Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20260422 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 22ND, 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, Kim Raymond, and Kara Thompson. Absent was Duncan Clauss. Staff present: Gillian White – Historic Preservation Officer Luisa Berne - Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear – Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Thompson wanted the minutes of the 4/8/26 meeting to reflect the HPC’s request that the Parks Department come back with a more detailed brick plan for the Wheeler node. She then motioned to approve the minutes of 3/25/26 & 4/8/26 with the addition to the 4/8/26 minutes. Ms. Severe seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Raymond suggested that the HPC hold a work session on roofing materials as it has been a common topic of discussion lately and the HP staff has seen a lot of requests for new roofs. She felt that the HPC could potentially come up with a few options that could be administratively approved going forward. There was some discussion about when the work session could be scheduled. Ms. Thomspon felt that the recent work session with City Council went well. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: None STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. White noted that there was going to be a City Council work session regarding updates on the Armory project to be held on May 4th, 2026. 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 all agenda items. NEW BUSINESS: 620 W Bleeker St. - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development Applicant Presentation: Grant Bankston – Charles Cunniffe Architects Mr. Bankston began his presentation by noting that a few members from the Aspen Historical Society were in the audience. He said that they were here today to request HPC’s approval for two maintenance and repair projects and he gave some context of the property and location. He noted that the first REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 22ND, 2026 request was to replace the entire roof of the main museum building. The request was to replace the existing cedar shingles with a new composite shingle product from EcoStar. He showed a sample of the product and went over some details and properties of it. He said that they felt the details of the product really go to preserving the historic character of the building. He continued describing the product and passed a sample around. He addressed staff’s concerns about the glossiness of the product but felt that this product had a more natural appearance than alternative options like EnviroShingle. He also described the advantages of this product over a traditional cedar wood shingle in terms of durability, sustainability and fire resistance. Next, Mr. Bankston detailed their request to repair portions of the historic porch railings that have been deteriorating over time. He noted that they would be repaired to match the existing railings. Mr. Moyer asked if the roof was currently leaking. Mr. Travis McDiffett, the facilities manager at the museum, said a significant hole was patched in 2024 that had been leaking. He did note that they are losing shingles in almost every windstorm. Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Historic Preservation Officer Ms. White began by reviewing some context and history of this historically designated property located in the West End. She noted that staff was not supportive of the request to replace the existing cedar shingle roof with the proposed synthetic shingle as it does not fully meet the applicable preservation design guidelines, given its reflectivity and dimensions. She did note that the sample she inspected on site was not the sample presented today, so there may be some differences. She said that staff have provided a few potential conditions of approval related to the roof material with one being that the material be the EnviroShingle that has been previously approved by HPC, another option for materials to be approved by staff and monitor and another to require asphalt shingles. She also noted that currently there does not seem to be a composite material option on the market that meets all applicable guidelines and some balance needs to be considered for each. Ms. White noted that staff felt the proposal to repair the damaged porch railings meets preservation design guidelines as outlined in chapter 5 and were supportive of the request. Public Comment: Jack Anderson noted that he was the Fire Chief for the Aspen Fire Protection District. He thanked the HPC for considering these types of modifications and that this has been a very big topic for the Fire Protection District in trying to build a more wildfire resilient community. He noted that properties with wood shingle roofs are basically non-defensible and that crews will drive right past them when defending a community from an approaching wildfire. He described how wildfires spread and noted that the best thing a homeowner can do for their property and the surrounding community is to have a non-combustible roof and siding. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson felt that the restoration efforts to the porch railings were a no-brainer to approve. Mr. Moyer asked if the irrigation sprinkler system was such that it continuously soaked the railings. Mr. McDiffett said that it used to be, but a drip irrigation system was recently installed. The rest of the members agreed on the restoration of the railings. Ms. Thompson moved on to the composite roofing materials and there was some discussion about the properties and appearance of the proposed material compared to a traditional wooden cedar shingle. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 22ND, 2026 Ms. Thompson suggested that a mockup with appropriate single widths be installed on site to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Ms. Severe agreed on the mockup and the use of the proposed material that was presented. Mr. Moyer noted that while he was not opposed to placing a synthetic shingle on any building, he did oppose when an applicant comes in requesting to replace wooden shingles and the HPC is presented with a shake product that has no dimensional or color relationship to the historic wooden shingles. There was continued discussion about the sample of the proposed material and its appropriateness. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve Resolution #06 with the following conditions. The replacement of the roofing material to be the EcoStar product in Feathered Driftwood in the shingle version, with an onsite mockup showing the replacement shingle dimensions to match existing and this to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. She also added that if snow stops or downspouts were to be added, plans should be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. The commissioners took a two-minute break. NEW BUSINESS: 129 West Francis Street - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development Applicant Presentation: Nicholas Valentino – NAV design LLC Mr. Valentino began his presentation, noting that this request is to create an opening and install a sliding bar door on a historic barn. He described the location of the historic secondary structure on the lot and noted that the proposed doorway would be on the inward facing façade and would not be visible from the right of way. He also noted that the historic framing and siding removed to create the doorway would be used to create the bi-parting sliding door to support the adaptive reuse of the building. He showed a few elevation drawings and pointed out the location of the proposed door. He also showed some pictures of the current barn / shed and said that the historic structure’s character and defining features would be preserved and maintained. Ms. Thompson asked if there was any window or other door proposed behind these sliding barn doors. Mr. Valentino said no that it would just be an uninsulated opening to add another access point to the space. Ms. Severe asked if they had thought of hanging the doors on the inside of the opening as she had seen that technique used on other barns. Mr. Valentino said that while that might be a possibility, it came down to the existing framing and a potential height issue on the inside. Ms. Surfas asked how wide the new opening would be, to which Mr. Valentino said it was intended to be about eight feet. Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Historic Preservation Officer Ms. White began her presentation by reviewing the request to install sliding barn doors on the south facade of the historic secondary structure. She then described the context and some history of the property. Next, she described the applicant’s proposal to remove existing historic framing and siding to REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 22ND, 2026 create a new opening and reuse the historic materials to create an externally mounted bi-parting sliding door. Ms. White referenced preservation guidelines 2.1 and 2.2 and noted that staff found these to be met as outlined in the staff memo. She also referenced guideline 4.5 and while noting this was not met, she pointed to a section of Chapter 8 of the Guidelines that speaks to rehabilitating or adapting it to a new use so that the building continues to serve a useful function. She further touched on guidelines 8.3 and 8.8 and noted that staff found these to be met as outlined in the staff memo. She finished her presentation by noting that while staff recommend approval of the request, a condition of approval was included in draft resolution to preserve the historic material as effectively as possible. Public Comment: None Board Discussion: Ms. Surfas was supportive of the plan to reuse the historic materials, but she would like to see it be a smaller opening if possible. Ms. Raymond was also supportive of the request but stressed the removal of the historic materials to create the doors be done carefully and in a way that someone could put the materials back together. Ms. Severe noted that she had seen this done on several historic barns growing up in Texas and said that it can be done successfully. MOTION: Ms. Raymond motioned to approve Resolution #07 with the condition that staff and monitor are kept apprised of the techniques used to cut the historic materials. Ms. Severe seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. NEW BUSINESS: 920 East Hyman Avenue - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development Applicant Presentation: Macklin Henderson – Garfield & Hecht Mr. Henderson began his presentation by introducing himself and Mr. Hal Reid. He noted that the request in front of HPC was to construct a new front walkway on the property. It would be a straight walkway, 48 inches wide and made of bluestone. He showed a rendering of the proposed walkway and noted that the bluestone material was a grey color and satisfied the historic preservation guidelines. He also noted that a previous application for a Certificate of No Negative Effect was denied because of the proposed width of the walkway. He said that the existing 36-inch-wide snowmelt would remain, and no additional snowmelt was proposed. Mr. Henderson noted that the existing walkway is not historic to the home and he went over the history of a previous 48-inch-wide serpentine walkway that existed before 2021. It was narrowed and straightened per an HPC resolution in 2021. He did note that the minutes from that meeting seemed to suggest that the straightening was the main concern of the commission back then. He then highlighted guideline 1.6 that states a walkway, in addition to other aspects, should be “generally three feet or less”. He noted that the owner’s proposal does satisfy the overall theme of that guideline. He did not feel that someone from the public walking by the property would notice the additional width. He then showed several examples of other walkways in town that are over three feet in width. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 22ND, 2026 Mr. Henderson concluded by saying that the guidelines are about balance. He stressed the importance of proposed width to the owners, for easier access to the front of the house with young children and strollers. Mr. Reid noted that Mr. Hayden, before he left the City, had seen the material in person over a year ago and said it was appropriate and approved of it. Ms. Berne instructed the commissioners to disregard that information, as it was not part of the application in front of them. Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Historic Preservation Officer Ms. White began her presentation by noting that the request was to replace the existing walkway with a new material and widen it from 36” to 48”. She then reviewed the context of the property’s location and history. She showed photos of the existing walkway and proposed new walkway as shown in the application. She further detailed the proposed replacement and materials and noted that staff was unable to approve the request administratively as it was determined that it did not meet applicable guidelines. She then went over some of the details of the 2020 HPC resolution and as outlined in the staff report. She noted that staff felt the prior approval important as it included a condition to restudy the walkway and to utilize pavers of a historically appropriate size and material. Ms. White said that staff was unable to support the current request based on historic preservation guideline 1.6, as outlined in the staff report. She said that staff recommends denial of this Resolution, based on guideline 1.6 and prior HPC approvals related to the walkway. Ms. Raymond asked what pattern of the new proposed material would be appropriate. Ms. White said something more simplified. Ms. Pitchford asked if the proposed bluestone material was historically evident in Aspen. Ms. White said she had not seen anything that was historic. Mr. Henderson noted that the picture in the application of the proposed walkway was provided to show the pattern and does not represent the color. He said that the proposed bluestone material was a uniform darker grey color. Public Comment: None Board Discussion: Mr. Moyer wanted to note that when Aspen was constructed in the 1890s, materials used for building were what was available in the valley, namely limestone, locally made bricks, wood and other stone. He noted that bluestone is available in Pennsylvania and the Catskills and would not have been available in Aspen in the 1890s. Since it would not have been historically used in Victorian Aspen, he did not support the proposed bluestone material. He felt that since the guideline does not say a walkway has to be three feet, he was not opposed to the proposed width but stressed that it should be brick or limestone. Ms. Severe noted that the average stroller was about 32 inches and felt that while she wasn’t opposed to making the walkway wider, she did not see the need to make it more than the three feet as noted in the guidelines. She said that she was also opposed to the proposed bluestone material since it was not historic. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 22ND, 2026 Ms. Thompson noted that during her time on HPC, they had only approved wider walkways when the resource was larger. She did not feel that 48 inches was appropriate for the scale of this resource. Ms. Pitchford agreed and felt there was no reason to go wider than 36 inches. She also did not see bluestone as historic material. In terms of the material, Ms. Thompson was not on board with the proposed patterning of the stone but felt that the HPC had approved similar materials when it was laid in a clean and simple pattern. Ms. Raymond agreed with other comments about the material and would also be ok with it if it were laid in a simple pattern, without the grout and in a monochromatic color. She said she was ok with the proposed width, as similar walkway widths exist in town. Ms. Surfas did not feel the guidelines gave much flexibility on the width of the walkway unless it was an Aspen Modern project, so she felt this proposal should stay three feet or less. She also did not feel the proposed pattering was historical and was not supportive of it. She agreed with Ms. Thompson and Ms. Raymond that if the bluestone material was of a light grey color, it could mimic grey concrete. There was a brief discussion about the use of bluestone and whether a proposed material should have been historically seen in Aspen or just appear like or be similar to something historic. The commissioners also discussed feedback for the applicant on acceptable patterns for the stone. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve Resolution #08, Series of 2026 with the walkway width at 36 inches, the actual material and layout of the material to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor and direction to simplify the layout. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, no; Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-1 vote, motion passes. Ms. Pitchford was assigned as monitor on the 620 W. Bleeker St. project. Ms. Severe was assigned as monitor on the 129 W. Francis St. project. Ms. Surfas was assigned monitor on the 920 E. Hyman Ave. project. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Severe seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk