Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20030813 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 2003 Vice-chair, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Teresa Melville, and Sarah Broughton. Excused were Jeffrey Halferty, Valerie Alexander and Neill Hirst. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Amy reminded the board that on the 27th Telluride HPC commission will be here to observe and discuss our guidelines. Project Monitoring 635 W. Bleeker Amy said there were 3 or 4 Aspen trees that were put in up near the front porch of the house and the concern is that they are in conflict with the guideline that talks about not planting trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views of the building. Teresa commented that the trees were not on the lm~dscape plan that was discussed and the board should follow the guidelines. Red also said in the landscape plan they would like to do a flagstone walkway. Derek said the aspens are sitting behind a cottonwood and are the trees going to obscure the view. Amy said the cottonwoods don't obscure the view because the canopy is 100 feet in the air. Red said when you get a tree close to the house it also shed water onto the house and can cause damage. Michael said these are substantial changes to the plan and should probably be handled more formally. We need to discuss the sidewalk, lighting, front door and hot tub location. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 2003 The board requested that a site visit be scheduled and at the next meeting under project monitoring determine what should be approved. 513 W. Smuggler Amy said this is about the sidewalk material. The approved site plan had a sidewalk that took a 90-degree angle due to the tree and that is completed. They are requesting sandstone/grass, which is natural. The board approved the sandstone. 311 S. FIRST ST. MOT[ON: Derek moved to continue the public hearing on 311 S. First St. until Sept. 10, 2003; second by Teresa. ~11! in favor, motion carried. 135 E. COOPER AVE.- MAJOR - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING - WORK SESSION David Hoefer relayed that based on his review the applicant must re-notice because the notice doesn't list the variances or demolition. This will basically be a work session tonight. Sworn in were Charles Cunni££e and Chris Pat. Chris said she read the memo and was horrified. I£her architects are not listening to the board she is willing to change architects. She needs people that can communicate with the board and be responsive. She has interviewed people this morning because she needs to have people who know what the HPC wants and make that a priority. Obviously there is a communication problem. Amy did not respond well and we went through six plans. There are a lot o£ contradictions going on. I need to know what you want us to do to maximize the FAR so that my family can live in this house. Derek said in defense o£Amy there has never been a contradiction in this process. It has been very clear from the first get go to where the board was standing on the direction o£ this project. ! recall Michael telling Janvar don't do this because it is not going to work. Amy has been very consistent with this. Chris said she would be very happy to point out the 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 2003 inconsistencies because she witnessed them. Michael said that is not necessary. Chris retorted it isn't necessary because she has the HPC to answer to. I will change architects to have better communication. Michael said this meeting does not need to be personalized. This is a review board and it is our job to review the designs that you bring us and not to design your project for you. We want to give you some assistance if we can to help you come up with a design that will be approved. Chris said she heard the board said look at the guesthouse and maximumize it. We though we were being response to what your words were. We are here to listen to what you have to say today and see what you want us to do. David Hoefer said a good starting point would be to look at what is being presented tonight and indicate what you have a problem with. Charles said he wants to wrap up the basic misunderstandings and then move forward to show you a scheme. We have heard various things from don't touch the original house at all and to only touch it in a minimal way. Originally we wanted to make the original house bigger to be able to live in a bigger house and not have two separate houses. The notion ora link is good but trying to link an old house to a larger new house only on one floor is very problematic so we have to introduce an entirely new stair to the second part of the house and we didn't want to have to screw up the floor plan with another stair. We are loosing FAR. In the new submittal we still prefer a two-story connection and desire to show you how we can minimize the upper level of that connection and hope to prove to you that a two-story glass link would be an acceptable way to add an addition to an historic house without demoralizing the original house. We were given some direction to look at maximumizing the guesthouse. The new plan anticipates a one-story on the groined floor, which takes the form ora parlor and a deck above. The deck could be a way the master bedroom connects back to the main house. At the basement level the house is connected through and on the main floor it is connected through the parlor and the upper floor it is connected through the deck. They intend to 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 13~ 2003 go through the kitchen wall of the existing house with a floor and a glass wall towards the front garden and glass doors going out to the back garden. There will be a roof above that which forms a deck off the master bedroom. Charles said he feels this is a fair interpretation of some of the direction from the work sessions. Charles said the plan is saving the cottage. It would be raised up and a basement built below it. Comments: Sarah said by moving the stair it's helping maintain the south elevation. A subservient connector is something that is narrow and tries to go away and by trying to add program into it is taking a lot of that historic wall away, and she has concerns with that. Overall the massing is much better and more ~responsive to the historic guidelines. Charles said the connector is 14 feet wide by 8 feet long and we are taking away between 8 and ten feet of height, 140 square feet of wall. When you consider how much of the rest of the house is untouched he would like the board to put into perspective how little of the Service area of the house is impacted. Teresa asked if four of the originals are being taken out and Charles said he thinks only one or two. Amy said it is one window that would be covered. Charles said they are attempting to achieve the allowable FAR, On the first floor there is 778 square feet of existing house and we are adding another 960 square feet or so. On the existing cottage 625 square feet is existing and they are adding about 40 square feet in order to enclose the porch. Michael said he agreed with Sarah that the issue was the connector and if the materials were appropriate and if it should be a one or two story connector. We also had issues about the bay window. Derek said he and Michael liked the direction that option B was going. What has changed is bringing this down to a one-story element. Regarding the bonus it is discretionary and you must have an outstanding project and that does mean that it has to meet the guidelines. Derek said he is more 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 13~ 2003 liberal than the rest of the board. If the applicant is thinking about the bonus they might want to restudy narrowing that connector a little further. Derek said the plate heights seem to be on line. Teresa said the single story connector is great and she could support it with the deck on top. This house is nearly in a pristine condition. Teresa said she is an advocate of preserving the house as best we can. The height is too competitive with the Victorian house and overwhelming. She said there needs to be a design that is simple and that design would highlight the Victorian. Charles said they could replicate the pitch but not imitate it. Sarah said the massing has gone in a better direction. The materials should identify that the addition is new. Michael said the out building is not designated and the board implied at the work session that there would be more freedom in dealing with the redevelopment of that building. Chris said she firmly believes that a two-story transparent link would have been acceptable here and she is not getting what she wants but she said this is a team effort. Teresa relayed that the board has seen in the past projects that have very sensitive additions to designated buildings. MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing-conceptual on J35 E. Cooper until Sept. JO, 2003: second by Teresa. All in favor, motion carried. 819 E. HOPKINS - WORK SESSION TREE ORDINANCE - WORK SESSION MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Teresa. All in favor. motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk