Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20060628 ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 - WILLOUGHBY P ARKILIFT 1 PARK/SKIER'S CHALET STEAKHOUSE - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) ................................................................................. 1 DEMOLITION AND V ARIANCES..................................................................................1 205 S. MILL STREET, BRUNELLESCHI'S - MINOR REVIEW AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................ 1 423 N. SECOND STREET - MINOR REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING ..........................5 ] 35 W. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL - RELOCATION - DEMOLITION - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING .............................................................................. 10 WORKSESSION - NO MINIUTES ................................................................................15 430 W. MAIN - 134 W. HOPKINS .................................................................................15 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 ~.'''' '-- Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Michael Hoffman, Alison Agley, Derek Skalko. Jason Lasser was seated at 5: 12 p.m. Sarah Broughton, was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of May 24, 2006; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comments: Les Holst thanked the HPC for the job that they are doing. His group is trying to get the City to understand that what drives the City is the historic character. Every time a house is let go you have done major damage to our community. He handed out binders with comments made from tourists. Disclosures Jeffrey will recuse himself on 205 S. Mill Street - Brunelleschi's Derek will recuse himself on 135 W. Hopkins WILLOUGHBY P ARK/LIFT 1 PARK/SKIER'S CHALET STEAKHOUSE - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development of Willoughby Park/Lift 1 Park/Skier's Chalet Steakhouse to July 12th; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development of 114 Neale Ave. to July 12th; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. 205 S. MILL STREET, BRUNELLESCHI'S - MINOR REVIEW AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 Letter from Davis Horn - Exhibit II - Summary - The south side of Hopkins ,-. Ave. is a dead space and the Horn's support the deck. The deck will be an excellent pedestrian amenity. Jeffrey recused himself. Michael chaired. John Olson, builder Travis Terry, represented Jeffrey Halferty designer Sara said the subject property is in the commercial core and the proposal is for a 170 square foot outdoor dining deck that would be five feet high and project out of the half story level. The purpose is for ease of the Waite staff to access the outdoor area. The application is in two parts, minor development and commercial design review. Minor Development Review - Staff found according to our guidelines that the emphasis should be at the storefront first floor level. Having the deck at five feet is on in compliance with the guidelines. Staff also pointed out that the set of steps that leads into the Mill Street plaza will be somewhat compromised with the deck projecting out. We looked into dropping the '" deck height but that triggered an accessibility requirement. Commercial Design Review and Pedestrian Amenity Space - The two guidelines that staff questioned are A4 A5 regarding the building relationship to the primary street. The goal is to promote activity at street level. The space between the fal(ade and the property line counts toward the Mill Street Plaza's pedestrian amenity and having the deck at five feet does not qualify. The maximum height is four feet. HPC could allow them to pay a cash-in-lieu payment which would be $50 per square foot which equals $8,500. or waive the payment. Staff recommends denial of the proj ect. John Olson said he did remodeling work for the previous owner and never got paid for $250,000. Frank Woods and Tony Maza own the building and an arrangement was made that the rent would be paid by John and in exchange he would receive ownership of the restaurant. John said he was led to believe that a deck was possible. Gill Vanderaa III was interested in starting up a restaurant. The deck has a huge effect whether or not this restaurant makes it and it is vital to the success of the space. 2 ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 We are not in the same situation as other restaurants that have outside dining ....... on Main Street such as Asie, Gusto or the Hotel Jerome. They are all on ground level. It is difficult at ground level, the way it is now because waiters have to negotiate the steps. John said he feels most of the guidelines have been met and he is willing to work with the HPC to come up with a design that is acceptable to the board. Travis Terry said with Jimmy's deck and all the other design issues with flower boxes etc. it the deck is detailed out appropriately it could be its own vocal point. Another option is that it could be detailed out to be a temporary structure and only there in the summer. Michael said the guideline is basic consistency with the Historic District. Amy pointed out that Sarah mentioned the guideline that first floors should be store fronts and upper levels have secondary activities. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman opened the pubic hearing. Jay Mason stated that he hopes the HPC would consider working with the applicant to find a solution to make the restaurant more profitable. The way it is set up now you have waiters walking up and down with hot food and glass ware and it is only a matter of time that an accident will happen. A nice looking deck would add to the streetscape. That north fal(ade as it is now is very cold. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Board comments: Derek said according to the codes it seems simple to deny the project but he feels very strongly for supporting this application. Regarding the dual access of the stairs they might be in violation. The space is a vacant space and is especially evident in the winter. Derek hoped the board would allow some kind of deck to actually produce some sort of vitality. This is a peculiar situation as there is no where else in the City that exists like this. He would not want to go to a removable deck but would entertain it before denying the application. Regarding the stairs, possibly they could be utilized in a better way. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 j~""'. _ Alison said the building already doesn't meet a lot of our guidelines. We are looking at a space that is already setback from the sidewalk. We have a condition that the restaurant is at halflevel. It is hard to address our guidelines with this building because it is oddly shaped. A far as knowing that space, a deck would be a good addition. Having the windows open with a deck would give it a good relationship to the street that the building doesn't have now. Three or four businesses have been in the space that were not successful due to some of these issues. Jason said he is thinking of the functionality of the space. How many tables can fit on the deck and how would that increase the restaurant business. What would be the experience of people walking by and what are the impacts to Grape & Grain. They would look out at a five foot tall metal mesh with a railing on top of it. A shadow line would be put in front of the Grape & Grain. Maybe you could privatize the one section of the stairs that abuts up against the north end of the building. Jason felt that the deck would work better if it went all the way across the top of the stairs. Right now there is solid glass with operating windows above which restricts the experience outside. Maybe the windows should be changed to doors. Functionally you probably won't get more than two or three tables. Maybe there is a way to use a dumb waiter. Michael said we are all sympathetic to the business and owners of the building and the way it contributes or doesn't contribute to the streetscape and community downtown. Michael summarized by saying that the proposed design doesn't meet the guidelines. Maybe a different solution would work. The bigger problem is how does this building relate to the historic district as a whole. Michael said he is willing to continue the application to allow the applicant to re-design the proposal. John said the space is weird and it is an access that is not used. He will re- design and possibly the deck can be pushed further away from the Grape & Grain. John also stated that he will get support from his neighbors. Jason said support from the neighbors would be good and going across the stair would work better. A thought might be that the deck be six feet instead of five feet tall. Alison said we need to focus on what could happen below the deck. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 .... John said they are going to implement shifting the deck over away from the Grape & Grain and incorporate some of Derek's suggestions. MOTION: Derek moved to continue the minor development review and public hearing on 205 S. Mill Street until August 9'\. second by Jason. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 4-0. 423 N. SECOND STREET - MINOR REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING Jeffrey was seated. David Rybak, architect Jim & Betty McManus Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Sara said the subject house is 2 Y, residential Victorian built in the 1880's and heavily altered from its original form. It is located on the corner of Smuggler and N. Second St. The original primary entrance is oriented toward the alley. A variety of windows and a wrap around porch were added throughout the years and they contribute to the declining integrity of the building. What is before the HPC are alterations that were denied by staff based on non-compliance with our guidelines. The applicant is proposmg: 1. New windows in the north and west gables. 2. Three skylights in the northwest side of the cross gable. 3. Metal chimney along the north gable transition. 4. Arched top window. Sara said the new casement window proposed in the north attic gable is for egress for a habitable space. The attic will be opened up. The recommended minimum opening for an egress window is 5.7 square feet and they are proposing 8 square feet. Staff recommends that the window be reduced in size. Staff also recommends that the HPC discuss the alignment of the door in order achieve a better streetscape alignment. There is also an arched top window being proposed. Adding a window on top of an historic window within the west gable would really compromise the integrity of the historic structure. Staff finds that the Y, circular window does not comply with guidelines 3.1 and 3.2 of the guidelines. Moving to the roof, the applicant proposes to add three brown aluminum glad skylights to the northwest side of the cross gable. They will be visible from the street facing 5 ."i~"~ ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 fal(ade. The skylights are not compliant with section 7.3 which states to minimize visual impacts of skylights and other roof top devices. A new metal chimney that is approximately four feet tall is proposed for the flat roof area to the west of the north gable to vent a proposed interior fireplace. The chimney is located on the street facing fal(ade but it is non-historic construction so it does meet the guidelines. Overall staffrecommends approval with conditions: - 1. Reduce the size of the casement window. 2. Restudy the alignment of the casement window of the second floor door. 3. Omit the half round window that is proposed above the historic window opening. 4. Omit the skylights. 5. Limit the height of the chimney to the minimum height that is required by the manufacturer in the application which is about four feet. Dave pointed out that Jim was the previous owner of the Hotel Jerome and they purchased this home about a year ago. The attic space has existing as habitable; however, its legal use has been questionable. There was a bathroom put into the north gable at some point but no one could use the space. The interior remodel consists of moving a stairway access out of a bedroom into a more public space and then relocate the bath so that it can be usable. Photographs from 1890 show the subject property. The north gable originally faced east and we know that the existing north elevation is not the original. Some time between 1911 to 1950 the north gable was added to the structure. We are requesting an egress window and the opening area of the window we are proposing is 6.3 and the minimum width is 21 inches. The unit proposed is the smallest unit Pella makes in a casement. A false mullion will go across the front to give it more ofa look ofa double hung window. We are within.7 square feet of the actual minimum required. The original opening of the gable is off 6 inches from the center. The alignment is not bothersome to the historic nature of this non-historic fal(ade. To relocate the window to align properly on the second floor seems a little fussy. ^"" 6 _.' ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 David also said on the West fal(ade we had asked for an arched top window to be put into the west gable over the existing awning unit that appears to be original. The window would be an exact duplicate of a window that is on the south gable. David pointed out that the McManus's purchased the property next to it and a lot line adjustment was approved by staff so that we can take one of the three lots at 315 W. Smuggler and add it to this parcel so that we can give this building more room. In that way the development of the 315 W. Smuggler will not get too close to the west elevation of this building. David explained that the skylights are for light and they would prefer curved ones due to the construction of the roof and its insulation but they would consider flat ones. The flue is for ventilating a gas appliance in the first floor library. We studied several routes through the house and this is the only one we could get to comply with the UL ratings. We will have it blended into the roof so that it is not visible. Last that is not on the list is an attic vent. We need this due to the habitable space of the attic. The vent would go on the south gable facing west on the alley side. It would be a 3.6 inch square metal louver cover to pull air through the house as a low cost cooling system. Michael clarified that the roof is an historic roof. David said they have the casement window as small as they physically can make it. Regarding the restudy of the alignment of the windows, they are close enough. We would also like you to reconsider omitting the half round window and omitting the skylights. We would like to have what we presented approved. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing section of the meeting was closed. Commissioner comments: Derek relayed that the size of the window proposed is acceptable. The location ofthe flue for the fire place is OK but some kind of paint block or color scheme should be used that is very non-descriptive. As a matter of precedence skylights are not permitted and they would be very visible from W. Smuggler. Derek said the curved window he could go either way with. He understands the cooling system but the size of the vent 36 7 .~".-.- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 x 36 seems excessive on a house that size. Maybe it could be broken into two units. ",-. Alison said the size and placement of the egress window is fine on the north fal(ade. She doesn't feel the alignment of the window should be restudied because in reality that is where the door was below it. It is the historical alignment and it was off center and it stays with the character of the house. She is opposed to the half round window because it is not consistent with the feel of the house. Regarding the skylight she is opposed to them. If they were on the alley it might be a different situation but they are facing the street. The skylights stray from the character of the historic house. The chimney location and height is fine. Studying the color so that it is not so visible is acceptable. The vent is difficult due to its size and possibly there is some adjustment that can be made to minimize the impact. The color should also blend in with the roof. Jason said ifthere was a way to break up the casement window horizontally that would be the best case. Align the horizontal member with the shingle line and not make it a foe double hung. He is opposed to the curved window because it basically makes it look like a non-historic window and it does not comply with guidelines 3.1 and 3.2. He is also opposed to the sky lights and roof vent. Michael said condition #1 and #2 are not necessary. He is in agreement with staff regarding the half round window in terms that it is violates guidelines 3.land 3.2. Michael stated the HPC has been very reluctant to allow roof penetrations on historic buildings and for that reason the skylight should be disallowed per section 7.3 of our guidelines. The height of the chimney proposed is acceptable. Michael relayed his concern about the cooling vent penetrating the historic roof and he is opposed to it. ..,..., Jeffrey said the casement window is an appropriate response with the double hung appearance. He also agrees that the half round window does not comply with guidelines 3.1 and 3.2. He is flexible on the skylights if they are not on a major fal(ade. The architect mentioned the retrievability and making it land on the joists. With that kind of sensitivity he could entertain an option for a single flush mounting skylight. The mechanical vent should be restudied. c... 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 j,;iY'-. '''&.0...'' Jim McManus, owner thanked the HPC for their time and expertise and guidance. We have been property owners in Aspen since 1982. We currently have a house on 6th Street which we are proposing to sell and move into this house. I am sensitive to historic preservation. Along with Dick Buttera we bought the Hotel Jerome in 1985 and did a restoration which was concluded in 1987. Dick left the partnership in 1989 and we had 20 wonderful years and sold it to the Gaylord family last June. Historic Preservation is part of the soul of Aspen. This is not a new experience for me and I understand what you are trying to achieve and I appreciate it. We will do our best to achieve a livable situation and try to accommodate each and every suggestion made by the HPC. David said the skylights and attic vent seem to be the two issues that there mayor may not be flexibility on. We could do the skylight flush and move into the same plane of the roof and we can come up with detailing to conceal it visually. " The other answer for the attic vent would to create a false chimney. Adding a vertical element to a roof doesn't seem appropriate in this situation but it might solve the metal element on the roof situation. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution # 16, 2006 for the application of 423 N. Second Street with the conditions proposed by staff eliminating condition, 2 and 5. Adding condition #8 that the vent for the cooling system be denied. Motion second by Jason. Discussion: Derek said the vent is off to the alley side and possibly a blending of a color system might work. Possibly the sizing could be reduced. Amy said HPC could leave the door open for staff and monitor to look at refinements of the vent. Ultimately though staff and monitor might not come to a consensus and the vent would not be approved. David said there is another location that faces Smuggler that we could study for the vent. Amended motion: 9 .. - .~I......._.--~_-....~,,,~.._..._,-,._- .- ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 Michael amended his motion to #8. The vent as proposed is denied but staff and monitor are authorized to review new plans for the vent. Jason amended his second. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-0. ~"'" For clarification the vent as proposed has been denied but staff and monitor can review other alternatives. 135 W. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL - RELOCATION - DEMOLITION - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Derek recused himself. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I E-mail from Thomas & Judy Poll- Exhibit II ....... Sara relayed that the subject property is 1 1/2 story Victorian style wood frame cottage on the corner ofW. Hopkins and S. First St. There is a detached non-historic residence that sits at the rear of the property. The building has undergone various alterations. The owner had appeared before HPC for a review of a large addition to the rear of the structure but upon learning that the lot allows for two residences the applicant is re- submitting a new application for two single family homes on this non- conforming parcel. The application is for on-site relocation of an historic structure; rehabilitation of the historic structure; 500 square foot FAR bonus. An addition is proposed to the Victoria house. Demolition of the structure along the alley and then there are variances from the Residential Design Standards requested and a waiver of two on-site parking spaces. Key features of the historic house. What is left of the integrity of the historic house is that it is in its original location and the bay window seems to be historic. The house is located on a corner. To the east is the 2 y, story Holiday house. And to the south the three story Cottonwood Condominiums. Staff feels the rehab will greatly increase the properties integrity scoring; however, the proposal includes moving the building up to the property line which will adversely affect the score but staff finds that the proposed rehab out ways the adverse effect. 10 _____.._...1_______.; '- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 Design Guideline Review - The new detached rear structure height is contextually appropriate considering adjacent to the back of the lot is the 3 story Cottonwood condominiums. Staff is concerned that the ridge line of the roof as seen on the north elevation expands across the lot and creates a large mass behind the historic building as seen from Hopkins Ave. Staff recommends that the North elevation be broken up into smaller modules to appear closer in scale to the historic house as stated in section 11.3 of the design guidelines. The primary entrance of the new house is appropriate oriented to First Street but it lacks the recommended porch element for residences. The one-story mass with the deck on top is sensitive in scale and height along First Street. New addition to the historic house. Staff finds that the size and scale is sensitive to the historic home and the proposed gable roof is slightly lower in height. Due to site constraints staff recommends that the side addition is appropriate for this site even though HPC usually recommends it be at the rear. ,,-. Staff is concerned with the length of the proposed addition which is comprised of a master bedroom and a one car garage. Staff recommends that the length be shortened to create a more defined separation between the historic home and the proposed new addition as seen from First Street. Historic home: The applicant proposes to add a new foundation and lift the house up two feet. The structure will maintain its historic orientation to Hopkins but it will be moved up to the property line. Staff finds that the relocation is appropriate, moving the development to the rear of the lot. Staff recommends that staff and monitor assess the intended height of the home and the foundation during the relocation phase of the building because documentation doesn't exist as to how high the foundation was historically. Raising the house two feet seems to be a significant height and may have a significant adverse impact on the historic property. .~"- The light-wells seem to be oversized for the required egress. There is a proposed skylight in the historic home and in the light of applying for a 500 square foot bonus staff does not recommend the skylight. 11 I..-".,~..,".._,-_._,.- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 ",:.- - Demolition - Staff finds that the out buildings do not contribute to the significance of the parcel and the demolition will be inconsequential to the preservation of the area. Residential Design Standards - Staff is in favor of demolition. The project requires a variance from the secondary mass and the street oriented entrance requirements for the new detached house. Staff is in favor of the variances. Street oriented entrance - A variance for the street entrance is necessary for the new detached house. The primary entrance is located on First Street and staff agrees that it should not face Hopkins Ave. We also recommend that a front porch element be added. Staff also supports the FAR bonus of 500 square feet. Staff also recommends that HPC waive the two additional required parking spaces. Staff is concerned with the 0 foot west side yard setback of the new detached house and recommends that the HPC move the detached house back from the lot line so that it does not compete with the historic house along First Street. Staff also recommends continuation to restudy the roof form of the detached house as seen from Hopkins Ave. and the other issues that were mentioned. Gretchen Greenwood, architect Gretchen said she worked on the first application in 200 l. They went through the entire process and received approval and it came to a halt the day before Gretchen submitted for a building permit. The owner decided to go back through the process for the two units. The application has simplified for the past five years. "'<'- We have two buildings - one new building and one old one with no relationship between the two. The simpler the building is to the rear the better for the Victorian building. The concept has always been to maintain a simple structure to the back. In reality if we lift the front building up it will only be 18 inches. The building will then be 23.2 inches above grade. The site slopes from 1 02 to 1 06 at the south eastern corner which makes it a challenge in terms of being able to access both properties off the alley. We will be traveling under the living room to get to the garage for the Victorian. The new building is access off the alley. It is off the property line about three feet. Gretchen said she has five feet offher alley and there is good turning radius. We need to lift the Victorian up to get the relationship of the alley. When we start to excavate out we will be looking at what the real conditions of the 12 .-- .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 elevation is and exactly how high we need to lift it. We would like to get it up at least 18 inches. There is a lot of height around this building. The rear building height to the mid point is 25 feet and the total would be around 28.6 and the Cottonwood Condominiums are at 34 feet. We have a little over ten feet between the two buildings and we will be able to some significant plantings. We will be able to define a back drop to the Victorian building. Gretchen said she is not sure they can reduce the length of the proposed addition but they would look into it. In terms of the porch element she would do something very clean and not detailed. . "",',,' Michael asked Amy if the physical condition of the building has remained the same through her tenure as a preservation planner. Amy said nothing has been done to the building. Do we have a demolition by neglect issue here? Amy said there was an application pursued and now an application for two detached buildings which is what we would prefer. It has taken longer than everyone would like but it seems that a resolution is at hand. This property is a legal non-conformity and two building are allowed. ~,- Gretchen stated that the HPC process is very long. It took her two years to get through the first plan. The lot size is about 5,200 square feet. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. John Kelly, attorney stated he represents the Vaughn family who own a small house a half block down. He is here to get the information for his client. Gretchen went over the plan explaining that they are using less square footage in this design. John said he is not opposing the application; he is here to educate himself. Jessie Boyce, owner of the property across the street 134 1/2. We are looking forward to the improvement of the site. Jessie pointed out that skylights have come up twice this evening and that they have skylights and they do help the electricity off. Sara said she received an e-mail from the Pool's stated that they are pleased for the renovation ofthe property and cleaning up the area. They would like to make sure they comply with the zoning regulations 13 - .- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner comments: Michael stated that he feels the bonus should be recognized by maintaining the structure. He feels there is too much mass on the site and agrees with staff that the garage and bedroom addition needs shortened. He also supports the waiver of the two parking spaces. Amy said possibly the garage could be shortened. Gretchen said she might be able to shorten it by a couple of feet. -',", Jason said he appreciates the preservation efforts. It will be nice to see this building rejuvenated. The separation of the two buildings is necessary. Sara said she checked with the building dept. and they confirmed that two feet could be lopped off the back of the garage. Jason is also concerned about the ridge line of the new house that runs east and west and recommended breaking that up somewhat. The light well is one continuous element and possibly it could be broken up. He pointed out that the long light well seems like a trough and accentuates the overall length. '0.,. Alison said the project is going in a better direction. She applauded the architect for her work. The demolition of the back piece and creating the two home sites and preserving the front portion are acceptable. The new house is a good back drop and transition to the higher building that is across the alley. The new house almost protects the historic structure. Alison recommended a restudy of the porch element on the west elevation. The length of the garage doesn't bother her as much as the other commissioners. Regarding the historic home she is in favor of staff and monitor handling the issue of raising the house. She understands why they need to do it because of the slope of the grade. Gretchen pointed out that the light wells on each house are servicing two bedrooms; two on the new home and two on the historic home. Instead of having a lot oflight wells she chose to have one. ,",,, Jeffrey feels that the addition is fine and it meets guideline 11.3. He echoed some of staffs concerns about the roof and modulating it more, possible with reduction of plate heights and dormers. The elevation of the new foundation as the building is moved closer to the north will 14 .-. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AT/ON COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 2006 appear like it is growing out of the ground due to the relationship of the grade. HPC ran into that same issue with the Conner cabins. He is in total agreement with the light wells and they are set back off the historic fayade. Possibly they could be broken up into two light wells. Demolition is OK. Regarding the FAR bonus Michael made a good point about letting the resource fall into the ground but for the architect to restore the building back to its original detailing justifies the additional square footage. The setbacks and parking variances are also acceptable. - Amy sUmmarized: Relocation, demolition, variances are all sUPportive by the board. The skylight is not aPProved. Restudy the mass and scale of the addition, Secondary mass. Porch on the new structure helps define the structure. Michael said he is less concerned about breaking up the light well than if it were on the street. Jason said his concern is the light well's relationship to the histOric reSOurce and ifit Were broken up it Would not seem so massive. ...,........ AfOTION' Michael moved to Continue ConCeptual Development and the public hearing on 135 w: Hopkins Ave until July 26'h,2006; second by Alison. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Alison, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION Michael moved to acijourn; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting acijourned at 8:00 p.m. ~~~ Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk WORKSESSION - NO MINIUTES 430 W. MAIN -134 W. HOPKINS 15