Commission agrees non‑original rear addition at 285 Redstone may be removed; design review continued to May 14

The Pitkin County Historic Preservation Commission on a virtual meeting signaled that the rear addition to the Osgood‑era house at 285 Redstone likely does not contribute to the building’s historic significance and may be removed, and it continued formal review to a May 14 meeting with materials due by May 2.

The project team, represented by homeowners Tim and Matt, told the commission the existing rear addition is structurally compromised and was built with materials that post‑date the Osgood era. Tim said the house currently is not livable year‑round and described plans to “introduce heating” and improve insulation and electrical systems as part of the overall rehabilitation. He added the existing addition’s foundation is temporary and the kitchen and plumbing configuration force seasonal use: “It’s a house that has to be shut down in November and then opened up again in May,” he said.

Staff member Susanna told commissioners the first threshold question is whether the addition “contributes to the broader story of the house.” She described the difficultly of conclusively dating the addition from available records and materials and recommended the commission adopt a clear standard for significance to guide the application.

Commissioners discussed two lines of approach: treat significance as tied to the Osgood period (in which case later additions would not be protected), or weigh whether later enclosures (for example, formerly outdoor kitchens enclosed in later decades) themselves carry historic meaning. Jason James said the most important outcome is to “preserve and maintain the components that have clear historic integrity.” Several commissioners said the rear addition appears to be poor quality construction and not part of the historic period the commission seeks to protect.

The applicants provided physical evidence — a Weyerhaeuser stamp on interior paneling that post‑dates the Osgood era — as circumstantial evidence that the rear work likely dates after the period of interest. The applicants and commissioners agreed that if the addition is removed, the project should avoid leaving a “giant scar” on the back of the house and should include measures to restore the exposed historic fabric.

Commissioners emphasized the importance of clearly subordinating and visually separating any new mass from the original house. Discussion focused on preserving visual read‑ability and on a “linking element” that would make the new work clearly secondary to the original mass. Board members noted the county’s floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) constraints and grading concerns would affect design choices; one presenter cited a FAR cut of “0.13, I think” and estimated a practical maximum floor area of “like 3,400 square feet” for the property as a planning constraint.

Rather than making a final determination, the commission took a procedural vote to continue the application so the applicants can return with a conceptual plan showing the linking approach and reduced massing. The commission asked for a conceptual massing proposal for the May 14 meeting at 5:00 p.m., with materials due to staff by May 2. The motion to continue passed on a roll call, 4–0.

Next steps for the applicants include delivering a conceptual plan that preserves the primary historic elevations, shows a clear linking element or other massing strategy that subordinates new work to the original house, and identifies any grading or foundation work required to avoid excessive retaining walls or site disturbance.