HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20150408
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 08, 2015
5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena St.
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISITS
A. Please visit 211 E. Hallam, 135 E. Cooper, and award candidates on your own.
II. INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.)
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes
HPC minutes 3/11/15
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. 211 E. Hallam Street- Referral comment on tree removal request (5:10)
B. 211 E. Hallam Street- Aspenmodern Negotiation For Voluntary Landmark
Designation, Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, And Variances,
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (5:30)
C. 135 E. Cooper- Minor Development, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (6:30)
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. 101 W. Main Street aka Molly Gibson and Lot 2 of 125 W. Main St. Historic
Landmark Lot Split– Planned Development Detailed Review, Final Major
Development, and Commercial Design Final Review, CONTINUE PUBLIC
HEARING TO 5/27
B. Selection of annual HPC Awards (7:15)
V. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: Resolution #12, 2015
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 )
Applicant Rebuttal
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes )
HPC discussion ( 15 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.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
1
Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancia called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Patrick Sagal, John
Whipple, Nora Berko, Sallie Golden and Gretchen Greenwood. Willis
Pember was absent.
Staff present:
Jim True, City Attorney
Amy Simon, Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Gretchen will recuse herself on 134 W. Hopkins
Jim said he has a business relationship with CCY which is totally
independent of this project and nothing inhibits me from making good
judgement.
HPC congratulated Willis on his award for the Carbondale Library!
134 W. Hopkins Ave. – Conceptual Major Development, On-Site
Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing
Jim True said the affidavits are in order and the applicant can proceed –
Exhibit I
Sara said the property is a 3,000 square foot lot zoned R-6 and was created
from a landmark lot split. The landmark is in its current location. The
request is for relocation of the historic home, demolition of non-historic
additions, construction of a rear addition and extensive restoration to the
historic landmark, setback variances and a portion of the FAR bonus. The
proposal includes a roof deck on the new addition on the back. There is a
one story connector piece between the old construction and new
construction. Staff has some concerns about the proposed railing on top of
the connector which shortens the distance that the connector is a one-story.
The guidelines are clear that a one-story connector piece should be ten feet.
We are recommending that the deck on top of the connector be removed.
There is still a deck on top of the second story new addition which find to be
appropriate. A glass railing is being proposed so it is minimal as far as the
massing.
P1
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
2
Relocation: There is a proposal to move the historic home off-site down the
street a few blocks to a vacant lot that is across from the Boomerang lodge.
Putting houses off-site has challenges but leaving it on-site when you are
doing a big excavation has more consequences and we are supportive of the
move. We have required a $30,000 letter of credit. HPC might want to
discuss whether this amount is appropriate or not. The applicant is
requesting the remaining 116.4 square feet of the FAR bonus. We find that
warranted with the restoration they are proposing. The space between the
two homes will be increased. We are also supportive of the variances
outlined and staff is recommending approval with conditions.
Chris Touchette, CCY architects
Chris said the owner is prepared to bring the house back to its historic form.
We are moving the house 2.6 to the west and 6.10 inches to the south. It
will be closer to the corner in a more prominent location. The other idea is
to get it away from the neighboring building. We focused on a
contemporary addition that is compatible with the historic resource. The
patio skylight is west of the connector in-between the addition and resource.
We have proposed a non-reflective skylight that is broken up with
interspersed beams. It will not be viewable from 1 st or Hopkins. We have
been working with staff and have eliminated a roof skylight, eliminated a
non-historic window in the gable end of the resource. We are supportive of
staff’s recommendations except for the condition of denial of the small roof
deck over the connector. There is precedence for the use of decks over
connectors.
Exhibit II - elevation of roof deck
Chris said the roof deck is 8 x 6 wide facing 1 st Street and 72 square feet in
area. The connector is 17.6 long. There is a fascia. The small roof deck in
no way encumbers the character of the connector and we would appreciate if
you would discuss the roof deck.
Vice-chair Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing.
Exhibit III – Sara said the e-mail came from David Melton who lives at 135
Hopkins. He requests that the bonus not be granted because the lot is already
developed with two homes. Use the FAR that is allowed by code. Traffic
and noise on the street constructing the second level basement will be
P2
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
3
significant and unwarranted. There are no two level basements in this
neighborhood.
Vice-chair Jim DeFrancia said there were no public comments. The public
hearing was closed.
Jim said we should focus on the condition and add or delete them.
Patrick said he agreed with Mr. Melton that the second level basement is not
necessary in that neighborhood. It can cause more people, more traffic etc.
in that area.
Sallie said the double basement has nothing to do with what we look at.
Jim said lets discuss the conditions and then come back to the double
basement.
Nora said regarding 1.a. we have had lengthy discussions about the activity
on top of connectors. Nora said she would support staff on the connector.
Sallie said we have approved two story connectors recently with glass filled
in. This seems a lot more in keeping with the project. Sallie said she has no
issue with the connector.
Bob said he agrees with Sallie that the connector is not obtrusive and you
won’t see it and it has a glass protector.
John said the connector separates the two homes and it should be a low iron
with no reflectivity to it.
Patrick said he agrees with staff and there are already two decks.
Jim said he has no issue with the connector and would approve it.
Sara said there will probably be stuff on top of the deck and that adds mass.
Railings on top of connector are not the most successful approaches to
having a connector piece. The purpose of the linking element is to separate
the mass and we are trying to learn from some of the mistakes that we have
made about allowing the space on top of the connector to be usable space.
P3
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
4
Nora said this is on a corner lot and is more visible.
Sallie said she has seen a lot of decks that aren’t successful but this isn’t in
that category.
Chris said the deck it is 8x6 wide facing First Street and 72 square feet in
area.
Jim said we have the majority that would favor the connector.
Jim said condition #2 was to provide details of the fence along First Street;
provide details of the grade skylight and Hopkins St. shall be the primary
entrance.
Chris said they are fine with everything but there needs to be discussion on
the double basement.
Jim brought up the double basement and said it is permitted.
Sallie said it was allowable by code at the time the applicant applied. It
doesn’t affect anything that we are supposed to use judgement on regarding
the historic resource.
Nora said there are impacts of noise and stability going down 40 feet etc.
and the number of dump trucks every day and the impacts on the pedestrian
right-of-way. Is it going to increase the number of cars for a two car garage?
Sara said the issues were impacts constructing a double basement and how
long it takes to build up the soil.
John said one property probably didn’t use the best method of soil
stabilization and that upset numerous individuals. The Bldg. Dept. and
construction management have guidelines in place to achieve stability.
Bob said for us to go back and revisit this when it has already been dealt
with we would have a whole new process.
Patrick said he feels the construction management is half of it and it impacts
the neighborhood. The volume will affect the neighborhood.
P4
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
5
Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancis opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Chris said what is inside the envelope isn’t necessarily part of your purview.
There is one bedroom above the addition and three bedrooms in the
basement and the second basement is dedicated to uses such as a spa and
theatre, wine cave and mechanical room. The density is limited to the first
level of the basement.
Jim said the construction and digging can often be unpleasant but it is also
temporary. There is not a majority to add a condition.
Chris said we would like to have 1 a deleted.
MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #10 for 134 W. Hopkins in
accordance with the staff recommendation and striking in 1 a, (the not) .
The character of the connector should be low iron and no reflectivity.
Motion second by Bob.
Patrick said the continued repetition of flat roof additions is destroying the
historic character of residential Aspen and is contrary to the intent of the
guidelines.
Chris said there will not be visible connections.
Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora, no; Bob, yes; John, yes, Patrick, no; Jim,
yes. Motion carried 4-2.
110 E. Bleeker Street – Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and
Variances, Public Hearing cont’d from February 11, 2015
Gretchen was seated.
Exhibit I – Updated elevations.
Amy said this is a 6,000 square foot lot close to the yellow brick. It is an
1887 brick Victorian. The brick has been painted which isn’t healthy for the
building. The front porch was enclosed and a door obliterated. The front
bay window has been removed. There is a small addition on the back of the
house and a large structure along the alley that sits in the alley and on the
P5
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
6
neighbors lot which has caused some distress over the past few years. The
applicant plans to demolish the problematic garage and also the non-historic
addition on the back and make a new addition. They are not picking up the
house and not moving it and not excavating a basement under it. They are
proposing a total restoration. The paint is to be stripped from the brick and
the front window reconstructed and porch reconstructed etc.
Amy said the proposed addition connects to the back of the Victorian with
the standarad one story element and it touches the building that has already
been altered and it can’t be seen from the street and we feel it is an
appropriate place to ad on. There is a deck on top of the connector that we
did not object to in this case because it is really invisible. On the new
construction there is a basement underneath it. There are some setback
variances requested. There is a request to reduce the east side yard, rear
side yard and the combined side yards. There is also a request for the 500
square foot bonus which is well deserved by the restoration work that is
being proposed. Staff recommends approval with the approval of the bonus,
side and rear yard setbacks and a combined side yard setback. When it
comes time to remove the paint from the brick they need to be careful and
not make the situation worse. We will also need specifications for mortar
repair. The applicant has proposed to reconstruct the historic fence on this
property. We need to make sure it is being built with wood posts. We have
spoken to the Parks Dept. and the applicant can remove the street trees out in
front of this house. The trees are pine and scruffy and block the view to the
house. There is an existing skylight to be replaced and staff is
recommending that it be eliminated. When the brick is stripped the
applicant would like to do some window replacement on the west side of the
house. The original windows are gone and we need to make sure that is
done in the most informed way possible and that we look for actual physical
evidence to see how the windows were placed.
Gretchen asked about the FAR bonus being used as TDR’s.
Amy said a more recent incentive has been the TDR program where you can
sell some of your development rights. In this case they will use the FAR as
part of their project and one TDR, 250 square feet will be sold to a non-
historic site.
Sallie said the TDR program is a good incentive because it keeps
development off this piece of property. It gives them a monetary incentive
P6
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
7
not to have more square footage effect or be a burden to the historic
resource.
John said it also off-sets the restoration costs.
Patrick asked if the trees will be replaced with deciduous trees. Amy said
the Parks Department will identify the tree replacements.
Kim Raymond, architect said the goal is to restore the house as closely as
they can back to its original state. The existing garage is 2.6 outside the
property line in the alley and 5 feet onto the neighbor’s property. Our plan
is to tear the little garage down and move our garage which is part of the
building 3.1 feet in from the site so we are actually moving it over 8 feet and
bringing it off the alley and four feet off the property line. The Victorian
will remain in its original location. There is a one story linking element with
an exposed corner of the original building and then the addition. The
addition in the back has the same simple gable link.
Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Jim said staff is recommending approval with 8 conditions. The applicant
has no disagreement with any of the conditions.
Gretchen said she feels the dormers look very high and possibly the architect
would consider removing the large arched windows on the west side which
would make the building simpler. In that way the Victorian would take a
more dominant visual appearance from the street. The additions on the back
of Victorians need to be quiet, clean and simple. The roof addition should
be simplified and maybe the dormer on the south could be removed on the
roof. Just have the two dormers on the north side and nothing on the south
side.
Nora and Patrick said they would support Gretchen’s suggestion.
Sallie said they are trying to bring in the south light.
Jim said the board is offering the removal of the dormers as guidance and to
restudy it for the next meeting.
P7
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
8
John said dormers are fenestration and that can be looked at for the next
meeting.
MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #11 granting conceptual major
development demolition and variances with the conditions as recommended
by staff and with the notation that the applicant has been given guidance to
restudy certain elements when they come back for final.
Amy said there would be a 3’1 inch east side yard setback. The rear would
be 3’8 inch. 5’11 inch side yard and a 9 foot combined.
Amy said the applicant pulled away from the east property line and pushed it
toward the west.
Jim said the motion would include the dimensional requirements. Motion
second by Nora.
Patrick asked the board to discuss the setback on the garage.
Amy said it is up to the applicant to determine if they have movability to get
in and out of the garage.
Gretchen said she feels there is no issue getting in and out.
John said the garage moving is a big improvement.
Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, yes;
Patrick, yes; Jim, yes. Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn; second by Bob. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk.
P8
II.B.
C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\6571.doc
4/3/2015
HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction
Nora Berko 332 W. Main
1102 Waters
1006 E. Cooper
100 E. Main
417/421 W. Hallam
602 E. Hyman
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jim DeFrancia 435 W. Main, AJCC
420 E. Cooper
420 E. Hyman
407 E. Hyman
Rubey Park
Sallie Golden 206 Lake
114 Neale
514 E . Hyman
212 Lake
400 E. Hyman
517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s)
Hotel Aspen
Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Willis Pember 204 S. Galena
Aspen Core
514 E. Hyman
120 Red Mountain
233 W. Hallam
101 E. Hallam
407 E. Hyman
Patrick Segal 204 S. Galena
623 E. Hopkins
701 N. Third
612 W. Main
206 Lake
212 Lake
Holden Marolt derrick
John Whipple Aspen Core
201 E. Hyman
549 Race
208 E. Main
420 E. Cooper
602 E. Hyman
Hotel Aspen
610 E. Hyman
301 Lake
P9
II.F.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: 211 E. Hallam Street- Referral comment on tree removal request
DATE: March 25, 2015
________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: As HPC is aware, the City of Aspen enforces a tree ordinance which requires all
trees of a certain type and size to be preserved, or removed with acceptable mitigation. The City
Forester has the authority to deny the issuance of a tree removal permit if the removal is found to
be contrary to the criteria in the ordinance. Denial of a tree removal permit can be appealed, first
to the City Manager and then to City Council, either of whom can direct the removal permit to be
issued by Parks.
At the February 25 th HPC design review hearing regarding an
AspenModern negotiation and redevelopment at 211 E. Hallam, staff
informed HPC that removal of one particular tree on the subject site
was desired by the applicant but opposed by Parks. The tree is
shown on the plan at right.
Staff’s understanding at the time was that the applicant primarily
opposed retaining the tree due to its impact on solar gain and
livability of the lot. As a result, staff recommended HPC defer to
Parks expertise and City Council’s authority to resolve the conflict.
The Parks Department has officially denied the tree removal permit.
The applicant initiated the appeal process with the City Manager,
who, to make his decision, requires that HPC specifically address
criteria in the tree ordinance that allow for tree removal where a tree
negatively affects the preservation of a historic landmark.
HPC is not asked to make any decision about the requested tree removal; but to offer any
comments that the board finds are pertinent to the tree removal criteria. HPC’s input is to be
provided in the form of a motion.
This agenda item will be immediately followed by HPC’s continued hearing about the
Conceptual design of the project, which has been revised since the last meeting, but not in a way
that changes the applicant's request to remove the debated tree. Planning will recommend that
HPC accept the proposed design, with the understanding that if the applicant's tree removal
appeal is not successful, some project modification will be needed in order to go forward.
P10
III.A.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There are five circumstances when the Parks Department
should consider the removal of a tree that is negatively affecting a historic resource. These
circumstances are described in the tree removal criteria attached as Exhibit A. HPC may agree
or disagree with staff’s comments below, and/or offer other input to the City Manager and City
Council.
Criterion A suggests that a tree could be removed if it is physically harming a historic resource.
The studio is to be moved away from the tree, so this criterion is not met.
Criterion B suggests that a tree could be removed if it is an inappropriate element of a
historically significant landscape. The existing landscape on this property developed informally
and is not considered historically significant, so this criterion is not met.
Criterion C suggests that a tree could be removed if it is blocking the visibility of a historic
resource. The studio is to be moved away from the tree, so this criterion is not met.
Criterion D suggests a tree that is inconsistent with appropriate or established landscape
practices associated with the resource or the surrounding area could be removed. The applicant
makes the point that the scale and height of the tree as it exists today is in conflict with the
minimal and low to the ground landscape associated with Modernism. Staff agrees with this,
however it does not appear that landscape design was integral to the construction of the studio.
The studio was placed in the open yard next to the Victorian and trees were planted or sprung up
around it. The size and height the trees would reach was perhaps not what was envisioned at the
time.
The studio is being moved to the front of the lot and distanced from the tree. There will be an
opportunity to install new landscape features that will support the architectural philosophy. Staff
finds that this criterion is not met.
Criterion E allows for the possibility that tree preservation would conflict with historic
preservation guidelines and states that “unless the tree is an unusual or unique species of
specimen tree quality, flexibility shall be allowed for its removal or relocation in favor of the
best preservation option for the historic structure, subject to mitigation…” This is a complex
criterion to address. Staff and HPC are not experts with regard to the uniqueness or quality of
this tree. The applicant has designed a project which does form an L-shaped plan that is
generally pushed away from the base of the tree, perhaps allowing for preservation.
The applicant wishes to place required on-site parking where the tree stands. If the tree displaces
on-site parking, this will necessitate a variance that the board may or may not support.
The applicant indicates that a requirement to preserve the tree will likely lead them to abandon
their proposal to preserve the studio. Having the tree on the site might significantly change the
site plan they wish to choose for development and may not make it possible to accommodate the
existing one story structure. Obviously, having the applicant abandon the preservation proposal
because the tree removal is denied would be a negative preservation outcome. Staff finds that
the voluntary nature of the AspenModern program does put the resource at some risk relative to
this criterion.
P11
III.A.
Exhibits:
A. Aspen Municipal Code, Chapter 13.20.d.3, factors used to determine the granting or
denial of a tree removal permit
B. Parks referral comment to HPC
C. Applicant letter to HPC
D. Tree report provided by applicant
P12
III.A.
P13
III.A.
P14
III.A.
P15
III.A.
file:///G|/...t/Current%20HP%20Cases/211ehallam/Conceptual%20April%208%202015/215%20East%20Hallam%20-%20Berko%20Res..txt[3/30/2015 12:55:13 PM]
From: Ben Carlsen
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 12:55 PM
To: Amy Simon; Chris Bendon
Cc: Chris Forman
Subject: 215 East Hallam - Berko Res.
Amy and Chris,
I met with Chris Forman on site today to discuss the current plan for the new home at 215 East
Hallam. In short, I think that the applicants are close to something that will work, however, there is one
major component that I would like to see changed. The spruce tree in the SE corner of the lot is a tree
that we intend on preserving. I understand that to build on the lot it will be necessary to remove the
spruce in the middle, so, that one will be permitted for removal with a mitigation fee. I can also get on
board with the removal of the trees on the west property line (mitigation fees will be incurred) granted
the SE spruce stays. However, I ’d like to see a plan where the ‘garage 2’ is moved to the west. We will
not permit any excavation further east than where the current foundation exists. Again, our purpose
here is on preserving the large diameter spruce in the SE corner of the lot. I hope that the applicants
will be willing to work on this as we will be allowing the removal of every other tree on this property.
Let me know if you have any questions-
Thanks,
Ben Carlsen
City Forester
585 Cemetery Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
Office: 970-429-2034
ben.carlsen@cityofaspen.com
P16
III.A.
March 30th, 2015
Amy Simon,
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
RE: Berko Studio response to Tree Removal Permit 2015-016/211 E Hallam St
Dear Amy and HPC Board,
Since our meeting in February, we followed your direction and worked diligently to refine the
design in order to visually separate the Berko Studio from the proposed new construction as
well as to create further definition between the two units. We believe this has led us to a better
design, allowing the Studio to float separately from the addition. In order to achieve the
separation requested by you and the HPC Board, we have had to modify our request for
setback variances, as outlined in our submission and memo.
We hope to focus HPC’s review on the design, mass, and scale of the proposed voluntary
AspenModern project. However, since our last meeting, we have received a denial of our
request to remove one of the trees critical to the preservation of the Berko Studio, known as
Tree #1. Of note, the City Forester did approve the removal of the other requested trees. We
have since submitted a Tree Removal Appeal to the City Manager. In light of our recent
conversations with the City Manager and City Forester regarding this appeal, we think it
appropriate to address some important issues related to the project.
We do not take the removal of trees lightly. As a family, we have demonstrated our commitment
to the environmental quality and health of this community. We have brainstormed endlessly
with our architect and landscape architect ways to:
1. Achieve our family objectives
2. Preserve the Studio in perpetuity
3. Keep Tree #1
Unfortunately in our many months of study, we have not found a way to achieve all three goals
on this 6,000sf site. With your input we have re-submitted a conceptual plan that allows us to
achieve our family goals while celebrating and preserving the Berko Studio in perpetuity. We
have also developed a plan that allows us to achieve our family objectives while preserving Tree
#1. Unfortunately, this plan requires the removal of the Berko Studio.
It is not our desire to demolish the Berko Studio and hence we are working voluntarily with HPC
to try and save this important structure. While we sympathize with the City Forester’s desire to
protect Tree #1 for the remainder of its life (20-50 years), we strongly believe there is far greater
community benefit in forever preserving the photography studio of internationally-recognized
photographer Ferenc Berko.
HPC has the purview and authority to weigh in on the benefits of historic preservation vs. the
maintenance of trees in the City. Section 13, D and E of the Municipal Code (below) clearly
describe the conditions by which HPC may advocate tree removal in order to achieve the best
historic preservation option.
P17
III.A.
Excerpt: Section 13, D and E of the Municipal Code
RESPONSE: Tree is inconsistent with historic landscape patterns associated with the
period (Section 13, D)
Bauhaus/International landscapes are complementary to buildings, relating to the architecture in
scale, form and proportion. Tree #1’s scale and position overwhelms the Studio. The towering
height and canopy of the tree distracts from the public's ability to read the most important
aspects of a Bauhaus/International style including:
1. Perception of architecture as volume rather than mass. The offset pentagonal
volume created by the angled walls, roof and diagonal siding are unique in the
AspenModern inventory.
2. Regularity instead of symmetry. The Studio roofline is an excellent example of
this trait, best observed without a distracting backdrop.
3. Avoidance of extraneous ornamentation. The simple lines of the building are
enhanced by simple, minimalist and discreet landscaping, typically low to the
ground so as not to interfere with viewing of the building.
The public’s read and appreciation of the Studio’s unique volume and minimal
ornamentation is damaged by the overwhelming mass and scale of Tree #1.
P18
III.A.
Figure 1: Appropriate vs. Inconsistent Landscapes
Additionally, Tree #1’s size and shading prevent our family from achieving the Bauhaus concept
of Gesamtkunstwerk, complete work, bringing art, craft and technology, inside and outside into
one comprehensive work. In the Bauhaus view, the garden is part of the complete work thereby
integral to the overall design of the building, not separated as a different element. We wish to
execute a landscape plan that relates directly to the Studio, a landscape that is in harmony with
the forms, angles, and levity of the surrounding the Berko Studio. Tree #1 does not speak to the
Studio's architecture and is not appropriate in scale. Tree #1 lives in better harmony with a Log
Cabin instead of on a lot containing a potential AspenModern resource and sympathetic modern
addition. See photos below:
Figure 2: Example of Complete Bauhaus Landscape. Original landscape designed to bring
inside and outside into one comprehensive work
P19
III.A.
The tree prevents our family from implementing a landscape that is consistent
with landscape practices of the Bauhaus/International style of Gesamtkunstwerk,
complete work.
RESPONSE: Protection of a tree conflicts with the redevelopment of a [potentially]
historically designated property (Section 13, E)
As stated earlier, we have explored every alternative that would enable us to incorporate our
program on the site, renovate and preserve the Berko Studio per the City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines while trying to keep the large trees on the site.
When we first studied creating a duplex, we planned for each unit to have its own 2-car garage.
Showcasing the Berko Studio on Hallam Street precluded the option of placing any type of
garage, or on-site parking, on Hallam Street. As a result, we next considered garages and
parking for both duplex units on the alley. As shown in the diagram below, the Critical Root
Zone of Tree #1 covers 40 of the lot’s 60 linear feet along the alley. This location of Tree #1
thereby precludes the alley-loaded garage and parking necessary for the project. Thereby the
only feasible solution to showcase the Studio on Hallam is to build garages on the alley and
reduce the number of garages to 3 rather than 4.
The detached garage is not what is driving the removal of Tree #1. The removal of
Tree #1 allows for the Studio to be showcased on Hallam Street by siting the
garages on the alley.
Figure 3: Impact of Tree #1 on buildable alley frontage
P20
III.A.
The Berko Studio represents 20% of the total residential Bauhaus/International resources in
Aspen. Tree #1 is one of 6.4 billion softwood trees in Colorado (USDA Inventory, 2006). Tree #1
is neither an “unusual” nor “unique species or tree quality” (Section 13, E). In fact, Tree #1 has a
known weakness, codominant stems, that “clearly predisposes this tree top to failure” (Mark
Stelle, ASCA Arborist report, attached).
As the Studio is one of five remaining Bauhaus/International potential resources, we as a family
are making a voluntary effort to preserve it and ask that the following code language be
considered, “flexibility shall be allowed for its [Tree #1] removal or relocation in favor of the best
preservation for the historic structure” (Section 13, E).
We submit that the “best preservation for the historic structure” is indeed its preservation in
perpetuity. This is a voluntary proposal of integrity and love of the building; if we cannot achieve
this as presented, we will be obligated to pursue other solutions that would not include the
Studio’s preservation.
To achieve our and HPC’s historic preservation goals, we are asking HPC for:
1. Approval of our revised design as supported by HPC staff
2. Recommendation to City Council for AspenModern designation of the Berko Studio
3. Recommendation to City Manager and City Forester that removal of Tree #1 is
necessary as the best preservation option for the historic structure
We look forward to seeing a harmonious renovation of the Studio integrated within an
appropriate landscape setting. This project will give Aspen and HPC a celebrated and
exemplary AspenModern.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kind regards,
Nora Berko Howie Mallory Mirte Mallory Linden Mallory Eliana Mallory
P21
III.A.
Mark Stelle
March 23, 2015
Mr. Howie Mallory
1230 Snowbunny Ln
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Evaluation Spruce trees at 211 E Hallam Street, Aspen.
Dear Howie,
At your request, I made a site visit to 211 Hallam Street on Wednesday 3-18-15. This
report will document my findings and conclusions.
Consulting Assignment
1. Comment on the Aspen City Forester’s response to tree removal permit.
2. Arrange a site visit to make observations, take photographs, and perform
measurements to support my conclusions.
3. Concerning tree #1, comment on current structural integrity
4. Comment on the tree value formula currently used by the City of Aspen.
Limiting Conditions & Disclosure
I am an independent ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist whose consulting
practice regularly engages in objective tree inspections, tree risk assessment, and
construction-related tree preservation. I have no present or prospective interest in
the trees that are the subject of the report, nor do I have any personal interest or
bias with respect to any parties involved.
Observations documented in this report are restricted to that which was observed
only on 3-18-15.
Aspen City Forester Report
The 3-2-15 report by Ben Carlsen, Aspen City Forester is thorough and well documented.
I consider this report to be generally quite reasonable concerning the quantity of trees
approved for removal at this site, and it solidly documents rationale for removal of 4 trees
(2 spruces and 2 cottonwoods) “zero mitigation” cost. In the next section of my report, I
will make specific comments regarding the codominant stems in tree #1, and the inherent
limitations of the City’s use of a “standard tree value formula”.
P22
III.A.
Page 2 of 3
Tree #1 Inspection
I visually inspected this blue spruce tree for defects. I observed no readily visible defects
at the root collar, lower trunk, or lower limbs. My mallet “sounding” test on all four
quadrants of the lower trunk did not detect any indications of internal decay at the trunk
base. My climb into the upper trunk for a close-up observation of the codominant stems
detected the following:
Some of the mid-crown branches exhibited compression cracks accompanied by
branch buckling near the branch base.
No signs of significant insect attack (inclusive of zero detection of ubiquitous
needle scale) were present.
The single trunk develops into two codominant stems at approximately 35’ from
the tree top. Each codominant stem is approximately 16” diameter each. The point
of connect represents a very narrow “V” shape. Vertical height of the NW-facing
closed seam is approximately 30”, and the SE-facing closed seam is
approximately 40”. A moderate amount of sap (primarily dried) is visible near
surface of both the NW-facing and SE-facing closed seams. The base of both
closed seams end abruptly with a small bulbous growth representing decades of
reaction wood formation.
Wind-related observations: Once the 5 removal-approved trees to the north (trees
#2 through #6) are removed, tree #1 will be slightly more exposed to the
prevailing NW wind.
The damaged mid-crown branches containing compression cracks/buckling, were likely
caused by past snow loads. This is of no consequence to structural integrity of the tree,
and of minimal impact to tree vigor.
The existence of codominant stems, in and of themselves, does not necessarily suggest
structural weakness. For example, the large Douglas-fir located directly across Hallam
Street clearly exhibits a “U” shaped connection between two very large upper trunk
codominant stems. This “U” shaped connection of the neighbor’s fir is significantly
stronger that the narrow “V” shaped connection of tree #1 at 211 Hallam Street. The
reason is that codominant-stemmed conifers containing a steep-angled “V” connection,
such as tree #1, invariably contain bark inclusion. As I demonstrated with a bush while
on site, bark inclusion does not allow the tree to form connective woody tissue between
the stems. The resultant weakness predisposes one or both stems to failure.
In his 3-2-15 report, the City Forester stated: “While this (codominant stems) is not the
most desirable form, trees do have mechanisms to compensate for this type of structure”.
I agree with this statement in principle. However, given my up-close observation of the
structural defect in the upper trunk of tree #1, I do not necessarily agree entirely with the
statement above, in this specific case.
P23
III.A.
Page 3 of 3
The only mechanism that I observed that would compensate for this structural weakness
is a small knob of reaction wood located at the base of each side of the 3-ft vertical strip
of bark inclusion. I did not detect a sufficient amount of compression wood (a type of
reaction wood formed by a conifer in response to wind or gravity forces) to counteract
the structural weakness inherent in the bark inclusion between the two stems. It is
possible the two upper stems of tree #1 could exist “as is” for several more decades, but
this known structural weakness clearly predisposes this tree top to failure.
Mitigating measures for tree #1 bark inclusion defect: It is a common industry practice to
installation cabling and bracing systems for trees with weakly attached codominant
stems. Reference: ANSI A300 (Part 3)-2013. Although I endorse cabling and bracing
under certain circumstances, I am not an advocate of cabling and bracing upper
codominant stems in tall conifers containing bark inclusion. During the last 3 decades, I
have simply witnessed the results of too many cabling/bracing failures where they had
previously been installed in the tops of tall conifers.
“Standard Tree Value Formula”
I see referenced in both the City of Aspen Tree Removal Permit form and the 3-2-15
response from Ben Carlsen what is referred to as a standard tree value formula. Given the
complexities and inherent subjectivity of tree appraisals, I can certainly understand the
rationale for a municipality using a simplified formula. However, this simple formula
implies that every appraised tree is in perfect condition, and has no provision for tree
‘condition” deductions. In defense of Carlsen’s discretionary action, he did take a post-
formula deduction of 50% for tree #7. Since it appears that diameters of other spruces
have been plugged into their formula without considering a “condition” rating, perhaps
Carlsen would consider giving some weight to the minor and moderate “condition”
defects exhibited by the remaining spruces.
Since 2000, it has been industry practice for arboriculture and urban forestry
professionals to be guided by the 9th edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, developed
by Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). This 143 page guide documents
several methods of appraisal, incorporating tree “condition”, location of tree, and a local
species rating. Any of these appraisal methods are significantly more involved than the
simple 5-character outdated formula which is currently used by the City of Aspen. So,
until the City decides to update their tree value formula, I recommend they at least add a
“condition” rating as many other Colorado cities have done in recent years.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide arboricultural consultation.
Sincerely,
[Submitted by email]
Mark Stelle, ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist
Attachments: Mark Stelle Biographical Sketch
P24
III.A.
10-13
Mark Stelle, Registered Consulting Arborist
Biographical Sketch
Mark Stelle, President, Precision Tree Works, Inc., is accredited by the American Society
of Consulting Arborists as a Registered Consulting Arborist (RCA). Stelle is part of an
elite group of less than 300 consulting arborists within the United States who hold the
distinction. He is currently the only RCA in all of western Colorado. He is a major
contributor to the 2006 ASCA Example Reports for Consulting Arborists, a national
training publication for aspiring consultants. Stelle holds a 1979 BS in Forestry from
Michigan Technological University. In the mid 1990s he obtained his ISA Certified
Arborist, an entry-level accreditation in arboriculture.
Registered Consulting Arborists are called upon to advise in the most challenging
situations that necessitate a high level of arboricultural experience, as well as specific
expertise in the ethical and objective role of a consultant. To obtain the RCA designation,
a consultant must meet stringent requirements for technical education, diagnostic
experience, technical writing, completion of the Arboricultural Consulting Academy, and
produce a series of consulting reports that meet strict professional review standards.
Stelle is committed to continuing education and keeps current on arboricultural issues by
attending major educational events throughout North America. In his consulting practice,
he aspires to provide a comprehensive, technically sound, and objective viewpoint on
arboricultural issues. Clientele includes homeowners, developers, municipalities,
landscape planners, architects, law firms, and others requiring authoritative knowledge
and perspective on the management of landscape trees.
Expertise includes:
Tree inventory (i.e. disease/insect diagnostics, tree vitality assessment, hazard-tree
evaluation, and management specifications)
Bark beetle identification and management plan administration
Forensic investigation of tree damage
Development-related tree preservation
Valuation appraisal, and mediation of tree-related neighbor disputes
Root encroachment evaluation
Author of detailed tree planting specifications
Inspect/report on planting project compliance with industry-published standards
Stelle has serviced client properties located in Colorado, California, and Mexico (Nuevo
Leon), in recent years. He can be reached at Precision Tree Works, Inc. (970) 926-3594.
ASCA website: www.asca-consultants.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P25
III.A.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 211 E. Hallam- AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation,
Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Variances, CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: April 8, 2015
________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 211 E. Hallam is a 6,000 square foot property that contains the studio of celebrated
Aspen photographer Ferenc Berko. The lot was recently created through a subdivision approval
that separated the studio from the Victorian era home to the east that was the Berko family
residence.
The studio lot is currently listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and structures because the
entire 12,000 square foot original parcel was designated many years ago due to the 19 th century
home. While the studio lot is subject to HPC review for all alterations and redevelopment, the
studio has never been formally recognized as a historic resource itself and is therefore not eligible
for preservation incentives. The Berko family proposes to clarify the status of the property by
volunteering to participate in the AspenModern negotiation process. The Berko’s intend to renovate
the studio into a residence and add a second unit on the site.
HPC is asked to make recommendations to City Council regarding the AspenModern negotiation,
and to conduct Conceptual design review.
APPLICANT: ELM 223, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Harry Teague
Architects.
PARCEL ID: #2737-073-16-007.
ADDRESS: 211 E. Hallam, Lot 1, 223 E. Hallam Street Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R-6.
AspenModern Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures
as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of
P26
III.B.
buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The
quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below.
When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district
must meet at least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion e described below:
a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to
local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific
event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper;
b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state,
regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are
identified and documented in an adopted context paper;
c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic
achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is
deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is
documented in an adopted context paper;
d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the
opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture,
landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property’s potential
demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of
place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and
e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City
Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices
which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply
this criterion.
Staff Response: 211 E. Hallam was built in 1964, designed by Aspen architect Ted Mularz, as
the photography studio and salon for Ferenc Berko. Berkos’s 2000 obituary in the New York
Times describes him as “a Hungarian-born photographer who was a pioneer in the use of color
film and helped to put Aspen, Colo., prominently on the map.” “After capturing faces, places
and figures throughout the world and briefly settling in Chicago, Mr. Berko accepted an
invitation in 1949 to visit Aspen, a crumbling old silver-mining town, to record the
transformation that was about to take place.” Berko’s photos of the Goethe Bicentennial
Convocation were the beginning of a 50 year residence in Aspen.
Ted Mularz, architect of Berko’s studio, graduated from University of Illinois in 1959. A friend,
AspenModern noted architect Robin Molny, suggested Mularz relocate to Aspen, where Mularz
worked for Fritz Benedict and Herbert Bayer before opening his own office. Mularz appreciated
Aspen’s heritage and was a founding member of the Aspen Historical Society. He practiced in
Aspen for 30 years before relocating to Oregon, where he lives today.
P27
III.B.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BENEFITS
In staff’s opinion, this property is a clear example of the importance of the AspenModern
program as part of the City’s historic preservation efforts. The property not only illustrates the
architectural philosophies being expressed in midcentury Aspen, but also the career of a
prominent artist who produced iconic photos of the community.
The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff’s
score sheet is attached as Exhibit B. Staff scored the building as a “Best” example of
AspenModern, with 17 out of 20 possible points.
The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation
Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building
permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this
meeting.
The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets
for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the
property’s conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any
benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner,
HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently
proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at
Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness
of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a “good,
better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20 th century historic resources, referencing the scoring
sheets and matrix adopted by City Council.
Staff Response: The applicant requests preservation benefits that include fee waivers, an appeal
of the tree protection ordinance, and variances to dimensional requirements. The fee waivers and
tree permit appeal are beyond the authority of the HPC and will require review by City Council.
Up until 2011, no historic designations in Aspen required “owner consent.” City Council could
designate any property that was found to meet landmark criteria. Lengthy debates about the
appropriate approach to use for non-Victorian era architecture resulted in voluntary program that
relies on the negotiation of individualized incentives that address the unique conditions of each
property. This concept has led to some remarkably successful historic preservation projects over
the last two years and resulted in the recent naming of the Aspen HPC as “Commission of the
Year” by the National Alliance of Historic Preservation Commissions and recognition by History
Colorado.
P28
III.B.
Benefits, particularly relief from certain dimensional requirements, have been critical to
the success of the Aspen Historic Preservation program since they were made available
over 25 years ago. The HPC carefully uses this flexibility to encourage projects that
retain historic resources in the greatest entirety possible, while allowing new construction
to occur in a sensitive manner. The “give and take” aspect of this process attempts to
offer a degree of fairness in terms of development rights for the less than 300 privately
owned properties (only about 15% of the total lots in town) that are responsible for
maintaining Aspen’s identity as a historic town.
Criteria for the variances that are typically within HPC’s purview, including setback
variances and a 500 square foot floor area bonus, are addressed later in the memo so that
HPC may make a specific recommendation to Council on those incentives.
The other benefits that will be discussed by Council include the following items.
Waiver of building permit fees. Permit fees are related to the valuation of the work and
the amount of square footage affected. The estimated building permit fee for this project
(plan check, building permit fee, energy code, zoning, engineering permit review,
construction mitigation, GIS, parks permit review) is $100,060. Water tap fees are
expected to be approximately $28,975.
Waiver of impact fees. Building permits are generally subject to impact fees based on
any increases in floor area. The proposed expansion involved in this remodel is
approximately 2700 square feet of floor area. The applicant has calculated a wavier of
$14,502 for the Park Development Impact fee, $1,623 for TDM/Air Quality and $14,700
for affordable housing cash in lieu.
All landmarks typically receive waiver of these fees through existing code provisions.
The applicant asks to be granted these standard benefits.
Tree removal.
The Parks Department is not in favor of the removal of one tree on the site. The tree is
located at the southeast corner, at the alley.
The applicant is appealing the matter, and will also ask Council to waive the cash-in-lieu
fee that is typically due when a regulated tree is allowed to be removed. The estimated
mitigation fee to remove all trees on the site, those acceptable to Parks as well as the
southeast tree, is $68,200.
Staff recommends that HPC ask Council to work diligently with the applicant to achieve
a mutually acceptable package of incentives to be awarded.
P29
III.B.
CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, 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.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a
Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a
Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location
and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the
Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No
changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part
of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and
proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as
“Exhibit A.”
Several months ago, HPC held a worksession to discuss the project, in particular whether
the studio should be moved forward on the site to increase its prominence, or left in
place. The board was given an overview of the desired program and various challenges,
and was presented with the idea of moving the studio and rotating it, so that the primary
façade, which currently faces the alley, would face Hallam. HPC discussed the pros and
cons of making such a dramatic change to the siting of the structure and was receptive to
this possibility.
The property is to be developed as a duplex, with the relocated historic resource in front,
an addition running along the west property line, an interior courtyard, three parking
spaces within garages along the alley and one parking space stacked behind garage doors.
The minutes of the February 25 th HPC meeting are attached. Both staff and the board
supported many aspects of the proposal but were concerned with the way the new
construction attached to the studio. Clarification was needed on setback variance
requests. The project was continued for restudy.
The HPC design guidelines suggest two options for the placement of additions to a
historic structure; either behind the resource, with a 10’ one story connector separating
P30
III.B.
new and old, or alongside the resource, with an addition providing a minimum setback of
10’ from the front of the resource. Most HPC projects include the connector element, but
several projects have been approved with an addition situated to the side.
Since the last hearing, the applicant has redesigned how the studio and addition meet by
moving the studio slightly forward and east of the previous concept, creating a slot
between the two masses and achieving the 10’ setback between the front faces of the two
masses. The revisions are particularly illustrated on sheets E112 and E113.
The guideline the application addresses, is:
Staff finds that the restudy does limit demolition of the historic resource and pushes the
new construction away sufficiently to visually and physically limit its impact. The studio
remains the focal point of the development. The addition successfully references the
characteristics of the historic resource.
At the previous meeting, the topic of building entry was not discussed. HPC has a
guideline that aims to keep the original main door into a building in use. HPC typically
resists relocating the entry point into new construction.
The original entry into the studio has always been from the interior of the lot. When the
building is rotated, the original door will again be interior to the property and will be
eliminated because this is where the new and old construction abut.
In this unique circumstance, staff finds it acceptable that guideline 4.1, below, will not be
met. The entry to both of the units will be in the western addition. Numerous design
guidelines direct that entry doors face a street, which will be the case with this
development.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to
remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter
the exterior mass of a building.
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.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the
door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms
and flanking sidelights.
Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that
the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic
position.
If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must
remain operable.
P31
III.B.
As HPC is aware, the proposed project anticipates that a tree removal permit for the
southeast tree will be granted by appeal to City Council. A single stall garage and an
uncovered parking space are shown in the area currently occupied by the tree. If the
appeal is unsuccessful, the applicant will determine whether to revise the project or
choose another course. In the event that the applicant decides to preserve the tree by
deleting the garage, staff recommends that the Conceptual design approval remain valid.
The two displaced parking spaces would need to be reconfigured for Final review, or the
applicant may request a variance.
FAR BONUS
In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is
incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building;
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic
appearance;
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the
historic building's form, materials or openings;
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
Staff Response: Staff finds that criteria highlighted above are met, warranting a 500
square foot floor area bonus. The application ensures the preservation of an important
example of Modernism in Aspen and benefits the community.
SETBACK VARIANCES
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or
district; and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or
architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated
historic property or historic district.
Staff Response: HPC has the authority to consider setback variances if they allow for
better placement of the new construction relative to the historic building.
The project meets the side setback requirement on the west.
P32
III.B.
The project requires a rear yard setback variance because a 5’ setback, rather than a 10’
setback is provided.
Regarding the east yard, the main floor of the studio, which cantilevers over its CMU base,
is 3’ from the east property line rather than the required 5’. The east wall flares another 1’2”
towards the roofline. This area will be considered similar to an eave and will not require an
additional variance. HPC should be aware that the east wall will be close enough to the east
lot line as to require it to be upgraded to a 1 hour fire rated wall. The existing siding on the
east must be removed so that a layer of drywall can be installed on the outside surface of the
studs. The siding will be re-installed on top of the drywall. The increased thickness of this
wall will have to be resolved by either adding a trim element to the corner, or re-siding a
portion of the front facade (possibly from the corner to the chimney) to make the siding
line up at the corners, as it currently does.
In addition to a 5’ minimum setback requirement on each side of the property, there is a
combined sideyard requirement of 15’. The project provides 8’ (5’ west, 3’ east), so a 7’
variance is requested.
The front setback is measured to the most forward projecting element, which in this case
will be the balcony on the front of the studio. The balcony will be 4’ from the front lot line
rather than the required 10’.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The project does not comply with two of the Residential Design Standards, Secondary
Mass and Street Oriented Entrance.
SECONDARY MASS. All new single-family
and duplex structures shall locate at least ten
percent (10%) of their total square footage above
grade in a mass which is completely detached
from the principal building or linked to it by a
subordinate linking element. This standard shall
only apply to parcels within the Aspen infill area
pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2.
Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds and
accessory dwelling units are examples of
appropriate uses for the secondary mass.
A subordinate linking element for the purposes of linking a primary and secondary mass
shall be at least ten (10) feet in length, not more than ten (10) feet in width, and with a
plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Accessible outdoor space over the linking
element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an
accessible outdoor space over a linking element must be the minimum reasonably
necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must
be 50% or more transparent.
P33
III.B.
STREET ORIENTED ENTRANCE AND PRINCIPAL WINDOW. All single-
family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a
street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall
have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must
have a street facing a principal window.
On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater
block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the
following conditions are met:
a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more
than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the
building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet.
b) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet,
with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front
facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more
than one (1) story in height.
All Residential Design Standard Variances, Pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.410.020(D)(2) must:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context
in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In
evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may
consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures,
the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is
necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or,
b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific
constraints.
Staff Response: The proposal includes a detached single stall garage, but the structure is
not large enough to meet the Secondary Mass standard. It is 259 square feet in size
where approximately 360 square feet (10% of the above grade floor area) is required.
The detached garage is in the spirit of the standard and there are limitations on the layout
of the development given historic preservation concerns. Staff supports a variance of this
standard based on criteria a and b above.
P34
III.B.
ON-SITE RELOCATION
Only one of the units in the duplex (the frontmost unit, in this case the studio) needs to
have an entry door no more than 10’ back from the front façade and an adequately sized
front porch.
The second floor living space that shelters the entry to the studio is 10’ back from the
front façade, but the door into the studio is recessed another 4’, so the standard is not met.
The applicant has been asked to pull back the western mass as far as possible, so staff
would not recommend a redesign that diminishes what is proposed.
The cantilever over the studio entry serves the purpose of a porch, but does not meet the
Residential Design Standard definition of a porch. A porch must be a one story element,
6’ deep and 50 square feet in footprint. Staff finds that the design balances complex
historic preservation goals, meeting criterion b above. We do not recommend redesign of
the entry into the studio. The studio has a street-facing balcony that will provide the type
of front porch interaction that is the goal of the Residential Design Standards.
26.415.090.C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for
a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any
one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its
relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel
on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on
the Historic District or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation
method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object
and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in
which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or
aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation,
repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the
provision of the necessary financial security.
P35
III.B.
Staff Response: Staff finds that relocating and turning the studio is the best and most
appropriate preservation action for this site. The historic siting of this building at the rear
of the lot is unique. Placing new construction in front of it would likely eliminate public
enjoyment of the building and would be counterproductive to preservation.
The relevant design guidelines are:
As part of building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit the standard
assurances that relocation will proceed with care. These are included in the conditions of
approval.
===============================================================
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC ask Council to work
diligently with the applicant to achieve a mutually acceptable package of incentives to be
awarded for this “best” example of an AspenModern resource.
Staff recommends HPC grant Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and
Variance approval with the following conditions:
1. In the event that the applicant decides to preserve the southeast tree by deleting the
single stall garage, the Conceptual design approval remains valid. The two displaced
parking spaces would need to be reconfigured for Final review, or the applicant may
request a variance.
2. HPC hereby grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a
historic district.
It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and
materials.
Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new
foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new
construction.
In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
P36
III.B.
3. HPC hereby allows a 5’ rear setback, a 3’ east setback (plus the necessary projection to
accommodate the eave and a fire rated east wall), an 8’ combined sideyard and a 4’ front
yard.
4. HPC hereby grants a waiver of the Residential Design Standards related to Secondary
Mass and Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window.
5. For the temporary relocation of the studio during basement excavation, the owner
must provide a $30,000 letter of credit, cashier’s check, or other form acceptable to
the City Attorney to insure the safe relocation of the house. A relocation plan
detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction
must be submitted with the building permit application, and the applicant shall
include documentation of the existing elevation of the home and the relationship of
the foundation to grade in the building permit application.
6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within
one (1) year of April 8, 2015, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan.
Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void
the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation
Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time
extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up
to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
EXHIBITS :
Exhibit A: Design Guidelines
Exhibit B: Integrity Score Sheet
Exhibit C: Public comment
Exhibit D: February 25, 2015 minutes
Exhibit E: Application
Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 211 E. Hallam, Conceptual review
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark
trees and shrubs.
Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species
of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include
the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware,
detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights.
Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary
entrances.
P37
III.B.
If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible
so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place,
in its historic position.
If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade
must remain operable.
5.1 Preserve an original porch.
Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions
and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones.
Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick"
style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate.
Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate.
5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is
strongly encouraged.
This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary
entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element.
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and
orientation of the roof as seen from the street.
Retain and repair roof detailing.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the
building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved.
8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure.
Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this
pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is
reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than
those in a historic district.
It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural
details and materials.
Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and
provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines
for new construction.
In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not
approved.
P38
III.B.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain
within the boundaries of its historic parcel.
If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of
the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new
building in front of it.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However,
lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it
enhances the resource.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also
is inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new
construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is
preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set
it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the
historic building.
A 1-story connector is preferred.
The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the
primary building.
The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
P39
III.B.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to
minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original
proportions and character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will
not alter the exterior mass of a building.
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.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New
curb cuts are not permitted.
If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene.
P40
III.B.
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APPROVING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, ON-SITE RELOCATION
AND VARIANCES, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
ASPENMODERN HISTORIC LANDMARK NEGOTIATION FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 211 E. HALLAM, LOT 1, 223 E. HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT, CITY
AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2015
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-16-007
WHEREAS, the applicant, ELM 223, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Harry
Teague Architects, has requested that the property located at 211 E. Hallam receive benefits for
historic designation through the AspenModern process described at Section 26.415.025 and
Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also requested approval for Conceptual Major Development, On-site
Relocation and Variances; 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 Conceptual Major 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 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. For review
of benefits, such as a floor area bonus and setback variances, HPC must determine conformance
with Section 26.415.110 of the Municipal Code. 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, in order to receive approval for Relocation, the application shall meet the
requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated
Property; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variances to the Residential Design Standards according to
Section 26.410.020.D; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff report to HPC dated April 8, 2015, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards. The staff recommendation was that the property
qualifies as a “best” example of AspenModern historic resources. Staff recommended in favor of
the Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocationand Variances; and
P41
III.B.
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 8, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, including the staff
recommendation and public comments, and found the project to be consistent with the review
criteria, with conditions, by a vote of __ to __.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC asks City Council to work diligently with the applicant to achieve a mutually acceptable
package of incentives to be awarded for this “best” example of an AspenModern resource.
HPC grants Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variance approval with the
following conditions:
1. In the event that the applicant decides to preserve the southeast tree by deleting the single
stall garage, the Conceptual design approval remains valid. The two displaced parking
spaces would need to be reconfigured for Final review, or the applicant may request a
variance.
2. HPC hereby grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus.
3. HPC hereby allows a 5’ rear setback, a 3’ east setback (plus the necessary projection to
accommodate the eave and a fire rated east wall), an 8’ combined sideyard and a 4’ front yard.
4. HPC hereby grants a waiver of the Residential Design Standards related to Secondary Mass and
Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window.
5. For the temporary relocation of the studio during basement excavation, the owner must
provide a $30,000 letter of credit, cashier’s check, or other form acceptable to the City
Attorney to insure the safe relocation of the house. A relocation plan detailing how and
where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with
the building permit application, and the applicant shall include documentation of the existing
elevation of the home and the relationship of the foundation to grade in the building permit
application.
6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1)
year of April 8, 2015, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file
such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a
Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request
for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of April, 2015.
______________________
Willis Pember, Vice Chair
P42
III.B.
Approved as to Form:
___________________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P43
III.B.
1) Simple geometric forms, both in plan and
elevation
Character Defining Features of the Bauhaus/International Style
x
5) Windows are treated as slots in the wall
surface, either vertically or horizontally, or
glazing appears as a curtain wall
7) Materials are generally manufactured and
standardized, surfaces are smooth, with minimal or
no detail at window jambs, grade, and roof edge
x
x
Total Points, 0 - 10 7
x
2) Flat roofs, usually single story
4) Asymmetrical arrangement of elements
6) Detailing is reduced to the composition of
elements rather than decorative effects x
Check box if
statement is true.
1 point per box.
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8) Entry is usually marked by a void in the wall,
a cantilevered screen element, or other
architectural clue that directs one into the
composition
9)Buildings are connected to nature through
the use of courtyards, wall elements that
extend into the landscape, and areas of glazing
that allow a visual connection to the natural
environment
10) Schemes are monochromatic, using
neutral colors. Primary colors are used for
accents.
x
x
8
9
3) Proportions are long and low, horizontal lines
are emphasized
A building must have 6 of the 10
character defining features, either
present or clearly documented
through photographic of physical
evidence to qualify as
Bauhaus/International Style.
Restoration may be required as part
of the award of incentives.
If the property earned 6 or more
points, continue to the next page.
If the property earned less than 6
points, scoring ends.
10
P
4
4
I
I
I
.
B
.
INTEGRITY SCORING
If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement.
Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points:
HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE:
Best: 15 up to 20 points
Better: 12 up to 15 points
Good: 10 up to 12 points
Not Eligible:0 up to 10 points
Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi-
mum of 10 points:
LOCATION OF BUILDING ON THE LOT:
The bui l di ng i s i n i ts ori gi nal l ocation.2 poi nts
The bui l di ng has be e n shi ft e d on the ori gi nal parce l , but mai ntai ns i ts ori gi nal
al i gnme nt and/or prox i mi ty to the stre e t.1 poi nt
SETTING :
The prope rty i s l ocate d wi thi n the ge ographi cal are a surrounde d by Castl e
Cre e k, the Roari ng Fork Ri ve r and A spe n Mountai n.1 poi nt
The prope rty i s outsi de of the ge ographi cal are a surround by Castl e Cre e k, the
Raori ng Fork Ri ve r and Aspe n Mountai n.1/2 poi nt
DESIG N:
The form of the bui l di ng (f ootpri nt, roof and w al l pl ane s) are unal te re d f rom
the ori gi nal de si gn.3 poi nts
a.) The f orm of the bui l di ng has be e n al te re d but l e ss than 25% of the ori gi nal
wal l s have be e n re move d, OR
b.) The al te rations to the f orm al l occur at the re ar of the subj e ct bui l di ng, OR
c.) The f orm of the bui l di ng has be e n al te re d but the addi tion i s l e ss than 50%
of the si ze of the ori gi nal bui l di ng, OR
d.) The re i s a roof top addi tion that i s l e ss than 50% of the footprint of the roof.
2 poi nts
MATERIALS
Exteri or mate rial s
The original e x te ri or mate ri al s of the bui l di ng are stil l i n pl ace , wi th the
e x ce ption of normal mai nte nance and re pai rs.2 poi nts
50% of the e x te ri or mate ri al s have be e n re pl ace d, but the re pl ace me nts
match the ori gi nal condi tion.1 poi nt
Windows and doors
The ori gi nal wi ndows and doors of the bui l di ng are stil l i n pl ace , wi th the
e x ce ption of normal mai nte nance and re pai rs.2 poi nts
50% of the ori gi nal wi ndows and doors have be e n re pl ace d, but the
re pl ace me nts match the ori gi nal condi tion.1 poi nt
P45
III.B.
P46
III.B.
P47
III.B.
P48
III.B.
P49
III.B.
file:///G|/...rent%20HP%20Cases/211ehallam/Conceptual%20April%208%202015/public%20comment/Berko%20Mallory%20Residences.txt[3/30/2015 3:46:06 PM]
From: Jess Bates <jessbates@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:47 AM
To: Amy Simon
Subject: Berko Mallory Residences
To Whom It May Concern;
I just wanted to express my support of the Berko Mallory Residences development on Hallam
Street. I have looked at the architectural rendering and am pleased that the studio will be
preserved and moved to the front of the lot. I'm also supportive of this development to give the
family options for stying in Aspen.
Regards,
Jess Bates
Hayes Family Partnership
209 E. Bleeker St
Aspen CO 81611
P50
III.B.
file:///G|/...G/Land%20Use%20Cases/Current/Current%20HP%20Cases/211ehallam/Conceptual%20April%208%202015/berko%20plans.txt[3/30/2015 1:00:57 PM]
From: Gigi Whitman <whit8637@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:54 PM
To: Amy Simon
Subject: berko plans
we have looked over the Berko plans and we have no issues with them. Thank you Gigi and Randy
Whitman
P51
III.B.
P
5
2
I
I
I
.
B
.
file:///G|/...urrent%20HP%20Cases/211ehallam/Conceptual%20April%208%202015/public%20comment/Bump_211%20East%20Hallam.txt[3/30/2015 3:46:06 PM]
From: Richard Bump <bumpr@mindspring.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:45 AM
To: Amy Simon
Cc: berko.nora@gmail.com
Subject: 211 East Hallam
Amy Simon
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 211 East Hallam: Berko Studio Designation as AspenModern
Dear Amy;
I am writing this letter to support the request to designate the "Berko Studio" as an example of
AspenModern Architecture. I also support the re-location of the above studio to that portion of the lot
that allows the structure more visibility from the Hallam Street side, as a prominent historic structure.
Relocating this structure to the Hallam street side of the property, allows the studio to be visible to
those who pass through the neighborhood on foot, via shuttle or in private cars. It is close to the red
brick school building where many community activities currently take place. The neighborhood today is
home to several AspenModern structures, as well as a variety of historic Victorian homes.
I am a current owner of the property located at 219 North Monarch, which is next door to the original
Berko residence. My family has been a neighbor of the Berko family since the early 60's and this
designation is appropriate and necessary to recognize and celebrate all of the important contributions
that Ferenc Berko has made to the community of Aspen. Mr. Berko, as he was known to me, epitomizes
the very essence of what an involved and dedicated community member represents. From my earliest
memory, he was always cataloging the history of Aspen through photographs, most specifically black
and white photographs. He has chronicled many an important event in the history of Aspen as a town
and over the years, his photographs remain a window into our past, which can only help how we
manage the Aspen of the present and plan for the Aspen of the future. Without maintaining the
integrity of buildings such as this studio for future generations, it will be virtually impossible to only offer
verbal explanations to our children, as we educate them about the Aspen of the past, as I experienced it
and how that relates to the Aspen of the future, as they will experience it and as their children will
experience it.
I believe that is it exemplary behavior on the part of Nora Berko, in that she is willing and able to allow
this structure to remain in the hands of history, when she certainly is not required to do so. She has
championed the cause that her parents began, by preserving a bit of history for the next generations to
come. During my lifetime, owning a photograph taken by Mr. Berko was quite the prized possession, as
he managed to capture on film even the most simple images that all related to the Aspen that I know
and love. I still own and proudly display every photograph Mr. Berko took of me while riding on the
chairlift up Aspen Mountain. To know that a small piece of his history will remain protected in
perpetuity, seems to me to qualify as the very definition of historic preservation.
I hope that the HPC Board agrees that the offer of designating the Berko Studio as an example of
AspenModern architecture, is a gift to the entire community of Aspen and to all of us who desire a
connection to the past. All too often, important and significant architectural structures are quickly
demolished to make way for new construction. This time, an opportunity has presented itself that can
benefit everyone involved. Please take a moment and consider how the city of Aspen looked over the
years through Ferenc Berko's camera lens and honor his memory, his talent and his gift through
P53
III.B.
file:///G|/...urrent%20HP%20Cases/211ehallam/Conceptual%20April%208%202015/public%20comment/Bump_211%20East%20Hallam.txt[3/30/2015 3:46:06 PM]
photography, that made Aspen the community it is today.
I thank you for your time and effort.
Sincerely,
Linda Light Bump
P54
III.B.
file:///G|/...ses/211ehallam/Conceptual%20April%208%202015/public%20comment/Support%20for%20Berko%20Studio%20preservation.txt[3/30/2015 3:46:06 PM]
From: dfloria@qcompany.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 2:58 PM
To: Amy Simon
Cc: Nora Berko
Subject: Support for Berko Studio preservation
Dear Amy Simon,
I am writing in support of the current proposal to modify and preserve the historic studio of esteemed
photographer, Ferenc Berko. My relationship with Franz began in 1983, when I was invited, as the new
Curator of the Aspen Art Museum, to curate an exhibition for the Paepke Gallery, at The Aspen Institute.
The exhibition was of Berko's black and white portraits taken at the Institute since his arrival in
residence. He and I poured over his prints in that charming studio, it was the first of many wonderful
meetings with him there.
I firmly believe that the Berko studio is an essential site to the cultural history of Aspen. I believe that it
should be preserved as a study center and archive for posterity. It was my great honor and pleasure to
know and work with Berko as a friend and colleague, it would be a tragic mistake not to value his
distinguished legacy enough to maintain his archive in it's proper home.
Please contact me if I can assist in any way.
Sincerely yours,
David Floria
P55
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
Clarification: Valerie said on the perennials it would be good if the board
had a comment on perennials vs Kentucky blue grass as the appropriate
right-of-way solution.
Debbie said the condition is up to the forester because of the roots of the
trees.
John Whipple said he is for the perennials if a watering system can be
worked out. Jim agreed.
Willis said we are approving the landscape plan as part of the vote.
Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Patrick, no; Willis, yes.
Motion carried 4-1.
Jim will be the monitor.
211 E. Hallam —AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Designation,
Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances,
Public Hearing
Debbie said the notice of affidavit is in order and the applicant can proceed,
Exhibit I.
Exhibit II, new elevations
Amy said the review is for an AspenModern negotiation for historic
designation of 211 E. Hallam and a major redevelopment. There was a
subdivision on the 12,000 square foot lot and it was divided in half. The
6,000 square foot lot is under HPC purview and has a studio on the lot.
Nothing has ever been done to say that the studio has historic significance.
If it was proposed to be demolished HPC would review that but it hasn't
been a contributing resource and so the applicant is voluntarily offering
designation under AspenModern.
The first discussion is whether the studio should be AspenModern
designation worthy. This property has an interesting history. Mr. Berko put
Aspen on the map in 1949. With AspenModern negotiation the applicant
can ask council for things that are needed for the success of the project.
After conceptual it will go to council and then back to HPC for final review.
At council they will discuss waiver of the building permit fees, waiver of
8
P56
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
impact fees. There are a number of large trees on the property. All can be
removed except the one in the south east corner back along the alley. The
applicant will be applying for a tree permit removal for that tree. As a
recommendation HPC should not be discussing the tree as that decision is
involving the Parks Dept. and Council. The applicant will be presenting
without the tree. If they do not get approval to remove the tree they will
come back for conceptual.
This is a 6,000 square foot lot with the studio structure on the alley. The
applicant has the right to do a duplex and that is their plan. They are
proposing to have them touch but they have the option to make them two
detached structure and still conform with zoning. By choosing a duplex
program that allows 360 more floor area than a single family home. It also
allows one additional garage stall of 250 sq.ft. to be exempt from the floor
area. The applicant is also asking for the 500 square foot bonus. The
project as proposed has 1,110 square feet more gross floor area then is
allowed as a standard. At the work session HPC seemed to embrace the idea
that the studio could be lifted up, rotated and put on the front of the site. If
this is done we'are losing a substantial amount of original material and it
would be a character change. The family lived in the house and the studio
was an accessory unit. The building would be picked up, turned, making it a
street facing building and demolishing some of the existing materials. Staff
can get behind this but it clearly has to be justifiable. The biggest issues is
how the old and new connect.
Amy did a power point on different connectors throughout town. There are
a number of guidelines that have not been met with this project. Staff
suggested totally detaching the units from each other. Staff said there is a
problem with the two story volume added directly to the studio. Staff
recommends continuation to re-design the addition to either create a
connector or,somehow separate the two pieces. Staff does not feel the FAR
bonus is warranted. There are also setback variances being requested. The
RDS's require a secondary mass and the applicant is requesting a variance as
we feel that should not be granted until there is some improvement with the
connector. The applicant has a new front door into the studio that is too far
back from the street for the RDS's and we feel that should be restudied.
Applicant:
Nora Berko
Harry Teague
9
P57
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
Philip Jeffries
Mirte Malory
Howie Malory
Stan Clauson
Nora said she grew up in this property and her father, Ferenc Berco had the
studio built in 1964 by Ted Mylarz. The structure had to be beautiful,
simple and affordable. Those are the same values that lead us on our
journey. The studio was a gathering place for participants in the design
conference, music festival and institute. They came here to talk and get
photographed and all the images were developed and printed here. We have
engaged in the AspenModern by choice. When the lot split was done I
chose the studio because it was unprotected. The studio would be a great
example of AspenModern and giving our family the opportunity for multi-
generational living. It would be a Senior center for us and a home for our
children. I have seen this neighborhood empty out into second homes. We
want to keep life in the West End year round. We have lived on the property
for almost 60 years. We have several thresholds in conflict with the HPC
guidelines and we recognize that. One is livability. Livability and
marketability are two different measures. Our standards align with the
Aspen Community Plan and with the housing we want to create a place for
two families to live year round and be active participants in the community.
We want to reuse the existing structure, build green and generate energy.
Regarding transportation we want to be able to walk, bike and have access to
RFTA. We also want the town to have a healthy mix of ages. We are
attached to the studio and hope to see it celebrated on Hallam St. as an
AspenModern.
Mirte said Ferenc Berko's photographs and his life career as a photographer
were international. It was the dedication to form, line and shape that lead
him to be recognized as one of the pioneers of black and white photography.
His work is collected in major museums and at international exhibitions:
Architecture has always been a part of his vision and photography. It has
been my honor to keep the collection alive. We have maintained a dark
room in the studio today. The studio is different than other projects that
HPC has seen because it has a public interface.
Howie said they had family discussions about what is the right thing to do
with the property. We came up with two straight forward objectives. First
the creation of a multi-generation primary residence duplex which would
10
P58
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
consist of the renovated studio and a new duplex residence connected to the
studio in the rear, the senior housing. The second objective was to
landmark the studio and keep the Berko archive here in Aspen. We are here
to talk about the livability of the project not the marketability. The studio
and the two units should have an abundant access to natural daylight. We
don't want to live in shadows. We want to have above grade living. We
also want to have affordable construction with basic non-custom materials in
the Bauhaus style that are energy efficient. We want to take advantage of
the lots natural southern exposure. The senior center would have minimal
level changes. We believe this is a proper and successful AspenModern
project.
Philip Jeffries said the project lines up nicely with the Victorian. The bay
window has always faced the interior of the site. We tried to come up with a
scenario that balances the preservation and livability. The spirit of the studio
is driven by its form and that form needs space around it. The inside of the
studio comes to life with the display of light. We need to keep light coming
into the studio from both sides. The further we moved the studio forward
the more breathing room it had. Philip went over some of the designs they
worked on. One unit is in the studio and the other duplex behind.
Harry said the studio is key to the history of Aspen which needs preserved
and celebrated in an appropriate way. The family is also key. The guidelines
were created for a different era and a different style of architecture. The
resource would move to the front of the property and spin 180 degrees and
what that does is make the resource visible so that it is seen. There is public
activity associated with this building. The entrance and the way it addresses
the street is very important. We want to create an addition to the studio that
creates an entrance from the street. We would build a new foundation out of
cinder block and would have exactly the same appearance as it has now. On
the back side we would have a slight modification of extending the porch for
a deck and changing fenestration in the kitchen with the addition of a little
window. You basically look right,throw this building and making a glass
enclosure connector in the center would-prevent you from seeing through the
building. We are creating a new entrance from a non-functional part of the
building. The building in the back is a two story structure. Regarding the
parking two are connected to the senior housing (duplex) in back and the
other on the side.
11
P59
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
On the secondary building the master bedroom is on the second floor. It is
our intent to create a setback of forms and we gradually increase the
program and mass as you step further back. The south elevation is on the
alley and we are providing a space for two cars attached to the senior
housing and there is a back entrance from the alley side. There is also a
single car garage that serves the studio on the alley. The front door of the
senior housing faces the street. There is an upper element over the front
door. There are two front doors for the duplex from the street. The mass
of the building is on the west side and it is opened up to the south east so
that gardens, vegetables can be grown in this area. We are utilizing the
building collage concept with a dark element over a light element in color.
Harry said they have done several projects not by connector additions. The
new architecture was attached directly to the old buildings.
Mirte said we hope that you will look at this project in the spirit of
Modernism and not Victorianism. We have also talked with Ted Mularz, the
original architect for the studio and he is in support of this project. Our
neighbors are also in support of our project.
Willis said this is an exciting project for our community. It is clear that the
studio is a living archive with its own front door and the senior housing is a
separate residence.
Mirte said the studio is a separate family residence for our siblings.
Bob asked about the traffic to the archive.
Mirte said it depends on what is happening with publications. Requests
weekly. It is not a heavy traffic area but I work there daily.
Willis said with the archive facing the street one would think you would
have more exposure and more traffic.
Patrick said in trying not to have the two story over the historic resource
taking the bedroom and putting it on the east side and moving the garage up
and putting the double garage west so you have a U. That way you would
have a view through the building all the way back to the alley.
12
P60
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
Harry said they explored numerous options. Eventually you are going to r
have a two story structure behind the resource and that would block the view
to Aspen Mountain. Moving this to one side and having a two story element
to one side fit the idea of the collage.
Mirte said moving it over would impact the studio twice and our goal is to
have as little impact as possible. That would also require a driveway.
John said the structure is intertwined with the use of it and the public
amenity of being able to visit. Are there any kind of guarantees down the
road that this will be maintained as the archive and public amenity?
Mirte said the indication is that we want to keep it here. .There is a large
amount of material that needs preserved. It is our intent to preserve the
archive and keep it here as much as possible.
Jim complimented the applicant on their thoroughness and evaluation of
alternatives. It is an asset for our community. I agree with continuance and
studying the separation and clarifying the setbacks.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing.
Bill Stirling said all of the AspenModern presentations have been unique.
With the structure being moved Aspenites will see this structure. Bringing it
forward makes a lot of sense. By shifting it over to the left they have
eliminated the bustle look. Mixed uses have been going on in the West End.
If you designate it, it stays there.
Scott Ride said he and his partner bought the original Berko home. We are
looking forward to restoring the Victorian. This will be a unique property
with the Victorian and AspenModern studio right beside it. What makes
Aspen great is that we embrace many styles. We applaud what is trying to
be accomplished here and we are working together. Shortly we will be in
front of the HPC.
Phyllis Bronson, said the building is aesthetically beautiful. It captures the
simplicity of Ferenc Berko's photography. Having a multi-generational
project and seeing lights on in the West End permanently is compelling.
13
P61
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
David Hyman said this is a beautiful presentation. The project will be such
an amenity to the community as it draws the 40, 50, 60's into the present
day. I have heard no negative comments and it preserves the old studio and
enhances it with the view to the mountain. I am total support and hope the
HPC passes it.
Exhibit III - Amy said e-mails or letters were sent to the HPC from Ted
Mularz, Aspen Institute, David Floria, Aspen Community Church, Linda
Bump, Jess Bates.and Phil Hodgson.
Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing.
Applicant rebuttal:
Stan said the required site coverage is 50% and this meets that requirement
at 44%. ,In the packet there were extensive alternatives that have been
discussed. Staff did not provide a resolution because additional study is
being recommended. If the HPC feels there is enough presented staff could
prepare a resolution based on the application presented.
Willis identified the issues:
Designation of an AspenlVModern resource
Re-siting of the historic resource
Setback variances
RDS's — secondary mass
Willis agreed with everything that the public commented on. Itis clear that
the massing has to go to one side or the other. What we are asked to review
is a one dimensional requirement, a one-story ten foot connector to separate
the old from the new. The project is beautifully done and it is good
architecture but it doesn't meet the narrow guideline for a connector. I can
get behind everything else but the connector.
Patrick also said he has concerns with the connector.
Bob said the concern is the connector entry. I have no problem with the
design. The family wants to keep the usage on this property. How you
solve the access is the issue. With the double entry they both face the street
and they both have different functions and the solution is acceptable.
14
P62
III.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
Jim said he agrees with staff to restudy the connector and clarify the
setbacks. The basic design is good.
John said he understands the uses of the West End and hopes that they
continue in the future. He also understand staff's position and the family's
needs. This is a tremendous resource and possibly we can re-interpret the
guideline for AspenModern architecture. The project is well thought out.
MOTION: Jim moved to continue 211 E. Hallam to March 25th; second by
Patrick.
Roll call vote: Jim, yes; John, no; Patrick, yes; Bob, no; Willis, yes. Motion
carried 3-2.
Jim said the design is terrific and the continuation is to allow staff to study
the separation connector issue and clarify the setbacks.
Amy said staff is not suggestion the project start over and they are not
suggesting it has to be a one story ten foot long connector. It could be just a
little more in alignment as to how it is connected. We are open to some
flexability and it is not identical to every other case.
MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8.30 m.
Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
15
P63
III.B.
P64
I
I
I
.
B
.
P65
I
I
I
.
B
.
P66
I
I
I
.
B
.
P67
I
I
I
.
B
.
P68
I
I
I
.
B
.
P69
I
I
I
.
B
.
P70
I
I
I
.
B
.
P71
I
I
I
.
B
.
P72
I
I
I
.
B
.
P73
I
I
I
.
B
.
P74
I
I
I
.
B
.
P75
I
I
I
.
B
.
P76
I
I
I
.
B
.
P77
I
I
I
.
B
.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 135 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor Development, Continued Public Hearing
DATE: April 8, 2015
______________________________________________________________________________
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 19 th century outbuilding is located
along the alley.
In 2003, HPC approved Major Development
review that entailed moving the house slightly
to the north and east of the original location,
constructing an addition along the west side
of the house, and 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 conditions. The project won a
Preservation Honor award upon completion
in 2005.
The applicant is requesting Minor
Development review to increase the size of
the connector between the old and new
construction. The modest amount of square
footage involved in the project qualifies this
as Minor Development.
HPC reviewed the proposal on January 22,
2014 and August 27, 2014. At both meetings
Staff recommended denial, finding that the
proposal did not meet the design guidelines.
HPC had numerous concerns (see attached
minutes) and continued the hearing to this
date so that the applicant could restudy.
P78
III.C.
2
Staff continues to find that the work negatively impacts the historic resources.
APPLICANT: Chris Pat Aspen LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning and Zone 4
Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003.
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 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 Response: When the renovation of this house was reviewed in 2003, the applicant
requested a two story connector, which the board did not support. The connector was revised to
one story, which was approved as part of the HPC’s Conceptual review decision in September
2003.
In the subsequent years, staff has had numerous conversations with the property owner about
functional concerns with the layout of the house. The owner would like a central staircase
accommodated in the connector. HPC held a worksession on this topic in 2012 and two public
hearings in 2014.
The design guidelines that relate to this project have not changed since 2003. At the time this
project was proposed, there were many options that were possible for adding onto the house. The
floor plan was not dictated by HPC. The addition could have been one story instead of two,
bedrooms could have been grouped closer together, etc.
Minimizing the size and height of the connector was an important issue to the HPC at the time
that Major Development was approved. It has been difficult to find a way to alter the connector
while maintaining the success of the existing project.
P79
III.C.
3
The applicant has provided a packet summarizing numerous options. The so called “original
option” was presented to HPC at a past worksession but never developed further. Three other
options were shown to HPC at the last hearings.
Option 1 keeps the connector footprint in the same position as it is now, with a second story
added and a stair placed to the south. Option 2 leaves the connector footprint in the current
position on the ground level, but adds a new hallway/stair landing at the second floor, forward of
and cantilevered above the existing connector location. A stair is added on the south side of the
corridors. Option 3 moves the connector footprint forward of the current location, stacks a
hallway/stair landing on top and adds a stair on the south side.
Each option creates new impacts on the historic resource by removing historic materials, filling
in the current sense of openness between the new and old construction, and introducing an
sizable architectural element that is a contrasting material to the Victorian immediately next to it.
The connector currently has no visibility from the Aspen Street view of the property, but will
become apparent in the proposed options and pops above or on top of the Victorian roof.
New option 6, may be the most objectionable of all in that it is not only an east-west oriented
corridor; it also wraps along the west façade of the addition and narrows the gap that currently
exists between the new and old.
An interior remodel that improves the layout of the home remains an option for the owner as
well.
The property is at the maximum floor area, including a 500 square foot bonus previously
awarded for outstanding preservation effort. No alterations to this project are possible unless the
applicant permanently frees up some floor area. It has been suggested this will be accomplished
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, which will require removal of an existing stair
and likely removal of all finishes in the space, for instance taking the flooring down to plywood.
Further review by Zoning would be needed prior to building permit.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
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 the proposal be denied, finding that the
guidelines are not met.
P80
III.C.
4
Exhibit:
Resolution #___, Series of 2015
A. Design Guidelines
B. January 22, 2014 minutes
C. August 27, 2014
D. Application
“Exhibit A, Relevant Design Guidelines, 135 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor Review ”
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location
on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not
allowed.
A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be
positioned below the ridgeline.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining
visually compatible with these earlier features.
A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or
a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
A 1-story connector is preferred.
The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
P81
III.C.
5
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
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.
P82
III.C.
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
DENYING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 135 E. COOPER AVENUE, LOTS H AND I,
AND THE EASTERLY 5 FEET OF LOT G, BLOCK 70, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2015
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 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.C 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 April 8, 2015, performed an analysis of the
application and recommended that the review standards and design guidelines were not met for
the project as proposed; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2015, 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 denies Minor Development for the property located at 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H
and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of April, 2015.
__________________________
Willis Pember, Vice Chair
Approved as to Form:
P83
III.C.
____________________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P84
III.C.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22 2014
Sallie said because of the architectural integrity of this house anything fixed
on the window could be uglier than what is there now.
Jay said he had a hard time figuring out the windows.
Nora asked about the proposed north window.
Willis said his only concern is the north windows. Maybe staff and monitor
can address the north window. Sallie agreed.
Kate said we are open to suggestions on the north window. We are not
architects.
Jay said all the APCHA properties should be identified that have an historic
overlay on them.
MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #4 for 947 E. Cooper
approving the French doors installed on the south deck; approve the already
installed upper south and west windows; applicant to submit revisions to the
proposed ground floor north windows to be reviewed and approved by staff
and monitor and moving the three windows from north to east is approved as
shown in the drawing. Motion second by Sallie.
Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Patrick, yes; Jay, yes.
Motion carried 5-0.
135 E. Cooper—Minor, Development— Public Hearing
Dylan Johns, Zone4architects
Mitch Haas, Haas Planning
Amy said this is a landmark property and on the National Register. There is
an 1888 Victorian on the site and an out building along the alley that is about
the same vintage. In 2003 the house was allowed to be picked up and
moved slightly closer to the corner and there was an addition made to the
west side with a one-story link between the new and old and some
construction to the out building and garage on the alley. The application is
to increase the size of the connector because it is causing circulation
problems with the living spaces. Staff finds that changing the connector to a
two story connector does not meet the guidelines. When this was approved
5P85
III.C.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2014
by HPC they allowed the new and old to be closer together than the ten foot
distance that is required. By turning this into a two story element and a
much larger connecting element it is really taking away from the success of
the project and not complying with the guidelines. They are at the max for
FAR and might have to alter the attic. The proposal diminishes the
distinction between new and old and it covers up four historic windows in
the large section of the west facing wall of the Victorian house. A skylight
is also being requested on the historic carriage house on the alley. The
skylight would be on the west facing slope and it would not be very visible.
Our recommendation has always been to use traditional windows to bring in
natural light in instead of incompatible skylights placed on a roof of an
historic building. Staff is recommending denial of the project.
Dylan Johns, Zone 4 architects
Mitch Haas, Haas Planning
Mitch said the historic house sits on the corner and the addition done in 2003
is to the side of the house, on the west side. The connecting element is 7 feet
instead of 10 feet. In 2003 the house got an award for the preservation
efforts. The biggest problem with the house is the function and flow of the
house. You have two two-story houses with a one-story connecting element.
If you are upstairs in the master bedroom of the new addition you have to go
down the stairs and across the house and back up the stairs to get to the other
bedrooms. The house is often used as a rental house by the owner. The
owner has tried different ways to make this work so it can function well so
that the form will follow the function. In 2012 there was a work session and
it was discussed making the linking element a two-story glass box. It is hard
to tell if the existing link is historic or added on. The proposal now is
similar to what was presented at the work session. The linking element
provides a hallway to get from one side of the house to the other. The
guidelines encourage owners to rehabilitate their historic homes and to
coincide with historic preservation. At the same time the guidelines are not
intended to result in dysfunctional homes where the livability of the home
gets compromised and the form doesn't follow the function. The guidelines
seek to balance the concerns with providing a product at the end of the day
that someone can be happy with and live with and provides incentives as a
way to get there. Guideline 10.7 talks about linking elements and it says
one-story elements are preferred but it doesn't say a one-story is required. I
would say the existing connector is not proportional. It is small and makes it
confusing as to what is old and new on this building. The proposed
6P86
III.C.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22 2014
connector sits below the eave lines and made to be fully transparent. We
feel guideline 10.3 and 10.4 are met. The length of the connector will still
be 7 feet and it has been pulled forward to have some space in front of the
stairway and open up the floor plan. We could pull the front curtain wall
back three feet and in doing so preserve another window on the ground
floor. The accessory dwelling unit is lived in and it is dark inside and the
windows on the outbuilding are small. The skylight would be a better
solution than proposing punching in new windows in the side of the
building. If windows are preferable we could do that. On the west fagade it
is blistering and we could put a window there because it needs repaired.
Dylan Johns said they met with the zoning officer to determine the floor area
calculations.
Jay said destroying historic fabrics is a concern of this board. This project as
proposed would remove 4 original windows and a considerable amount of a
wall. Jay asked how you justify removing the historic fabric.
Mitch said part of it is the lack of visibility. There is no other way to do the
connector. The function of the house is not there.
Willis asked why it is dysfunctional. Is it because the master bedroom
occupants have to go down stairs to visit the regular bedrooms.
Mitch said there is no flow to get to the living space. None of the stairs can
stack and there are three sets of stairs in this house and they don't stack with
one another. It is the intent to stack everything in one central corridor. The
central stair will give us the ability to eliminate two sets of stairs. The
dysfunction is mainly the lower level.
Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed.
Jay identified the issues.
Jay said the house has been built there for 11 years and it has been
functioning. The flow should not enter as part of the decision. We need as
a board to focus on our guidelines. The two-story linking element is an issue
and the destruction of the historic fabric.
7P87
III.C.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2014
Sallie said everyone was opposed to the skylight in the cabin at the work
session. The connector is a nice design and it is transparent but it is not
applicable to our charge as a commission and it doesn't fit the guidelines.
Nora said she is opposed to the skylight and the applicant needs to figure out
a way not to destroy three windows and the wall of the Victorian. This
building is on the National Register and won an HPC award. The wall of the
house should not be disrupted and I echo staff's concerns in her memo.
Willis agreed with Nora that the existing fabric needs to be unaltered and the
connector should be transparent. The roof should be glass.
Patrick said he agrees with staff's memo that guideline 10.3, 10.7, 10.81
10.99 10.10, 10.11 and 10.14 are not met and the skylight is not appropriate.
We are happy to do something as long as the historic fabric is not destroyed.
Staff noted that there are other options such as interior remodels to address
the concerns of the layout of the living space.
Jay said it is not appropriate to destroy any more historic fabric. From what
I understand you can't do this project without destroying three historic
windows and part of the historic house. I would be interested to see if there
is a solution that the applicant can come up with to solve their flow problems
and not touch the house. If there was ten feet between the house and
addition you could have probably fit the glass box in there without touching
the historic fabric. The linking element has some positive things to it.
Sallie said the siding should be repaired on the shed.
Mitch said hopefully we can continue this and look at other options and if I
can get success convincing my client that she should leave the stairs where
they are and work with the connecting link. We would probably come back
with a window rather than a skylight.
Nora also suggested an internal remodel so that you are not touching the
historic resource.
Dylan Johns said the eave line is rather low.
Mitch said an obvious solution would be a smaller link. Could we keep
walls and windows inside a linking element with some kind of condition or
8P88
III.C.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2014
agreement that those are still under HPC purview. They would still be
retrievable.
Willis said if your preserve the interior surfaces and the windows and made
it more transparent so that you could see in and see the historic fabric that
would work for me.
Nora asked what Willis suggestion would do to the integrity of the historic
resource and the integrity of the board.
Amy said HPC traditionally does not review interiors and it would be
difficult to monitor the inside of a building.
Sallie said we would be setting a precedent. I have seen a lot of houses like
this. I like the idea of taking away the connector and putting in a glass
connector but making it one-story. It doesn't solve getting from the master
bedroom to the other bedrooms.
Sallie said HPC has a problem with people being able to walk across their
connector or putting a hot tub on top of their connector.
MOTION: Jays moved to continue 135 E. Cooper to April 9t', second by
Sallie. All in favor, motion carried.
Patrick said he would rather they come back with a new proposal.
MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sallie. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Work Session — Main Street cross walk lighting
No- minutes
Kv Xe e
Kathleen J. trickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
9P89
III.C.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2014
Vice-chair, Willis Pember, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were John Whipple, Patrick Sagal, Jim
DeFrancia, Nora Berko and Sallie Golden. Jay Maytin was absent.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MOTION: John moved to approve the minutes of July 23, 2014 and August
6, 2014; second by Jim.
Patrick amended the August 6t'
minutes page 24. All in favor, motion
carried.
Disclosure:
Nora will recuse herself on the work session of 223 E. Hallam as she is part
owner.
Willis will recuse himself on 549 Race Alley. He has been in contact with
the new owner.
135 E. Cooper Ave. — Minor Development, continued public hearing
Amy said this is a large Victorian listed on the National Register of Historic
Places and is on the corner site of Cooper and Aspen Street. In 2003 the
owner proposed a renovation of the house which has the Victorian preserved
on the corner and a similar mass next to it. The two pieces are linked
together with a one story hallway. There has always been a concern of the
minimal passageway between the two major living areas. The public
hearing was continued to tonight. There have been a few different designs
to try and turn this one story connector into a two story stair case that would
link the house together so you could walk more freely between both levels of
the house. In January HPC denied the project finding that the guidelines
have not been met and it deteriorated the success of the project when you
had a nice breathing space between the structures. There are a few proposal
tonight but staff is not able to find that they are successfully meeting the
guidelines. The linking element guideline shows that it should be as minimal
as possible. Trying to incorporate a stair into this part of the project is
1P90
III.C.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF-AUGUST 27, 2014
really creating an object between the two masses that is bigger than what we
think is successful in the context of the guidelines. This link is on top of the
Victorian in a few concepts and staff cannot support the application.
The compromise suggested is that the one story connector has a deck on it
and from the new house you can actually walk out onto this deck but you
cannot go into the Victorian because there is an historic window. Possibly
the window could be turned into a door to get to the second floor levels of
the house. Beyond that there is interior remodeling that could occur. There
is also a request for a skylight in the historic out building in the alley. A
skylight is an out of character way to add light into the building. Staff has
suggested a window that could be approved by staff and monitor. Staff
recommends that the proposal in your packet be denied but you would allow
them to convert this one historic window into the door on the Victorian and
that you would allow a window on the outbuilding to be approved by staff
and monitor.
Dillon Johns and Mitch Haas represented the owner Christy Ferer.
Mitch said this project has been back and forth and we are trying to find a
workable solution. The property is on the Corner of Cooper and Aspen
Street. There is an out building that is occupied and used as an ADU and a
garage. When the addition was made there was no room to go back with a
linking element which is normally the case. There are two bedrooms and a
stair in the historic house and a set of stairs in the addition that gets you to
the master bedroom. We are trying to resolve that you don't have to go
down the stairs and across the link and up the stairs to get from the one side
to the other. Over time this has been an ongoing function. At the last
meeting we heard that if we could find a way to solve the problem and
disturb less of the historic fabric then we could bring it back to the HPC.
We have tried to make it easier to tell where the old ends and the new
begins. We have come up with three options.
I Dillon said on the ground floor we would leave the existing connector
and the stairs and on the upper level where the existing window is we would
make a connection from the addition to the historic resource but stack the
connector over the existing connector. The two story connector would be all
glass. One window would need to be removed.
Mitch said because of the roof line you can't pop a door through the window
as suggested because the window goes up under the eave and if you put a
2P91
III.C.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 27 2014
door in you would have to cut into the roof to make the door a normal
height.
2 Dillon said the existing corridor would stay and the stairs are to the south
of the corridor. We have shifted the upper connector over so that it lands in
between two existing windows. We would be preserving all the main
features of the house and only penetrating the siding wall area in between
them. With this design the roof connection becomes more clean and you
don't destroy the historic windows.
3 Dillon said in this scenario we are eliminating the existing corridor and
taking a new corridor and new stair and pushing it into the house. We are
still leaving a gap between the new envelope and the historic house. We
could move the historic window to keep it on the site. On the upper level the
corridor would stack on top of the ground level connection.
Dillon said the property owner is willing to further screen the connector with
trees etc. On the carriage house the kitchen is dark and we are flexible as to
the size and location of the window instead of a skylight.
Mitch said the ADU is occupied year round as an ADU and it is dark. The
siding is somewhat damaged in the area where the window would go.
Nora inquired about the increase of site coverage. Would the two story
connector impact the light going into the cabin.
Mitch said he didn't think the connector would impact the cabin because it is
glass. There might be a little more light coming to the cabin.
Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Willis identified the issues:
Connector
Window on the outbuilding on the alley instead of a skylight.
Willis said the applicant has done a good job in explaining the difficulty in
simply using an outdoor connector above the existing connector and its
relationship to the roof option #1. Option #3 is a good synthesis between
option #1 and #2.
3P92
III.C.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2014
Amy said this is a two story addition to a two story house. Guideline 10.7
said if you are designing an addition that is taller than the historic building
set it back and use a connector. A one story connector is preferred and it
should be ten feet long. This guideline has some relevance but this situation
is somewhat different. There are other guidelines that talk about removingaslittlehistoricmaterialaspossible.
Mitch said the link is about 7 feet east to west.
Willis said the applicant has done a good job of interacting with the historic
resource.
Nora asked how far forward of the historic house is the connector moving.
Dillon said he believes the connector/stair is moving forward five feet. The
net change of the connector would be about the same. The question is do we
leave what is originally built or do we puu it back.
Willis said he is comfortable with #3 and there is vegetation and things
grown that obscure the connector and site lines to it.
Jim said he is also comfortable with option #3.
Sallie said she agrees with staff and is not in favor of deviating from the
guidelines with a two story connector between the buildings.
Nora said she feels the floor plan is an internal question. This building is on
the National Register and is a historically landmarked house and how do you
honor these listings when you are changing it significantly and bulking upthesite. The site is getting really heavy. Our charge is stewardship of the
historic house and this design seems counter to the integrity that I am
charged with.
John said when he looks at this project the existing linking element really
blends the two together where the glass delineates between the two
buildings. The two buildings look similar and hopefully one could be
painted differently. John said he could support option #3.
Patrick said he agrees with staff that the project should be denied. You
could put the bedrooms on the same side. The design destroys the character
4P93
III.C.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 27. 2014
and separation of the two houses. Even though it is glass it creates one
house where it should be two houses. The skylight in back should not be
approved but the window in the ADU could be approved.
John asked if the connector could step down two or three steps to make the
doorway as staff has suggested.
Dillon said we are already dealing with a level change from one side to the
other of approximately two steps as the addition is set slightly higher.
Patrick mentioned the attic and its use and possibly the next owner would
open up the attic.
Amy said community development is taking this seriously that this property
is maxed out on FAR and the idea of freeing some up for the project you are
looking at is questionable. They would have to turn the attic back to storage
instead of leaving it the way it is now.
Mitch said the attic space is legal right now. We would only have to get rid
of the space if we added the stairs.
Dillon said if we were to get approval for the connector we would have to
reconfigure the space no matter what. In order to convert the attic space we
would have to have a drop down ladder access.
Willis said the glass separates the two building and architecturally the design
is appropriate. They have met the intent of the guidelines. It says a one
story is preferred but it doesn't say never have two stories.
Sallie said she has seen architecture that doesn't meet the guidelines in the
past. The applicant should figure out a way to do what staff has
recommended.
MOTION: Willis made the motion to approve resolution #24 for 135 E.
Cooper Ave. with the connector option #3 as presented by the applicant.
Elimination of the skylight proposal on the out building and a window to be
replaced in the vertical wall that is approved by staff and monitor. Staff and
monitor to review the glass sample; motion second by Jim.
5P94
III.C.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST-27, 2014
Patrick said he would like to see two bedrooms on the same side. Staff
recommends altering the interior.
Mitch said there isn't enough room for two bedrooms on the same side. We
have explored interior and exterior. There isn't an interior re-working that
will solve this. This was originally approved as a one story connector
because HPC wouldn't approve two stories. The guidelines also say the
new should not mimic the old. We are still trying to find a reasonable
balance between a private property owner's rights and the historic
preservation interests of the city. A one story connector "is not a hard and
fast rule, it is a guideline.
Nora said she appreciates the glass connector. Her issue is the bulk of the
additional glass as it is quite massive.
Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Sallie, no; Nora, no; Willis, yes; John, yes; Patrick,
no. Tied vote 3-3, no action.
MOTION: John made the motion to continue the application until
November 19°2014. John made the motion to approve resolution #25 for the
window fon the ADU because they need light and it is not detrimental to the
project. Motion second by Willis.
Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Sallie, no, Nora, yes. Willis, yes, John, yes, Patrick,
no. Motion carried 4-2.
John said the applicant has the right to exercise their development rights
with a continuation and for us to flat out deny this closes the conversation.
We are here to have open conversations.
549 Race Alley and Lot 4 and Lot 5 for Fox Crossing Subdivision -
Final Major Development, Setback Variance, Public Hearing
Willis recused himself.
Jim chaired the meeting.
Debbie said the notice has been properly provided and the applicant can
proceed. Exhibit I.
6P95
III.C.
420 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 10-B l ASPEN, CO 81611 l (970) 925-7819 l mitch@hlpaspen.com
Memo
To: Ms. Amy Simon and the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
From: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC
Thru: Christy Ferer, Owner of 135 East Cooper Avenue
Dylan Johns, Zone 4 Architects, LLC
Date: March 5, 2015
Re: 135 East Cooper Avenue
135 East Cooper Avenue is located on the southwest corner of South Aspen Street
and East Cooper Avenue, immediately across the street from the Limelight Lodge.
The 2004 renovation resulted in home that has proven very challenging for family use
due to the limiting ground floor connector element between the two-story resource
and the two-story addition. As a consequence, the home requires two interior
staircases: one that provides access to the master bedroom located above the
addition, and another providing access to the other bedrooms on the second floor of
the historic portion of the house. The owner of the home, her family and her friends
who have stayed there have been unhappy with the two staircases for nearly ten
years because of the many resulting functional problems.
The applicant has, over the last 10 years, appeared before the HPC several times in
an effort to find an acceptable design solution that will allow for the direct passage
from one second floor area to the other. The most recent set of efforts began with
the plans labeled ‘Original Submittal” in the rear of the accompanying package that
was prepared by Zone 4 Architects. The Original Submittal plan was subsequently
followed by what is now shown as the “Previous Submittal,” which included three
additional design options. Now, the applicant is putting forth another plan, referred to
in the accompanying plans set as “Option 6 – Latest Revision.” The following
narrative provides a summary of each option and is followed by a review of the
applicable HPC Design Guidelines. (I am not sure why the latest revision is labeled
as “Option 6;” this must be a numbering error as there is no Option 5.)
The “Original Submittal” provides a connector and stair that are fully integrated and
enclosed between the historic resource and the addition. While this connection
appears a bit more substantial than might be the case with subsequent options, it
Haas Land Planning, LLC
P96
III.C.
Page 2
creates a very distinct separation between the old and the new. The biggest issue
with this option was the impact to the historic west façade and two windows.
“Option 1” includes a second floor link stacked directly atop the existing ground floor
connector. While this option provides the cleanest looking connection from the front,
it projects far to the rear, results in the removal of a historic second floor window, and
requires a good deal of intrusion into the historic roof. These glass-enclosed stairs
would sit in the area where the existing exterior stairs down to the sunken hot tub
area reside today.
“Option 2” is similar to Option 1 and sits on the same footprint, but Option 2 provides
a second floor link that does not stack on top of the existing ground floor connector.
Instead, the second floor link in Option 2 is forward of the ground floor connector so
as to avoid removal of any historic windows and to minimize intrusion into the historic
roof. Like Option 1, these glass-enclosed stairs would also sit in the area where the
existing exterior stairs down to the sunken hot tub area reside today.
“Option 3” is something of a hybrid of Options 1 and 2. Option 3 involves the
replacement of the existing ground floor connector element and replacing it north of
its current location to stack cleanly and directly beneath the second floor link
described in Option 2. The affected historic window on the ground floor would be
relocated to the area where today’s link is, effectively moving to behind the new
connecting element. One result of this option is a good deal less projection of the
glass enclosed stairs out toward the rear of the resource and, therefore, a
significantly less visibility from the east/south than would be the case with the
aforementioned options.
Finally, under “Option 6” the stairs have been moved to the north of the existing link
rather than to the south (as was the case with all previous options). This utilizes a
non-stacking link like Options 1 and 2. In this Option 6, only one new flight of stairs is
created, utilizing an existing interior flight (half of the stair is within the house). While
it is recognized that this option decreases the distance between the resource and the
new construction, the visibility of the new stair will remain partially blocked by existing
trees and vegetation, and it will continue to sit well back from the historic house’s
front façade and wrap-around front porch. The new flight of stairs adjoins the non-
historic addition, keeping the impact to the historic structure with regard to its walls,
windows and roof all to a minimum. Furthermore, the new flight of stairs would be
glass enclosed, serving to finally provide much needed differentiation between the
historic resource and the new construction.
The applicable HPC Design Guidelines are discussed below relative to the various
proposed options. The portions printed in bold are the applicable design guideline
while the bulleted points beneath are merely examples of ways that the guideline
might be met/satisfied. These can be thought of as the “standard” in bold with
suggested means of achieving compliance provided in the bullet points.
P97
III.C.
Page 3
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
• A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character
of the primary building is inappropriate.
• An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building
also is inappropriate.
• An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
All of the presented design options improve upon the property’s current consistency
with the letter and intent of this Guideline. The existing condition does a relatively
poor job of maintaining one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary
building as the addition is often mistaken for being historic. The existing link is so
insubstantial as to be completely out-of-scale that it often gets “lost,” failing to
satisfactorily differentiate where the old meets the new. While all of the proposed
design options will greatly improve on the clarity of what is new versus what is old
while maintaining compatibility, it is felt that “Option 6” is the most successful relative
to this standard.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new
construction.
Please refer to the response provided for Guideline 10.3, above. In addition, by
enclosing the stairs in glass, a method that has been employed in many
successful preservation projects in town, the addition will be easily recognized as
a product of its own time.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
• An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is
preferred.
Both the existing historic structure and its two-story addition are substantial in
size and scale. The proposed addition, even while changing a single-story link to
a two-story connection, will easily maintain compatibility and subservience in size
and scale. To the contrary, the existing link is out-of-scale as it is too small to be
truly compatible or to facilitate differentiation between new and old.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set
it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the
historic building.
P98
III.C.
Page 4
• A 1-story connector is preferred.
• The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the
primary building.
• The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
Please note in considering this standard that it does not require a 1-story
connector. To the contrary, it merely suggests that a 1-story connector is
preferred but it is suspected that this language is biased toward the prevalence of
single-story historic structures and miner’s cottages. The subject resource is
unusual for its era in terms of its size, mass and scale. As such, and “unusual”
connector is appropriate. The existing link is out-of-scale as it is too small and
too subservient to be truly compatible or to facilitate differentiation between new
and old. It gets “lost” between the two sides, leaving it difficult for passersby to
recognize that there is a historic resource and a new addition. Instead, the entire
structure including the addition is often mistakenly assumed to be historic,
meaning the link is doing a disservice to the resource.
In all options, the new connector/linking element remains shorter than and
subservient to the historic building. In all provided options, the linking element
remains setback substantially from the significant facades. In all provided options,
the connector’s proportionality relative to the primary building is greatly improved.
While all of the proposed design options will greatly improve on the clarity of what is
new versus what is old while maintaining and even enhancing compatibility, it is felt
that “Option 6” is the most successful relative to this standard.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to
minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original
proportions and character to remain prominent.
• Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
• Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement, which
will not alter the exterior mass of a building.
• 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.
No new additions, per se, are proposed. Rather, a redesign of the connection
between the existing addition and the historic structure is being requested. That said,
the redesign of the connection does involve adding to it one way or another. Options
are provided for adding to either the rear or the front of the existing connection but in
no case is an inadequate setback from primary facades contemplated. None of the
options proposes an addition at the front of the historic resource and the original
proportions and character will remain every bit as prominent as they are today. In all
proposed options, the improved connector will remain a good deal more than 10 feet
back from the primary historic façade, not to mention the front of its large warp-
around porch element. This standard is met.
P99
III.C.
Page 5
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.
The existing connector’s roof form is flat with a neo-historic hand railing. The flat
roof form is out of character with the sloped roofs of the historic structure and the
addition, particularly since the roof of the connector sits so low relative to the
adjoining building walls. Moreover, the neo-Victorian handrail on top of the
existing connector lend to the confusion of what is new versus what is old. In
other words, the existing handrail is far too similar to that of the restored historic
front porch and fails to adequately differentiate between the resource and the
addition.
All of the proposed connector options incorporate some degree of glass shed
roofing with an emphasis on minimizing intrusion into the historic structure’s roof
form. “Option 1” would require the greatest degree of intrusion into the historic
roof, while the “Original Submittal” would involve the next highest degree of
intrusion. The remaining options truly minimize impacts to the historic structure’s
roof and are successful in better differentiating the asset from the new
construction as products of their own time.
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.
Please refer to the narratives provided above in response to the previous
guidelines. While all of the proposed design options will greatly improve on the
clarity of what is new versus what is old while maintaining compatibility, it is felt that
“Option 6” is the most successful relative to this standard. Furthermore, Option 6 will
destroy or obscure the least amount of historic fabric and architecturally important
features. Only a five or so foot wide section of second floor wall and roofing will be
minimally impacted and in a location that is already greatly obscured from view. The
remaining windows, walls and roofing will be unaffected.
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.
All of the submitted design options use glass as the primary material so as to
lighten its visual affect in the same manner as has proven successful on many
historic preservation projects throughout Aspen. This material will be
subordinate and recede to the original structure while helping to improve one’s
P100
III.C.
Page 6
ability to interpret the historic structure from the new construction. Again, it is felt
that Option 6 is the most successful of all options in this regard.
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.
Please refer to the response provided under Guideline 10.10, above.
Between the historic wrap-around front porch (which the applicant fully restored at
her option, i.e., voluntarily) and the large evergreen tree that continues to grow, any
expansion of the linking element is and will become even more obscured from view.
Additionally, the neighborhood has changed enormously with very permissive,
unsympathetic structures (i.e., the Limelight Lodge redevelopment and the Dancing
Bear residences to name just two) overshadowing this house that the applicant
worked so hard to restore. In comparison, the proposed corrective remodel seems
like such a small and completely reasonable request.
“Form follows function,” is an underlying principle of all good architecture but, in the
case of the previous approvals, function was completely cast aside in the name of
something then assumed to provide a better form. After many years, it has become
evident that the approved design just does not work.
As part of the Purpose and Intent of Historic Preservation in Aspen, as outlined in
Chapter 26.415 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the following is stated;
The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to
preserve every old building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance
between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the
City’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. [Emphasis added.]
While the remodel was awarded a commendation from the HPC, it fails to meet the
Purpose and Intent of the City’s Historic Preservation program inasmuch as the
resulting home fails to “draw a reasonable balance between private property rights
and the public interest in preserving the City’s cultural, historic, and architectural
heritage.” The private property owner has been unhappy with this design since day
one but the City’s interest in preservation has consistently been put ahead of her
private property rights, prohibiting her from achieving a reasonable balance between
preservation and functionality. It is felt that the five design alternatives now provided
and proposed, especially “Option 6,” supply solutions and will at last achieve the
reasonable balance that is the purpose and intent of the historic preservation
program.
P101
III.C.
Page 7
Unfortunately, it is impossible to make the design of the home and addition work
together without some minor alterations to the resource. The applicant has now
provided five options that have taken into account the concerns of the HPC, and it is
felt that one of these designs should be agreeable. The proposed designs are
extremely sensitive to the historic structure, and all five of the options disturb as little
of the historic fabric as practicable while providing for functionality. Furthermore, the
proposed changes will barely be visible from Cooper Avenue and will provide for
greater consistency with the HPC Deign Guidelines than is achieved with the existing
connector.
It is emphasized that outstanding historic preservation efforts clearly distinguish the
old from the new. This home, as it now stands, does not do this. As viewed from
Aspen Street, it is difficult to tell where the historic structure ends and the new
construction begins; they are simply too similar in design, color, massing and scale,
and the existing connector is far too insubstantial in size and scale to aid with this
needed differentiation. The proposed linking element (all provided options) will
greatly help to improve the distinction between old and new from both South Aspen
Street and Cooper Avenue, thereby enhancing the historic preservation effort on this
award-winning property. None of the five currently proposed design alternatives are
ideal for the property owner, but the applicant is trying in earnest to strike a balance
between her property rights and the City’s interest in protecting historic properties.
We feel our proposed solutions will create a sensitive, barely visible and
sympathetically designed link where non-reflective glass will be used to link the old
and the new. At the same time, the change will allow a single staircase to unite the
family living inside this house. At last, harmony between form and function will be
achieved through the reasonable balancing of interests.
We thank you for your consideration.
P102
III.C.
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T R E E T M I N O R D E V E L O P M E N T
0 8 | 2 7 | 2 0 1 4
P
1
0
3
I
I
I
.
C
.
P
1
0
4
I
I
I
.
C
.
N .T . S. 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 5
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 6 - F L O O R P L A N S
P
1
0
5
I
I
I
.
C
.
N .T . S. 0 3 . 0 2 . 1 5
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 6 - P H O T O S & P E R S P E C T I V E S
P
1
0
6
I
I
I
.
C
.
N .T . S. 0 3 . 0 2 . 1 5
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 6 - S E C T I O N & P E R S P E C T I V E S
P
1
0
7
I
I
I
.
C
.
N . T . S . 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 1 - F L O O R P L A N S
P
1
0
8
I
I
I
.
C
.
N . T . S . 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 1 - S E C T I O N & P E R S P E C T I V E S
P
1
0
9
I
I
I
.
C
.
N . T . S . 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 2 - F L O O R P L A N S
P
1
1
0
I
I
I
.
C
.
N . T . S . 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 2 - S E C T I O N & P E R S P E C T I V E S
P
1
1
1
I
I
I
.
C
.
N . T . S . 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 3 - F L O O R P L A N S
P
1
1
2
I
I
I
.
C
.
N . T . S . 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 3 - S E C T I O N & P E R S P E C T I V E S
P
1
1
3
I
I
I
.
C
.
N . T . S . 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 3 - S T R E E T V I E W
P
1
1
4
I
I
I
.
C
.
N . T . S . 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | O P T I O N 3 - V I E W F R O M A B O V E I L L U S T R A T I N G S T A I R F O O T P R I N T
P
1
1
5
I
I
I
.
C
.
Proposed Alternate design
P
1
1
6
I
I
I
.
C
.
View of Proposed Link from Cooper Street
P
1
1
7
I
I
I
.
C
.
View of Proposed Link from South
P
1
1
8
I
I
I
.
C
.
P
1
1
9
I
I
I
.
C
.
N . T . S . 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 4
1 3 5 E A S T C O O P E R S T | A D U - A S B U I L T I M A G E S
P
1
2
0
I
I
I
.
C
.
P
1
2
1
I
I
I
.
C
.
1
RESTORATION/REHABILITATION
Eligible Projects:
Elks Lodge dome restoration
605 W. Bleeker
624 W. Francis
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 2014 Awards Selection
DATE: April 8, 2015
SUMMARY: Since 1990, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has celebrated
local historic preservation successes by presenting awards to individuals, companies, and
projects demonstrating excellence in preservation. This year’s awards are tentatively to
be held on May 11th during a City Council meeting. Descriptions of the categories are
below, along with a list of eligible projects.
Eligible projects received Final Inspection or Certificate of Occupancy between March
2014 and April 2015. Only projects that were relatively significant in scope or effort are
being presented for HPC consideration. There is no limit on the number of awards that
may be presented. Within the last few years, HPC identified a point system that could be
used for reference in determining which projects to recognize. Staff is not providing any
scoring. The award selections are left to the board.
Maximum of 40 points:
o The quality and compatibility of design (including landscape) and workmanship with
the historic resource (0-5 points)
o The quality of new materials and restoration of historic material in accordance with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (0-5 points)
o Sensitivity to the building’s historic and architectural character (0-5 points)
o The impact of the project on the surrounding neighborhood/community (0-5 points)
o An outstanding example of creative work within the HPC design guidelines (0-5
points)
o An outstanding investment of time and money in restoring a building and landscape
to it’s historic appearance (0-5 points)
o Adaptive use of a historic building that enhances the interpretation of the historic
resource (0-5 points)
o Contribution or enhancement to the interpretation of the historic resource or Aspen
history (0-5 points)
P122
IV.B.
2
Elks Lodge dome restoration
P123
IV.B.
3
605 W. Bleeker, new addition
P124
IV.B.
4
624 W. Francis, voluntary AspenModern designation and
remodel (before photo at bottom)
P125
IV.B.
5
507 Gillespie, new home on a historic
landmark lot split property
Maximum of 25 points:
o The quality and compatibility of design (including landscape), workmanship, and
materials within the historic district (0-5 points)
o Sensitivity to the adjacent buildings’ historic and architectural character (0-5 points)
o The impact of the project on the surrounding neighborhood/community (0-5 points)
o An outstanding example of creative work within the HPC DesignGuidelines (0-5
points)
o Contribution or enhancement to the interpretation of the historic resource or Aspen
history (0-5 points)
NEW CONSTRUCTION ON A LANDMARK PROPERTY
Eligible Project:
507 Gillespie
NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT
Eligible Project:
None
P126
IV.B.
6
THE “EXTRA EFFORT” AWARD
This award is for an individual or group that has taken extra steps to preserve a historic
resource.
Potential Recipient: ?
THE ELIZABETH PAEPCKE AWARD
This award is for an individual or group that has been a long-time preservation leader,
demonstrating commitment to historic preservation or for an individual or group who
has lead an outstanding one-time preservation effort that has had a clear impact on Aspen.
Potential Recipient: ?
MAXIMUM OF 25 POINTS :
o The participants’ dedication to look at creative options in an effort to find the best
solution for the project (0-5 points)
o The participants’ willingness to volunteer designation of a property or to sacrifice
some aspect of a property’s development rights (0-5 points)
o The quality of design (including landscape), workmanship, and materials (0-5 points)
o Sensitivity to the district’s or building’s historic and architectural character (0-5
points)
o The impact of the project on the surrounding neighborhood/community
(0-5 points)
Maximum of 20 points:
o The overall quality (craftsmanship, design, landscape, programming) of
their work (0-5 points)
o The innovative interpretation and enhancement of Aspen’s heritage
through their work (0-5 points)
o Their dedication to preserving Aspen’s heritage (0-5 points)
o Contribution of their work to the Aspen community (0-5 points)
Maximum of 20 points:
o The overall quality (craftsmanship, design, landscape) of their work
(0-5 points)
o Sensitivity to context (0-5 points)
o The innovative interpretation and enhancement of Aspen’s heritage
through their work (0-5 points)
o Contribution of their work to the Aspen community (0-5 points)
THE WELTON ANDERSON AWARD
This award is for an individual or firm that has contributed to Aspen’s built environment
through outstanding new design over a sustained period of time, or through one
particularly important project.
Potential Recipient: ?
P127
IV.B.
EXHIBIT
r �/S
To: The Historic Preservation Commission
Ref: 211 E. Hallam St. Aspen Modern Application Final Hearing. Letter to each Commission Member
Date: April 8, 2015
From: Bill Stirling
Dear members of the HPC,
DO IT FOR ONE AND YOU HAVE TO DO IT FOR ALL.
ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
These two aphorisms are not applicable to the 211 E. Hallam Aspen Modern proposal. The Aspen
Modern Program is one of the City's most innovative and unique programs. Each application has an
unusual quality to it, as there is no easy description for the wide variations in architectural style for the
Aspen Modern buildings. The design features vary wildly, which is what makes this program so
interesting and sets Aspen apart from the rest of Colorado, by our preserving important post World War
II buildings. You have to use your acumen, imagination and intelligence as you consider these Aspen
Modern proposals. Just think, from Lundy to Berko! The intentions of the Aspen Modern defining
ordinance from 2010 are clear that the HPC must be very flexible to often make round pegs fit into
square holes.
I served as Chair of the Aspen Modern Task Force, appointed by the City Council, from 08-010. There
were 21 active and varied participants, and there were many tie or 11-10 votes. It reminded me of the
progress then of the National Affordable Care Act Congressional Committee votes. The votes in Aspen
reflected the split on the task force between those wanting to leave property owners alone, and those
desirous of using a carrot and a stick program with incentives, and not losing such valuable architectural
modern buildings.
Aspen has one of the most ambitious and successful historic preservation programs in Colorado, if not in
the nation. The City Council received the Task Force's split report, and in their wisdom passed the 2010
Ordinance, which made the entire Aspen Modern program voluntary, but with a generous bundle of
incentives available for applicants to request and also to prove made sense. The Task Force wanted the
HPC and City staff to be flexible, creative and fair, as one by one the HPC began to consider the Aspen
Modern applications.
In general 211 E. Hallam is a perfect example of how the Code and Residential Guidelines have to bend
and flex in order to add another important resource to the "designated forever" list. No two projects
have been the same. Almost every building is distinct. The Aspen Modern program is working because
of the vision of the HPC and staff. There is not the commonality of design, which gives the 19th Century
Victorian preservation program so much coherence. Responsiveness, creativity and flexibility are the
watchwords for the Aspen Modern program. It makes your jobs so interesting and intellectually
stimulating.
One key element for you to consider this evening is the plight of the Ione tree standing in the back SE
corner of the lot. It is an odd, scraggly spruce tree. Who knew in the 1950's that this tree would have
such a bearing on the preservation forever of the iconic Berko studio?
Our strict tree preservation ordinance sometimes can be in conflict with the purpose of preserving our
important, historic residential buildings. Who could look 40 years ahead, when we began our laudable
effort to nourish and preserve our urban residential forest, what the unintended consequences might
be?
I had to work closely with the City Forester three years ago to fell over 25 trees on my Victorian corner
lot on the NE corner of 4`h and W. Smuggler, as the health of many of my trees was threatened by other
less important, less elegant and less sturdy trees. This felling and pruning was important also to show
off the Victorian resource, protect the resource and enhance the resource. The City worked with me on
this complicated but essential task. It was successful.
The 211 E. Hallam application is a perfect case in point. That tree in the SE corner of the lot is a clear
and present danger to the livability of the new plan, which includes both solar gain and light. Its
absence will enhance the Aspen Modern resource. Its loss is minimal for the urban residential forest, as
it allows for the Berko physical resource to stand and be seen as a "gift to the streets," that tree no
longer looming over the new, discreet residential compound. The urban forest will gain more greenery
on this site, but the new supporting plantings will be in synch with the simplicity and low scale of the
Bau Haus design. This giant, senior tree is not an asset to this application, and it probably has a life span
remaining of less than 10 years, by which time the new plantings, new compound and open space will
be seen as so critical to the success of this Aspen Modern project.
Our intentions for the Aspen Modern program are clearly articulated in this plan with the incentives
supported by the staff, and I believe a variation for removal of the tree under criteria D and E,
mentioned in the March 25, 2015 memo, should be added to your approval. Let City Council know that
this tree removal goes hand in glove with this proposed project.
It will be another feather in the Aspen Modern program cap! Be bold and take a long term view in
supporting the preservation of this vital Aspen Modern resource. Being resourceful is just what we had
in mind for the HPC, when the enabling legislation spawned Aspen Modern.
Sincerely,
Bill Stirling
EXHIBIT'
Kathy Strickland
From: Amy Simon 0
Sent: Friday,April 17, 2015 1:08 PM
To: Kathy Strickland
Subject: FW: Berko Studio
This is Exhibit II for the April 8th review of 211 E. Hallam
Amy Simon
City of Aspen Historic Preservation
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(970)429-2758
www.aspenpitkin.com
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information
that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further,
the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of
Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is
subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The
opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental
reliance.
From: Karla Kelly [mailto:karla@thisorthat.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 1:01 PM
To: Amy Simon
Cc: Nora Berko
Subject: Berko Studio
Dear Ms. Guthrie,
We are in process of building a house at 203 E Hallam, next door to the Berko studio. It is our belief that the
history of Aspen is a rich and varied one and that modern buildings can be as worthy of historical preservation
and significance as original miner's cottages. The Berko studio is an excellent example of mid century modern
architecture and Ferenc Berko was an important artist in Aspen's recent history. I have reviewed the plans for
restoration and addition to the property and believe they would make a welcome addition to the tapestry of the
neighborhood. I am also in great support of having full time residents in the West End, which this project would
enable.
Please consider approval of this project and allow this family maintain their legacy in the Aspen community.
Thank you,
Karla Kelly
(970) 236-6228
i