Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20080514ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 210 S. Galena -Elks Building -Minor Development, Variances, PH .............................. 2 ( g P ) ................................................................................. cont'd meetin from A ril 23 2008 2 707 N. Third -Major Development -Final - PH (cont'd from 4-9) ................................. 6 627 W. Main -Major conceptual - cont'd from 4-9 ........................................................ 12 406 E. Hopkins -Isis -Minor Review and Mountain View Plane .................................. 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at NOON. Commissioners in attendance: Jay Maytin, Alison Agley, Nora Berko. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 210 S. Galena -Elks Building -Minor Development, Variances, PH (cont'd meeting from Apri123, 2008) Michael pointed out that the meeting is being held on the roof of the Elks Building, corner of Galena and Hyman. Amy said at the last meeting the discussion was about whether the variance criteria met because every part of this needs a variance from the height limit. The materials, placement and whether it was visible from the street is what was discussed at the last meeting. Michael said he was not at the last meeting and maybe he shouldn't vote. Jim True said Michael could vote if he felt he was informed enough about the project. Rich Head, Elks member said there where two issues the height of the lowest plate and the nearness of the rail to the edge of the building. Mike Hammond, Elks member said they pulled the main section back away from the Hyman side and shortened the neck and we eliminated a stub and pulled it further away from Galena. We haven't messed with the height because of the snow and engineering. Mike said some of the mechanical equipment will be moved. Michael asked the HPC members if they had enough information to make a decision. Nora asked about the step up. Mike said you step up as you come out of the door. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 Amy said this is a minor development review and you are being asked to give a height variance based on hardship. You have to find that all three of these are met. The grant of a variance will be generally consistent with the AACP which staff felt was met. The grant of the variance is the minimum possible. This is where we had a lot of discussion about the height issues. The third one is if the variance is denied the applicant will be deprived of the right enjoyed by similar properties. This building was built before height limits and they do not have access to their roof which other properties might have that where built at a later time period. They don't have the ability to redevelop the building. You have to make sure all three hardship guidelines are met and that the design issues are met. Some of the discussion at the last meeting was about the materiality. At the last meeting Sarah said it will be visible from somewhere if not from the street and some other material in keeping with the building might be more appropriate. Other people suggested that the material should not be visible. Rich Head said the Paragon building has use of the entire roof and they are as high as we are. Amy said they received a variance. Mike pointed out that there are heaters on the Paragon building. Jay said a lot of people use their roofs. Nora said technically we will not see the railing unless you are mid-way down the mall or are on the mountain. Alison asked what where the materials. Mike said it is a solid railing then it turns into a wire air craft cable to make it as obtrusive as possible across the south side by the dome and around and then it turns into solid on part of the east side. Amy said at the last meeting the board did a site visit and the railing is only visible half way down the mall. At that meeting it was suggested that the railing be lowered as much possible and there was discussion about umbrellas etc. This is one of the most beautiful buildings in downtown with the dome and cornice and are these materials too inadequate compared to the style of the building. At the last meeting Sarah suggested possibly the use of a metal rail but as you look out other individuals have used wood etc. for their decks. Amy also pointed out that the building is ten feet over the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 height limit. A few years ago the board granted a variance for the existing deck. Amy reiterated that the building was built over the height limit and that is something that cannot be controlled but they also have an additional floor that other adjacent buildings do not have. Jay pointed out that there where no view plane issues. Jay said HPC could put a condition in the resolution that there are no umbrellas or furniture on the roof. Jim True said the board could make a motion or continue the meeting until tonight. Michael asked if a mockup was done on the design. Mike said there would be a steel plate vertical with a cap. Code enforces the height at 42 inches. Nora asked how much lower the railing could go. Mike said four inches. MOTION: Jay moved to approve Resolution #6 as proposed with the condition that there are no umbrellas or large tall furniture above the railing and that the applicant agrees to be diligent in bringing the height down as much as possible and lowering the height a minimum of four inches. The materials used should be unobtrusive as possible. The conditions should be approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Alison, all in favor, motion carried 4-0. MOTION. Alison moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin, Brian McNellis and Nora Berko. Sarah Broughton was excused. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 MOTION: Alison moved to approve the minutes of April 9`j' and 23r~ second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Commissioner comments: Jay mentioned that when P&Z goes beyond 7:00 p.m. they make a motion to extend the meeting. Jay asked how the HPC felt about adopting that policy. Jim True said that policy was designed to make the board conscious of how long their meetings are going. HPC could adopt a similar rule. Jay also pointed out that they continue anything after 7:00 to the next meeting. Ann said she feels this might be a problem because we are backed up with cases. Michael said sometimes we are out of the meetings are 6:30 and sometimes they go later. Michael said he personally feels HPC does not have an issue. Brian said staff does a good job of keeping our agendas consistent. Ann said the task force is moving along and they have great individuals participating. Brian said he has had concerns about urban clutter in the downtown historic core. Chris Bendon said the news racks areas tend to metastasize and another one gets chained linked etc. When we did the downtown enhancement plan that goes around the Wheeler we organized a system for the news racks and they where in a corral. Usually news racks become a funding issue. There are some legal issues that news paper owners have to deal with. Brian said there are areas that they have metastasized and he is not sure if they have to go through a permit process or not. Chris said some of the boxes are beat up and there are left over boxes. Michael agreed that some of the boxes are unused and they are there for the next three years. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 MOTION. Michael moved to resolution #7 to direct city council to take a look at the news rack situation and possible come up with some regulations that would better police the newspaper boxes; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. Lift I task force: Alison said the group is competing and working together to get to two sets of goals and they will mesh them into one set at the next meeting. It has been a fun process and well run. Lift I update: Chris Bendon said they will identify their goals and then discuss constraints which will then turn into massing, character and then the project. In the goals they started with smaller groups and then into larger groups. The goals are history, accessibility, vitality and sustainability and the resort community dynamic. 707 N. Third -Major Development -Final - PH (cont'd from 4-9) Jim true said the mailing list was not attached to the affidavit of posting and there should be a condition in the resolution that the incomplete portion be submitted within 24 hours to the clerk's office if the project is approved. Sara said conceptual approval was approved April 23, 2008 which included relocation and a side yard setback variance for the sub-grade terrace. As a condition of approval line drawings where to be submitted for final which are included in the packet. In terms of landscape the applicant proposes to retain most of the existing materials. They are proposing a walkway from the street to the entry porch that meets our design guidelines 1.9 and 1.11. The new fence and gate should be reviewed by staff and monitor. Staff also suggests that the style and color of the retaining wall be reviewed by staff and monitor in the field. Parking: They don't need any parking variance or waiver. They can maintain their existing parking which is on the street but they do need an encroachment license from the Engineering Department. The Engineering and Parking Department have authority over the type of parking that needs to occur. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 Lighting: They are proposing a couple recessed can lights in the ceiling of both of the porches. Typically we allow one can light per porch ceiling. Ann said she would like to hear from Al if two cans are necessary. Sara said they are also proposing a wall mount fixture. Once the fixture is picked, it will be reviewed by staff and monitor. All of the fenestration they are proposing is appropriate and it meets guideline 11.9. Materials: Staff commended the applicant for reusing the shingles for the rear addition. They are also proposing solar panels that will be flush with the gabled roof pitch facing south and you won't see them from the street. The existing home has some ginger bread details that where not detailed in the line drawings and staff feels a site visit should occur with the monitor during construction so we can determine if the details are original or not. Front porch: They are proposing to reconstruct the front porch in a style that is similar to other houses of this nature. We don't have an historic photograph of what the porch looked like. They are proposing a very simple modest front porch which meets guideline 5.5. A metal standing seam roof is being proposed but staff is recommending asphalt siding on the front porch which is what they are proposing for the rest of the home. It would work better if the roofs where cohesive. They are also proposing open risers and we are proposing that they be closed risers. Window well: Staff was under the impression that HPC did not approve a window well under the front porch. Right now there are three windows proposed in the sub-grade level and then there is a window well that does look like it is accessible but Al can discuss it at his presentation. Staff is concerned about at night light emitting from under the porch and it really doesn't work in the historic context. Foundation: The applicant is proposing to match the existing foundation once they relocate the house. That is appropriate but we are proposing that the applicant reuse the existing stone if they can and propose a new material for the addition on the historic parcel to delineate the historic resource from the new addition. Overall Staff recommends approval with a few conditions. Affidavit of posting -Exhibit I Al Bayer passed around Exhibit II, walkway material. Brick pavers are proposed. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 Exhibit III. In terms of the fence we would match the existing fence around the property and the gate would be just like the one there but flat across so it doesn't draw attention that it is a gate. Al said they understand the Engineering Department has the decision with the right-of--way. We really like the parking the way it is, on-site and feel that the gravel is appropriate and adds to the neighborhood. We don't feel the need that the area should have sod and a curb and gutter. Sara pointed out that the HPC can make a recommendation to the Engineering Department which would be helpful for them to understand where the HPC is coming from. Al requested if the board is in agreement that they make a recommendation that they are allowed to keep our parking in its current state. We would like Gillespie not be curbing and guttered and use two gravel spaces. Exhibit IV. Al said they are recommending one light fixture on each porch and no recessed cans on the front porch at all. The recessed cans that we have will all be on the back porch. We will reuse the two existing lights. Exhibit V. windows. The windows that are on the historic structure that are new will match the existing as well as we can. It will be a wood window on the outside that is painted. The windows on the new addition will look the same but they will be aluminum clad. On the skylights on the roof there is a slight curve and they aren't perfectly flat. Exhibit VI. front door and transom. The existing door has a skylight that we want to modify and turn into the transom. Exhibit VII. Asphalt roof shingles. Staff recommended that we have asphalt shingles on the lower flat roof but that is problematic because we can't get a warranty on asphalt shingles on a roof anything less than a 3 and 12 pitch. That is why we went with a metal roof on the lower level. Historically there might have been a tin sheet that went on there. We would like to keep the metal roof that is proposed on the drawings. On the solar panels there is a rack that sets on the roof then the solar panels set on top of the rack. It would be a low profile and you won't see it. Exhibit VIII Corbels. Someone put a corbel on the porch addition to the front which is certainly not original. We can look at the corbels again but ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 we feel they aren't original and will probably not restore them. We aren't doing a railing that surrounds the front porch. It will be like we represented on the drawings. Regarding the light well we don't intent to do a light well under the front porch. Foundation Exhibit IX. It looks like the stone is below the wall instead of sitting in front of it like veneer and that would be our plan. Al also pointed out that there is a grate on the porch so the mud etc. from shoes will fall through. Nora brought up the risers as to whether they should be open or closed. Al said they will close the risers. Clapboard siding Exhibit X. Roof shingles for siding Exhibit XI. Al said if HPC would go through the addition and let him know which ones are agreed upon it would be helpful. Alison said right now there is head in parking. If we don't have to do curb and gutter could the parallel parking be on the property. Sara said all the parking is in the right-of--way which is why Engineering and the Parks Department approves it. They are maintaining existing conditions and they might have to reconfigure them. Amy said normally you have to have two on-site parking spaces per residence. We are talking about how to deal with the parking that has been established without an approval on city/public property. In other instances we have asked people to remove this sort of gravel. Al said one of the issues with parking is that the owner is right across from the music tent and all summer long if it is parallel parking on the street she will loose her parking space most days. If it is head in parking it sort of establishes that this is her driveway. Ultimately we might be able to talk about moving some parking on-to the site but that would be cutting down trees and it would ruin the garden. Al said we would recommend that the head in gravel parking be reduced to two parking spaces but kept as current gravel without curb and gutter. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There where no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Michael said the board will review the conditions and see which ones we can eliminate. 1. Material of the walkway. The board agreed that the brick pavers are appropriate. Alison said they are using some of the existing and then match with new pavers. 2. Style and color of the retaining wall. Al said they will start with a concrete retaining wall and that might be appropriate and if not we will stone veneer it. Staff and monitor. 3. Light fixtures on the front and back porch. Ann said the guidelines need to address illumination not the amount of fixtures that are allowed. Michael said the pictures presented are approved. Recessed cans on the back porch to be approved by staff and monitor. 4. Fence and gate to be approved by staff and monitor. The board said they could approve the recommendation given. 5. The color and material of the asphalt roofs will be approved by staff and monitor. (historic roofs and new addition roofs) 6. The lower porch roof will be asphalt. Brian inquired about the square footage of the roof. Al said about 150 feet of roof. Alison asked if the usual condition would be asphalt vs. having it some kind of metal or tin. Amy historically shingles where used. We hear all the time that people can't get a guarantee for the use of wood etc. on a particular pitch of the roofs. Alison said it isn't necessarily the rule that roofs should be the same material. They put whatever they had on the roofs. The board deleted #6 and incorporated the new and old roofing material in condition #5. Entry door on the porch will be approved by staff and monitor. Sara explained that they are proposing to use the southern entry door. It would be better to go on-site and look at the door and see if it is original or not. Amy said the door might be too ornate for a miner's cottage. The board added a condition that the door should be approved by staff and monitor and that a site visit will occur to determine if the door is old. The window well beneath the front porch is not approved. This condition is eliminated because no window well exists under the porch. Existing foundation stone will be salvaged for use on the historic home foundation. Anew foundation material for the additions will be 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 reviewed and approved by Staff and monitor. Al said the stone from the ground to the siding on the new addition would be a metal flashing. Alison said the board is OK with the salvaged stone but staff and monitor need to look at the metal detail. l O.The foundation color, style and height will be approved by Staff and monitor. A profile of the foundation in relation to the wall frame will be submitted to Staff and monitor for approval. A mock up of the color and style will be provided in the field prior to approval. Sara said this condition deals with the height and we typically ask for a detail of the foundation in its relationship to the wall. Sometime people relocate a home and the foundation sticks out, like a little shelf. It is much more appropriate to have it flush with the wall frame. Al said it is one more step that we have to go through. We are setting the foundation flush with the outside wall and the color and style of the foundation is the existing stone. 11.Staff and monitor will review and approve the removal of gingerbread details in the field. Michael said all the other conditions are standard. Parking Condition: Brian said we need to be providing parking for this residence one way or another especially where it is located. Head in parking and some kind of sod to the streetscape would be preferable and that would also consolidate the two parking spaces. Brian also agreed that a curb and gutter is not appropriate. The board also agreed with Brian's recommendation. The board also agreed that one of the spaces should be recommended as handicapped. Al said that would make it 24 feet wide, a 15 foot space and a 9 foot space. Michael summarized: Condition # 1 is deleted. Condition #2 remains. Conditions #3, and #4 are deleted. Condition #5 was changed. Condition #6 is deleted. Condition #7 is retained. Condition #8 is deleted. Conditions #9 through #23 are retained. The parking recommendation is also being added as a condition as is the affidavit of posting (mailing list) is completed by 5:00 tomorrow. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 MOTION: Brian moved to approve Resolution #8 for 707 N. Third with the above conditions; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Roll call vote: Jay, yes; Briars, yes; Alison, yes; Ann, yes; Nora, yes; Michael, yes. Nora and Jay are the monitors. 627 W. Main -Major conceptual - cont'd from 4-9 Amy explained that the Victorian historic building is masonry in the Main Street historic district. What are requested are conceptual review and a FAR bonus. This project has been resolved and responds to the HPC guidelines. The addition has been moved in its planning, reduced in height and very sympathetic and has a separation from the historic building and the massing is very low. From the renderings it doesn't seem that there will be any impacts on Main Street at all. At the last meeting the request for continuation involved the roof coming down and that the dormer be reconsidered to see how it could be minimized and that has been accomplished. An FAR bonus is requested and staff recommends that this be rewarded because the design is exemplary and also some of the restoration efforts involving the brick are really significant in bringing back the integrity of this historic building. Staff recommends conceptual and the FAR bonus as designed with no conditions. Steev Wilson, architect: Steev said they lowered the back roof considerably so that the plate height on the interior will make the turn and go up 7.6. In addition we brought the overhangs of the dormers in considerably and the overall height has been brought down. The smaller dormers where reduced in size. Ann asked Steev to go over the FAR. Steev said the allowable FAR is currently 2150 square feet. Amy said the allowable FAR is 2400square feet and they have sold a TDR so they can't have any more than 2150 square feet. Steev said with the 2150 square feet and the 500 square foot bonus brings us to 2650. We are proposing to use 2391 square feet. Based on 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 completion we will dedicate another TDR. Amy said the board can make a condition that the 250 square feet should be sold in a TDR. Jay asked Amy if she was concerned about the visual impact of the gable over the entrance on the west side. Amy said she was concerned before about the dormer because it was into the setback before but in fact it doesn't need a variance anymore. Amy said she doesn't feel it is an object that you would see from Main Street. Steev said they brought the gable back to within the code variance size and we cut it back again. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There where no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Jay said he feels the project is acceptable at this point. Nora said she is struggling with the outside staircase. Alison said having the staircase outside makes the addition smaller. Brian said at the last meeting many of the members felt it increased the mass of the addition by enclosing it. Alison said if Steev was to enclose the staircase the two rooms would not work. It would also change the roof line. Ann said there is a big improvement of the angles of the roof lines. Ann said she questions the FAR bonus. An outstanding preservation effort would be to take the dormer off and bring it back to its original shape. I'm not convinced that the FAR bonus should be granted. Nora said she agrees. FAR bonuses are generally awarded to projects with significant merit. Jay said one of the problems with the project is the addition that is already there. In my opinion this project helps the historic resource be more prominent. Considering what is there, the project seems outstanding. Ann said she still feels the addition dwarfs the historic resource. It is not complimentary and it is not enhancing it in anyway. This is a very prominent spot on Main Street. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 Michael pointed out that the HPC is not obligated to give the entire 500 square foot bonus. Michael said at the present time they can't do the project because they don't have enough development rights to do so. Amy said they need at least 250 square feet of the FAR bonus to be able to do this project. The other 250 square feet would be intended to use as a FAR. Michael said the issues is does HPC think that the criteria for awarding the bonus have been sufficiently met to justify allowing the project to go forward. We could grant a 250 square foot bonus and deny the additional 250 square feet. We could approve the 500 square foot bonus or if we think the application doesn't meet the criteria then we deny the bonus and the project doesn't go forward. Nora said philosophically aFAR bonus is saying you have done something outstanding. It is not something that is automatic. We as a committee have an obligation to hold to that. Amy said absolutely HPC needs to determine what meets the threshold for a bonus but we have had two meetings where it was very clear that they where asking fora 500 square foot bonus and what they have been offering has been on the table. I have not heard that the board was not supporting the bonus etc. Alison said we talked about the bathroom inside the dormer at the first meeting and we discussed that the space would be unusable if they took it off and we talked about removing the glass block at that point. Ann said she assumed it was approved but the memo stated it was up for approval tonight. Jim True asked Amy about the previous meetings. Amy said we had a work session in which the whole purpose was the discussion about the FAR. Then we had a conceptual review hearing where the FAR bonus was on the table and the design was discussed. Jim pointed out that the decision needs to be made by the commission and there is no reliance to the fact that we had X amount of meetings. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 Jay said he is concerned because a TDR was sold and then the owner asked for it back in a bonus and then with the extra bonus they are selling another TDR. Alison pointed out that selling the TDR's help fund the project for someone who is putting money into an historic resource. Michael said it is the motivation for the owner to come in to try and improve the project. Alison said the TDR program encourages homeowners to make the changes and do good projects. Michael read the guidelines: HPC may grant up to 500 square feet of FAR bonus. Alison said in the past we have done partial bonuses. Alison pointed out that the addition does not dwarf the historic resource compared to a lot of projects in the past. The historic resource can often times be very small. Ann pointed out that the project is not well done and not a good example of what should be happening in the Main Street historic district. Steev said we are stripping the brick which is a long and involved process. Once that is done it will further read that the historic resource is clearly offset from the addition. It is also unique that the historic resource is brick. Ann said the design came in assuming that the 500 square feet would be there. Alison said he came in at the work session to find out what the board felt. Every 500 square foot bonus has to come in for a work session. Ann said so at the work session HPC determines what should be done regarding the restoration in order to receive the bonus. Michael went through the criteria: In select circumstances the HPC may grant up to 500 square feet of allowable floor area for projects. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines. Brian interjected that he would grant up to what the applicant needs in square footage in order to accomplish what they have on the table. Alison said she is not opposed to the 500 square foot bonus. Nora said she is willing to approve part of the square footage. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 Sara said the applicant can always come back and request the square footage that has not been granted yet. Jay asked what a TDR was worth. Sara said it is about a $1,000 a square foot. Ann said she is not saying the project is bad. We are supposed to be highlighting the real outstanding projects in town. Jim True said a work session is set up to get ideas and it is not binding on the commission. Michael said he could support a bonus that would allow this project to be completed. Brian pointed out that awarding incentives invests faith in our historic process and program. It is something that we have been struggling with. MOTION: Brian moved to approve the Kelso addition application as recommended by staff with the exception that not a full S00 square foot bonus be awarded but whatever the applicant needs in order to complete the addition as represented. Motion fails for lack of a second. Michael asked Steev if he knew the required square footage needed. Steev said they would like the 500 square foot bonus. They are over $130,000. in fees on this project between school and mitigation and the 2% use tax. Most of the TDR comes back to the city. Amy pointed out that the owner put forth the project with the idea that there was a 500 square foot bonus. He may have to rethink whether he can do the project. Steev said from the clients point of view he needs the 500 square foot bonus to make the project go forward. Jay moved to approve resolution #9 for 627 W. Main as proposed and award the S00 square foot FAR bonus; second by Alison. Roll call vote: Alison, yes; Brian, yes; Jay, yes; Michael, no; Nora, no; Ann, no. Tie vote fails. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 Michael asked the attorney if the applicant requests a 500 square foot bonus is the HPC allowed to award something less. Jim said you can fashion the motion and approval the way you wish and he can certainly withdraw pursuit of it if it doesn't suit his purposes. Amy said if you give him an approval that he can't build then you have terminated his public notice and public hearing. Continuation would be better. Jim said the applicant can asked for a reconsideration at the next meeting. Jay pointed out at the last meeting when we discussed this application the bonus never came up. Nora said at the last meeting there where a lot of questions about the size etc. Jay pointed out that the applicant has worked with the HPC toward an approvable project. MOTION: Michael reiterated Brian 's motion to grant that number of square feet that are needed to complete this project as presented tonight. Nora second the motion. Alison pointed out that the motion made allows someone to complete the project but it doesn't necessarily make it possible for the property owner to complete the project. Brian said at this point he would feel more comfortable having the seventh HPC member present. Alison said on these types of projects she looks at the historic piece first and the changes proposed to it. I don't even consider the addition. When the addition first came I wasn't in favor of it at all but I felt that the changes to the historic structure merited the FAR bonus if he could get the addition into line, in which I believe he has. It is a big improvement since the first meeting. If we thought the dormer needed to come off in order to get the 500 square feet it should have been discussed early on. Michael said we did have an exhausted discussion about the dormer and the owner made a persuasive case that it shouldn't come off. Ann said she feels we need to raise the standard and we need to think more seriously about granting these FAR bonuses. Alison said the board 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 also needs to think about the word exceptional. It is not used in a way that the project is the best and most beautiful. Maybe you don't like the project in an exceptional way but is it meeting all of our guidelines in the best of its ability. Michael went over the FAR bonus criteria and he said he feels the 500 square foot bonus is appropriate in this case. Michael withdrew his motion arad Nora agreed. MOTION: Jay moved to approve the Kelso addition to 627 W. Main as presented and award the 500 square foot FAR bonus; second by Alison. Roll call vote: Jay, yes; Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Ann, no; Nora, no; Michael, yes. Motion carried 4-2. 406 E. Hopkins -Isis -Minor Review and Mountain View Plane Steev Wilson, architect presented a model at the meeting. Amy said on the table is a minor review and mountain plan review. The project involves and addition to the pent house that is at the front of the roof on the Isis. There is also a proposal for a railing along the parapet wall to allow some deck access on the building. Mountain View Plane. It is in the Main Street view plane which is originating from the Hotel Jerome; however, there is intervening development, the Cantina building obstruction the protective view. Staff recommends that there is no impact on the view plane. Minor Review. The addition is on the east side of the existing construction and some of the discussion from the last time was the concern that you have the Isis Theatre itself, and the roof top development centers on the roof. The elevator tower is at the side and has its own form. The board was concerned that they did not want to disturb that by having the new construction migrate across the facade and create a wall that is blurring where the distinction of the Isis historic building ends. Staff is in agreement with that concern. Steev has tried to create a connector that creates a transition. The roof height has also been lowered. Also the materials have been changed to associate more with the elevator tower. You still have the feeling that the pent house is its 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 own thing. Steev presented two options. The second option has a flat roof across the whole addition and all that accomplishes is raise the plate height in the back and blocks more of the light and view in the alley. Staff finds that the minor development is met. At the last meeting the board had no issue with the railing. This project cannot be constructed without landing a TDR because there is a 2,000 square foot limitation on any free market unit in a mixed use project in this district. The unit is already 2,000 square feet. At the time the Isis was purchased there was discussion allowing TDR's to be used on sites like this to increase the unit size. Code amendments where processed to incorporate that. What was overlooked was the TDR section of the code which needs changed to allow TDR's to land on historic landmarks. That code amendment is scheduled for June. Amy pointed out that in this application they are not making the overall square footage of the project bigger. Staff supports the TDR program. Steev Wilson said the concern at the last meeting was the wall effect. We created a separation in the massing so~that it is read as a different portion of the building. We dropped the roof and the connector piece is much smaller and has very little materiality from the street. It is basically a fascia and glass. We really tried to take your considerations to heart. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There where no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Brian asked about the model vs. the elevations. Steev said A2.2 on the elevations is incorrect. The model is correct and there is a cut out. The floor plan is the same on both options. Option 2 has a flat roof and option 1 has a sloped roof. Amy pointed out that the fire station will cover the east facade. Michael pointed out that the issues are 10.12 and 10.13 Alison said she would prefer option 1 with the sloped roof. Ann commented that the architect has done a great job emphasizing of not detracting from symmetry of the building. Michael said guideline 10.3 which states that the design of the addition should be such that you can interpret the historic character of the primary 19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 building. Michael said his main concern was the connection between the existing addition and the historic portion of the project. By stepping it back and reducing the roof height you have done a remarkable job of addressing that. Jay said he also agreed and a lot of people do not even know the addition is there. Brian said the project is successful but he still feels the mud room could be stepped back slightly. The architect has done a great job of separating the space. Alison asked how far back the addition is set. Steev said it is set back 18 inches. Sara said the curved roof helps get light, air and views into the affordable housing units at the rear. Steev pointed out that the mudroom is not very wide, 6'3" MOTION.• Brian moved to approve Resolution #10 for the Isis addition as recommended by staff with the condition that the front wall of the mudroom be pulled back an additional one foot and approving option #2. Motion fails for lack of a second. MOTION.• Ann moved to approve Resolution #10 and option Ifor the Isis addition; second by Alison. Roll call vote: Jay, yes; Brian, no; Alison, yes; Ann, yes; Nora, yes. Motion carried 5-1. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Meeti g adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 20