Aspen Historic Preservation Commission grants final approval for 325 West Hopkins with preservation conditions

The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously to approve the final design and clarified setback variations for the landmark project at 325 West Hopkins, granting final approval with a set of staff‑recommended conditions.

Sarah Adams, the applicant's presenter, told the commission the project reinstates and stabilizes an individually designated historic landmark, adds a new detached residence on the lot and includes a basement and related site work. "We are here for final approval for 325 West Hopkins," Adams said during the presentation, summarizing prior conceptual approvals and the changes since that approval.

Staff summarized findings and flagged a zoning interpretation issue tied to the combined side‑yard setback. "The R6 Zone district states that 2 detached residential dwellings located on 1 lot shall not be subject to the combined side yard setback requirements, provided that the minimum setback between the 2 detached dwellings on the lot shall be 10 feet," staff told the commission, explaining that zoning review of the final application required clarifying previously approved variations so the west yard would be 10 feet and the east 5 feet. Under the revised interpretation, some below‑grade mechanicals, light wells and an outdoor fireplace would be located within the 10‑foot setback; staff recommended conditions to manage visibility and preservation.

Key conditions the commission adopted or confirmed include: a preservation plan approved by the Project Monitoring Committee prior to construction (with suggestion to provide a preliminary preservation plan prior to permit); review and approval of an appropriate roof material for the historic resource by staff and monitor (staff noted concerns with the proposed DaVinci synthetic wood shake and urged a more historically compatible option); a requirement that solar panels on the new building not be visible from Hopkins Avenue; simplification of the planting scheme in front of the landmark and removal of one of the porch sconces; a requirement that the small fence between buildings not be attached to the historic resource; and financial assurance to secure safe relocation of the structure (staff discussed a commonly used figure of $30,000 but noted the HPC determines the appropriate amount).

Commission discussion focused on balancing wildfire‑safety and code requirements with preservation aesthetics. Commissioners asked the applicant to study whether required fire‑rating approaches could be accomplished with minimal visual impact to historic detailing and to include shoring/stabilization drawings and structural documentation as part of submittals. Applicant representatives said shoring and stabilization drawings are in progress and that structural engineer letters and house‑mover diagrams would be provided.

After discussion, the chair moved to approve the resolution as presented. A roll call vote followed; commissioners identified as Roger, Jody, Barb, Duncan, Kim and Cara voted yes and the motion passed.

The commission closed by scheduling internal follow‑up and monitoring steps; staff said they will work with the applicant on the preservation plan, roof material alternatives and the details for any below‑grade work prior to construction.