HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940913~istori¢ Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
323
930 KING STREET - PARTIAL DEMOLITION ..... 3
MAIN STREET - ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT
610 W. HALLAM STREET - IGLEHART - LANDMARK DESIGNATION 12
ROUND II - INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITE & STRUCTURES 12
COMMUN I CAT IONS .......... 18
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
Minutes of September 13, 1994
Meeting was called to order by chairman Joe Krabacher with
Donnelley Erdman, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen and Tom
Williams present. Excused were Les Holst and Linda Smisek.
MOTION: Martha made the motion to approve the minutes of July 13th
as amended; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries.
COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS
Joe: I thought we were clear from our last meeting that we can
only review applications based upon standards that are in the code
not the Neighborhood Character Guidelines that have not been
adopted by City Council.
Jake: HPC adopted the guidelines two meetings ago and they are an
attempt to be more specific about individual areas.
Amy: City Council adopted the guidelines through the temporary
overlay process Ordinance 35, 1994. The guidelines were attached.
The issue is that they were not adopted as HPC standards for
review.
David Bellack, Assistant City Attorney: I think it would be
perfectly permissible for HPC to recommend to Council that the
Guidelines be adopted in the code as a criteria for partial
demolition or relocation or any other HPC approval.
Joe: City Council needs to adopt the guidelines formally.
David Bellack: HPC has the authority to adopt procedures for its
proceedings which would be on the order of bylaws or rules of
order. There is a section on partial demolition and relocation in
the code which is what I am focusing on only because that was the
context of the No Problem Joe property. The aim or target of that
section of the code is to address whether the structure can be
moved without damaging it or can you partially demolish it without
rendering it of no historical significance. I think that has to
be the primary criteria for evaluating it. I think it is putting
the cart before the horse to say it is ok to partially demolish
this structure and we don't have a problem with that from an
historic perspective under the criteria but never-the-less we are
going to not grant you a permit to do that because we want to apply
the neighborhood character guidelines to some structure that is
going to be on the parcel. It could be possible to do that but
there isn't anything in the code as it is written now that gives
an uninformed reader a notice that that is the criteria that is
going to be used to evaluate the project in our opinion.
Roger: What about the impact of the new structure on the historic
structure.
~{istoric Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
David Bellack: The code says that the applicant has mitigated to
the greatest extent possible impacts on the historic structure.
Joe: I do not want to talk about any particular application as my
only point was we need to make sure we have principle decisions in
order to have our decisions upheld and we need to make our
decisions based upon the standards that are in the code at this
stage and not on the Neighborhood Character Guidelines which at
this point are advisory, voluntary or whatever you want to call
them. Correct me if that is an incorrect statement.
David Bellack: I think that is right.
Joe: I would caution everyone to rely on what the code says rather
than go into the character guidelines.
Jake: We need to clean this up and the No Problem Joe project
isn't the only project being batted around in this way.
Joe: We need City Council to formally adopt our Neighborhood
Character Guidelines.
Jake: I would be willing to make a motion to that effect.
MOTION: Jake made the motion to add a new business item to the
agenda; the possible motion to city council to adopt the
Neighborhood Character Guidelines; second by Roger. All in favor,
motion carries.
David Bellack: One of the powers of HPC is to request the enaction
of ordinances by City Council and one could be to add neighborhood
character guidelines to the criteria to be used by HPC for whatever
purposes you see fit.
Jake: There is great confusion regarding partial demolition and
the application of the guidelines. There are two issues that came
together in this one particular project. If the information isn't
together enough should we table all projects in this area until the
rules are straightened out?
Joe: Personally, I do not feel we should say someone has to put
their application on hold until we have our act together. We have
to review applications with standards that we have right now. You
will have to reason through it with the standards that we have now.
Jake: The acting planning director has a different view entirely.
Amy: Aspen Design Symposium which is the workshop that has come
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
out of the temporary overlay will be held Oct 6th and 7th.
930 KING STREET - PARTIAL DEMOLITION
David Gibson, architect: We would like to address some of the
concerns and conditions that were raised at the last meeting for
the 930 King Street application. I would like to present revised
materials in the context of the six conditions that you gave us to
go home and work on. The first condition was the driveway. We had
a driveway that circulated in front of the historic structure and
you can see it on the site plan. The historic structure could move
back to the existing setback which would be 15 feet. Rather than
driving in front of it we zoned the private auto circulation to the
east and we have a drop off off the street directly to the south.
The historic structure is unimpacted from auto parking and auto
circulation. That was the first condition. The second condition
was to develop some treatment for the historic building and we have
that in the notes. We basically set up six categories. As far as
siding what we can rehabilitate we will and what we can't we will
match with the same size profile and type of siding so that it all
fits together when finished. For doors and windows we are
committing to the type, size and details of existing doors and
windows for our new doors and windows. For the trim we are
agreeing to do the same size type and profile or to reuse the
existing where feasible[ The fourth category of materials on the
historic building is the fascia and corner boards and again we will
match existing as far as size, type and detail or we will
rehabilitate the old. And finally on the roof the plastic and
metal has been removed and to be re-shingled with wood shingles
probably six or seven inches to where it was before. Finally we
are restoring the chimney and re-pointing it and getting stone to
match it. Those are the steps that we will use to restore it.
David Gibson: I will go to the elevations: One of the discussions
was the linkage between the existing building and the historic
building and what we have done was add a porch. So now it is a
negative space instead of a positive form so it is more of a
recessive element. It is about 25 ft. behind the house. It is
recessive both in plan dimension and a physical character. Another
condition that was brought up was tc restudy some of the dormers
on the front of the house. We have changed the proportion of the
central dormer that was very vertical and now it is more square in
proportion. We lowered it and fattened it up. Although it was
not one of the conditions as far as the height of the house we took
that too effect a lot of the underlying concerns that we heard so
we reduced the house by two feet and this was accomplished by
putting a ten and twelve pitch on the main roof so that brought all
the roofs down by two feet. It also brought this dormer down by
3
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
two feet and the chimney as well. The whole house settled by a two
foot dimension. Another condition was the verticality of the west
side. We had some trim boards that went the entire two story and
we have restudied that to where we just trimmed around the windows
and did the corner boards. There is a lot more balance between
horizontal and vertical now where before the vertical was
predominant. You now have nice horizontal lines and vertical
lines. We opened up the porch as a gesture to the street so that
it opens to the lawn. You can see that also on the site plan. We
added a buffer along the street which is lower than three feet.
It is a dense hedge below three feet interspersed with aspen and
spruce trees. So that again tends to soften the elevation of the
house. We didn't draw any trees. In the final condition it was
recommended to study the building and do a massing model.
Mac Cunningham: We also put porches on the north elevation.
David Gibson: The north porches show up here and on the roof plane
there are lots of sheds. We were pleased as to how the planes were
broken up by the roof architecture. This is eighth scale and the
approximate location of King Street is on the plan and Neal Street.
You see the historic structure, the new structure, the connecting
link, the garage and the smoke house and outhouse. That summarizes
the revisions that we made.
Jake: What is going on here.
David Gibson: It is not glass and will be a different texture.
Mac Cunningham: It will be a wood material.
Roger: In an effort to separate the historic cottage from the new
addition how do you intend to do that? Do you think the addition
of the porch, the link makes the historic cottage appear to be part
of what was added on or if you took the porch off it would make the
historic cottage stand out more as to what it is.
Mac Cunningham: It is best shown on the model.
David Gibson: They overlap about six feet. We wanted to
minimumize the actual physical connection but then we felt it was
a negative recessive form, this deep porch and the historic house
is a salt box form which speaks its own language.
Roger: How would you show it when the two buildings are finished
either by materials, color or whatever.
David Gibson: We were thinking of using similar materials on both
and we are not at this point trying to make them starkly different.
~Iistoric Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
Mac Cunningham: The miners cottage speaks its own language when
you look at it in terms of sitting on the site and the fact that
it doesn't have other porches associated with it. Because it sits
out in front of the rest on the property unlike other houses that
have the mass of the larger structure enveloping the little house,
this is really distinct except for the one little linkage. The
porch issue was raised at the last go around and that is why we
went back to that look to try and emphasize the difference between
the two.
David Gibson: I can give you one specific answer to that and the
old roof is made out of 2 x 4's and so the eave is going to be four
inches thick where all new construction will be ten or twelve
inches thick. Any historian will be able to see the difference.
Roger: Does the historic building have a foundation.
Mac Cunningham: The plan is not to expose it, to give it the basic
look that it has today and historically it sat on rubble.
David Gibson:
below.
We will have the mandatory six inches of concrete
Roger: The windows of the historic building are they double hung?
David Gibson: They are double hung and the ropes are all broken
etc. They are in sad shape. We can have them fabricated in the
exact size and profile except that they will have double glazing
and will not have the ropes in the wall. One of the windows has
the heads falling off of it. I just think it is not a good
investment of our efforts to do that. The proportions are
wonderful and we would definitely replicate the proportions and
detail of the window and keep the cornice trim. I would really
make a case for building new windows.
Donnelley: I wasn't here ten days ago when you first reviewed this
so I will give my opinion even though this is basically advisory.
Dave, you say that the detailing of the gable ends and the eaves
etc. is going to be different in the new construction. I hope it
is significantly different as in the drawings we have reduced scale
and it doesn't indicate that much of a difference. I was curious
about that. Also my first reaction is that you have taken the easy
path because the new structure really does overwhelm the historic
resource and we know it is going to be larger but when it has a lot
of the same characteristics it becomes very hard to differentiate
as you drive by. As drawn we see porch railings that look similar
and we see windows that could be very similar and we see lap
siding. I just think it is sad that here is a great opportunity
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
and you have a small historic resource which could be quite
different and taken a totally different roll in terms of all the
building fabric had all the rest of the building been a different
nature. I just don't think the nature is different enough and the
link is a very active one with petite dormers and it is really a
single story space with the dormers lighting up a portion of the
ceiling area. It becomes a very active and aggressive attention
grabbing element in which we, the board tries to make the link
quieter.
David Gibson: We did conceive this link as transparent with
windows and the french doors opened up the back. It is 50%
transparent or more.
Mac Cunningham: The purpose was to create a transparency through
to separate the structures. The issues that HPC brought up the
last time lead us to put the porch on because everyone said the
difference between the two structures was too severe and we only
responded to what we were told to do the last time.
Roger: I asked that the link be softened and more or less made to
go away. Really the only thing we can talk about is the link
because that directly effects the historic house. I would prefer
to see the link almost a greenhouse design so that it were in fact
nearly transparent. Whatever happens to the garage or house
happens.
Mac Cunningham: The prior drawing had a transparent front.
Donnelley: We are also talking stylistically.
Roger: I feel you were very close in your original drawing.
Possibly bring the glass all the way down to truly differentiate
the two.
Joe: Any other comments.
Jake: I would like to echo Donnelley's comments. One of the
things that bothers me is that this connection at' the corner
disturbs me a lot. I also want to echo Rogers concerns about the
transparency. The problem with the porch being put on it moves the
front plane of this addition forward four or five feet. I would
rather see the historical structure totally detached. When you
link everything together the historic structure is washed out here
and there is no honoring it. You have done some positive things
from last time. I am only looking at this little piece. The ridge
is higher than the historical resource and diminishes the value of
the historical cottage. Maybe elevate the cottage a couple of feet
to give it some prominence or statement.
~istoric Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
David Gibson: Would you prefer the porch to go away.
Roger: I think so.
Mac Cunningham: The purpose of the upper windows is to get light
into it. That was a big portion of the thinking in that area.
The other issue following mass and scale design guidelines quoting
"buildings down in scale as they approach adjacent smaller
structures", and that is exactly what we did. We followed the
guidelines to the word. If you remember we had that lower and
there were comments about it.
Jim Perry, architect: We can bring it down.
Mac Cunningham: By taking the porch out which was our original
intent we can bring it down again. We can lower the level of the
roof to put the scale in. The concern we had was over the issue
of creating an element that wasn't historical to it and we could
do some kind of stone veneer approach which was traditional in a
lot of victorian houses unless you have another suggestion to that.
Roger: Will the roof material on the link be the same as the
historic structure or different.
David Gibson: We were thinking wood shingles for the whole
complex.
Mac Cunningham: We cannot do a greenhouse roof as it is totally
impractical. I do not want to take the glass over the top. People
would be saying that it looked awful. It is also energy
inefficient and we couldn't get it through the building department.
Jake: How wide is it?
David Gibson: Nine feet.
Jake: With all the windows on both sides there is no reason to
have dormers.
Mac Cunningham: We were trying to get the plate down into it so
that visually you had the light coming from the inside as well as
looking through it. My experience is that it takes the box out of
the box and you get light from the top of it.
Roger: Suppose you remove the dormers on the south side and put
a dormer on the north side.
Mac Cunningham: We discussed that.
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
Donnelley: There is a total misunderstanding here and all this
dialogue means nothing. The idea is the link is not supposed to
attract attention more than the historic resource and right now it
attracts everybody's attention. It should be a quiet transparent
element. Having dormers makes it much busier. We are also having
a problem with the definition of changes of scale. The link and
the new structure are of a new scale and a larger scale than the
historic resource. The scale of the elements of the link and the
finer scale elements of the historic resource. Dave would agree
that the new house has a different scale. The elements are heavier
and of a different bigger scale. To make the excuse of the
stepping down in scale is incorrect.
David Gibson: It sounds like a flat roof would be more amenable.
Mac Cunningham: We aren't prepared to do a flat roof. There are
too many fundamental problems with doing a flat roof in this
environment, constant leak problems and will look awful
architecturally.
Roger: Would it be possible to lower the height of the roof on the
link 1/2 foot?
David Gibson: Actually they line up. We could change the pitch.
Mac Cunningham: The original was three feet lower and we were just
responding to what the committee said the last time. We would be
happy to go back to the other way as that was our original intent.
Make it more transparent, take the porch out and lower the pitching
and lower the roof. Allow the historic structure to stand out.
It is preferable to raise the historic structure one foot or more.
Jake: The major entry is into that link.
Joe: I like the changes that the applicant has made and it has
addressed our concerns. I would like to see the porch eliminated
and bring down the breezeway and taking the historic house up.
Make the connect simple and quiet.
Mac Cunningham: I think the dormers on the north side are
appropriate.
Joe: My comment was directed to the south side dormers.
Jake: Let me make one more comment on the dormers. On the one
hand they add complexity to the link and on the other hand if you
take the dormers off you have this long horizontal roof surface.
Which is worse!
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
Martha: How long is the link?
Jim Perry, architect: 29 feet all the way to where it attaches to
the historic house.
Mac Cunningham: One of the things we were trying to do which is
in the neighborhood character guidelines is to create linkage
between the two structures. We cannot legally separate the
structures per code. The issue going on is trying to create the
transparency. I would like to see the statement of entry here
because it is appropriate, it separates the two structures and
creates a common linkage between the two. The entry to the house
is appropriate. If the concern is over the dormers, the little
window dormers we can certainly eliminate them. I would like to
maintain the entry element especially with the living space
function of the units. With elevations they don't show the amount
of transparency that was evident to us when we first started
working on this. It doesn't show the garden area in the back.
David Gibson: The two ideas of taking off the porch and dropping
the roof will work.
Roger: By removing the dormer over the entry link it would soften
the link.
David Gibson: If we did that it would be way too horizontal
especially without the porch. There is a question of internal
function.
Donnelley: I would like to make a motion.
Jake: I am going to make a suggestion. The drawings are more
accurate than the.model. I think what might be helpful here if you
terminate the porch here and at that point drop the whole line to
a lower roof and with new technology you can do a flat roof. The
point that I am trying to make is when you have a big form then
drop down.
Mac Cunningham: That is what we originally proposed, three feet
lower the whole way across.
Joe: Why not do that?
Jake: I am only talking about the linkage to the historical
cottage. What I am getting at is taking the lower roof and maybe
the top of it has to be flat in order to make the whole thing work.
David Gibson: Cut off the end of it.
}tistoric Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
Jim Perry, architect: That one roof Jake is pointing at is not on
any pitch. It is irrelevant 'because we actually dropped the pitch
in order to make it work.
Mac Cunningham: Before we were three feet lower and everything
worked in plane which is what is articulated here.
Jake: That is not what I want.
Mac Cunningham: I understand what you are saying but it is an
awkward detail to try and drop a roof three feet across it span.
Jake: I am trying to break down the lines.
MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that the approval for partial
demolition of 930 King Street be revised to reflect the following
conditions:
1. The ridge line of the roof of the link be lowered and if
possible be changed as it approaches the historic element
so as to further emphasize the break between new
construction and old.
2. The porch or the majority of the porch attach to the link
be eliminated.
3. The dormers be eliminated on the link.
4. The cottage be raised if possible to further increase
its importance and to further increase the vertical
distance between the roof of the link and the roof of the
cottage.
5. The roof color of the shingles of the link and the new
construction if possible be differentiated from that of
the wood shingles of the historic resource and the same
goes for the color of the siding i.e. if a semi-
transparent stain is used on the siding throughout that
perhaps a different color of semi-transparent stain be
used for the historic resource.
Jake.
Second by
Questions:
Joe: Do you want them to eliminate the dormer over the french door
entry.
Donnelley: I will clarify that, remove the upper dormers on the
south elevation only.
AMENDED MOTION: Donnelley amended his motion to state that the
dormers to be removed are on the south elevation. Jake amended his
second.
10
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
Amy: We need discussion on materials, what distinguished the old
from the new. If the windows that exist have the original glass
I feel they should be preserved. If they are thick enough to rout
out and put a double pane in and keep the original sash they should
be kept. It is very important that you save the original materials
that you can and just not replace.
AMENDED MOTION: Donnelley amended the motion that the applicant
has already stated that all siding that can be saved and reused
will be done so and if the glazing for the double hung windows in
the historic resource can be saved and added to to produce an
insulated window that should be done. Jake amended his second.
DISCUSSION:
Jake: What is the interior height right here.
Jim Perry: Nine foot plate with a 12 12 pitch on a 9 foot
breezeway. It is 12 1/2 feet to the peak.
Jake: I think a roof at this level is good and I would like to
quantify it not to exceed 12 or 12 1/2 feet.
Donnelley: Why don't we give a quantitive figure between the ridge
heights.
David Gibson: The historic house is six feet above grade.
a three foot differential.
It is
Mac Cunningham: We can live with a three foot differential.
AMENDED MOTION: Donnelley amended his motion that the difference
in height between the ridges of the link and the cottage be at
least 36 inches and also that the south elevation of the link in
as much is possible not contain any horizontal siding i.e. glazing.
Jake amended his second.
Tom: I am disturbed about this very complicated design and we are
complicating it further by changing materials of the roof on the
historical cottage. I cannot support the motion, not even the
color. I would prefer they be the same. Anything to simplify this
building would be a plus in my opinion.
Martha: I have to reaffirm that I would prefer the historic
building stand alone and not have the connect even though it is not
possible to do.
Chairman Joe Krabacher called the question, carried 4 to 2.
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
Opposed - Martha and Tom
In favor - Joe, Jake, Don, Roger
Les and Donnelley offered to be the monitors.
323 W. MAIN STREET - ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT
Amy: This is an existing non-historic building in the Main Street
Historic District. They are proposing a new window on the west
side and build an exterior staircase on the east side of the
building. We did have some discussions a few months ago about
requiring that new construction always incorporate fire exits and
things like that into their original design but this is an existing
building and I am recommending approval as submitted.
MOTION: Roger made
submitted for 323 W.
Tom. Ail in favor,
the motion that HPC approve the application
Main Street, Aspen Medical Center; second by
motion carries.
Tom will be monitor.
610 W. MALLAM STREET - IGLEHART - LANDMARK DESIGNATION
Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. Public hearing
closed.
MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC recommend landmark
designation of lots P and Q less 7.5' of Lot P, Block 22, City and
Townsite of Aspen finding that standards B (architectural
importance), E (neighborhood character) and F (community character)
are met; second by Tom. All in favor, motion carries.
ROUND II - INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITE & STRUCTURES
Amy: Every five years the HPC is required to re-evaluate our
inventory of historic sites and structures. The process was done
in 1991 and consultants were hired and they did a survey of the
entire town, photographed ad documented and made recommendations
to either add additional resources or delete ones that are on the
list now. The inventory has been in place since 1980 and reviewed
in 1986 and 1991. At the last hearing their were errors in the
public notices and the entire project could not be finished before
Roxanne Eflin left. I am ready to finish it. Before us tonight
we have approximately 30 resources. I am recommending approval
except for those under evaluation that need to be discussed.
12
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
824 E. Hyman
327 W. Hallam
305 W. Hallam
205 W. Bleeker
860 Gibson
990 E. Hyman
1020 E. HI;man
831 W. Bleeker
801 E. Hyman
390 Spring
610 W. Francis
Additionally 230 N. Spring, 101 E. Hopkins and 1031 E. Durant are
recommended to be deleted.
I am recommending removal of 225 W. Smuggler and 401 North. We did
do site visits today.
With the resources on the inventory HPC has review over demolition,
partial demolition or relocation of the structure.
Donnelley: Three members of the committee and staff visited all
of the resources that were recommended by staff to be removed from
the inventory.
Jean Doremus represented 305 W. Hallam:
house.
It is not the original
Amy: It is an historic structure and was moved to that site from
a lot in the west end, stucco was added and the features changed.
Fred Pierce represented 990 E. Hyman: We support the
recommendation of deletion.
Roger: When we site visited today we decided we wanted to keep it
but actually the real question is whether it can be torn down or
not. It is a corner lot.
Joe: We need to stay with the standard "is the property historic
or not" .
Jake: You could look at the contribution in scale to the
neighborhood.
Fred Pierce, attorney for 990 E. Hyman: The owner supports the
delisting of the property. The original construction as we
understand it on the property was a sears and roebuck mining cabin
in the late 1800's. It was small as is part of what is now the
overall structure. Since that building was put on the property it
13
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
has been added to at least twice. Part of the roof line on the
west has gone up half a story. The building was compromised
dramatically when that was done. Attached to that are two
additional condominium units with a breezeway on the back with two
story units. That was done around 1978. You end up with a three
unit condominium complex of which the original miners cabin is 10%
overall giver or take. The property is occupied by three local
employees that are resident owned occupied units. Being a
condominium complex demolition requires basically all three to sell
to one individual in a de-condominiumization procedure. There
would be a review to do that. The staff and consultants said that
because of all this activity that happened in the 70's we basically
lost the integrity of the original historic house the materials.
The addition on the back has no historical ties and the new
addition is different and higher. The imposition of the historical
designation in terms of a local resident employee condominium owner
dealing with any renovations are onerous to that kind of owner.
These are people but for these units would be in public subsidized
employee housing and adding to the employee housing problem and
they are not. It doesn't make sense to impose those requirements
in this case. I don't think they are looking at an extensive
demolition concern and I don't think it fits historical designation
and either did the consultants.
Tom: Is this lot less than 9,000 sq. ft?
Fred Pierce: It is 6,000 sq. ft.
Amy: At an upcoming meeting I will make a formal resolution that
will go to council.
Jean Doremus: I would support Staff's recommendation for removal
of 610 W. Francis.
Amy: Neither I not the consultants requested that 610 W. Francis
come off but the Doremus's requested it and when we site visited
it is an historic barn that was turned into a residence. It has
no integrity of any building and has been altered. Staff supports
adding 610.
Roger: When we site visited today we decided to keep 205 W.
Bleeker, 860 Gibson and 990 E. Hyman.
Owners of 205 W. Bleeker: I bought that building in 1950 and it
no longer looks anything like it originally did and has no historic
integrity what-so-ever.
Roger: It is a charming ski architecture building but we haven't
been given the purview by council to deal with that type of
Historic Preservation Comz~ittee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
structure as historic.
Amy: That is not entirely true. The code says anything constructed
prior to 1910 that has historical integrity is on. Anything else
more modern which is outstanding can be worthy of being put on the
inventory.
Roger: I feel the original recommendation to take it off should
stay.
Joe: Straw poll on removing it from the inventory is a tie vote.
Joe: These will come up for formal vote October llth and all
applicants should be there.
Joe: 860 Gibson is being recommended to be kept on the inventory.
Joe: Straw poll on 990 E. Hyman to be removed failed.
Joe: We need to take off the above list 860 Gibson, 205 W. Bleeker
Joe: 230 N. Spring, 101 E. Hopkins and 1031 E. Durant were
recommended to be removed by the owners.
Owner: I'll pass out pictures of the house.
Joe: This property is a victorian structure that was completely
modified in the 50's and it is difficult to distinguish. The
general consensus is that 230 N. Spring be removed.
Joe: We will recommend to city council and all applicants are
welcome to attend that meeting.
Joe: 101 E. Hopkins is being recommended to be removed from
inventory.
Roger: When we looked at it today some members felt it should be
kept on the inventory.
A1 and Pearl Bishop, owners of the house. This is on the corner
of Hopkins and Garmish. I don't think it has any historic value.
The roof lines are wrong and there is aluminum siding on it that
has been there for 20 years. It has an aluminum roof and two large
picture windows facing north and west. It is on two lots. From
the original building there have been several additions added onto
it but we have only added a closet.
Roger: The house had the original foundation and roof line. It
is however a corner lot. It would be difficult to retrieve the
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
original house in some instances but in other respects you would
still have the original framework and fireplace.
Donnelley: Usually aluminum siding is put over the existing.
Pearl: That is not a fireplace. It is a chimney and is not
original.
Joe: Straw poll as to whether the property should be removed from
the inventory and it was determined that it should remain on.
Martha: Maybe the applicant should have an explanation of the
advantages of being on the inventory.
Amy: It involves a review for any demolition, partial demolition
or relocation that you want to do to the property in the f~ture.
For some of the structures there are no real benefits available.
It is unlikely that the house could be named an aspen landmark.
There is a possibility for tax incentives if you restored the
building to its former character.
Joe: At this stage the HPC is not willing to take it off at this
time. We will have a resolution for October 12th and ultimately
City Council will decide what they want to do based on our
recommendation.
Frank Day, owner of 1031 E. Durant: I am the applicant and would
prefer the property off the inventory. It is currently three
apartments and has been modified. The fire place is CIRCA 50's and
has a heatalator. It is on a port foundation.
Amy: This property is being recommended as an addition to the
inventory in 1991. We are here to do that now if the board deems
appropriate.
Frank Day: My mother was the owner of the property and right now
it is not on the inventory.
Tom Benton, resident next door. The original cabin was
approximately 20 by 30 feet and it is irretrievable as it has been
modified so much. The addition which is the long section has been
abutted on. The fireplace is lichen rock and was added in the
50's. The original fireplace nobody knows if it was ever existing.
It cannot be retrieved. The original structure is buried in the
larger structure and it is difficult to tell where the original
structure was. We even went underneath to find it and could not.
Roger: I recommended that we not put it on the inventory.
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
Tom: I am an architect and would like to have that building.
Joe: Straw poll vote indicated that it not be added to the
inventory.
Frank: Staff is requesting that it be added.
Roger: On 225 W. Smuggler we all agreed to delete it and on 401
North we thought it might be worth keeping as per site visits.
Amy: I find it almost impossible to distinguish the historic
structure on 401 North.
Roger: I do not feel strongly about 401 North.
Donnelley: We have had cases such as the Hernandez house where the
original was almost buried in the structure and we worked very hard
to recover the log cabin. The fact that the original is buried
doesn't preclude our keeping it on there.
Amy: 240 Lake was not discussed and it is the single story Herbert
Bayer concrete block house on Lake Avenue. We did a site visit a
few months ago. I had recommended it be put in the highest
category of significance. It is listed on the inventory.
Jackie Wogan: If it goes to the highest category when I add onto
that house because it is sitting back from the lot you will not see
the original house. The house has been drastically changed. It
is not one of Herbert's greatest graphic designs.
Tom: I agree.
Jackie Wogan: The house was poorly built and the electrician told
me the wiring is the type for a trailer. I have had five floods
since I have lived in it and the last about a month ago with six
inches of water in the kitchen. It went through the foundation as
I sit down below and the city has said they would fix it.
Amy: The house is set far back and we have the Hallam Lake
overview which prohibits her from going back on the site.
Jackie Wogan: I am right on the line.
Amy: Going up it would destroy the Herbert Bayer structure and
possibly they could go forward rather than up with the addition.
Donnelley: It cannot be listed on the national register.
Jake: It could be a local landmark.
17
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
Donnelley: It is basically an international style box house and
doesn't have any attributes that tie it into Herbert Bayer's
designs.
Jackie Wogan: It is a generic bow-house, quick build army
barracks.
Roger: I find it personally offensive reviewing this as historic.
Joe: It only has association with Bayer and there are other
buildings that he designed. Do we have to keep every example.
Roger: The Marriam house is a Herbert Bayer house. I really
support historic structures but cannot support bow-houses as
historic structures.
Jackie Wogan: The house was built in 1958.
the lowest category.
' I want it to stay on
Jackie Wogan: I would like it off but that isn't going to happen
so I am asking for it to be on the lowest.
Roger: If it were a local landmark would that benefit you.
Jackie Wogan: I could build another house in front of it and then
you couldn't see it, the landmark. That doesn't make sense.
Jackie Wogan: It is a 14,000 sq. ft. lot with a 3,000 sq. ft.
house on it. The house goes down the hill. I already lot split
so that is not possible to do again.
Donnelley: It may not be the worst thing in the world to landmark
it and build another structure in the front.
Jackie Wogan: That limits your architectural ability.
like it in the supporting category.
I would
Joe: The categories do not effect us that much.
Amy: 240 Lake was in the supporting category in 1986.
Donnelley: I feel it should remain in supporting. The reason I
do not feel it should be contributing is due to the alternation of
siding etc.
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of September 13, 1994
COMMUNICATIONS
MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC recommend to City
Council to adopt the Neighborhood Character Guidelines as official
guidelines for HPC to use in their evaluation of historic property
in all applications; second by Joe. All in favor, motion carries.
MOTION: Martha made the motion to adjourn; second by Tom.
in favor, motion carries.
Ail
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk