HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20140122 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
January 22,2014
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
12:00 SITE VISITS: Please meet at 947 E. Cooper, followed by 135 E.
Cooper
5:00 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes-January 8, 2014
C. Public Comments
D. Commission member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest(actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
H. Certificates of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
OLD BUSINESS
5:10 None
NEW BUSINESS
5:10 A. 947 E. Cooper- Minor, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
5:50 B. 135 E. Cooper-Minor, PUBLIC HEARING
WORKSESSION
6:30 A. Main Street crosswalk lighting
7:00 ADJOURN
TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA
ITEM,NEW BUSINESS
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation(5 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Applicant presentation (20 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed(5 minutes)
HPC discussion(15 minutes)
Applicant rebuttal (comments) (5 minutes)
Motion(5 minutes)
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least
four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present
shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All
actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than
three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting.
PROJECT MONITORING- Projects in bold are currently under construction.
Jay Maytin 518 W.Main-Fornell
320 Lake
435 W.Main-AJCC
204 S.Galena
920 W.Hallam
420 E.Cooper
28 Smuggler Grove
Lift One
Nora Berko 205 S.Spring-Hills
1102 Waters
332 W.Main
28 Smuggler Grove
1006 E. Cooper
602 E.Hyman
Sallie Golden 517 E.Hyman(Little Annie's)
206 Lake
Jane Hills Aspen Core
605 W.Bleeker
114 Neale
201 E.Hyman
507 Gillespie
Willis Pember 204 S.Galena
Aspen Core
514 E.Hyman
624 W.Francis
Patrick Segal 204 S.Galena
623 E.Hopkins
701 N.Third
612 W.Main
Holden Marolt derrick
624 W.Francis
206 Lake
John Whipple 208 E.Main
201 E.Hyman
420 E.Cooper
602 E.Hyman
Jim DeFrancia 414 E.Hyman
M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc
1/13/2014
P1
MEMORANDUM A &
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 947 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor Development, Public Hearing continued from
November 13, 2013
DATE: January 22, 2014
SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval for window and door changes to a non-historic
home located on a landmark designated property.
APPLICANT: Matt and Kate Holstein, owners.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-52-005.
ADDRESS: 947 E. Cooper Avenue, East Cooper Court Condominiums, Unit E, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: Affordable Housing zone district.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections This report is transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The
HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred(300)feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff finding: In 1995, the City approved redevelopment of a 10,000 square foot lot that
resulted in the on-site relocation and renovation of a historic house and barn and construction of
three new homes. The two homes closest to Cooper Avenue were approved as free market units.
Along the alley, one home (in the center) was designated free market, the northeast home was
deed-restricted to Resident Occupied, and the northwest home became a Category 3 affordable
housing unit.
1
P2
HPC conducted Conceptual and Final design review for the site plan and each of the homes, and
retains design purview over the property in perpetuity.
The subject of this Minor development hearing is Unit E, the Resident Occupied unit at the
northeast corner of the site. Since construction in 1997, this property has been sold three times.
In 2011, the City began to discover work that was apparently done by the second home owner
without approvals or permits. The initial discovery was that the owner had converted part of a
required garage/on-site parking into bedroom space. Money to undo the illegal work was
escrowed as part of a subsequent sale. The current owners, who purchased in September 2013,
have an active building permit underway to re-establish the approved garage. That work is
primarily an interior remodel, however staff has reviewed and approved the installation of a new
garage door.
Because it was necessary to initiate construction on the house, the new owners elected to also
propose some desired window changes on their building permit. Unfortunately, they were not
aware of the historic designation or the need for HPC review, although it should be noted that the
designation is recorded on the Subdivision Plat for this property, the Subdivision Agreement, and
City Council Ordinance #9, Series of 1995. HPC purview can be confusing to property owners
when related to recently constructed buildings. Staff contacted the homeowner regarding their
proposed new windows,which are located on the ground floor level of the north and east sides of
the house. During the dialogue about the window changes, it was determined that the second
owner of this home had replaced upper floor doors and windows at the southwest corner of this
house without approvals or permits. The photo below shows the unapproved work. The drawing
below shows the HPC approved windows on the south fagade. The HPC approved west
windows are on the next page. (Please note that the drawings show windows with divided lights,
however it has been determined that mullions were deleted from all windows during the original
construction process.)
MAO"I
2 240
ev
ti Ito
_ 2 _
-5 If
9 � ! tU��•ye. It I � �I I G I I
11�I ftbOJt+ I - .I I
L,r b i I O H vt t o
In performing this Minor Development review, HPC has two decisions to make; (1) whether to
approve the already installed south and west windows and doors described above, or require their
replacement to conform with the design guidelines and (2) whether to allow the north and east
window changes that were submitted with the active garage permit, bubbled on the drawings
below.
� 'jYi:r�. wwutq r(kc.�v.�s-t••5cp+rJ�
' a
bPcMitsc�Ud: Fs aos _.__._ -
�T to F
IBM,
j� ✓rs>tuaeaacrrour � �
1 I
PER
n
J� F
_
t•,nb ar y� �` .
I I I �:hiyN ��•sca i - a t p ' <—rLr�►ses '"-7-'a.
I of rlb ,1 �; 7m J
- 1•t-� �Od'rH �L'GJb'rlAi'I V _
Y••-o
3
_'f. e1 aM1���•
f
} 4;
r ,
x
r,
at
945:
1 IIMrst ��6P 945
Ah
,n t� 5i _,,�`.. �T; � ;�-,•v�L: � I I I I 1 1�. �a`Y �' I.fir.t�� P?
P5
As the HPC is aware, the design guidelines are purposefully written to allow a wide variety of
design approaches that achieve compatibility with adjacent historic buildings. The guidelines
state that "a new design should relate to the fundamental characteristics of historic resources
while also conveying the stylistic trends of today. It may do so by drawing upon basic ways of
building that make up a part of the character of the property. Such features upon which to draw
include the way in which a building is located on its site, the manner in which it relates to the
street, and its basic mass, form and materials. When these design variables are arranged in a new
building to be similar to those seen traditionally, visual compatibility results."
There is only one chapter in the design guidelines, which applies to this review; Chapter 11:New
Buildings on Landmarked Properties/Historic Landmark Lot Splits, and, in staff's analysis, only
one relevant guideline
11.9 Use building, components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
• These include windows, doors and porches.
• Overall, details should be modest in character.
The approved/original windows at 947 E. Cooper are painted metal clad windows, a combination
of casement and double hung. All are either square, or vertically proportioned, meaning that they
are taller than they are wide. This creates an important relationship to the historic structures on
-the site. Overall, the total area of the each approved window opening on 947 E. Cooper is
similar to those on the historic structures as well. The design guidelines can allow for larger
compositions of glass, as for instance demonstrated on the new house to the west of this one; 945
E. Cooper, pictured on page 4. That home was allowed to pair windows that are individually
related to the size of those on the Victorian.
Staff's concern with the three south and west upper
floor windows that were previously installed at 947
E. Cooper without a review or building permit is
their large size, which appears to be approximately
6' wide by 8' tall as a single, undivided pane of
glass. This is larger than any other single window x, 41
unit on any home on this site and does not meet
guideline 11.9. The largest window on the historica
structure is the primary bay window, the scale of
which is reduced by the fact that it is a double hung
window. Although the installation of these
windows was not done by the current property
owner, HPC does need to view this as if the
windows were proposed today and not already
installed. Considering the cost implications of
reversing illegally completed work is not the �-
board's role. Staff recommends that the windows = `A
.s
rMM
P6
either be replaced by units that meet the design guidelines, or be modified in some way, such as
through the installation of trim, for review and approval by staff and monitor. We find that the
french doors that access the upper deck sufficiently meet the guidelines by dividing the opening
into two door leaves.
With regard to the proposed new windows, not yet installed, on the ground floor of the north and
east facades, staff finds that these also are not compatible with the proportions of windows on
adjacent historic resources. Windows that meet the guidelines by being vertical, rather than
horizontal in proportion may be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor.
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC deny approval for the already installed
upper floor south and west windows, but approve the french doors to the upper deck, and deny
approval for the proposed ground floor windows on the north and east sides of the house, finding
that the design guidelines are not met. Staff recommends that the applicant submit revisions that
divide the windows into smaller areas of glass, proportionate to the historic resource and vertical
in orientation, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor.
Exhibits:
Resolution#_, Series of 2014
A. Relevant HPC design guidelines
B. Application
C. Letter from Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority staff member
6
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application P7
PROJECT:
Name:
Location: °/ C— ;, Cif 10E R
_ i 6 UrCT G�,Cii
(Indicate street address, lot& block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID# (REQUIRED)
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address: GCS 0 1�5?0 2
Phone#: Fax#: E-mail:
C_04-1
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: ' 0Gl�
Address: `1 l f 6—, lq�/tJ S" 20 J ��� Gv X 16 / 1
Phone#: O Z Fax#: E-mail:SEIC�Z�,t�t�° ii c
GOA
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑ Historic Designation ❑ Relocation (temporary, on
❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ or off-site)
❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Demolition (total
N -Minor Historic Development demolition)
❑ -Major Historic Development ❑ Historic Landmark Lot Split
❑ -Conceptual Historic Development
❑ -Final Historic Development
-Substantial Amendment
ExISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses,previous approvals, etc.
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications,etc.)
i,tl1-tii O 5 191L-11
ascXXV
?e�01 - u Historic Preservation Q 411ts,
A ,
- 2- ol Updated: May 29,2007
P8
October 29,2013
To HPC Staff,Board,and whom it may concern:
I would like to bring you up to speed on a situation of which you will be briefed on by Amy Simon.As the
Operations Manager of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority(APCHA)and the facilitator of the sale
of this property,I feel compelled to share the details of this situation from my perspective.
Kate and Matt Holstein recently purchased an R.O.designated employee house located at 947 E.
Cooper. During the due diligence period,it was disclosed to them that a previous owner had converted the
garage into living space without a building permit,and thus it needed to be converted back into a garage as
a condition of closing,which they agreed to do.
As they began the process of applying for a building permit to do the work,they decided they wanted to
add two windows to the house,and included that in the permit application. It was then that they learned
from Amy Simon,that the house,though built in 1998,was subject to HPC approval. She declined the
window design they had come up with because it did not match the rest of the house. They then sent her
pictures of the house to show that the windows they wanted did,in fact,match the house,and that is when
Amy discovered that all the windows in the house were installed without proper approvals as well.
It was discovered that the second owner of the property remodeled the home without the proper permits
and,at such time,did not receive HPC approval. Although APCHA was aware that one of the homes was
designated historic,it was unknown that the property itself carried that designation. When the second
owner of the property proceeded to sell,it was discovered that the conversion of the garage was done
illegally;therefore,escrow funds were held for the third owner to convert the additional living space back
to a garage. It was APCHA's understanding that someone from the Community Development Department
had conducted a site visit upon this discovery. Never in any of the prior conversations with the Community
Development Department was it mentioned that the property was categorized with the historic designation
nor that the house had windows that would not have been allowed.
Again,as the facilitator of this sale,I was not aware that:a)the house is subject to HPC review;or b)that
the windows were installed without a permit,and thus did not disclose those facts to the current owners,the
Holsteins,during their due diligence process. I understand that the Community Development Department
is determined to see this go through a full approval process,which is why it sits before you now. No one is
to blame for this current state of affairs except for the previous owner(two owners ago)who did all this
work without a permit back in 2007.He is long gone,and now the current owners are stuck holding the
bag.
Kate and Matt are attempting to do the right thing,fix the garage situation as was requested by the City,but
they are being punished for something they had nothing to do with and were never made aware of at point
of sale.
It is important to remember that this is employee housing.They have been told that they must apply for
approval for all the windows retroactively.If the board does not approve the existing windows,and
requires them to tear out or modify the existing windows,it would be an expense to the tune of 10s of
thousands of dollars(not to mention a major waste of environmental resources). This is not an option for
them financially.
Please consider all of these issues when making your decision.
Cindy Christen en
APCHA Operations Manager
EXHIBIT
Timeline of RO Employee house:947 East Cooper Court
•2005—Owner at the time,Chris Hewitt,remodels the house.
•March 2011-Hewitt sells the house to Chip and Lady Fuller.It is disclosed in their contract that the
garage was illegally converted to livable space and the city is requiring it be returned to the original garage.
The Fullers receive a$25K credit to do the work.The Fullers live in the house as is for 2.5 years,but don't
convert the garage.
•July 2013—The Fullers list the house for sale through Pitkin County Housing Authority.The Pitkin
County Housing Authority discloses that the garage must be converted back to its original form as a
condition of closing.
•August 2013—Kate and Matt Holstein win the bid for the house.It's negotiated between the Holsteins
and the Fullers that the Holsteins will do the garage conversion,to begin immediately following closing,
and will receive a$25K credit to do the work.
•September 23,2013—The deed transfers from the Fullers to Pitkin County Housing Authority,and then
to the Holsteins.
•End of September 2013—The Holstein's apply for a building permit to do the garage conversion as well
as add two windows to the Master Bedroom.
•Beginning October 2013—The Holsteins receive an email from Amy Guthry at HPC stating that the
house is subject to HPC review.Despite the fact the house was built in 1998,it falls under HPC review
because it is part of a historic subdivision.This is the first time both the Holsteins and Pitkin County
Housing Authority learn of its historic designation.Amy informs the Holsteins that she will not approve
their new window design because it does not comply with HPC guidelines.Specifically she says that the
proposed windows do not match the rest of the house.Upon hearing this,the Holsteins send Amy photos of
the exterior of the house to show her that the windows they're proposing are similar to the windows that
already exist on the house.It is then that Amy learns,and informs the Holsteins,that the existing windows
have been installed without a building permit or HPC approval.
•Mid October 2013—Amy informs the Holsteins that the existing windows do not meet HPC guidelines,
and she is going to require them to apply for HPC approval of the existing windows retroactively,despite
the fact that the Holsteins are not the people who did the illegal work,nor were the illegal windows
disclosed to them at point of sale.Amy informs the Holstein that they will need to appear before the HPC
Board to get approval for the existing windows as well as the new ones they want to install.
•End of October—Holsteins prepare the HPC application for planning staff review. When HPC staff
meets on the issue,they decide that they are not supportive of approving the existing windows in their
current state.Their recommendation to the HPC board will be either modification or replacement of all the
wlhdows.
+Beginning of November—Facing the prospect of tens of thousands of dollars of unanticipated work on
their new employee house,the Holsteins post-pone their HPC board appearance until January 22 to seek
alternative options.
January 14, 2014
Historic Preservation Commission Board
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear HPC Board Members,
We're writing to support Matt and Kate Holstein and their appeal regarding HPC's
demand that they replace the windows of their affordable housing unit to replicate
the original 1998 windows. We've lived in the neighborhood for 20 years and view
their unit with it's modified windows to be in keeping with their development and
the neighborhood overall. In fact,we lived for several years just across the street in
a unit with big picture windows at Riverside Condominiums.
While HPC's demand adheres to the strictest interpretation of HPC guidelines,the
request seems decidedly unreasonable. Not only was this requirement never
disclosed to the Holsteins when they purchased the city's deed restricted unit, it was
never disclosed to the housing office. The windows have been as they are for eight
years without anybody, including HPC , detecting that they were out of compliance,
or disturbed by it.
Not only would replacing these windows be a heavy and unnecessary financial
burden,it would be environmentally careless. Waiving this requirement and
making this concession for the Holsteins in no way jeopardizes the integrity of HPC.
These window changes that were made 8 years ago were truly negligible in terms of
violating HPC's mission, but the burden to the Holsteins and the construction
impacts to the neighbors would not be.
Please reassess the circumstances of this particular case and absolve them from any
window replacement requirements.
Sincgely,
Bobbie and Rich Burkley
Alpine Cottages
106 Robinson Rd
Aspen, CO 81611
October 29,2013
To HPC Staff,Board,and whom it may concern:
I would like to bring you up to speed on a situation of which you will be briefed on by Amy Simon.As the
Operations Manager of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority(APCHA)and the facilitator of the sale
of this property,I feel compelled to share the details of this situation from my perspective.
Kate and Matt Holstein recently purchased an R.O.designated employee house located at 947 E.Cooper.
During the due diligence period,it was disclosed to them that a previous owner had converted the garage
into living space without a building permit,and thus it needed to be converted back into a garage as a
condition of closing,which they agreed to do.
As they began the process of applying for a building permit to do the work,they decided they wanted to
add two windows to the house,and included that in the permit application. It was then that they learned
from Amy Simon,that the house,though built in 1998,was subject to HPC approval. She declined the
window design they had come up with because it did not match the rest of the house. They then sent her
pictures of the house to show that the windows they wanted did,in fact,match the house,and that is when
Amy discovered that all the windows in the house were installed without proper approvals as well.
It was discovered that the second owner of the property remodeled the home without the proper permits
and,at such time,did not receive HPC approval. Although APCHA was aware that one of the homes was
designated historic,it was unknown that the property itself carried that designation. When the second
owner of the property proceeded to sell,it was discovered that the conversion of the garage was done
illegally;therefore,escrow funds were held for the third owner to convert the additional living space back
to a garage. It was APCHA's understanding that someone from the Community Development Department
had conducted a site visit upon this discovery. Never in any of the prior conversations with the Community
Development Department was it mentioned that the property was categorized with the historic designation
nor that the house had windows that would not have been allowed.
Again,as the facilitator of this sale,I was not aware that:a)the house is subject to HPC review;or b)that
the windows were installed without a permit,and thus did not disclose those facts to the current owners,the
Holsteins,during their due diligence process. 1 understand that the Community Development Department
is determined to see this go through a full approval process,which is why it sits before you now. No one
is to blame for this current state of affairs except for the previous owner(two owners ago)who did all this
work without a permit back in 2007.He is long gone,and now the current owners are stuck holding the
bag.
Kate and Matt are attempting to do the right thing,fix the garage situation as was requested by the City,but
they are being punished for something they had nothing to do with and were never made aware of at point
of sale.
It is important to remember that this is employee housing.They have been told that they must apply
for approval for all the windows retroactively.If the board does not approve the existing windows,and
requires them to tear out or modify the existing windows,it would be an expense to the tune of l Os of
thousands of dollars(not to mention a major waste of environmental resources). This is not an option for
them financially.
Please consider all of these issues when making your decision.
Cindy Christensen
APCHA Operations Manager
The East Cooper Court Condominium Association
PO BOX 2021
Aspen CO 81612
January 7, 2014
To: The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
We write to you today on behalf of our condominium association, and all it's individual
members. Our new neighbors, the Holsteins, who recently purchased 947 East Cooper within
our association, came to us regarding an unfortunate situation that came to light upon their
application to the City of Aspen (and HPC) to perform certain alteration to their new home.
Please know that we have no objections to the new work they wish to perform.
We would also like to make the board aware of our thoughts regarding the work that had been
performed to 947 East Cooper many years ago, by a prior owner, apparently without proper
permitting and unbeknownst to both the Holsteins and our association.
1) The association feels that the existing windows at 947, and specifically those on the second
floor facing south and west, are consistent with the look and feel of our neighborhood.
2) The association feels that because the windows had been installed by a previous owner, and
that the work was never disclosed to anyone, it would be unjust to require the Holsteins to
change them.
3) The association does not want to endure the inconvenience of the construction necessary to
cure the current condition.
4) The current windows have existed in their present form for over eight years; as such we have
no desire to see them changed.
5) 947 East Cooper is a relatively new structure (built within the last 20 years) that sits behind.
949 East Cooper, and as such is barely visible from the street; it abuts our alley.
Thank you for considering our perspective regarding our new neighbor's unfortunate dilemma.
Sincerely,
J. Maurice Herman
Both individually, and as President
of The East Cooper Court Condominium Association
Cc. Jane Pargiter (943 East Cooper)
Sandy Schonwald (939 East Cooper)
Winston Fisher (945 East Cooper)
Gmail -Our new neighbors https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=dcaed83503&view=p...
UM , 1* 1 Matthew Holstein <matthewptholstein@gmail.com>
Our new neighbors
5 messages
maurice herman <jmauriceherman @hotmail.com> Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:48 PM
To:jane pargiter 2 <ecoflightstaff @earth link.net>, sandy schonwald <sandy @aquariusltd.com>, winston fisher
<wfisher @fisherbrothers.com>
Good afternoon everyone,
Please find attached the letter I discussed with you all yesterday, via a mail, regarding the
unfortunate situation the Holsteins have found themselves in, do to no fault of their own. I
would like to try and keep this as simple as possible, so please respond to me with a "yes I
agree with the statements in our letter to HPC" or, "no I do not agree with the letter".
Please keep in my mind that I will be forwarding both the association letter and our
responses to this a mail to the Holsteins so that they may present them to HPC.
Thanks,
Maurice
Letter to HPC.docx
118K
Matthew Holstein <matthewptholstein @ gmail.com> Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:50 PM
To: Kate Holstein <kateholstein @gmail.com>
[Quoted text hidden]
Matthew P.T. Holstein
matthewpthoistein@gmaii.com
970 948 6868
Twitter
®Facebook
Letter to HPC.docx
118K
maurice herman <jmauriceherman @hotmail.com> Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:22 PM
To: "matthewptholstein @gmail.com" <matthewptholstein @ gmail.com>
1 of 3 1/21/144:20 PM
Gmail-Our new neighbors https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=dcaed83503&view=p...
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 13:01:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Our new neighbors
From:jane @ecoflight.org
To: Sandy @aquariusltd.com
CC:jmauriceherman @hotmail.com; ecoflightstaff @earthlink.net
I agree with the letter too.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Sandy Schonwald <Sandy @aquariusltd.com>wrote:
I agree with the letter
Sent from my Phone
[Quoted text hidden]
<Letter to HPC.docx>
Jane Pargiter
EcoFlight
307 L AABC
Aspen,CO 81611
www.ecoflight.org
970-429-1110 ext 1
Visit EcoFlight on Facebook and like us!
maurice herman <jmauriceherman @hotmail.com> Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:23 PM
To: "matthewptholstein @ gmail.com" <matthewptholstein @gmail.com>
From: Sandy @aquariusltd.com
To:jmauriceherman @hotmail.com
CC: ecoflightstaff @earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Our new neighbors
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 19:57:42 +0000
2 of 3 1/21/144:20 PM
Gmail -Our new neighbors https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=dcaed83503&view=p...
I agree with the letter
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:20 PM, "maurice herman" <jmauriceherman @hotmail.com>wrote:
[Quoted text hidden]
<Letter to HPC.docx>
maurice herman <jmauriceherman @ hotmail.com> Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:23 PM
To: "matthewptholstein @gmail.com" <matthewptholstein @gmail.com>
From: wfisher @fisherbrothers.com
To:jmauriceherman @hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Our new neighbors
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 03:28:09 +0000
Agree
From: maurice herman [mailto:jmauriceherman @hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 03:48 PM
To: jane pargiter 2 <ecoflightstaff@earthl ink.net>; sandy schonwald <sandy @aquariusltd.com>; Winston
Fisher
Subject: Our new neighbors
[Quoted text hidden]
NOTICE: THIS EMAIL MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE
NAMED RECIPIENT(S), OR IF YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE
DO NOT READ, COPY OR DISTRIBUTE THIS EMAIL OR ANY ATTACHMENTS,AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE
SENDER OF YOUR ERRONEOUS RECEIPT AND DELETE THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. THANK
YOU.
3 of 3 1/21/14 4:20 PM
uai„7797Z
CA
rp
4/0-6,1 .9,'AH
q1
4/,4
T -.s-,r4 F.I
I WO
—4-4-
T`7
_4
4
nr
T F
P9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 135 E. Cooper Avenue-Minor Development, Public Hearing
DATE: January 22, 2014
SUMMARY: The subject property is listed
on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures, as well as the National
Register of Historic Places. The site contains
the 1888 Dixon-Markle house, which itself is
virtually unaltered on the exterior. A more
modified 19t" century outbuilding is located
along the alley. In 2003, HPC approved --
Major Development review that entailed
moving the house slightly to the north and ^"
a t ! f zj
PK
east of the original location, constructing an yk 1 .f T 71ta—t�
addition along the west side of the house, and r
constructing a new garage along the alley.
The project included a 500 square foot floor
-.;, .
area bonus and setback variances to
accommodate existing and newly created =-4
conditions. The project won a Preservation
Honor award upon completion in 2005.
The applicant is requesting Minor
Development review to modify the connector lit niinni
between the old and new construction, and to
add a skylight to the historic outbuilding.
The amount of square footage involved in the
r
project qualifies this as Minor.
Staff recommends denial, finding that the
proposal does not meet the design guidelines.
APPLICANT: Chris Pat Aspen LLC,
represented by Zone 4 Architects. r
PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003. - -
Wnu V1
t,
a
P10
ADDRESS: 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G,Block 70, City
and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: RMF,Residential Multi-Family.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections This report is transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The
HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Orden The HPC decision
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred(300)feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: The work proposed in this application has been shown to HPC in previous
worksessions and/or as part of the original project proposal. The applicant wishes to increase the
existing connector element from one story with a deck on top, to two stories in order to address
circulation issues throughout the living spaces. A skylight is desired on the outbuilding to create
additional natural light.
The property is at the maximum floor area, including a 500 square foot bonus previously
awarded for outstanding preservation effort. The applicant plans to free up floor area for the
connector by de-commissioning the existing finished attic space in the historic house. In order to
remove that space from floor area calculations,the Zoning Officer will have to find that access to
the attic is inconvenient and the area is uninhabitable. The applicant's proposal to reach the attic
only by a ladder and hatch may not be adequate. Existing finishes may need to be removed. The
proposed floor plans do not explain the applicant's intent. Further review by Zoning would be
needed prior to building permit.
August 2003 HPC minutes regarding this project indicate that the applicant requested a two story
glass connector, which the board did not support due to.visual impacts and the amount of the
west wall of the Victorian that would be removed. Revision to a one story connector was
requested, and approved as part of the HPC's Conceptual review decision in September 2003. A
skylight was shown on the outbuilding during the review, but skylights on the historic resources
became a debated item and the proposal for the outbuilding was not approved.
The design guidelines that relate to this project have not changed since 2003. Staff finds that
they are not met by the proposal. The enlarged connector results in the removal of a substantial
2
area of the west wall of the Victorian
deeply recessed down the side of the� and four o ' P 1 1
the historic house. HpC riginal windows. The co
historic resource nnector,
in the guidelines allowed the connector to be sli WOUId move much closer to hleh is now
much lar ' finding that the se ghtlY shorter in ten front of
ger link, Staff finds that the revised COs ade length than the 10
historic resource and or do That is ' stated
requested today. �'°uld not connector does not in1 not necessarily the case for a
make the project likel prove the preservation of this
other Options, Guidelines 10.3, Y to receive a floor area bonus i
ptions, such as interior remodel,10 7' 10'8' 10.9
The connector does model to ' 10 10, 10.11 and 10 f that were
have a deck that allows second c°ncerns With the 1x14 are not met.
layout of the livin here are
With regard access across it. g space.
Bard to the skylight on the
compliance with the design carriage house
meet guideline 7,3• guideline. The skylight' additional windows
is an out of character'night be Proposed in
ment that does not
DECISION MAKING not
The IIpC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application
• disapprove the application conditions,
• continue the application or
to make a decision to a to a date certain to obtain additional approve or deny, tonal information necessary
RECOA MENDATIO
finding that the guidelines•are not Staff
inet°mends Minor Dev
that
elopment approval be denied,
Exhibit:
Resolution#
A D _, Series of 2014
esign Guidelines
B. Application
3
P12 Minor Review 91)Design Guidelines,135 E. Cooper AVenue-
«Exhibit A.Relevant devices.
li hts and other rooftop in an obscure location
acts of sky g lane may be considered only ont roof plane is not
7.3 Minimize the visual imp solar panel on a roof
Flat skylights that are flush c t ng a skylight or a
❑ F roof. It should be
on a historic structure' Lo t the plane of a historic
allowed• panel should not interrup
❑ A skylight or solar P eline.
positioned below the ridg to interpret the historic character of the
10.3 Design a new
addition such that one's ability character of the
building is maintained. n appearance inconsistent with the historic also is
primary primary building
❑ Anew addition that creates a p than that of the
primary building is inappropriate. eri od
earlier p
' of the primary building's historic style
❑ An addition that seeks to imply an ate variation
inappropriate. 1 an inaccur
❑ An addition that seeks to imply significant features is inappropriate.
should be avoided. time.❑ An addition that covers historically sign a product of its own while also remaining
to be recognized as p
addition fishable from the historic building,
10.4 Design a new made se in material or
❑ An addition should be m the histori c building, a subtle change
compatible with these earlier features• t styles are all techniques that may be
visually ore curren Y
e in setbacks of the addition join
❑ �,
change and m construction.
define a change from old to new'
a differentiatio elbetween historic, main building,
considered to help building is preferred•
e compatible in o size height ht of the primary
10.6 Design an addition to b set it back
addition that is lower than or similar to the heig an a historic building, historic
❑ An adds
��connector" to link it to the
to design an addition that is taller t
10.7 If it is necessary
use a
substantially from significant facades an Primary
s between the addition and the p
building' . preferred' of 10 feet long
❑ A I-story connector inimum
The connector should beam primary building•
building• ortional tot c p minimize the
The connector also should be prop the front to min haraeter
❑ or set it back from proportions and
ucture.and to ailow the original
10.8 Pl
aCe an addition at the rear of a building
visual impact on the historic st
Went. front of a structure is inappropriate,b lding in a basement which will not
to remain promi
❑ Locating an addition at the also be located under th
❑ Additional floor area may
alter the exterior mass of a building-
alter
P13
❑ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
❑ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
❑ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
❑ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
❑ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic
building.
❑ If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
❑ Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure.
5
P14
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
DENYING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR G35BLOCK 70,CITY AVENUE,
AND TOWNSITE OF I,
AND THE EASTERLY 5 FEET OF LO ,
ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION#_, SERIES OF 2014
PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Chris Pat Aspen LLC, represented by Zone 4 Architects, requested
Minor Development approval for 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of
Lot G,Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is a designated landmark; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient
n accord ance dame with t e pros dures
to the Community Development Director and approved
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review,
the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the design guidelines per Section 26.415.070.0 of the Municipal Code and other applicable
Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff report dated January 22, 2014, performed an analysis of
the application and recommended that the review standards and design guidelines were not met
and recommended denial; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 22, 2014, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was not consistent with the
applicable review standards and guidelines and denied the application by a vote of_to
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby denies Minor Development for the property located at 135 E. Cooper Avenue,
Lots H and 1, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G,Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2014
135 E. Cooper
Page 1 of 2
P15
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of January,
2014.
Jay Maytin, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
HPC Resolution# Series of 2014
135 E. Cooper
Page 2 of 2
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 947 E. COOPER AVENUE, EAST
COOPER COURT CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT E, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
RESOLUTION # , SERIES OF 2014
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-52-005
WHEREAS, the applicants, Matt and Kate Holstein, requested Minor Development approval for
947 E. Cooper Avenue, East Cooper Court Condominiums, Unit E, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado. The home is located on a property which is landmark designated; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the design guidelines per Section 26.415.070.0 of the Municipal Code and other applicable
Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff report dated January 22, 2014, performed an analysis of
the application and recommended that the review standards and design guidelines were not met,
but revisions could be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 22, 2014, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application and granted approval, with conditions, by a vote of_to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Minor Development for the property located at 947 E. Cooper
Avenue, East Cooper Court Condominiums, Unit E, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with
the following condition:
1. The french doors installed at the upper floor south deck are approved. The already
installed upper floor south and west windows are not approved and must be modified.
The applicant shall submit revisions that divide the south and west windows into smaller
areas of glass, proportionate to the historic resource and vertical in orientation, to be
reviewed and approved by staff and monitor, and shall receive a building permit and
complete the work within 180 days of the approval of this resolution. The applicant may
HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2014
947 E. Cooper
Page 1 of 2
submit revisions to the proposed ground floor windows on the north and east sides of the
house, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of January,
2014.
Jay Maytin, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
I IPC Resolution # , Series of 2014
947 E. Cooper
Page 2 of 2