Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.hpc.20090624JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24 2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton, Jay Maytin. Ann Mullins and Nora Berko were excused. Planning & Zoning Commission: Michael Wampler, LJ Erspamer, Stan Gibbs, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin and Brian Speck Staff present: John Worcester, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sarah reused herself because her firm is the local architects on the project. LJ Erspamer stated that he is an usher for the Wheeler Michael Hoffman stated that his wife works at the Wheeler about four hours every other month. Also my son Noah was on the Wheeler board for a period of time. Jay said one of his clients is Bentley's at the Wheeler but the expansion has nothing to do with Bentley's. 320 E. Hyman Ave. Wheeler Opera House - Jt. Conceptual Commercial Design Review, HPC Major Development Conceptual Review Michael Schnoering, Michael Farewell Michael Schnoering said at the last meeting we came away with some conclusions. The primary conclusion was that this project, the new construction should be differential and be a subordinate structure and not upstage the Wheeler. Out of that we came up with six specific issues that relate to that. 1. Building out to the street line of the building. There was concern about building out to the fapade line of the Wheeler. 2. The amount of construction on the upper level. There were apartments and the concern was the bulk and mass of the building. 3. The amount of glazing and light spill issues and the amount of transparency. JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24, 2009 4. The historic use of the Wheeler Opera house as the entry to the theatre. Is there a way to come in through the historic building and provide all the new amenities that we are providing. 5. The public access to the upper level of the building. Could the public have access to a roof garden. 6. Infill structure and where would buses park and how is the service being made to the building and other utilities. We have revised the submission and have pushed back the fagade about ten feet. This gives up a broader entry area and sidewalk area in front of the main entrance of the building. If we set the building back ten feet we need to make a corner connection on the west corner. There was also a question of entry and access. Ideally you would want to go in through the historic facade but we do not see a way to do that functionally or gracefully. Originally the fourth floor showed three apartments and we are now proposing one apartment for the artists. There has also been discussion about using the space as a public amenity or outdoor court. We can do that in a limited way. If it was totally public access the stairs would have to be larger and technically a larger elevator to get everyone up and down. That would gobble up square footage in a tightly compressed plan. We are not recommending that the entire roof be given over to public use. We can have a lower use. The apartment could be used for receptions with its patio. The issue of transparency on the fapade. We are passionate that this should be a stone fapade. We have reduced the transparency about 20% and added stone on the eastern wall and cornice. Slides were presented showing the setbacks and different historic buildings with additions. The scheme with the setback works with the Mother Lode and Wheeler. It would become extremely problematic if we setback were any larger than ten feet. Proof ofpublication -Exhibit I Sara said a site visit occurred Apri16`h with Planning & Zoning and HPC. The lot is a 12,000 square foot lot. We are dealing with the joint commissions commercial design standards. Utility and trash service, public amenity and projects compliance with the adopted design guidelines which deals with the design and placement of the addition. We are talking about the size and shape of the addition and the location on the lot and does it meet the guidelines. Overall the Community Development dept. feels the project is moving in a positive direction. In terms of the alignment and location the 2 JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24 2009 building is setback from the property line to provide for public amenity space. We recommend further design development in order to make this a more active public gathering space and to meet guideline 6.8. The request for the reduction of public amenity space is appropriate. Building form: They are proposing a flat roof which is typical for the style of development in our downtown. Staff is concerned with the curved element which is between the new and old construction and we recommend a restudy. The curved element is somewhat foreign. Height: Height and scale are appropriate and meet guideline 6.28. It is achieved through the setback of the fourth floor and the proposed addition which is below the height of the historic Wheeler. The Wheeler is one of the tallest buildings in town and as such it can support a substantial addition. The finishes can be addressed for final review and we feel the perception of the mass can be reduced by working with some of the pieces. We also feel the proposed height softens the transition between the Mother Lode and Wheeler. Entrance: Guideline 6.34 recommends that an iconic structure is preserved and enhanced. We are very concerned about the relocation of the primary entrance from the historic Wheeler into the addition. We find that the dramatic entrance proposed detracts from the historic building and inappropriate for this setting. The primary entrance to the Wheeler should remain so that the addition remains an ancillary function so we are not moving all of the function away from the historic Wheeler and the publics' perception of the historic landmark. We do recommend restudy of the roof top access in order to enhance guideline 6.34 and the public's experience with the historic resource. Sara said the crucial topics that we hope to give feedback to the applicant on tonight are location, height and scale of the proposed addition and the relationship to the context of the historic wheeler. Overall we recommend continuation to July 8cn LJ Erspamer asked about purchasing the unit next door for the artist and possibly that would be cheaper than building the fourth floor. 3 JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24, 2009 Gram Slaton said legally we cannot use that money for any other purchases. LJ Erspamer talked about modulation. On the Mother Lode side you have a large wall and is there a way to step the west wall down to be more in harmony with the building next door down without impacting the interior. wall facing City Hall. I don't know how you would step it You also see that on the fire station Michael Schnoering said the wall is fire rated wall and taking out additional volume affects the interior program. LJ Erspamer also stated that the glass is a concern on the front and how it fits in with the fagade and the lights at night. What is the position of the City on height. Sara said the height is 54.2 feet to top of the elevator shaft and 51.2 feet to the top of the fourth floor apartment and the historic Wheeler is 55.7 feet tall to the cornice and 71 feet tall to the highest point. The adjacent Mother Lode is 40.1 lto the top of the third floor which is located at the rear. Cliff Weiss said the west wall that is part firewall with the Mother Lode it is exposed a great deal. Can there be glass where the wall is exposed. Sara pointed out that you cannot have openings on a firewall because of the IBC. Michael Schnoering explained that shared party walls are part of the historic pattern of development. Michael asked the applicant about the curved element between the two buildings. Michael Schnoering said it is a challenge trying to make the re- entrance corner. We could refine the profile a little but it needs to be something softer than square. The curvilinear gave a connection shape back to the Wheeler but the form is also different. We can restudy that but we need some kind of volume there. JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24 2009 Jay asked about the roof top as a public amenity. Michael Schnoering said it is tied into the number of people that would be allowed to go to the roof top. Three hundred people would require major vertical circulation and we simply cannot accommodate that in the building. Something less than 100 might make use of the apartment as a multi use space. That could be accommodated without major circulation elements. There are costs involved having a roof space for people. The aspiration for larger numbers will be problematic. Jay asked how feasible the public rooftop access would be without the apartment? Michael Schnoering explained that the same issues would come up. We would have to have two stairs up, two means of egress from that space as well as an elevator. At that point you are bringing up major structures to that level. Michael said he is sympathetic to both sides of the discussion on the entryway. There are historic structures where additions have been made and the artifacts become appendages and I have the feeling this might happen here. How can we avoid creating a dead end in the historic entrance. Michael Schnoering said the plan is to have the space that is now the lobby be a tenant space, which will be a commercial use which is a desirable thing on the street level. The historical entry is the round arched opening to the monumental stair. It is too tight for an effective entry and that is why we moved away from it. There is no historical argument for keeping the entry as is now. The new entry will relate to the character of the existing building but will give all the amenities such as proper ticket office and circulation. We weight these things very carefully and this is a better solution. Michael Farewell said the historic entry in the future will perform as it is now. It will be a place where people spill out from the show and you still have access from the inside. Brian said everyone floods out of the Wheeler and the idea of recessing the secondary fagade back kind of gives a gateway, a place where people can gather and sit. 5 JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24, 2009 LJ Erspamer asked if this was a private application what would be the requirements to have this kind of height. Sara said they would still need to go through a PUD to vary the height. The applicant is going through the proper procedure process. Bert Myrin said the purchase of the Mother Lode was on the 2003 ballot yet tonight we heard that RETT money can't be used for offsite purchases. Why was it on the balot. John Worcester, city attorney said in order to use the RETT money for anything other than what was in the original ballot it has to go to a vote. It could go to a vote and you could amend the RETT language. The issue then becomes whether or not it is a new RETT which is prohibited by Tabor. In 2003 the issue was whether or not the RETT money that was available then could be used for that purpose, that meaning the purchase of the Mother Lode. I at that time pined that city council ought to seek approval from the voters to amend the original RETT and that is why it was put on the ballot. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Bill Wiener, retired architect. 701 Gibson - I only address problems and bring them up when I now there is a solutions. You have floor to floor, scissor, two ride, three run stair and move the penetration further back and it would relate to the lobby. That would get rid of the curve. All of the slides we saw the new addition was articulated from the hold with a glass spacer. That is what we need here and get rid of that curve. Possibly an arch in the front where all the glass is might give a better tie into the community. The public space is the lobbies. You need to see where you are going and be pulled there. Using the old stair entry you can't see where you are going. Harris Hall opens up in the summer and that might be a possibility here and make the sidewalk come in and make it part of the lobby. The problem is that you are trying to put too much of a building on too small of a site within too small of a box. The apartment is a luxury and it would be cheaper to get a suite in one of the big hotels which has parking, room service and maid service. It would free up space and make the roof garden more possible. 6 JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24 2009 The first floor is pretty high and possibly the upper floors could project over the alley. That would give you more volume. Ruben Hedlin, part time resident of Aspen. I am on the board of landmarks in Chicago and Roosevelt University. This is a good opportunity to create a lobby that is consistent with the function and the historic importance and the current importance of the Wheeler Opera House. Suzanne Foster said the green space where you have pushed back the fagade doesn't seem appropriate to have grass. If this were a more paved situation where you had more benches on the outside you would get less trampling. It would more of a civic space. Lisa Markalunas said she has continued concerns over mass and scale. We all agree that the Wheeler Opera House is one of the most significant buildings in town and it requires the utmost review process. I am not sure you intent to address parking but the Wheeler Opera House right now has significant parking issues and on existing businesses. I agree with staff on the historic entrance and the curved element and the contemporary nature of the addition and the glazing. I don't know that the addition has to be entirely contemporary. I would be interested in the split numbers of lobby space, office space and housing. For the outdoor lobby space that is a nice amenity that would give the Wheeler some breathing room and give you some public access. I am amazed that the public amenity requirement is being dropped from 3,000 square feet to 600 square feet. Staff recommends that it could be a more usable space. On Gram Slaton's memo of March 1 S` it mentions that the historic venue will see a significant amount of square footage open up for rental potential. It is odd that we are talking about such mass and scale to a building when we might have opportunity to accommodate some of those uses within the existing building. Perhaps it might be worth exploring the RETT requirements and uses in another building and not impact the Wheeler so significantly. With the City sitting as judge and jury on its own project it is important that the citizens weight in on what they want to see happen with the Wheeler Opera house. Junee Kirk said she is concerned about the height and scale of this historic building. Part of our pattern of development has been to preserve our iconic buildings and the surrounding space. In all the iconic buildings there is a 7 JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24, 2009 certain amount of open space that preserves the integrity of the historic structure. Using the existing space for offices in the existing Wheeler Opera house is a good suggestion. Ed Forein said he is a member of the Aspen Community Theater board. Ed applauded the architect and the Wheeler board for coming up with a design that appropriate in scale for the neighborhood yet compliments the Wheeler opera house. As a performer I am grateful that we will have a potential for performances and rehearsal space in the addition. This is an excellent amenity to provide performance space for community arts groups. The common areas and lobby areas are very important and in some ways the performances go on in the lobby and the community will use that as a gathering space. I caution the HPC to not make further constraints in this building. The original iteration has much more welcoming gathering areas and the architects have done all they can by setting back the entrance. Common areas where people gather cannot be confined and that would be a detriment to the addition and to the Wheeler. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Cliff Weiss pointed out his two concerns #1 public amenity, #2 mass and height. Bert said he feels the entire building is a public amenity and having space outside seems to be in excess. Bert also said entering from the Wheeler entrance is preferable. Brian said he is willing to give on the pubic amenity space. The Wheeler is a public amenity and creating some space on the street people will use it more. Cliff pointed out that the roof should be the public amenity space. He is opposed to the apartment. Jay said he sees the reason to have the setback off the street. This building and the use of the building creates a public amenity. Reducing the public JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24 2009 amenity from 3,000 to 600 hundred feet is OK. It is inappropriate to have the apartment. Michael agreed with Jay that the setback is successful and subordinate. Mass and scale: Bert said all the buildings in town seem like they are one-story too tall. The space underneath the existing Wheeler should be considered in the design. LJ Erspamer supported Bert's comments. Cliff commented that the fourth floor gives nothing to the community and would only be used in the summer. Brian pointed out that downtown is conducive to density. In the elevations they are stepped back and the addition is submissive to the Wheeler. I am not offended by the fourth floor as it is set back a good degree that is not opposing. I am concerned about seeing it from the North and I totally understand the needs of the program. Jay said the height of the fourth floor is concerning. It is important to utilize what you already have. The square feet under the building should be used for some purpose. If you could use the space under the Wheeler to reduce the mass it would definitely be appropriate. Utilize what you have already and then come back with what you "really" need. Brian said there is concern that the Wheeler has stood alone. The Wheeler was constructed to have an addition on the side. Michael said his concern is the blank west wall. Curvilinear element: Bert agreed with staff that the curved element is out of character and could be eliminated by moving the building forward and dropping the height. Cliff said the curvilinear element is an incongruous element and not appropriate. Jay also said the curvilinear wall does not fit with the design. JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24, 2009 Brian suggested that the architects look at a different feature for the curvilinear wall. Ten feet back is fantastic but it looks like that could be twiddled down to five feet to supply more lobby space. Entrance: Bert agreed with staff that the entrance needs restudied. Possibly move the connections on the first floor and give more play with the existing building. Cliff said his priority is the lobby area and it should be used as a welcoming area. Jay recommended that the entrance be restudied. Brian said the entrance accessed from the historic opera house should only be used in a functional way. If the main entrance has to be off the second building it has to be a fantastic entrance. Michael Schnoering said the entry is the core of the project. It needs proper access and entering from the existing building would destroy the interior historic components. LJ Erspamer excused himself. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 320 E. Hyman, YVheeler Opera House addition to July 8`"; second by Brian Speck. All in favor, motion carried 8-0. Roll call: Michael Wampler, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Bert Myrin, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; Brian Speck, yes; Michael Hoffman, yes, Jay Maytin, yes. Brian McNellis yes. 6:45 Planning & Zoning dismissed. Conceptual Development review and Special review for parking Michael said providing parking on-site is inappropriate. We need more information because we do not know the impacts on the neighborhood for parking. 10 JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24 2009 MOTION: Brian moved to continue the conceptual review and special review for parking on 320 E. Hyman until July 8`h; second by .Tay. All in favor, motion carried. Jay suggested some kind of bicycle storage on-site. Michael Schnoering said the team does not want to destroy the historic fabric of the Wheeler Opera House. We don't want to make a lobby that was not originally there. 701 S. Aspen Street, Original Lift Ticket Office within Willoughby Park-Demolition review Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and the public hearing was closed. MOTION.• Brian moved to continue 701 S. Aspen Street and the public hearing until July 22"d; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. 219 S. Third Street -discussion Amy pointed out that the HPC did not support the 473 square feet. Suzanne Foster went to council and asked for a reconsideration. Council asked that HPC review the proposal. Suzanne is asking for 291 square feet instead of 473 square feet. Suzanne Foster -Part of what you are doing here tonight is not just saving this Modern Chalet but having a say in what the structure next door will be with heights and roof lines etc. I truly hope we can make a success of Ord. #48 and pave the road for others. At the council meeting we had a 30 day time period in which to accept their negotiation and we did not accept the negotiation that evening. If you recommend the 2207 square feet and that is the 291 square foot bonus and council approves that then I will accept that on the spot and I won't need a waiting period for it. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. 11 JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24, 2009 Herb Klein, attorney representing the Youngs'. We are very concerned about the procedural posture of this. This is like a shell game with numbers. They asked for 493 and now they are asking for this. They are negotiation and playing with the system and keep coming back. You are supposed to look at this application on its merits. If she doesn't want to build what you approve then she can build what the code allows. She is asking you for a formal action on a short notice and there is not staff memo and no analysis. As we have said before there is no basis in the code for this additional grant of FAR. They Mayor recognized this at the council meeting on June 8` and he said it would be arbitrary to grant additional FAR without properly adopted standards. When the applicant received council's approval to reconsider it didn't interpret to me that they were in favor of what she was proposing. In fact the Mayor reiterated his comments that he would not support more FAR in the absence of adopted standards and he told the applicant that reconsideration would open the entire request to city review not just this one issue. They could decide to grant fewer benefits. The notion that you should be weighing this request as though the lot was a lot of record is fiction. It is not a lot of record. It is a lot to be created as part of the historic lot split. It can only be approved with the codes governing historic lot splits. This is nothing more than arbitrary rationalization for an illegal act. On June 18`" the task force report came out and by a vote of 7against and 3 for the task force did not support the Modern Chalet as a category worth protection. This calls into the question the value to the community of the designation of this property. The applicant has received generous benefits from Council but the applicant desires more. We ask that you reject further grants of benefits. Jake Vickery -Jake said his concern is how the calculations occurred. Part of his job is to verify the FAR. It is difficult to do because we don't have a full set of drawings for the structure. The applicant indicates that the lot size is 3985 but when calculations were done it actually is 3937square feet. We need confirmation of the correct square footage. I don't see how council can make decisions based on a comparison of models that are undocumented. John Young said HPC warned city council to error on the side of caution that the negotiating benefits could overload the site. I feel this did occur the first time around and this is the second time. I do support the designation of 219 S. Third, however; I am opposed to the lot split and would ask that you 12 JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -NNE 24 2009 reconsider a five to eight foot front yard setback as a compromise to the 16 %2 foot setback that was granted the second time around. The developer's request seems to be trying to work the system in order to get a home that is too large on lot 2 and is not in keeping with the preservation of the community goals. There is a lot of neighborhood opposition to this. The front yard setback, additional FAR and the proposed height for lot 2 is what has my neighbors and my family so much in arms. Thank you for a more favorable decision this time around. Junee Kirk said if we have Modern Chalet as a style the addition destroys the integrity of the building and the lot split with the two additions and box like structure destroy the integrity as well. What would be far better would be to look at the shape of the roof and what is next to it so you can get some sort of harmonious height and repetition of roof lines and actually two little cottages in the lot split. Bill Wiener 701 Gibson - I do feel this building is historic. What is historic in Aspen is what had bearing on the development of our history. It is the economics of the time and the zoning laws of the time and social part. It is reflected in our built environment. This style of taken and adapted to our economy at that time and our climate. The vote in the committee was a straw vote and it means nothing. The building must be preserved but by putting an addition onto it we are destroying the very reason we are doing it. You could build a new building and link it to the old building and connect it with a glass connector and protect the integrity. This building sits on an alley and sits on another street which is a corner and on the third side there is a trail. We should be deciding what we can do to keep the house as it was. Dan McCarty - 333 W. Hopkins I feel council has bent over backward to make this work for Mrs. Foster and she keeps coming back. They gave her 90% of what she wanted and it wasn't enough. I don't see any reason for a reconsider and to grant any other bonuses. Cheryl Goldenberg, 430 W. Hopkins - I walk the Midland trail a lot. It is right in town etc. Now in the last few years there are huge houses all around. Shadow Mountain should be protected. Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan closed the public hearing. 13 JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24, 2009 Commissioner comments: John Worcester said council wants a recommendation from this board and when it comes back to city council everything is on the table. The only thing before you is Mrs. Foster's request to go back to council with the 291 square foot bonus and whether the HPC thinks that is a good idea or not. Michael said his feeling is that the HPC has been uncomfortable with this process and this is really the first negotiation that we have had someone on the other side of the table that wants to negotiate with us. My recollection is that we are uncomfortable with the idea of going above and beyond what we traditional had authority to do. Brian pointed out that we still don't have any more guidelines than what we had before. The fact that council heard it and it was brought back to the HPC doesn't make me feel any more comfortable about making a decision. Sarah said the negotiations that we made were permitted by our code. Amy said the incentives that you have granted are those that have always been in your purview. City Council was asked to look at the negotiation and the attorney's office provided them a position that they had full authority to be acting in that form. John Worcester said there are two new members on council that did not hear the arguments pro or con for the benefits that you are discussing. The issue before you tonight is a question from city council, they are asking for an advisory opinion from you in the context of negotiation an ordinance #48 properly whether or not all the benefits that you have described and discussed plus 291 square feet of additional FAR whether that is worth giving to the applicant in return for her designating this property historic. That is the issue before you. Sarah said she doesn't feel we need to re-visit the rest of the HPC recommendations. Michael said he is uncomfortable with this process because it is undefined. Are we willing to approve 291 square feet in addition to what we already approved. I am willing to approve the 291 square feet but I am not willing 14 JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24, 2009 to reopen the entire discussion . I am asked this specific question and I can answer in the affirmative. Sarah said there are three 3,6001ots sizes in this adjacent area. Brian said he is uncomfortable voting on this particular issue knowing that if I give an affirmative vote and go with the recommendation to council yet they still have all the other things on the table that they can consider on top of the affirmative vote for this particular bonus. My previous vote was that there is merit preserving this property but I don't feel comfortable with all the incentives. I don't feel comfortable forwarding this one bonus that the applicant is asking for without considering all the incentives and bonuses. I don't feel good about the entire basked that is being asked for. At this point I do not feel I have the ability to dissect each one. It puts me in an awkward situation. What makes a difference are the numbers that have been presented and what Jake Vickery presented. Amy said the difference in calculations is that the architect calculated a lesser amount of area that is over a 30% slope so that accounts for the difference. As a solution what might be a suggestion in the motion is that you support a bonus of no more than 291 square feet with final verification of the calculation. Brian said if we are on par with these numbers I feel that designation of this property which does have some merit will actually have less impact on this area based on the fact that we have discretion over the design that happens on the secondary lot. Amy reminded HPC the ordinance #48 which allows owners to approach the boards with the incentives that they feel are necessary from their personal perspective to persuade as voluntary designation. There really are no parameters on that. The applicant is simply telling you what they feel are the necessary things. Brian said it is not a matter if it is applicable to the code or not. Sarah said we had a similar situation with Riverside Dr. which is R-15. What size lot did we end up with? Amy said she believes it is in the range 15 JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24, 2009 of 4,000 square feet. Sarah said the incentives were the FAR bonus and the lot split and setback variances. We did not do the setback variances until we saw the house that was going onto that lot. Michael said the owner still has to come through our design process and if we say no I don't know what she will do. Jay said he feels an amazing amount of comfort and I look at ordinance #48 in a different way. It seems to be a pretty clean slate. The goal of this is to stimulate the public to come and negotiate with HPC and council. Mrs. Foster has been quite accommodating to the HPC. You can argue that the addition takes away from the historic house but I can argue that the addition can come off and it would still be exactly how it is right now. Sarah said HPC is in favor of historically designating this property. That is why we are here tonight discussing this. We are in favor of the lot split, variance from the alley and in favor of the 500 square foot bonus. Tonight we are discussing the 291 square feet. I did bring up what the by code FAR of the newly created lot. That brings some objectivity to this number. I do agree with Brian that things have to be looked at in totality. When city council reviews everything it should be looked at as architecture etc. I would be willing to vote for the 291 square feet tonight. MOTION: Jay made the motion that HPC recommends the 291 square foot bonus for Lot 2 and confirming the floor area available on the lot as required by the city code and verified by a registered surveyor. Motion second by Michael. Brian asked if there should be language that the application should be looked at in totality? Jay pointed out that council will look at the entire package and they have two new members. Kathy read the motion: Jay made the motion that HPC recommends the approve of 291 square feet for Lot 2 and confirming the floor area verification from a registered surveyor not to exceed what would be allowed for Lott as a lot of record. Michael drafted the amended motion requested by Jay. 16 JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -JUNE 24, 2009 Jay made the motion that HPC recommends that City Council approve a package of incentives for this application which permits floor area not to exceed the lessor of (a) the floor area which would be permitted under the city code if Lot 2 were a lot of record or (b) 291 square feet. The floor area to be verified from a registered surveyor. Motion second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Jay, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 17