HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080409SITE VISIT: NOON -
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - March 12, and March 26, 2008.
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
A. Isis Door (15 min.)
B. Main Street sidewalk (15 min.)
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #5)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. NONE
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 627 W. Main Street -Major Development -Conceptual
(lhr.)
X. WORK SESSIONS
A. 541 Race Street
IX. ADJOURN 7:05 p.m.
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
P21
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner
RE; Main Street Sidewalk
DATE: Apri19, 2008
The Main Street sidewalk is located in the city owned right of way within the Main Street
Historic District. HPC held a special meeting with a representative from the Engineering
Department to discuss a proposed sidewalk to the south side of Main Street. The lazge
existing Cottonwood trees and their proximity to the historic ditch posed a challenging
site for a sidewalk. HPC and the Engineering Department agreed on a paver style
sidewalk that would not damage the lazge cottonwood tree roots and would meander
between the ditch and the Cottonwoods. Two questions azose in the development of this
plan. Drawings aze attached.
Material for the sidewalk: The Engineering Department proposes rubber pavers only in
the portion of the block where there are tree roots; and proposes concrete sidewalk for the
rest of the azeas. This creates a sort of "patchwork" sidewalk with different materials
interspersed within one block, depending on the depth of the Cottonwood tree roots. A
few blocks of Main Street, closest to the downtown core, already have concrete
sidewalks; however that section of town does not have the same issue with large
Cottonwood tree roots and a historic ditch. During the discussion last summer, it was
uncleaz whether HPC intended the pavers for an entire block face or to integrate the
pavers with concrete when applicable. Staff would like direction from HPC regarding
whether the materials within one block are consistent or if they change depending on the
root system.
Wall at the comer of Fifth and Main Street: The southwest corner of Fifth and Main
Streets requires a structural wall to support a portion of the sidewalk that slightly
cantilevers over the intersection of two ditches. The wall will be visible from the
property located at the comer of Fifth and Main and will not be visible from Main Street.
A six inch (6") pedestrian curb on top of the sidewalk is required for safety and will be
visible. The Engineering Department is looking for direction about materials. Staff
suggests a dry stack stone wall rather than a concrete or river rock. The dry stack would
mimic the natural and subtle chazacteristics of the historic ditch. Staff would like
direction from HPC.
P22
~' a
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Isis Theater- Condition of Approval
Apri19, 2008
SUMMARY: In 2007, HPC reviewed and approved modifications to the exterior of the Isis
when apublic/private partnership acquired the building in order to retain the struggling movie
house in town. One of the upper floor theater spaces was converted to retail and the entry azeas
were reconfigured.
One of HPC's conclusions when reviewing the plan was that, as much as possible, the historic
design of the storefronts ought to be re-created based on available photographs. No original
millwork exists on the ground floor of this structure because it has been modified many times
over the yeazs. HPC and the architect had these two historic pictures available at the time:
1
P1
P2
HPC accepted an elevation that showed how the new entry areas would be configured, but added
this condition to their approval:
"Detailed drawings of the new storefront doors, windows, and trim elements must be submitted
for review and approval by staff and monitor."
The Isis Theater was remodeled first. The azchitect provided drawings of the new door that was
needed and those drawings were reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. When the center
retail space came in for permit,. no new information was provided about the details for the
storefront, so staff "red-lined" the condition of approval onto the permit as a reminder. The
work proceeded without acheck-in with HPC. 1'he existing windows, transoms, and kickplates
were replicated, and doors from the 1990's remodel were salvaged and installed in the new
recessed entry. New door pulls, out of chazacter with the azchitecture of the building, were
added. Staff became aware of this at the "Certificate of Occupancy" review and placed on
condition on the C.O. that the millwork had to be accepted by HPC or revised.
Staff communicated with Ann Mullins and Sazah Broughton as project monitors. At the time
that a decision was needed, only Sarah was available. The contractor was informed that staff and
monitor felt that doors and door pulls were not appropriate to be used in the new design. An
alternate proposal to the monitors or the full HPC would be needed.
By this time the western retail space was under construction. The storefront was constructed
again without contact with staff and monitor about the design. The same condition was placed
on the "Certificate of Occupancy."
The contractor would like HPC to accept the project as constructed, based on their attached email
and photographs. Staff objects.because the full-light doors and door pull aze inappropriate to the
2
P3
style of the building and violated a condition of approval. HPC is asked to make a
determination.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HPC be provided with an acceptable door
and door pull design to replace what has been installed.
3
P4
IIIIIhIIIIII~IIIIII~IIIII~IIII~IIIIII~IIIIIII~ 0 o65e8 ileac
JPNICE K VOS CpUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 11.00 D 0.00
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MINOR DF.VF.LOPMF.NT, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, AND A
PARKING VARIANCE FOR 7'HE ISIS "CHEATER, 406 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS
L, M, AND N, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITF, OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO
RESOLUTION N0.2, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-30-006, -011 and -012
WHEREAS, the applicant, ]sis Property Group, LhC, represented by Haas Land Planning,
Klein, Cote, and Gdwards; and Charles ('unniffe Architects, has requested approval for Minor
Development, Commercial Design Review, and a Parking Variance in order to remodel The Isis
Theater, 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots L, M, and N, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Pitkin County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Minor Developmenl Review, the }IPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen }}istoric Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine if the project conforms
to the criteria of Section 26.412 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, for approval of a parking variance, the lI}'C must review the application, a staff
analysis rcpori and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine if Section 26.415.1 ]O.C of
the Municipal Code is met: and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated January ] 0, 2007, performed an analysis of
the application based on the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines, and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting of January 10, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application and continued the review to January ]6, 2007, at which time they
found the application was consistent with the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines" and granted approval with conditions by a vote of 4 to 0.
P5
I~lI1II~I~I~~~a~IIII~~IIII~~IIIII~III' 0 6508 il:aa~
JRNICE K VOS LBUDTLL PITKIN COUfiTT L0 R 11.00 D 0.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC approves Minor Development,
Commercial Design Review, and a Parking Variance for 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots L, M, and
N, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, with the following
conditions:
1. The approved elevation is as drawn by the applicant, provided to the boazd at the January
10, 2007 meeting, and labeled as "Proposed Staff Elevation." The drawing depicts one
retail entry into the west bay, one in the center bay, and the theater entrance in the east
bay. If only one retailer occupies the ground Moor space, the retail entry may occur
through the central bay, with the windows in the weslem bay left as they were at time of
HPC application.
2. Detailed drawings of the new storefront doors, windows, and trim elements must be
submitted for review and approval by staff and monitor.
3. No additional on-site parking is required for the proposed project.
4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
5. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
6. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the llistoric Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building pelTnit.
7. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at a special meeting nn the 16th day of January,
2007.
Approved as to Form: A1'TF,ST:
vid Hoefer, Assistant ity Attorney Kathy Strick an ,Chief Deputy Clerk
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
PLEASE RENRN TO CITY CLERK
136 S. GALENA
ASPEN, CO 61611
P6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007
we don't have enough space left given a five foot setback or a two foot
setback and still be below our allowable FAR. We had a two-story proposal
and came back with a successful plan. We will need clear guidance as to
whether we push south or north. The.remaining 174 feet will be utilized as
calculated space in the lower level, all below grade space.
MOTION.• Sarah moved to continue 214 E. Bleeker with the following study
to be brought back to the board: The balance between the north and south
setbacks and adding flexibility for the applicant to our guidelines for the IO
foot link.
Motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION.• Michael moved to continue 214 E. Bleeker with direction to the
applicant to maintain a five foot setback along the alley.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Sara pointed out that there is a delicate balance between the front and back
setbacks and the program. We do not want to push them into a bad solution.
MOTION.• Brian moved to approve 214 E. Bleeker and the rear setback as
suggested by the applicant, maintaining the front setback as is and
compromising the loss of square footage via the connector piece.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Sara pointed out that the applicant has received a lot of feed back regarding
the alley etc.
MOTION.• Sarah moved to continue 214 E. Bleeker with the conditions as
stated in staff's memo until March 14, 2007; second by Brian. All in favor,
motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Brian, Michael, Sarah, Jeffrey
406 E. HOPKINS AVE. -ISIS THEATRE -MINOR DEVELOPMENT
-COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE -
PUBLIC HEARING
Affidavit of posting and publication -Exhibit I
Jeff Lester, Charles Cunniffe Architects - Exhibit II photograph
G~ .
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
627 W. Main Street, Major Development (Conceptual) and Variance- PUBLIC
HEARING
Apri19, 2008
SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to make an addition to this Victorian era
home, which is located in the Main Street Historic District. The addition is to the reaz of the
property and includes living space and a one stall gazage. An east sideyazd setback vaziance and
a 500 squaze foot FAR bonus aze requested. Restoration work is proposed for the Victorian,
including removing paint from the masonry.
~J
. ~~
~~
~~
627 W. Main ~-_
~: ~~ ---_
'--~~_~,
~(. ~!
~_ _
-..
APPLICANT: Douglas Kelso, owner, represented by Steev Wilson, Forum Phi.
LOCATION: 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: "MU, Mixed Use."
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
L
~~y
`~'
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
P29
1
P30
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by fhe HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
The property is located at the western end of the Main Street Historic District, where 19a' century
residential structures aze prevalent. This house is constructed of masonry, which is unusual
among the Victorians left in Aspen. Although the zone district is mixed use, this property
remains a single family home.
Previous alterations to the structure include painting the masonry, replacing doors and windows,
and adding a dormer on the roof There is an existing addition at the back of the house, part of
which is demolished and replaced in this project.
HPC held a worksession to discuss the design and the requested FAR bonus. At the time, the
board was concerned with the height of the linking element (concerned with there being a
discernable smaller, linking element). HPC wanted the roof form of the addition to be
simplified, hoped to see removal of the glass block in the dormer and installation of a stylistically
appropriate front door on the Victorian. Amassing model was suggested. The azchitect was
asked to contact the Aspen Historical Society to see if there are any old pictures available.
The project has been restudied. The addition is centered on the ridgeline of the historic house.
The roof pitch is steeper. A flat roofed connector piece has been slipped under the reaz eaveline.
A new element of the proposal is the conversion of the roof on the existing addition into a deck,
which wraps the whole way around the proposed second floor living space.
This project is difficult because the existing reaz addition creates some constraints, and the owner
wishes to gain new second floor space directly connected to the historic resource rather than
accessed through a new internal staircase. The resulting addition does not meet the following
guideline:
2
P31
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
^ A 1-story connector is preferred.
^ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
^ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
The manner in which the new construction attaches to the back of the house destroys a portion of
the historic reaz gable, calling the following guideline into question, although the reaz fagade is a
more suitable place for alteration than a more primary elevation. The building to the west, of a
very similar design, was permitted to construct an addition that removed much of the rear gable
end in 2002. The guidelines read:
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appeazance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary
building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
The azchitect has provided photos which show the proposed new work superimposed in the
image. Staff does not find that the multiple dormers on the new construction meet HPC's
suggestion that roof form be simplified. Tn addition, because guideline 10.7 is not being met, we
recommend reduction of the plate height in an effort to either lower the overall height of the
addition, or to increase the roof pitch to be more in character with the historic house.
Staff is concerned with how the railing on the deck will meet the reaz eaveline on the house.
Ideally, any railing should tuck under the eave, according to guideline 10.3 and 10.10.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or
obscure historically important architectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
3
P32
Finally, it appeazs that the overhang proposed on the west entry into the structure is too faz into
the setback. Architectural projections aze only allowed to be 18" into the setback. In addition,
staff finds this lazge overhang detracts from the form of the historic house.
The project includes a space labeled as "office." Offices are allowed in this zone district,
however the project is restricted to the floor azea allowed for a single family house, since TDR's
aze being sold. In addition, the zoning states that the total free-mazket residential Net Livable
Area shall be no greater than one-hundred-fifty (150) percent the total Floor Area associated with
the office use, a requirement that does not seem to be met in this design. The owner can have an
office as a "home occupation," however there aze a number of restrictions, such as the inability to
advertise the presence of the business, to store outside of the dwelling any materials used for the
business, or to employee more than one person not residing on the site.
FAR BONUS
The applicant is requesting a 500 squaze foot floor azea bonus. The following standazds apply to
an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
4
P33
Staff Response: The applicant met with the HPC in a worksession, as required. To earn the
FAR bonus, the proposal is to remove the paint from the historic masonry, remove glass block
from a dormer added to the historic house, and replace the front door on the house with one that
is more stylistically appropriate.
Staff finds these restoration efforts to be worthy of the FAR bonus. Removing the paint from the
brick will be a significant improvement to the historic integrity of the house, and will highlight
the uniqueness of this building.
However, additional work is needed to properly meet the design guidelines for the new addition.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The historic house, and an existing rear addition, already encroach into the east sideyazd. The
applicant is asking to continue that pattern with the new addition, with a 3' east sideyazd setback
vaziance.
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code are
as follows:
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: The area in question is covered outdoor storage on the ground floor, and a deck
on the upper floor. Staff does not find that granting the vaziance mitigates an impact on the
Victorian portion of the building and is therefore unable to recommend approval.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
5
P34
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue Major Development (Conceptual)
and variances for the property located at 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Colorado to a date certain.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 627 W. Main Street, Conceptual Review"
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appeazance inconsistent with the historic chazacter of the
primary building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an eazlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining
visually compatible with these eazlier features.
^ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or
a differentiation between historic, and more current styles aze all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic
alignments that may exist on the street.
^ Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately
the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships
would be altered or obscured.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
^ An addition that is lower than or similaz to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
^ A 1-story connector is preferred.
^ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
^ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
6
P35
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
^ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
^ Additional floor azea may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
^ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
^ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
^ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
^ The new materials should be either similaz or subordinate to the original materials.
7
P36
Historic Preservation Application Package
Cover Letter
TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COUNCIL
APPLICANT: Steev Wilson, Representing Douglas Kelso, Owner
DATE: February 20, 2008
RE: 627 W. Main Street, Major Historic Development
Conceptual Historic Development, 500 SF HPC FAR
Bonus.
LOCATION: 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen.
REQUEST OF HPC: The applicant requests HPC approve the design of the addition
and establish one 500 square foot bonus to the allowable floor azea ratio.
BACKGROUND: The subject property is a 3,000 squaze foot lot that is located at the
far west end of Main Street, within the historic district. A Victorian era home, still in use
as a residence, sits on the lot. The owner proposes a modest addition which would
require additional FAR.
DISCUSSION: The purpose of the addition would be to create a more livable home for
the current owner. The addition would be a narrower portion extending to the reaz of the
structure containing: basement, gazage, bedroom, and home office. The proposed addition
is intended to be in complete compliance with the Historic Design Guidelines. An
addition was previously done in 2000 we would like to make this addition more
conforming to the HPC guidelines as part of this proposal. The Owner also proposes to
restore the brick and shingle of the original historic structure this will help with the
material delineation between the historic structure and the addition. It is the Owners goal
to achieve the 500 SF FAR bonus and we would like to discuss further options if
necessary to achieve it.
ATTACHMENTS:
Historic Preservation Application Package.
11X17 Drawings