Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20080326ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 406 E. Hopkins Ave. Isis -Minor Development -View Plane Review ............................ 2 202 N. Monarch Street -Major Development -Conceptual, Variances and Residential Desigi Standazds (cont'd from 3/12) ................................................................................ 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin, Sarah Broughton and Brian McNellis. Nora Berko was excused. Staff present: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Monitors: Main Street sidewalk -Sarah 300 W. Main -Ann Lift I task force -Alison 406 E. Hopkins Ave. Isis -Minor Development -View Plane Review Proof of legal notice -Exhibit I Elevations -Exhibit II Sara said the application is for the roof top units. There are three residential units on the roof top right now and two affordable housing units at the rear and one free market toward the front parapet. The subject is the free market unit. Right now it is 2,000 square feet which is the maximum cap for a free market in the commercial core. The applicant seeks to land a TDR to increase the unit size to 2,500 square feet. We are just talking about unit size not the floor area on this parcel. Right now our code says you cannot land a TDR on a landmark but when we did the code amendment in the summer we didn't specifically say you could land a TDR on a landmark; however, we meant to do that. The intent is to increase a unit size not the FAR or mass on the property so we see now conflict with landing a TDR to increase the unit size in the allowable mass. We are going forward to Council that this is allowed. What is before HPC is the minor development application in which you will be discussing mass, height, materials etc. The question is whether the mass is appropriate and does it meet the guidelines. We did not want to hinder the applicant by putting this off until the code amendment goes through. If HPC decides to approve this application it is contingent on the approval of the code amendment. z ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 HPC purview: The proposed addition fills in the space between the current unit and the elevator shaft that is existing. It aligns in form and height with the existing construction and will have a curved roof like the one that is existing right now. The materials will be the same. Staff s main concern is that the proposal diminished the minor spaces that you can interpret when you look at the Isis and filling in the space will create a wall effect. The architect is very sensitive to that wall effect idea and is setting back the proposed addition from the parapet and railing but staff doesn't find that is enough setback to create a height differentiation. Staff is proposing that possibly the height be dropped on the proposed addition. There are some issues with that because of the curved roof. It is 12 feet towards Hopkins and goes down to 9 feet at the rear. If the height drops in the front and back you will have unusable space in the back. We were suggesting a flat roof for the addition as it would be hidden behind the elevator shaft and visually would not have an impact. We are also unclear as to the impact to the affordable housing units at the rear. In terms of the railing there are minimal impacts on the parapet. The applicant is also proposing to eliminate the flower box. They are required to have a railing because the parapet isn't tall enough to meet code requirements and the railing will pop up about six inches from the height of the historic parapet. Staff is also concerned with excessive deck elements and snow build up behind the parapet wall. HPC also has to consider the view plane review. Right now the affordable housing units block the view plane from the Hotel Jerome so there is a negative impact of this addition on the view plane. Steev Wilson, Forum Fhy Susanne and Brad Krevoy Michael said his concern is that he wants the city to go through the process that a private citizen goes through. Sara said this has nothing to do with the City being part of the Isis. This has to do with the Krevoy's owning the property. Steev said we are ten feet back from the front wall and are pulling the massing away from the street. Looking at the view plane review it passes through the ADU's which are at the back of the building. You would never see the addition from the Jerome view plane. We are holding the railing 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 back from the wall three feet so that the activity isn't up against the wall. As you approach the building the railing disappears relatively quickly. From the ADU view we want to keep the flat mass across it. If the addition where a flat roof we would have to bring the height up two feet in order to get reasonable height in the bedrooms and it would block out much of the sun coming into the ADU and that would be impactful on the rear side of the building as much as the high portion is on the front. We would match the existing materials and keep it non-reflective and inconspicuous as possible. Sarah said there are two areas of guardrails. Steev said in terms of snow we will be able to clear it off better and we would be happy to put snow melt in if necessary. Michael asked Steev to explain the fenestration. Steev said there are transom windows over the door to add more light into the area. Michael said one of his concerns is the light reflection at night. Brad Krevoy said the area is a bedroom and they will have block out blinds from ceiling to floor. Chairperson Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Michael said there are three issues: Change in the parapet wall. View plane non-issue. Addition. Michael addressed the view plane. The board had no issue with the view plane. Parapet wall. Alison said she would suggest snow melt. Sarah said snow melt is not that great energy wise. Ann said actually when the sun is out the snow melts quickly. Sarah asked if the parapet wall could be flashed differently so that the water can go a different way. Steev said the snow melt is coming from the planter side through and down the roof drain so the snow melt will be corrected. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 The snow can go through the roof drain or coming down on to the lower roof deck which is also drained. The board had no issues with the parapet wall. Addition: Michael said the first question is whether HPC should allow the addition. Sarah said this is a done deal by the landing of a TDR. Brian said HPC's purview is to determine if the mass and scale is appropriate. Sara said this is like a regular application, you need to determine if the mass is appropriate. Jay said if council denies the TDR what happens. Sara said the approval of the resolution would be contingent up council approving the code amendment. Michael said there are two issues; is this a good idea and is it legal in the sense that it meets the city's regulations. Michael said the legal right is the code amendment and HPC's issue is should we allow the addition to the roof top residential unit of the Isis. Sara said when the code amendments went through the intention was that within the commercial core historic district on a landmark or on a non- landmark you can increase the unit size from a 2,000 square foot cap to 2,500 square feet by landing a TDR. The intent of the code and what the code says now are conflicting. HPC needs to consider this application minus the TDR. They have the FAR to do this on the property and you are just discussing whether the mass and height are appropriate. Brian said if we deny this in its entirety they still have the ability to expand minus the TDR. Sara said no they don't because there is a cap on unit sizes for free markets in the commercial core and that is 2,000 square feet which is the size of their unit. Michael asked the board if the applicant should be allowed to expand that residential unit on the roof of the Isis using our guidelines. Sarah said fundamentally she believes in the code giving TDR's some street value. Sarah said she can't answer the question. Michael said he has the question whether it is appropriate at all. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008 Jay said if we make a determination then council doesn't approve the amendment. Michael said in the very beginning is it appropriate for us to deal with this before they have the legal authority to do so. Alison said Sara said the reason we are doing this is to not slow them down from the permitting process. Ann said it seems more logical that you would get clarification from the code before we start discussing a design. Michael said he agrees with staff, if we don't have to hold them up then lets not. Jay said he is not in favor of doing work that is inconsequential. Ann said she has comments about the design and massing but didn't realize we were supposed to be deciding whether it was an allowable thing or not. Sara said you are discussion the project and applying the guidelines. Michael went through the HPC Design Guidelines, 1.15, 2.6. Alison said guideline 2.6 is fine. Ann commented that the packet is well put together. Her biggest concern is that you cannot tell if the addition is tied to the Isis or the elevator (10.3). Making it lower is not a solution. If you could pull it back a little further you wouldn't perceive such a horizontal line across the top. Another concern is the fenestration and light pollution and reflection which will make that addition much more prominent than what is up there already. Jay said the addition fails at 10.3. By filling the space in you do loose the historic character of which building is the historic building. It is broken up nicely and to connect it from the front facade can you really distinguish from the addition of the Isis to what the Isis was. Michael said guideline 10.6 is not incompliance. The design of the addition is not compatible in size and scale with the main building. Michael said guideline 10.10 has been met. Michael also said the materials are compatible and he feels guideline 10.11 has been met. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 Michael said guideline 10.12 talks about the roof top addition and that the mass and scale should be subordinate to that of a historic building. The proposal is not subordinate and it is not set back which is in violation of guideline 10.13. Jay pointed out that only a minimal portion is on the historic building and that is something that should be considered. Sarah said she agrees with the comments. Many of the guidelines can be achieved with some tweaks to the massing. The way it is pushed back works well and maybe there is a way to step it down from the transom windows to help. The break that was in the first addition was successful. Alison said she isn't sure if bringing the front line of the addition back would work or perhaps where the mud room is bringing that front door back which would help break up the pieces. The idea is not to read straight across. Alison also said she is worried about light pollution but having glass does make the addition read as its own piece. Jay said there are ways to achieve guideline 10.3. Jay said he would be happy to look at the addition again after some of our concerns are addressed. Brian also agreed with Alison that the mud area could be redesigned and the height could be brought down. Bringing the roof down and pushing the element back would ease some of the concerns. Brian said he has faith in our TDR system and allowing a TDR would allow something beneficial to happen elsewhere in the city. Brian also agreed that the design is in conflict with guideline 10.3 but there are things that can be done to make this work. Michael pointed out that he is not convinced that there are things that can make this addition happen. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and minor development until May 14`h second by Ann. Steev said he would like to hear a better definition of what guideline 10.3 means to the board. We took the character of the roof top addition and employed a setback which does bring the roof height down. In the packet it does read quite separate from the rest of the building. With one larger element we paid attention to what the building below was doing. 10. 3 is not 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 clearly defined. We need to decide how to come to an appropriateness that the board would be comfortable with. Sarah said the appropriateness isnot the roof addition but on the historic structure. In the original addition it came in on both sides and addressed the symmetry of the historic resource. Now all of a sudden we are changing that character. There are ways to lessen that impact. It needs to relate to the Isis. Steev said are we keeping the understanding of the historic fagade more continuous? Brian said adding the addition blurs the symmetry of the Isis. Ann said the original facade needs to be kept the dominant feature of the entire block. Steev pointed out that you will never see the elevation. Arm said somehow you need to make the new addition recede whether it is in materials, colors or less glazing. It needs to disappear in the background. Michael said he does not know how those impacts can be mitigated. Steev said he is getting the idea. I have heard materials, height and the lowering of the distinction of the previous roof top addition and keeping with the symmetry of the building and making this perhaps a bridge piece or something much more subordinate. We tried to pull it back and design what was approved in the past. Jay said by building this piece between the two additions you loose the ability to differentiate between the historic structure. It takes away from the integrity of the historic structure. The way it is drawn there is very little difference on the upper structure, you are connecting a structure to an elevator shaft. Brad Krevoy asked if this review is happening because we have 4% of the addition that connects to the original Isis structure or is it the jurisdiction of this group over the entire addition. Michael said HPC has review over the entire addition. Brad thanked the HPC. Brad said this project started 30 years ago when he used to work at the Isis in the summertime and when the theatre was going to be retail and no Isis he stepped in and made an investment with that unit so that there can be a theatre in the City. When the 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 city came to me again and said we are going to loose the theatre's again they said they needed a favor from me and we said we would help in whatever way we can. We want to live here with our kids and we need another bedroom for our daughter. I think the confusion is that there is a gap in communication between what we where told and having relied upon in a very serious way before buying the TDR and before agreeing the Isis should remain a theatre and not retail. They wanted to do the entire thing in retail before the city purchased it. We are in a very uncomfortable position with HPC. You do a great job. We went through this process when we built the Isis brick by brick to get to our unit in the first place. It is very uncomfortable to be in this position here because we are being told one thing by one group of the City and then we come to HPC with the setbacks etc. that would make it work and being told you have to do a lot more. At the end of the day we are going to have something severely unlivable. The more you ask us to setback the more we will be living in a shoe box. That is not why we bought the TDR or why we agreed to consent to the City all those things. Susie Krevoy said they just heard from Sara about the amendment to council for the TDR. We have an agreement with the city that the mayor has signed allowing us to add the 500 square feet if we purchased a TDR and in exchange they could convert the theatres into retail space because they did need our permission for that. There is a signed agreement allowing us if we purchased a TDR to do this. We have purchased the TDR. Steve Barwick has been involved and Paul Menter approving the agreement. Now we really do not know what to do and we don't know how to proceed. Michael suggested the Krevoy bring that issue up with the City attorney. Sara said HPC should be reviewing what they are proposing to see if it meets the guidelines for an addition on top of the historic resource. Jay said it might be important to have some of those people here who created the contract. Sarah said she doesn't want the applicant to leave here with false hope. Aesthetically this is mass and scale. With some modifications that we talked about today I could approve this addition to the roof of the Isis. I am not the only one voting. Brian said the majority sense that there is some design abilities that would allow us to go forward. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008 Brad Krevoy said this entire project for the past 12 years has been to work everything out. I am feeling from the comments that we might have a shoe box or nothing. I am very confused. Alison said she personally feels there are ways to push and pull on that facade and not just push. You can pull on certain parts and still have 500 square feet. I'm not saying it has to be small you just need to keep the symmetry of that original addition over the Isis as somewhat sacred. Jay said does the legal ramifications of this contract over ride? Brad said HPC does a great job. What if we did it exactly in aligrunent and pushed it out to the street from where it is now because we are thinking about the fire department and what is happening there. Take the addition forward and not have a setback. That would be another way to address this. When the fire department is up you won't see anything on the view plane. Michael said the contract has nothing to do with the Historic Preservation Commission and we can't act as lawyers. The second part is design issues and the majority of the commission would like to see other ideas. Vote on motion: All in favor, motion carried. 202 N. Monarch Street -Major Development -Conceptual, Variances and Residential Design Standards (cont'd from 3/12) Colored Photographs -Exhibit I E-mails and letters -Exhibit II Gena Berko letter -Exhibit III Noticing -Exhibit IV Sara explained that the lot was condominiumized into two lots, Unit A and Unit B. Unit A has the Blue Vic on it. The application is for Unit B, a new single family home. The property is accessed off Bleeker Street and there is an unused alley to the north. HPC granted a 500 square foot FAR bonus to the entire property for the addition of the Blue Vic. This subject unit has 2,053 of FAR available. The applicant requests conceptual approve and some variances. The applicant provided two design iterations. to ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 Sara said the site is very challenging and surrounded by historic landmarks. Staff feels the design is moving in the correct direction in terms of referencing proportions that are found in the surrounding buildings but the massing is not yet resolved. There are three main points of concern. Context: This new building needs to have some street presence. There are two Victorians on either side of this building. It needs to fit into the context with street presence. The proposal maximumizes the FAR and the majority of the mass is toward the rear. We are not sure that is the best solution. Staff is recommending re-configuration of the mass; maybe not spread it out so much and condensing it a little more on the site, guideline 11.3 and 11.4. (Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel and also design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building). Proposed proportions: There are two concerns; the street facing gable that is a tall skinny element and the roof that extends down and covers the entire second level. The skinny proportion of the gable seems awkward in comparison to the Blue Vic. Guideline 11.9 talks about using building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. We are not saying it needs to replicate a mini Blue Vic. In pulling the references from the other historic structures it could be done in a better way. We encourage the applicant to restudy the references. Staff supports the site plan because they have moved the building forward on the lot and it is closer in alignment with the Blue Vic and the historic residence at 212. N. Monarch. Staff also finds that the distance between the Blue Vic and the new construction is appropriate. They are proposing three feet more than what is required which is ten feet. It is appropriate to get some of the new construction away from the Blue Vic. Residential Design Standards: The standards require that the front door face the street and it does. Setback variances: Sara explained that there are two setback variances being requested. The first is for the north side yard setback. This is the side yard that abuts the alley that is unused. They are proposing two feet when ten feet is required. Staff finds that this is appropriate although we are recommending restudy of the mass which might change the request. On the east rear yard they are proposing three feet when five feet is required. Overall staff is recommending continuation for restudy. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008 Stan Clausen, Clausen & Associates: Ordinance 2, 2006 created the division of a larger parcel. The front property was zoned R-6 and the rear portion zoned mixed use or office at the time. At the time the alley was platted but un-opened. At the time the applicant looked at Ordinance 2 and proposed that the alley be open for access to the development and to serve the neighbors as well. That received favorable review from staff; however, it was opposed by the neighbor to the north. In the final ordinance it was determined that a portion of the alley would not be open but the alley as it was accessed from Mill Street would be open to eventually serve development. The fire department weighed in that there be a fire access lane so that this building could be serviced with a fire engine if need be. That largely dictated the location of the driveway. It was also determined that a curb cut will be installed. The neighbor to the north has paved a portion of the alley throat and used it as a private parking area. It was determined by Council that the parking area be eliminated as part of the settlement. They determined the appropriate access for the blue Victorian in its relocation and HPC approved the Blue Victorian reso 30, 2006 then final reso 7, 2007. When you approved that the alley was already in place. It determined the ability to access parking. I point that out because the three foot setback for the driveway itself really dictated the two foot setback to access a garage. There is very little swing room to come into a garage. Stan said there is a 13 foot separation between the two structures, the blue Victorian and the proposed house. From the street the 13 feet provides an enhanced separation and showcasing of the blue Vic. For both units it allows for a little bit more screened landscaping to be introduced to the site. There is a 20 foot swath for open space to the alley. In effect there becomes 22 feet open between the edge of the building and the neighbor's lot line, and another 11 feet from that property line to neighbor's house. We are 33 feet between the two buildings. After it was determined that the alley would not be open we prepared a draft vacation ordinance for the alley having in mind that it would always be an unopened area and that under the terms of vacation ten feet of the right-a-way would accrue to the property on the north and ten feet would accrue to Mr. Semrau. With a vacation there is veto power and the owner to the north refused to do that. Stan said the applicant is proposing a two foot setback from the alleyright-of--way the owner to the north who is objecting to the two foot setback has a two foot encroachment into the alley. That is a shed that is encroaching into the alley. Stan said they came in with an application with the barrel vault roofs 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 and some other issues and based on that we provided a revision. We provided a design for anon-vaulted roof although we would like the HPC to review the barrel roof for approval. As was requested we provided a more dramatic front gable. Jeff Halferty, consulting designer: Jeff said he helped Tim initially with the conceptual of the loot split for the Blue Vic. Jeff said he worked on the simple addition for the Blue Vic. This is Tim's and Heidi's home and they are trying to make a design that works for everyone. I thought the design met the guidelines of new construction as far as mimicking mass and scale. The FAR is challenging because of the turning radius and parking. The gable feels more of a genuflection of the historic resource. Moving the house forward and greeting Monarch Street is a commendable effort by the planners. The fire and egress and life safety aspects of the mixed use lot because of the no alley access has dictated the site planning of the historic resource. We have tried to preserve the landscaping and the historic lilacs. The two foot setback off the alley as Sara indicated does comply because of its separation from the historic resource. Jeffrey commended the commission and staff for a great job. Tim Semrau said it has taken him three years to get here. The variance on the east is specifically dictated by council's decision where to put the fire access. -The two feet is really functional. Our neighbor directly to the east doesn't object to it. The first design was two feet lower and the dormer was set back to create a less presence on the Hodgson's to give them more exposure. Ironically staff was not in favor of that so we raised the roof and brought the house forward to address staff's concern. What Heidi and I feel needs to be here is a modest classy home that genuflects to the historic resource. Tim said there are three issues that HPC needs to give guidance to: Barrel vault roof vs. the gabled roof in back. Tim said there are several historic homes around town that have barrel roofs. Tim showed photographs of historic homes around town. This is a stand alone new home and a barrel vault roof is not inappropriate. Movement of the second story mass to the front of the house. Tim said staff said the other historic houses have secondary story mass. Tim pointed out the similarity of the Blue Vic and his house. It doesn't have a second story mass; it basically has a gable area that is quite similar to the proposed new house. Tim said he feels it is still appropriate to have the 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 second story mass in the back because it is their goal to make their house complimentary. Bigger dormer presence in the front. Tim said we have done that by extending the dormer out. We have looked at many iterations. We like the simplicity of the small dormer and it does relate to the historic structures and it does have its own integrity. Recessed skylights in the roof. Tim said the skylights are recessed and they are for functional reasons. Heidi said when she was on HPC and working on the rules the two words that they always used was complimentary but subsidiary. We felt that the Blue Vic had verticality and feel the new building needs verticality also in its own way. Our desire is to have people walk up and down the street looking at the two landmarks. Stan said the proposed house is 2,050 square feet and modest in size. The Blue Vic is 2,527 square feet. If possible we would like suggestions from conceptual to final. Michael commended Jeffrey Halferty for his past presence on the HPC board. The board is trying to achieve a high standard in terms of courtesy and respect to our applicants. Sarah said we have an historical pattern of growth when we have an alley. We typically have lots that have the back of the lot on the alley. Now all of a sudden we are splitting the lot a different way. Where in the West End have we had conditions like this and have there been variances. Where has this happened before historically and what are the set backs? It is a different situation because we have rotated our lot. Sara said this is a unique situation and it is a corner lot. In the West End access is typically off the alley. Sara said she can't think of any projects that either ask for a setback or need a variance. Sarah said we are talking about historic patterns. Stan said the grid breaks down and there are very few examples deep into the West End. They tend to occur where the land form just did not allow for the expression of the grid. Had we been allowed to open the alley then it would require that the garage access off the alley. Sarah said since we have 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 been asked to look at setbacks we need to know how it affects the adjacent property to the East. Brian asked if the turn table in the back was required to access the garage. Tim said the turn table is the only way to turn around or you could back into Bleeker Street which he doesn't want to do. Michael explained that it is the same turn table that was approved with the Blue Vic application. Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing. Phi Hodgson said the brick parking space was recommended by Michael Gassman and council said do not pave the space due to the utilities that are under it. It has been there since 1990 and was approved by Raymond Elder. As far as the shed is concerned it was there when I purchased the property in 1972. Every house had a barn and it was torn down and I believe the siding was used to build that shed at one point. As far as the vacation of the alley Tim and I discussed it and I discussed it with my attorney Tom Smith at the time who said have Tim's attorney send a proposal to him and he would look it over. Tim's response was to have the Bleeker Street access for his driveway and that was the last I had heard. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Sarah said she has concerns about the massing as it relates to our guidelines. Moving the front door to address the street is appropriate. The mass and scale as it is detracts from the historic buildings on both sides. I am particularly distracted by the two-story gable element and that it is on thin elements that traditionally you would not see. Both historic buildings have more of a solid mass coming out to fill that gable volume. Michael asked what the HPC though about the gable that was recommended by staff. Sara said we where trying to convey the issue of street presence and we didn't mean literally to bring the gable out. Staff tries not to design a project but to give macro interpretations of the guidelines. Sarah said if this design where to come back with a mass and scale that tried less to replicate what is happening with the historic resource and instead to take the subordinate role as a secondary house on this lot it would help the overall project. IS ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008 Ann said you are saying a smaller house with lesser street presence? Sarah said she is not talking square footage and her comment is from the guidelines not staff's. Michel asked if the original application better met our guidelines than what is presented today. Sarah said no. We are dealing with a two story thin element coming out that is light at the top with a deck and I do not see that at all historically on historic forms. Guideline 11.5 talks about forms not overwhelming the historic resource. Jay said guideline 11.3 is contradictory to guidelines 11.5. Alison agreed. Sarah said the proportions on this house are nowhere the proportions of the historic resource. Ann said one of the failures is that you have two significant houses that are dominating and part of the reason they are so dominant is their verticality. They aren't skinny houses and very vertical as you are coming down the street. Abetter solution rather than the gable that goes down two stories and the dominant skylight and the two story porch becomes a horizontal design between the two vertical designs. It would work better if you had some of the vertical elements of the other two homes and sizes. It should be similar in mass and scale and then add the vertical element. Brian talked about roof lines. Guideline 11.10 confuses the issues. Brian said Tim talked about elements that make this building a modern building and that is OK but then on the other hand how do you use roof lines that are similar in tradition to the neighborhood and make it a product of its own era. Alison and Sarah also agreed that some of the guidelines are going against each other. Ann said these are not standards they are guidelines to help us get through issues and sometimes they are contradictory because every situation is unique. Brian said we need to determine which guidelines are predominant. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 Michael said in his opinion the design doesn't work between the two historic structures. We need something that looks a little more like what is already on the street in terms of mass and scale. Sarah said if you go around the block there are miner's cabins that are proportioned and that speak to the Victorian structures and there is a dialogue. This house has missed the fundamental queue. Ann said remember these houses where on large lots. Because of the lot split you have this problem. If you go to San Francisco you see these scale of houses are close together and what makes it work it is the same scale as you go down the street. Jay asked the board if they thought the house was too small. Brian and Sarah said from a verticality standpoint it is. Jay said that is where staff's comment came from to bring the mass to the front of the house. Jay also pointed out that they can't add square footage to it. Michael said some of the thoughts tossed out during the discussion where context and street presence. The issues that Tim asked in terms of massing where the gable roof vs. the barrel vault and the second story mass whether it should be moved forward. The second question about the second story mass moving forward, the answer is yes. Michael asked the board if they had an opinion about the barrel vault roof. Sarah said if you look at our guidelines for the use of roof forms 11.6 would lead us in the direction of not allowing the barrel. In the context of an historic neighborhood they are foreign looking. Ann also agreed with Sarah that the barrel roof form detracts. Ann pointed out that she has not seen a successful barrel roof. Brian said there is the argument that this is a modem structure. Michael said the mass and scale of the front dormer doesn't work. Michael asked the board about the recessed skylights. Ann said they seem to detract from the facade and she would rather see some other way to get light. Possibly a skylight could go on the back. Alison said if you brought the second floor mass forward you might not need the sky light. Brian and Alison said their issue is differentiating in the design. 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 Michael addressed the setback variances. Stan said the variance with respect to the garage on the eastern side is really dictated by the driveway placement. On the north side it is probably not likely that the building is going to get a whole lot thinner. The question on the variance is would that enhance the separation between the Victorian to the south and the new residence bearing in mind that there are 33 feet in the current design between the proposed residence and the Hodgson's house. Michael said he recognizes that this is an important issue to the applicant and to the neighbor. With the recommendation of a re-design we don't know what the final application will be and especially when there is an opportunity to perhaps not come to the HPC seeking the north side variance. East side variance. Ann said we need to look at the larger picture. In the guidelines there is discussion about preserving the historic grid of town. We have seen places in town where the grid has been changed and it changes the character of the neighborhood dramatically. For instance, in the alley secondary structures are up to the edge of the alley. The alley isn't used currently but it is an open space corridor. If you stand at one end or the other you can see all the way down, uninterrupted except for small structures. What happens now is that you will have a fairly large structure at the end of it. In terms of setbacks the Residential Design Standards dictate what the setbacks should be and I am not convinced here, except maybe the garage argument, why we need a variance. Once we start making variances on the first property all of a sudden you will completely loose the pattern as other buildings are built. Unless I can see that there is no other solution I think we need to adhere to the standards. The setback should be ten feet. Tim said if the alley continuum was open the setback would be five feet. Ann pointed out that the five feet would be for the garage not the building. You are asking for a variance of two feet for the building. Jay said because this is such a strange lot is it better to make Tim move the house closer to the Blue Victorian. If HPC doesn't give him the variance on the one side he will just move the house over which he is allowed to do. With respect to the historical resource is granting a variance providing more integrity for that resource? Ann said she is looking at the resources adjacent to the building also. 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 Michael pointed out that the grid doesn't really hold up in this section of town. Brian said the natural landscape dictates where the houses are located. Brian said we need to situate this proposed house in rhythm with the two very significant Victorian resources on either side. Brian and Sarah said they are in support of the variances. Sarah said if we did an inventory in the West end we would find more people not complying with setbacks in terms of the alley and how close they are. There is already push and pull going on and in this case it is appropriate to have push and pull. Alison said the only way it may have worked to keep the setbacks the same would be if they had'the alley go through, which they didn't. If Aspen wanted to preserve the grid they would have put the alley through. Stan said in general there is support for the variances. We have heard a number of ideas on the actual physical design of the house and will try to pull through those as best we can. MOTION: Jay moved to continue the public hearing, conceptual development for 202 N. Monarch Street until May 28, 2008; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. -- -_ Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 19