Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20150114ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, John Whipple, Jim DeFrancia. Nora Berko and Sallie Golden were absent because they were conflicted. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Patrick made the motion to reconsider resolution #2 on 202 Monarch, conceptual approval. After evaluation it doesn’t fulfill Aspen’s charcter as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center mainly because of the flat roof. It looks more commercial than residential. Motion was not second, motion dies. John said the project verses a 12,000 square foot mixed use development it is a nice step in a residential neigihborhood. Willis said he feels the development is very site specific. The development is promising. 232 East Bleeker – Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation, Demolition of Existing Garage and Variances, Public Hearing, Cont’d from Dec. 10th Amy said this is a 6,000 with a Victorian house and non-historic garage. The garge will be demolished and the house expanded into a duplex. The project needs a front yard setback reduction, meets the side yard setbacks, meet the rear yard setbck and needs some relief on the front and combined setbacks. There is also residential design standards variance request for secondary mass. You are supposed to have a primary and secondary form linked by a one story element. They have that but the one story link is wider than it is supposed to be. The board has not had the same concerns as staff about the pitch of the roof on the addition and whether the two units should be freestanding or not so we have accepted that and are trying to focus on the details. Staff has suggested that in terms of earning the FAR bonus that the two non-historic dormers that face Monarch be removed. The 448 square feet is valuable and we want the board to make that something that ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2015 2 has to be earned through good restoration. The applicant has good restoration work. In terms of your request to see materials you waned to see how the materials affected the mass and scale. Materials are for final but we commented in the memo that overall the second unit maybe has a little more personality than is necessary and compete s with the Victorian and for final maybe the complexity could be softened. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Kim Raymond, architect Bill Boehringer, developer and partner in the project Kim said after the last meeting the commission felt good enough about the form, shape and size and the setback variances but the board was concerned about the materials. The historic porch roof originally wrapped around and we will re-create that in the restoration plan. The railing is not original and will be removed and the extra gingerbread will all be removed. The back porch will also be removed. The chimney is a brick chimney and it had a cool chimney pot on top and we are going to try and find one that looks as close to the one in the photograph. The trim and siding will all be repaired. The shuttlers will also be taken off. The small dormers were added in 1984 and they meet the standards of dormers that have been added to other buildings. The reason we still have them on is because there was no comment after the previous two meeting and we moved ahead thinking they were not an issue. They are an intregal part of making the upstairs functional. The one dormer is above the stairs so we get more headroom and the other one is in the bathroom to get more of a sense of space. If we can’t use the attic space all that mass and FAR would end up somewhere else on the lot. Keeping the Victorian and not putting a new building upon it we are trying to squeeze a nice bedroom in the attic space. Bill said a lot of the Victorian in town have higher ridges. We desire provide reasonable use of the space and bring in light. To lose those we would have to revisit whether the master bedroom needs to go to the basement because of space and height issues. We are less than the 50% site coverage. We are at 46.6 and we are trying not to put more space on the site. Kim said we have gone to great lengths to make the upstairs work. The Victorian will be all white and the main part of the modern unit will be white. It will be wood siding with a similar dimension as the lap siding on ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2015 3 the Victorian but not the same. The mass of the new addition on the back will have a butt jointed siding. The entire building will be white with charcoal grey and black windows or dark bronze on the modern unit. We have added a luvered system to the modern unit. The link element will be a ceramic tile. Regarding the windows relating more to the Victorian on the modern unit we added horizontal mullions to all the windows to break up the mass of the huge glazing. On the modern unit in the back we changed the size of the door from 16 feet wide to 12 feet wide to break up the large expanse and added a solid mass chimney element to break up the glazing. The railing was glass and is now steel and wraps around the upper level deck. We have reduced the size of the bonus to 448 square feet. We feel we have done a lot to respond to the issues. We have provided the other parking space and keep squeezing the building in to reduce the setback variances and respond to the neighbors concerns. Willis asked about the interior of the Victorian as it is a complete re-design. Amy said they might have to move the dormer space elsewhere on the site if they don’t keep the dormers. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Patrick asked about moving the historic house over in front of the addition because the addition overwhelms the historic resource. Bill said there is a vacant lot next to us and we thought there was no great benefit to moving it over. By not moving it over we protect the open yard. Willis said the scale of the materials helps one understand the massing. Willis said he was hoping to see some iterations in terms of mass. A lot of progress has been made on this project, the siding with the ceramic panels. The upper level and lower level should be differenciated. The dormers on the historic resource could be removed because you have the opportunity on the upper floor to make the floor plan livable and in order to grant the bonus the dormers should be removed. Willis identified the issues: Combined sideyard setback Front yard ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2015 4 RDS – secondary mass Porch on the historic resource Bartering with the FAR bonus with the dormers John said he is in favor of the seven recommendations by staff. We are not in charge of the interior program, only what is viewed by the public. I am also in favor of the dormers being removed. Jim also said he is favor of staff’s recommendation and they have done a great job. The amount of glass reduces the sense of mass and is appropriate. Patrick said there is a new dormer on the upper wests leading out onto the deck which gives additional light into the space. Patrick also said he awgrees with staff’s recommendation. The lot will be seen coming north from Main Street to Bleeker and coming west up Bleeker. Patrick said he strongly prefers moving the historic resource over more in the center of the lot so it masks the addition. Willis said historically you would leave the corner open and not fill it up with program. Jim agreed as it is the entry to the neighborhood. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #3 as recommended by staff; motion second Willis. Roll call vote: Jim, yes; John, yes; Patrick, no; Willis, yes; Motion carried 3-1. MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn; second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. __________________________________ Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk