Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicants seek to restore pre‑1890 landmark at 325 West Hopkins and add two detached homes; commission asks for design revisions
Summary
Applicants proposed restoring a pre‑1890 landmark at 325 West Hopkins, requesting two setback variances and building two new detached houses; staff urged continuation to Sept. 25 so commissioners can review massing, roof forms and how the rear element should be treated (restoration vs. new addition).
Sarah Adams, representing the applicants, told the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission the team’s immediate goal is “great preservation of this landmark,” citing Sanborn maps and historic photographs as the basis for restoring the house’s original footprint.
Adams said the site is a 6,000‑square‑foot lot in the R‑6 zone and the plan keeps the historic structure in place while adding two detached new houses on the lot’s rear half. “We are proposing to restore the landmark back to its original footprint based on the Sanborn maps with no new additions to the landmark,” Adams said. The application seeks two variances: to legalize the landmark’s roughly 5 feet 10 inches front setback (zoning requires 10 feet) and the existing west side yard encroachment.
In a staff memo read at the hearing, Stuart said staff supports relocation and the requested variations to maintain the resource on its current site but raised concerns about the project’s compliance with the city’s historic preservation design guidelines for additions and new construction. "Staff find that the proposed application does not meet guidelines 10.3, 10.4, and 10.6," Stuart said, citing replication of historic forms and fenestration and a lack of clear distinction between old and new.
Commissioners spent the bulk of the hearing focused on the new construction’s massing and roof forms. Several members said the two‑story mass behind the restored front could appear to dwarf the historic house from the street; others suggested design adjustments — smaller overhangs, simplified roof pitches, and different fenestration — so the new buildings read as contemporary and clearly distinct. Wheeler Clancy, the project architect, said the team could explore lower roof pitches and other refinements.
The commission did not decide on the application. Chair moved to continue the item to Sept. 25, 2024 to allow the applicant time to respond to design guidance and to present additional views, possibly including story poles or a 3‑D model. The motion passed with recorded yes votes by Jody, Barb, Kim and Cara.
Next steps: applicants will return with revised drawings addressing massing, roof form simplification and material choices, and staff will circulate guidance for the continuation.
