HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20010411ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
APRIL 11, 2001
640 N. THIRD ST. - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL, VARIANCES,
PARTIAL DEMOLITION, HISTORIC LOT SPLIT ................................................................................ 2
513 W. SMUGGLER- FINAL DEVELOPEMTN & VARIANCES ........................................................ 2
328 PARK AVENUE - FINAL REVIEW AND VARIANCES ................................................................. 5
419 E. HYMAN AVE. - LANDMARK, VARIANCES, MINOR DEVELOPMENT .............................. 8
629 W. SMUGGLER CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, LANDMARK DESIGNATION,
PUBLIC HEARING ....................... ; ............................................................................................................ 10
101 E. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK, PARTIAL DEMOLITION - PUBLIC
HEARING ............................................... ; .................................................................................................... 20
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
APRIL 11, 2~)01
Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. In
attendance were Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Lisa
Markalunas and Rally Dupps~ Melanie Roschko was excused.
640 N. THIRD ST. - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION,
CONCEPTUAL, VARIANCES, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, HISTORIC
LOT SPLIT.
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue the public hearing on 640 N. Third St.
until April 25, 2001; second by Rally. All in favor, motion carried 6-0.
MOTION: Lisa moved to continue 101 E. Hallam, conceptual landmark
and public hearing until May 23, 2001; second by Gilbert. All in favor,
motion carried 6-0.
Susan will be stepping down on 328 Park Ave.
Rally and Gilbert will be recusing themselve~ on 328 Park Ave.
513 W. SMUGGLER - FINAL DEVELOPEMTN & VARIANCES
Fred Jarman, planner presented. The request is for redevelopment of a
single family residence. The specific requests include demolition of an
existing addition to a Victorian cottage and relocation and renovation of the
cottage.' In addition there is a 3,000 sq. ft. addition with an ADU and they
are also requesting a 500 square foot FAR bonus and a 2.5 foot west side
yard setback variance and a site coverage variance of 2.9%. The last large
items to be discussed tonight are the massing of the two story gable
structure to the east and further study as to how the barrel vault connection
occurs to the clapboard of the east side of the historic structure. There also
needs to be discussion on the material palate. Staff recommends approval of
the project. The HPC has the ability to grant a site coverage variance. That
portion of the meeting has been noticed. Part of the approval is that the
historic grade of the house as well as the foundation should be respected.
Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Harry Teague and Erik
Hendrix.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt
APRIL 11~ 2001
Harry Teague said they lowered the massing 18 inches.
Erik Hendrix said the historic cottage will be restored to its original form as
much as possible. The fabric of the addition is a combination of a
cementicious board with a gray color and zinc which will wrap the roof.
Harry Teague said the board had concerns about the stone wall between the
two houses and they have chosen a stone with glass integrated into it.
Harry also said they hired a tree consultant to look atall the trees on the
property and they will be presenting a 40 page report to the Parks Dept. as
part of the approval. Eric and Harry went over the material palate.
Suzannah inquired if there were any historic materials left on the house and
Eric said yes. The stone under the house is original.
Harry said the porch will be returned to its original form. Black zinc will be
used on the original house.
Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing.
Comments:
The majority of the board felt this project is truly an outstanding
preservation effort. The scale, material selections and the courtyard
elevation will be a wonderful experience for the homeowner. The new
forms that are being added are very simple geometry, even though they are
bigger and they do not detract.
Replacing the east wall of the cottage and making it visible through the
glass is unusual.
Lisa said she felt that the addition was too prominent to the front of the site.
The open space is totally hidden from public view and is a disappointment.
The size and location of the east addition is troublesome. She is also
concerned about the stark black zinc roof that is being proposed to the
historic building.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt
APRIL 11~ 2001
Jeffrey said the joint at the barrel vault is a nice detail but should be
protected from the snow and ice. Maybe the detailing of the barreled vault
should change, the proportion of the standing seam to differentiate. How
the historic sandstone meets the stone veneer on the wall that faces the street
should be worked out by staff and monitor.
Suzannah said the historic house is isolated fi.om the volumes of the project
which works well on the site. She also agreed with Jeffrey regarding
changing the interval of the standing seam. When demolition occurs the
contractor should to see if there are any window openings in that wall that
were part of the original framing.
Harry said they will review the P window and possibly it will be eliminated.
The idea was to get light up high.
MOTION: Rally moved to approve Resolution#Id, 2001 grantingfinal
review for 513 W. Smuggler with the following conditions:
1. Demolish an non-historic addition of the existing Victorian miner's
cottage.
2. Relocate and renovate the cottage.
3. Construct a 3,000 sq. fi. addition to include an accesso4y dwelling
unit;
4. Receive a 500 square foot FAR bonus;
5. Receive a variance from the site coverage percentage requirement
from 30% to 32.9%;
6. Receive 2.5' west side yard setback variance for the residence located
at 513 ~.. Smuggler Lots E, ?, and G. Block 21, City and Townsite of
Aspen.
Also included in the motion are conditions 1-14 as stated in the resolution.
15. If during demolition there is evidence of an original window that
should be brought to staff and monitor.
Gilbert second the motion.
Yes vote: Rally, Gilbert, Suzannah, Susan, Jeffrey
No vote: Lisa.
Motion carried 5-1.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
APRIL 11~ 2001
328 PARK AVENUE - FINAL REVIEW AND VARIANCES
Gilbert and Rally reCused themselves.
Susan recused herself.
Amy informed the board that the idea is to demolish all of the existing
construction except for one miners cottage. Relocate it so that it faces Park
Ave. and built another free standing cottage next to it and a single family
home behind it. The cottage will be preserved intact and it creates a great
streetscape along Park Ave. On Midland Ave. you will have the appearance
of a one story home. There is an addition on the north side of the house to
' accommodate a staircase that goes to the basement and it covers over two
original windows. Staff has concerns about that and possibly there can be
other options. That side of the house is fairly visible from the street. It
would be better to not cover over those two features. The board needs to
discuss the floor area variance because some land is being dedicated to the
city and they have chosen to backfill along Midland Ave. We will be
calculating their floor area with a greater penalty than if we didn't
acknowledge the land given to the city. This is addressed under the
hardship standard and staff feels this is a legitimate case of hardship of
giving up the land to the city and the proposal creates the best situation for
Midland Ave. where a sidewalk may go in the future.
Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Scott Lindeneau, Paul
Nicoletti, John Black, Gary Kelly and Madelyn Osburger.
John Black said his preference is to move the historic house off the site two
blocks. Staff stated that they have had concerns in the past moving historic
cottages off site due to vandalism etc. and when the house is on the property
it can be watched. John said the will look at that because they do have, room
on the site.
Scott addressed Amy's concern about the two windows and if they move the
stair there are windows on the other side as well. It is only 16 ½ feet wide
so they pulled it back and separated it so that it looks somewhat like a miner
addition. They are proposing to keep the wall.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
APRIL 11, 200!,
Paul said them are two options, one to relocate the windows On thc new
portion. Scott said they cannot internalize thc stairs to make thc plan work.
Scott said the majority of the materials will be hearty paneling left natural
and they are also using clear cedar. Windows will be aluminum storefront
systems, some will be brushed aluminum and some black.
Susan said they could keep the interior wall and take the old windows and
put them on the new portion of the outsidel Scott said Amy recommended
keeping the existing wall with the existing windows in it on the interior but
they wouldn't be visible.
Scott said if the board would rather they take the windows out and put them
in the new wall they could do that also.
Paul said they are hoping the board tells them where they want the
windows.
Amy said she is opposed to moving the historic wall to the outside o£the
stair addition because that implies that the stair addition is old. She is not
sure if the Building Dept. would allow a window over the stair.
Paul said when he put in the unfinished basement he had to put in light
wells and the potential buyer wants a larger light well which has cost him
more FAR and potentially he is 97 feet over. HPC can give a variance for
the square footage over. The light well is at grade.
Amy said it must meet the hardship criteria and there are other options, in
addition it has to be the minimum variance. One o£the options is to get the
ten feet away from the house but then the drainage swale becomes nothing.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing.
Gary Kelly said the entire neighborhood is excited about the project.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing.
Comments;
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
APRIL 11~ 2001
Jeffrey also agreed with staff about the location of the stair case but
supports everything else. Relocation and restoration are appropriate. The
massing sets off the historic resource. He would support the FAR variance.
Lisa agreed with Jeffrey's projects. She appreciates the significant open
space on the lot. She has no issues with the 97 feet but has issues with the
stair case obscuring the windows.
Susan suggested a circular stair case.
Scott said the difficulty with that would be getting furniture down the stairs.
Suzannah said the stair case is so much like the historic house and possibly
if it was a smaller stair compacted in the backlit might work. Keep it
compact and separate. She also had no problem with the exterior wall
remaining on an interior location. The additions are so minimal and low
key it will not be destructive to the historic building. Possibly add new
windows on the outside wall. Suzannah also felt that the applicant should
try to achieve the ten foot separation or do something that could take care of
the 97 square feet before we consider that part of the hardship.
Paul said if we separate the ten feet the living room gets bigger.
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve Resolution #15, 2001 as exhibited in
the memo with amendments to condition #1, square footage should be 1364
and #2 Full board to review and approval the final design; #16Any
temporary off-site relocation to be approved by staff and monitor; motion
second by Susan.
Yes vote: Suzannah, Lisa, Jeffrey
Motion carried 3-0.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt
APRIL 11~ 2001
419 E. HYMAN AVE. - LANDMARK, VARIANCES, MINOR
DEVELOPMENT
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated he visited the site and the
public notice was not visible from the state and there is a possibility that the
case could be remanded to be reheard. It is 15 to 20 feet off.
John Kelly, attorney said the applicant would like to go forward. That
location is the only place it could go.
Amy said the Paragon bldg. is associated with two important people Henry
Cownehoven and D.R.C. Brown who were key players in the silver mining
industry. Architecturally it is very significant and it contributes to the
downtown historic district and is from the 19th century. The minor
development refers to the elevator tower on the roof. It is no taller than
other elements that have been approved. Staff and board were not agreeable
on the hardship of the project earlier. The board and the Community
Development encourage a lively downtown and people living over
businesses. Staffrecommends approval of the landmark, minor review and
a 13 foot height variance.
Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Pat Fenton, Holly Hamilton,
John Kelly.
Pat Fenton said because the structure has a smaller shaft you will not be able
to see it from grade and they are requesting a variance. If you look at the
plan you'll see the height of the ventilation shaft and the height of the
elevation and how the bulk head ties into it.
David Hoefer said this is one of the taller buildings in town and if it is
approved it should be subject to the Wheeler and Hotel Jerome view planes.
David said the board needs to decide if the I3 feet is the minimum variance
required and also the board needs to decide if there is another way that they
can accommodate access to the roof without using an elevator or something
that would not require a 13 foot variance. In addition it cannot be a self
imposed variance. Would it have been possible during interior remodeling
to have designed the interior to accommodate roof needs: You cannot grant
hardship for the purpose of convenience.
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt
APRIL 11, 2001
Pat Fenton said the board approved the ventilation shaft at 15 feet before
and this elevator will be coming in at 13 feet and the bulk head at 11.8 feet
was previously approved.
Amy said there are no ADA requirement for rooftops.
Holly Hamilton said the owner is trying to make all unites accessible to the
roof as opposed to one so he will be incurring additional expenses.
John Kelly said he has desired to make the building consistent in terms of
handicapped access.
Gilbert said the applicant is not asking for more volume or bulk but to
change materials because they are enclosing something solid~
Lisa asked what the parameters are for issuing the minimum variance.
Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing.
Rally said this is essentially a change in materials and a tough sell when you
ready the criteria but he will approve it.
Gilbert agreed with Rally.
Susan said there will be a lot of good use on the rooftop.
Jeffrey also agreed with Gilbert. The brick treatment will be a better
treatment. It is conjunction with the AACP program.
Suzannah agreed with the land marking. She did not agree with the hardship
the first time.
MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve Resolution #16, 2001 with condition
g4 that it is reviewed by the Wheeler and Hotel Jerome view plane; second
by Lisa. Motion carried 6-0.
Yes vote: Rally, Gilbert, Susan, Suzannah, Lisa, Jeffrey
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 11~ 2001
629 W. SMUGGLER CONCEPTUAL, PARTIAL DEMOLITION,
LANDMARK DESIGNATION, PUBLIC HEARING
Amy said one thing that is important is that we have the entire team here, as
it is difficult to communicate back and forth on the phone etc. with owners
and architects. Hopefully we can iron things out and get the project
approved. The first step is landmark designation. The house was the
residence of Steve Marolt and they moved there in 1936. They were the
children of Steve and Francis Marolt who moved here in the late 1800's.
Steve Marolt ranched the property that is now the golf course from the 30's'
to the 50's. Amy stated that she usually doesn't like to get into the family
associations but she feels this is an important Aspen family and that the
criteria is met for this building. Other criteria are that it is a good example
of the buildings of this period and has typical features that contribute to the
west end neighborhood. Staff's concern after looking at this and the
previous version is that wedo not see enough physical separation between
the new addition and the historic house. The walls have only been pulled in
one foot offset on the historic structure and the eave lines actually connect
and that is not enough to address what the concerns are about limiting the
amount of demolition, limiting the amount of original materials that are
covered over. She also made comments about changing some roof pitches,
which can be done quite easily. Staffhas some concerns about the idea of
covering the new addition in shingles. The HPC has asked for some
differentiation in materials but shingles compete with the historic house and
needs addressed. The window character that has a lot of divided lights that
aren't what are characteristics of the historic house should be restudied.
The message that was trying to be sent in the memo was to encourage that
the project go forward but they really feel their needs to be a more
meaningful response to the some of the criteria and design standards. We
do recommend landmark designation.
Chief deputy clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Cachi Martinez, Stephen St.
Clair.
Cachi said he has had several conversations with Amy over the phone but it
is always better face to face in order to work with harmony and unison but
10
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
APRIL 11, 2001
hc has not had that opportunity. At the last meeting he was not present at he
wanted to mention that they felt as a team that that design solution was more
compatible and in harmony with the existing historical residence was. The
comments that they received from Mike Hoffman as well as with speaking
with Amy was that the HPC wanted to see something that was making the
historical building stand by itself so that it wasn't competing with the new
addition. They tried to create the offset of the new and what was proposed
as the new expansion. In the discussions that offset or connector could
come in one or two feet and the length of it was also subjective so they took
the approach of trying to work with the existing floor plan that they had and
designed it as you can see in the exhibits.
Mike Hoffman, attorney for the applicant went over the things that were
discussed at the last time. There should be a clear definition between the
old portion of the house and the new addition. This definition should
include jogging in the wall plane, dropping the ridge height of the addition
and changing materials, changing windows and changing details etc. The
differentiation can be subtle but must be clear enough to identify thc
addition as new construction.
Cachi said they feel they have jogged in the walls on thc east and west side,
have dropped the ridge and they have also changed the materials. The
materials were talked about over the telephone and his understanding was
that it should be slightly different. If the horizontal siding is more
appropriate we are more than willing to do that. Regarding the window
design, thc original design was more in keeping With what was done on the
historic house and they would be willing to go back to that window
proportion and scale of the existing windows. The cave lines do match
horizontally in plane it is difficult to see in elevation, they are offset. The
connection will be obvious to everyone.
Mike Hoffman said the next one was the break between the new and old
should occur where the historic house ended; that is, where the back of the
old house is minus the 50's addition.
Cachi said where the break is right now where the historic house and the
50's addition is where we have indicated the offset to be.
11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
APRIL 11, 2001
Mike Hoffman said there is a suggestion about thc plate height on the
dormer and that it should be lowered. Cachi said that is something that they
can do and have not done. They have maintained the height of the building
about six inches higher than the existing historical house. They can lower
the plate height on the existing portion of the wing where the gable end
faces 6th Street and they would be willing to do that. Mike said the board
maybe in favor of seeing a one story-connecting piece between the old and
new construction rather than having them abut to each other. Cachi said
they looked at that but there is a stairway in the historic house that connects
the house fi.om the back to the rear portion of the house and they felt the
house from a plan form worked a little bit more in unison with the way the
house is going to be lived and we felt that by reducing the ridge height and
the off set of the building it was accomplishing some of the same type
design issues.
Mike Hoffman said there was interest in keeping the garage facing 6th Street
instead of the alley, although variances would be required. There was a
concern that the new garage is too tall and competes with the historic house.
Cachi said the previous design had a guest unit over thc garage and the
height did get higher and that unit was eliminated and they reduced thc scale
of the garage. Thc location of the garage as it sits on the site is almost thc
same location as thc existing garage is currently. They have reduced the
size of the garage in square footage and in height it is basically the same
height.
Mike Hoffman said sites were mentioned. No as-built elevations of the
back of the historic house have been provided. Cachi said on that issue the
rear elevation of the historic house is difficult to elevate because of the $0's
addition that is there currently precludes you fi.om doing an elevation of the
existing house. The $0's portion of the addition is not historical. As built
drawings are done by a local architect but it is difficult to elevate the
historic house from a rear elevation standpoint because of the S0's addition.
Mike Hoffman relayed that in the memo it states that thc existing one story
addition obscures the ground floor level on the back of the old house, but
the new addition covers the entire wall. One of the reasons that the
guidelines promote creating a one story element to link the old and new
construction together is to retain as much of t he original building as
12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
APRIL 11~ 2001
possible. By butting the new addition right into the old house, one's ability
to understand the size and character of the original building is diminished
and an entire wall of the original house is destroyed. Cachi said they looked
at that and how the house would function from the stairway standpoint and
we have done a survey of the existing homes in the area and there were
some one-story connectors but there were quite a few two-story connectors.
They felt that since that was already in existence with the lOcal
neighborhood it would be compatible with the neighborhood.
Mike said historically additions to homes were almost always significantly
smaller than the original structure. This deals with the appropriate massing
and roof forms, materials, windows and all other detailing to be simple and
supportive in character to the historic home. Cachi said they would design
the fenestration for the windows and proportions to be compatible with the
existing historic house, that would be their goal.
Mike said the garage as proposed abuts the addition. Cachi said they were
sensitive of that issue and they looked at several illustrations as to how the
house could stand alone and in order to reach the allowable square footage
that we are allowed on this lot was one of the issues but more importantly
we felt that attaching the house with eight and ½ feet of length to the house
yet maintaining the other three walls pretty much independent of the house,
the perception is that it will look like it is detached, We were trying to keep
the look that it was detached but realizing it wasn't.
Mike Hoffman asked about the variances needed. Amy said variances from
design guidelines can be waived by the HPC because they feel the solution
would be better but not for a hardship.
Mike Hoffrnan said they have attempted in good faith to respond to the
things said in the work sessions and they are here to identify and refine the
proposal. They would prefer that the board give them another opportunity
to come back with very specific recommendations.
Questions:
Lisa inquired about the siding material. Cachi said they indicated shingle
siding but would prefer it to be horizontal siding.
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
APRIL 11, 2001
Lisa said normally we get an as built of the existing conditions on the south
side. Cachi said they looked at historic houses with connectors and
presented photographs for the board to look at. Lisa asked for examples.
Cachi said they were historic houses and one house was Gall Hughes.
Gilbert said the floor plans show a wall being demolished along the back
wall and Cachi said that wall is where the 50's addition is. Gilbert asked if
they knew how much of the original wall existed? Cachi said they could
find that out.
Suzannah said the one story addition was tacked on.
Rally asked Amy what her position is on the proposal and Amy replied that
she felt that what is before the board presently is not addressing the
guidelines in a meaningful way. On the pictures a lot of the additions are
pulled to one side. Bringing it in one foot on both sides is not enough and
she is concerned about the back gables of the historic house.
Suzannah said the other part is that we have gotten into odd situations
continuing things and redesigning and redesigning for conceptual.
Amy said we have had numerous projects in the pact that we tried to fix and
it never worked out. If the concerns are serious we need to all get on the
same page or the board needs to say the standards are not being met.
Cachi said in the guidelines it says the jog can be done in a subtle way with
a jog in the wall plane or by using a trim board and that was what we had
done in the original scheme. We need clarification to know what way to go
forward with.
Gilbert said he sees a lot of bulk and strange components. In looking at the
plan what potential is there for reducing the program. The master bedroom
is 17 x 27 long and the room below it is the same size. Possibly the
orientation could be shifted to not have the impacts.
14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
APRIL 11~ 2001,
Cachi said originally the program the was smaller but we didn't have the
jog. The direction of the room did not come out with a gable end. They
used the trim board that was called out in the guidelines.
Suzannah opened the public hearing.
Chief Deputy Clerk swore in Stephen St. Clair. Stephen said he is the
owner of the house and is familiar with the residence. He read the
guidelines and they have attempted to make as many of the changes to be in
conformance. There are numerous historic houses with no changes to the
siding and windows. There are two story living spaces above garages.
When he bought the house the code said this is the mount of square
footage we can have. If it is a matter of changing the siding or windows he
would like the opportunity to do that as he doesn't want to start from square
one and he doesn't want to reapply to go through the same process. He said
his team has a made a good effort and though they had made the necessary
changes.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing.
Comments:
Jeffrey said he feels we are getting further away from the intent of the work
session. Originally he had a problem with the break of the historic form in
the first scheme because of the long continuation and possibly the situation
has worsened with this new proposal. He agrees with staffthat Sometimes
the six-inch jog is not always the best solution for the project especially
when it is on a comer lot. He feels the problems are a lot due to the roof
massing. The higher plates on the new addition for the master bedroom and
great room are starting to conflict with the historic resource. Jeffrey also
said he questions some of the internal programming of the upper floor
whether that could be reorganized to get a flatter roof. He is not sure if he
prefers the original garage or the proposal today. Possibly some of the
detailing of the fish scaling might start to confuse what is new and what is
old. He has no problem with the fenestration. There are some concerns
with the mass of the chimney. The two-story plate is giving a boxy read of
that elevation. He appreciates the landmark designation and restoration and
it is not necessary to start from scratch, there is something to work with
15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt
APRIL 11, 2001
here. Jeffrey stated that Amy did a very thorough memo. Possibly if the
internal reorganization could happen and reduce the square footage. We are
not here to judge how you mitigate your internal square footage because that
is at the liberty of the applicant but when it effects the massing on the
historic resource we need to discuss it.
Lisa has significant concerns about this plan and would not support moving
forward with it. In particular the two-story connection element that then
connects to even one larger two-story massing in the middle of the site is of
great concern. The addition has huge impacts on the historic house. In the
original proposal we talked about extending the gable and the two-story
element, which was fairly insignificant. The historic house has nice
detailing that is very unique to this house and it is not matched anywhere
else in the West End and it is overwhelmed by the detailing of the new
structure. The only two-story mass that she would support would be on the
garage site; more as an out building then has a two-story connector to
another two story addition. She does not support the bonus or proposal.
She would hate for the board to fix one thing and then fix something else
and go down that road and in the end we will be very unhappy.
Susan agreed with Lisa and the project has gotten bigger. She does not
support the two-story connector. Lately they have seen one-story
connectors that are more successful. She could support more on the garage.
The examples of the two story links shown were separated and not right in
line with the historic house. Six inches in is not enough. It is commendable
that you are not doing anything to the historic house. Built as proposed we
could not landmark because it would lose its historic importance. There
needs to be a one-story link with more of the new addition further away
from the historic house.
Gilbert said he agrees with landmark designation for the house, as it is a
wonderful and unique little building. As far as the current proposal goes it
is amazing to me how this has gone in the wrong direction from the original
sketch. There has been serious miscommunication. The current scheme
does have serious problems and the massing is one of the most serious, the
new roof is just too big. There has to be some way to reduce the mass and
bulk of what you are doing here. Numerous elements are incompatible with
the historic house, the various roof pitches do not enhance the house they
16
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
APRIL 11, 2001
detract from it. The way you have shown the siding treatment and the idea
of going back to some sort of wood siding makes sense, something that is
wider. Right now it is distracting, as Amy has said. The overall massing,
the proportions of the new gable that you are proposing with the master
bedroom up above docs not seem compatible with the existing house. It is a
whole different feel and it docs detract from thc house rather than enhance
it. The connection to the garage is problematic. While you have attempted
to have the garage be as independent and possibly look detached there is
still too much bulk, too much of a long building. The proportions of the
garage are odd. One previous drawing showed better proportions. Staff's
comments regarding the windows if you had more of a proportional
relationship it would be better than what is being proposed. The notion of
the garage facing Sixth Street is fine and makes the most sense. Examples
of other houses were show but they are not necessarily good examples. The
design guidelines have evolved due to changes and what wc have learned.
Gilbert is in a quandary as to whether we should go back to square one or
have thc applicant think more about this and come back with another
proposal.
Rally indicated the Gilbert and Susan "nailed" his design concerns. This is
one of the greatest Aspen homes left and it has prominence on two major
street fronts. The landscaping is intact and it has the yard. Rally completely
agreed with Staff's comments. It might be a good idea to come to another
work session and piece by piece work on this thing. We had an applicant
here tonight and the process worked out better for them in thc end. The
guidelines are only guidelines, they are not rules. Rally relayed that he
totally supports the landmark.
Suzannah said she also agrees with everything that has been said. When
they originally looked at the scheme the issues were pretty clear. They
talked about separating the addition and cutting the roof. What was good
about the first scheme was that it was modest and it didn't just fill up the
entire site. It is unfortunate that we have gotten away from that attitude
progressively over the last few meetings. The six-inch separation between
the two buildings can work but it has to be combined with other things that
are reinforcing that. A six-inch step all the way around is not doing it.
There needs to be a much smaller connector pierce even if it is connecting
17
'ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
APRIL 11~ 2001
to a larger mass that is set back on the site. She shares Gilbert's concerns
about the roof pitches and shapes that are being suggested here. The
connection to the garage makes the project look like it is rambling.
Suzaunah, whole-heartedly feels this house should be land marked. There
needs to be a significant separation between the two structures.
Mike Hoffman said they would be requesting that the landmark processing
be postponed until they get conceptual in the works with HPC. The
architect said he can integrate what has been said and they ask that this be
continued.
Amy stated that we have had three meetings and the issues have not been
clarified. The direction seems to be going in the way of another work
session but that didn't work before. There are still concerns about the
physical break between new and old. The connecting piece doesn't
necessarily have to be one piece but it needs to be a lot smaller than it is.
Rally and Susan felt that the connector should be one story.
Steven St. Clair said we have enough input to go back and give it another
shot. It seems between the guidelines and what we have heard and what we
see in the neighborhood doesn't jive. It is hard for me having neighbors that
have gone through the same approval who are getting different treatment;
all I expect is to be treated like everybody else going through the process. I
should not be imposed upon to do something completely different than
someone who had gone through the process last year. That is my only
concern. If we continue to go round and round and never quite get to what
everybody is looking for because it is not what is in the guidelines. A lot of
what we had done was taken right out of the guidelines verbatim. If
everybody could be a little patient with us and really help us to understand
where the concerns are so that we can come up with a plan that can be
approved I would really appreciate that.
Amy said we have a 30-year-old program and I can give you addresses
while you are in town and you can go and look at the houses and hopefully
you will be a little more clear:
18
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
APRIL 11, 2001
Steven St. Clair said he walked the neighborhood 200 times. What ! want to
do doesn't agree with the guidelines and my personal opinion which doesn't
carry any weight here and I understand that would be to, I am one of those if
we are going to go historical, ! would defy someone to come in and say that
same architect didn't design that house and it is perfect. That is the way !
would want to do it but that is not the rules we are playing with here. I am
more than happy to look at thc houses. I do want to meet the concerns of
everyone here and put together a good plan.
Rally said in the first proposal what he found objectionable is that he wants
to see an addition to the house that describes an architecture of its own time.
The house has been intact since the mm of the century and the architecture
should be different from the original house. The house needs to be marked
by something that indicates it is separate and new and cannot be confused
with the old house on anybody's interpretation.
Cachi said that is what we are saying with the proportions of the windows,
materials and all that aren't compatible with what is there. It seems
contradictory.
Rally explained that in one gable they have shingles and they are reusing the
same single in another location. There is no differentiation. In the eave you
have a Victorian style detail and that is not the direction. Cachi said they
just copied what was there. Suzannah said that is the point, w do not want
to see things copied.
Rally said the architecture needs to be distinct and individual of its time
2001.
MOTION: Rally moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual
development for 629 W. Smuggler to May 23fa,· second by Susan. Motion
carried 5-1.
Yes vote: Rally, Gilbert, Suzannah, Susan, Jeffrey
No vote: Lisa
Amy listed the house next to the Community Church, Julie Wyckoffplace
on Hallam, 123 W. Francis and 500 W. Bleeker.
19
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt
APRIL 11~ 2001
101 E. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK, PARTIAL
DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING
Motion: Rally moved to landmark 101 E. Hallam; second by Susan.
Motion carried 5-1.
Yes vote: Rally, Suzannah, Lisa, Susan, Jeffrey
No vote: Gilbert,
Amy stated that landmark criteria is separate from conceptual.
MOTION: Rally moved to continue Conceptual, Partial Demolition and the
Public Hearing at the request of the applicant until May 23, 2001; second
by Susan. All in favor, motion carried.
MOTION: Rally moved to adjourn; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
20