Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20021009ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 9, 2002 218 N. MONARCH STREET - MINOR REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING ............................................ 1 720 S. ASPEN STREET - REQUEST TO DE-LIST FROM THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURE - pUBLIc HEARING - (CONTINUE MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) PUBLIC HEARING TO DEC. 11, 2002 ...................................... 4 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 9~ 2002 Chairperson, Rally Dupps called the meeting t° Order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Vice-chair Jeffrey Hal£erty, Nell1 Hirst, Michael Hoffman and Teresa Melville. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland MOTION: Jeffrey moved to, approve the minutes of July 24, 2002; second by Neill. All in favor, moti°n carried. Disclosures: Neill will recuse himsel£on 218 N. Monarch St. 218 N. Monarch Street - Minor Review - Public Hearing Sworn in: Bert Myrin, Hal Dishler, Walt Madden Michael Hoffman disclosed that he was contacted to represent the owner but could not do so because of his representation on the commission. He also stated that he would not be influenced one way or another in this matter. The affidavit of posting was entered into the record as Exhibit II. Myrin handed out exhibits representing numerous fences throughout town from the 1980's to today. Older fence post tops were.screwed on and newer ones are welded. A company called Steward Iron redesigned wrought iron fences to make them stronger and not sag in the center. Myrin said the issues are the two posts. We are asking for a change of the posts. The approval post is Steward Iron Post # 16 and the replacement post would be Stewart Iron #5. Hal Dishler, attorney relayed that each choice would be acceptable in accordance tO guideline 1.2 and 1.3. This is a style decision and that should be left to the owner. Obviously, Bert spent a lot of time thinking of the style and what is appropriate and what would enhance his home. He doesn't feel the public will be misled by the ornamentation of the post. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES oF~ OCTOBER 9, 2002 Walt Madden said Bert has researched this and presented everything. Amy relayed that HPC reviewed this fence previously, At that time it came in as an exemption and staff concluded that it did not meet the criteria. A compromise position was concluded. Now we are in a minor review process to look at the original proposal. As of 2000 new guidelines have been adopted. None of the exhibits presented from the applicant have been approved since the new ordinance was adopted. The guidelines stated that we do not want to confuse the character of historic properties. We do not want to add conjectural features or make them look more Victorian and more decorative than they ever were. Particularly with fences it appears from the photographs that are available wrought iron fences were not used all that often. Wood fences were repeated throughout town, not wrought iron. Bert's presentation on the history of the manufacture of fences is not enough distinction that the average person walking by would understand the difference. They will perceive this as a Victorian era fence. The compromise from the last meeting was used in similar applications where the best thing to do is sirn~Plify the design and this is not being achieved by the proposal. Chairperson, Rally Dupps opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Michael relayed that the Secretary of Interior standards were not that helpful but there is direction in the code. Initially he felt that the' diagram was too ornate and did not meet guideline 1.3. After the presentation of the pictures a number of the older fences prove that wrought iron fences can be less ornate. Michael felt that the meeting should be continued in order for the applicant to provide a diagram of what the fence would really look like. Jeffrey relayed that the posts are very distracting and would confuse the neighborhood and some of the historic resources on that part of the half house that are historic. 2 ASPEN mSTOmC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 9, 2002 Teresa relayed to the applicant that the research was commendable. She found that the Interior standards were very helpful. They state that each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, shall not be undertaken. This is one of those changes. Guideline 1.2 and 1.3 point toward a more simplified style. Guidelines 1.4 also says new fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. Rally said the proposed fence #5 seems like a conjectural interpretation and inappropriate in the neighborhood, Rally also pointed out that fencing is not the "building" and it is small and can be removed. He felt that the transparency has been achieved. His issue is with guideline 1.2 which says a wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire metal fence similar to traditional wrought iron also maybe considered. Hal Dishler said it might be hard to visualize what this will look like as far as transparency. The black and white drawings present a somewhat different in appearance than the gray tone picture. One post is coming already and possibly a demonstration could be set up to be reviewed before the decision is made. Teresa said that would not change her decision; #5 is too ornate for that house and neighborhood. Jeffrey said he would like to see the mockup but it wouldn't affect his decision. Michael supports the suggestion and Rally dittoed Teresa and Jeffrey. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve Resolution #36, 2002; second by Teresa. All in favor, motion carried. 4~0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Teresa, Michael, Rally For clarification the resolution is denying the post. The applicant has approval for the fence with a simple post and ball on top. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 9, 2002 David Hoefer, assistant city attorney informed the applicant that the appeal would be with City Cotmcil under the new ordinance and needs to be filed within 14 days. 720 S. Aspen Street - Request to De-list from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structure - Public Hearing - (Continue Major Development (Conceptual) Public Hearing to Dec. 11, 2002 Neill was seated. David Hoefer went over the scoring system. Sworn in: Jack Simmons, Jasmine dePagter, Lisa Purdy, consultant, Hal Dishler, attorney Amy relayed that the process starts out with any property in the 40-year age range goes through an analysis about what it is associated with. The property is clearly associated with the discussion presented in the context paper about the development of early lodges and why the chalet style was used in many instances. The dePagter's are significant in the lodging industry. Jack dePagter is in the Aspen Ski Hall of Fame and founder of Winterskol. This property is an example of the chalet style. The discussion tonight is about the integrity topic, which is the second major component of the HPC's decision. Amy went over the sequence of construction on the property. Initially there was a lodge on the property that was housed in a Victorian building and has since been moved off the site and down by Castle Creek. By 1956 the one section that is furthest uphill on the house was constructed and in 1963 the addition that comes down the hill as built. Amy went over the scoring sheet and background reasoning for that particular score. The recommendation is to retain the building on the historic inventory. The threshold is 75 points out of 100 and the score was 79 points. Lisa Purdy, preservation consultant. Lisa stated that she has been in the preservation field for 30 years. What is tough about the Holland house today is that when you look at it, it looks like something that is worthy of being preserved. It is the chalet style. With the research that we have done there is not much left to preserve. The original Holland House is gone. That was the building from the 1880's and it was the place where Jack 4 ASPEN HISTOR/C PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 9~ 2002 dePagter started the Holland House for 13 years. It was an 1880's miners cottage. The second house was built but the primary faqade where the warn~ing hut was, two entrances and the railing were removed. The only thing remaining are some upper windows and the roofline. Out of the two balconies one is gone and the other changed substantially. Some of the stylistic details were added in the late 80's and 90's. The solarium and fake stone foundation was added at a later date. The third building was constructed and attached and that violates Aspen's standards as well as the National register standards. Regarding the standards an addition should be subordinate both in size and preserve the spatial relationship that was on the historic site to begin with. This addition more than doubles the original house. When the addition was put on it was not put on in the chalet style. The building started out as a Frank Lloyd Wright prairie style building. Jack Walls did the addition and he is a modernist. The addition changed the historic relationships of the buildings. Another violation was when the original building was removed from the site. Shutters and windows were replaced, added or changed. Lisa explained the photographs that were in the packet to substantiate her position. The flagstone patio has been changed several times and shutters and doors were added and replaced. The cut outs on the railing were added at a later date. Jack Simmons added that the supports under the extension of the roof were put on and the cut outs added with a chalet ornamentation. Lisa said when the addition was originally put on it was a Frank Lloyd Wright style not a chalet style. Jack Walls confirmed that style with the o,vners. Lisa said one of the disagreements is with "context", what does that mean? The reason the Holland house was there was because it was directly on the ski slope. That is the most context issue that exists. The main action of skiing has been moved away and you have to go up and into the parking lot to get onto the lift. The plans for the addition were drawn up in 1963 but construction occurred at a later date. Lisa said she scored at 46 due to all of the changes. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC p~SERvATiON COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 9, 2002 Jasmine said the balcony was replaced three times. When she read the score sheet she was under the assumption that original meant original. Lisa's final comment was that the Holland house today is a definition of confusion. Chairperson, Rally Dupps opened the public hearing. Sworn in: Ralph Melville, owner of the Mountain Chalet relayed that his wife had her first job at the Holland House. That house is now located under the Castle Creek bridge. There have been many changes to the outside of the Holland house and the appearance is different than the original building. The dePagter's desire to make changes that the guests can enjoy. It is a business not just a home. Michael asked how mass and scale is tied to the scoring. Amy said by the form criteria which ask if it has been changed, and if so how. Also looking at the evolution of the building over time. Lisa also said the city's guidelines references what is appropriate and not appropriate. Lisa also stated that she disagrees with the report from Debbie Abele. Amy informed the board that if the house is removed from the inventory by council they have an entirely different process to go through. Amy said this scoring and hearing came about because no one was comfortable that the dePagter's hadn't participated in 1995 scoring and we now have better criteria. Commissioner comments: Teresa relayed that it breaks her heart to hear the applicant say that there is not much left to preserve of the Holland house. The house has changed and has been remodeled. The fact that Jasmine's family has stuck with this site and this building, and has poured their lives into it and have made it an incredible part of the community is very significant. If it weren't important to them, it would have been easy to pick up and get another piece of property or find a Holland house somewhere else. They chose to make their 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 9, 2002 lives there and build onto that little piece and build on again. In Sarah Oates draft paper she writes: Modern Aspen is a study of architectural contrast changing from Swiss Baroque to contemporary American. That says "Aspen", you start small and build what you can afford then you concentrate on your business and then add on when you needto in order to make it a wonderful place. Teresa said she supports everything that has been said and would want the house to remain on the list. Neill Hirst: This is the finest most cooperative and comprehensive and enlightening efforts so far made under our new ordinance. Thanks to all involved especially the owners of the Holland house. It is also one of the finest Community Development department presentations and analysis that I ever heard. Further, I believe the Ho/land house meets the ordinance criteria B, Section II a,b,c. I agree with the level of Scoring of the Community Development as a whole and all were within a four-point range. In addition I think personally 75 is a high severe test as it is, perhaps too high but the Ho/land house still made in a11 of those peoples opinions as well as Sarah Oates who have it a generous 92. ! also agree with the X's on the other evaluation sheets. By all of those criteria it passes. We are also in the process as a measure of our good faith reviewing a number of miner's houses to see whether or not they should continue to be listed or not. It is my persona/opinion that these scores on which we have spent a number of hours is just one layer of a larger decision making process. The background paper on Aspen's architecture chalet style buildings that Sarah Oates ~vrote has been most helpful. Partly, with that paper in mind I would like to conclude by reviewing several points in Lisa Purdy's letter that have a number ofphilosophicai points that are important as to how we are going to go on in evaluating 20th century properties. The original dePagter house in our review is not an issue here and should not influence our decision regarding the present Holland house. The replacement lodge either two, or three was kept on the same site by the family, so that the siting maintained is important because it was chosen at least twice if not more times. It helped to verify the important point that there is a maintained valid context for the present Holland house. The original Ski Lift IA machinery Still exists right next to the present Holland house. Amy tells me this is on the National Register of Historic Places. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 9, 20,0.2 This in my opinion, again reinforces that the context has been importantly maintained and additionally augmented by the fact that the original ski runs are within easy sight of a lot of the Holland house and the lodge is still on an active ski lift base road servicing those very runs. The historical context is still very clearly relevant and vital. Almost the entire second half of Lisa Purdy's letter revolves around two issues: The chalet style in American and the Holland house as a chalet style in America. With all due respect, a very great and profound respect, I believe Ms. Purdy has a very basic misunderstanding of the style, especially as it relates to Aspen and the Holland house, and on this misunderstanding tums her misinterpretation of the Holland house as historic importance to Aspen. Chalet style and Aspen chalet style is not a recreation of homes from Switzerland. It is not and never was meant to be an authentic descendent of traditional family living or of any vogue style of anywhere: There can be no sacredness or demand for justification of the chalet style building in Aspen on that basis. Contrary to Ms. Purdy's argument the precise reason for the existence of any chalet style at all was, to quote her "a good marketing gimmick" to persuade skiers to stay in the United States instead of going to Europe to ski. Averell Harriman ultimately asked a Hollywood art director to design the Tyrolean facades in Sun Valley and a Disney employee artist created the decorative motifs for the Highlands Bavarian lodge, right here in this valley. Therefore, especially for Aspen the style, if you will, was generated by Walt Disney Stud/os. The style was a marketing too, an important tool now worth recognizing one of the very basis for Aspen's early success and worth preserving examples of. A marketing tool needs to be continually evolving to meet the demands of an evolving clientele and economy and in order to ensure continued commercial success. The fact that this process of Aspen's evolution and the basic original structure in my opinion are both clearly evident in the present Holland house. It reinforces the presence of preserving the Holland house even as it evolves further. As Teresa brought out, Sarah writes that the characteristics of the chalet style whose origins in Europe date from the late 1700's are moderately shallow roof pitches, horizontal design elements etc. What could be more natural, to follow our design guidelines of adding onto an historic resource with a modem emphasis so as to not confuse the two. In keeping the Holland house designated we will not be, Lisa's quotes, "fooling the public about what is generally historic from that which is imitating or evolving into a style for marketing purposes". The imitation of evolution, the marketing purpose 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISsIoN MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 9, ~002 "are" the history, Aspen's 20th century history that we want to and should preserve. The resolutions of these types of issues are going to be the future parameters for making later 20th century preservation decisions. These parameters may well have little to do with how we are accustomed to thinking about miner's cottages or the already traditional preservation theories. We must recognize that the National Register itself has put out bulletins on the difficulty with Twentieth century architecture and does not have firm guidelines therefore, and our guidelines to which we have all referred to repeatedly do not apply specifically to 1960 structures they are 1890's and we are in the process of revising these. We don't have many Holland houses left in Aspen. We need to preserve it as history as evolving history because that is the type of culture that gave rise to it in the first place. ! would like to maintain designation and by maintaining this it will help us monitor the further changes made to those valuable Aspen historical resources and help us at the same time to develop fair guidelines for these and more modem properties, guidelines that we do not yet truly have. Michael Hoffman: He supports what Jasmine and Jack are trying to do and that is preserve small lodges. Making the business economically viable is critically important to our community. The entire debate to me seems to be based on an incorrect premise. That premise, to be preserved, the structures here must be proved to be of chalet style. I do not think our ordinance says that. No one is contesting whether the Holland house is an example of an "event, pattern or trend that has made it a significant contribution to Aspen". No one is contesting whether Jack and Anneke dePagter made a specific contribution to Aspen. The only remaining issue is whether the building has enough integrity to warrant continued listing on the historic inventory. What are we measuring when we need to measure integrity, trend or a pattern? That has not been answered in my view. It is kind ora national question that the preservation community as a whole is struggling with. It is a fundamental question that needs better understanding. The mistake, in my view, is to look for a thread or architectural consistency in many renovations made over the years. To me, all the arguments that had been made by Lisa and even by Amy supports the historic designation. The trend which was so important to Aspen history which merits a continued listing of this property on the inventory is the arrival in Aspen of small independent innkeepers at the dawn of the ski industry here and their continued struggle to survive over the years. This is an important resource 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 9, 2002 to the City and in my view it must be retained on the inventory. Attempting to remove the property from the inventory in my view is the wrong approach. The right approach is to find a way to work cooperatively to preserve the Holland house. Jeffrey stated he appreciates everything that Jasmine and Jack have researched and they have been here through the whole evolution. He thanked them for their community interest and in assisting in the evaluation and critiquing the inventory process. He fully supports the small lodge industry in this town and will do everything in his power to enable exactions, variances and help wherever possible. He was overwhelmed by reading the history. He is in agreement that the building has evolved and changed but the context and history of that site is very important and has been maintained over the years. This has been an extremely well thought out process. The point system was used as an additional tool. Excellent points were made by all of the parties involved. Jeffrey could not support the de-listing. Rally said this is the first de-listing and it is a Post World War II property and for many other reasons he could not support de-listing. Through the site visits made and the presentations tonight he wrote down pros and cons. Pros: This building is integral in the history of this town as far as Ski development and the process of a small lodge becoming a little bigger lodge as the needs grow. The detailing of the tulips is a direct testament to the owner and his origin, bringing European influences here. As far as site context you still have the Skier Chalet, Lift I A and the use of the ski hill. That entire corridor is still intact and has not changed significantly. The form for building two is still there. The projections of the south faCade can still be read. The very fact that we have a mixture of styles is also a testament to the history of Aspen. Building three is a sensitive addition to building two. Cons: The original house is gone. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC ,pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 9, 2002 The addition is not in a chalet style, more ora prairie style and has had decorative elements added. The character defining facade was the one that faced north and that is pretty much entirely destroyed. There is a new entry to the building and a constant replacement. Sometimes that adds conjectural features that were not original to the building. Historical materials have been changed on most facades. Lastly, this is a business, a family business which is very important and that is one of the largest reasons why I could consider this being de-listed. Lisa Purdy said the reason she talked about the chalet style is because that is how it was documented as being significant. The fundamental question is if it is new it should look new. It doesn't look new it looks old and that is why it is confusing to the Public. It was nominated as an exemplary chalet style. The first building wasn't in a chalet style and the second one might be but it is mostly lost and the third building wasn't built in a chalet style. Hal Dishler said the first question asked by Michael was what does integrity mean and the idea under the ordinance was it meant physical integrity followed by other factors. That is the real question. The question to some degree is that there are a lot of elements that have importance but do all those things add up to say that the integrity as a structure, merit preservation as a structure, not as a fact that a family lived there. Does it merit preservation as a whole because the integrity as a whole supports that? That is really subject to some question. Adding to the house is not an act of preservation it is an act of economic sensibility. Jasmine thanked the commissioners and stated that they love and enjoy the Holland house also. The point is, does the building qualify and does it merit? Is the criteria there with the materials and with the outside and with the way the house looks to be designated historic? Whether they own it or whether someone else owns it and what ever it is on the inside is not really relevant. She stated she is confused about that and upset. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, OCTOBER 9, 2002 MOTION: Michael moved that the H?C approve Resolution #37, 2002 that supports staff's recommendation to retain 720 S. Aspen Street, the Holland house on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and to continue conceptual and the public hearing to Dec. !1, 2002; second by Neill. Yes vote: M~chael, Neill, Teresa, Jeffrey No vote: Rally. Motion carried 4-1. MOTION: Rally moved to adjourn the meeting, second by Neill. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p:m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk