Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20010214HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 The meeting was called to order at 5 p.m. with Suzalmah Reid, Gilbert Sanchez, Susan Dodington, Lisa Markalunas, Jeffrey Ha!ferry, Melanie Roschko and Rally Dupps present. MINUTES Lisa Markalunas noted the minutes of January 10, 2000, page 7, in her comments should be changed to "she would not be in favor of vested rights". Kathy Strickland, chief deputy city clerk, noted part of the September 13~ minutes are verbatim. The owner of 312 East Hyman is asking the minutes be changed to put his property on the list tallied up to be taken off the inventory: Amy Guthrie, historic preservation office, said the confusion is HPC determined a list of places to be removed and staff proposed they not be removed. The owner of 312 East Hyman protests that process and wants that reflected in the minutes. David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, told the Commission that the minutes should accurately reflect what happened, not what the applicant thinks happened. Sanchez moved to approved the minutes of July 26, September 13, November 8, November 15, 2000, and January 10, 2001 with the above change of Ms. Markalunas and without the change to the September 13 meeting; Dupps seconded. All in favor, motion carried. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Susan Dodington asked when the last time the historic inventory was done. Ms. Guthrie answered the last full review of the inventory started in 1991 and it took several years to get the evaluations completed and the adoption hearings done. It took until 1995, which is why the inventory review was started again in 2000. Ms. Guthrie said that was also a time property owners could request de-listing. Ms. Dodington asked if the Commission ever discussed the roof materials on the Pioneer Park House. Ms. Reid said the Commission did discuss the poor repair of these material. Ms. Guthrie said the last discussion was about the improper repair of the masonry materials. The Commission has 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000. discussed poor maintenance and demolition by neglect. The Commission has asked that the entire inventory be looked at rather than just singling out one or two, and then determining which property owners should be contacted. The Commission will discuss this at a March meeting. Lisa Markalunas brought up the plaque on Fyrwald's house at 121 Fifth and North and was it replaced. Ms. Guthrie said she contacted the owners, who had the plaque but she does not know if it was installed. Ms. Markalunas asked if the new sign at the Jerome and Library have been approved. Ms. Guthrie said she needs to look into those signs. Monitors for St. Mary's are Dupps and Dodington. Ms. Markalunas requested that next year staff give HPC information on the Preservation seminar so members can schedule time to attend. Amy Guthrie reminded HPC of the March 7t~ special meeting. Ms. Guthrie reminded the monitors of 121 Fifth and North that in the new house, there was a request for a small window into a bathroom in the front of the house. The applicants cannot find a window to fit this small space and they are deleting the window. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES Suzannah Reid said she will be stepping down for the inventory issues. CONCEPTUAL ItPC REVIEW - 640 North Third Chief Deputy City Clerk Kathy Stricldand gave the oath to Janver Derrington, Charles Cunniffee, Jim Daggs, Martin Block. Jonas Weil, Charles Cathcart and Owen Minney. An affidavit of notice has been provided that meets the land use code requirements. Amy Guthrie, community development department, said the Commission members have done a site visit of this property. The proposal is to do a historic lot split and the applicants are requesting landmark designation, conceptual review, some variances, partial demolition and on-site relocation of the existing resource. Ms. Guthrie noted the landmark 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 standards have been met in 3 areas; this house meets 3 of the 5 standards. It has a number of features typical of feamms of a 19t~ century structure. Them have been a number of alterations; however, part of this proposal is to do a restoration and the house can be improved. Ms. Guthrie noted this is part of an important neighborhood - Lake Avenue was once considered a historic district and still has a lot of historic residences on the street. This house is representative of housing during the late 196 century, the primary period of historic significance in Aspen. Ms. Guthrie said this proposal involves picking up the existing structure, moving it over, there are a number of contemporary additions removed and a new addition made to the house, a basement put underneath, the existing garage/carriage house will be moved along with the historic structure. A new lot will be created on the north side. There are no plans for that development. Ms. Guthrie said any property owner in the west end with a property 9,000 or over has the right to do a duplex or 2 detached structures. This approval would not grant any additional development rights. The historic landmark lot split allows a fee simple ownership of the houses rather than a condominium arrangement. This lot is 11,707 square feet. Ms. Guthrie said there are concerns for the Commission to address, like the amount of demolition of the existing building and the design of any new building. Ms. Guthrie told the Commission she favors the concept of this project. Ms. Guthrie said there are no Sanborn maps for this area of town; however, she does have the Willitts map and the 1893 bird's eye view. Ms. Guthrie said a concern in the demolition is taking away the area labeled "kitchen/bath" of the original house for the new addition. Ms. Guthrie said generally every part of a building pre-1904 should be retained. Ms. Guthrie said she feels there are more restoration opportunities than have been proposed by the applicant. The applicants have proposed a light well, that does meet the residential design standards; however, it does cause problems for the historic character of the front porch area. Ms. Guthrie said the proposed deck wrapping around the front of the house is not appropriate for the renovation. Ms. Guthrie said her concerns for the new buildings is there is not the separation between the new and the old, there is not a one-story connector. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 Ms. Guthrie said this may be over the allowed floor area as the applicant's took an exemption for the entire ADU, which is not allowed Ms. Guthrie recommended this item be continued and her memorandum lists the items that need to be restudied. Janver Derrington, representing the applicant, said the existing historic house is in violation of the setback requirements, as it is only 2 or 3 feet from the property line. Derrington said in order to get a good size lot, the house will need to be repositioned to the south and to the east in order to get separation between the house and the caretaker garage unit Derrington said the applicants propose to keep the existing carriage house because it provides an additional element of quasi-historic context and is a familiar element of the streetscape. The carriage house would be in about the same place that it is now. Derrington said on the Lake Avenue side, the proposal is to relocate the historic house closer to Lake Avenue to bring it more into alignment with the house to the south. This is an element of the residential design standards to have a more uniform street setbacks. Derrington said the one story separation, the applicants felt with such a limited site there isWt enough room to get a livable house with this separation. The back elements of the house cannot be seen from the street. Derrington said different materials will be used in the new house to give a marked transition to make it evident what is historic and what is the new addition. Derrington said he thought this project could have up to 800 square of an ADU. The existing footprint of the is 670 square feet. The applicants would like to retain the existing caretaker unit for historic and economic reasons, and it works with the neighborhood. Derrington said if they are to comply strictly with the square footage requirements, they will demolish the caretaker unit and replace it with a new, smaller structure. Derrington requested the commission consider this request. Derrington presented a model showing the historic element of the house. Derrington said they want to make the house more livable by making it more light inside. Derrington noted the living area is currently on the ground level with bedrooms on the upper levels. The design proposes to reverse that plan. The plan is to move the new house closer to Third street. Derrington said 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COM~IISSION February 14, 2000 the existing house sits in the center of the property; when it is subdivided into two lots, the historic lot will be slightly under 6,000 square feet and the second lot will be 6.000 square feet. Ms. Markalunas asked about the ADU. Ms. Guthrie told the Commission one can generally get half the square footage of an ADU exempt. One can get all of the square footage exempted if it is deed restricted m mandatory occupancy and that the footprint of the structure the ADU is in cannot be more than 625 square feet. Ms. Guthrie pointed out unless the applicants make this building containing 625 square feet. they cannot get it exempt. Cunniffe said this is an existing non-conforming structure and asked if there is a variance possible. Hoefer said he does not think there is a variance process. Halferty asked about the deck. Derrington said it is a wood deck. sitting on stilts a few feet above grade. Halferry asked the elevation change from the street. Derrington said it is about 7 feet. The existing house is just over 2600 square feet; the garage is 739 square feet. Reid opened the public hearing. Martin Block said with an 11,000 square foot lot, why are exemptions needed and what does the historic designation do for the project. Ms. Guthrie said the historic designation allows an applicant to ask for variances relating to the historic house. The applicants have asked for a square footage bonus and a setback variance. Block said he is against building anything bigger in the west end than already exists. Block said monster houses surround the west end. Block said he does not see a rationale for exemptions for setbacks. Block said setbacks have been legislated. Owen Minney asked about replacing a historic house when one has been granted a landmark lot split. Ms. Guthrie said there is a procedure in the land use code to request being taken off the inventory. Reid closed the public hearing. Ms. Guthrie reminded the Commission they may offer incentives for historic preservation, which is way Far bonus or setback variances are offered. This may give flexibility to better preserve the historic building. 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 Halferty said he favors the lot split and redevelopment scheme if it helps with the massing of the historic building. ' Halferty said the volume and massing need more work. There are many 2-1/2-story walls. Halferty said the plate heights where they are not existing should be lowered. The south elevation, wall versus glass, needs to be studied. Halferty said he is not in favor of the railing and the light well off the southeastern portion of the site. Halferty said he has reservations on the deck on the northeast portion. Halferty said he would like to have the FAR properly calculated, and would like to look at the elevations, what is existing and the new proposed plate heights. Sanchez said generally he favors this proposal. The lot split has proven to be a good thing. Sanchez said moving the house closer to the street looks to be successful in establishing a better street relationship. Sanchez said he is concerned about the proposed windows on the south facing gable and would like to see something more historically accurate. Sanchez said this house and lot offer some unique opportunities. Sanchez said the design for this particular site will be fine; however, it may not work on another lot. Sanchez agree the plate heights and ridge heights should be looked at. The house will stand out distinctly from the addition. The two-story cross gable is a strong element. Sanchez said the light wells and the deck are minimized because this property sits up high. Sanchez said it may be helpful to reduce the light well. Sanchez said he is concerned about the deck sitting up on stilts. Sanchez said he would rather see a deck that is part of landscaping. Sanchez said the applicants will have to work within the floor area. Dupps said there are a lot of things that are right with this project, and he is in support of the lot split and moving the house.. Dupps said the biggest concern is the separation between the new and old. Dupps said he would like to see the volume and the plat heights of the connector link reduced. The deck on the south side and the triptych windows should be restudied. Dupps has some concerns with the light well on the Lake Avenue side as well as the above grade deck on Lake Avenue Ms. Markalunas said she has concerns over the lot split, and it is dependent on the size of the structures that will be built. Ms. Markalunas 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 does not support the 500 square foot FAR bonus or the variances requested. These should only be granted when separation from the historic house is provided. Ms. Markalunas said the massing on the east and west elevations are a concern, especially the height, as these are the faCade that are the public view. Ms. Markalunas said she would like more information about the kitchen/bath addition. She does not support the south elevation windows on either side of the historic window, nor the light well in its location. Ms Markalunas said an on-grade patio would be acceptable, not a raised deck. Ms. Dodingmn said she is not in favor of adding the 2 windows either side on the second story of the historic window. Ms. Dodington said the deck is not in keeping with the historic house and she would not approve that. Ms. Dodington said the addition is too high; one of the guidelines is not to over shadow the historic house. There should be more separation between the old and the new structures; it looks like one house. Ms. Dodington stated she would not be in favor of the 500 square foot bonus and this is not an exemplary project. Moving the house close to Lake Avenue is a good idea as it gives it more prominence. Ms. Dodington said she would rather not see the light well; however, it will not be seen much from the street. Ms. Dodington said generally lot splits are a good idea; however, the idea of the yard disappearing is not a good one. Historic houses were small when they were crowded next to each other. Ms. Roschko agreed with Markalunas and Dodington about the lot splks. These seem to be creating more massive houses than what is historical. Ms. Roschko said she does not want to approve things just because they won't be seen. The Commission does have guidelines to adhere to. Ms. Roschko said she would not object to the house being moved closer to the street; however, not to allow something on this project that would not be allowed in other projects. Ms. Roschko said she is not in favor of the massing on this project; she would like to see more separation between the historic house and the new addition. Ms. Roschko said the main window will have a stairwell and the commission would not approve that if it were at street level. Ms. Roschko said she would not approve the 500 square foot bonus. 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 Ms. Reid said she favors the lot split because it gives a balance between additions versus separate buildings. Ms. Reid said she also favors the variances. Ms. Reid said the 500 square foot bonus needs to be tied to the preservation and restoration of the existing house. Ms. Reid said the windows should be appropriate; there should be a clear distinction between the two structures. Ms. Reid said she has some concerns about the light well. Ms. Reid agreed the deck should be on grade. Cunniffee said without the light well takes away some of the livability of a house. Cunniffee said the new house should be larger to make it obvious that it is a separate structure and that it is a new structure. Cunniffee said the light well can be mitigated. Lowering the deck is fine. Ms. Guthrie said a very important point is that through the primary window a curtain or staircase is what will be seen. The guidelines do discuss what goes on in front of primary windows Dupps and Halferty said they are not sure the Commission has the jurisdiction over what should be behind the primary windows. Sanchez said if what goes on behind the windows does have an impact on the faCade, then the commission should be concerned. Ms. Markalunas said she feels it is appropriate to discuss what goes on behind the primary Dupps moved to continue 640 North Third street application for historic landmark designation, conceptual develo0pment variances, partial demolition, on-site relocation and historic landmark lot split to April 11, 2001, with the following recommendations (1) restudy the demolition plan to retain all original portions of the historic house; (2) focus on restoration opportunities for the historic house; (3) restudy the additional the create more separation between it and the historic structure; lower plate and ridge heights;(4) mitigate the light well proposed on the south side of the front porch; (5) eliminate the elevated deck; (6) recalculate the floor are for the project; (7) provide a neighborhood plan showing the house in its proposed new location; seconded by Halferty. Halferty, yes; Sanchez, yes; Reid, yes; Dupps, yes; Markalunas, no; Dodington, yes; Rosehko, yes. Motion carried. 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 Dupps moved to table 214 West Bleeker to February 28; seconded by Sanchez. Roll call vote; Halferty, yes; Sanchez, yes; Reid, yes; Dupps, yes; Markalunas, yes; Dodington, yes; Roschko, yes. Motion carried. CONCEPTUAL HPC REVIEW - Christiania Lodge Chief Deputy City Clerk Kathy Strickland swore in Greg Hills, Mitch Haas, Fonda Paterson, Charles Paterson, Briston Peterson and David Brown for the pubic hearing. Fred Jarman, community development department, told the Commission the elements of this request are (1) on-site relocation of 2 panabodes and a historic cabin; (2) demolition of a structure on the corner of Fifth and Main; (3) construction of 2 new buildings and a fourplex off the alley and (4) remodeling of the main lodge structure, existing duplex and fourplex on the back of the lot. Jarman said this is zoned O, office, with a Main street historic overlay and lodge preservation overlay districts. This is a 27,000 square foot lot. There have been site visits with the Commission. The discussions were massing and scale, relation to the Main Street corridOr, the site plan regarding the relationship of the cabin and the 2 panabodes. Jarman said the historic structure on the is the Callahan cabin, which sits in the middle of the site. They would like to move it to the Main street frontage and also relocate the panabodes to Main street. This will be viewed from Main street as in a line together. Jarman noted currently these structures are obscured by vegetation. Staff supports the relocation request because it gives a higher level of prominence on site and adds to pedestrian experience. Jarman said the demolition request is for the one-story structure at the corner and currently not listed on the inventory. Jarman said this structure does not add to the site and supports request for demolition of the structure. Jarman said remodeling of the existing main lodge structure will be in the same footprint. Staff has issue with a tower and whether it is an appropriate feature for the site. Jarman questioned whether this was a defining piece of architecture for the site or a defining element of a lodge. 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 The height of the tower is 36 feet, and is 25 feet m the one-third point because of the pitch. Staff supports reconstruction of the main lodge building with reservations about the tower. The remodeling of the existing duplex and fourplex maintain their footprints. Staff is concerned with the variety of materials proposed to be used in these structures. Jarman said the mass and scale are much as they are now. The proposed new fourplex, staff feels the mass and scale are too powerful for the site. This is the largest structure on the site; it will require a variance for the height. Jarman said the ridge is 33 feet, 28 feet to the midpoint is the allowable height. Jarman showed a streetscape of the project. Jarman said staff is pleased with the site and design of the triplex on Fifth and Main and its relation to the smaller structures on sims Jarman said the Callahan cabin was constructed in the 1880's and there are no other structures like it in town. It is a very sensitive resource. Jarman said staff supports almost the entire project and would recommend the new fourplex not be approved due to its scale and mass. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, told the Commission the existing duplex and fourplex will be rebuilt where they exist today. HPC has seen these two buildings and focused on materials. The palette of materials was approved by HPC is still being proposed. The roof heights are about 2 feet higher but they are very similar to what has already been approved by HPC. Haas pointed out the new fourplex structure will be 50 feet back from the property line and 65 feet back from the street. Haas said the need for the mass in the building is that the other buildings have smaller units to provide viability for the project. Haas noted they will be going through the PUD process, in which the dimensional requirements are established. The height limit is a guidelines and the applicants have established a height limit to accommodate these buildings. Haas said the main lodge building had two towers and the HPC indicated they would not look on this favorable. Haas said some HPC members indicated they would like a tower to accentuate the corner locations. Haas said the applicants do not feel this is overpowering, given the separation 10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 from the rest of the buildings. Haas noted a single element provides a complimentary asymmetry in the design. There are examples of tower elements along the Main street historic district, like the Courthouse and Sardy House. Haas said the site plan has been reworked since work sessions with the HPC; there is a good deal of open space; trees will help breakdown the scale of buildings. Ms. Roschko expressed concern that the landscaping creates a village of its own on the property. Amy Guthrie, community development department, noted this originally was a minor redevelopment; there was not proposal to demolish some of the structures. Jarman said the application clearly states the fourplex and main lodge will be demolished. David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, stated the demolition needs to clarified and brought to HPC in a staff report before conceptual is granted. Ms. Reid opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Ms. Reid closed the public hearing. Ms. Roschko said she is concerned about the fence along the front. Ms. Roschko said she does not favor the water feature going through the whole property. This is over-landscaped. Ms. Roschko said the tower is a distracting element and should not be the focal point. Susan Dodington said saving the panabode and cabin is commendable. Ms. Dodginton said her main concern is the tower and she would rather see if lowered. Ms. Dodington said the triplex on the corner is fine. Ms. Dodington said the chimneys appear too massive; perhaps the material could be softer. Lisa Markalunas agreed there is a lot of landscaping going on in the parcel. Ms. Markalunas said she would like to see some lilacs remain on the property. Ms. Markalunas said the single tower does not bother her. Ms. Markalunas said she would like the side fa¢ades of the Callahan cabin are the nicest looking and should face the street. Rally Dupps said lodge preservation is very important and he is willing to make sacrifices for that preservation. Dupps said he likes the modification to the fourplex. Dupps agreed the landscaping may be a creation unto 11 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 itself and does not integrate with the west end. Dupps said he would like to see the materials simplified. Dupps commended the scale of the buildings on the project. Dupps said he likes the rower; however, the stone chimney appears too tall and detracts from the architectural statement of the tower. Gilbert Sanchez said the site plan works well and shows the historic resources in a way that is an asset. The massing of the building works. Sanchez said his concern with the landscaping is the impact on the historic buildings. Sanchez said what happens on the interior of the lot is up to the applicant. Sanchez said he likes the design of the triplex. Sanchez said he would like to see the materials simplified. Sanchez stated he is concerned about demolition of these buildings. Sanchez said the fourptex is great and is in an appropriate location for its height. Sanchez said he can support the demolition of the lodge; however, there are some proportional problems that should be restudied. Jeffrey Halverty commended the developer for working with HPC in work sessions and improving on the design. Halverty said the two major buildings on the corners with the historic resources centered is very appropriate. Halverty said the interior infil! and landscape may be overdone but he does not have a problem with it. Halverty said the heights, except for the fourplex, are all right. There may be proportional problems with the tower, roof and chimney. Overall this is a good proposal worth supporting. Suzannah Reid said she likes the site plan and the relocation of the existing structure along Main street. The triplex is comfortable for the corner. Ms. Reid said she would like to look at the existing buildings again. Ms. Reid said she has no problem with the height of the fourplex but does not have some concerns about complexity of the roof shapes. Ms. Reid said in the lodge the chimney and tower are in conflict with each other. Ms. Reid agreed the material palette should be simplified. HPC would like remodel versus demolition and reconstruction of this project clarified. Dupps moved to continue this item to March 14; seconded by Sanchez. All in favor, motion carried. 12 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 REMOVAL FROM HISTORIC INVENTORY - 308 East Hopkins; Resolution//6, 2001 Suzanaah Reid stepped down; Gilbert Sanchez took over as chair. Fred Jarman, community development department, told the Board this structure is currently on the inventory. Staff feels due to the number of significant, sizable alterations to the property, the architectural integrity has been compromised. Kathy Strickland, deputy city clerk, swore in Nick Lebby. Nick Lebby said he concurred with staff for the reasons for removal from the historic inventory. Lebby said additions and alterations have occurred over the last 30 years. Only a small portion of the existing structure is over 50 years old. Lebby told the Board he has added the fish scale shingles and wrought iron fence has beer added in the last 30 years. Lebby showed pictures of the structure. The structure was built as a residence and its current use as a restaurant does not maintain any resemble of a cottage during the mining error. Lebby noted the HPC will still have review over any development as this is located in the historic district. Sanchez opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Sanchez closed the public hearing. Ms. Roschko agreed the building has been compromised and there would be no method or reason that one would come in and refurbish it. Ms. Dodington agreed it would not be retrievable in its location in the commercial core. Ms. Markalunas said she feels the front fagade to be significant in its context on Hopkins street. Dupps agreed it is sympathetic in nature to the building on the east and it is in its original location. Dupps said he feels it is retrievable. Halferty said anything can be retrieved; the issue is what is cost effect and what becomes a real asset to the community. Halferty stated he can support removing this from the inventory because of its current architectural integrity, not what could occur. Sanchez said the threshold question is the current integrity of the building and its retrievability. Sanchez said removing this from the inventory would be consistent with the removal of several other structures. 13 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 Ms. Dodington moved to remove 308 East Hopkins Avenue from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures finding that the structure does not meet the criteria for the inventory; seconded by Ms. Roschko. Roschko. yes; Dodington, yes; Markalunas, no; Dupps, no; Sanchez. yes. Hatftery, yes. Motion carried. REMOVAL FROM HISTORIC INVENTORY - 620 North Third Halferty recused himself from this discussion. Fred Jarman, community development department, told the Board the request is to remove this structure from the inventory. Jarman recommended this remain on the inventory. Jarman said the original structure has a number of unique features, was built in 1889. There are key character defining features, such as the dormers, the moldings, the materials, the mass and form. The structure is representative of Aspen' s mining character. Staff feels this structure is historically significant for its position in the context of Aspen' s mining era. This structure is surrounded by structures either on the inventory or historically landmarked. Some key features are the hipped roof with the crossed lower gables. The original structure has not been modified that it is still a defining form. Kathy Strickland, deputy city clerk, swore in the applicant. Nina Salter, representing Ann Altemus the owner, said they are proud of their house and are proud to be an old Aspen family who has lived in this house over 40 years. The owners have remodeled and changed the house but have kept it Victorian. Ms. Salter said they do not want the restrictions that will be added if the house is designated historic. Ms. Salter noted the dormer window has been added. There was a different front entry when the house was purchased. Ms. Salter said the chimney was put in in the 60's. Only 2 dormer windows and 2 small side windows remain from the original house. The owners would like this house removed from the inventory. Ms. Salter said they would like the HPC to think what they have done with the house over the last 40 years is enough. Ms. Salter said the family does not want to be told what they can and cannot do with the house. 14 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 Sanchez opened the public hearing, There were no comments. Sanchez closed the public hearing. Ms. Markalunas said houses like this make the west end unique and the · house is unique on its site. Ms. Markalunas said the precious resources the community has have to be protected. Ms. Dodington said this is a beautiful house and it should stay on the inventory. Ms. Dodington moved to remove 620 North Third from the inventory of historic sites finding the structure does not meet the criteria; seconded by Ms. Roschko. Ms. Roschko, no; Ms. Dodington, no; Ms. Markalunas, no; Dupps, no; Sanchez, no. Motion NOT carried. REMOVAL FROM HISTORIC INVENTORY - 811/819 East Hopkins Julie Ann Woods, community development department, told the Board staff reviewed these with the criteria to see whether the structures should remain on the inventory or not. Ms. Woods said 811 East Hopkins is over 50 years old; it does have an addition, however, the original portion of the house shows up in the 1904 Sanborn maps. Ms. Woods noted the criteria call for determining whether or not there is a sufficient percentage of the structure that dates from the period of significance, which this building does. This structure's general form is fairly intact. Ms. Woods said the building remains significant as a mining cabin and indicative of housing during that time. 819 East Hopkins is also over 50 years old and its integrity is less compromised than 811 East Hopkins. This structure, too, represents the mining era. These two structures are located in a transition area. A lot of small historic houses have been lost in the east end: these two are a remnant of the historic east end. Ms. Woods recommended these stay on the historic inventory. Kathy Strickland, deputy city clerk, swore in John Gates. Gates told the HPC he has lived in 811 East Hopkins since 1990 and has contracted to buy 819 East Hopkins from the Bates family. Gates said 811 East Hopkins has been substantially remodeled. Gates said very little of the inside 15 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 14, 2000 original structure remains. Gates said 819 East Hopkins is the original house; however, it is a shack and wilt not stand the test of time. There is no foundation; water has rotted the wood; parts of the house are sinking. Gates said he cannot afford to restore 819 East Hopkins historically. Sanchez opened the public hearing. There were no commems. Sanchez closed the public hearing. Ms. Roschko said she feels there are ways to retain this house. Ms. Dodington agreed and said both of these structures are valuable to Aspen and to the east end. Ms. Markalunas agreed retaining these structures in the east end is important. There are things to look at like lot splits or variances. Dupps said he would not support taking either structure off the inventory. Dupps said HPC has to protect what is left of historic structures. Sanchez said the potential to restore 819 East Hopkins is substantial. Ms. Dodington moved to remove 811 East Hopkins from the inventory of historic sites finding the structure does not meet the criteria; seconded by Ms. Roschko. Ms. Roschko, no; Ms. Dodington, no; Ms. Markalunas, no; Dupps, no: Sanchez, no. Motion NOT carried. Ms. Dodington moved to removed 819 East Hopkins from the inventory of historic sites finding the structure does not meet the criteria; seconded by Dupps. Ms. Roschko, no; Ms. Dodington, no; Ms. Markalunas, no; Dupps, no; Sanchez, no. Motion NOT carried. Dupps moved to adjourn at 9:00 p.m.; seconded by Ms. Dodington. All in favor, motion carried. 16