Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20040211ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11~ 2004 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. Staffpresent: Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Valerie moved to approve the minutes of Dec. 17, 2003 and danua? 14, 2004;. second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Michael announced that Neill Hirst resigned from the HPC. He was a good member and we all regret that he has resigned. Disclosure: Michael said he will recuse himself on 435 W. Main - work session. 514 N. Third Street - Minor Development - (Continue public hearing to March 10, 2004) MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing and minor development for 514 N. Third Street until March 10, 2004; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried. 1295 Riverside Drive - Minor Development - Public Hearing continued from Jan. 28, 2004 Sworn in: Kathy Welgos, Tony Welgos, Gilbert Sanchez. Amy relayed that the historic designation and lot split have been forwarded to City Council and the public hearing will be on March 22, 2004. Tonight's discussion is variances related to the non-historic shed on the property. There.were some concerns of the neighbor about the placement of the shed and whether or not it meets our variance criteria. Tony said story polls were erected and the shed would basically be placed between two trees that exist on the site. The shed is being moved backward. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11~ 2004 Gilbert Sanchez said the shed was originally proposed to move in back of the house into the comer of the lot on the two property lines. There would be essentially a zero lot line. There are significant aspen trees along the east side and south side of the property that seem beneficial to maintain those. They provide some screening quality between the Welgos's and the neighbors. What is being proposed is that the shed is 3'.6 inches from the east property line and 1.6 from the south property line. A large fence runs along the back property line. The grade changes at the new location, which is lower. Turning the shed 90% exposes the narrow side of the shed to the neighbor. Because the 3.6 setback is fairly consistent with setbacks that have been granted in the past we feel it is a reasonable thing to ask for. Amy said in order to get the four-foot separation the deck is wrapping up more to the historic house. Gilbert said he feels the deck configuration is an issue for staff and monitor because the Welgos's haven't considered all the options. There could be a 45% comer. Amy said we do not have elevations so we can't determine the impacts on the windows of that side. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Michael said in reference to Section 26.415.110.C (a) of the code the argument made is not particular persuasive because the entire structure is being moved closer. The code references that the setbacks should enhance or mitigate an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property. Michael said he doesn't see that occurring either. Valerie said she also agreed with Michael that the request does not meet criteria a or b and she would not support the variance for the shed. Derek said he had no comments. Jeffrey said the shed is a usable entity on the site and it has a mansard roof. He appreciates the separation from.the historic house. He has concerns with the neighboring property and the existing utility easement. He would like to think that it enhances the historic significance or architectural character of the historic resource by pushing it away from the building but it puts it more into the visibility of 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES oF FEBRUARy ii,' 2004 where the new entry is, whereas its existing location (view) is obscured by the new entry. He is not convinced that the shed is in the proper location and cannot support section (b) of our code. Amy said for clarification if the setback is not approved, they do have the right to leave the shed in its original location because it is not violation any setbacks. The board could also look at a redesign of the deck that has storage underneath it. Tony said they could get rid of the shed and make a bigger deck with underground storage. Gilbert said next door the pattern has been established that allows for variances. The variance that exists there is not out of scale of the variance that is being requested. The second part of the code (b) references that the setback enhances or mitigates an advert impact to the historic building. The notion of getting the shed as far away from the historic resource and providing separation is something that is a positive element rather than a negative one. Kathy Welgos said they need some type of storage and moving the shed to a non-conspicuous spot would meet the needs of us and keep the property looking good. Michael said Tony's idea of putting storage underneath the deCk is a good resolution. Gilbert said one of the problems now is that the shed has architectural quality that is not compatible with the historic resource. What is happening if the variances were granted and they were allowed to move the building away that visible separation is helpful and turning the building 90% the architecture is presenting a form and shape that is more compatible with the historic resource. Kathy said she feels their requested meets criteria (a) is similar to the historic district. It is what happened next door to them. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES O'F PgBRCX~¥~"li, ~(J04 ............. Michael said he feels the mass and scale of the shed is out of proportion with the two buildings that he looked at today. Kathy asked if a different design of the shed would be helpful. Jeffrey also stated that the commission needs to determine if the placement is also an issue. MOTION: Derek moved to approve the location of the shed as proposed in the drawings presented on 2-11-2004for 1295 Riverside Drive. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the minor development and variances for1295 Riverside Drive to March 24, 2004 to give the applicant more time to restudy the proposal utilizing the comments that were made tonight; second by Valerie. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Michael, Derek, I~alerie, Jeffrey Michael explained that the motion is to table and allow the applicant to propose a smaller shed perhaps or some other modification of the proposal and to restudy the location of the shed in order to comply with Section 26.415.110.C of the code. Jeffrey said Michael's explanation is just one option that they could pursue. Worksession - 435 W. Main - 113 E. Hopkins - Guidelines Chapter. 2-7 No minutes MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by. Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:30 Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 4