YOUR AD HERE »

Historic Preservation Commission requests final review for Armory project

Historic Preservation Commission sits for an Oct. 23 meeting to address the Armory building review process.
Westley Crouch/The Aspen Times

The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) voiced concerns over the current review process for redeveloping the Armory building, urging a more prominent role in shaping the project. 

The commission emphasized its mission to safeguard properties that represent Aspen’s cultural, educational, social, economic, political, and architectural history. They argued that while the Armory’s redevelopment as a new public space aligns with this mission, it should not move forward without significant input from HPC.

In a letter addressed to the Aspen City Council, HPC acknowledged the need to progress the Armory project, noting the building’s critical role in downtown Aspen and its prolonged vacancy. However, the commission disagreed with the proposed review pathway, which would limit their involvement to that of a recommending body only, rather than allowing them final approval authority.



The letter referenced a suggestion from the city manager to utilize the public project review process outlined in the land use code to speed up development. 

While HPC recognized the intent behind this process, they opposed its application to the Armory building.




“The project review, as described in your letter, is a planned development review,” said Community Development Director Ben Anderson. “In a planned development review, there are two steps in the review (initial and final reviews). If this was not a public project review (as currently stated by the city manager), HPC would still be the recommending body.”

Anderson clarified that under the current public project review process, HPC would approve the project, and then it would proceed to city council for final review. 

He noted a key difference between the two processes; in a planned development review, the project would return to HPC for final approval, whereas the public project review combines these steps, bypassing HPC’s final oversight to expedite the process. 

HPC strongly recommended using the planned development pathway instead, which would involve an initial review by the HPC, followed by a review by city council, and then returning to the HPC for a final approval. 

HPC argued this approach is more fitting for a project of the Armory’s historical significance and would ensure adherence to Aspen’s Historic Design Guidelines. 

In the letter, HPC also pointed to images in the project review application that was previously presented to City Council, suggesting those images failed to meet the city’s historic preservation objectives.

During the meeting, HPC Vice Chair Kim Raymond asked Anderson about the timeline for the Armory building review. Anderson indicated the final review is expected around the start of the new year. 

“Do we need to put a date in our letter to request a work session with City Council, stating that we want to do this right away?” asked Raymond. “We do not want to slow down the process; we just feel strongly that we should have more of a say in it.”

HPC unanimously approved the signing of the letter to send to City Council and requested that City Council direct the city manager to follow standard procedures as outlined in the Land Use Code; adhering to the planned development process for the Armory’s redevelopment. 

Additionally, HPC expressed interest in scheduling a work session as soon as possible with City Council to further discuss the project review and their involvement in the process.