what the City can require a property owner to do and how the timing of acting on building permits and vested rights. PROJECT MONITORING: None STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Folke updated the HPC on their upcoming meeting schedule including a potential joint work session with City Council on April 13th. He reviewed a few potential topics that could be discussed at the work session. There was some discussion about these potential topics, and which would be most important to prioritize. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None CALL UP REPORTS: 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. 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. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 11TH, 2026 NEW BUSINESS: 500 W Francis St. - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review, Relocation, and Benefits. Applicant Presentation: Milo Stark – Kim Raymond Architects Mr. Stark began his presentation by stating that contrary to other applications before them, this project would not be proposing to add an abundance of above grade mass. Rather they are proposing to remove 430 square feet of non-historic additions and add a modest garage and transparent connecting element. He noted some of the history of the historic Victorian home and carriage house and listed a few of the modifications that had occurred over the years, including the loss of its historic roof cresting and replacement of historic doors and windows. He noted the changes to the carriage house as well. He said that they plan to restore the Victorian and carriage house back to their historic conditions and listed some of the restoration efforts. Next, Mr. Stark noted that the removal of the non-historic additions to the carriage house will allow it to be brought back to its historic mass and character and allow the creation of a modest two car garage. He said this would be visually insubordinate to the main Victorian and located away from public views. He described more of the garage’s characteristics and noted that it complies with the chapter 10 guidelines for new structures and had been further reduced in height since the agenda packet had been published. He then described their proposed T-shaped linking element that would unify the three structures into a single-family home. It would be largely transparent, intentionally minimal in size and screened by landscaping. He further described the linking element’s features and functionality. Mr. Stark moved on to the relocation request and noted that the existing stone foundation has likely reached the end of its serviceable life and would be inadequate for modern structural improvements. He described their proposal to lift the historic resource in place to allow for the demolition of the existing foundation, excavation and construction of a new foundation and subgrade level. He noted that the existing historic stone foundation would be salvaged and used to create a stone veneer applied to the new foundation wall in order to maintain the visual character. He then went over the large subgrade living space and required egress window wells of which there would be two. He noted the location of the wells and the reasoning behind their size. He concluded by reviewing what had been presented so far and went over the various approval requests, including the garage and linking element, required setback variations and the floor area bonus benefit resulting from the large central lightwell exemption. Ms. Berne informed the commissioners that since the reduction in height of the garage was not included in the packet, nor reviewed by staff, it could not be considered in their discussion or decisions. Ms. Surfas asked about the central lightwell and wondered if it would have a surrounding railing. Mr. Stark noted that it would have a wall coming up about two feet and would then be screened by landscaping and did not require a railing. Ms. Thompson asked if they had opened any walls to investigate if any historic framing existed in the carriage house. Mr. Stark said they had and noted that nominal lumber was found. Ms. Thompson then addressed the historic roof pitch of the carriage house and asked if they plan on keeping the existing pitch. Mr. Stark noted that it appears that at some point the roof pitch was increased to allow for a garage door on the carriage house and without evidence of other framing, they were proposing to keep the existing pitch. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 11TH, 2026 Mr. Moyer noted that historically when an addition was put on a carriage house, it did not match the existing roof pitch but rather stepped down to a lower roof leaving a small section of the existing wall exposed, as noticeable in one of the historic pictures shown in the presentation. He asked if the applicant would consider showing that wall section to restore the original character and two roof sections. Mr. Stark said yes, they would consider it. Ms. Thompson asked if they proposed changing how the grade of the lot meets the house or carriage house. Mr. Stark said grading would most likely have to change to meet current stormwater requirements. Ms. Thompson also asked how deep the green roof would be on the subgrade living space that extended outside the footprint of the historic resource. Mr. Stark described the proposed pan decks over the space and noted that the media would be 12-16 inches as required. Mr. Moyer asked about the proposed veneer that was to be created for the historic stone foundation. Mr. Stark said it would be about 2-3 inches, to which Mr. Moyer asked if it could be thicker. Mr. Stark said it was possible but would reduce the amount of space for the new walls to sit on the new foundation. Ms. Thompson asked if the window on the north wall of the historic resource and proposed to be removed for the linking element was historic. Mr. Stark said they did not believe so. Mr. Moyer asked if they could eliminate the linking element by connecting the structures using the subgrade space. Mr. Stark said that it would probably not work since they do not have a way of getting up and down from the garage. Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Historic Preservation Officer Ms. White began her presentation by listing the requested approvals and noted the site visit that occurred earlier that day. She reviewed the property’s location and history, noting the details of the historic lot split that occurred in 2007. She then went over the scope of work proposed including the demolition of non-historic additions, creation of a new garage addition to the carriage house, in place relocation of both historic resources to build a setback-to-setback basement level and the restoration of the historic resources. She also noted the applicant’s requests for setback variations and floor area bonus via the lightwell exemption. She then listed the requested approvals and their associated reviews and criteria and went over each as detailed in the staff memo. She noted that the proposed connecting link, while not required by the guidelines or code, was a desire of the property owner. She noted that while it was minimal in width and transparent in materials, its inclusion prevents the proposal from meeting the floor area bonus criteria. She said that the HPC should discuss whether the connecting element was appropriate and noted that a condition was included in the draft resolution that the connecting link not be approved. Ms. White then described the applicant’s proposals for the carriage house and composite roof materials proposed for the historic resource and went over staff’s responses as detailed in the staff memo. She then went over the requested setback variations that are in five locations. She noted that three of these are proposed in order to memorialize the existing footprints of the historic resources and that staff was in support of these requests. Next, she described the two requested subgrade variations, noting that staff felt a setback-to-setback basement was more than a reasonable amount of space for modern living and was not supportive of these variation requests given that they are unnecessary and do not mitigate an adverse impact on the resources. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 11TH, 2026 Ms. White then reviewed the requested floor area bonus via the lightwell exemption as outlined in the staff report, noting that this bonus was necessary for the proposed new massing, but a smaller addition would not require the bonus. She also reviewed the criteria that must be met to be considered for this bonus and said that while staff find the criteria for the lightwell exemption to be met, not all of the required floor area bonus criteria are being met, as outlined in the staff report. She noted that since the required criteria are not met, staff are unable to support the floor area bonus for the lightwell exemption. Ms. White then went over the proposed relocation request to lift the historic resource and carriage house in place to dig a new basement and create a new foundation. She noted that if the relocation is approved, the existing historic foundation would be removed and applied as a veneer on the new foundation walls as discussed by Mr. Stark. She concluded her presentation by noting that if the HPC chooses to approve the resolution, staff have provided recommended conditions of approval that are included in the agenda packet. Mr. Moyer felt that the exiting historic limestone block foundation was irreplaceable and wondered why Ms. White did not comment more on the proposal to cut them up to create a veneer for the new foundation. Ms. White responded that in her experience, details of relocation have not been discussed to that extent and when she has noted these details, they have been disregarded. She noted that if Mr. Moyer felt that the stone should be reused in its entirety, that could be a condition of approval. Public Comment: Laura Maggos noted that she is a neighbor of the project but said that she was here speaking on behalf of another neighbor, Ms. Jan Blaich. She distributed copies of a letter from Ms. Blake to each commissioner (pages 167 & 168 of the agenda packet). The commissioners took a moment to read the letter. Mr. Jonathan Fienberg stated that he was the applicant’s real estate broker and wanted to respond to the letter from Ms. Blaich. He noted that the intent of the applicant is not to rent the property short term but to fix it and bring it up to modern standards. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson started the discussion by noting that she appreciated that the proposed development is much more minimal than they typically see. She said she was getting hung up on a few things. One was the proposed removal of a small window to facilitate the linking element as it was unknown whether it was historic or not. She was also not sure if the linking element should exist at all given what they would like to see preserved if historic. She felt they should further discuss the roof slope on the carriage house that was brought up by Mr. Moyer. She felt that recreating that element as well as the removal of the non-historic roof gable on the porch above the front door would be examples of more significant restoration efforts that would get them closer to potentially consider a floor area bonus. Ms. Surfas asked for some more details on the lightwell exemption. Ms. White further explained the floor area calculations related to large lightwells that meet certain criteria and noted that it was more of a floor area calculation exemption. Mr. Stark also explained the floor area calculations related to the exposed wall area of the lightwell. Mr. Moyer said that he was not opposed to the proposed roof material but was not in favor of the connecting link to the main house. As for the foundation, he said he was dramatically opposed to the removal of the historic foundation stones and cutting them up to make a veneer, as veneers can fall off 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 11TH, 2026 over time and cannot be replaced. He wondered if there was a technique that could be utilized to maintain the stone foundation as is. He also felt that the proposed garage was too similar to the house and the materials should be more differentiated. He was not opposed to the lightwell or the bonuses as the floor area would be subgrade. He said he was not sure how to handle the proposed connecting link from the garage to the carriage house. Related to the carriage house, he felt the roof form of the shed should be restored to match the wall break between the two roofs shown in the historic photos. He also addressed the public comment letter that was submitted and noted that any potential short-term rental of the property was not in HPC’s purview. Ms. Pitchford appreciated the restoration efforts on the main house but was struggling with the connecting element and could not support it. She was also not in favor of increasing the floor area even though it was subgrade. Ms. White responded to clarify that the floor area bonus, while coming from the lightwell space, was being used above grade. Ms. Thompson felt that the floor area was being used in the total floor area of the project and not specifically above or below grade. Ms. White responded that if the floor area bonus was not granted, the above grade massing could not be as big as proposed. Ms. Pitchford also agreed with Mr. Moyer about the historic foundation block as it was part of the historic material and framed the house. She felt it didn’t need to be demolished. She understood the functionality of the proposed connecting element but did not feel it met the guidelines and that it detracted from the project. She was also not in favor of the floor area bonus as well as the requested setback variations for the subgrade space. Mr. Clauss agreed with Ms. Pitchford about the restoration efforts as well as comments on the proposed materials for the garage. He was also struggling with the proposed connecting element as by code they could create a linking element between the garage and carriage house, separating those two. He also said that the lightwell and floor area bonus made sense to him. Ms. Severe did not like the proposed linking element and was also in favor of recreating the break in the roof line on the carriage house as mentioned by Mr. Moyer. She noted that she had not seen stone veneers weather well in other environments and felt the blocks should be preserved. She was also not in favor of granting the floor area bonus as she did not think it was necessary. She did, however, appreciate the preservation efforts and would be in favor of the composite roofing materials. She commented that she always thought the historic fencing to be a signature piece of the property and favored keeping it. She did mention that she would be ok with a linking element from the garage to the carriage house, but not to the main house. Ms. Surfas was in favor of the preservation efforts on the main house as well but felt the connecting element from the historic house to the historic carriage house did not work and would be confusing to someone walking by to distinguish. She felt the idea of a connecting element was to connect a new addition to the historic house. She also felt a connecting element from the garage to the carriage house would be ok. She was also in favor of the setback variation requests to memorialize the historic location of the house and carriage house but would deny the other requests. She found the one central lightwell a unique idea and felt it was better than multiple smaller ones scattered around the property. She said that if they could utilize the lightwell without the floor area bonus, she would be in favor of that. She was ok with the composite roofing materials, but did not see how the new garage, as seen from West Francis, related to the historic property. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 11TH, 2026 Ms. Thompson said that she had no conceptual issues with the lightwell being used as egress but noted the criteria for the lightwell floor area bonus, as listed in Attachment D of the agenda packet and agreed with staff that not all of those are met. She highlighted criteria C that states that the “project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above grade.” She stressed that these are not guidelines, but code criteria that she did not feel comfortable waving them for a floor area bonus. She said that she may be ok with a connecting element without a bonus but felt the two issues contradict each other. She felt it was either the linking element or the bonus but not both. There was some agreement on this and that it was a choice that was ultimately up to the applicant. Ms. Thompson did not feel the massing above grade was too large and was appropriate. She agreed with Mr. Moyer that the form, fenestration and materials on the garage addition were currently very consistent with the existing historic structures and that some differentiation was needed. Ms. Thompson also understood Ms. Pitchford and Mr. Moyer’s comments about the foundation materials being used as a veneer but felt HPC had historically approved of this method on other projects. She was struggling with saying no for this project as it allows the applicant to build below grade, reducing the amount of square footage above grade. Mr. Moyer said that in his years on the commission, he could not recall an application that proposed this method. There was some brief discussion about what owners of historic properties should be allowed to do in balancing livability of the property and preserving historic materials. Ms. Pitchford wondered if one could dig out a basement without disturbing or destroying the historic foundation. Mr. Clauss felt the precedent would be hard to reverse. The commissioners considered if they would want to require a minimum thickness of the veneer. Regarding the setback variation requests, Ms. Thompson agreed with staff. The other commissioners also agreed. Ms. Thompson also thought a more detailed relocation plan than what was in the application should be submitted before building permit but acknowledged that it would most likely need to be reviewed again on site with staff and monitor once demolition uncovered the structural details. There was consensus that the financial assurance bond amount related to the relocation should be increased to $60K and a separate $15k bond be required for the carriage house. Ms. Thompson wanted to confirm that the commissioners all felt that the roof form on the carriage house should be restored to match the historic photo that was presented including the step down and wall exposure. After an explanation of the existing framing in that area of the carriage house’s roof by Mr. Stark, Ms. Thompson would agree with staff that if it is historic material in the reframed position that it be left as is. There was a brief discussion between the commissioners and Mr. Stark about the garage addition and how it relates to the historic resource. Some commissioners felt, at least from the renderings presented, that it looked too similar to the historic resource in materials and potentially color. There was some more discussion on ways to better differentiate it, including potentially a change to the roof form or siding orientation. Mr. Stark brought up the floor area bonus section of the Land Use Code and noted that they had prepared an alternative solution that would satisfy the code language. Ms. Berne noted that since staff had yet to review or give comments regarding this option and that it was also not noticed in the agenda packet, it would be inappropriate to discuss it at this meeting. She reminded the commission that only 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 11TH, 2026 information submitted to staff in a timely manner, reviewed by staff and included in the published agenda packet, could be considered during this meeting. Mr. Stark noted that he had heard varied feedback from commissioners regarding whether to pursue the linking element or the floor area bonus and requested some clarity to move forward with. Ms. Thompson said that it would be very easy for her to say yes to the floor area bonus if there was no linking element. The rest of the commissioners agreed. Ms. Surfas said that it was the linking of the historic main house to the historic carriage house that was the issue to her. She would be ok with a linking element between the historic carriage house and the new garage, as that was what they typically see and how the linking element is supposed to work. Ms. Thomspon said that keeping the two historic structures detached was a high priority outcome for the Historic Preservation Guidelines. There was some discussion about when the next available meeting date would be for continuance. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to continue the hearing to May 27th, 2026. Ms. Severe seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Severe seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 9 MEMO TO: Aspen’s Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer, Principal Planner THROUGH: Dan Folke, Planning Director Ben Anderson, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: April 8, 2026 SUBJECT: Work Session Project Specific Questions on Pedestrian Mall Brick ______________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this discussion is to provide the HPC with information on the city’s dwindling historic brick reserves and for staff to get feedback on the proposed replacement material and patterning for the Pedestrian Mall. While discussions on the larger Pedestrian Mall area design will be coming to the HPC at a later date, there are existing projects that require brick replacement to close out the projects and the city is unable to provide enough brick given the current reserves. This discussion will largely speak to an existing project at 434 East Cooper Avenue that involves necessary utility updates that impact portions of the existing brick within the Pedestrian Mall ROW. 10 HISTORIC PED MALL BRICK April 8, 2026 AGENDA Bidwell project and request Upcoming Wheeler node security project Ongoing maintenance needs Current stockpile of brick The dilemma and thesis 2020 Pedestrian Mall schematic design Wagner alley Questions and discussion about approach BIDWELL PROJECT Historic Brick - 4,000 sf WHEELER NODE SECURITY Historic Brick – 1,200 sf CURRENT STOCKPILE 42 pallets, 380 bricks per pallet 16,000 bricks remaining, 4.5 bricks per square foot Waste allowance 10% (cutting and compromised bricks) Total coverage with existing bricks – 3,200 sf WHEELER NODE BRICK Anticipated salvage rate – 0-20% DILEMMA: We are approaching a critical supply shortage of historic brick which puts us at risk of a fractured, inconsistent patchwork that devalues our ped malls. THESIS: Implementing a thoughtful approach will allow us to maximize our dwindling reserves, ensuring a cohesive standard. PEDESTRIAN MALL SCHEMATIC DESIGN PEDESTRIAN MALL SCHEMATIC DESIGN PEDESTRIAN MALL SCHEMATIC DESIGN PEDESTRIAN MALL SCHEMATIC DESIGN WAGNER ALLEY BRICK STUDY WAGNER ALLEY BRICK STUDY WAGNER ALLEY BRICK STUDY WAGNER ALLEY 7-to-8 -month lead time for brick QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION At some point, there will be a change. What is the full potential of the Bidwell project as it relates to brick paving and broader mall standards? Given that we do not have pallets of the smooth red Egyptian brick used in the Wheeler node, what material characteristics should guide decisions at this node and others, such as color range, surface texture, and laying pattern? Does the Schematic Design recommendation to consolidate brick types provide a viable and defensible path forward for Bidwell and potentially other locations? What is the recommended approach for establishing and implementing a contemporary brick standard that respects historic context while acknowledging material constraints, preservation and accessibility? Cost impacts of delaying a decision.