Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20010124ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION' MINUTES OF, January 24, 2001 735 W. BLEEKER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 1 129 W. FRANCIS - MONITORING ISSUES ............................................................................................ 7 720 S. ASPEN ST. - REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM HISTORIC INVENTORY ...................... 12 124 E. COOPER AVENUE - REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM HISTORIC INVENTORY ....... 12 2 WILLIAMS WAY - REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM HISTORIC INVENTORY .................. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JanuarY_ 24, 2001 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. In attendance were Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Rally Dupps and Melanie Roschko. Rally disclosed that he would step down on 735 W. Bleeker. Suzannah will step down for the inventory. Gilbert disclosed that he and Randall Bone are participants on another project but he will not be stepping. They have no contractual relationship. 735 W. BLEEKER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Affidavit was presented to the clerk. Amy: In Oct. the board agreed to extend conceptual but has serious reservations and said you wanted to do a full blown analysis again, so Randall submitted his application before his conceptual expired. In general the project is a good idea. It is very important that the board got to an approval that divided the mass on the property into the two buildings because when the project first came in it was a duplex and all connected and has serious consequences to the old house. In 1998 the board still had reservations of what was happening with the historic house. Staff still has those concerns. Staff feels what is being presented does not meet the final review criteria, mostly because of the second floor addition. There is some demolition to the historic house but the board went down that road in 1998. The second floor will be very visible from both of the streets and lands pretty much on top of the historic house, which is something the board, had not wanted to see: Staff recommended continuation of the project. Staff met with Randall and there are not a lot of options due to the way the site plan is set up and the yellow house is already built. He doesn't have a lot of room but granting variances was brought up even to go to the lot line on the east side. He can't move the building forward, backwards or westward. They discussed eliminating the garage, which is something the owner is not enthusiastic about. Possibly look at other places to locate the parking on site. Randall Bone was sworn in. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, The FAR is being set by code and the discussion was how can be protect the front house as much as possible and do something positive on the site. They ended up with two buildings With a significant second story and it was kept behind the rooflines which was a direction that was given. They then got conceptual approval. In reading the motion of conceptual approval Randall said the direction he was given by the board said that he needed to restudy the west roof line, the roof line and hit right on the ridge line and made for a very long plane which was odd looking. In coming back for final he focused on that roof issues and feels they have done that. Looking at the project now it was clear in the fall that the board had significant reservations about the second story being build on this house because of it being really on the historic structure. At the time conceptual approval was given that was seen as the best balance of where to split the FAR. If they kept the house as is and did not to any development all that development would have been shifted over on this house and this house would have been a much larger house and the feeling was that would dwarf this house so here we are. In talking to Amy how can we work it out and come up with something that everybody is happy with. I would like specific discussion about what options I can peruse and where to put the FAR on the site as the FAR cannot disappear. The new house has a five foot setback and that got conceptual approva!. The second story sit in and it is a significant piece of development to try and put somewhere else. Possibly get some variances and move the FAR around. Randall said he is willing to look at options to get rid of the garage. In talking to the owner of the adjacent house maybe he is interested in re- combining this project into a single project which would then open up new opportunities. Maybe parking for this house goes away and some of the FAR could shift back onto the property. The house cannot move forward significantly due to the trees. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Januar~ 24, 2001 The owner asked about the possibility of attaching the two buildings together. What is possible? Going from conceptual into a new direction will require variances etc. There is disagreement on what conceptual approval was as it indicates one small item to look at. Randall desire to work with the HPC. Randall said the second floor cannot just be torn off. COMMENTS Melanie said in 98 there was concern about keeping the buildings separate and the yellow house turned out to be considerably larger. One plan shows a walkway and how did the changes occur. Randall said the FAR was set and the setbacks. It occurred due to the shifting of the FAR. Another architect was brought in also. Amy said where the kitchen is right now shows up on the Sanborn Map, on the east. Gilbert inquired about the "blank wall". Randall said originally they had a window and the board directed us to take it back out. Gilbert said numerous times inflection and separation are added so that the addition is clearly different from the historic building and that is not happening here. Randall said the materials can change to a wider siding and a different eave detail to set it off. Any suggestion as to how to set it off let me know. We wanted the primary ridge lines of the old house intact. Melanie asked if there will be a porch. Randall said he was taking the back porch off. The posts on the back were HPC's belief to be historic that originally came from the front porch: The 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January. 24, 2001 plan shows reopening the front porch and reusing the back posts onto the front where they originally came from. Melanie asked if the house moves forward would that disturb the trees? Randall said that was why it was only moved 1 ½ foot forward. Melanie asked if the plan reflect any parking? Randall show two parking spaces for the house, garage and behind. Susan asked about the window in the front porch and Randall said it will be restored to the same prOPortion. Jeffrey asked if Randall looked at moving some of the second story mass toward the eastern property line? Randall said they could take it to a one foot setback but would need variances. Randall said in the future maybe TDR;s would be a way to go. 'Amy asked the board if they felt the standards were met? David said failure to meet anyone would be a denial. Randall asked about conceptual? David said conceptual is not binding. Jeffrey said not all four standards have been met. Gilbert said no also and he has problems with the site issues that Amy has brought up. The two buildings are OK and the notion that the porch will be removed are supported. He can also support the general massing and feels it is workable. Massaging needs to happen to the second floor. The element is dominating the historic building. There are ways to look at the ridge line, 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January_ 24, 2001 look at the way the gable works and putting windows in. Giving the distance you have gone down the work this could be a workable solution. Ph opened and closed. Susan said the addition does not enhance the historic structure and doesn't meet standard 3. Two years ago she felt it incompatible due to the second story. Melanie said it does not meet standard 3 or 4. The yellow house overwhelms the historic structure already. Some balance has to occur between the two of them. She is not happy of the plan as is. Randall asked what specifically it is. Melanie said she has concern of the closeness of the houses. Does not want to see anything more attach to the yellow house or in any way attach the two houses. Lisa said standard 3 has not been met. It is difficult because we are so far down that road and there are major impacts on that site. If you put massing on the other house, which is a different ownership, and make that bigger, how does that effect the house. If you put massing on the historic house and make it bigger it has impacts. It is the whole proximity issue. Suzarmah said there is a general feeling that there is room to work on in a creative way to get the FAR on this building or the other one. Jeffrey said the problem is the allowable square footage in the lot as well as the site constraints with the historic trees. He wishes a TDR could happen~ He would be looking at a scheme that moves toward the eastern setback property line. He likes leaving the resource in the same place or a little forward. It is framing the spruce trees which is important. As far as the second story addition he would find the best variance or the best hardship and try to work with that design. He does not like the concept of attaching the two buildings because the lot split should avoid that from happening. If the mass of the garage could go that might work. Massaging and good designing we could get through. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January_ 24, 2001 Amy said Randall is talking about the attachment being similar to the Coultier idea, where the historic cottage becomes a guest house and possibly a breezeway connection. It would not be a major addition. The Board is OK with some addition onto the non historic house to potentially cover the garage and some variances on the east side. Gilbert agreed with Jeffrey. He would e×plore options to not put the mass on the historic building. If all those options are not available he still feels there is a way to deal with the mass. Susan said the yellow over whelms the historic house more than what we originally thought. Melanie said she would like to see the house move forward to stand on its own. It is overwhelmed and you have to look carefully to see that they are not attached. More distinct. Lisa agreed with Susan and Melanie. Encourage the FAR on the east side or the alley side. There are always major impacts onto 74 and the highway. Suzannah said she agrees with what has been said in general. There is a point where that setback line falls but there should be some room to move. Removing the garage to do something to accommodate a car either in the space that is shown on the drawing as part of the historic house property and where that is a car port or something or a very light structure in there might work as opposed to a full blown garage. She would like to see the addition if there is a second floor, see that a little more of an isolated volume as opposed to attaching it with the roof shapes and slopes. One of the main problems is that it looks like an extension of the existing roofs that there is no visual separation there. Creative rearranging. Randall said it was a tight site. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue 735 W. Bleeker to March 28th,' second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. les vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Lisa, Melanie, Susan 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January. 24, 2001 129 W. FRANCIS - MONITORING ISSUES Rally presented as the project monitor. He informed the board that he felt there were too many changes for him to sign offon, thus it is being presented to the board. Rally relayed that the one thing that stuck out in his mind was that a lot of the detailing had very traditional Victorian characteristics and when we see new projects we like to see that there is no apparent conflict or misconstrued as being a Victorian. Other than the arched top windows that is my only reservation. Amy said in the conditions of approval there was language that talked about limiting the Victorian detailing. Barbara Long was sworn in. Barbara said Jake Vickery presented at final and octagonal shingles were presented as the material for the roof and there were diamond shaped shingles in the end and we can modify and go to a square cut shingle and that would be very easy to do. The other detailing such as handrails we though could be handled by staff and monitor. Amy asked Barbara to explain the differences in materials from final to what is being presented tonight. Barbara said she was hired to take the sketches and turn them into construction documents. The main thing we would like to ask permission for are fenestration changes. On Jake's drawings there were a lot of different sized windows and the new drawings have simplified the windows to make them more consistent. He had some windows that you couldn't tell if they were casement windows or double hung and they want to make the double hung window look throughout. 1. They would like mullions added to a door. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January 24, 2001 2. They need a handrail on the West Side of the porch because it drops off into a window-well and they would like to continue the handrail to the front. 3. They would like to add mullions in two windows. 4. The owner would like the main entry door offto the side so it centers onto the interior hallway. 5. On the back of the house Jake had French doors with casement type windows on each sides and they are proposed to be the same size and the owner wants sliding French doors instead of French doors with casements. 6. Jake had a greenhouse type desigu offthe living room and Nancy wanted to reduce the glazing quite a bit. She is very traditional. They would like to reduce that area to sliding glass doors and individual spotlights. 7. On the east elevation there were three six windows and they would like smaller windows, two six. Removing the greenhouse look on the front they would like to carry the French door look around. On the upstairs they had another ~reen house type situation with skylights and windows and they would again like to switch to double hung and individual skylights. 8. They would like to raise the door in the garage to an eight-foot door and add mullions into the glass. On the upstairs they would like to do the same kind of arch that they have on the from of the house. For some reason the arches were different. 9. The dormer which is going to be the library space was centered on one side and pulled over and the desire is to center both dormers. 10.In the kitchen area it was 14 feet wide and they want it reduced to 12 feet wide. They are proposing an awning window in the kitchen area. Barbara said in the stair a window needed to be moved down and they are proposing a larger window. The only issue is that does contradict the design guidelines with the nine-foot, 12-foot. They would need a variance from the desi~u guidelines. Suzannah asked about the drawings on the east elevation where the greenhouse arrangement has been eliminated. It indicates a vertical line to the left of the three windows. Barbara explained that the design is a gutter. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January_ 24, 2001 Melanie asked about the roof changes and Barbara said the ridge height didn't change. Barbara said on the kitchen cabinets there would be windows behind and the light could shine through to the cabinet. Gilbert asked for clarification of the north and south elevations. The gable forms have a fascia that looks like it is 2x10 and that seems to be the thickness of the roof construction in Jake's drawings. In the new drawings that seems to be the same dimension but below it there is another fascia element so that the roof structure looks like it is much thicker. Is the roof structure becoming thicker? Barbara said they did not want to mimic a Victorian look so they used 2 x 12's. Gilbert said in Jake's drawings there is elegance and in the newer drawings it is heavier and massive. Barbara said it does have a shadow board. Amy relayed that there are no variances on this house. Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer, relayed that anything that is being requested that is in violation of the design guidelines cannot be approved at this meeting. It would have to be a pre-noticed hearing. Lisa asked if the fascia board was around the entire structure and Barbara said basically yes. Gilbert said the strange thing is that the gable has a thicker fascia but when the gable tums into the horizontal eave overhang it goes back to the fascia. COMMENTS Lisa relayed that in general she was comfortable with the mullion changes to the windows. No significant concern over moving the front door. She does has concerns with the width of the front windows. Some concern over 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January_ 24, 2001 the heaviness of the fascia board. Would not support the larger window in the stairwell. Melanie agreed with Lisa and in addition she feels the kitchen windows should go straight across. Susan said she was OK with all of the window changes. She is opposed to the larger window in the stairwell. The detailing should not be too Victorian. Rally said the thicker roof doesn't bother him. The arched top windows are a concern but they have already been approved. Some of the Victorian elements are of concern, mainly on the North and South elevations, with the offset shadow board that frames in the fish scales. Getting rid of the glass atrium is commendable. Gilbert said he was Ok with all of the mullion window requests but he feels the proportions of a lot bf the windows have suffered in the translation along the way. Jake's had a nice relationship from opening to wall and these have changed in some subtle way. Gilbert's real concern is with the transoms in some of the smaller gables; specifically the east elevation in the library. He is disappointed that we are loosing the extensive glazing because on the second floor that broke up the massing but he wouldn't object to the proposal. The door changes requested including the entry door are OK. Raising the height of the garage door is fine. Jeffrey also agreed with the mullion changes. He agrees with Gilbert regarding the thinner shadow board. The shadow board is giving a much wider fascia appearance especially as it wraps around the building. The fire place chimney stack ha~ also been moved. Barbara said it is narrower due to the egress and natural light. Jeffrey also said he like atrium before as it helped with the massing as well as some of the proportions, windows vs wall. The relocation of the front 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ January_ 24~ 2001 door is OK. He would not approve the large window in the stairway. There are no concerns with raising the door heights. Suzannah agreed with Gilbert regarding removing the extra trim board in the gable ends as other board members have suggested. It would make a big difference and get us away from the Victorian nature of it. It would then feel lighter. In the entry the two large double hung windows are of concern and maybe just one of those windows should be there with more wall surface. Regarding the kitchen arched window she had no concern if it leaves or comes back in a smaller form. She also agreed with Gilbert and Jeffrey regarding the atrium as they added a nice quality to the link to the back of the house. The skylight and window arrangement has a more massive feeling but not enough to derail the project. All other changes are OK. Amy relayed that the shadow board is a problem and you cannot do the stairwell windows. There was also concern about the prOPortions of the arched top transom and they need to go back to the original design. Amy asked for clarification if it was all of the arched windows. Gilbert said it was the ones that were in the smaller gables, east and west elevations. Motion: Gilbert moved to approve the requested window and door revisions for 120 W. Francis with the following exceptions: I. The arched transom windows in the east and west elevations. They need to return to the previous final approval. 2. Not approve the requested change for the stairwell. 3. The shadow board not be approved. 4. Only one window on the north elevation. Motion second by Rally. Discussion: For clarification Barbara said there would be one tall double hung on #4 condition. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January_ 24, 2001 Amy asked if there were any issue with changing the diamond shape shingles in the gables to the square cut. The board had no problem with the change. Lisa said for clarification we are approving the drawings as submitted today without the arched transom windows submitted and without the shadow board and the window on the north side would be one window. Suzannah said whatever you want to do with the kitchen window, flat or arched is acceptable. Barbara said basically we are only talking the east and west gable. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Rally, Susan, Melanie, Lisa Passes 7-0. 720 S. ASPEN ST. - Request for removal from Historic Inventory Suzarmah stepped down. Gilbert chaired. Rally moved to continue the public hearing on 720 S. ,4spen Street at the owners request until March 28, second by Lisa..41l in favor, motion carried. 6-0. 124 E. COOPER AVENUE - Request for removal from Historic Inventory Norma Dahl stated that she is willing to waive the site visit and go forward tonight. She stated that the board has pictures of the site and she also brought pictures of the renovation. Fred Jarman, planner stated that Norma Dahl is the applicant and owner of the Snow Queen Lodge at 124 E~ Cooper Ave. and is requesting removal from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. A letter was entered into the record as Exhibit II. Fred also passed out the criteria Exhibit I that is to be used in determining whether the property should remain or be removed from the inventory. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January_ 24, 2001 Staff is recommending that the property remain on the inventory. Norma Dahl was sworn in. Norma Dahl said they owned the property for 30 years. The Snow Queen had major modification in the 1980's and they feel it does not fit with the historic designation anymore. There were major additions to the rear and two rooms were added on to the East Side and the porch was modified in the 1980's. The new additions impact the integrity of the historic structure. The high taxes are an issue. Increased value of land and properties like the Fireside Lodge which was torn down and expensive condos built and sold had dramatic impact on the tax increase on our lodge about a block away. The lodge is 115 years old and the tax base relates to the new million dollar condos. They have very little profit to show for the last 20 years. As far as the neighborhood influence the new condos have a negative influence on the property: They would like to be removed as the property no longer has its integrity and there are so many regulations that continue to plague us. Nothing seems to change and there has been no incentive over the years. Fred said the date of the building is between 1886 and 1885. Susan inquired about the front and Norma said the main front portion of the lodge did not change that much but the side did. The front porch is still in its original state. Gilbert asked if the wall of the original house, the exterior wall was still there and was the addition just added onto the wall. Has there been some removal of the original wall? Norma replied that some of the wall was removed but she did not have all the facts. When they cut into the side they found old newspapers that were used for insulation. Gilbert said the porch is very unique with its curve. Susan asked if the solid window in front was original? 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January_ 24, 2001 Norma said she think that window was changed and is not sure if it was there when she purchased the property. Norma said the lower bay window was always there. Vice-chair Gilbert Sanchez opened and closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Lisa informed the board that a lot of our historic structures in town had modifications over the years with additions and changes to windows. The most significant facades of the building are reasonably intact and the porch is quite unique. In general she would be in support of retaining the property on the inventory. The historical or architectural integrity has not been compromised. Susan commended the owner for keeping the lodge as long as they have. It is charming and in wonderful shape. The rounded window is unique in this town and the front of the building is in good shape. I would hate to see this house taken off the inventory. Rally relayed that he has given a lot of thought to historic structures that have had modifications to them and being that many of our structures are 120 yeas old that is a lot of history and there is bound to be changes. He basis his decision on the nature of the structure. Is some part of the integrity of the structure there where you can read it as an element that is part of the history of Aspen. In this case there is a lot left here and would not support taking it off the inventory. Jeffrey said this is a unique structure and also commended the owner for keeping it a lodge. It is a large Victorian and should be kept on the inventory. Gilbert dittoed everything that has been said by the board memberS. He relayed that since September he has heard about impacts on the Historic Structures and hopefully in the future some of those issues can be addressed. This building is an historic gem and there are a lot of unique 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January 24, 2001 qualities about this that contribute to the community and it should remain on the inventory. Norma said everyone is agreeing that the property shoUld remain on the inventory and she does not have a leg to stand on. Fred said the recourse is to appeal to City Council on the assumption that the board exceeded their jurisdiction or use of power or denied you due process. Norma said she understands the board's decision but it does not help them financially. There are no incentives. MOTION: Rally moved to remove 124 E. Cooper Avenue from the Inventory of Historic sites and Structures, finding that the structures does not meet the criteria for the Inventory; second by Melanie. Yes vote: No vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Susan, Melanie, Lisa Motion denied 6-0. 2 WILLIAMS WAY- Request for removal from Historic Inventory Chris Bendon informed the HPC that this is a public hearing continued from Sept. 20th to consider for request, removal of 2 Williams Way from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The property is at the comer of Williams Way and Spruce Street and is the access road to Williams Woods affordable housing. Scott Hicks and Maureen Kinney are the owners. Scott will represent the property ownership. The property was added to the inventory in 1999 after the project was before City Council for a subdivision review. The property was annexed into the city in 1992. Staff believes this meets the criteria for the property to be included in the inventory. Bendon said the applicant's response detailing his reasons for requesting deletion from the inventory is attached to the HPC's application. Bendon passed out photos to identify the west and east portions of the building. The east and west are the historic resources that have been 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January_ 24, 2001 attached by a linking element built in the 50's and 60's that doesn't seem to be historic. Scott Hicks was sworn in. Scott said there is an additional $00 square feet on the backside of the house that was added on at the same time as the center link was added. It is not visible in these photographs. Bendon presented a picture from the inventory review of 2000 and a newspaper clipping from 1992 when the property was being considered for annexatiOn. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney asked Scott if he was willing to waive the board viewing the property. Scott said it was never clear that he was to be present for the site visit. Scott said he was fine with the waiving. Scott prefaced the comments by saying that he tried to summarize the process that he had been involved in since he purchased the property. City council gave direction to staffto review the property when it was time to do the historical inventory. If that were the case and council direction was followed, I would have been in a group of people awaiting a revision of the historical review process and waiting until the process itself was fixed to come before you to state my case. I do think part of the frustration there were political circumstances at the time that brought this up to review ahead of schedule and made me got through a process that I honestly believe is flawed. He feels he should be mien offnow and put in the group that is coming up again. To address the criteria: The house is 1600 square feet now and 750 square feet is part of the two separate original structures. 850 square feet is new. 3 of 16 original windows; one of six doors; three of eight exterior walls on both units are still remaining. The rest have been torn down or changed. At the last process there were comments that this is an awfully cheap building; they liked the appearance of the building. That is not a subjective opinion but should be based on the objective facts of whether there are still historical characteristics to the building. The sheer logic of numbers here of square footage and number of actual original parts of the building intact, it should be removed from the inventory. The numbers indicate that. The second issue is does your structure continue to have historical value. I am sure you say yes and I say no for the sake of 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January. 24, 2001 argument. When you go to the architectural integrity, obviously there is still Victorian remnants of the property and there are still some details of that. Scott said the final 2 criteria of historic significance of the building and community neighborhood influence his argument is the most significant. I really tried to go over the recent history of the property and point out that this property has been involved in the city and county for 30 years. It was only when it came before City Council and Mr. Markalunas lived in this house and had close ties to it and ifI were him I would have wanted to see if historical designated; however, it was at his urging that it began this process. Scott said he was randomly selected for the revieW process in 1998 and it could have been annexed then and in 1993 a deed restriction was put on the rental unit of the property and the city at that point had the opportunity to look for historical significance and did not. There is a great deal of frustration because now all of a sudden it is historically designated. It has met the criteria for the past 50 years but even so by your architectural integrity, your historical significance. Scott asked the board what other properties in town have a resident occupied restriction on the property and are also listed on the historic inventory? No one could think of any property with those restrictions. Scott said this is a significant fact. The HPC gets second homeowners who buy houses in the West End and all they want to do is take it off and build 6,000 square feet behind it and put it back on the front of the property. The sheer economics ora resident occupied unit in this town...The property was less than a million when I bought it and I cannot go out and sell that property for two million dollars. I can't afford to go out and put $500,000 in renovation of the property. My bedroom only gets to 50 degrees but ifI want to remove windows I have to go ask Julie Ann Wood permission to do that and that is not right. The sheer economics of this make this a unique property. A resident of this town is living in this property and is going to maintain an historical sense of the property and also you will not be confronted with the situation of over development. To address the community neighborhood influence that side of town was changed long 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January 24, 2001 ago. Hunter Creek, Williams Woods, Centennial and my house. The argument is that HPC wants to save the house because it is the only one there. I feel that is after the fact. Williams Woods, Centennial, Hunter Creek define that neighborhood today. They define the character of the neighborhood, the architectural influence of that neighborhood. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I honestly feel there is no way you can hold up my house as a reflection of the current community and neighborhood. That neighborhood was sold out years ago and it is the super fund site. My house is in a sea of affordable housing. I feel those are compelling arguments as to why this house should not be listed. Addressing the process, if I knew I could be listed on the historical inventory and abide by the guidelines and do what those guidelines say and walk into this room and the HPC checks them offand walks away then I have no problem with that but I just heard a member say that they did not like the windows in the previous applicants house. As long as the process is based on subjective opinion then it is a flawed process. I want to be off the inventory now. As I see it now my models for historic preservation are No Problem Joe's house that sits on the market for 2.8 million, and the two homes in the West End that received awards last year. These are examples of historic homes that moved to the front of the property with 3,4 or 5 thousand square feet built behind it. I cannot use those as a model because when I want to remodel my house it will be on a scale that I can afford. I fail to see an active model that say this is what my responsibilities are. Those are my general comments, and they are comments on guidelines of historic preservation that are the pillars. Lisa stated she was late to the meeting. I was unavoidably detained but I need to disclose that I have family ties to this structure. It was quite some years ago and I don't think it impinges on my ability to read the architecture or historic significance of the building. I just needed to make that clear. Susan asked about the Park that was referenced? Scott said it is to the south across from Williams Way. The trees are on my property and I built the rock wall. I own the road and a parcel across the street as well. The square footage is 27,000 square feet is the lot size. 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January 24, 2001 Susan asked why the building was deed restricted? Scott said basically the county owned the property and at that time there w~s an affordable housing issue and partial pride was to give Reid I-Iaughey some housing at the time. The county imposed the resident occupied deed restriction on the house and that cannot be taken off. The property was traded for mining claims so the Aley's came across the property at no dollar expense to themselves and the City approached them with the desire to deed restrict the east part of this building which is a rental unit. That section of the house is deed restricted as a Category 4 and it is my responsibility to make sure there is an employee of the city living in that apartment. I live in other part of the house, which is resident occupied. I bought the property fully understanding the deed restrictions and I support them. I wish the whole west end had been bought and deed restricted. I bought it knowing that Maxwell Aley was going to earn $175,000 from selling the property across the street to the city as a park. Hicks said he understood and had no problems with those. It was at the last meeting when we were selling the park that the historic issue came up. Hicks said the property wasn't handled as Council directed, which was at the time of the inventory. Vice-chair Gilbert Sanchez opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Sanchez closed the public hearing. COMMENTS Jeffrey stated that the eastern bay is a contributing element and there is definite historic. Staff is trying' to help mitigate the process. There are a few elements that are 100 year old and all old miner shacks get contemporary additions added on to them. There is substance here to keep it on the inventory. Rally said he understands the applicant's dilemma. Rally said the applicant's comments prove there is a disconnect between the historic preservation program and the public knowledge of how it works. Rally said the public needs to be informed how these decisions are made. The process is not perfect and there are things that do not follow each other fairly. The city has been trying to improve the communication. The west 19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January 24, 2001 portion of the house being in its original location and having most of the integrity of that portion there keeps it on the inventory. Susan felt since it is an old miner's cabin it should be retained. Both the east and west are valuable. It is the only thing left of the history in that area that was originally there. The structures are retrievable and should remain on the inventory. Melanie said this is a tough issue and she agrees that the entire process has serious flaws. The process is being worked on. This property needs to remain on the inventory. There is a lot that can be done with this property. Lisa agreed with the other commissioners about retaining the property on the inventory. The majority of the site is comprised of two buildings that date from the 1880's and that alone is of enough significance. There are other historic buildings in that neighborhood, such as Angie Griffith's mother's house in Williams addition and the Smuggler mine. This house retains much of the setting it had with the park parcel. While it is in a sea of affordable housing I feel it is a jewel of the neighborhood. I live above there at Williams Ranch and I would hate to see that neighborhood without the remaining historic properties that exist there. Some of the issues in terms of process probably were a result of the annexation of it being in the county and the county not having a real structures historical preservation program, otherwise I do not see any reason why you would not have qualified earlier as an historic structure. It compares to a number of structures in the city limits prior to that time and I would support keeping it on. Gilbert Sanchez agreed with the commissioner's comments. Considering the context and the way the neighborhood has change, there have been significant changes; however, this does not justify giving up on this property. This is an oasis among development in the area. Sanchez said there have been some additions to these buildings; however, this designation saves the potential for restoration. Sanchez said if the HPC does not designation the structure, there is a potential to lose the restoration potential forever. Sanchez noted requiring people to go through HPC ensures the community a good job will be done that preserves the integrity of the building. Sanchez said any interior work does not require HPC 20 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, January 24, 2001 approval. Sanchez said being included on the inventory.does not limit things people want to do to houses unless they want to do something outrageous. Sanchez said there are bureaucratic processes that one has to go through. Sanchez said HPC cannot link all these processes, like taxes and affordable housing. Sanchez noted the basis for this historic designation is the potential for this property to contribute to the community. Sanchez said he feels this property has that potential. Sanchez said these are important buildings and he would like to retain them. Scott said he just went through the historic process 2 years ago. Scott said the frustration lies in the fact that there is significant subjectiveness to the process. Scott noted other historical properties, like "No Problem Joe's" and others in the west end have been undermined by exorbitant homes built behind them. Scott said that is frustrating. Scott said he, too, holds historic values for this structure as he lives in that house. Scott said as a homeowner he would like to see the guidelines completed so an applicant can come to a meeting prepared to meet these guidelines. Scott said he appreciates what HPC is doing with their properties; however, he understands the historical purpose of this structure and he would prefer that to be his domain. MOTION: Rally moved to remove 2 Williams Way from the inventory of historic sites and structures finding that structure does not meet the criteria for the inventory; seconded by Susan. Roll call votel Jeffrey, no; Gilbert, no; Rally, no; Susan, no; Melanie, no; Lisa, no. Motion NOT carried 6-0. Gilbert noted that appeals to City Council are mitigated on due process or an abuse of discretion. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, said the applicant can make a presentation to Council. Rally moved to adjourn at 8:45p. m.; seconded by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 21