Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920923HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 23~ 1992 Meeting was called to order by Don Erdman, acting chairman with Karen Day, Martha Madsen, Linda Smisek, Jake Vickery and Roger Moyer present. Bill Poss, Joe Krabacher and Les Holst were excused. LANDMARK DESIGNATION 529 E. COOPER 531 E. COOPER - PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: These are Stein Ericksons parcels and they meet all the designation standards. Staff recommends designation approval. Jane Ellen Hamilton: We are happy to cooperate and have listened to Roxanne's recommendations. Don closed the public hearing. MOTION: Roger made the motion to recommend landmark designation for the parcels at 529 E. Cooper and 531 E. Cooper, second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries. 434 W. SMUGGLER - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Don opened the public hearing. Don: The applicant is represented by Gretchen Greenwood. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting variations for four parking spaces and a rear yard setback of five feet because the outbuilding will become a habitable place. The setback requirement is 10 feet and it currently is set back five feet. Once it becomes habitable it becomes ten feet which we are also recommending. The Board has never heard a request for a complete reduction of parking spaces but Staff has reviewed this at length with site visits and talking with the City Planning Director. The goal and intent is to convert the one story garage into a two story building that would be a two bedroom free market plus a studio ADU. No parking is required for the ADU but parking is required for the two bedroom free market unit. Since there are already two parking spaces in the garage by removing those and adding two bedrooms then that adds up to four parking spaces. If they do not get the parking variations they will withdraw the application for landmark designation and rethink through what other options in the process are available. If the variations are not granted they cannot do the ADU. We are recommending approval subject to a restudy of the windows. We had problems with the basic size of the windows on the east, south and west elevations. The transom window on the east elevation needs restudy due to the cottage scale of the building. Gretchen Greenwood: The mature vegetation has been in place since the late 1800's. The house is 2,300 square feet and the footprint has never been expanded since the first additions of the miners cabin occurred. Katharine recently put on gables, porches. The intent is to retain the small scale and character. The garage is 672 square feet and the plan is to turn it into a guest house with two bedrooms, kitchen area and adding an accessory dwelling unit that fits within in the requirements of the P&Z by 350 square feet. It will be totally a self contained apartment. The applicant would prefer not to add to the house. That includes the trees and landscape. We feel with the historic guidelines that this is the most sensitive solution that can be obtained on this property. The FAR on site will be totally built out which means no one can come in and add anything more onto the property. We are going through landmark designation because we have to have the parking variation in order to do the project. The applicant does not have the desire to tear out trees and do a cement slab for parking. We could if we wanted to at this point put on an addition and be within our site coverage, parking and FAR without any kind of review of the HPC. I also am sensitive to the victorian houses and adding on would effect the preservation of the main house. Katharine Thalberg, owner of the property: I have had a long history in this house. I bought the house in 1973 and did fix it up at that time removing sliding glass doors and plumbing fixtures with antique ones. I also replaced carpeting with hardwood floors and began a garden and planted numerous trees. When my daughters grew up I took on a major remodel and made some interesting discoveries, one was that the original house which is my bedroom was a tiny log cabin and subsequently there were four major additions to the house. There were swedish newspapers printed in 1898 in Denver addressed to Olof Parson in Aspen. In both remodels I did not alter the footprint of the house. During the 20 years I have lived there the neighborhood has changed drastically, two victorians across the street were demolished and replaced by large new houses and next to me on the east the first monster house was built and is possibly today still the biggest house in the west end. The house is so close to the lot line that snow would fall off the roof and end on the tops of the trees on my property. The present owner graciously put in a block on the roof so that the snow would fall the other way. When they shovel an upstairs porch on this house the only place to shovel is onto my yard. Now that my children are grownups and living in different sections of the country and world it is not suitable to use small shared spaces that we used to use for guest areas. I have this three car garage that never once held an automobile. It is a logical space to add guest bedrooms and at the same time I want to give a third of the space to an affordable studio for someone who has become a long time friend of Bill's and mine who has never had permanent housing. I do believe in historic preservation and I have demonstrated that by owning two victorian houses. One that is converted to a present day bookstore and one livable as a present day home. I would now like to improve it without destroying the integrity of the house. There is absolutely no parking problem where I live. Most of the houses are second homes now and there are a few cars. My house is a corner lot and there is plenty of parking on both streets. I need to be frank and the only reason for designation of the house is to be exempt from any parking requirements connected with it. If you don't grant the 100% exemption I will withdraw the historic designation application. I am not a developer making threats I am a long term resident dealing realistically with the choices that I have. I believe you are all here because you believe in preservation and I am hoping that you believe that the proposal brought forward is in the best interest of preservation. Casey Hoffmaster: I live at 437 W. Smuggler directly across the street and I enjoy looking out my window at the trees on their lot and support the parking variation. Don closed the public hearing. CLARIFICATIONS: Karen: If Katherine withdraws this application the house is basically unprotected. If she moves away or whatever someone could double the square footage. Roxanne: As long as partial demolition is not 50% or more it would not require review. Karen: This is the chance that we have to review the project through landmark designation. Gretchen: The house would be protected through this proposal. Don: We need to review the design of the ADU and give direction to the applicant regarding the issue of compatibility and appropriateness. Martha: There is no parking on the site right now yet everyone in the neighborhood has been required to provide some parking? Roxanne: Any new development with the zoning regulations right now require on site parking if a new bedroom is added. Don: There are many existing structure in the West End that do not have the required amount of onsite parking. Martha: There is no compromise presented here. Gretchen: granted. The neighbors in this area want to see the variances Martha: I feel this is a great project and am in favor of the cottage infill. I just feel there is a little inequity about parking because I live in the west end on the other side of Main St. and I had to tear down to provide parking for my apartment building and I could increase the density. Roxanne: If you require something you are going to loose something else and it is weighing the benefits here. Benefits to the community and where we are headed with the master plan and auto disincentives. This is a very site specific situation. It is not precedent setting. Bill Stirling, applicant: It is precedent setting and if you feel giving this variation is worth the preservation of an victorian then it is a good precedent, not a negative one. Karen: I have four points that need to be addressed in reference to this application. Number one, Katherine and Bill will be legends of our time. Katherine daughter of Irving Thalberg and Norma Sheer. Katherine opened and operated the Explorer bookstore and coffee house to the intellectual center of Aspen during the 1980's and 1990's. Bill Stirling, Mayor for four terms. Removed from office by the fur industry as Katherine set off on a national campaign to protect the rights of animals. We may not know it today but Katharine Thalberg is Aspen's own unsinkable Molly Brown. I see this house therefore as a drive by museum. For decades and maybe centuries people will drive past this house and refer to it as the Thalberg/Sterling house. The same way we now drive by Mrs. Paepcke's house, Sardy House and Pioneer Park. We may not know it today but this house is the house of our time. What we are being offered here is a free museum. Katharine is putting up her money, paying the architect, paying the builder, paying the monthly mortgage and handling the maintenance and upkeep herself. We all know that the Stallard house is unable to renovate at this time because so far they have been unable to raise the money to pay for the renovation. To receive this gift to our time and our town all we need to do is grant a variance that says Katharine is not required to park four cars on this lot. If we deny this variance today this house could conceivable fall into other hands we have no review upon. This house of our time could become just another monster. If ever we needed to grant a parking variance the moment is now. This is a win win situation. MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC grant at 434 W. Smuggler the Sterling/Thalberg house a variation for a reduction of four onsite spaces to be approved as well as the rear yard setback of five feet finding that such variations are more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be in accord with dimensional and FAR requirements. I also recommend that we grant conceptual approval subject to the conditions that east, west, south elevation fenestration be restudied along with the scale of the trim to reduce the size of the windows, eliminate the south elevation door transom window and reconsider the number and design of french doors as proposed. These conditions can be met at final; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Don: I would like to add that the drawings made for this presentation were made very hastily and in every window the trim around the gable end is different and scales at different dimensions and things end in different ways. I am sure Gretchen didn't intend it that way. I would like to add that all trim including the roof detail be restudied because the heavier trim is not in character with the light victorians. MOTION: Don made the motion to adjourn. 6:15. Meeting adjourned at Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk