Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20260325 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 25TH, 2026 Vice Chairperson Raymond opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Duncan Clauss, and Kim Raymond. Absent were Barb Pitchford, Dakota Severe 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 2/25/26. Mr. Clauss seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: None DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: None STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. White reminded the commissioners of the joint work session with City Council to be held on April 13th at 4:00pm. She also noted that there was going to be a site visit to the Pedestrian Mall before the next meeting. 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 both agenda items. OLD BUSINESS: 504 W Hallam St. - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Final Review, Request for Benefits Applicant Presentation: Sarah Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams began her presentation by introducing Mr. Scott Hoffman, the owner of the property, Mr. Steve Novy from Greenline Architects and Mr. Matt Bombard from BlueGreen. She then reviewed the context of the project that was presented at the conceptual review and noted that they were here today for the final review and to finalize the floor area bonus. She went over the various preservation efforts and aspects of the project that were approved at conceptual review. Ms. Adams continued by noting that City Council had recently approved the creation of the two TDRs that HPC had recommended. She also said that the roof form of the connecting element had been updated since conceptual review. She noted that originally it had been a continuous gable from the main house to the new addition, but as a result of feedback received from HPC, had been lowered to REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 25TH, 2026 better delineate old from new. She also noted that, while not increasing the massing of the garage, some floor area for a storage area had been added. Ms. Adams then detailed the landscaping plans, including new street trees, the main entry walkway, and proposed plantings around the property. She also noted that they would be replacing the non-historic fencing with a new steel fence that was inspired by photos of historic fencing in the West End and would also be installing a wooden fence between the neighboring property and along the alley side. Ms. Adams reviewed their lighting plan including entry and walkway lighting. She also reviewed the proposed materials that were presented at conceptual including asphalt roofing for the historic house and standing seam metal for the new addition and connecting element. She also noted that the new addition would be brick. She then reviewed their plans to rebuild the historic front porch and replacement of non-historic windows in the main house. She also reviewed the proposed windows and sliding glass doors on the connecting element and the recreated historic entry door to the landmark, as well as the proposed trellis above the entry door to the new addition. She touched on the proposed paint color for the historic resource, which would be yellow with white trim. Ms. Adams then discussed the Floor Area Bonus that they were requesting. She noted that while it was discussed at the conceptual review, this was to make sure it was officially included in the resolution. She listed the review criteria for the bonus and noted how each was met. Ms. Raymond asked what the roof material for the connecting element was. Ms. Adams said it would be standing seam metal, matching the addition. Ms. Raymond also asked about the new trees to be planted in the right of way along 4th St. Mr. Bombard said they were spring snow crab apple trees. Ms. Raymond thought the number of trees proposed may screen the historic resource from view. She suggested potentially reducing the number of trees. Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Historic Preservation Officer Ms. White began her presentation by reviewing the context of the property and noted that this hearing was for the final review of the project and a requested floor area bonus. She went over the approvals from the conceptual hearing and listed the updates to the project since conceptual review. These included the inclusion of storage space above the garage addition, a change to the roof form of the connecting element, the addition of a small pergola on the addition and the final landscaping, fencing, lighting and material details. She reviewed these new elements and noted that staff was in support of them as outlined in the staff memo. Ms. White then went over the applicant’s request for a 375 square foot floor area bonus and the related review criteria. She noted that staff find that the criteria are met. She also reviewed the current status of the allowable floor area still on the property, considering the two TDRs that City Council had approved. She noted that these numbers were updated from what was included in the draft resolution due to the omission of the proposed additional storage space above the garage. Ms. White concluded by stating that staff was in support of the requests and recommended approval of Resolution #4. She noted that during the entire review process, the applicant had met with staff several times and worked toward a design that met the guidelines and that staff was supportive of. Ms. Surfas mentioned that she was not at the second conceptual hearing but asked about the approved connecting element. Ms. Raymond went over the details of the connecting element and the change to REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 25TH, 2026 the roof form. Ms. Adams reviewed the design and details of the connecting element and concept of restoring the historic footprint of the house. There was a brief discussion of the floor area bonus and how it had been mentioned in the previous conceptual meeting, but never officially requested. Ms. Adams spoke the reasoning for asking for it now. She noted that since they were undergoing the restoration efforts now, it felt that it should be requested in conjunction with those efforts as opposed to asking for it in the future when those efforts were already completed. Public Comment: None Board Discussion: Ms. Raymond started the discussion and asked if there were any comments from the commissioners. No one had any comments. MOTION: Ms. Surfas motioned to approve the resolution with the updated floor area numbers. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. Mr. Clauss was appointed monitor on the project. NEW BUSINESS: 409 South Hunter St. - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and Commercial Design Review Applicant Presentation: Garrett Larimer - Kraemer Land Planning / Brian May – Brian May Architecture and Interiors. Mr. Larimer began his presentation by going over some of the details, location and history of the building which was located in the Commercial Core Historic District and individually designated by City Council in 1992. He noted that the original building went all the way to the rear property line, but in 1950, following several years of vacancy and neglect, the rear of the building collapsed under a snow load. He showed a few historic pictures and noted that the conditions that still exist, including the historic chamfered corner entrance and storefront windows, were most likely from a rehab of the building conducted in the 1960s by Herbert Bayer who owned the building at the time. Mr. Larimer went on to describe the two aspects of the project they are asking for HPC’s review. One was changes to the South Hunter St. façade and the other was changes to the south façade that faces the outdoor patio space to the rear of the building. He showed a picture of the South Hunter St. façade as it exists today including wood paneling and fixed windows. He then showed an elevation of the proposed storefront that would include a double wood door with glass inserts, single pane storefront windows with divided transoms above and wood paneling below the windows. He noted that the design intent behind the storefront restoration was to improve the function of this rear unit of the building as well as to improve the compatibility of this unit with the historic and commercial guidelines as well as the design of the rest of the building. Mr. Larimer then went over some interior improvements and the window and door changes on the south façade. He noted that the interior floor was to be over framed as to match the street level to improve ADA access. He then detailed the window and door changes on the rear of the building. Noting the requested HPC reviews for Minor Development and Commercial Design review, he said that they are proposing to restore a storefront entrance on the street facing façade as currently the only entrance to REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 25TH, 2026 this unit is through the patio. He also noted that they believe this design improves compatibility with Victorian era commercial buildings, provides design consistency across the whole building and improves ADA compliance. Ms. Surfas asked what the South Hunter St. façade looked like originally. Mr. Larimer said that they could not find any historic photos of this façade to reference. He then showed a few pictures and the commissioners discussed what might have existed in the past. Ms. White noted that she did not have any evidence of what might have existed prior to the collapse of the rear of the building. Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Historic Preservation Officer Ms. White started her presentation by reviewing the project and the applicant’s requests for minor review and commercial design review. She showed an aerial image of the property and went over some of the details of the property’s location and history. She showed the 1904 Sanborn map that showed the original building extending to the southern lot line and she further detailed the building’s history as noted the staff memo. Ms. White then went on to describe the proposed scope of work, including changes to windows and doors on the south facing façade as well as the reconfiguration of the Hunter Street façade to include new windows, wood paneling, and new ADA compliant entry. She noted that staff found these alterations to be appropriate and an improvement on existing conditions. She reviewed a 2016 HPC approval for Major Development that never moved forward as noted in the staff memo. She said that the applicant’s proposal to base the new storefront off of the existing northeast corner design will better represent the period of significance of the building. She also noted that staff found that the proposal meets applicable Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines and that it drastically improves ADA access from the street. Ms. White concluded by stating that staff was recommending approval of the resolution with no conditions. Public Comment: None Board Discussion: Ms. Raymond started the discussion and asked if there were any comments from the commissioners. Mr. Moyer thought that since this portion of the building was rebuilt after the collapse, they were not destroying a historical resource but rather enhancing it. He was in favor. Ms. Raymond agreed with Mr. Moyer and staff that this was a huge improvement over the current conditions. She was also in favor. Mr. Clauss also agreed and was in favor. MOTION: Ms. Raymond motioned to approve the resolution as proposed. Mr. Clauss seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Clauss, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Surfas was appointed to be the monitor on the project. ADJOURN: Ms. Raymond moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 25TH, 2026