Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20000913ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 REVIEW OF INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES CURRENTLY ...................................................... 6 CURRENTLY LISTED ........ 6 123 E. HALLAM RESIDENCE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 17 302 E. HOPKINS - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL ................................................... 19 21 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 1'3, 2000 Discussion before the meeting. Gilbert relayed that if there still remains a question on one or two inventories they could be continued until the facts are verified, until we all feel comfortable with what we are voting on. The board needs to look at the forms and determine what the relative facts are. Gilbert Said he feels comfortable with the schedule proposed. People brought up some information Monday that we need to verify. I am making my decision based on the fact that architecture design of that particular house and if someone says that is not the case we need to verify that. Mary asked in the public hearing, which we had Monday evening many people did stand up and said the information was not correct. I understand from the notes from the board members and Julie Ann's notes that you already have that information that was incorrect and people should not have to come back twice to say that the information is wrong. There were many letters that were presented that indicated that the information was incorrect. The Meriman's indicated that the information on their property was incorrect in a public hearing and those people should not have to come back. Amy relayed that they should be able to start tomorrow verifying the things that were brought up. Some of the things that were brought up as inaccuracies on the properties were due to certain words in terms that we were required by the Colorado Historical Society to use to describe a material or a roof form, they are not errors in our assessment of the property, they maY just be a different word. Julie Ann informed the audience that it would be in their best interest to come to the assigned date to provide us with more information because questions may come up. Michael Behrendt, property owner relayed at the end of Monday's meeting he was somewhat relieved because he no longer felt that it was a steam roller and he Was the victim. He felt that the board had some sympathy. The staffposition has been very monolithic. The thing He doesn't like is the nature of the hearing process. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 John Kelly informed the board that the only way they can present their position effectively is bring in their own architect. Tuesday Sept. 19th is not enough time to find a local architect~ At least another week would be fair. Heidi said she felt the time frame was not long enough for property owners to respond. Amy relayed that the meeting can be moved. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney relayed to the public that there will never be a legitimate time frame and at some point this is going to go forward. There is no point in delaying it forever. The public seems to have the idea that is being steamed rolled. The public is assuming that HPC is going to approve all of these, and this probably will not occur. The public is assuming that P&Z will approve what is left. Then the public has a third short at council. There will be three sets of public hearings that you have an opportunity to come to and present your point of view. I do not know of any process in the city that would be more fairer. We certainly want to give you the opportunity to be heard; The board needs to determine their next hearing and then we will proceed with the meeting. Rick Knezevitch said people in the room have property well in excess of 150 million dollars. There are people who are out of town and if this is put off for 30 days it will give people a chance to respond. Mary informed the public that the city council did an emergency demolition stay until November 1 st. Mary suggested to the staff that they ask the council members if they would add two months to that stay. She called or e-mailed each coUncil member asking them if she could talk to them and she got very little response. Bill Stifling stated that the board could make a motion that staff asks the city council for an additional 60 days and he feels they would be sympathetic to that request. Heidi suggested that those properties remaining after the meeting this evening, the following steps should be followed. All facts regarding the 2 .ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 properties and appropriateness.of the properties for inclusion based on our land use code and the historic guidelines will be verified if necessary by an independent historic architect. The findings of the above will be released to all HPC board members and sent to all property owners by registered mail. That way nobody out there can say they did not get it. No less than 30 days and no more than 60 days will be provided adequate discussion, public hearings and review of these materials by both HPC and the property owner. This time frame can be extended another 30 days if necessary to accommodate holidays or if needed by staff. HPC will then vote of the properties and make their recommendation to P&Z and City Council. This would make me feel more comfortable and if the board does not agree she will disregard the letter. Julie Ann said there would be a concern with the additional cost of that work. Heidi said every government project has cost over runs. She considers this a very minor cost over run to the property value being considered in this room. She only wrote in there, if necessary. If someone says their form is incorrect the city needs to somehow verify that. Mary asked how the board felt about the letter proposed by Heidi? Gilbert stated that he fails to understand what the historical architect is going to provide us with. The issues in question have nothing to do with dates or with historical fact. Because the buildings are post war buildings we are trying to determine if these buildings are good examples of that particular style. Having an architect tell me that the particular kind of ginger bread molding that is on one building isn't exactly like something that was done in Europe, that is a useless thing and it is not informative. It seems to be a cost that is a total waste. The issue with all of these building is whether they have the quality that makes them worthy of the designation we are talking about. Those are physical elements of the building and the board can look at those buildings. Mary asked about questions and things that she does not feel comfortable aboUt, on the sheets and if the three architects on the board review the 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 questions she would be comfortable with that decision. The three architects on the board have always given her good information in the past five years. Heidi said if the board and public are comfortable With that she will agree. Gilbert said the forms are about the physical evidence. Jeffrey said the forms are catalogues of existing conditions. Photographs and a site visit were done on the propertibs and then a written description. Ifa consultant should come in they should come in as an independent consultant for what that good use is and not necessarily the architectural or historical point of the property. Heidi said she was thinking more ora person like "Nori Winter". TIME FRAME DISCUSSION Rally said the history of the area and building are important to him than some expert architect pointing at materials and saying they are crown moldings. On the other hand the public needs a comfort level and he would be in favor of augmenting the schedule somewhat, possibly a week. He personally feels the schedule is adequate as is. Lisa said the schedule and proposed is adequate but she would be agreeable to an extension of not more than 30 days. Christie said she would agree to a 30-day extension. Susan said she would agree to a week extension. Gilbert said the schedule is fine: There are a group of properties that can be taken care of. If there are properties in question they can be deferred. Jeffrey said he could agree to an additional week. Mary said one or two weeks would do no harm. MOTION: Heidi moved to ask city council to continue the emergency demolition stay for 60 days to allow time for ample review; second by Christie. Amy said not every property that is on the consideration is covered by the stay. 25 of the properties of the original 53 are covered by the stay, 28 of them are not. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 Ballots were tallied by the board and properties were voted on to be removed. Amy said properties will not be added back onto the inventory once the board has come to a conclusion, and it is HPC's decision. Vote clarification. This is just a request to end the stay. If we have to add more properties at the end of the meeting we can. The attorney indicated that the motion can be amended. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Mary, Heidi, Susan, Christie, Lisa, Gilbert David Hoefer said Christie will vote on the properties that will be added and Rally will vote on the properties that are on the agenda and want to be removed so that each member gets an opportunity to participate. MOTION: Lisa moved to accept October 3rd as the first meeting for chalet small lodge review; second by Rally. Passes 4-3. Yes vote: Mary, Susan, Christie, Lisa No vote: Gilbert, Jeffrey, Heidi Mary said in tonight's meeting the board will discard the properties that the HPC has voted on and staff will respond if they have issues. Some members in the public requested support from HPC on incentives. SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 MEETING Mary Hirsch, vice-chair opened the meeting at 6:15 p.m. In attendance were Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Lisa Markalunas, Christie Kienast and Rally Dupps. Heidi stepped down. Monitoring issues. On the Halperin house the garage door details needs reviewed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ SEPTEMBER 13~ 2000 REVIEW OF INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES CURRENTLY LISTED Suzannah Reid informed the board and public that the forms were completed and based on the previous information that was available on the inventory and a current visual site of any records or alterations that have been done on the site. Amy said there are 110 properties that are on the inventory but are not land marked. The resolution indicated the category for each of the resources but does not effect the review process. Those wishing to speak about their property on the inventory were sworn in and they will be identify as they speak. MOTION: Rally moved to remove 719 E. Hopkins from the inventory,. second by Christie. Motion carries 6-1 Yes vote: Gilbert, Mary, Susan, Christie, Rally, Jeffrey Lisa, no Ten individuals indicated that they wished to discuss their property. 303 S. Cleveland 308 E. Hopkins 720 S. Aspen 1020 E. Cooper 101 E. Hopkins 980 Gibson 557 Walnut 470 N. Spring 124 E. Cooper 202 N. Monarch 308 E. Hopkins, Nick Lebby, La Cocina. He stated his property had a series of add-ons through the years and has very little original historical 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 significance. On your architectural inventory form it says the house has been significantly altered and the lost of the front porch effects the ability to perceive the character of the miners cottage. The bldg. has numerous additions to the left and to the north. The unknown original porch has been enclosed to accommodate the restaurant. Nick replaced most of the boards on the front of the building. He adds onto it to keep a certain look o£the bldg. In 1980 he was rated very Iow. Gilbert indicated that the notion o£a building being retrievable means that there is enough integrity in the building that if someone in the future has the means and resources and desire to restore the building that one could do that. That is one of the aims here and the gable form on the original miner's cottage is intact. The character of the neighborhood needs to be taken into consideration. Jeffrey felt the historic miners cottage was retrievable, especially its location, one of the last historic lots. Christie said there is so little left of anything that resembles the times of Aspen that she would like it to stay even thOugh there is not much left of what it was. Lisa felt the structure should be on the inventory. It is one of four small Victorian houses on that block and in the context of those four the facade is very visible there. Rally indicated that the house has appropriate scale for the neighborhood and it can be retrieved. Mary and Susan dittoed the others. The board unanimously agreed to keep the building on the inventory for the above reasons. 303 S. Cleveland Owner Charles Towers was represented by Michael Hoffrnan, attorney. Mr. Towers is the owner of 303, 305 and 307 S. Galena. Hoffman acknowledged the service of the HPC board. Mr. Towers has been working with the HPC to find a design which satisfies HPC's desire for historic preservation and also meet some of Mr. Towers wishes to profit 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 from his long term ownership of the property, Early in the year they brought a request for deTlisting of the property. There is a substantial financial penalty for having a property on the inventory. There are three five hundred square foot structures on the inventory and they were originally placed there in 1992. The land use code at that time required that a notice be mailed regarding the proposed listing of his property on the inventory and Mr. Towers never received that notice and did not attend the meetings. Several of those who attended the meetings had their properties removed from the inventory. The structures at that time were not yet $0 years old. The city at that time did not have the architectural context document that is being used in this process. Because he was not present to protest, his property was included on the inventory. Late in 1996 he met with planners to discuss what could be done with his property and found out he was on the inventory for the first time and nothing could be done to the exterior without HPC approval. He worked with the city and came to a gridlock due to the numerous regulations, employee housing, building constraints, zoning district, multi family housing replacement program and a definition of what constitutes a duplex. He decided his only avenue was to have the property delisted. Once every five years inventory occurs and the last was 1992 and the city should have done one in 1997, which is the year Mr. Tower asked to be delisted. He was told he had to wait until 1999 and no inventory was done last year. The effect of the three-year delay is to deny Tower the right to develop his property. The HPC jurisdiction over the structures was much more tenuous in 1992 then it is now. The potential exists to have the 1992 decision to be the basis of the HPC decision tonight. The owner feels the structures do not meet the criteria to preserve them as historic. At the time the structures were listed and they were not 50 years old. Mr. Feinburg who is an expert in the field of preservation will discuss his findings regarding Towers property. He is associated with a preservation firm called the Collaborative Inc., in Boulder where he has been a principle for over 26 years. For 19 years he was a visiting professor at the University of Colorado, at Boulder where he taught historic preservation and planning design law. He has worked with the National Parks service. Mr. Feinberg stated that this property is individualy listed and in the middle ora built up neighborhood. It is a wonderful little oasis of greenery that is privately owned. This property for individual listing has way too many intrusions on it. It has five skylights on it. It has a shed roof addition, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 which breaks the skyline and changes the volume of one of the buildings. There are substantial new windows in the building. It is wonderful that the HPC desires to preserve the rustic style that you have set forth in your architectural context. That style is an example in this property because that is what the HPC has adopted as the defining document on which you will judge. Mr. Feinberg stated the criteria was absolutely correct: Single story with low pitched gabled roof. The window openings are spare and usually horizontally proportioned. Wood trim is used to finish out the window openings. A good two thirds Of the window openings are horizontal and the other third are not. The building plans are separate rectangular forms with smaller added elements and that is tree, they do have the form. The rustic style became the preferred style of the National Parks and examples range from simple rectangular structures to elaborate structures of log and stone with varied roof forms, dormers and expressed structural details. You have internal inconsistencies in your style and you have inconsistencies between the architectural inventory form and the style. The rustic preferred style is an elaborate style of log and stone and these are neither log nor stone, they are milled lumber that have been taken out of full logs. For those of you who are not familiar with the term cope, that is saying these logs are formed to the log below and there will be a full log with a small gap between them. In fact, these are all stacked logs and there is no coping. There is none of the three typical log construction details for the comers. They fail on each count the log cons~ction. There are no chinking on the logs because they are milled. There is daubing but no chinking. The daubing is like the mortar. It goes on to say that the emphasis is on handmade materials and the details come out of the use of the materials. These were all machine made so there are no hand made elements on this building what so ever. The information is too vague, after being specific it says don't worry about what we said above because we can decide that it just looks enough like that and that is not proper architectural context. This is insufficient specificity so that it becomes just too vague for anyone in preservation to actually figure out what it is that the style is when you say it can be anything. On the inventory form it says it is three milled log one s~ory cabins so you have eliminated 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 yourselves for consideration. It says windows are minimal and small horizontal units with no muntons and in fact of the 25 windows in the building 18 have muntons. It fails totally on the window aspects. Six of the windows are not horizontal. Another issue with respect to the inventory form, which is a problem, is that it says rafter tails are eXposed behind the fascia and there are no fascia on any of the buildings. There is no fascia, no. muntons, no chinking and all of the wood is milled and not handmade. The board asked Suzannah to respond to the inventory form. Suzannah said in terms of the context report, particularly the last paragraph, was to recognize that there are structures that copy the rustic style and copy in some ways the details of the rustic style in a visual manner. It was not intended to be an opening that anything that had the slightest appearance of the rustic style would qualify under that category. It was simply recognition that rustic style has been elaborated on into current times. In terms of the Cleveland street buildings certainly they do not meet the specific requirement of the rustic style. Properties that the commissioners voted or tallied up to take off the inventory. 410 S. Aspen 501 W. Bleeker 601 Si Garmisch 602 E. Hyman 1001 E. Hyman 300 W. Hyman 334 W. Hyman 220 E. Main 320 320 1/2 Midland 119 S. Mill 17 Shady Lane 412 S. Spring 218 S. Third 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 Amy said there are four additional ones that the staff wants to talk to the commission about in terms of leaving them on. They are 615 Gillespie, 625 Gillespie, 312 W. Hyman, 815 Roaring Fork. Meeting dates that were changed with the input of the public: Sept. 20~h, Sept. 26th, Oct. 3rd, Suzannah stated that on the line that the board is reacting to it says late 19~ and early 20th century rustic. That is one of the lines that is guided by the lexicon of words and terms that the State Historical Society provides to her to use. She is required by them to find the best category based on the terms that they provide her to fit the buildings into. Amy said the society does that so that people can research in a broad way searching for different kinds of buildings and features. Suzannah said when you see the term that is the closest definition that she was able to find from the lexicon of terms that was provided to her to be used on that particular line. Mary said she did not know that there were specific terms that were to be used and the board should have been informed of that. Jeffrey said this particular building type may or may not fit all of the exact criteria of the specific qualities that rustic is defined under. Suzannah said she was as careful as she could be given the lexicon of words. There were no other categories. Gilbert asked Mr. Feinberg if it would be reasonable to expect every building that is identified as a particular building type to exemplify all those characteristics or is there some sort of percentage that you use, is it 90% of the characteristics or 75% or what? Feinberg said that is a difficult question to answer. When is it so far gone that you can't retrieve it anymore. Does it really represent that style sufficiently to be appropriate and or has it lost enough integrity that it's no longer a viable model for that style. The rustic style was full of character ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATIONCOMMISSION MINUTES OF? SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 and that is the real key to remember. When you don't have anything left you do not have that style. This property is black and white. Gilbert asked Michael what the financial penalty was for being on the inventory that he mentioned. Michael said Mr. Towers comacted the Pitkin County assessor's office and said you have over valued my property because I am on the historic inventory and the assessor said yes you are right and decreased the value of his property by between 25 and 50 percent. Amy responded that her contact with the assessors office is that they do not adjust the property values because they see historic buildings being developed all over town. Michael Hoffman requested that the Tower's property be de-listed. Christie asked when the cabins were built and it was 1948, 50, 52. They were added to the inventory in 1992. MOTION: Rally moved to keep the three buildings on the historic inventory,, second by Susan. Passes 5-2 Yes vote: Gilbert, Jeffrey, Susan, Lisa, Rally ' No vote: Mary, Christie Gilbert said if your argument is that it is not rustic then the only categories that are available are Victorian, and it certainly is not that and it is not any of the other categories. It has to fit somewhere, so where does it fit. Michael said he is saying that the property is not historic. The law provides that we respond to what is being proposed and the expert says he agrees with you and the board says they are going to do what they want to do anyway. David Hoefer said the board has a right to make a judgment call that is their responsibility under the code. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 Feinberg said he is concerned with the future and when you go through the process and you agree to rely on the results of that process when the process says we made a mistake it is not in any category he doesn't see how you can vote yes. By voting yes you have taken away your process. You have said the process has no validity. Chuck Towers, owner said if he would have had the review in 1997 after the five years none of these properties would have been 50 years old. He doesn't feel it is fair that he was post-poned and now are considering properties 50 years old. 124 E. Cooper -Snowflake Lodge - Owner stated she has some historical designation and wondered if it could be taken off due to restrictions. She has owned the property for 30 years. It is a bed and breakfast and for years she has not asked the city for help on the taxes but they are high. She wants to know what the city can do about historic properties having high taxes. Amy said the HPC cannot address tax issues, it is beyond their control. This property could be rezoned to allow diversity of different uses to allow it a viable property. It is eligible for incentives. This was built as a house and could reverse to residential use. MOTION: Susan moved to keep 124 E. Cooper property on the inventory; Rally second Passes 7-0 Yes vote: Gilbert, Jeffrey, Mary, Susan, Christie, Lisa, Rally 720 $. Aspen - Holland House - Jasmine De Pagter, owner. The building was built in 1956 and the second pan was built in 1962. Her father was the architect for the ski lodge and extensive remodeling has occurred. The roof line has changed and the windows have changed. We were designated in 1995 and did not know it. Jasmine is appalled that designation occurs without owner consent. The owners should be part of the process. The board needs to be proactive and come to the property owner to discuss designation etc. You need to get everyone in the community wanting to be historic. The entire process needs reviewed and you are dealing with people's futures and lives. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 Amy stated it is fairly common nationally that commissions designate without owner consent. It is not the Aspen way and it is not the democratic way. They feel the review should be does every year or every two years. Mary saidshe is not comfortable with the process. Gilbert said it is obvious that the City has done a terrible job of educating the public about what historic preservation means to their property. The board does not want anyone to be scared about the process. Gilbert also said the property meet all of the qualifications of an historic building. It is in a great location and that is a wonderful quality. Rally mentioned important buildings that were successful due to HPC and one was the Isis Theatre. MOTION: Susan made the motion to retain the Holland House on the inventory; second by Gilbert. Passes 4-2 Yes vote: Gilbert, Jeffrey, Susan, Rally Mary abstained. No vote: Christie, Lisa 1020 E. Cooper - Amy stated that a letter was presented to the board. Sue Lum sent a letter and it was passed out to the commissioners. Rally said 710 E. Hopkins was removed and he has driven by Sue's house before and he feels it is in the same state as 710 E. Hopkins and in a neighborhood that has somewhat lost its integrity and he feels it should be removed. Susan said it is one of the only remaining in that neighborhood and should be retained. Amy said the Windows have been changed and the porch enclosed but it is similar to one that is under construction right now on West Bleeker that is being saVed. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 MOTION: Susan moved to keep 1020 E. Cooper on the inventory; second by Lisa. Passed 5-2 Yes vote: Gilbert, Jeffrey, Mary, Susan, Lisa No vote: Christie, Rally 980 GIBSON Joe Tarbet, owner relayed that they both work for the school district and he is not sure what being on the inventory means or the incentives. The house including the garage is 1500 square feet. The center 500 feet used to be at the bottom of Aspen Mountain and was moved over to Gibson and additions added all around: There are no original doors or windows and you cannot see any of the original structure from the outside. In terms of retrievable you would have to remove 1000 square feet to get to the center and practically you would not do that. Lisa asked if the one piece (gable end) in front is original. Joe said it was original. MOTION: Susan moved to keep 980 Gibson on the inventory; second by Gilbert. Passed 4-3 Yes vote: Gilbert, Jeffrey, Susan, Rally No vote: Mary, Christie, Lisa Amy wanted to be clear 980 Gibson, and 470 N. Spring and 101 E. Hopkins will be dealt with separately Sept 26t~ with other 19th century buildings and the site visits can be done at noon. The applicants agreed. 522 W. FRANCIS, CHARLES & SANDY ISRAEL's HOUSE Mary relayed that the Victorian is intact as she and Michael looked at it when they were contemplating moving to Aspen. There was a substantial addition but the Victorian is there. Suzannah relayed that the bay window and one double hUng window are original but the building is somewhat altered. The form of the house is 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 intact. The house is in the category that has had inappropriate additions made to it. Amy said the problem with this house is that to retrieve this house it is a major reconstruction. There is very little of the original house left. Suzannah recommended to keep the house on the inventory. Another concern is whether the applicant received set back variances. Amy replied no because it is not a landmark. MOTION: Susan moved to keep 522 W. Francis on the inventory,, second by Christie. Yes vote: Susan, Lisa, Rally No vote: Gilbert, Jeffrey, Mary, Christie Motion denied. 101 E. HOPKINS Lennie Oates, attorney for the applicant, The Bishop Trust, relayed that the house has been on the inventory for some time. The Family would like to have it removed. The house has been altered, the post-Victorian era a number of times and they maintain it has lost its character. They do understand and realize it sits right on Paepcke Park. The windows have been changed and the property will probably need to be sold to take care of Mrs. Bishop's long term medical and living needs in some point of time and the family feels having it the way it is will diminish the value in terms of retail. Amy informed the HPC that the windows have effected the change in the building now but it is one that could be restored and the form is intact and it should be retained. There are no large additions to the house. There is a garage and it does have a sandstone foundation, which indicates it probably is in its original location. It is a terrific site. Lennie said the basement was dug out later and they feel the foundation is in need of replacement. Mr. Bishop hand dug the basement in the 70's. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 MOTION: Susan moved to keep 101 E. Hopkins on the inventory; second by Rally. Yes Vote: Gilbert, Jeffrey, Mary, Susan, Lisa, Rally Christie abstained. MOTION: Susan moved to keep all the others on the inventory as currently listed on resolution 44; second by Lisa. Yes Vote: Gilbert, Jeffrey, Mary, Susan, Christie, Rally, Lisa Amy informed the board that she was to tell the HPC what is on the list is not covered by the stay of demolition. MOTION: Jeffrey made the motion to approve the ready for approval list; 433 W. Bleeker 1101 E. Cooper 110 E. Hallam 301 Lake Avenue 220 Puppy Smith Road Copeland Twining Pioneer Park motion second by Rally. Yes vote; Gilbert, Jeffrey, Mary, Susan, Christie, Lisa, Rally Gretta Uhls, 320 W. Hatlam will be held offthe list until the discussion of the panabodes. 123 E. HALLAM RESIDENCE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT David Gibson, architect presented the affidavit of notice. Nick Lelack, planner relayed that this is a minor development and the applicant is Richard and Montae Johnson. The application is to add 222 square feet to the back side, the alley side of the residence. No changes are proposed to the front of the residence. Photos were presented to show the change. The mud, utility room was added in 1950's. Staff also feels that the addition is not hist°~ric. The application is basically to demolish the addition, the utility room and to rebuild it to the exact same footprint and then to add a basement beneath the utility room that would extend out about 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 ten feet beyond where the utility room is. A porch would cover where the basement roof would be and then there would be an open staircase down to the basement that would be on the West Side of the house. The open staircase would not be visible at all from the alley because of the shed structure in front of it. Staff believes that the proposed addition to the rear of the property is compatible in design, scale and massing with the existing residence and the neighborhood. Richard $ohnson, owner said their home was on the home tour twice in 1991 and 1997. David Gibson relayed that the front elevation is across from the Red Brick School and the house is very distinctive. We are adding a porch on the back and the entire 200 square feet is subgrade. The siding material will match existing and be painted. MOTION: Rally moved to approve the minor development of 123 E. Hallam; second by Christie. Motion carries. Yes vote: Gilbert, Jeffrey, Suzannah, Mary, Lisa, Susan, Christie Jeffrey and Gilbert were concerned about the detailing and possibly it should be wrapped~at the comer board and that could be worked out with Staff and monitor. Gilbert said there should be a distinction between old and new but in this case it probably is OK matching. Jeffrey agreed that it is not a major issue. AMENDED MOTION for the 60~day stay: Jeffrey made the motion to add the following properties to recommend to council for the 60-day stay. 541 Walnut 730 W. Main 815 Roaring Fork 120 E. Main 1280 Ute 434 E. Cooper 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 630 IV.. Main 1295 Riverside 232 ~ Main 233 W. Main 435 ~ Main 601 ~ Hallam 200 N. Third 32 7 W. Hallam 925 Gibson 320 ~ Hallam motion second by Rally. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue the public hearing on the new sites until September 20th,. second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENTS PROCEDURELY Owner of 413 W. Hopkins said his presentation was cut short and he delivered the documentation from the architect. He desires to be off the inventory. Amy stated that staff's ballot indicated that could take the chalet off the list but HPC did not. The board desired to review the chalet style before removing the property from the inventory and also do a site visit. The owner said he would be available for the site visit. 302 E. HOPKINS - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL Amy said the board discussed this project last year and tremendous concessions were made by the applicant to get to a project that we all are proud of and she recommends the extension. MOTION.. Jeffrey moved to extend conceptual approval for 302 E. HopkTns for one year; second by Christie. Passes 6-1 19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 Yes vote: Gilbert, Jeffrey, Mary, Susan, Christie, Rally No vote: Lisa MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 20