Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20040825ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AuGi_iST 25'~ 200~ Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander and Michael Hoffman. Sarah Broughton was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Michael moved to approve the minutes of duly 28, 2004; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. 435 W. MAIN ST. - ASPEN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) - PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 435 W. Main Street until Oct. 2 7,. 2004; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. 114 NEALE AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 114 Neale Ave. until September 1, 2004; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. 701 W. MAIN ST. - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, GMQS EXEMPTION, DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing and Historic Lot Split on 701 [IV. Main Street until September 22, 2004; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. 308 PARK AVE. - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting and mailing Exhibit I Affidavit of pubic notice Exhibit II Photograph of material palate Exhibit III Sworn in: A1 Beyer, Tim MoOney ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 2004 Amy summarized that this is a lot split that will result in a small addition to .the resource with the remaining allowable FAR allocated to an adjacent new house. On-site relocation of the cabin and variances are part of the redevelopment. Derek commended the owner and architect on the excellent drawings submitted. Michael said the material palate is consistent and complementary to what is there now. Valerie asked if landscaping would be involved on the green space between the historic house and new area. A1 said it would not necessarily be grass but the landscape intent will be reviewed by staff and monitor. Jeffrey commented that the design etc. is consistent with guidelines 3.2 and 1.2. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. No public comments. Jeffrey closed the public hearing. MOTION: ?alerie moved to approve Resolution #27for 308 Park Ave. Final Development with one additional condition: The landscape intent to be approved by staff and monitor; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Michael, Derek, Valerie 110 E. BLEEKER STREET - AMENDMENT TO MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in: Mitch Hass, Rally Dupps Affidavit of posting Exhibit I Affidavit of staff public notice Exhibit II Amy relayed to the board that the owners decided to change some of their programming. They have an approved project in place and are requesting an amendment. There are a number of issues that improve the project: The connector between the-new and old is now a one-story. With the differences in the roof shapes the building has a tall narrow appearance 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 25~ 2004 rather than the broad appearance, which is more compatible with the historic building. The issue is the fence that has to be relocated. We need to know more about what it is now and what the design and height requirements are. Secondly, there is confusion on the plans where there will be metal used on the roofing. Some of it is indicated on the historic building. Staff's recommendation is wood or asphalt shingle. The third is on the east elevation of the Victorian houSe there are currently no windows under the gable end. The previous architect had proposed two double hung windows on the east elevation and this project eliminates them entirely. There needs to be some discussion as to whether that is the appropriate treatment. It seems odd that a window did not exist. The fourth issue is on the back of the house. This application demolishes the non-historic addition and installs a couple of new windows on the rear elevation but what is being proposed is a very Victorian bay window, which staff finds is not appropriate. Staff fines that the material palate on the addition does not follow the guidelines or our typical practice. It is very confusing with the different elements. There was an FAR bonus granted for this project and they are doing an excellent restoration on the house. Mitch addressed the points brought up by staff. All of the decisions regarding the fence have not been made and recommended that the decision be left with staff and monitor. They have no issue one way or another. The use of wood shingles is appropriate. It was their intent but was miss noted on the plans. Regarding the issue about reconsidering the elimination of the windows it is their belief that windows do not exist. When they strip the paint etc. they are willing to take a look and if they did exist they will put them back in. Regarding the fourth condition on re-designing the window on the rear elevation they would prefer to keep the bay window but restudy the detailing. Mitch said he isn't sure if the board would want the detailing drawn up or if it is something that can be worked out with staff and monitor. Mitch stated they are unable to speak to the client regarding the materials. The feeling in the design is that the stone helps compliment' or offsets the brick of the historic building. The setback being set back a good 16 feet further from the street than the historic building and more than ten feet away from the historic building helps mitigate what might feel like a heavier or overwhelming material use. The stone does make it look new. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 25~ 2004 Rally said all the other conditions seem reasonable. The client wants to see the stone. The idea on the stone was a slurry mortar and rough-cut stone. It wouldn,t be a dry stacked stone. It would be 60% stone and 40% mOrtar. Derek asked Rally if they researched a brick in a more contemporary bond pattern. Rally said the client like brick but when they went through the process he told the client that brick would be less favorable by HPC because the historic house is brick. At the final approval of the site plan there were numerous plantings and this is going to be a straight forward planting plan. Rally also said the porch posts can be simplified. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. No public comments. Jeffrey closed the public hearing. Board comments: Valerie said the board has tried to keep the staff and monitor review to a minimum and this proposal contains numerous revisions. It sounds like the discrepancy in the roof material has been cleaned up. If a window exists the language should say that it would be put back in. If the bay window is simplified that would be in compliant with our guidelines. Regarding the stone if we approve it, it would be important to see a mockup or picture. Michael said he feels strongly about not delegating things to Staff and monitor. He could accept the stone but the detailing and ornamentation need simplified. Jeffrey said he feels the south elevation is in competition with the historic resource. The original design was much more simplified. With the simplification of the porch railings and some of the bracket elements it will defiantly help. The one-story link is great. The bay window on the north elevation re-design needs to be drawn up so that it is a product of its own time. He is also concerned if the mortar/stone is consistent with our guidelines. Jeffrey also said he feels this applicant should be continued. Mitch asked the board if they wanted the fence design and information presented at the next meeting? Amy said we need to make it clear that we are not approving the relocated fence until we see the height and what it looks like. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST ~ -~'2~ Rally said the existing fence is a painted picket wood fence located off the property line in the City right-of-way. They would like to keep the fence in that location and continue the same fence to the east and west. They want the property fenced in because the owner has a dog. Amy said we need to look at a fence drawing. Rally ask the board if they would like to see more stone and less slurry? Jeffrey said the original palate was very subordinate and this stone is very heavy. He is not opposed to stone but it needs to be subordinate to the historic house. Mitch said he hopes the board will agree to leave the windows on the east elevation left to staff and monitor when the paint gets stripped. Amy said that could be left and decided on the field. MOTION: Valerie moved to continue the public hearing and amendment to 110 E. Bleeker to Oct. 13th; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote: Valerie, Derek, Jeffrey, Michael WORKSESSION - MOTHERLODE MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried. 4-1. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 5