Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920318HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SPECI&L MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 1992 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Martha Madeen and Linda Smisek present. Excused were Joe Krabacher, Donnelley Erdman, Les Holst and Karen Day. Bill: The purpose of this meeting is to take public comment in consideration of the re-evaluation of the inventory for historic structures. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Roxanne: You are not required to take action tonight, just input from the public and make notes and comments. Tomorrow we are going to do the same thing. Tonight is for all properties west of Mill Street. We are only talking about non-designated structures. Our inventory is 269 resources total, 127 are already designated. We area recommending that 14 properties be added to the inventory at this time. April Dunn, Central Bank Trust Department: We hold 216 E. Hallam in a trust for Mona Frost. I am hear just to understand the process and we have no intentions of taking it off the inventory. Roxanne: The property is not designated and we are trying to determine if it still has historic value. 610 W. HALLAM Jim Igelhart, owner: I am here to listen. My property has been on the inventory but I find it difficult to design something. Bill: I have talked with Jim and recommended that since he was working with an architect and having problems that he ask to be added to one of our agendas under a worksession to see if the Board could be helpful to him and his architect. 135 W. HOPKINS Tam Scott, attorney: I am representing Mrs. Day who is 85 and lives in Florida and Boulder but comes up here in the summer. The owner would like it removed from the inventory. The house is rented out. In the memo it states houses built before 1910. This house was built around 1935 by someone who came from Leadville who used to work in the mines. Then Mrs. Day bought the house. In readying the code section I do not feel the house has historic importance. The main reason it is in there is neighborhood or community character. It is in an area that used to be residential. The house was rebuild and reworked six times. Some of the architectural features have changed from the form. If you look at Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 18, 1992 the neighborhood character there are two new huge structures near by and then you have the Holiday House and across the street from the Holiday House is the Molly Gibson Lodge and those are virtually next door to Mrs. Day's house. I don't think there is a community character left and do not feel the house is old enough to qualify. It has no architectural significance at all. Roxanne: Our form indicates that the property was built in the 1880's or early 1900 hundreds. Age is not the limiting factor for being on the inventory. There are buildings built as late as 1952 that are on the inventory. Tam Scott: The house is non-descript and basically falling apart. It has leaks etc. Bill: Do you know of any work that has been done since the last time we evaluated this house? Tam Scott: I don't think any work has been done. Roxanne: This inventory has never been re-evaluated as you are doing right now. In 1986 numbers were applied to the existing inventory, they were not re-evaluated structures. I agree that the context in that area has eroded over time but there are numerous little houses in that vicinity that are important. Its overall contribution is to the character of the town. It is an example of a residential structure representative of a working class family of the mining era. Bill: We will take the information given to us and the members of the Board should drive by and look at the house taking everything that was presented here into account. 124 W. H~LL]%M Catherine Lee, owner: In 1987 I came to the meeting when they were numbering the properties as you can see by the letter in your packet. Since then there has been more extensive work done. I also have the blue prints. I am opposed being on this list. The house has no significance in american history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture. The integirty of the location, the design, setting and materials are new. The feeling that you are looking at was created by me. I added all the trim and all the details. Everything on that house that you see that looks victorian has been added by yours truly. There are no events associated with my property that has made it a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of Aspen. No one of historical significance has lived in this home. I created a victorian look with my artistic bays and these are my creations. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 18, 1992 I would not be eligible to the historic register as the house has been changed 360 degrees. If you notice the Sanborn map shows the foot print of the present house. Ail private property owners have the right to object to be listed. The qualities have ceased to meet the criteria of the list. I have petitioned you in writing to be removed from this list and I do not wish to become legally responsible by being on the fraudulent list which my property causes due to lack of integrity. I went through the structure form and it is incorrect. Bill: Do you have pictures of what the house looked like before it was redone. Roger: I think the Stroh's added the glassed in porch and moved the fire place. Catherine: The Taylor's did the kitchen and added a wing. There is not a corner on that house that has not been changed. Jake: What is this house on the inventory. Roxanne: It is the lowest rating. Jake: Is it retrievable? Roxanne: Barely, and it was given a 2 in the 1986 rating. In the 1980 rating it was the lowest which was notable. Bill: I feel all the committee members should site visit this property. Roxanne: Your final action takes place by a resolution the 25th of March. Between now and then you have to be thinking what action you want to take. It then goes to Council in an ordinance form. The public hearing for Council is scheduled for May 13th. Bill: Do you know the square footage of your floor area? Catherine: The main house has 3750 sq. ft. and there are two separate garages. Bill: Thank you Catherine for your input everything into consideration when evaluating. photographs to the file. and we will take We will add your 707 N. THIRD Carol Craig: In my way of thinking, I didn't realize that you could just designate something an historical structure without the Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 18, 1992 owners approval. Roxanne: This is not designation. This is required every five years by the State and it is regarding the inventory. The City Council can designate without owner consent but it hasn't happened in this town that I know of. Generally it is the owner who wants to become designated. Regarding inventory, if you have a structure that is historic or of outstanding architectural merit it is on the inventory. The total inventory is 269 resources which are not just residential or commercial, there are ruins, mines, bridges etc. Of the 141 we are taking public input from the public as to whether or not you wish your structure or property added or removed from the inventory and to state your case why. The code allows for city council to take the final action and eliminate properties to the inventory if they no longer have historic value. The HPC will make a resolution and pass it on to city Council. Carol: Is there an advantage or disadvantage to being on it or not on it? Roxanne: The advantage to being on the inventory is that you are eligible to landmark designation and with that goes an incentive lists for historic property owners. If you are not on the inventory you are not eligible for landmark designation. If you are not on the inventory you don't have to go through the HPC when you want to partially demolish your property or relocate it, that is the only burden. Carol: I feel my house is a wonderful old victorian. I also do not like the idea that I would have to come in front of anyone to decide what I could do with the house. That is the one reason I would not want to be on the inventory. Roxanne: You could make minor alterations and never see the Board and go directly to the building department. If you were doing partial demolition to add something else on, then you would have to get HPC approval. Carol: That is what I wouldn't like. My feeling is if you own a piece of property it is your right to do whatever you want on it. Jed: Right now there is an important community public interest in preserving historic structures and prohibiting their destruction or alteration. It is a Colo. law that municipalities can legally and in a valid fashion restrict your ability to alter or demolish that structure if in fact it can be determined that it is an historic structure. There are numerous people that feel the way you do. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 18, 1992 Roxanne: Carol's property was put on the inventory 12 years ago. From 1986 on you were required to come through this board for any kind of approval. We are trying to get some kind of "key" for on the title of the property so people will be aware that the property is on the inventory etc. Carol: If the buyer didn't know that when they bought the property I would think they would have a case there. Roxanne: Not necessarily because ignorance of the law is not OK. Public: The little house by the school at 215 W. Hallam was totally torn down except for the very front piece and sat there for two years because the people didn't get their financing. It was historically designated and yet you left them tear it completely down and keep the one little tiny front. Bill: They did come in for review and asked for demolition of parts of it in order to restore it. They went beyond what was approved. They were red tagged as they violated the terms of their permit. Public: It is sold now. Bill: That has been corrected as now a bond has to be posted before any work can be done. Carol: I would like to add that I can see the other side of this also because I also have property in Woody Creek and they are trying to preserve the entire area and the people out there are arguing the point that I was taking being on the other side there. There is something to be said for a body of people that do have a say over people that do want to ruin the entire area. It gets down to a matter of a difference of an opinion between people. Bill: We are glad that you understand the position. Carol: I don't want to do anything with the house but I don't want to be beholden to any of the HPC and it doesn't make sense to me, knowing myself. Martha: I feel you have the impression that we wouldn't allow you to do anything; but this Board does allow you to work on your house, we just have an approval process that you have to go through. There are incentives to be on the historic register. We just want to oversee what kind of things you are going to do. We want to make sure the plans suit the property. Carol: I can understand your point of view but there are so many Historic Preservation Ccmmittee Minutes of March 18, 1992 if's. Roxanne: The Board has development review standards that they have to make findings for and they review property and have guidelines to follow in making the proper decisions. Carol: I am against adhering to certain guidelines. Bill: We will take the information received at this public hearing and take it into account when we do our evaluation. Jim Iglehart: Did I hear you say that if you don't demolish any part of the rated house that you can go to the building department without coming to HPC for approval. Roxanne: That is correct. Jim Iglehart: house? That means that I can build a monster around the Roxanne: Yes, your neighbor did. 735 W. BLEEKER Roxanne: Staff contributing. recommends that this property be rated Nancy Bryant, owner: That is the middle category. If we are contributing and we want to move our place on our lot you are saying that we can't do that? Bill: In the past some people have relocated houses on the site and some members have indicated that they do not want them moved on the site and kept in the historical location. Nancy: Our property is not exactly in its historical site because we have four additions. We are now down to one cabin and we only have an 850 sq. ft. house. Bill: We have allowed buildings to be moved in order for additions to happen or to save landscaping or to work with parking requirements. Roxanne: Since I have been here there has not been a single denial for an onsite relocation. Your street is interesting because there is not a real set historic development pattern along your street because there are new buildings. Nancy: Everyone else got to tear their building down. Historic Preservation committee Minutes of March 18, 1992 Roxanne: What they look at for an onsite relocation is an established historic pattern along the street. That if you are going to relocate your house on the property that it doesn't suddenly change the context of the street. Yours is different and I feel you have some flexibility. The standard for relocation states that it has to be necessary for the preservation of the resource. April: Do you notify the property owner if there is new legislation going into effect? Roxanne: Absolutely and Mona's property is rated contributing and there are no changes proposed. Letters: Roxanne: I talked with Jan Wirth and then she sent a letter regarding her property at 990 Gibson. She is going to apply for designation. Roxanne: Edith Chisholm - 205 W. Main send a letter requesting to be taken off the inventory and out of the historic district. I had met with her and we talked at length. Her house is one of the best in the Main Street historic district. The applicant states that this particular structure was relocated to the present site in 1949 from Block 71. She also states that the roof line has been altered and several long windows replaced with modern windows. No historic renovation has taken place to the exterior of the house. Roxanne: The applicant is concerned about property value and I explained that whether or not she was on the inventory she would still have the same review in the Main Street historic district. Roxanne: Elsa Fischer - 525 W. Hallam sent a letter requesting to be taken off the inventory. You could go contributing or supporting on this house and it would be justified. The applicant is concerned as the others about the evaluation of her property. I do not feel it is a good enough argument here with regard to loss of historic value. Bill: After reading the letter are there any other changes the Board wants to discuss. Roxanne: Steen Gantzel has written a letter and he is in the Main Street Historic District, 527 W. Main. Our information on the log cabin is that it is much earlier than 1950's. He has not given us any information to substantiate his claim that it was built in Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 18, 1992 1950. It has been on the inventory since 1980. Roger: I think Steen is correct as it was stuck in there for employee housing. Martha: That property was the Sanderson's before and Steen bought it from Clair Sanderson. Roxanne: Beth Fergus's property at 120 N. Fifth is interesting as there are no records in the building dept. Roger: I can tell you about this: There was a house there and it was torn down except for the framing and another house was moved in next door and the two houses were connected to be a duplex. It turned out that Pat sold it and so what they did as you face it from Bleeker on the left became the caretaker's apartment. Pat was an architect and redid those two houses and the two houses across the street from Asia and redid the house by the Bayer house. There is nothing about the house that has anything to do with what originally existed except the shape of the peak on the caretakers house. It similar to Catherine Lee's house. Roxanne: There is a real good argument to removing this house and Catherine Lee's off the inventory. Bill: We have to be consistent and if they are totally changed you just can't keep them on the inventory. They have to meet the standards. Roger: Even the fireplace on the Lee house was moved from one side of the house to the other. Martha: Beth Fergus's house seems to me to be in the same situation as Catherine Lee's and we should be consistent. Bill: You have to set a precedent that the information presented here allows you to make a decision not just because an applicant wants off. Jed, City Attorney: I don't think that the owner has to show a change since the original inventory. If they are able to do that, that is evidence that they can argue in favor of removal if in fact they are seeking removal. The fact that they have not been able to demonstrate a change I do not think prohibits you or forecloses you from taking it off the inventory if in evaluating the property you make a determination that it doesn't meet the standards. Bill: When the inventory was done before 1980 it was done by just walking down the street and looking at the building and it was an Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 18, 1992 evaluation done to the best of their education that it was an old building. Recommended "adds" to the inventory. Roxanne: When we did the field study last fall these are the properties that the HPC pointed out that they should be added to the list. The three added on Cleveland Street are post war structures of the 1940 era: 303, 305 and 307 S. Cleveland. They are the log panaboat structures. 1031 E. Durant is also a post war structure. If you all cannot remember the structures please site visit the properties. 101-109 Juan St. was left off in error. 520-557 Walnut are being added due to the recent annexation of the Smugler area. 520 is eligible for state register as it is one of the most original miners cabins left in Aspen. It has been vacant for decades. 1500 Ute is added. 1280 Ute Ave. should be added also. Glory Hole Park is being added as contributing. Roger: There used to be a tunnel underneath and it sunk so it was named Glory Hole Park. Roxanne: The Aspen Brewery Ruins are on an unbuildable piece of a large parcel that has been dissected through Red Mountain Rd. and was also picked up through annexation. It is at the base of the parking lot and it is our second archeological site. 701 W. Main was built in 1935 but Staff is recommending that it be added. 106 N. Park is the log house. 1101 E. Durant and Aspen Grove Cemetery are recommended to be added. Roxanne: Recommended drops are 1022 E. Hyman and 1031 E. Hyman. Roxanne: George Vicenzi's 601 W. Hallam was already taken off we just need to do it officially in the ordinance. Roxanne: There are 16 drops due to previous demolitions. We will have to renotice about 12 properties. Jake: 232 E. Hallam - What about this property? Roxanne: If we are going to remove Catherine Lee's property and Fergus then I would recommend removing 232 E. Hallam which is the Glidden house. It has been torn down and reconstructed. Lets discuss whether it should be on or off. Jake: Even though the gazebo is all new wood it still could be on the inventory because there is a lot of design/historic info. that is important about the gazebo. Does it have historic value because it is gestured to the original form, philosophically. Historic Preservation committee Minutes of March 18, 1992 Bill: If it is a perfect reconstruction then possibly you could make the argument. Jake: The standard is, is it retrievable! Bill: We are here to preserve the historic character of the older buildings. We don't want to replicate the entire town as it was in 1880. Roxanne: If part of the wood was left on the gazebo would we then review it differently. The gazebo housed the fire bell. We also need to think about the Midland and Rio Grande driveways. Bill: If someone wants off the inventory they do not have to wait for five years. Jed: I feel at the meeting of the 25th you should name each property for the public hearing. I also feel this should be done when the ordinance is read at city Council. MOTION: Bill made the motion to adjourn; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk