HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20010110ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
January_ 10, 2001
213 W. BLEEKER - APPEAL OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAY OF
DEMOLITION, PH - CONT'D FROM 12/20/2000 .................................................................................. 1
CORBIN/BURROWS - 610 W. SMUGGLER & 505 N. FIFTH STREET - LANDMARK, LOT
SPLIT, PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................................................................ 6
515 W. GILLESPIE - LOT SPLIT - PH .................................................................................................. 11
332 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING ....................................................... 15
22
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
January 10~ 2001
Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Members in attendance were Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Lisa
Markalunas, Susan Dodington and Rally Dupps. Melanie Roschko was
excused.
Disclosure:
Jeffrey disclosed that he had a discussion with Doug Allen on general
questions regarding monitoring issues. The conversation will have no effect
on my decision.
Rally and Gilbert will step down for VI a and VII a.
213 W. BLEEKER- APPEAL OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION STAY OF DEMOLITION, PIt - CONT'D FROM
12/20/2000
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney passed out the finding of facts
prepared by him.
Doug Allen, attorney for the owner of the property, Ron Schelling,
informed the board that he has not come up with an alternative at this time.
The resulting structure will have all of the historic features that were on the
outside of the house reinstalled on it. The architect informed the owner that
he could proceed. On finding # 15 Doug commented that the only window
saved was the historic window. Some framing materials were saved. The
structure did not have integrity at the time he started taking it apart because
of the burned south wall and east wall and the west wall foundation had
sunk. The studs and plates were rotted. He has not been able to find out if
any monitoring was done by HPC because Heidi Friedland was the monitor
at the time and resigned.
Regarding the eight points of order he would contest #5. The owner came
to this area 10 years ago and brought property in Old Snowmass and sold it
and leveraged into this property. He is not rich and this $250,000 fine will
bankrupt him and he cannot afford it. He feels it is disproportionate to what
has happened. The resulting structure on the property will be exactly what
was bargained for and what was approved by the HPC. The method of
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January_ 10, 2001
getting there was not approved. He asked the HPC to reconsider the penalty
portion.
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney agreed that the summary and
findings of fact were will put together. When the board comes to a
recommended order you have two functions: One is to send a message to
the community and he feels that has been done in this case. The second is
to reach a fair and equitable penalty and that is the part that Doug is
concerned with and it is up to the HPC's discretion. This will go onto
Council for their consideration.
Tim Whitsitt, Special Council: He relayed that he understands from the
HPC that a substantial fine is merited in this case. There was also general
concern among the HPC as to what kind of penalty can we do and what
should we do. He researched as to what HPC's legal authority is. The
ability for HPC to levy a fine is extremely limited. The state statues limit
penalties to $1,000 for ordinance violations. Under the Aspen code HPC
may not have the authority to levy a fine. The way to deal with the penalty
is to pick an amount that the board feels is fair and suggest that to city
council as a payment in lieu penalty. The moratorium is clearly set out and
the property can be sterilized up to five years. That is just as distasteful to
the subject as it is to the commission which would probably motivate both
sides to fine an in lieu alternative. The second is possible jail time and the
third which was discussed is the revocation of variances. That can translate
into a monitory penalty. The above three alternatives are what HPC should
be looking at. As a suggestion maybe a lien could be on the house and
accept the in lieu penalty upon the sale of the house.
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney commented that the primary
authority is the moratorium and a settlement could be negotiated outside of
that. In order to have jail time the case would have to be a criminal
proceeding and this is a civil case.
Doug Alien stated that the Schelling's do not live here presently. They have
a property in Old Snowmass. They live in Chicago and are trying to build
this house and move here but they do. not live here right now.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January_ 10, 2001
Suzannah pointed out that the house is in the form that it is, and has the
characteristics that it has, does not by definition make it an historic house
anymore. That may be detrimental to the community to have a house that is
a "replica" of an historic house and might be confused with historic houses.
What happened here is not a reasonable way to do historic preservation.
Lisa relayed that she spoke to Melanie who was not able to attend the
meeting and they feel the wording in the summary should be stronger,
particularly what the loss is. HPC feels the loss more than anyone and that
needs to come clearly across to Council why we feel so strongly about what
happened here.
Tim said ifHPC feels the appropriate penalty is a monetary recovery the
only way to get to that after a legal sanction is imposed is negotiate with the
Schelling's and say instead of what we did would you care to pay the cash
in lieu and not have a moratorium and not have your variances revoked.
Susan said that is what HPC said at the last meeting.
Tim reiterated that council will decide the ~nal penalty.
David Hoefer, Assistant city attorney relayed that the best approach is to do
the moratorium. To clarify the Mullin's $15,000 that they paid; that was a
negotiated settlement based on the cost that the Atorney, Cerk's and
Planning Office put in.
Gilbert also felt that there were language issues in the finding of fact,
specifically #19 which should state has been destroyed.
Gilbert relayed that his concern is that the property has lost designation and
variances were given. What would be the impact if the variances were
revoked. If we give up the designation what are the implications of that in
general with the site.
Tim said he feels properties in Aspen are selling for $1,000 square feet and
you would figure out how many square feet would be eliminated with the
variance and calculate. If they loose the square footage they would also
have to reconstruct the basement.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January_ 10, 2001
Gilbert said there are physical elements in place that would have to be
revamped. If the owner has to go back to the beginning that is a substantial
penalty.
Tim said revoking the setbacks would result in a very substantial penalty.
Gilbert said the other question is: Are we able to revoke the variances
without revoking the landmark status?
Tim said, his answer without research is yes.
David Hoefer, agreed.
Rally said he is not interested in revoking the landmark status. HPC would
be relinquishing control of the property and the decision the HPC came to at
the last meeting was fair and equitable given the circumstances. One thing
that came to mind was that Ron Schelling had taken the contractor's course
and passed it. In theory he should have know better.
Suzannah felt that the variances should be revoked. It is a detriment to the
remainder of the historic structure. We are having things that are
landmarked that are not historic.
Susan said the historic shed still remains, She also agreed that the variances
should be revoked.
Gilbert said there is no longer an historic landmark there so the variances
should be revoked and that is the strongest statement that could be made.
Amy said it seems possible that the landmark designation could be iemoved
but the property could be retained on the inventory because of the existing
shed. HPC Would still have design review over the site.
Suzannah also agreed that the language should be strengthened and
requested clarification of #5.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
Janua~ 10, 2001
The board felt that the property should be on the inventory and landmark
status removed.
Gilbert said he was in favor of eliminating the variances and keeping the
property on the inventory to maintain design review.
Jeffrey said he was interested in the landmark revocation but he is
concerned about future precedence. He is also interested in possible
variance revocations. The site should be protected due to the shed on the
property.
Suzannah relayed that research should be done on the footprint and
variances and the financial impacts.
Doug Allen said the owner did not build out to the maximum FAR.
If the variances are removed he can still build out to the maximum FAR.
Tim stated that a revision would be presented at the next meeting
strengthening the summary and addressing the variances.
Gilbert said the question he has is do we still consider the moratorium?
There will be a period that nothing happens.
Jeffrey said he would lean that way with no specific moratorium as the
moratorium will grow out of how long it takes the applicant to deal with
everything the HPC has specified.
Rally said he is opposed to a moratorium.
Lisa requested at the next meeting to have the cost of redoing the
foundation calculated.
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue 213 W. Bleeker until February 14,
2001; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried.
Yes vote: Lisa, Susan, Suzannah, Gilbert, Rally, Jeffrey
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January_ 10, 2001
CORBIN/BURROWS - 610 W. SMUGGLER & 505 N. FIFTH
STREET - LANDMARK, LOT SPLIT, PUBLIC HEARING
Fred Jarman, planner relayed that the applicant is requesting the bonus of
500 FAR square feet and a setback variance of ½ foot for the side yard of
the east property Lot Q. The applicant is also requesting to demolish a
currently non-contributing panabode on Lots R & S. On the site survey
there are Lot Q, R & S. There is a duplex on lot R&S and the historic
miners cottage is on Lot Q. The lot is a 9,000 square foot lot and the
request is to split the lot, landmark and allocate the FAR to each lot. The
500 square foot bonus will go with lot Q with the historic house.
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney informed the board that the panabode
is not on the proposed inventory.
Fred said Lot Q FAR would be 1,340 with the bonus and the balance of
3,240 would be for R&S. This project will also go to P&Z for a conditional
use. If the property is landmarked it locks in the FAR and HPC would have
authority over it. The setback variance is for the historic house.
Mitch Haas was sworn in.
Mitch relayed that the conditional use at P&Z is for the ability to develop
two detached single family residences on Lots R & S as opposed to the
ability to do one duplex.
Only the house on lot Q has been designated a landmark and the request is
to designate the entire property, which would be under HPC review. The
development potential on the historic house is limited to about 500 square
feet more than it currently has. There is an addition on the back which
would be removed and reconstructed and possibly a one-car garage off the
alley. You end up with 1340 square feet of FAR on the historic landmark
house. That is 1060 square feet less than can be done on a typical 3,000
square foot R-6 zone lot which is also a 44% less than is allowed by right.
The 3240 square feet is the standard a 6,000 square foot lot which could
potentially be broken up into two structures. The ability to have three small
structures on 9,000 square feet is in keeping with the traditional
development patterns if the conditional use is approved by P&Z.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January_ 10, 2001
Mitch also informed the board that there is a request to demolish the non-
contributing structure. The panabode has been modified severely over the
years and is not worthy of being on the inventory. Numerous windows and
dormers have been added changing the entire roof form. The intent is not to
demolish the panabode in the near future but the applicant desires to know
that he will be able to demolish it and whatever comes back in its place will
be reviewed by HPC.
Amy relayed that it could be stated on the plat that the panabode could be
demolished at anytime. She also came to the conclusion that the panabode
has not been earmarked for the inventory.
Susannah opened and closed the public hearing.
Comments:
Jeffrey said he is in favor of the lot split, as it is one of the few ways to
control volume and mass.
Gilbert relayed that the lot split has the potential of being a great project.
Rally and Susan dittoed Jeffrey and Gilbert.
Lisa said she is in favor of the lot Split but objects to awarding bonus square
footage when we have no idea of what the plans are for the building. In
terms of breaking up the site into smaller units one must remember on the
original town site if it were a 3,000 square foot lot the houses were 800
square feet not 1,500 to 2,000 square feet houses. She is not in favor of
giving permission to demolish the panabode. The HPC is working with a
consultant regarding the criteria and she would not be in favor of a three
years vested right on demolition as part of the proposal.
Suzannah stated that the HPC encourages the two detached buildings and a
recommendation can be sent to P&Z.
Mitch said the expiration date of vested rights doesn't mean the approval
expires.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
Janua~ 10, 2001
MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the Historic Landmark Designation,
Historic Landmark Lot Split, 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus,. 5foot east side yard
setback variance for Lot Q and allocation of FAR to the newly created lots
for the property at 610 W. Smuggler and 505 North Fifth Streets, Lots Q, R,
and S, Block 20, City and Townsite of Aspen with the following conditions:
1. At present, there is a fencing encroachment into the public right-of-
way on West Smuggler Street and a trash shed encroachment into the
Alley for Block 20 on the north side of Lqt Q The applicant must
either l) remove the encroachments or 2) obtain a Temporary
Revocable Encroachment License from the City Engineering
Department allowing these encroachments to exist prior to the
recording of the final plat;
2. That the applicant shall submit and record a subdivision plat which
meets the terms of Chapter 26.480, and conforms to the requirements
of the Land Use Code, in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder after approval, indicating that no farther subdivision may
be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without
receipt of applicable approvals;
3. That the applicant agrees that this subdivision exemption lot split
resulting in one 3, 000 square foot lot (Lot Q) and one 6, 000 square
foot lot (Lots R-S) contains a maximum potential build out not to
exceed three (3) principal dwelling units which may be comprised of
a duplex and a single-family homepursuant to Section
26.480.030(a)(2)(g) for the three lots combined. In addition, the
applicant may be able to place two single-family homes on the 6, 000
sq. ft. lot if approved as a conditional use by the Planning and Zoning
Commission;
4. Any further development on the newly created lots shall be required
to mitigate for their impact pursuant to Chapter 26. 470 Growth
Management Quota System (GMQS) as required;
5. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development and
Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of
final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and
subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall
render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the pat by City Council
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January_ 10, 2001
will be required for a showing of good cause..4s a minimum, the
subdivision plat shall:
i. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of
the Aspen Municipal Code;
ii. Contain a plat note stating that development of Lots R-S
shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing
pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal
Code for any future development;
iii. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained
therein shall be prohibited from applying for future.
subdivision and any development of the lots will comply
with the applicable prowsions of the Land Use Code in
effect at the time of application;
iv. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on
the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of
the R-6 zone district, except for variances approved by
an entity having the authority to do so;
v. That Lots Q,R, and S are designated as historic
landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all
development in accordance with Section 26. 415 of the
Municipal Code, as well as Section 26.410, the
"Residential Design Standards;"
6. The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total
allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all
applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into
two parcels, Lot "Q" receiwng 3,000 square feet and Lots R-S
receiving 6, 000 square feet in size. Provided it is found by the
Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum
allowable FAR on Lot "Q" will be 1,340 square feet (including a 500
square foot Jloor are bonus) and 3,240 square feet of JIoor are on
Lots R-$. The information specific to exact allocated FAR as
indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer,
shall be included on the plat, as a plat note;
,,ts a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the
elements outlined in Section 26. 480. 030(A)(2) of the ~lspen Municipal
Code~ and shall meet the recording and timing requirements
described in Section 26. 480. 070(E) ;
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January 10, 2001
8. Any farther development for the historic structure or on the lots
created by this lot split shall be subject to farther review as required
by Section 26.415 of the Aspen Land Use Code;
9. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the
applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two
newly created lots (including the 500 square foot bonus) to be 4,580
square feet in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the
following manner: Lot "Q" as having 1,340 square feet and Lots R-S
as having 3,240 square feet prior to consideration of potentially
applicable lot area reductions (i.e. slopes, access easements, etc.).
Further, these lot sizes and,tIoor areas shall be indicated on the final
plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office;
10. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the
applicant approval for a 4. 5foot side yard setback resulting from an
allowed O. 5foot decrease in the normally 5foot setback requirements
in the R-6 zone district to be allocated to the east property line of Lot
"Q " containing the historical structure.
1 I. That the applicants preserve the "monument" on the south east
corner of Lot S as required by the City of Aspen Engineering
Department;
12. That the applicants shall ensure that each structure on the newly
created lots maintain their separate and individual meter boxes;
13. That the applicant agrees that they shall be required to place street
trees as a result of any future development to reflect the traditional
cottonwood street tree pattern currently lining West Smuggler and
North Fifth Street as required by the City of Aspen Park's
Department; and
14. That the HPC grants an approval to demolish the existing panabode
located on Lots R & S.
15. HPC encourages the development of two separate dwellings on the R
S property.
16. That the applicant comply with the Uniform Conservation Building
Code (UCBC)
motion second by Rally.
Yes Vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Rally, Susan,
No Vote: Lisa
Motion carries 5-1
10
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January_ 10, 2001
515 W. GILLESPIE - LOT SPLIT - PH
Fred Jarman, planner relayed that the hearing is a conceptual review. The
plan is to take the 9, 039 square foot lot and conduct a lot split. The request
is to move the structure over to lot A and have P&Z do a conditional use for
two single family houses or a duplex. The FAR is allocated between the
two lots. The total of one lot will be 3,539 square foot and 6,000 square feet
for the other. The non-contributing garage is proposed to be demolished
and a new garage constructed on the rear portion of Lot A. An easement
will be requested for access.
Fred displayed existing and proposed diagrams. The house was moved to
its current location in 1971 from 100 W. Hopkins. The idea is to pick up
the house and do a new foundation/basemem and the later addition will be
demolished and a new addition added with the extension of an upstairs
bedroom. A couple of windows will be replaced on the east facade.
The Si-Johnson ditch runs through the portion of the property and the
applicant has dealt with the Parks Dept. and essentially has approval to
relocate the ditch. He is also working with the Parks Dept. on the relocation
of trees.
There is a boundary issue with the neighbors which have a lot to do with
where the lot line is and where the FAR is allocated. Staff recommends
approval of the Lot Split, designation, variances and the addition. The
addition is very minor and does not compromise the historic integrity.
Swearing in:
Randall Bone, Charles Collins, Werner Kmurr, Goldie Kmurr, Shane
Harvey
Randall relayed at the last meeting the request was to see more of the design
work that meets the historic criteria, which shifts development away from
the historic cottage. There are no changes to the historic windows and the
addition was pulled back. The Collins' are here because of the west
boundary dispute. They are still in the process of negotiating that.
11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January_ 10, 2001
Lisa said with the boundary dispute they are within 7 feet of the allowable
FAR on lot A which is the historic house. Lisa inquired about the dispute
and FAR.
Randall said if they were to loose the feet it would have a small impact on
the FAR, about 10 square feet and that could easily be taken out in the
garage. They would not expect a FAR bonus.
Fred reiterated that the conditional use is the ability to do two single-family
dwellings or one duplex on one lot.
Suzannah opened the public hearing.
Charles Collins said # 10 should state that the FAR issue should be resolved
before going to the other boards and that condition should be amended.
Suzannah said the boundary issues need to be resolved before they go to
P&Z.
Jan Collins said there is no resolution on the survey yet and does the
process go on without the resolution.
Randall said before We go to the next step the lot line has to be resolved.
Charles relayed that the neighbors would prefer the historic to stay to the
east. Staffwill redo condition 6, 7 and 10 for clarification. He also had
concerns whether a two-car garage would work due to the parking
problems.
Suzannah informed the public that there are two parking spaces required on
the new lot to be off the street.
Randall said one car will be in the garage and the other pulled off.
Werner Kmurr, neighbor said he does not understand the favorable view of
Lot Splits by the board and the 500 square foot bonus when the rest of us
remodeled and strictly adhered to the guidelines. With the bonus there over
crowding of lots. You will not be able to see this from the street and it is
12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,,
January_ 10', 2001
ridiculous. 735 W. Bleeker is crowded and was built by Randall. He feels
this lot split will benefit one family.
Suzannah closed the public hearing.
Amy tried to clarify to the public that by right they are already al!owed to
have two single-family houses on this property. There is no greater
development on the site than could be allowed. This board is only
supporting breaking up the square footage into smaller structures, which is
more historic and more appropriate.
Werner Kmurr informed the board that they are setting a precedent.
Commissioner Comments
Lisa has concerns that there are no guarantees that we have separate
structures. She also has concerns about the amount of development and
number of structures as Mr. Kmurr over powering the site. She also agreed
that the Gillespie house facade is compromised by the addition and has
major impacts on the historic house.
She would rather support a carriage house structure on the south part of the
lot but she understands that is not desirable by the owner. She is not in
support of the bonus as the architecture is a little too extreme. It was
described as being subtle and she does not find that to be the case. She is
not in favor of window openings on the historic east facade of the house and
the parking waivers are major concerns to that neighborhood because it is
heavily impacted by the Music Tent parking. She would not support the
approval of this project listed.
Susan dittoed Lisa's comments. The new portion should be set back to give
the old house prominence as Lisa suggested a carriage style. She supports
the lot split but has concerns about not knowing what is going to be there.
She would like one structure set back or two smaller ones. She has never
liked this from the beginning but appreciates the change in the back of the
historic house and made it smaller. The preservation ofthe front of the
house in its entirety is commendable. The addition to the historic house in
the back is appropriate. On that street the house is one of the most
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January_ 10, 2001
prominent historic houses. At the work session it was discussed setting it
back. She cannot support the project as presented.
Jeffrey relayed that he is in support of the Lot Split as it enables designers
and architects to mitigate the volume and mass that gets added onto these
very important resources. He can support the conceptual as long as the
dispute is settled between the two parties. He favors the ditch relocation.
Jeffrey also said he has some reservation on the dormer portion as well as
the form off the rear of the house. He would suggest going to a gabled
dormer possible and not a shed for final. Continue to study that elevation.
He feels the FAR should be a performance based bonus for conceptual
design. He favors the improvements to the historic house and favors the
garage design. There are detailing issues that need to be addressed at final
concerning the new dormer into the historic roof.
Suzannah supports the lot split and one of the problems is the irregularity of
the division of the lots as opposed to rectangular lots. 1587 square feet is a
reasonable size for a house. She has concerns about the design of the
additions and the window openings in the historic building. In particular
the new double hung on the south side on the second floor. The single one
has a lot of character in terms of historic and her concern is duplicating that
window and make it too generic in that particular case. The light well on
the east side need to be checked to see if it has the five foot setback that is
required by the residential design review standards.
Lisa asked the board if they would rather see venting on the sides or roof.
Randall said the siding is new and he could either. The vents are small.
Randall said the goal of HPC, council and the town is to pull things into
town and end up with smaller units. The density is in response to feedback ·
that he got. He does not want to do a project that in two years people say he
did an injustice to town. The increased density does take away but there is
no way around that.
They looked at the gable and that is something that can be looked at again
and worked out. He also said he could change the configuration of the
14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,,
January 10, 2001
window. The two non-historic windows were reconfigured due to the
kitchen area, rather than making it a giant blank wall. He said the window
can go in the wall ifHPC feels it is appropriate.
David Hoefer, city attorney said if the vote is 2 x 2 it would be a denial.
The applicant may want to request a continuance.
Suzannah relayed that the outstanding issues should be resolved before
coming back to HPC.
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue resolution #2, the public hearing and
conceptual development on 515 W. Gillespie until March 14, 2000; second
by Susan.
Yes Vote: Jeffrey, Suzannah, Susan, Lisa
Motion carried 4-0.
332 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING
Sworn in were Harry Teague, David Kelleher, Jason LaPointe
Fred Jarman, planner informed the HPC that the request is for a partial
demolition to construct a new addition, ?equest the 500 square foot bonus
and associated variances with the project,
The structure was built in 1880 and is a two-story structure. It is land
marked on the inventory and the lot is 4,500 square feet. The current use is
office/residence. The proposal is to remove the front porch and reassemble
the front porch as it looks today with pieces from the old porch. The house
will be lifted and a basement put underneath. The second addition is
proposed to be demolished which include a car-port and a newer addition
built. The house would return to its exact footprint.
Staff supports the proposal. Access too the current car port is offthird street
and at the rear of the house there is an alley and staff supports accessing off
the alley. One parking space is off the alley and they are meeting the
parking requirements. The board should pay particular attention to the
access issue.
15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,,
January_ 10, 2001
Suzannah asked Harry to focus on the addition and the reconstruction of the
porch.
Harry said the house is on the comer of Third and Main. When you look at
the elevation along Third Street there is a pattern that emerges and repeats
itself on the opposite side of the street wh~re a carriage house is pinching
down the alley in each case. With the addition the intent is to continue the
pattern of the carriage house on the alley with the door aimed toward the
street.
Harry said they communicated with the house movers and the house would
go straight up and back down rather than moved side to side.
In the work session comments were made that the addition was too radical.
(alternative elevations were presented to the board that were not in the
packet). The inside of the house is chopped up and will have an extensive
remodel. The old fireplace will be kept inside and the things that are
authentic will be saved. One of the plans entails moving the back chimney
but at the last meeting they were told not to move the chimney. The
chimney will stay but will be shifted from one side of the centerline of the
structure to the other side. The old chimney will be seen coming down in
the house through the glass. The chimney would come down in over the
stairs and' supported with a steel beam,
Clarifications:
Rally asked about the second addition.
Harry Teague said from all indications it was part of the original house and
they looked at the foundation but visually it looks like it was added on.
There was a fire where the kitchen was where the addition is and so the
outside and timbers of that all burned.
The board discussed the drawings in the packet.
Lisa inquired about the windows on the front (attic).
16
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
Janua~ 10, 2001
Harry said they would like to glaze in between the wood panels as opposed
to the wood that existed for light, The glazing would not be in the triangle
panels.
Rally clarified that the two elements that are historic that are to be
demolished or moved are the chimney which moves over to the east and the
second is on the east elevation the newer shed addition, and part of that gets
chopped off for the glass enclosure.
Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing.
BOARD COMMENTS
In general the board was in support of the scheme.
Jeffrey said the development toward the alley is most appropriate for the
historic resource. The house being lifted and put back in its original
footprint is commendable. The detail of the one story link needs
documented.
Ail members were in favor of the variances and the 500 square foot bonus
and the partial demolition of the front porch and rear of the house.
Gilbert reviewed the scheme in the packet and stated that there is
remarkable architecture going on here in the west elevation. The
fenestration on the plans in the packet has a good relation to the historic
house. The garage could be on the west elevation. The proposal to put
glass in the front facade of the house would add a different quality to the
front facade and he is opposed to the glazing. The addition of glazing in the
windows is not restoration. On the plan HPC-6 the ground level plan the
west wall mud room lines up exactly with the historic house and should be
restudied to add a modest setback possibly even six inches. That would
help distinguish the old from the new.
Rally dittoed Gilbert's comments. The fenestration scheme is appropriate.
The connector piece that goes from the historic house to the new addition to
the north is too large and not sympathetic enough to the historic house. The
chimney should not be moved and is unique to the house.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January_ 10, 2001
Rally is in favor of the garage door facing 3ra Street as it is in charger with
other buildings on Main Street. On the second story connector piece that
goes between the historic house and the new possibly add more glass so that
it is not a blank wall. On the west elevation it should be stepped back or
delineated better.
Susan dittoed the commems made. The link should be lowered and
simplified. The restoration of the front is appropriate but not the glazing in
the vertical pieces. The garage offthe alley is acceptable. She is not in
favor of demolishing the comer on the East Side because this house has
changed so much and is an important house. Nothing historic should be
demolished.
Lisa relayed that the fenestration on the gable form of the addition needs
restudied. The detailing of the garage door needs restudied as most historic
garage doors are on a prominent facade with more detailing. If the east
portion of the addition is historic she would not support demolition. She
also does not support the relocation of the chimney. She has some
reservations about the reconstruction of the porch and should be handled
very carefully because you do loose what the historic patina was on the
porch. There are also concerns about the two-story connector and the glass
vs. sold in the vertical panels on the front facade. She has no issues with the
Third Street access.
Suzannah concurred with the commissioners regarding the chimney being
retained in its original location. She could favor the removal of the piece on
the east elevation. Regarding the south elevation, restoration of the facade
should occur to resemble the original picture. OK with the garage opening
onto Thrid Street. She also favors the setback on the west side, (6 inches).
The second scheme presented is preferable.
Gilbert moved to approve the plans submitted in the packet and Resolution
(43, 2001 approving the request for the restoration of the front porch and
partial demolition of the second addition in the rear; construction of a new
addition in the rear; 500 square foot FAR bonus and 4 setback variances
for the property located on Lot K and West half of Lot L, Block 44, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colo. with the following conditions:
18
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January_ 10, 2001
1. The schematic design shown on the site plan presented to HPC is in
no way approved or endorsed by the HPC. Any further development
for the historic structure shall be subject to further review as
required by Section 26.415 of the Aspen Land Use Code;
2. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the
applicant approval for afire (5) foot rear yard setback variance and
to maintain the 6foot 8 inch side yard setback;
3. That the Historic Preservation Commission grants approval to the
applicants for a 500 square foot FAR bonus;
4. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the
building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic
house are to be removed as part of the renovation;
5. That the applicani shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the
building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which
are to be retained, will be restored The requirement is to
retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are
determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage;
6. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not
previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no
existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically
approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and
monitor;
7. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the ~ype and location of
ail exterior lighting f~xtures;
8. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as
approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff
and monitor;
9. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions
of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of
construction;
10. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with
copies of the HPC Resolution applicable to this project. The
contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the
building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval
are known and understood and must meet with the Historic
Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit;
19
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January_ 10, 2001
! 1. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required
to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to
receiving a building permit;
12. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and
during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission
shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions;
13. That the applicant agrees that any restoration hash to comply to the
UCBC 1997 version;
14. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during
demolition..4 washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed
during construction as a requirement of the City of .4spen Streets
Department; and
15. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance ora Certificate of
Occupancy, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter
construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable
recording fees; and
16. That the applicant will provide the Community Development
Department and HPC with an agreement regarding actions taken to
mitigate for any potential impacts to trees on the site as a result of
this land use request with the City of .4spen Par]cs Department prior
to Final Review before HPC. +
17. Study a setback on the west elevation at the connection between the
addition and the historic house.
18. Compliance of the UCBC.
19. Not approve the glass infill proposed on sheet HPC-8 (attic).
Jeffrey second.
les vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Rally, Susan,
No vote: Lisa.
Motion carried 5-1
Clarification of motion:
The motion approves the fenestration on the west elevation unless they
choose to restudy it at final. It also approves modifying the windows on the
south side, not specifically in the gable but the double hung.
2O
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January 10, 2001
Suzannah said the board said restoration of the south facade and it would be
whatever the photographic evidence was of the original configuration.
Lisa said not as it is necessarily drawn. The connector is approved as
drawn.
Harry asked for clarification that the motion requires them to do the
restoration of the south side and the chair said yes restoration of the south
side is required.
Harry said they would prefer glass.
MOTION: Gilbert moved to adjourn, second by Jeffrey. All in favor,
motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
21