Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19960110ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 10, 1996 Second Vice-chairman Jake Vickery called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with Holst, Moyer, Smisek, Madsen, Dodington, Roschko and Alstrom present. Excused was Erdman. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minutes of Dec. 13, 1995; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Susan stepped down as only seven members can be seated. MOTION: Les moved to add 820 E. Cooper to the agenda; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. INVENTORY ROUND III Amy: The Historic Inventory included 925 and 935 King St. to the inventory. It is actually one parcel but there are multiple buildings on that property and they each have their own street address for emergency purposes. I want to remove the reference to 925 King Street because that dwelling has no importance. That is what this resolution does. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC adopt resolution 96-2; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. 500 E. BLEEKER - CD - PH MOTION: Linda moved to table 500 W. Bleeker to February 14; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. 314 S GALENA - MINOR Amy: This is Crazy Shirts shop in the Volk Building where Paradise Bakery is and they area proposing to add a second entrance on the courtyard area for the disabled so that it will be at grade. They will retain their existing door next to Planet Hollywood. With the new door it will require removing an existing large window and putting a smaller window in next to the door and they are also going to remove their sign and put it on the edge of the building. I am recommending approval as proposed. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 10~ 1996 MOTION: Les moved to approve the minor development application for 314 S. Galena Street finding that it meets all the development standards; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carries. 820 E. COOPER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Jake stepped down. Susan seated. Amy: A problem occurred today and residential multi-family zone district has a requirement called open space and what it means is that you have to provide a certain amount of your site open to the publics view so that we do not have people building lot line to lot line. We want open space that is available to the public. For the zone district you need 35% of your lot open. While this is a small lot and that is significant. Jake created a court yard. Possibly that was included in his initial calculations of open space and that is not allowed because it is private space and no one can see it. As a result he can go to the Board of Adjustment and allow a lesser medium of that standard. He would like a comment for the Board of Adjustment from the HPC. HPC did approve the project and this is important as it deals with the way the new masses were arranged and holding back the new addition. Board of Adjustment cannot act without a recommendation from HPC. The property doesn't meet the open space requirements as it stands today. I feel the argument made today to B of A is that the applicant has tried very hard to meet our standards are there is only one bedroom above grade and the rest is below grade. They have tried to create a court yard for themselves. Maybe that is a trade off. Sven: Can he apply for another zone district? Amy: No, that would not be allowed. Les: Are they getting any FAR bonuses? Amy: They didn't but with ordinance 30 with the glass we had discussions that possibly the glass area wasn't what we were trying to penalize. To deal with it they may be requesting a FAR bonus. Les: Would this offset the penalty with the glass? 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 10~ 1996 Amy: Yes. There are a lot of side yard setback variances requested. If the Board of Adjustment won't grant they we will more than likely not be able to push that kitchen over and they would loose the courtyard. Jake: The side yard setback which is almost five feet and then the little kitchen part infringes on that two feet and that makes the side yard smaller. If it didn't do that you could calculate that side yard back on the property. The entire concept was to make an interior courtyard and the houses on the east and west are very straight two story walls that are unbroken. Amy: Actually the garage is a problem as well. Right now they do not meet their open space. What would be required is that they build a trailer that is no wider than the house in any location which would probably force the house to be taller. Jake: Ultimately it would imply the demolition of the kitchen wing because that is the only way to accomplish it. To gain the open space on the property you would have to move the garage inboard ten feet and it really negates the entire strategy. Roger: There are probably three arguments: 1 .One it is historic and that it is never done due to the size of the lot and what was built there historically. 2. Since we are trying to maintain the historic feeling then Amy's argument that we mentioned is valid. 3. If we were to comply what would be constructed would go against everything that we are trying to do with compatibility to the historic resource and would require more demolition on the existing structure than we wish to give. Roger: I feel the above statement should be in a motion. Amy: The building already doesn't conform to open space. It is historic and was constructed to the constraints of that lot. It would require more demolition than we would approve. Amy: It would force a building design that is not compatible with our goals. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 10~ 1996 Sven: I am not sure the demolition statement should be in the motion. Amy: We could say it could possibly require more demolition. Jake: There is an existing alley encroachment and this new scheme corrects that encroachment. Sven: We should add that to the motion. MOTION: Roger moved to send a letter to the Board of Adjustment with the following recommendations: 1. The building already doesn't conform to open space. 2. It is historic and was constructed to the constraints of that lot. 3. It could require more demolition than HPC would approve. 4. Existing alley encroachment will be removed with the new development. Motion second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carries. PROJECT MONITORING Les: We need a worksession on FAR and other issues. Roger: I had also brought up Ord. 30 and the public notice requirement. Sven: I feel we should add some time to each agenda to discuss issues that come up. MOTION: Les moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 6:45 Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 4