Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20071024ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 435 W. Main -Jewish Community Center ......................................................................... 2 Project Monitoring -Conner Cabins -fence ..................................................................... 2 Project Monitoring -Isis Theatre -roof ............................................................................. 5 Election of chair and vice chair .......................................................................................... 6 Ordinance #48 public comments ........................................................................................ 6 135 W. Hopkins -Major Development -Final Review -Public Hearing ...................... 11 28 Smuggler Grove, Historic Designation, Major Development -Conceptual Review, Public Hearing .................................................................................................................. 14 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 Chairperson Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, Nora Berko, Alison Agley, Ann Mullins and Jay Maytin. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jim True, Special Counsel MOTION: Ann moved to approve the minutes of Oct. 10`h; as amended by Brian; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. 435 W. Main -Jewish Community Center MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing on 435 W. Main, Jewish Community Center to Nov. 14, 2007; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Project Monitoring -Conner Cabins -fence Amy said at final there were some representations made about where some limited fencing would go on the site. It was basically at the entry points and the corridor that runs behind the historic building to differentiate the town homes in the back. The idea came up that BJ Adams could install fencing along the east side of their property as a perimeter for their landscaping. Amy said she asked them to stop the work because it was not something that Sara has seen and it might not be something that we wanted in the foreground of an historic building especially if it could be done minimally to train the sweet peas on. John Olson, Michael Adams, BJ Adams Photos of existing condition -Exhibit I John said the Adams have the south east corner cabin for their Aspen office. John said there were two green posts and between them a series of steel stakes and chicken wire. That was the historic fence for the sweet peas. The Adams wanted to reproduce the fence and tie it into something that fits today. They looked at the Sardy house fence and one at Jill's carpet. We took the same design of the fence that exists behind the cabin and continued it. The fence is already fabricated. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24.2007 Michael Adams pointed out that they started searching for a fence that would be compatible with the project not knowing that the developer was building a fence at the same time. The week they found a fence the other fence started going in. Michael said he was required by the owner to retain the sweet peas and desires to do so. The fence would also protect people from peering into the window which sets off the alarm system. John said cyclone or chain link fencing previously existed. He also pointed out that fencing exists on the other sides of the cabin. The fence would be six inches higher than exists. Comments: Sarah said in the context of other buildings with fences, they usually have large yards associated with fences of the type proposed. Sarah pointed out that the fence was not part of the review process. In terms of Chapter I guidelines Sarah felt the fence was not in compliance. If it could have some kind of planting on it all year around it would be a different story or if it could be a fence that could come and go during the planting season. Michael asked if it would be possible to remove the fence when the sweet peas are done growing. John said the posts are securely in the ground and it would be difficult to remove them. Ann said the context of this property has been changed so much. A lawn in that small space is not useful. The garden is beautiful and the design of the fence enhances it. Nora also agreed that the fence would be an improvement on the site. Jay inquired about the height of the fence. John said it would be six inches higher than the temporary or even with the posts that are already put in. Brian said he does not have a strong opinion one way or another but no fence would give it more of an open feel. There is only a small swath of yard there and fencing it would make it awkward. Michael agreed with Brian that the opaque view is better because it is right up against the structure. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 Amy clarified that the board doesn't have a problem with the design of the fence it is the fact that it is up all year long. Maybe the fence could slide into a sleeve. Michael did a straw poll regarding the design of the fence as proposed and having it be permanently installed. Failed 4-3. Michael Adams asked why the other houses had fences and it not appropriate for his cabin. Amy explained that the other fences are recessed back. Sarah said it would be great if we had the landscape plan so that we can compare the context of everything else with the proposed fence. BJ Adams said one of the challenges of the east side is when we inherited the space we had a yard and when the sidewalk came in we lost our yard. That space isn't even 18 inches. You can't do anything in that space and in the winter it is unattractive. We have two windows on a long elevation of siding with nothing breaking it up. Michael said that is the same issue we are struggling with as a commission. BJ said in the winter the fence would break up that plane. Maybe the fence could be lower and not as high to break it up. In the summer we could steak up the sweet peas a little higher. Jay said since the space is so small a lower fence might actually work. Jay said he would consider a fence 1/3 shorter. Michael said staff and monitor can discuss options such as seasonal and making the fence lower. Michael Adams said it is awkward looking because the historic windows had to be preserved and they basically go to the floor and they look like a door. The fence helps create a visual bamer so you don't walk into the window. Michael said Sarah, staff and the applicant can work out the issues. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 Project Monitoring -Isis Theatre -roof Amy said on the Isis Theatre there are three residential units on the roof. The one closest to the front has an area roof deck that is used and they would like to expand that area. They are interested in creating a deck where there can be fireworks but it would require a railing because the parapet is not tall enough. Staff was not comfortable signing off without HPC discussion. Jeff Lester, architect The client wants to convert a planter that was never utilized into a deck that they can walk up onto and watch fireworks. They would have to provide a 3.6 guard rail. The code requires for a commercial project a 42 inch high safety rail. We need to do something to protect people from falling off. The client prefers air craft cable and the fall back would be glass. The real concern of staff is the exposure from across the street. The east side and south side are exposed. The south side has very little exposure but the parapet on the east side slopes down and all of a sudden the exposure/guard rail is more apparent. Michael said the issue is that you see the railing from the street. Ann inquired about the enlargement of the deck. Jeff said this is an enlargement of the deck because the planter will be taken away but it is not an enlargement of the building. It is still contained within the historic boundary of the project. Brian said he needs to know more about the materiality of the design in order to make a decision. Ann said the railing could have a big impact and it should be looked at carefully as to whether the additional area should be allowed. Jeff said the city is allowing us to do this through other negotiations. Amy said through the city involvement there are certain agreements but I don't think this is one of them. Michael suggested Ann and Brian act as a subcommittee to look at what Jeff is proposing and whether it should come back as an amendment to the approval or just for staff and monitor review. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 Sarah said the cornice line is what is important. The proposal needs to be looked at carefully to see if it offends that comice line. Amy said the issue is whether HPC will accept the impact of the railing. If HPC is not comfortable with staff and monitor handling the decision then it would be a minor development. Sarah said for consistency we should not be able to see the railing. We discussed this at length with the Elks Building. Amy said they either find some way that they cannot see the building from across the street or it comes to the board as a minor development. Michael said if we can see it then it has to come back as a minor amendment to the development approval. Amy said Brian and Ann will confirm that Jeff's proposal is not visible from the street and if that isn't true then it will come through as a minor development. Jeff said he feels comfortable that he can find something that is not visible from the street. Election of chair and vice chair The board voted that Michael Hoffman be the chair and Sarah Broughton be the vice-chair. Ordinance #48 public comments Amy said the version of the ordinance was e-mailed and there were a number of options. It has been rewritten to try and make it fit well into the existing code. Amy said right now the way ordinance 30 is written if a property owner asks for determination if their property was significant and the Community Development Department made the initial determination that it was we could not stop the landmark process. The way the new ordinance is written, it puts more power onto the property owner and they can say yes or no and can control the speed of the process. Another change is that a recommendation by HPC would have to be by super majority which is ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 majority plus one or designation cannot occur. The property owner can discuss with council the economic impacts. The list would come to HPC and the board would have a chance to eliminate some of the properties if they thought it appropriate. The concern of staff is that we cannot prepare documentation on 89 properties in a month. We will have to figure out a way that HPC gets enough information. The public hearing is Nov. 12tH Michael said he felt that the ordinance was written well. Mike Maple said he represents a coalition called "aspen citizens group" that was formed in the wake of ordinance #30. Marilyn Marks and I have been drafting comments on ordinance #48. We are here tonight to focus on the HPC review of the list. The last time I was here there were pictures of the 89 properties. We are anxious for you all to do that review. Our primary focus is on the residential properties on that list. The proposed ordinance is that HPC review the list within 90 days. We would like to suggest that the HPC do a driving tour of each of the properties. It is important that they are not just viewed in the abstract. This would be much more expedient. Exhibit I -scoring mechanism 1. Not important enough to clear super majority vote of HPC for forced designation. 2. Structure not easily accessible by the public and fails to sufficiently add to the preservation goals of the community enough to force designation. 3. I do not feel it merits forced designation, but I can see some potential merit in voluntary. 4. It is important to preserve. 5. It is overwhelming important. Michael asked what happened to the whole concept of the community giving us some guidance as to what is important and what is not. Mike said after reviewing the records etc. the community, council and the HPC do not have clears consensus on what the community wants to do with 20tH century properties. Ordinance #30 has aggravated the process. Part of deliberation of ordinance #30 is to create a task force and do a comprehensive review of the 20tH century policies. The problem is that it will take some time to do 89 properties. The 20tH Century properties are of a different era. They tend to be brick etc. and it would be hard to move some of them. It is a different animal than the Victorian era. You need different 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 criteria to review something that is not as old. Many people think being 30 years old is not enough to designate something. The shortest representation I have heard is that it will take six months to do the study and up to two years. The problem is what do we do in between. Some of these 89 properties that need further review will want to do something to their houses, such as add a deck, paint etc. and they may want to sell it or refinance it. Having being put on the list there is an encumbrance as to what they can do to their house. Until the task force goes through the process we need to do something. We will have to use what happens out of ordinance 48 as well as the good judgment of HPC and City Council until there are new criteria. Marilyn Marks said there was some time frame mentioned for HPC to do the review. I think it says 180 days but I feel council's intent was for HPC to do it in 90 days or less. I hope that you all will weigh in considerably to council how you want to see that task force created and how they would interface with the HPC. Helen Klanderud said she lives at 1580 Riverside Drive and her house was built in 1969 and it is not on the list. My interest in this issue is that ordinance #30 is fundamentally flawed. City council does not want to back track and talk about what should have happened and what could have happened. Some of the people in this room have spent hours in fighting this battle with city council. I do not want to discredit what they did but I have a different view point on it. It is fundamentally flawed because it was passed as an emergency ordinance. This whole idea of what is the community value, and what does the community want to see. In the usually process there would be plenty of opportunity for public comment before something is put into place. I was here in 1999 when there were numerous resignations from the HPC and when this room and hall was packed with property owners who properties were suddenly on a list and the entire process for over a year to re-write the historic preservation code with a great deal of public input and with a great deal of education of the public. We had films of other communities and what they were looking at through designation. We had consultants come in etc. It might not have been perfect but we were on the right track and brought us into the 20`h century with the 40 year properties. My own personal feeling is that it might not be age alone that should determine designation. There are buildings being built today that this building would want preserved well into the future. The problem with the emergency ordinance was, it was 30 years arbitrarily and it had to do with the fact that there is a perception that many of the properties that are 30 or 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 35 years of age are demolished. I'm not hung up on the actual age but I am hung up on identifying properties as potentially historic simply because of their age when they are not notable, exceptional or iconic and when the architect isn't someone whose work is even questioned about preserving. Other preservation community's codes make that very clear. I believe with the overall general criteria that we use; however, within that we need to go to the next level. Why is a certain design considered more historic and something that we want to preserve than another one. Why is that property on the list when there are properties almost identical that are not on the list? Why is the North of Nell on the list and the Concept 600 not. What defines that age as opposed to something else? If the city goes ahead and updates the community plan currently in the 2000 plan are the values of this community. I think it takes the experts to decide what is worth preserving. I am concerned if HPC decides on the 89 properties at least until ordinance 48 is passed any of us who have properties that are at least 30 years old have a cloud over our properties until the final version is passed. Secondly it was floated by councilmen Romero that there would be no involuntary designations. If a property comes before the HPC that it is clearly a value as an historic property and therefore unanimously you decide that it should be historic and the owner doesn't want it designated where does that leave everything. There needs to be discussions with city council about your position and opinions on this whole issue. There is a concern that we will loose buildings if this ordinance isn't passed. We have lost some. I am concerned about ordinances that get passed out of fear. Marilyn said they feel everything that Helen said is 100% true. We are concerned whether the list is appropriate, the arbitrary nature of the list, why some properties are on and some are not. If you take the driving tour soon you will come away with some kind of input that will be valuable for City Council. I would hate this ordinance to be passed without HPC at least doing a driving tour of the properties where you can see the houses in the situations they are in, something more than photos. Jerry Blumberg 232 McSkimming, Aspen Grove - I am on the list and I feel the HPC can do something special for us and for the city of Aspen by putting all your heads together and coming up with some criteria so that we don't have to wait two or three years for the real final criteria. I hope HPC can help and create something that can help smooth this over. I don't want to be on the list and be able to move on with my life if I want too. The HPC board has been listening to us more than anyone else. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 Jack Wilkie - My issue is where this will end up. We know some of the houses on the list will get thrown off. I have a house that doesn`t fit on the category and I am afraid that it will be on there by default because you can't find anything wrong with it. Now we are down to 30 houses. Can it be that these 30 house are going to bear the burden of these restriction on financing, reverse mortgages, lack of interest by realtors because it isn't like anybody else's house. I have heard that houses that have had remodels and additions will not be included, that doesn't make any sense to me. -Pan-a-bodes are another issues. There are plenty around and only five on the list. In this current application as it applies to my property the lot is too small to do a lot split and I can't add anything significantly because of the way it is structured right now. I don't know what other compensation staff and HPC are going to come up with. I don't know where you are going to come up with ideas that will make me feel good about keeping it historic and why does it enhance the value of my house if it is historic. Katherine Gawlins - 318 KcSkimming - I am not on the list and I would love to see the criteria that HPC uses to designate a building. Sara said the criteria for designation can be found on the city website. Chip Freeman - 246 Roaring Ford Drive. I am on the list. I respectfully request that the HPC take a little tour. I have read this ordinance and I look at the task force and there is no mention of anybody on the task force with any ability to analyze financial conditions which is extremely important. A primary residence can be the major asset of a homeowner and it is extremely important that someone handle financial information. Peggy Mason said she bought her house 30 years ago and it is a chalet modern. I added a deck on first floor and extended the dining room and the side deck with a window seat. Martha Madsen 608 W. Hopkins. We built this house in 1960 and it is a multi-family house. I would like to encourage you all to take the time and drive to these properties and take a look at the neighborhoods. To just designate properties here and there doesn't seem logical to me. My property is on 5`h and W. Hopkins and has been there for 47 years and I am on all the lists. The underlying zoning is R-15 which is an issue for me in selling. to ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan accepted the comments from the public. Alison said a tour would be very helpful and we would not want to go forward in giving our opinions without doing something like that. Jay said taking the tour and going through each property would be more appropriate. Amy said we need to talk about some strategy. Possibly we can do chalets one day and moderns another. We need to discuss how HPC makes a decision etc. The ordinance goes into effect 30 days after the public hearing. HPC also has the ability stop the process. Sarah said during the 90/120 days there is basically a hold on what you can do with your property. Amy said there is a hold anyway and anyone can start the process. All that is happening is that HPC can review it sooner. Mike Maple said #1 there is a list existing. #2 HPC does a review and takes things of the list or leaves it as it is. A property owner can to do the community development director and request that he review the house and make a determination as to whether or not it is potentially historic. That review is based on the current list or shortened list. Once the determination has been made, yes it is worthy of designation it would then come to HPC for a designation review and then go to City Council. Michael expressed his sensitivity to the issues at hand. On one side there is a need for expediency and on the other hand we are charged with a thoughtful consideration of what is historic and what is not. We can't possibly do both of those jobs within 90 days but we will do the best we can. 135 W. Hopkins -Major Development -Final Review -Public Hearing Sara explained that the applicant has returned to the conceptual approval in terms of roof forms, scale etc. We are only focusing on final review issues. Basically we think the front porch meets our criteria. The landscape should be approved by staff and monitor and the lighting locations are appropriate. The lighting fixtures should be approved by staff and monitor later on. In terms of the fenestration we think both on the historic home and the new 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 house they met our guidelines. The materials are appropriate. A detail of the intersection of the horizontal vertical siding has been submitted. The railing in the packet seemed a little heavy and that can be dealt with by staff and monitor. Staff recommends approval with some details to be worked out with staff and monitor. The rehab of the historic home is the primary concern which is a condition in the resolution. Gretchen Greenwood, architect said they took the house back to its conceptual approval. The railing is a 1 xl square with a flat rail on top. It is as simple and minimal as we can make it. Exhibit I -railing Gretchen said this has been a long process and a good one. There will be significant plantings between the two buildings. Our plan is to give the Victorian a strong background so that you don't see much of the new house at all. There is quite a bit of area for landscaping between the two buildings. Ann asked for clarification of the different sidings. Gretchen said the lap siding is a siding that laps over top and very traditional in most Victorians. A square edge siding abuts on the same plane and doesn't have a detail. A V groove would be the same siding butting together but with a detail that adds texture and a slight bit of shadow which would differentiate itself. Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment section of the agenda item was closed. Michael said he would like to make the boards discussions such that we can identify the important issues and have a good record. Michael asked Sara to identify the issues that can be approved by staff and monitor. 1. A landscape plan shall be approved by Staff and monitor. 2. Lighting Fixtures for both residences shall meet the Lighting Code and shall receive Staff and monitor approval prior to purchase and installation. 3. The railing proposed for the new residence shall be approved by Staff and monitor. 4. Condition #6 is about phasing the construction and making the historic home a priority regarding the rehabilitation. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 Sidewalk Ann inquired about putting in the sidewalk at all. Sara said it is a requirement by code and the Engineering Dept. wants a sidewalk. Ann said there are no sidewalks on the other side of the street and no sidewalk beyond Lenado. By putting this wide sidewalk in it changes the whole residential quality of the neighborhood. Ann said she feels the sidewalk should be eliminated since we already have the pedestrian way. The landscape design seems kind of flipped and guideline 1.10 says the front yard is supposed to have traditional looking sod/turf. The flower gardens would be closer to the house or in the back of the house. The majority of the homes on Hopkins have front lawns facing the street. Traditionally you would not see the dwarf lilac hedge. There are a few mature lilacs that could be saved and protected. On the street there are mostly cotton woods and nobody wants to plant giant cotton woods but there are some substitutes for cottonwoods particularly in color as opposed to the maple tree that is being proposed. The maple tree is an east coast tree and not a western tree. Sara pointed out that the historic home will be moved up to the lot line so all the plantings and perennial gardens are in the public right-of--way. Staff and the City can recommend what goes in that right-of--way. Sara said she will talk to the Parks Department. Gretchen said she has a Victorian house and has a perennial garden in front of her house in the right-of--way and the Engineering Department has been very accommodating. Gretchen said if you start the dialogue early they will be amenable to the ideas. Sarah said she feels comfortable approving final tonight and the biggest issues is the landscape plan that needs to be figured out with the Engineering Department and the Parks Department. The monitor could bring back the landscape plan. Alison said she thought the City had an overall plan for sidewalks. She also recommended that Ann be the monitor. Gretchen said she would be happy to come back and work on a landscape plan. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 Jay said he disagrees and he likes the sidewalks. Sidewalks on the corner property will lend to further development of that block and other sidewalks within it. Alison said she is not opposed to the sidewalk. The road is a pedestrian road right now but it might not always be like that and it doesn't preclude people from driving on Hopkins. Michael thanked the architect for going back to the conceptual drawings. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve resolution #38 for final development of 135 W. Hopkins as stated in the memo with clarification of condition #1. That the landscape plan be worked out closely with the Parks Dept., Engineering Dept. and City to develop a cohesive plan to be brought back as a monitoring issue to the board for approval and review. Motion second by Brian. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Nora, yes; Jay, yes. Alison, yes, Ann, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 7-0. 28 Smuggler Grove, Historic Designation, Major Development - Conceptual Review, Public Hearing Affidavit of posting -Exhibit I Sara said the application is for landmark designation and for major conceptual development. The City filed the designation process through Ordinance #30 and the property owner wanted us to do a concurrent designation hearing and conceptual review knowing full well if his property wasn't designated he wouldn't really have to come before HPC. This is the first property that came out of the Ordinance #30 review. Designation criteria: Sara said this building was moved from somewhere. The floor plan is interesting and the front gable end is really long. Sara overlaid a 2006 aerial photograph over the 1904 Sanborn map and found one floor plan that matched, Exhibit B in your packet. It is on the corner of Monarch and Dean St. The cabin is an 1880's miner's cabin. Staff finds that it meets criteria A and it is over 100 years old. The integrity assessment score was 63 and there is a rear addition and some window changes. This building is a good candidate for designation. Conceptual review: 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 Sara said the lot is 7,377 square feet and zoned R-15A which is a medium density building. After the proposed addition if it goes through they will have 2,029 square feet of un-built floor area. If they are designated they will be eligible for the 500 square foot bonus. The proposal is for aone-story modest addition and a garage. The proposal meets most of the guidelines. A small concern for staff is the rear elevation. It is all one plane, so from the rear it is hard to read the historic width of the building. Staff recommends that at final there be some kind of material change or undulation in the plan so you can still read the width of the historic piece. Things that can be dealt with at final are the proposal to enlarge the windows on the historic home. They are proposing double hung windows which are appropriate. Leaving the side windows as they are might be a better idea. We also think moving the existing light well is totally appropriate. The front porch is proposed to be restored because it is rotting and we will need photographs and a detailed plan at final. Staff recommends approval with two conditions: Come up with a way to distinguish the width of the historic home and a detailed proposal about the restoration of the front porch. Jim Burns, owner Jim said he will do something to distinguish the house. He said he can leave the windows the way they are. He also agreed to remove some of the design on the garage because it is too fancy. There is a deck on the back that needs to be removed because we want nicer landscaping. It is not attached to the house. We just want a little house to live in, my wife and me. I have had the house rented and manage the East Elk Creek Ranch and we are ready to move into town. Sarah asked if the west facing bay window is historic. Jim said the whole house was stripped to the frame and everything on the exterior is new. There is nothing historic on the outside. Amy said that is probably true and we should probably confirm the window sizes etc. Jim said the plan is to take everything out of the house down to the frame. Sarah said she would like to know the history of the bay window. Sarah said she is also concerned how the solar tubes will look like from the front of the house. Jim said his intent is to not have them visible from the front. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 Amy asked if any trees on the site are slated to be cut down during construction. Jim said there are non that will interfere with excavation. One thing that we might have a problem with is on the west side; there are foundation leaks and he will have to dig it up and put drain the in and there are a couple of trees that are pretty close. Brian pointed out that he agreed with the assessment scoring. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Steve Huck and Marty Ames -owners of the house across the street at 23 Smuggler. Steve said he can support getting the cars off the street which is really not a street but an easement. Jim has been sensitive in the past to lighting issues and has agreed to do so on this building. Marty Ames said we have lived here 20 years and watched this house being rebuilt 3 times. A former owner installed excessive lighting on the house and it will be nice to have that reduced. Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan closed the public hearing. Ann said the shingles would look better on the new addition and the old cottage. They would hold the design together better. Alison said it would be great if we could find an old photograph. Ann said if the garage door detailing could look more like the siding of the house it would fit better. Sarah said she would be concerned about solid garage doors. Ann suggested some windows on the garage door on the east elevation. Jim said it would be fun to make the garage doors look like they are shed doors. Recommendations for final 1, 2, 3, in staff's memo. 4. The non-historic deck in the back to be approved for demolished. 5. Review the historic window placement west facing bay window. 6. Explore different options for the garage door, possibly shed doors. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2007 7. Investigate shingles; hopefully a photograph can be located. Jim said he is fine with all of the recommendations. MOTION: Alison moved to approve resolution #39, conceptual development for 28 Smuggler Grove with the three conditions as stated in staff's memo and the four recommendations as stated above; second by Sarah. Roll call vote.• Brian, yes; Nora, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Ann, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ~- Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 17