Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20040128ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY'2~8~' ~'20021 334 W. HALLAM - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - ON-SITE RELOCATION AND VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING ......................................... 1295 RIVERSIDE DR. - DESIGNATION - LOT SPLIT - MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARiNG~.~ ................................................................................................ 6 557 WALNUT STREET - WORKSESSIOIq - NO MINUTES ........................................ i ...................... 16 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28~ 2004 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander, Sarah Broughton and Michael Hoffman. Neill Hirst was excused. Staff present: Assistant CityAttorney, David Hoefer Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Derek moved to continue the Conceptual Development and Public hearing on 4 70 N. Spring until March 1 O, 2004; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. 334 W. Hallam- Major Development - Conceptual- On-Site Relocation and Variances - Public Hearing Affidavit of posting was entered into the landuse records as Exhibit I. Sworn in: Bill Poss, Hayden Connor, Stephen Holly Amy relayed that the property is a 9,000 square foot corner lot in the West End. On it is a large Victorian house and a detached carriage house that was built in 1990. It is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is an excellent example of Queen Ann architecture. The applicant is requesting to remove an addition that was done in the 60's and the proposal would be a welcome change. The house does not have a proper foundation. The applicant would like to put a basement under the house and do an addition towards the rear. In the process they would like to move the house ten feet closer to Third Street. Most of that is being driven by the fact that there is a large cottonwood tree up against the east side of the house. The tree is preventing them from expanding on that side. The Parks Dept. does not want to see the tree removed. Keeping the project compact is probably a good idea but HPC needs to determine if it is too compact and where relief is needed. Staff expressed concerns regarding the roof on the new addition as it continues to tie into the back of the old house and whether that wipes out the sense that it is from two parts of time. HPC needs to decide whether the house should be relocated or not. The board before had been discussing whether the addition should be completely oriented towards the North as in moving closer to the carriage house rather than coming out toward the east. If it could be placed more northward there is no reason to remove the house ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2004 and it is an important building. The applicant is also requesting a FAR bonus. A variance is being request for a light well that is to be on the Third Street side of the house. Staff supports that variance because adequate light is needed in the basement. Staff recommends continuation to discuss characteristics of the addition and the relocation issue. Bill Poss said the historic part of the house stops on Third Street. It is the intent of the client to restore the house. The old part of the house is 2,866 square feet. We are proposing to add on 438 feet to the west of the structure. Adding on gives us light to the two most imPortant rooms in the house, the master bedroom and the kitchen. The rooms are rather small and broken up and the bathroom is across the hall. The bedroom would be expanded and the bathroom brought up to date. Guideline 10.4 - Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. Bill stated thev intend to remove a portion of the house and bring up the height and add an addition that is a little more quieter by representing a gabled roof that will be secondary in nature to the historic part of the house. They have attempted to use smaller portions of the design of the historic house and keep the proportions similar. The alternative would be to take a more radical approach for the addition but the client chose to take a conservative approach so that everything is more compatible. The addition is 60 feet back from the road, which is more than half the lot. Guideline 10.3 - Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Bill stated the roof forms are similar to the historic building and the addition of the historic structure doesn't destroy the historical importance of the existing historic features. Bill said the 438 feet that is being put on two levels is about a 215 square foot footprint that is getting added onto the building. We feel that the design fits into the neighbor and the design enhances and does not distract from the historic structure. The addition will be moved back and the historic comer will be restored and exposed. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2004 On-site relocation. Because of trying to get better sunlight and better views from the addition while restoring the existing house we are requesting to relocate on the site. Moving the house ten feet closer to the property line does not deter and is still in relationship to the street. Bill relayed that another part of the design is to attempt more of a garden atmosphere. The trees are going to be retained. The house is 2,866 square feet and they are requesting an FAR bonus of 364 square feet. There are two light wells being proposed because a basement will be under the house. Michael asked Bill to address guideline 10.4 because we typically like to see a distinct physical separation between the addition and historic structure and that is not the case in this presentation. Bill said because of the site being on the comer a fighter architectural solution and a more compatible roof of similar proportion is another way of looking at it. Hayden Conner said the previous minutes reflect that the desire was to have a separation on the north comer of the original building and now there is none. Right now there is no separation between the 60's addition and the original. The 60's addition has no separation right now. We did what we were asked to do and create a separation. Amy said two things weight into the separation issue. The Christie Farrah project was a similar house, that house was totally intact all the way around and we didn't want to connect to it anymore than we had to. The back wall of this house is basically gone so there is less of a concern about affecting materials and also the connector piece is usually a big concern to the HPC when we have a little miner's cottage and someone wants to add a huge addition behind it we require some distance. Bill explained the floor plan. Jeffrey asked if a different roof form was looked at for the addition. Bill said they did look at metal which would help differentiate old from new. ~When we added metal it looked quite stark so we went back to wood shingles but we are willing to look at an alternate roofing material. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Comments: ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28~ · 2004 Derek said after going to the site he finds no negative effect of the proposed relocation of ten feet. Addressing guideline 10.4 he tends to agree with the architect because of the compact nature of the way the house is laid out right now. The open space of the site is a critical element. A radical design would take away from the historic resource. Derek commented that he is not sure going to an all metal roof is the best solution. Michael said relocation to the west is appropriate and it is a good compromise for this structure and does not diminish the historic nature of the structure. His concern is that the addition will look like it is part of the historic structure. In terms of the roof configuration he would approve it subject to the applicant working with staff on some different solutions. Valerie said the integrity of the original builders intent will not be diminished with the relocation. It is a generous lot and the benefits of the new foundation etc. benefit the project. Valerie supports keeping the open space between the main house and the carriage house as it is a precious space as you experience it from Third Street. The intensity of the massing from Hallam Street is somewhat disappointing and that can be improved with reconsidering the ridge height of the roof and bringing that down a little bit which will also improve the ability to interpret old from new with a little visual vertical separation. On the same note, that would help me in granting the FAR bonus of maintaining the historic roof forms. This proposal is a wonderful improvement over what exists today. The hyphen separation is definitely minimal and it would be nice to see a little more separation. In terms of the FAR bonus if you could provide a little more improvement to the later historic structure in terms of its roof pattern and form that would suffice. Jeffrey said this a very important structure and is on the National Register. This is the third revision he has seen and abandoning the garage is a good solution. The restoration of the historic resource is commendable. This house is a great example of our West End. The massing of the original structure has not been altered too much since 1904 Sanborn map. He is in support of the proposal but agrees with Staff that additional studv is needed on the new construction. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2004 Referencing guideline 10.4 Jeffrey is in agreement that the addition should be on the north side. He also concurs with staff regarding some of the roof massing. Revealing the northeast comer is a nice effort to retrieve and restore that comer board detail of the historic gable. Jeffrey recommended more separation so that it is viewable from the street as did Valerie. The addition needs a little more distinction to make it clear that it is not historic. Jeffrey can support the relocation and retaining the tree will help soften the addition. Recommendations: 1. Restudy of the roof configuration eastern gable 2. The addition should be a distinct element 3. The addition moved a little bit to take some of the area off the east side and perhaps pushed toward the north. Amy explained that the addition is so close to the house that it is getting somewhat squished together with the gables over framing the historic roof etc. Hayden Conner stated that the house will be spectacular. In order to make the investment in the restoration of the house it has to be livable. The more you chop up the interior you increase the cost of building but you destroy the floor plans. He is willing to look at a better option for the roofline. Bill said he can work out some changes and bring them to Amy then back to the HPC. Jeffrey mentioned a concern as to how the roofs engage. Possibly the addition shouldn't go so far east but the kitchen needs to be close to the heart of the house. MOTION: Derek moved to continue the Conceptual Development and the public hearing on 334 W. Hallam to Feb. 25, 2004 with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the roof configuration of lowering the roof of the addition with the goal of removing the encroachments on to the north facing roof of the historic house to the extend possible. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28~ 2004 2. Continue to work on making the addition a distinct element and avoid compromising the independence of the single, east-facing gable. 3. Restudy of the separation of the addition frOm the structure to differentiate old from new. Motion second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried 4-0 Yes vote: Michael, Derek, Valerie, Jeffrey 1295 Riverside Dr. - Designation - Lot Split - Minor Development Review and Variances - Public Hearing Sworn in: Tony Welgos, Gilbert Sanchez, Kathy Welgos, Dick Osur, Tony Hershey, Tom McCabe, Janet Garwood, Cheri Grinnell, Craig Morris, Bill Murray, Dottie Kelleher, Dale Hower. Amy said the public hearing in November was continued with some concerns about the impacts of the alterations to the historic house and some members of the board had issues with the idea of the lot split. The applicant would like a favorable decision on designation, lot split, minor development and variances. There was no disagreement among the board members regarding designation and how it meets the criteria for important Post War Chalet style buildings. The Welgos's staked out the comers for the possible new envelope of the house. Regarding the lot split staff feels there is adequate distance between the two buildings and the entire east faCade will be unaffected. The west faqade will be impacted somewhat by the placement of the new addition. When we review the new building we can talk about' heights, positioning, etc. that will help maintain a view of the front comer. Staff feels strongly that there is no good that comes from more than doubling the size of an historic building. We have seen that over and over again with miner's cottages and it rains your ability to see the small scale of the original structure. Some kind of a detached building on the lot that takes most of the square footage off the Chalet is the best way to preserve it. Regarding the minor review there had been some discussion about having to move the entrance. Given' the size of the lot there is not a lot of other possibilities. After looking at it a number of times, Staff feels that this is a 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28~ 2004 trade off that can be appropriate in this particular circumstance. We know that the entrance as it exists right now is not in its original condition. To move it to the opposite side of the building is something that could be acceptable under the design review criteria. At the last hearing there was concern about when the entrance is taken away what happens to that wall and how will it be repaired. There are proposed windows that are similar but not identical to it so that we have some consistency. Staff has some concerns with the exact design of the new entry. There are a number of ways to minimize the impact of that entry. Only because of the entry issue staff is recommending continuance. ' Variances are needed because of the location of the new lot line. That is only going to have an impact internally on the property so that it seems to be acceptable in order to deal with the fact that this house cannot be relocated like many others that we have dealt with. There is also an issue with the non-historic shed at the back corner of the property. The applicant is perfectly willing to discuss were the best place is to locate it as they do not want to impact their neighbor. We have ~very few Post War structures designated now and we have a challenge ahead. Tony Welgos, owner read the following letter to the HPC commission. We would like this process to go forward. We feel this is a workable project for both parties involved. We are taking a chance of having our house designated historical and we do not know what the future brings and we are willing to take the chance. My question to the HPC is, are you willing to. take the chance. This is Kathy's and my sixth piece of property that we have owned in Colorado and it took us that many pieces of property to own our house here in Aspen. This is our only piece of property. We are not taking this designation lightly; we feel strongly that this home should be saved. On the other hand we do not want to have to loose property value along the way. The ball is in your court to be forward thinking, creative and progressive. It is a leap of faith that you have to experience, that we are experiencing on our end as well. This is a pilot project for all of us that may or may not work. You members have nothing to loose, it is Kathy, my family and I that are at risk. I remind you that it is your process that has invited us here and we came here willingly and we would like to work this out for both parties. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28~ '2004 Kathy Welgos said the HPC should consider this leap of faith in this designation. We have put 30 years of sweat equity to get where we are right now and it is our four children's entire inheritance. We are taking a hUge risk in the designation of the Post World War II category. I hope that the town will support the significance of saving these structures. The incentive program that you have in place has been a tradeoff for the risk that we are taking. I feel the town is willing to go forward with this and they realize the significance of saving these old structures. We are willing to make the leap all for the cause of historic preservation. Gilbert Sanchez clarified his role. Rally Dupps has been the design architect and he continues in that role and is out of town right now. Gilbert is not be retained by the Welgos's to represent them in a professional manner. He is here to solely support designation. Buildings that represent Aspen's past are in danger and threatened. He stated that he has been involved with presentations of the past for numerous years. In the fall of 2000 HPC tried to attempt to update the inventory of historic buildings and they focused on post war buildings. Controversy arose from that attempt. The Welgos's were involved at that time and now are requesting a lot split and designation of their Chalet house. Gilbert entered a letter into the record supporting the designation and lot split of this property. In his letter he pointed out the following reasons for supporting this project. 1. It is a viable and achievable plan that maintains the historic chalet and its contributions to Aspen's history as a ski resort. 2. The lot split is an appropriate incentive that results in the preservation of the historic resource. 3. The proposed revisions to the chalet maintain its historic integrity as determined by staff scoring in Amy Guthrie's memo dated Jan. 28.2004 4. The proposed revisions to the chalet are reversible and preserve the architectural integrity of the historic resource in compliance with the National Park Service/Secretary of the Interior guidelines and standards for rehabilitation. 5. The proposed entry revisions comply with National Park Service/Secretary of the Interior guidelines and standards for rehabilitation: ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28~ 2004 o Recommended Designing and installing additional entrances or porches on secondary elevations when required for the new use in a manner that preserves the historic character of the buildings. Not Recommended - Removing or radically changing entrances and porches, which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. The primary character defining gable end of the chalet (the street- facing facade) is unaffected by the proposed revisions. The original design intent of the chalet is unaffected by the proposed revisions. The 500 square foot bonus is an appropriate incentive that results in the preservation of the historic resource. The project will send a positive message to the public and, hopefully, encourage other Owners of significant post-war buildings to consider designation for their properties. Gilbert said designating this house and approving the lot split is not a blind leap of fate, rather a considerate and reasoned decision that is made on the appropriate use of the guidelines and standards that best achieve the preservation of one of our communities important resource of the past. Valerie asked Gilbert if he feels the project is fulfilling the Aspen Area Community Plan. Gilbert said the key is the applicable guideline and that is one that preserves the building. Amy said the AACP includes a statement that HPC is to protect all historic resources of significance in Aspen. This would be the first Post War designation in about 9 years. We have not been making a lot of progress toward that goal. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Tom McCabe stated that he has been associated with the process for some time. When he served on council they had a group of disgruntle residents complaining about the HPC process and its subjectivity when moving into the realm of Post War II architecture and preservation. It seemed to the citizens that it was a very unfair process. We aired on the side of the 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28~ 2004 citizen's perspective and a new process was developed. Part of the incentive program was the lot split that gives something back to those people who are taking the risk of designation. What we are seeing here are the fruits of the new process. There are people who are taking a step forward to participate in Historic Designation because of the incentives. In most cases that come before the HPC there will be opposition from the neighbors because it is a little risky because we do not know what the long- term ramifications will be. Tom encouraged the HPC to take a chance on the Welgos's and the vision that we are trying to empower for the community. Preservation is a key piece to part of Aspen's future. Susan Dodington stated she was previously an HPC member and was on the board when the HPC process was being revised. We need to preserve more than just the Victorians. Susan encouraged the HPC to approve the application. Even in the West End the neighbors are always upset when something is being bUilt. Dottie Kelleher presented a letter from Jessica Benedict-Gordon - Exhibit III. The letter states that Riverside was a unique subdivision because it was like taking a stole through the woods. The subdivision was designed to save as many trees as possible and keep a balance of lot sizes in relationship to open space. Fritz Benedict would have favored the current R-15 zoning Which allows homeowners to expand their houses to meet their growing family needs while being sensitive to the proportions between house footprint and lot size, and natural settings. He would be against the lot split with two houses crowded onto what was before a spacious and viSually appealing building site. Craig Morris stated that he supports the Welgos family. Craig said he is not sure there is a significant difference between the density issues. Right across the lane there is a 5,800 square foot house on a similar size lot. You could have the same density split onto two lots. The lot split process has enabled owners to sell of part of the property and take the money and preserve the historic structure. Cheri Grinnell pointed out that their covenants have been somewhat relaxed by new construction but the covenants related to this project are still intact. They address the proportion of house size and lot size and the wooded 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28~ 2004 atmosphere that the neighborhood has. The covenants have been reinforced by the R-15 zoning. She asked the commissioners to keep their minds open to their concerns. The lot split would be detrimental to the neighborhood. This property was only built about 40 years ago and has been extensively modified over the years and most recently an addition that compromises 30 to 40 percent of the square footage of the house with a very prominent front deck. The roof is not original and has been replaced with metal, a material not typical of Chalet style. Fritz Benedict prohibited the use of metal roofs on Riverside Drive. Balance the benefits of preserving this as an historic house against the damage to a carefully planned neighborhood by a prominent Aspen architect. HPC should consider the character of the contexts of the property and not just disregard the importance of the setting. The context of the Chalet itself includes an alpine wooded setting which is more viable to a Chalet than a Victorian miner's cottage. The proposed changes allow only for the narrow end of the house to be viewed and that would be further obscured by necessitated parking in front of it. The plans result in the loss of a front yard and the front entrance tums into a side entrance. The variances cause a negative impact on the integrity of the Chalet. Please respect the philosophy that is embraced in your manual and web site, he Fritz Benedict placed a high priority in creating an intimate relationship between a house and its garden. If the project and lot split are approved, once the driveway is relocated the existing asphalt driveway should be removed, and landscaping done in a manner of berm and bushes. Cheri submitted Dusty Hamrick's request Exhibit I.' She is not in favor of changing the existing home in anyway. A lot split is not appropriate because all of our homes are distanced between one another with interesting placements and landscaping. The maximum width of the open space from east to west between the aspen trees is 12 feet. In order to park three cars they would have to be parked end to end in a straight line from the street to nearly the new location of the East entrance. There is no on street parking allowed. Snow removal is a concern. If the east side of the Welgos's lot is made into a hard surface for parking Dusty would like the Engineering Dept. to be brought into the decision making process to address drainage' issues. She would also like the entrance of the door to face North instead of East which would give her privacy. She would also like to request that 12 foot pine trees be planted to the east side to lessen the impact on her house of people coming and going. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28~ 2004 Tony Hershey stated that he has listened to the neighbors and Welgos's and he understands what a difficult issue this is but this community has to make a decision. The community as a whole made a decision that Post WW II Chalets should be looked at. Incentives thrive this HPC process. The Welgo's came to every meeting and helped develop the lot split. Tony said he went to the neighborhood and there are four huge houses in their neighborhood. Is that what we want, big houses lot line to lot line. If so then the community needs to come forward and change what we have already approved. This lot split will be an example on that street of what the community wants. Lot splits work and they preserve the neighborhood and preserve homes. The Welgos's agreed to come to the HPC and make their house historic but in exchange the City of Aspen gives them something and that is why the HPC should look favorable on this application. Janet Garwood said she is a citizen of Aspen and is very concerned about working families not living here anymore. This is an opportunity to maintain a home that has been beautifully cared for and has been full of family love. A small little urban home for a single person to live in would be very attractive on the adjacent lot. Janet said she is trying to give a point of view from someone who has lived here for a long time and would like to see the Welgos family and a small family start out next door, and this is the way we do it. Dale Hower said what is happening is taking something that works well in the West End, R-6 and transplanting it to an R-15 neighborhood which does not have the same characteristics, one being parking. She would be in favor of the project if there were an alley like the West End neighborhood has. The next-door neighbors house will look into a parking lot and on the other side there will be parking. A suggestion would be to give TDR's to the Welgos's and leave the area next to them as open space, which would then have no impact to the neighborhood. Andy Welgos said he was born and raised in Aspen and most of his years have been spent in the Swiss Chalet. It is a unique house to Aspen and ads a lot of character to Riverside Drive. He is in favor of preserving the Chalet. He stated that his parents worked hard to preserve the house and the 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2004 lot split will benefit the parents and ultimately benefit it and us will benefit Riverside Drive by keeping the historic house on the site. Dick Osur stated he lives on Riverside Drive. Dick feels that the requested variances do not meet the criterion described in the document "Benefits for Historic Properties in Aspen. That document states that variances can be approved if it is shown that they are part of a proposed development, which ,has no negative impact on the character defining features Of the designated property. The functional front of the house and prominent elevation is its west-facing side. This is the side that defines its setting and context. The proposed plan would place a new larger house just 10 to 13 feet from the west side ofthe current house that would obscure currently the front of the house. The FAR bonus does not meet the criteria described in Section 26.415.110E. It will not maintain the visual integrity of the historic building. It will not restore an existing portion of the building to its historic appearance. It will not be reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings. It will not have an appropriate transition between old and new and it will not retain the historic site and landscaping. 'The only criterion the FAR bonus could meet is that it could "use high quality construction materials". The Criteria for granting a setback states that HPC must make a finding that the setback variances are similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property and that they enhance or mitigate an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property. Placing a new house 10 to 13 feet in front of the current property does not meet either of these tests. The main justification given for the variance appears to be that the west setback variances are necessary to create a reasonably sized new lot, which has the effect of protecting the historic house from future additions. This does not address any of the criteria and a well-defined addition would be a far more successful way to protect the house and its context. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. '13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2004 Michael Stated he has been very concerned and moved by the concerns of the neighbors, and, in fact asked that the Welgos's meet with the neighbors to discuss this to see if there was some way to compromise the two positions. In terms of the criticism that some better alternatives exist whether it is a TDR program or some other desi.gn for the structure that is not what is before us tonight. We have been given an application and it is up to the HPC to evaluate this application against the ordinances and regulations of the City to make a decision. It is important to follow along with staff's memo. The first questions is, does this property merit historic designation. Staff has analyzed the structure and determined that it does meet designation. I see no reason to disagree with that recommendation. The next aspect of her memo is the Historic Landmark lot split. We have been given very technical standards from City Council to consider the lot split application and this application meets those technical standards. In terms of the remaining issues, design, setback variances, and FAR bonus I am in agreement with Amy's recommendations. The issue of the entry way and shed are minor issues that do not merit bringing this application back. It is my recommendation that this commission approve the application with the condition that each of these two issues is resolved satisfactorily prior to the final application. Derek said he basically agrees with Michael's comments. One of the biggest issues that came up was Fritz Benedict and his desire as to what he envisioned Riverside Drive to be. Research was done, and yes he did talk about the importance of architecture and its relationship to open space and wooden areas. One of the bigger things he talked about was architecture and its relationship to community. What we look at is a series of guidelines and this project meets every criteria. I believe this is a positive choice for the neighboring' community. By doing the lot split you are breaking up the massing. This process is a win-win because you as a community want to be involved when the design of the new house when it comes before HPC. You can have a say on the future of that open space. Valerie said she is very confident in the progress we have made with this project. This project deserves a community perspective not just a neighborhood perspective. When we run into struggles trying to use and interpret our guidelines we have the right to look at the bigger vision in the 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2004 community and that was done with this application. Preservation of this structure is fundamental tothe good of our community. She supports the lot split as the criteria has been met. Sarah echoed Valerie's sentiments. This structure haS met our guidelines and it is called for in our community plan. The criteria have been met for the historic designation and the lot split. Sarah commented that she is troubled by the FAR bonus specifically point C that states that the work restores the .existing portion of the building to its historic appearance. The reason being is that there has been a significant addition on the back and if that were to come before the HPC now it might be detached and the link would haVe a different nature; however, it is there and it is impacting the historic resource. Jeffrey said this is an excellent project and there has been a lot of involvement. Jeffrey said he feels for the neighbors because their neighborhood has had some alterations in the past and they are seeing neighborhood changes to a certain degree. Part of our purview is preservation as a commission. He also stated he is very much in support of the designation. This pattern type of building i.s very important in the development of our ski town. The lot split criteria is very cut and dry and lot splits help us control massing and volume. Jeffrey supports the FAR bonus as it also helps preserve the historic resource. The placement of the shed needs to be determined. This is a voluntary effort by an applicant to help up preserve our post war buildings. David Hoefer stated that the historic designation and lot split are recommendations to Council and they make the final decision. Amy also stated that the alterations to the house are being considered as a minor development so there is no return for final review. The variance for the shed should probably be continued until the placement is determined. Valerie said she has concern with the shed and she does not see compliance with A or B. Amy said the shed issue is not resolved and can be continued. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2004 MOTION: Michael moved that the HPC recommend to City Council that the Historic Designation and Historic Lot Split be adopted for 1295 Riverside Drive. Upon acceptance of our recommendation by City Council, Michael moved to approve the minor development for this property with two conditions: 1. The final design for the entrv area be approved by staff and monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. · 2. Approval of the FAR bonus as proposed. The variance for the shed be deferred and the public hearing continued until Feb. 11, 200. Motion second by Derek. Motion carried 4-1. Yes vote: Derek, Michael, Valerie, Jeffrey No vote: Sarah Amy asked Sarah for a clarification of her no vote. Sarah voted no because Of the FAR bonus request. Sarah stated that she is in favor of the designation and the lot split. 557 Walnut Street - worksession - no minutes MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 16