Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920108HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of January 8, 1992 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Jake Vickery, Les Holst, Karen Day, Martha Madsen and Roger Moyer present. Martha Madsen is the regular member replacing Glenn Rappaport. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jed Caswall, City Attorney: The Board can make a decision and vote to reconsider the matter but a public notice has to be in the paper. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 700 W. FRANCIS Heather Tharp: I would respectfully request that this case be reopened by the HPC and my letter expresses my feelings and viewpoint. If your commission is to save historic Aspen here is your chance to change a 1/2 a block. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: why it is inappropriate issue. I would like to make a statement as to for you to reconsider this particular Roxanne: The minutes on 700 W. Francis have not been approved by the Board. Heather: Ail four of the development review standards need to be met and according to Staff one of them had not been met and you approved the conceptual development anyway. I was surprised at that because it clearly says that all four have to be met. Bill: I would ask any members of the Board that voted in the affirmative to reopen this. Don: Have Heather's questions been addressed by Staff that were in her letter of Dec. 26th? If they have not been addressed can we address them without having a motion to reopen the conceptual approval process? Roxanne: Heather's letter is addressed to the Board. It was not addressed to me so I have not responded. Jed: They can be discussed but they cannot be changed unless you reopen the vote. Don: So we can discuss the issues to see if there is a necessity to reopen the conceptual approval? Jed: The appropriate thing would be to make a motion to reconsider and second it and then discuss it as to whether you need to reconsider your vote during which time you can get into the issues Historic Preservation committee Minutes of January 8, 1992 and if there is no satisfactory resolution then perhaps you want to vote affirmatively to reconsider the matter at which time then it would be my recommendation to stop, set the matter for a hearing and hash it all out again or if you decide that during the debate as to whether or not to vote on a motion to reconsider you are satisfied that it doesn't need to be reconsidered then you would vote down the motion to reconsider and hope everyone leaves here happy and the applicants' previous approval would not have been changed at all. Gideon Kaufman: It is important to point out that this was not a public hearing that was quick and not thorough. We had a public hearing in which 13 neighbors showed up and we had a detailed model and presentation. There were specific findings made by this Board that the criteria had in fact been met. Very often Staff makes recommendations that the Board chooses not to go along with, that was the case here. The Board made specific findings and those findings were that the criteria had been met. The Board also gave to the applicant specific directions in terms of what they were to look at between now and the next time they appear in front of the Board. I have different notes on condition #3. The motion that Roger made was to allow the variation and to ask the applicant to study moving the building slightly to the east if possible, looking at the impact and the shed on the trees keeping the existing floor plan and we have begun to review that particular process. We are presently looking into the four conditions made by the Board. Don: We granted conceptual approval and that does not mean that it is approved. There are gray areas here. The architectural integrity of the historic cottage is perhaps being diminished and could stem from the fact that there was almost a minimal distinction between old and new. If that distinction is not increased between now and when the final project is brought in we may find that it does not meet the criteria. Other questions that Heather raises, I would like to address because it could come out of misunderstanding rather than any need to reopen this. Gideon: There is a lot of jeopardy here to the applicant once this thing is put on the floor for a vote in that people who did not vote the last time who voted against it could make us go to a public hearing and reconsider it. Jed: The Board has that right to make a vote and go to a public hearing because that is the way the system works and there is nothing wrong with the system. Joe: I will step down and let Karen be seated because I was not present at the meeting. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 8, 1992 MOTION: Don made the motion to simply address Heather Tharp's letter without addressing the issue of reopening the conceptual development; second by Karen. Motion carries 5 to 1. In favor: Bill, Don, Jake, Les, Martha. Opposed, Roger. Don: We as a committee are concerned about the distinction between old and new. That distinction has been put to the applicant and will be addressed the next time we see the applicants Doug and Susan McPherson. As far as the problem that you see with the one foot setback I think that really is a misunderstanding. You have a series of lots, we are only considering a side yard variance on one edge of that lot. If someone were to purchase your 4500 sq ft. lot which is 45 feet wide there would be no possibility under any circumstances of allowing a building along the alley running the full width of 43 feet. This is not what is happening with the McPhearsons application. The concept of seeing an alley block of continuous buildings of some sort with two foot breaks on the property lines is not what we intend and would not happen. You were inferring from paragraph #1 on page two that that could be a situation that would occur. That would not happen. If someone were to build on your lot and in the future be granted the side yard variance that side yard variance would occur along that lots west line and would never extend all the way to the east property line. I can't consider that being an objection. As far as fire hazards that is an UBC situation. Larger lots have the right to build a larger amount of development on them. Les: I felt that one study wasn't enough and that we can still get there. Martha: In the motion it states allow side and rear yard setback variations subject to further study with Staff. Does that mean that the applicant would just discuss with Roxanne? Roxanne: Those minutes have not been approved by the Board. Roger: I made the motion that way to leave it open so that the applicant would seriously consider not having to move the house to the west and in fact move it to the east but the problem with doing that would require some serious study by experts with the existing trees so that they aren't destroyed and if the house can be moved it should be moved as far to the east as it can then the setback would be a dead issue and would not have to happen. The wording seems to be correct. Bill: Did you think the setback would be cleared up totally because I do not know if they can move it that far. Roger: We weren't sure but the point was to at least state it so Historio Preservation Committee Minutes of January 8, 1992 that would be a criteria that they would have to study with Staff, and not only staff but P&Z, Eng. or whatever might be required. I tried to leave it open. Gideon: The issue that we said was keeping the existing floor plan. We would look at the viability of keeping the tree and see if we could move it over. We were very concerned about not having to redesign the floor plan due to the size of the garage and the size of the kitchen etc. there wasn't room. Roger: That was discussed. Roxanne: Yes it was discussed but it was not in the motion. The HPC doesn't have anything to do with interiors and programmatic issues within the building. Gideon: The question came up as to whether the building could be made smaller and the interiors did not allow making the building any smaller given the size of the garage and size of the rooms etc. Not making the FAR smaller of the addition. Roger: I did not specifically put that in the motion about not changing the floor plan. Don: You can keep the building the same size and change the footprint slightly, don't change the FAR. Jake: Because Heather is an adjacent property owner I would hope that there would be some working together of trying to find some kind of compromise or option that doesn't impact the neighbors to this extent. Doug McPherson: I fully understand Heather's concern about the side yard setback. Considering the existing barn, we are reducing the north setback off the alley. We have been directed to study this and we can mitigate it. Jake: My problem is that it doesn't define the parameters of the further study. Ro×anne: That is a flaw of the motion and by reopening we can be more definitive about the motion. This is not an unusual condition as you have this on most of your conceptual approvals. Heather: Number 1 reads in part, the historic landmark and proposed development would extend in the front yard, side 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 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 8, 1992 landmark than requirements. historic house would be development in accord with dimensional The setback doesn't have anything to do with the it has to do with the new addition. Don: We like the building already and we are looking for something that does not diminish from it. We are not necessarily saying it enhances it. Gideon: We are saying that the design that we have done is compatible with the guidelines and that is why we need the variation. We need the setbacks to lessen the impacts. Les: We are going the right way on this and they know full well that if they do not make a supreme effort that it is not going to happen. Bill: At this point the Board does not feel the conceptual development should be reopened. MOTION: Les made the motion to adjourn; favor, motion carries. second by Bill. Ail in Meeting adjourned at 6:16 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk