HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19920108AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE JANUARY 8, 1992 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comments 5:10 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Request for regpnsideration: Conceptual approval of 700 W. Francisttlc/kth)6,1/noct¥5- V. NEW BUSINESS A. NONE VI. COMMUNICATIONS 1 1 A. STAFF: HPC workshop, January 10th with Nore Winter FY'92 CLG grant ideas B. PROJECT MONITORING and COMMITTEE REPORTS VII ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Jed Caswall, City Attorney From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer-/~1- Re: Request for reconsideration: Conceptual Development approval with conditions, 700 W. Francis Date: January 8, 1992 SUMMARY: At your last meeting, Conceptual Development approval with conditions and certain variations were granted for the project located at 700 W. Francis St. Landmark Designation was also recommended. The immediate neighbor to the west, Heather Tharpe, has written the HPC requesting a reconsideration of the approval you granted at the last meeting. Her reasons are stated in writing (attached) and focus primarily on the negative impacts she feels a side yard setback variation would have on her property. Conceptual Development approval does not constitute final approval, and merely allows the applicant the ability to proceed with the project according to the specific conditions of the Conceptual approval and requirements for the Final Development application. Any action taken by the HPC at the Conceptual stage does not automatically insure a Final development approval. Final Landmark Designation approval by Ordinance of City Council is required prior to the HPC' s Final Development approval and granting of variations. PROCESS: A reconsideration of a motion may occur only at the following regular meeting. A motion to reconsider must be made by a committee member who voted in the majority of the original motion. The motion may or may not be seconded, but may only be seconded by a committee member who also voted in the majority the first time. This does not constitute a re-opening of the public hearing, since the hearing was closed at the last meeting. Once a motion to reconsider is on the floor, all committee members participate in the reconsideration. Alternatives include: 1) Finding that the original Conceptual motion is appropriate as stands (all Development Review Standards have been met) 2) Amendments (additional, revised, or fewer conditions) to the original Conceptual Development approval 3) Table action to allow the applicant additional time to
restudy all or specific elements of the proposal, in order to meet the Development Review Standards 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that not all of the Development Review Standards have been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC reconsider the motion and make specific findings with regard to the Development Review Standards and applicable variations. memo.hpc.700wf.recon
27 December 26, 1991 Mr. William Poss, Chairman Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Bill: I was disappointed and dismayed with your decision on the application of Doug and Susan McPherson for the house at 700 W. Francis St. According to Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, the proposed development must meet all four Development Review Standards. Number 1 reads in part, "For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear Yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements." (underlines mine) The setback variance of one foot from a common lot line for the development has nothing to do with the character of the historic value of the existing house, it has everything to do with the new addition, therefore the property should not receive the setback variance. Number 3 reads, "The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels." The addition is so large in proportion to the original house that the staff of the Historic Preservation recommends that the applicant reconsider in order for the house to be able to be placed on the Register of Historic Places. Number 4 reads, "The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof." The staffls response was such: "We find that this standard has not been met. The size of the addition detracts from the architectural integrity of the historic cottage.
page two We understand the applicant's desire to expand this house to meet their living needs, however, we are unable to support the extent of the changes proposed, based upon the impacts such an addition has to the historic resource. This may be a case where a reduction in proposed new square footage is necessary in order for the addition to not detract from the historic cottage, and to receive approval from the HPC." (Underlines mine.) It seems to me that you have flown in the face of your Development Review standards. You have given a variance on your rules! As a property owner (next door to the west) I object strenuously to the setback variance of one foot from the common property line. I find this objectionable on several counts: 1. If I want to sell my property and a person buys it who wants the same privilege of a one foot setback from the property line, this means the back line of the "alleyscape" of three historic houses in a row (because you also granted a side setback variance to the house on the common east property line) will be broken only by two-foot squeeze- throughs from the backs of the properties to the fronts. 2. It also creates a dangerous fire hazard, if one house catches on fire, it is extremely likely that the fire would jump to the others. There would be no room for firemen to operate. These three houses comprise almost half a block. 3. My lot is 4500 feet. The addition to the proposed development would dwarf my property and throw out of proportion the setting of the three houses, especially when the house to the east is moved 10 feet closer to the street. (Incidentally, No. 1 of the Relocation Standards says, "The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. " The Staff's Response: "The purpose for the relocation is to allow more space on the parcel for the new addition. The structure can be rehabilitated where it is currently sited.") Esthetically, one of the last bastions of Aspen's past would fall out of scale --the past that I thought the Historic Preservation Commission was formed to save. Please take a look from across the street at 700, 712 and 716 W. Francis Street houses, and see what a charming and old-time Aspen picture it makes, especially in the summer with the trees in foliage. I wonder too if the architect and owner have taken into consideration that eventually the City may want to exercise its right to put in a sidewalk and the sidewalk will be ten feet from the house.
page three It seems to me that you are not keeping the scale of house to lot in this very important half-block of historic Aspen. In summary, your decision for Conceptual Approval has ignored the rules set by the Aspen Land Use Regulations that all four of the Development Review Standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant Conceptual Approval for the proposal. I would like to respectfully request that this case be reopened at the next meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Sincerely, Heather Tharp /1 r-t.\\ ,
HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPLICATION FEES Effective January 1, 1992 Exemptions and Insubstantial Modifications $- 50 per Example: Exterior changes considered to not alter the character of landmarks or structures within historic districts, or technical changes to previously approved plans. These are handled administratively. Minor Development $ 100 per Example: Exterior changes (in combinations of no more than three) that do alter the character of landmarks or structures located ''within historic districts, and/or additions of less than 250 square feet to landmarks, and structures located within historic districts. These are considered one-step applications, and are heard by the HPC. A public hearing is not required. Sianificant Development (under 1.000 sq. ft.) $ 250 per Example: Multiple exterior changes, additions of less than 1,000 square feet (between 250 and 1,000 square feet), and some partial demolitions. These are two-step applications that require a public hearing before the HPC at Conceptual Development (first step). Publication, posting and mailing are required for all HPC public hearings. A bond or financial security may be required. Significant Development Cover 1.000 sq. ft.) $ 500 per Example: Major remodels involving partial demolition, additions over 1,000 square feet and on-site relocations. These are two-step applications that require a public hearing before the HPC at Conceptual Development (first step). Publication, posting and mailing are required for all HPC public hearings. A bond or financial security will be required. Demolitions and Off-Site Relocations $1,000 per Example: Full demolitions and complete relocations off-site. These are two-step applications that require a public hearing before the HPC at Conceptual Development (first step). Publication, posting and mailing are required for all HPC public hearings. A bond or financial security for relocations and redevelopment will be required.
1 SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (This information must be provided in order to complete your application.) APPLICANT: ADDRESS: - ZONE DISTRICT: LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): EXISTING FAR: ALLOWABLE FAR: PROPOSED FAR: EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: ' PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PrinciDal Bl®.: / Accessorv Bl®: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bldg.: / Accessory Bldg: PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SETBACKS: ~ EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: Front: Front: Rear: Rear: Rear: Side: Side: Side: Combined Front/Rear: Combined Frt/Rr: Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Only: character compatibility findina must be made by HPCh FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined Frt./Rr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only):
Roger: I would like to make a motion. I move that the HPC ~ recommend Landmark Designation and grant conceptual development approval for the project at 700 W. Francis St., with the following conditions to be met at Final: 1) The applicant shall submit a plan for the preservation of the trees and replacement for any that are damaged. 2) The applicant shall restudy the design to ,show the delineation of old and new, and materials, color and scale of materials to be used. 3) Allow side and rear yard setback variations subject to further study with staff to move the addition more to the east taking into account the impact of the trees. 4) Landscape plan be submitted, which shall indicate fence around the patio. Seconded by Martha Madsen. Don: I want to see more effort made between the old and new. This can be dealt with at final. Les: The patio is throwing me - how deep is it? 8'? Gretchen: No, its only 4' deep. Glenn: I would like them to simplify the fenestration. Roxanne: Before you take the final vote, for the record I need to know from each of you, who was contacted by the applicant in advance of this meeting. Glenn: I was contacted for general feedback. Martha: I was invited but did not go. 3- Roger: I saw the model and commented on how good the massing 1,\~ looked. 41: 4 Question was called by Chairman: Carried 6-1. In favor: Bill, 11 G .Karen, Glenn, Don, Martha and Roger. Les Holst was opposed. t I b 4 46 h J r /v \,4 V «47 / 1 0203, e 1.11 0 05 U 4 -7 0 I Ill k> F¥ FC. /[tfU€4. A ,10,3 1 5410 3 /1 1 4 6>3 + NE:r -7427 A#81*515 931,0 EL AF 51:79/3