Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Staff Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff backs variances to keep landmark in place but flags design‑guideline conflicts
Summary
Staff recommended approving relocation and setback variations so the landmark remains on site, but flagged multiple design‑guideline failures for the applicant’s proposed addition and new building and recommended continuing the hearing to Sept. 25.
In its written memo and oral presentation, staff told the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission it supports the applicant’s request to relocate the structure only as necessary for foundation repair and to grant the setback variations that legalize the building’s original position.
Stuart, speaking for staff, said the relocation and variation aspects “meet the standards” and that the application included a structural engineer’s letter demonstrating the building appears capable of withstanding relocation for underpinning. At the same time, he said several design‑guideline standards were not met. "The proposed application does not meet guidelines 10.3, 10.4, and 10.6," Stuart said, calling out concerns that the addition imitates historic forms and that the new building’s scale and fenestration do not sufficiently relate to or remain subordinate to the historic resource.
Because drafting conditional approval language could be unduly prescriptive, staff recommended continuing the matter to Sept. 25, allowing the applicants to revise the design and return with clearer justification and visuals. Commissioners asked staff to clarify which guideline tests must be met and to work with applicants ahead of the next hearing.
