Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920610HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of June 10, 1992 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss, with Les Holst, Don Erdman, Roger Moyer, Karen Day, Martha Madsen and Linda Smisek present. Excused were Joe Krabacher and Jake Vickery. 17 QUEEN STREET - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Roxanne: I will clarify the memo. An applicant has the right under our rules and regulations to request a reconsideration of a vote at the next regular meeting after a vote has taken. Lana is requesting that. A 3-2 vote was made to not approve the variation request. You approved the design of the outbuilding but you did not approve the variation of setback finding that it did not meet the standard. Variations are granted only at public hearings with the HPC. The Board did not continue and did not have to continue the public hearing since it was denied. In order to take action it has to be noticed again. One of the three people who voted in the majority would have to make the motion for reconsideration and set the hearing date. If that does not occur Lana could reapply; apply to the Board of Adjustment; or request that City Council call up the item. Lana read a letter into the records: "I have decided to request a reconsideration to this Board's decision made at the last meeting regarding my request for a variance for my out building. Throughout this process I have been determined to not act vindictively, to not write a letter to the editor, or take out a full page add to explain to the people what has happened in an anguished cry out for community support and to avoid at this time going to the City Council to request that a decision I feel to be arbitrary be overturned. But what should I do? Most of my friends in town and acquaintances who have followed the entire process are incredulous. In the beginning everyone said, only slightly sarcastically, bulldoze the place, sterilize the land for five years and be done with it. Don't even think about working with the HPC. Because of my commitment to my children and perhaps I am naive hopefully not stupid I believe a citizen and a government committee could work together. Rather than gripe about Aspen I wanted to exemplify what I have always believed that this is a wonderful place to live. Please indulge me some time for further explanation of my feelings. Just recently my daughter ran for school president, opposing an incumbent against whom the previously year she had lost a class officer election. She truly believed and encouraged by teachers and piers that she could do a better job at the office than the other girl. Wanting to protect her emotions I discouraged her. Shanty's response was if I don't run I am a looser before I start. She won the election and is now president of her school. A winner in more ways than one and a teacher to her mother. Based on the wisdom and strength of my 17 year old out of respect for my other children an appreciation to Roxanne Eflin and Bill Poss's integrity and an honest belief Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 10, 1992 that the system can work I request that the members of this committee come out to the site and view where my architect requests the shed to be located. I believe that you will all not only agree that it is the best location but truly the only logical place. Although this process has created tremendous emotional strain I will not be intimidated by inappropriate accusations. I will not be a looser before I start. I will listen to the advice of Roxanne Eflin and follow the procedures. Finally again I request that each board member who votes at the next meeting guarding this request give the process the respect that it deserves. Although this may not be another totally appropriate request I will make it anyway. For the record we went far, far out of the way to accommodate the request of this Board. And for it we received a piece of paper an acknowledgment of our efforts. I believe that one of the reasons for granting exceptions i.e. setback variation is an acknowledgement. As was stated there are numerous precedence for granting an easement. I sincerely hope that you will respect your own process and systems of rewards. Thank you for your time, and I will contact Staff to learn of your comments.,, Bill: I would entertain a motion if one of the members who voted in the majority would wish to reconsider that application. (No response) Les: I have made mistakes in my life and this could be one of them that I may not be aware of it. I have told Roxanne I would like a worksession on this decision. Roger: The two issues were to build a shed and a variance. We don't like to grant variances as long as there is another alternative. I have upheld that and that is basically the reason why we didn't do it. There is considerable amount of land around the house where it could be placed without granting a variance. Bill: I can speak for the minority and I looked at the site but in looking at the overall masterplan that this is a separate residence that could be a guest house or a rental property I felt that the proper location for the shed was on that side of the building, not behind it. This is where they access it. I felt there should be some space between the building and out building. We grant variances to be more compatible. This is a strong architectural statement. Don: I have looked at the site and agree what Bill says. There are other things that condition the placement of this structure. The parking area has to be elevated as there is change of grade there. Where the architects have placed it is as close as they possibly can. The most predominate number are sideyard variance 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 10, 1992 then come rear yard and in very few cases front yard. This is a special case in that the property line is 15 feet back from what is called the street and the street is a very low volume street to begin with; therefore we are really talking about a technical issue that the location of that property line has no urbanistic connotations whatsoever. Property lines have very strong urbanistic connotations in the city grid but this has none. I feel this is an excessive burden to place on someone to say that that property line which is only designated by finding pins as it has nothing to do with sidewalks and it is set far back from the street and the street in this case is a ragged edge. I find it an onerous burden to make this judgement that the property line should be a situation that we should have to follow by the letter because we have made variations in the past that were much more "ticklish". Karen: I was also not here but would like to make an emotional appeal. These people have suffered economically and psychologically and it has been so hard on them for so long. These people are part of our community and we are not allowing them to tear down something that is priceless, it is just a two foot variance to put a shed on. I feel this is a moment to say heal the wound and the community. Les: To me this is about giving a variance and in exchange for that you are getting better design and there are no other alternatives. We are not getting an historical design because this is tied into the new part, we are enabling her to not walk a couple feet. Storage sheds are all different sizes. Sidelines and setbacks are set up to protect the neighbors. I walked with her on the site and we came up with three or four other sites that she felt were adequate. I might be wrong but I do not see the historical significance of that shed on this spot. Don: In this case this is one of the best examples of a new addition being very skillfully integrated into an existing historic structure. The storage shed is consistent with the spirit of that addition. Les: Are you saying that an eight foot shed would work and a six foot will not? Don: That is programmatic and we can't be involved with that because the owner and architect have determined the needs for the shed. As Bill as pointed out there aren't any other spaces that he or I can see that are appropriate for the shed other than where they have relocated it. It has to have immediate adjacency to the automobile and parking situation. Les: The neighbors don't want it and usually we compromise. If Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 10, 1992 we can knock two feet off and make everyone happy that makes sense to me. Bill: The shed is not int© the setback of the neighbor. I feel it is better to be further away from the historic structure. I see it as a good design feature. This defines the entry and reinforces it. Roxanne: They also rotated it and less of it encroaches. Martha: Why wasn't the shed in the original design plan. I wouldn't want to come back thinking I would get an additional approval. It is a very crowded area. We have a very important role and there should be a compromise. Les: I do not mind reviewing this again and I feel Lana should come back in front of a full board. 304 E. HOPKINS RENAISS~NCE RESTAURANT MINOR DEVELOPMENT Bill: This is a minor development for an awning. Roxanne: They already have the structure up and this is a canopy and requires your approval because it is in the historic district. MOTION: Roger made the motion to grant minor development approval for 304 E. Hopkins as proposed finding that the proposal meets the development review standards; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. COMMUNICATIONS Bill: One of the goals of our committee is to get a rewrite of our guidelines and get them incorporated into community character guidelines~ I thought we could hire Nore Winter and establish the different character of different neighborhoods and this could be given out to all architects and applicants etc. I also thought the designers and architects could help and illustrators. Get everybody involved. I feel we would see better designs coming to us. MOTION: Bill made the motion to adjourn; second by Don. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned 6:00 p.m. ~ Kathleen J. Strickland Chief Deputy Clerk