Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19951108ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 712 W. FRANCIS 918 E. COOPER - WORKSESSION ISIS THEATRE - WORKSESSION 801 E. - PARTIAL DEMOLITION ..... 1 ....... 12 HYMAN ........... 17 2--0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Meeting was called to order by chairman Donnelley Erdman with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Linda Smisek, Martha Madsen, Susan Dodington, Melanie Roschko and Sven Alstrom present. Sven and Susan were not seated. Amy: The State Historic Preservation Officer needed to sign off on the Independence Pass project and that was not done. The City Attorney is looking into the matter. Amy: Our next meeting is Nov. 29th. Don: We can have the XMAS party Dec. 15th at my house. be a pot luck. It will Amy: We need to add an agenda item 801 E. Hopkins. Some members did a site visit today. 712 W. FRANCIS - PARTIAL DEMOLITION Amy: This house is listed on the historic inventory and it was built around 1887 and there are very few alternations. The proposal before us to demolish the existing shed on the rear of the property which is from the 19th century appears to have been moved on the site or has a different orientation than originally. They also want to demolish a small wood shed that is close to the front of the house. There is a lean-to porch on the back of the house which is historic but not original to the house. They will work with that and open it up. You have been given a perspective drawing of the addition and we are required to make a few findings for instance impacts on the architectural character and integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel are minimumized by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. This drawing does not represent exactly what they are doing for us to be able to make that finding. I hope that the applicant will be willing to just work with us. At this point they are just looking for an indication of what sort of demolition we think will be acceptable in general. They also need ordinance #30 review, the city's new design guidelines. I am recommending tabling the application until they have further detailed plans. The shed is a fantastic building although it is deteriorating. It would be a loss to see it go. Possibly it could be relocated to another site although it is nice to keep a building in its original location. Denis Cyrus represented the applicant: We wish to demolish the shed because of its deteriorating condition to the extent that Mr. Orbe's insurance carrier has asked that it be demolished for health and safety reasons. The sketches are totally preliminary and were presented to me by Mr. 0rbe. I do have a site plan of what is existing. The tool shed at the back property line is in the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 setbacks and it is in extremely deteriorating condition. We feel it is not part of the significant historical part of this parcel. It is the old out house and falling into its own pit. I am not sure what is salvageable and it has no foundation and no salvageable floor. The roof is structurally unsound and unsafe. We would just like to remove it. As far as addressing the future intent we aren't there yet. We have proposed initially is renovate the existing house internally and that would include the renovation I guess or rather a rebuild of the porch on the back of the house which is also in deteriorating condition. I am not sure what other than possibly the roof that we can even save from it. The foundation is deteriorating and our inspection indicates that it is not part of the original foundation and it is in bad shape. The footings are sitting right on the surface and it doesn't have adequate bearings. Donnelley: Tonight we need to focus on what can be done with the shed and the lean-to, being the porch. Jake: You need permission to demo the shed. Amy: Any demolition on site need approval but it is not an historic structure. CLARIFICATIONS: Donnelley: issue. I would focus on the wood shed and the lean-to porch Les: I have no problem with the shed on the side being taken away and have no problem with the shed on the back of the house. The shed is demolition by neglect and I could save it within four days. I looked at it and it is not rotten on the bottom. I would hate to see it go until we know what is coming here. It is too nice of a shed and is salvageable. We have saved a lot worse. If we do let it go I would like to see all the lumber saved. Jake: On this plan that we have here it looks like the garage is encroaching in the rear yard setback. That would require some kind of variance. Denis Cyrus: Those are indicated parking spaces. A garage would have to come five feet closer to the house. Melanie: The sketch is showing detached. Denis Cyrus: I am jumping a little head of myself but I do have another plan showing the garage attached to the back of the house which is somewhat represented by the prospective sketch. That is in the future. This sketch is giving us a 20 by 20 two car garage. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 199K Jake: I will follow through on my comments about the shed. In my opinion the shed is probably retrievable with a lot of work; however, if it were going to be used for anything else than a shed by the time you upgrade it you would end up with very little shed with all the codes. If there would be an attempt to recycle the shed onsite. The primary facade of the main house is the true historical character defining the resource from the streetscape and the primary importance would be preserving the historical house and in particular the character of the elevation. The alley buildings contribute to the alley but that particular alley is a lost cause anyway. Everything else is new. One could say this is the last hold of an historical building. Les: This is a catch twenty-two and what looks viable to the owners is grandfathered in all the way back to the lot line and there is a wonderful apple tree in front of it that is going to be lost. If they save the shed save the apple tree and move the garage to the other side of the lot then everything starts to make sense to me. Denis Cyrus: If we did that we the way across the back of the and a 20 foot wide garage. It five foot setback on each side. would end up with a solid wall all property with a 15 foot wide shed is only a 45 foot wide lot with a Les: Maybe the garage could be set in a staggered line to save the tree it might be worth looking at. Susan: You said you weren't planning on doing the garage right away. It seems the shed should remain until this plan is ready to build. If you demolish it and don't put anything in its place two or three years could go by and it could be sold and the next person might like the shed. Denis Cyrus: We cannot leave the shed in its existing condition. We either restore, renovate or remove it entirely. Donnelley: Something has to be done with the shed as it has been neglected so long. On the sh~d what you want to do is stabilize it because restoration of the shed would be a very expensive operation if it was truly restored. It has no architectural character or styling for the time. Amy: I am not sure I agree with that. It has a great door and has a transom window over the door. Donnelley: I am talking about the form. Susan: I like the color of the wood etc. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Les: If you jack it up and get it squared then scab on the inside of the joists and insulate it. We all have done them and it is something that could be saved as a shed. Donnelley: We need to determine if the applicant must stabilize the shed to the point that it is no longer an attractive nuisance and a liability problem as far as insurance goes or the applicant may be able to move the shed. to another location. They could demolish the shed and save the historic materials. Linda: Is it possible to shore it up and move it to the side of the property in order to work? Denis Cyrus: I suppose that is feasible but it might not be an economic reality. Roger: Is the shed large enough to house a car? Amy: It is 12 by 15 and not long enough. Martha: I sympathize with the ideal but I am more practical and my suggestion would be to save as much of the wood as possible and incorporate it into something on the property. Denis Cyrus: Because of the insurance problems we are anxious to deal with the shed. Our request would be to demolish the shed. Martha: In your overall plans is it realistic to shore it up and use it or is it not an economic reality. Denis Cyrus: Functionally it 'cannot be used for anything except a shed. We could move it to the other side of the property and destroy what open space is on the back of the property or we could move it to the front and obviously none of us want to do that. We need 20 feet of width on the back property line for a two car garage and that limits us to the open space on the back or the location of the shed. Right now this property doesn't have legal offstreet parking whether we provide a garage we have to provide two offstreet parking and the logical spot is in the alley. Susan: In the picture the car is parked in the lawn and it should stay there as you won't loose your view from the porch. Denis Cyrus: The concept is to go through the kitchen to the back yard. Susan: If you aren't going to have the garage built for a few years you will have open parking spaces any and I just do not see why it has to be demolished now. It should be shored up for the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 insurance. Denis Cyrus: You are suggestion we shore it up for a year so that we can tear it down in a year. Donnelley: We need to come to one conclusion that the shed doesn't have to be torn down. If it were shored up it could be moved to another site. With this particular site I agree with Jake and a few other people on the board that since this back alley is completely devoid of historic resources this shed if it were retained as a resource for someone to look at it might be shored up so that people could grasp some of its historic significance then it might be sensible to move it to another site. Les: Just because it is the last on the block doesn't mean you get rid of it. That is more reason to keep it. Susan: I agree also. Donnelley: The interesting part of the shed faces where it cannot be seen. If it were rotated as the map seems to indicate then actually the one interesting element could be seen from the alley. That and the rotation of the shed would be a good thing to do while stabilizing it. Roger: Heather Tharp used to live here. Amy: We could make a strong recommendation to the Board of Adjustment about moving things to one side. Donnelley: The sentiment right now is that it should not be destroyed. Linda: The shed is in worse condition than the Langley's but historically very interesting. If you turn the shed around back to its original position it would be very interesting. Roger: Architecturally can the shed be incorporated into the plan. Donnelley: I would say no because once it is incorporated into a design it would have to be brought up to code and once you do that you would have a difficult situation. Amy: Possibly it could be used for storage. Jake: One corner is collapsin~ into the old outhouse hole. Roger: Could it be rebuilt into a smaller configuration and serve a practical application and an historical one. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Donnelley: Then you get into the problem of what we are doing. I feel the wrong use would be to reconstruct it as we are confusing people about what is old and what is new. I feel we should either say save it and make it acceptable for an insurance insurer or let it be demolished. Susan: saved. Didn't one of the board member say the wood could not be Jake: I was talking about the lap siding as it is very dry. The one by sheathing is probably OK. Donnelley: Are we going to put an immense hardship on the owner by trying to make him save the material of an insignificant shed other than for a couple of its. elements. Amy: You need to look at the standards before making a decision. Sven: It is the case are they intending redevelopment or not. Amy: We could ask the applicant to go back and get legitimate estimates and maybe there is a hardship there as to what would be involved in terms of restoration and what is salvageable. Donnelley: With one site visit we could see that 50% of the exterior material is salvageable. Amy: Perhaps you use the siding on the sides that are visible to the public. Les: For $2,000 I could have this thing last another 100 years as a shed. Amy: I feel it is significant to the neighborhood. Linda: In the west end we had wonderful little chicken sheds and sheds where animals were kept and I feel we should retain that and not make it all look like ~rand new. This community was a wonderful community with people getting along etc. Denis Cyrus: yard... I certainly agree but having chickens in your back Linda: We want preservationists we years ago. to represent the past. As want to preserve the feeling we had historic in Aspen Donnelley: The obvious question is should the structure be retained in some form until such time until final plans are presented to us for the development of the rear of the property. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Donnelley: Straw poll on retaining the structure in an acceptable manor so that it does not further deteriorate and be acceptable to an insurer raise your hand. There is consensus to retain it. Donnelley: The other issue is the historic lean-to or porch. That might not be original. There are two types of siding. Amy: I do not feel it is original but it is old. I feel in general their proposal to retain it as part of the redevelopment is good. MOTION: Martha moved to table the application until such time that the applicant has furthered detailed plans of the proposed addition at 712 W. Francis; second by Jake. DISCUSSION Les: I would like them to be able to move the thing on the side and I would like to make a decision on the back as to whether it will stay. Amy: The reason I made that recommendation to table as you can't make some decisions until the plans are ready. They will have to come back to us when they know what they are going to build there. Donnelley: We are supposed to prevent demolition by neglect so we should have as part of this motion that the structure be stabilized in such a way to prevent further deterioration. AMENDED MOTION: Martha amended her motion to recommend that the shed on the north west corner of the property be stabilized in such a condition that it is insurable and no longer presents an attractive nuisance and that the other shed be approved for demolition as it meets standard one; second by Jake. I would like to indicate to the applicant how the commission feels and give them some direction. My priority in this project would be the preservation of the main house and I would prefer to see the development in the alley. Preservation of open space around the historical structure is important to the setting. Donnelley: What you are saying is that when the final plans are approved we may allow the shed to be removed. Les: I would not allow the shed to be removed. Donnelley: We cannot say whether the shed can go or not go until we have plans. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Amy: That is why I said to table to indicate that the shed is important to you. Donnelley: They need compelling reasons why the shed would either have to move or go. Denis Cyrus: I would appreciate some guidance on how you think this shed could be incorporated. Sven: We don't know the program so we cannot speculate on that. Donnelley: The shed could be incorporated by rotating it in the direction that looked like the original on the site. There can be a zero lot line situation without any setbacks. You could have one car covered garage and the second would be a parking space and that would leave a lot of your back yard open. There are lots of options. The shed could form one portion of what would actually be completed by the portion of the car port enclosure and the other requirement for onsite parking could be fulfilled by uncovered parking or a car port that is a lean-to off the shed. Amy: The Board of Adjustment has been sympathetic when asking for variances of this kind of thing as it is not a big structure. VOTE: Ail in favor, motion carries. Roger: I feel the applicant should work with Staff on the direction that HPC feels appropriate. Donnelley: One is that we do not want the mass to overwhelm the existing resource and we encourage a strong delineation between what is new and what is old in terms of detailing etc. 918 E. COOPER - WORKSESSION Mark Ward, architect: This property is on the north side of Cooper Street. We propose to use the building on the alley for the redevelopment. We are basically moving the old house onto the front corner of the property. Amy: Just so everyone understands there is a lot split already approved and the parcel on the left will be a clean slate not under our purview. On the right of the lot split they are proposing to landmark. They can do two detached units there which they are showing you. Mark Ward: P is the united on the eastern portion. We propose to use the front portion of this building and put it on the eastern portion and towards the front of lot P. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Jake: We need to see the proposed new site plan. Mark Ward: We are calling the two lots 0 & P. The historic will be P. We would like to incorporate the two units on the historic lot, rather relocate onsite. We would like to relocate the one building and put a garage door into it. We tried to do something compatible in the middle of the two units that works. Roger: Where you briefed on what the HPC looks at when incorporating an historic building and adding onto a new one. Mark Ward: Amy pointed out some structures in town that were thought to be successful and' we toured them. Not mirror the historic building but pull apart from it in some fashion. I feel I have done that with the breaks in wall planes. Amy: What is the square footage of the units. John Davis, Aspen Custom Builders: The way it is set up now it is a single family of 3,240 sqfto and I feel we can get that changed and apply for the 500 sqft. credit. We could do 1800 sqft. each side with the garage bonus. Roger: Because of what you are doing you are allowed to divide this up into four units. Jake: Are you allowed 3600 sqft. by right. Mark Ward: I have not addressed the zoning. In the subdivision agreement it calls for 3600 sqft. duplex on M & N and a 3240 sqft. single family on O&P. By designation it gives us the ability to do the two units. Whether we have to do the two units at 3240 sqft. I do not know. Amy: I would say that you have to use that figure but you can ask for the 500 sqft. bonus. Amy: One of the reasons you are given the bonus is because you are keeping the barn. You are going to get a bonus for the barn because it is a garage. You need to make a justification why we should give you a double bonus for that. Mark Ward: We counted the garage so I would not really need the 500 sqft. Roger: Both historical units will be incorporated on lot P. Donnelley: I have a question which has to do with the integrity of the barn turning into a garage. The south elevation of the barn is buried into the house structure itself. The north elevation is ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 199K totally destroyed by putting a double garage door on it. So no longer is their an historic resource in my opinion and I feel that will have to be addressed. The historic resource is being used as a wedge to give you some benefits that you wouldn't ordinarily have. If it is going to be an'historic resource it has to remain so. You have really destroyed more than 50% of the historic resource because you have taken the two long elevations and removed one completely and altered the other historically. You are taking something historic and turning it into something different. It is a design problem that has to be addressed. Susan: Was something on the original house in the back taken off? Mark Ward: Yes, it was the kitchen addition and it is not historic and was put on in 1958. It is basically a shed roof that comes off the back. Roger: The addition to the historic house when looking from the street feels like it overwhelms the historic house and the fenestration above the historic house might be part of that. Is there anyway to more creatively deal with that. John Davis: One thing you have to keep in mind is that it is back there 27 feet. Roger: It is attached to the historic structure and could it be linked to it instead. Mark Ward: I tried to do that with the jog in. Roger: I feel it would be very helpful to have a monitor. Donnelley: This is a worksession and we are trying to give direction. The direction is the sudden change in mass and height between the historic resource and the new work in between. There is a problematic situation by literally obliterating all but the two gable ends of the historic barn and that may have to be manipulated in another way. Amy: You are having problems with ordinance #30 with the volume rule. There is a no window zone. Susan: Are you putting in below ground? Mark Ward: A full basement. Melanie: One of the things that hits me right off regarding mass is the fireplace. That long vertical element draws your eye and makes it taller. 1__0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Donnelley: Maybe go to metal instead of masonry on the stack, something insignificant. Sven: A few of us on the board do not see where the 500 sqft. bonus is warranted on this project. Amy: Would you explain why to the applicant. Amy: The idea of the bonus is that it is a bonus and you need to make findings that the project exceeds a base line of our preservation goals in terms of somehow you have done something to really mitigate mass and scale or you have saved an historic outbuilding. Mark Ward: In our case we have two historic boxes and they limit to what we can do with the site. It is quite a challenge. Donnelley: I feel the barn is.the main stumbling block. The barn is 14.6 and could in itself make a garage. Mark Ward: The problem with the gable end it only makes it a one car garage. Donnelley: You are not required to have a two car garage in Aspen. You are required to have two cars onsite but not two cars in a garage. You could butt another form up against it. Roger: You could look at having the one car not enclosed and that could be part of the landscaping. Mark Ward: We have to have one ADU 300 sqft. and may require an additional parking space. Donnelley: We hope we have given you adequate information. John Davis: In terms of material is stone preferable. Donnelley: The historic resource cannot be dominated by the new construction and that is important to remember. Stone sometimes indicates quite a different scale. John Davis: Painted lapsiding? Donnelley: That can be appropriate but we don't want to dictate that and you need to watch the fenestration so that it does not imitate the fenestration of the historic resource detailing so you know that it is new work and is subservient to the old. John Davis: One concern is the other unit. Do we want it to look similar or something totally different. 1__1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Donnelley: We don't want it to look historic. Roger: What are your thoughts on the unit to the left which is the new one regarding materials. John Davis: We were trying to use similar materials brick and lap siding. Jake: Separate the second story mass from the historic resource. You need to be careful that you do not have windows looking into windows on these narrow sites. It will hurt you in terms of selling also. Mark Ward: We can look at turning the garage. Susan: Someone already said this but I feel it is overwhelming to the historic house. ISIS THEATRE - WORKSESSION Amy: We have a new rendering in the packet and they are scheduled to go to P&Z. Donnelley: The changes made will be presented. Charles Cunniffe: The main items of consideration were to pull in the free market unit in front which is in the middle to hold the line with the entry tower and change the curve so that it implies a tie together of the overall shape. Also to press it into the top of the building. John Wheeler: On the east side we had to step in the facade. Charles Cunniffe: On materials we were going to keep the original brick and do a more contemporary brick treatment whether it be a glazed brick or something else. We are showing a jumbo brick but having a different brick treatment that would wrap all of the addition and on the upper level carry it up as a wall then everything inside reads as an internal fabric to that exterior part of the wall. You have basically three materials, original, new and a lighter material that look like it belongs on top of a roof structure. Donnelley: We had talked about a fabricated stone material in a larger scale and what happened to that idea. Charles Cunniffe: That is still open. We haven't actually picked the actual material. We wanted to get your idea. 1--2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Linda: Have you spoken to Darryl Grob our new fire chief and they are definitely considering going into a development on the site of the fire station with housing on top for employees. It might be a good idea to review the project with him since you are next door. They do not know what is being proposed. Amy: I just have a question. Is there a great financial advantage to you in building the affordable units on the site as opposed to buying down other units in town. Charles Cunniffe: I can't speak to that but there is no advantage either way and I thought there wasn't an option. We went to a lot of work with the housing office to let us build less. Amy: Originally you proposed more and from the GMQS application there is the feeling that this is more than enough. The reason for bring this up is across the street the HPC said no third story and they bought housing. Charles Cunniffe: I doubt if you could build or buy offsite cheaper than on top of this building. Donnelley: One area that everyone is concerned about is the free market unit and we are all trying to push it back. The restricted employee units back there are not a real problem to me but the free market unit seems to be a problem to everyone. That is the thing that makes economic benefit. Charles Cunniffe: The owners are squeaking about how little free market they got. This will be occupied by the manager and employees from the theatre and that is the reason for putting it on the building. I came in here thinking we have done everything we had to do. There is no way they can keep this project alive without coming back with some resolution. I would have to renegotiate the contract and ask them to find housing offsite. Frankly I wouldn't want to be in anyone's shoes trying to find housing offsite. Amy: You buy down an existing unit and that is what I have been suggesting. Charles Cunniffe: It would be unfair to ask us now to reconsider this entire project. Roger: The issue is to preserve the integrity of the historic building and with that thing on the middle of the historic building is not preserving the integrify. This needs to be looked at and we are asking that it be looked at. Amy: It was a suggestion and it might be to your benefit. 1--3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Charles Cunniffe: They have tried to look at this with no rooftop development from day one. They couldn't find anything that made economic sense. If you can tell me where there is something that can be built for less than $90. sqft. and bring a manager in. Roger: I am not saying we would deny the entire thing I am asking that it be looked at. Charles Cunniffe: I am saying it was looked at getting the roof top off. Amy: We have all struggled with what is on the roof. Linda: We need people living downtown. Roger: We are not trying to put Charles back into the loop. Charles Cunniffe: The drawing shows how much of the addition you can see from an empty street corner, with the suggestion of stepping the unit back some and going to a darker color and softer material that addition looks subservient to the overall building. Donnelley: We are familiar with how the massing is going now and the last discussion we had was that the interior materials which are all new work would reflect a likeness which would be a metal panel aesthetic though the specific material has not been chosen. Charles Cunniffe: We looked at vertical copper sheathing, non reflective. I would like to come in with samples and meet with individuals and go over to the building and look at how the new brick could look next to the old. Roger: Copper seems to be used frequently and interesting to look at one of the Folensby products patina similar to the mining buildings. it might be with a soft Charles Cunniffe: In looking at the roof form in a way with this being a darker material it is almost like an assemblage of buildings and this building looks like a building beyond. Les: I can live with this and my only concern is the materials and we will have to look at those and it will take some time. Donnelley: We don't want it to be a heavy material. Amy: They are going to P&Z and asking for a FAR bonus for affordable housing and it is really P&Z's final decision. We possibly need something in writing that shows how you have considered it. 1--4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Linda: How soon can you get materials together? Charles Cunniffe: In a week or two. Jake: I do feel this has progressed significantly from earlier but I did vote against it in the beginning. I still feel the free market is problematic. Linda: If I were an employee I would enjoy a view just as the free market unit has. Roger: What if P&Z says take the housing off what will you do then. Jake: Can they go to P&Z saying that HPC feels this massing is compatible. Roger: I have never been comfortable with it but that is the best they could do. The design is great. The concept of not having it there is very interesting. Charles Cunniffe: I understand it that we have an OK except we were to push down and pull back the center unit where it was and come back with the new scheme and that is what we have done and it has made it a better building. In an ideal world no addition would happen on the building but given the direction we got we followed that and I feel it is a successful solution. We like the results of this. Donnelley: The question was asked have you thoroughly explored the employee housing off site and have the free market occupy that space. Charles Cunniffe: I will be happy to explore it further and that is a valid question. Donnelley: We are not denying that the preliminary approval has been granted for the massing so your next step is materials but still if you could explore that option it would be great. Charles Cunniffe: over to Sunny Vann feedback on that. I can see the advantages also. I can turn it and have them give HPC a letter giving their Amy: Ail I am saying it isn't done until it is built and if any ideas come in lets address them. Charles Cunniffe: If it pencils out cheaper I am sure they would go with it. They might not have thought that they could get that 1--5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 reading. Amy: P&Z may say they want that unit off site. Sven: You got conceptual because a lot of us like the program. Melanie: We were talking about what could be done to cover up the building while you were working and when I was in Charleston I took some pictures that might be incorporated. Charles Cunniffe: Another plan could be wrap something up that relates to the movies. Linda: That would make it inviting and interesting so that people would have a positive feeling about the project. Charles Cunniffe: Where do we stand? Donnelley: You are going to find out why or is their any compelling reason why your program is locked into providing all of the housing onsite and then materials. Donnelley: You might preface to P&Z that although we gave preliminary approval we would be much happier if there were housing on the roof that the one forward element were removed. John Wheeler: met. Conceptual was given and the conditions have been Donnelley: If the aspect of less housing i.e. only free market were on the roof we would really be delighted to see the free market replace the present location of the housing. Charles Cunniffe: You all have sanctioned this with final choice of materials; however, your druthers would be not to have the housing on top. Donnelley: We have always had reservations about that mass that is forward and directly over. Charles Cunniffe: Can I have a straw poll to refer to P&Z that there was consensus. Aside from P&Z being able to remove housing the only condition that I feel we are down is that the final choice of materials will be done at a. worksession on site. Amy: That is the only issue left but you have conditions like keeping the Isis sign. Les: The only other issue left is materials. 1--6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Donnelley: There are other issues but the main one is materials. Linda: I agree. Jake: I cannot agree. 801 E. HYMAN Amy: Some of us did a site visit today. This project was approved in 1989 and John Elmore owner and Stan Mathis, architect came to HPC and there was a house on this property, a little green building that was rated one'on the HPC inventory and there was also an historic garage on the alley. At first HPC wanted to keep the entire thing and then the house'could go away and keep the shed and then the shed went away. Basically it was a completely empty parcel but as a condition of the demolition they got to review the new project. I reviewed all the minutes today and there was definitely a discussion about wanting to retain the form of the original one story house on the side and have that one story element at the corner. There was also the discussion of wanting this building to differentiate itself from the next door building which I believe John Elmore also built. They would like to eliminate the gabled roof on the one story element and switch to a porch form. My only comment that I feel is that HPC felt it important and you should keep that in mind before you change it. Stan Mathis, architect: This house and the outbuilding was rated a one and what became important to the committee at that time was the mass and bulk and keeping that as low as we could. As the house has been built I made a mistake by not arguing to lower the gable end. There is a deck. Donnelley: You are talking about altering the one gable end. Stan Mathis: There element. What was mass and bulk. is a deck and we would continue the porch roof finally approved had no windows and it was all Melanie: The fireplaces have been switched and this is massive and everything is on the street side. Stan: The drawing may or may not be what was finally approved. What was finally approved had to do with the mass and shape of the house only. Les: I do not remember all this detail. Stan: That is correct because we said we weren't going to show you the materials because you didn't have to. 1--7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Amy: There were also two extensions of vested rights. Linda: Do you find this approved scale obtrusive to the historic house offensive? It indicates that there was something historic there. John Elmore: When you look at the front across the roof it looks like it doesn't go anywhere. The deck is behind it. Linda: When I walk down the street and look over at the project at least there is a little something left of the feeling that was once there, the small scale feeling. John Elmore: You have all this huge mass around us and we tried to pull it back. Susan: I feel the same as Linda. Stan: If you follow the minutes at first the house that was there was thought to be historic and then it was determined not to be historic and then as part of ordinance #1 and employee housing units and carriage houses off the alley then the attention switched to the little shed. So all of a sudden it wasn't important for the big house. Then it was important to try and relocate the carriage house as employee housing so employee housing wouldn't be located in below space and we could get a bonus FAR. John offered to move the little carriage house to a site that would take it and it was the Sanitation site and the house movers looked at it and Steven Kanipe looked at it and they said we can't move it. Les: I was there and Steven Kanipe and I said it could be moved. Stan: We moved away from the house and what was historic was the mass and scale at the corner low as a one story element. It seems a smart move to irradicate that and continue the porch roof which was also important at the time of approval. When you look at the house I feel it looks better without that gable roof. Melanie: After looking at it today this gable element does not feel like it belongs to the house and I am in favor of what they are proposing. It feels better on the house no matter what was approved originally. I feel it brings the scale of the entire thing down. John Elmore, owner: We have already built the element and then felt that it detracted from the house. Melanie: It brings the height down on the corner but in general I feel the house is too big and I would like to know how the chimneys got switched. 1--8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1995 MOTION: Donnelley moved that the commission approves the removal of the gable roof as show on the drawings 8-24-95 at 801 E. Hyman; second by Melanie. Motion carries 4 to 3. Opposed Les, Susan and Jake. Don, Roger, Linda and Melanie voted yes. Martha abstained. MOTION: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 1--9