Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20051012ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2005 332 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL VARIANCES - PH ...................................................... 1 640 N. THIRD - SETBACK VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING ................................. 1 202 N. MONARCH STREET DEMOLITION OF SHED ................................................ 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12~ 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jason Lasser, Michael Hoffman, Alison Agley and Derek Skalko. Sarah Broughton arrived at 5:10 p.m. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Jackie Lothian, Deputy Clerk 332 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL VARIANCES - PH MOTION: Derek moved to continue the conceptual approval, variances and public hearing on 332 W. Main until Oct. 26, 2005; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 640 N. THIRD - SETBACK VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING David said the public notice has been provided - Exhibit I. Amy relayed that the lot is 11,707 square feet. The applicant pursued a historic landmark lot split in 2001 and received approval from HPC to pick up the historic house, relocate it slightly on the site and strip away some non-historic additions and build a new addition. An FAR bonus was granted and a rear yard setback was granted for the re-use of the non-historic garage. The applicant sat on their approval for some time and did not go forward to Council to execute the lot split, so they recently submitted a building permit and it was determined that since the lot split never happened the setback requirement needs approved. The lot split process might be coming forward shortly. The specific request is for a seven foot setback variance on the south side yard of the property. The house is already being relocated and this location is where HPC expected it to be. In order to grant a setback variance HPC must make a finding. A. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic neighborhood. B. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact on the historic building. In this case, staff finds that criteria A is the more appropriate finding. They are still providing as big or bigger setback than is typical of the side yard throughout the West End. Staff recommends approval of the setback. Jeff Lester from Charles Cunniffe architects. We are formalizing an informal approval that we got a few years ago for the side yard setback. We ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12~ 2005 got into the building permit and discovered that we needed formal approval for the side yard setback. We will then submit for a lot split. Once we have the lot split a 15 foot side yard setback is reduced down to five feet and it becomes a moot point. Right now we are eight feet off the property line and we are seeking a seven foot variance from that side yard setback. Michael asked what the building application was for. Amy said it is to construct the project of the plans that were approved a few years ago and to rehab the historic house. Jeff pointed out that the lot split application will take several month and they would like to get started in the fall. Derek inquired about giving a setback before the lot split comes through. Amy said it makes sense if we want to preserve the opportunity for another detached house that will bear a lot of the square footage to let them come down to the south end of the property. David pointed out that legally applicants can come in for variances without a lot split. Jason asked if the initial intent was to get a lot split. Janvar Darrington, said the initial intent was to restore the historic house and do a lot split but there were time constraints to consider. Taxes on an unimproved lot are much higher. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. John Case represented the property owners directly to the south, 620 N. Third. Once the lot is approved the side yard setback is five feet. The owners of 620 would be unhappy if the setback variance was granted without the lot split coming forward in the future. We have asked if it is possible to move the house to the north to increase the space between the houses. The architect said probably not because on the lot split line they only have about six feet on the north side of the historic house that they are redeveloping. Our other concem is that the existing fence is slightly off the lot line and when they reconstruct the fence they will correctly locate it on the lot line. The chair closed the public hearing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12~ 2005 Sarah said this is somewhat inconsistent in the way it was brought about but since the applicant did come in and seek the lot split and with that came setback variances she can support the project. Michael said he is uncomfortable with the nature of the application but he is in support of the application. It is his understand that financially it is in the best interest to go with the lot split. Staff also pointed out that it is typical to have a five yard setback variance in the West End. Derek said he is comfortable with the variance and hopes that the lot split does go through. Jason said we can add a condition that if the lot split doesn't go through then the setback stays as is. Jeffrey said that would be difficult to do because they are going to construct the house. Sarah suggested that no permit be issued until the application for the lot split has been submitted to the building department. Jason agreed. Alison said she is in favor of the setback. The house is actually is moving further away from the lot line. She also agrees with the condition that the lot split application must be submitted first. Jeffrey said with the condition stated and the good faith of the applicant prior to permit issuance the lot split must be submitted. The neighbor does has some concerns. If the lot split did not occur we would have a non- conforming structure. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution g4O for 640 N. Third Street to grant the side yard setback, pending that no building permit can be issued for the relocation of the house without submittal of the lot split application and that the fence be re-aligned on the property line; second by Derek. Roll call vote; Jason, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Alison, yes, Derek, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 6-0. 202 N. MONARCH STREET DEMOLITION OF SHED PUBLIC HEARING Jeffrey recused himself. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12~ 2005 Michael chaired. Start Clauson David said the public notice has been provided - Exhibit I. Amy informed the HPC that the application is for the demolition of a shed on a landmark designated property. The lot is 15,000 square feet that contains a large Victorian era home right behind the Hotel Jerome. The home was built in approximately 1886. The shed sits partially into a public alley that has not been used in some years. The applicant would like to remove the shed as a beginning point of a application for re-development of the site and use the alley instead of accessing parking and driveways from the street. The shed is not the same shed that is shown on the 1904 Sanborn map. It is also not the shed that is shown in the photograph that the applicant supplied that seems to be from the 1940's or 50's. Staff contacted the stepson who relayed that the original shed burned down and the stepfather reconstructed the shed that exists today from bits and pieces of lumber around 1950 or 1960. From the aerial view the shed was constructed by 1959. Stan said the current shed does not comply with photographs of the original shed and it does encroach into the alley. We would like the shed removed because it doesn't contribute to the property and we will eventually be working on the restoration of the Victorian house. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Phil Hodgson stated that alley was never used as an alley. The shed has been altered over the years but the face of the shed is still there from the 1920's. The three houses along that street all had out buildings. Phil said he was in the shed and there was cardboard on the inside from 1936. Amy reiterated that in a conversation with the grandson the shed was used as a chicken coop and burnt to the ground and then rebuilt to what we see today. Burt Myrin said he lives in the area. Blu Vic LLC is in good standing with the Secretary of State. The applicant entity is non-existent as far as he could find. There is a little discrepancy with who the applicant is and who is actually the owne~:. The second issue is whether the building is historic. The Sanborn maps have a slightly different location and shape. Over time it is possible that the original part of the building had something added to it to 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12~ 2005 change the shapes etc. He discouraged the board from relying on a phone call to make a land use decision without doing some more research on the actual history of the property. The wood is 100 years old and what survived the fire they were able to put it together. As for the neighborhood this house is the beginning entry to the historic Victorian era and it is a very important part of our community. The three houses on this street all had sheds similar to what exists on 202 N. Monarch. Two of them are gone and it would be sad to see yet another one gone. Regarding the discussion of opening up the alley, that is not the agenda tonight but was raised up when the sheds were addressed. This portion of the street has the houses running at a different aligmnent then throughout the West End. Whether an alley goes the whole way through should be something that is seriously considered down the road. Possibly the alley should come through from a more active commercial street, like Mill Street and not interrupt the historical integrity of the tree homes that run along that street. The alley runs all the way down Mill Street. Paul Madden said as you look at what has happened to Aspen as it is redeveloped and we try to preserve the history, these smaller out buildings seem to be disappearing, The two sheds that were on the two properties next door are gone and now we have another applicant that wants to tear another one down. He is concerned that if we are really trying to preserve a piece of history of what Aspen used to be like back in the Victorian day these structures are representative of that as to how the community worked. You didn't go to Clarks to get eggs you went to the chicken coop in the back yard. We are preserving house facades but we are not preserving how things worked. Wiley Hodgson said he grew up in the house next door. This area is highly visible and the beginning of a residential community. When people walk by the Jerome they want to see more of an historic end of that block. Those three houses haven't really changed a lot. This is a crucial area to preserve. Vice-chair Michael Hoffman closed the public comments. Stan said the application is under Blue Vic LLC and at the pre-conference application Little Vic came up and was used in the public notice. The substance of the matter is still before you and not authored by Little Vic or Blue Vic. The alley is platted and in Block 78. There is an alley that runs into Monarch Street but the alley has never been officially opened. Mr. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12~ 2005 Hodgson uses the city right-of-way for parking his vehicles and he is concerned that if the alley is open that might not be available to him. The HPC guidelines require that if there is an alley or an opportunity to use an alley access to buildings, it should be from the alley. There is an access onto the site currently from Bleeker with a parking pad and curb cut. The long range plans are to request that the City open the alley and then access would occur from the alley and Lou Butters would also have access from the alley but unfortunately Mr. Hodgson would need to move his paid parking from the City right-of-way. The real issue is the shed and its historic qualities. From the photographs the shed is something that has been cobbled together. This outbuilding does not have historical qualities or was one of the original Victorian buildings. David pointed out that the approval or disapproval of this application does not affect the alley issue. Comments: Derek said the alley issue will be dealt with by Council and other city agency referral comments. The alley is not in our purview. Amy handed out an 1893 birds eye view of town and clearly this shed has no relationship to the roof line of the Victorian. She also pointed out that research has been done regarding the background of this building and some field measurements have been taken. Derek said he has been to the site and examined the shed and his best assumption is that the shed is not from the 1800's. The nails used are not old. Strictly on our guidelines this building does not meet our criteria and does not have the historic significance that we would look for. From a broader sense HPC needs to look at sheds in the future for adaptive reuse. Jason said he looked at the pictures and can't find the gable in these structures. If we could find similarities to the existing pictures we would be having a different discussion. The reality is that it is a dilapidated building that we cannot put a date on. It is hard to discuss this without addressing the alley. Our best examples of using driveways in the West End is sharing driveways and this could be a good example of that. Alison said this is difficult because she likes the shed but she understands what the other commissioners are saying. The shed is obviously the first 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12~ 2005 part of this project and the entire piece of property will transform into something. Going by the guidelines them is no reason to keep the shed and it doesn't seem to be in any kind of condition that it could be moved. Sarah said the pattern of development in the West End not only relies on the main house but it also relies on the alleys and out buildings. We rely on Chapter I but in this particular case we have an out building that is not from the period of significance. Sarah said she has a hard time justifying within our guidelines keeping the shed. She encouraged the development of this site to look at our guidelines and possibly create some of that pattern of development. Michael said the structure does not contribute to the period of significance. There is not enough evidence that this shed is historic. Michael said he recognizes that the neighbors are anxious about the development of the site but the redevelopment is not before the HPC at this time. MOTION: Jason moved to approve Resolution f41for the demolition of the shed at 202 N. Monarch; second by Derek.. Roll call vote; Jason, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Alison, yes, Derek, yes. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:00p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7