HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20011212ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12, 2001
SHOOTER'S SALOON - 220 S. GALENA ST .......................................................................................... 1
501 W. MAIN - CHRISTIANIA - FINAL. PUBLIC HEARING ............................................................. 2
213 Wi BLEEKER, REMEDIATION PLAN ............................................................................................. 7
110 E. BLEEKER - CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, VARIANCES ............................... 11
334 W. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL. PARTIAL DEMOLITION. VARIANCES, PUBLIC
HEARING .................................................................................................................................................... 15
WORKSESSION- 950 MATCHLESS DRIVE ....................................................................................... 21
NO MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................. 21
22
ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATiON COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER i2~ 200i
Chairperson, Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Rally Dupps,
Melanie Roschko, Michael Hoffman, Neill Hirst and Paul D'Amato. Teresa
Melville was excused.
Staffpresent: Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie
Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland
Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer
City Planner, Fred Jarman
Shooter's Saloon - 220 S. Galena St.
Amy relayed that the sign permit is for a wall-mounted sign, which is 2 feet
by 4 ½ feet. The sign would replace an existing sign. Staff had a concern
about the size of the sign on a very architecturally significant building and
whether this detracts from the finer features of the Victorian structure. The
sign does comply with the sign code.
Bill Venezia, owner said the existing sign is a little smaller than the
proposed. The sign will attach in the exact same place as the existing bolts.
Suzannah relayed that the code only relates tO the size relative to the street
frontage of the building.
Bill said he has approval for the sign from the Elk's Lodge #224, which is
the owner of the building.
Amy said the design guidelines indicate that the sign should be located
subordinate to the building design. Sign should not obscure building detail
and small-scale signs are encouraged. Sign materials should be similar to
those historically, painted wood and metal are appropriate. Plastic and
highly reflective materials are inapproPriate. Use signs to relate to other
buildings on the street and to emphasize architecture features. Sign should
not obscure existing details. The sign is a pictographic and that standard
has been met. Staffhas concern with the other two standards and whether
this sign is really related to the rest of the historic building.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12;'200i
Bill said the sign will be below the canopy and the material is of a glossy
nature. It is red with black trim and a smooth finish.
Rally asked if the applicant could consider another material such as wood.
Bill said he would consider that.
Commissioner comments:
Melanie said it doesn't seem to meet the guidelines.
Rally said the sign seems to help out their business strategy and meets the
guidelines.
Bill said the back of the finger sign is wood and a thin layer of plastic is
over it. It was created to help people find his business.
MOTION: Rally moved to approve the design subject to the approval of the
sign code; Gilbert second the motion. Motion carried 7-0.
Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Melanie, Neill, Michael, Suzannah
501 W. Main - Christiania - Final, Public Hearing
David relayed that the public notice has been provided which meets the
jurisdictional requirements and will be entered into the record as Exhibit I.
Sworn in were David Brown, Mitch Haas, Greg Hills, Fonda Patterson
Fred said the main issues from conceptual that need to be resolved are the
new four-plex in the back of the lot. The concern was the roofiine as it
related to massing and also the east and west facades that also relate to
massing. The tower on the main lodge that sites on the comer of Main and
Fourth is 32 feet high and the isSUes are the window fenestration. The
applicant has provided a variety of options for the window fenestration.
The applicant has tried to redUce the massing by placing plate height 2x8
trim boards and showing a variety of materials. A shed roof will cover the
stairwell.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTEs OF
DECEMBER i2~ 2~
Mitch said at conceptual they were to restudy the roofline of the four-plex
and the fenestration on the tower element: There was also discussion on
how to break up the sides of the four-plex due to the mass. Mitch presented
two agreeable alternatives of the roofline for the board to review. There are
very strong historic preservation efforts on the pan abodes and the cabins.
The character will go unchanged. The paint will be stripped on the pan
abodes and finished to match the cabin next door.
Clarifications & Questions:
Suzannah asked about the chimneys on the pan abodes. David Brown said
they are existing stucco and it is not realistic to move the chimneys but they
will be rebuilt to match the existing. The overall door size will be reduced
in the pan abode but the opening will be larger. All of the windows on the
pan abode will be replaced as they are single pane glass.
Jeffrey inquired about the fence. David said there is an existing fence along
the alley that is six feet high and the fencing that we are suggesting is
ironwork to match the front street fence. Where there are guardrails at
grade there will be light ironwork similar to the front fence.
Gilbert asked if the access well on the cabin had to be that wide or is there
some potential for pushing it back away from the street? David said it needs
to be that long because they anticipate air conditioning in all the units. All
of the mechanical sizing has not been done yet.
Melanie said it was discussed what could be saved on the lilacs and the
landscape plan doesn't show anything saved? They are being moved but
they are not where they were. The chance of surviving is slim.
David said lilacs grow fast and. they think it is appropriate to transplant the
shrubs.
Mitch said the intent is to keep them on site but relocate them.
Greg said we will do everything to save them when transplanted.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing.
ASPEN ltlSTORIC P~SERVATION CO~iSgi0N MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12~ 200i
Fonda Patterson said since the units will have air-conditioning where are the
air-conditioning motorized units going to be placed. Greg said some would
be in the basement and otherS on the roof. Fonda also asked if there would
be an ordinance about pets and dogs on the property. Greg said they are
planning t° allow dogs.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing.
Commissioner comments:
Jeffrey said regarding the fouroplex he Could accept either design. Jeffrey
said he would prefer not showing the clipped hip alternative and could
approve AC 3.2. The preservation plan is well done. The treatment of the
new foundation of the cabin should be discussed. The restorations help put
the pan abodes and the Callahan cabin in a prominence again.
Gilbert said the project does highlight the historic buildings. Gilbert also
said he supports AC3.2. On the tower he could support alternate two or
four. Gilbert said from his experience the Pan abodes are exempt from the
energy code regarding the single pane glass because that was what existed.
He would not want to give up original windows.
Rally said a few new windows on the pan abode would be acceptable
because the single panes are noisier. Rally supports elevation AC 3.2.
The cabin and pan abodes design are acceptable.
Melanie dittoed the other member's comments and she could support
changing the windows out in the pan abodes. She also could support AC
3.2 The landscape plan is a good design.
Neill also agreed with the other commissioners On their comments. He can
support AC3.2 because it is more in character with Aspen. On the tower
Neill preferred alternate #4 because it is not much of a tower and works well
particularlY with the other elements of the building.
Michael reserved comment but stated that he supports staff's
recommendation.
4
ASPEN } iSTORIC pRESERV TION CO SsIOI M UTES OF
VECEM ER 200
Paul reserved comment and supports staff's recommendation.
Suzarmah relayed that she appreciates the preservation of the pan abodes
and log cabin and their new locations. She also can accept AC3.2 for the
four-plex. There is some concern on the windows of the pan abodes and it
is confusing from the drawings in terms of what you are proposing for the
muntin patterns and she would rather see if the windows are to be replaced
to be true to the existing windows.
David said if they were insulated with the muntin pattern to match would
that be acceptable? Suzarmah said that could be doable.
MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve Resolution #58, 200I for final review
of the Christiania Lodge, 501 FZ. Main for 1) An on-site relocation of two
pan abodes and the Callahan cabin. 2) The demotion of the existing main
lodge building on the corner of Fourth and Main street, the existingfour-
plex and duplex located at the back of the site on the alley, and a one-story
structure located on the corner of 5th and Main Streets; and 3) The design
review ora new triplex, duplex, two four-plexes and a main lodge structure
for a property located at 501 ~Vest Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 31, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
I) That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the
building permit plan set upon receiving Final approval, indicating
exactly what areas of the historic Callahan Cabin are to be altered as
part of the renovation;
2) That the applicant shall submit a preServation plan, as part of the
building permit plan set upon receiving Final Approval, 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;
3) That no elements are to be added to the historic Callahan Cabin and
pan abodes 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;
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12~ 2001
4) That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of
all exterior lighting fixtures;
$) That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as
approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff
and monitor;
6) 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;
7) That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with
copies of the HPC Final Review Resolution appBcable 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;
8) That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be
required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to
receiving a building permit;
9) 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;
10) That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during
demolition..4 washed roclc or other style mud rack must be installed
during construction as a requirement of the City of Aspen Streets
Department; and
11).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;
12) That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation
Building Code;
13) The applicant shall submit an analysis/structural report by a licensed
engineer to the HPC monitor land Staff demonstrating the sOundness
of the structure proposed for relocation;
14) The applicant shall submit to the Community Development
Department a relocation plan including posting a bond or other
financial security approved by HPC with the engineering
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12, 2001
Department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair
(if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure
connections as part of the Final Review Application; and
15)Replacement and design of windows on the historic pan abode
buildings shall be review and approved by staff and monitor.
16) The access well to crawl space on the historic cabin shouM be
reconfigured to allow the north east corner of the cabin to sit on
grade and the configuration shall be reviewed and approved by staff
and monitor.
17) Tower configuration shall be indiCated as Alternate ~4.
18) The gabled roof for the four-plex is approved as A C 3.2
Melanie second the motion. Motion carried 7-0.
Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Melanie, Neill, Michael, Suzannah
213 W. Bleeker, Remediation Plan
Sworn in were: Stan Mathis, representing the Schellings.
Craig O'Brian, resident of 215 W. Bleeker
Paul Taddune, attorney representing the adjacent neighbor, Margaret Block
Tom Perry, Building Department.
David said pursuant to the stipulation order the applicant had to come
before HPC for approval of the remediation plan.
Copy of the stipulated order entered into the record as Exhibit I.
David said in addition there is an agreement between the Schelling's and
Mrs. Block, Exhibit II. Also building codes need to be complied with as
part of the approval. David said he is going to request that the agreements
be attached to the resolution as Exhibits. Mr. Schelling is required to pay
the City $120,000 and the apPropriate way to track that is through the Clerk
& Recorder. When recorded, these agreements would have to be complied
with if ever the property was sold to another party.
Stan said he was asked to address how to reduce the overhang on the
adjacent property to the west. The overhang goes beyond the property line
and at the same time maintain some resemblance as to what you originally
thought you were going to get in elevation. Stan said he cut the overhang
7
ASPEN HISTORIC P~SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12~ 200i
back to within one inch of the worst-case condition of the property line, so
therefore it's about eight inches. Not only in the code but as a matter of
good practice one needs a gutter because you really cannot drain water onto
the neighbor's propeity, so it became obvious to be that I was going to cut
the entire overhang off and that is what the wall section indicates. It is a
custom gutter that is in the same shape as the fascia and soffet and to be
painted the same as the fascia and soffet. At the front of the building you
will not see the end of the gutter, the gable fascia comes down and covers
the end °fthe gutter. That runs the inter length of the historic part of the
structure. In addition there needs to be down spouts and code we have to
have dry wells to take care of the runoff water. There will only be one
down spout on the lengthy gutter. It will probably be like a secondary
gutter inside the fascia gutter that will drain all the water to Bleeker Street
side. It will then go to some sort of drainpipe, preferably not a perforated
drainpipe to a dry well at the front of the house. We are too close to the
neighbor's property for any water to be spewed out.
Stan said he also raised the elevation of the bottom of the soffet to about
two inches, and maybe three inches so now it aligns with the fascia that run
across the face of the shed roof covering the entry. That was actually offset
in the original submission. The fascia that comes down on the side of the
gables that returns back to the shed over the entry is what is indicated on the
drawings. The original drawing was a foot and that put it two inches over
the neighbor's property. The reason the bottom of the soffet was raised up
is to keep the vertical dimension of the fascia as it was approved previously.
The Only difference is that the soffet is higher. There are no alternations to
any other part of the design.
Paul Taddune stated he represents 215 W. Bleeker, the Block residence.
The Block house is an historically designated structure. The subject project
jeopardized her foundation. Other impacts were the roof overhang and the
higher pitched roof was causing snow to cascade against her house etc.
That caused hear to file legal action against the Schelling's. Paul agreed
with David that the remediation plan is going to incorporate the terms of the
settlement agreement. Paul stated that all of the settlement agreements have
not been performed. The Schelling's were to notify Mrs. Block when the
backfill was going to occur in order for them to contact HP Geotech to
observe the backfill. The backfill which was done without a permit was not
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12~ 2001
done properly and does present some jeopardy. The backfill needs to be
redone and in addition Patill° recommended mud grouting on Mrs. Black's
foundation which we do not feel was done. A subsurface drain was to be
installed that would drain out onto Bleeker Street which should be part of
the settlement. If those components could be rectified we could have
compliance.
Jeffrey asked what has to be done regarding the backfill?
Tom Perry said it should have been inspected. We are talking civil rather
than building code issues as to which way to go. It should be part of the
process.
David said his concern is that the compaction comply with the building
codes.
Paul said unfortunately you have an historic property that is in compliance
and one that is not. The fill should be removed and reinstalled and
inspected as it is reinstalled and that would preserve both buildings. We do
not want to undermine the foundation of the Block residence.
Stan Mathis said if there was a specification calling for a specific
compaction density test and that wasn't tested as the lifts were put in then
by virture of the fact that the excavation is so close to other structures by not
having the right standard, the soil not being in a "fluffed" state you have the
opportunity for the soil that was not excavated at the other structure to
move. Compaction is important. The drainage is a building code issue.
Suzannah asked when the backfill was done? Paul said the backfilling Was
done after the agreement and the agreement calls for Mrs. Block to be
notified. Paul said he was driving by and saw Schelling doing some work
and that was in violation of his building permit.
Jeffrey asked about Schelling's license?
Tom Perry said he has no license at all and he does not have a building
permit for that structure at this time. Everything is starting over. He should
be going through engineering even for the drywell and engineering would
9
ASPEN HISTO~C P~SERVATION cOMMISSION MINUTEs OF
DECEMBER 12~ 2001
be looking at the dr)well. What is holding up the building permit is HPC's
approval of the appearance o£this structure. Drainage issues, structural
issues, fire issues will be dealt with as part of the building permit process.
David said it is his position that it would be meaningless for this Board to
basically approve a remediation plan that didn't incorporate both the
concerns of Mrs. Block and our concerns. Unless the Schelling's are in
compliance with both of these agreements they basically have a situation
where they cannot complete the house. David said he brought everyone
together in the hopes of resolving these issues.
Stan Mathis said there are above grade issues which are visual and then
there are issues below grade that effect the stability of both structures
actually. Stan requested approval for the elevation presented and then work
out the building issues.
Amy said that is staffs recommendation, for HPC to give approval with the
condition that they get a building permit; that they give us a construction
schedule that sets up dates for completion of the project and that they
address whatever they are out of compliance with on their agreement with
the Block's.
Suzannah said the permit should include specifics on this agreement and
somehow it is going to have to be shown that the construction complies with
the permit.
MOTION: Rally moved to approve Reso. #59, 2001 in which HPC
recommends approval of the elevation section provided at the Dec. 12th
meeting with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant is required to obtain a building permit and that
they must apply for that permit within one week of this date and they
must pick up the permit within two weeks of it being ready to issue.
2. Attached to this resolution shall be the agreement with the Block's,
the adjacent neighbor and all aspects of that agreement must be
complied with particularly the compaction issues.
3. Stipulated order between the City and the Schelling 's shall be
attached and complied with.
10
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12~ 2001
4. The owner and the Building Dept. will come to an agreement about
an ongoing work plan for completion of the project.
5. Subsurface drainage going out to Bleeker Street which is part of the
gutter drainage, the d~y well in the front of the building.
6. The Block agreement should be incorporated and addressed in the
building department drawings.
Motion second by Melanie. Motion carried 6-0.
Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Melanie, Neill, Suzannah
110 E. Bleeker- ConcePtual, Partial Demolition, Variances
Sworn in were Sven Alstrom and Herb Klein.
Notice of publication was entered into the record as Exhibit I.
Amy said the proposal is to make an addition on the west side of the
existing 19th century Victorian. Staff has concern about the location of the
addition, it is far to forward on the lot to meet design guideline 10.8. It is
too competitive with the historic resource and changes the perception of the
width and overall size of the original building and it must be slipped back
on the lot. One of the reasons it has not been proposed that way is because
the garage at the back of the property is side loaded. After discussion with
the Engineering Dept. it is conceivable that the City would allow relocation
of the garage doors onto the alley side in order for them to come right in
from the alley. The garage is not an historic building. The applicant is
requesting a 500 square foot FAR bonus. Restoration efforts need clarified
in order for the recommendation of the FAR bonus. On the partial
demolition standards, where the addition is proposed the intent is to
demolish an entire wall and staff doesn't feel the design is appropriate right
now. Staff recommends continuation with very specific direction.
Sven said since the last worksessiOn the addition has been pushed back 14
feet behind the brick faCade of the hOuse and the porch is nine feet behind
the brick faCade. The FAR bonus request has been reduced to 350 feet,
which is roughly 70% of the bOnus. The access location of the stair on the
rear of the building has been changed so that the rear facade of the historic
house is not altered at all. They are proposing to leave the laundry room
unaltered. The length of the addition has been reduced by three feet. The
11
ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12; 200]
porch will be restored. The peak of the proposed addition is the same as the
historic house and it has entirely different materials. The owners want to
use the existing garage as is. The are trying to make connecting piece more
transparent. The design is a better articulated design.
Herb Klein said the carriage type concept which is recommended by staff
does not work with the client. The standard 10.8 talks about placing the
addition at the rear of the building or set it back from the front to minimize
the visual impact. The contractors are telling us you just can't relocate the
doors to access the alley because it interferes with the plate height on that
side and an SUV with a ski rack will probably not get in there. The
applicant does not feel it is reasonable to mess with the garage because they
have no reason to mess with it. At the worksession you wanted us to
respond to the changing of the rear so that the connector would not obscure
the rear0fthe house~ The new connector responds to that concern. It does
not block the rear of the house.
Amy said there are conifer trees in front of the house on city property and
the city parks department would be willing to come in and remove those
trees and plan an appropriate street tree. They would like to have the
cooperation of the owner before doing that. Staff is no way saying they
want a detached carriage hOUse. The issue is that it needs to be pushed back
on the lot and if you were to move the garage doors to the alley, of course
you would have to do some kind of dormer to allow access into the
building. We are also not asking for this to be smaller, it is purely the
location of the addition.
Commissioner questions:
Gilbert asked what the plate height was at the stair corridor, the link
between the two volumes? Sven said the stair tower box could be lowered
and right now the ceiling is nine feet.
Herb Klein said they would prefer to leave the garage Where it sits.
Melanie inquired about the front fagade window. Sven said they desire to
restore it as per the photograph.
12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12~ 2001
Sven said the side of the house where the addition is to be placed does not
have a continuous foundation. The cellar has three different types of
foundations across the length. Part of the project is to improve the
foundations of the house on the sides where we are adding on. They do not
want to do a complete basement.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing.
Commissioner comments:
Rally said according to the guidelines 10.7 they prefer a one-story connector
and in most projects that he has voted for that has been the requirement for
him to give support especially when the applicant is asking for the FAR
bonus. He also feels the addition competes with the historic house which
goes against guideline 10.6~ The house is set back nine feet to the porch
element and guideline 10.8 states that it should be a minimum often feet is
required. The 7'4" plate height can be lowered easily to accommodate
guideline 10.8. Rally also felt that the roof height of the stair tower should
be lowered, The garage is fine as is.
Melanie said she agrees with all of Rally's statements.
Neill said the connector is somewhat troublesome. Sven said it is a one-
story connector until it gets to the rear. Neill said the connector seems to
have a large impact on the historical house.
Michael said he feels guideline 10.8 has been met. He can accept nine feet
back but also could support moving the addition back. The rectilinear
stairway doesn't seem to be consistent with historic preservation in this
case.
Paul said the mass of the new addition seems rather large in comparison to
the existing structure especially on the south elevation.
Amy said regarding the garage when they come in for a permit they will be
required to get an encroachment for the part that sits into the alley.
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12~ 2001
Jeffrey said he appreciates the applicant coming back with improvements
beyond the memos. He also said he appreciates the recovery effort of the
south fa¢ade of the house. The one stow link needs to be better expressed
and needs a little more distance between the resource and new addition. He
also concurred with staff that the addition needs stepped back a little more
to the north and possibly downscaling some of the porch elements on the
new addition as they seem to detract from some of the historic excellent
ornamental details. By taking 80% of the western wall eliminates the
retrieve ability. The plate heights to the addition as well as the stair tower
seem a little bit large and begin to compete with the historic resource.
Gilbert said he feels the tree is an interesting addition to the site. With that
in mind the setback does work and the massing is appropriate. The height
of the addition seems to also work. On the south elevation there is
something troublesome and it would be difficult to lower it, as the plate is
7'4". Maybe the first floor could be lowered some. Regarding proportions
what works is the pickup from the front, gable of the historic house. The
fenestration needs restudied and doesn't really have any relationship to the
historic house. Regarding the south elevation of the link, the rectangular
geometry is a little alien and possibly needs some softer forms. He also
appreciated Sven pulling the stair tower away from the north elevation of
the historic building. Seeing all of that gable is very successful.
Suzannah said efforts to restore the front of the building are terrific. The
scale of the addition piece is monumental. Maybe there needs to be
something a little lighter. Suzannah also recommended restudy of the plate
height of the main level and the stair tower, The garage is not a motivating
factor one way or the other.
Sven said maybe annunciation the floor line of the porch is setting up a
problem and that can be looked at. He also said he would modify and
reduce the plate heights and he could reduce the stair two feet. From the
last work session he moved the stair and possibly the south elevation of the
connector should be glass. It would be a funny space because you would be
looking at roof fascias, old dormer, new building, flat roof below.
Regarding Gilbert's and Jeffrey's comments he could entertain a sloping
roof from the alley side down to the front.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ~NUTES OF
DECEMBER 12, 2001
MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue the application for l l O E. Bleeker
Street to January 23rd, second by Rally. Motion carried 7-0.
Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Melanie, Neill, Michael Suzannah
334 W. Hallam - COnceptual, Partial DemolitiOn, variances, Public
Hearing
Sworn in were: Patrick Cashen, Hayden Connor, LoUise Connor, Bill Poss,
Smiddy
The affidavit of posting was entered into the record as Exhibit I.
Amy said the proposal is to demolish a 1960 era addition on the back of the
house to replace it and expand it to the east. There is a conflict between that
idea and a large cottonwood tree that is very close on the east side of the
house. The parks Dept. has taken the position that they do not want to see
that tree removed. The owner would like to move the house away from the
tree to accommodate their addition but staff feels that is not supported by
the guidelines which say that relocating a house should only be done
because it is the only solution and it dOes sOmething to preserve the
building. This hoUSe is on the National Register and there are other places
on the lot where an addition could be located more appropriately. At the
back of the house there is a porch on the west side and that addition is
historic and needs t° be retained. Another part of the proposal is to add an
garage that fills in the space between the existing house and the separate
building that sits on the alley. That is also not supported by the guidelines
as it destroys the relationship of having two detached buildings and the
garage should not be facing the street. The applicant is also requesting the
500 FAR bonus and because we don't find that this project meets the
guidelines, and we haven't seen anything to represent what is exemplary in
the project. The bonus is usually reserved for someone making an
outstanding restoration effort which they might be doing but it need to go
beyond that in order to give a 500 square foot bonus which is a large
benefit.
The other variance is related to the garage, they are actually asking for
around 750 square feet of bonuses. The last 250 square feet is because if
15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12, 2001
you have access to an alley you could place your garage in an alley and if
you don't do it you don't get any exemption from the city so their garage
will count, and they are asking for that to be waived based on the argument
of hardship. Staff does not find that the hardship standards have been met.
There are other alternatives and a garage is not an absolute necessary feature
for the property. Staffis very pleased that the house is being addressed but
the standards have not been met and we need to come to some agreement.
Mrl Conner relayed that they are appreciative of the work that HPC has
done and they have tried hard to cooperate and understand exactly what is
asked for and comply with it. They want the house to be authentic. They
would like this to be collaborative effort to make the house spectacular.
Patrick Cashen said his comments fall into three areas; the character of the
addition; the tree; the garage. He is ~ying to expose all three of the gables
and disconnect the previous addition from the north chimney and straighten
out the floor levels and make sure the windows are done correctly.
Regarding the demolition on the north, the porch is an historic feature and
could be kept but the north part of the house is also the area where the floor
levels are uneven and we almost have to take down everything around the
porch to straighten out the floor levels and get the windows right. We have
to replace the foundation of the entire house but we can certainly replace the
porch.
Regarding alternate locations for the addition, we are trying to keep the
addition tight to the main body of the house on the back side. This is
sensible because it makes the rest of the property useful and we are hemmed
in on the one side by the tree.
The tree is right in the middle of the lot and typically that is not a normal
placement for a tree like that. The foundation is nonexistent on the house
and the tree is only two feet from the hoUse. Even saving the tree and
replacing the foundation we see as a tough dilemma. Showing the board a
few site plans and getting input may help in the decision.
Regarding the garage the 1977 survey shows that there was a two-story
structure on the northwest comer of the lot that was a garage. On that
survey was a carport that was attached to the west side of the two-story
16
ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES oF
DECEMBER 12, 2001
structure that existed at the time of the survey. In 1988 the two-story
structure was remodeled into one of the units that exists as this time and the
carport was removed at that time. The normal placement of the garage on
the alley side compromises the private space of the lot and puts the garage
next to the two-story carriage house and disrupts the pattern.
Bill Poss said there are at least 100 historic houses that have access off the
street rather than the alley. There is a history of coming in off the Street.
Commissioner questions:
Michael asked the apPlicants what they are trying to accomplish with the
house? Mr. Connor said the kitchen is a meeting spot and they want to
extend the room to the east. Better insulation wiring, heating needs done.
Over the kitchen they plan on making a larger room as the existing bedroom
is too small. Right now people park their cars in the driveway and the
garage would make visually more pleasing but that is not the end of the
world. Regarding the tree; they are happy to do either suggestion.
Louise Conner said keeping the tree and the basement are challenging as the
root structure go under the house.
Amy said Stephen Elsperman from the Parks Dept. is allowing the basement
but he also realizes that the tree might die after excavating.
Rally said part of the FAR bOnus is granted With a strong preservation effort
and staff's position is this is not quite there yet and this is more ora
rehabilitation plan. Are the owners willing to consider part of the FAR
request to restore that rear part of the house to its original condition.
Patrick said the map only shows a footprint and what could have been
there? They do not know if it was a one-story or two-story.
Rally asked once the garage is built what will be the separation between the
existing two-story dwelling and the new garage? Patrick relayed 7.1 feet.
Neill asked Amy ifwe had any original photographs or data to relate to on
this particular house. The National Register does not have photographs as
17
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12, 2001
attachments but our Historical Society might have something since this is a
prominent house.
Amy said regarding the back there is more of the original piece than just the
porch. The form is there and the 60's addition landed on top of it. It was a
one-story gabled ro°f piece but the entire issue needs more study.
Suzannah opened and closed the publiC hearing.
Commissioner comments:
Gilbert said the notion of the garage accessing off of Third Street as a
concept on a comer lot in the West End he would be fine with it in most
situations. The problem here is locating the garage where you are
suggesting, will causes a series of other problems that Amy pointed out in
her memo. It pushes all the new elements out toward the east and the
guidelines do not support that point of view. It is more beneficial to the
property owner to do the kind of addition that minimizes or have as little
impact on as many phases of the historic property as possible. Adding on to
the back of the building has a negative impact. Gilbert said he feels it is
important to see that gable as a freestanding comer. He would look at
something that pulled away from the comer, that is stepped back and then
possibly extended toward the east. If the garage was on the alley it would
free you up to get the space that you want to get.
Jeffrey said he supports staff's recommendation on the garage placement. It
would help simplify the Third street elevation. The addition extended to
the east at that junction complicates and confuses the historic resource. On
the north side is the logical area for the addition. If you had the garage off
the alley it would help privatize your lot.
Michael said he would support the relocation of the building to save the tree
and to preserve the house to the greatest extent possible. This is a very
important building and a good example of 1880's architecture.
Neill said he would have diffiCulty approving the relocation of the building.
A building of considerable importance to the City of Aspen needs to be held
to the highest standards of restoration, rehabilitation, preservation,
18
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12, 2001
conservation etc. and especially when we are asked to approve a FAR
bonus. Neill agreed with all of Staff's observations and recommendations.
The north side of the house is the most logical space to do something. The
garage on the alley is a good suggestion. Neill also said he would need
research data in order to approve the project. He is not in favor of
relocating the house. The site is as important as the house itself.
Melanie said she does not support picking up the house and moving it as it
is in its historical location. She is not opposed to putting in the basement.
Research needs to be done in order to determine what that original part of
the back of that house was. Look at the addition in regard to the form of the
house. She is in favor of the garage off the alley in some form. She also
stated that she couldn't support the bonus.
Rally said his comments come down to the garage and the FAR being
requested. He also dittoed Neill and Gilbert's comments. The garage drives
the application. If we added a garage on the Third Street suddenly we have
a west elevation that looks heavy and detracts from the historic resource.
Rally also said he could support relocation of the house.
Suzannah said we have a very difficult standard to meet to give the variance
from the garage FAR and the site the way it is now does not meet those
standards. She agreed with the other commissioners that the garage is
driving other issues that are not so great for the historic resource. The
separation between the house and carriage house even if it is not a carriage
house anymore is good. There are a lot of opportunities to do additions on
the north side that might connect to the garage or be separate from the
garage and give you some of that openness that you are looking for on the
ground floor. Suzannah also stated that she doesn't want the applicant to
feel that she is being negative. She could support the bonus looking at
whatever variances they might need in order to make the garage WOrk in the
back alley. The porch needs to be looked at and determined what part of
that is historic. Regarding relocating the structure, further architectural
opportunities should be looked at on the site before the relocation can be'~
approved. The plan may transform into something that allows both that tree
to remain and the house to remain in its location. The site is part of the
elegance of the lot.
19
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 12, 2001
Bill Poss Said he heard that if the garage could be relocated °ff the alley it
seemed like more support than less support that a bOnus FAR could be
justified because it was helping the redesign of the house.
Melanie said if the garage is off the alley you don't have that 250 square
foot bonus. Now we are back to the 500 square foot FAR and that is
determined by what goes on with the restoration and the addition to that part
of the house.
Bill said if development could move to the north then it sounded like there
could be support for the 500 square foot bonus that would go to the house.
The board agreed.
Bill said when you put a garage back there, having a comer house when
most of the land is given to the street you get less private space. By putting
the garage in the back to increase the use of their yard they may relocate the
house a few feet away from the tree to retain the tree but also it might
increase the use of the yard.
Suzannah said that would be based on the Proposal that would be presented.
Patrick said the garage is not driving the plan and it is not critical. We can
eliminate the garage and look at the design without the garage. Doing more
research on the 60's addition is a valiant idea but to date we have not come
up for anything. We checked with the Historic Museum and they do not
have anything. Ideas of direction are welcome.
Melanie said some sort of a jog to the back can give you a more private
area, and it would be more useful to the owner~
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue 334 VE. Hallam to March 13th,' second
by Melanie, all in favor, motion carried 7-0.
Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Melanie, Neill, Michael, Suzannah
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MiNUTES OF
DECEMBER 12~ 2001
Worksession - 950 Matchless Drive
No minutes
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Melanie. All in favor,
motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
21