Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20110119 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Jason Lasser, Jamie McLeod, Brian McNellis and Sarah Broughton. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sara Adams gave an update on the Deep Powder cabins. The cabins were relocated to the base of Lift I temporarily in 2006. We are aggressively trying to find a non - profit to take the cabins and put them to a positive use for the community. ACES maybe interested. MOTION: Jamie made the motion to approve the minutes of Dec. 8 second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Sarah will recuse herself on the Given Institute. 500 W. Hopkins Ave. — Boomerang Lodge — Minor Development — Landscape Design — Public Hearing Amy said a site visit was conducted at NOON today. As part of the proposal the pool is to be filled in and not in use. Staff recommends that everything there be left in place and only fill in the pool itself with gravel or grass. There are retaining walls and steps and features which we feel are part of the Wrightian concept. We would like to see all that kept and refurbished. The retaining walls look a little deteriorated. Charles Cunniffe, architect The basic premises are to preserve the memory of the pool and the indication of where the pool was. The pool will be a place holder where the pool was for those who purchase the affordable housing units. Steve Stunda said they have no problem with the recommendation and are willing to work with staff. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 Jason asked if a platform could be built in the pool, essentially doing a green roof to protect and maintain the sides and then have six inches of dirt put over it. Charles said the approach is to fill the pool with dirt or pave it with a concrete surface. Nora asked what is happening across where the window is. Steve Stunda said it is being converted to all storage. Nora said this is an incredible opportunity to do something. Maybe it could be a hexagon area to tie into the Wrightian era. Steve said he will look at the idea. Amy said staff is recommending that the pool be filled with dirt or the way Jason described and it would be sunken. A ramp would have to be constructed per the Building Dept. Aim opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Brian said he is having difficulty understanding the landscape plan and possibly a monitor should be assigned. Sarah said without a pool it is a different space. With the sunken area I would like to see a new landscape plan. Charles said think of the pool as a common area and the same area as the pool will be lawn. More people will be able to enjoy it without getting wet. We also need some hard cape around it so people can put out chairs and have picnics. Ann said the question is the different grades. Sarah said we also need to know how the ramp is incorporated with the retaining walls and steps. Jason said he supports staff suggestion of keeping the retaining walls. Charles explained that everything is the same except the pool surface and you can walk across it. Since it is sunken there would be a ramp to get out 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 of the depressed area. We don't know the solution of the ramp yet. We are only requesting to fill in the pool. Jason said the proposal is not to remove the retaining walls. Brian said the surface over the pool will be grass or hardscape. Jamie said she is in support of filling the pool in whether it is hardscape or soft cape as long as it maintains the elevation. The monitor and staff can review what that material is and where the location of the ramp is. Nora said she cannot support this without a design that reflects Charlie Patterson's architecture. Ann said as long as the elevations stay the same she can support the proposal and staff and monitor can handle any issues. It would be great to take part of the existing lounge room with the glass wall and make it a common area. That area is an important part of the entire relationship of the pool to the lounge room. Charles said they will take that into advisement. MOTION: Jamie moved to approve resolution #1 for 500 W. Hopkins based on staff's comments and the condition that the architect work with staff and monitor to maintain the existing grade of the pool area and maintaining the existing retaining walls and steps. In addition that the footprint of the existing pool be pavement surrounded by grass or vice versa as a stronger nod to the original plan geometry and other flexible uses; second by Ann. Motion carried 5 -1. Nora opposed. Ann and Jason are the monitors. Given Institute —100 E. Francis - Public Hearing — Joint meeting with the Planning & Zoning and HPC Commissions Stan Gibbs opened the Planning & Zoning portion of the meeting at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Michael Wampler, Stan Gibbs, LJ Erspamer and Bert Myrin. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 Jay Maytin was seated at 5:00 p.m. Jay opened the HPC portion of the meeting at 5:00 p.m. Sarah Broughton recused herself. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Ann Mullins, Jason Lasser, Jamie McLeod and Brian McNellis. Amy said the proposal is a four lot subdivision. At the last meeting there was concern about specific trees being retained and the Hallam Lake Bluff. The revised plan indicates that 20 out of the 21 trees are preserved on the plan. There is a larger setback proposed from top of slope. On the Hallam Lake bluff there is some suggestion that the original ordinance should include down the side of the property. A hydrologic study is proposed so that there are no impacts to ACES. Any other trees removed they would do mitigation. The FAR has changed from 5,750 per house to 5,300 each. That would be comprised of the allowable duplex FAR and two to three TDR's. Staff feels we need to continue to find an envelope that works for lot 2 and make the building smaller. Some of the FAR could move to the other two houses or sold off the site. The other options are to work together and eliminate the envelope of lot 2 entirely and keep it open space. CU has given this applicant until Feb. 15 to negotiate. Disclosures LJ disclosed that Bill Dinsmoor said he didn't want the city to spend $250,000 a year supporting this kind of project. LJ said he did not respond. Exhibit I — revised elevation Exhibit II — Gold leaf gardens letter Exhibit III — Ron Greenberg letter Bart Johnson, attorney Mitch Haas, Haas planning Mitch said there were a lot of points made at the last meeting and we tried to address every concern to the best of our ability. All 21 of the heritage trees will be preserved. The large tree on Lot 2 in the middle of the lot will remain. To accommodate that we had to decrease the 22 '/2 foot setback back to 15 feet from Hallam Lake which is the standard Hallam Lake review setback. Lot 3 is left at 22 feet. Instead of having a 15 foot side yard setback between lot 2 and 3 on lot 2 we decreased it to ten feet but left it 15 feet otherwise. There is still 25 feet between the two envelopes. All heritage trees are outside the building envelope. Lot 2 and 3 will have a full 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 Hallam Lake bluff review. We also agreed to a hydrologic study which is not a requirement of the code to ensure that nothing adversely affects ACES. We have included a no development no disturbance area that wraps around the Hallam Lake bluff but also the setback areas from top of slope. We have relied on the GIS map which indicates the Hallam Lake bluff. In our estimation we are accommodating a great deal of development constraints including heritage trees, historic building, setbacks etc. Regarding the no disturbance no development zone we are requesting the removal of a building that encroaches on the no disturbance zone. The other exception is for normal trail maintenance for the path that leads to ACES. We are requesting that the FAR should be the same as a duplex on each lot. As an incentive we would like 3 TDR's on each lot. Access; We did look at going around the Given but approximately 4 heritage trees would be removed and the road would have to make a wide turn and would eat up lot 4 development. We are proposing to use Garmisch street as an access. The incentives are down to granting 3 TDR's per lot, no FAR bonus. We also asked for a minor setback variation and we have asked for the potential reimbursement of development fees and exactions that would occur only if the option to purchase the Given is exercised. We have also asked for exemptions from the residential design standards. Everything else is code compliance and straight forward. Questions: LJ asked if staff's opinion has changed with the new submittal. Amy said it addresses the concern of working around the tree on lot 2. We would also have to look at the plan a little more carefully. LJ pointed out that they are asking for 9 TDR's. Amy said the ordinance mentions E. Francis Street regarding the Hallam Lake Bluff review and we are uncertain it comes down the east side. If it did they need a 15 foot setback from top of slope on that side. Mitch said on that side we would fully expect conditions that the building permit application demonstrate that stability of the slope would not negatively be impacted. Construction next to a slope is more than common around here. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 Jason said on the new plan one tree is missing and it looks like it is being removed for the access road. Mitch said the tree is not a heritage tree and if it is being removed it would fall under the same category as the other trees. Jason also asked about the bike path near lot 4. Mitch said it is a ten foot landscaped area and there is another ten feet or so before you get to the bike path. Jamie thanked the applicant for saving the heritage trees. On the east side of Hallam Lake what is staff's recommendation or do you feel it is only the north side of the lot. Chris Bendon, Community Development Chris said the language is muddied and it is a reasonable argument to think that the entire ridge or edge of the bluff is regulated even though the east does not overlook Hallam. There is a legitimate argument that says the jurisdiction of the review is mapped incorrectly but is in fact is around the entire property. Another way to look at it is when you are looking at areas to be flexible is this a more appropriate or less appropriate area to be flexible with regard to that setback. I would prefer that the board look at it as an area that is regulated as opposed to arguing if it is an area in the jurisdiction. Jamie asked for clarification on Lot 2 going to a public space. Amy said that is staff's recommendation not their proposal. Bart Johnson said we have looked at that and we aren't saying if someone who bought the Given wanted to buy lot 2 we would look at that but we can't put a price on it. Moving the development rights over to lot 3 and 4 you couldn't move enough over there to make up for the lost economic opportunity that lot 2 represents. Attaching it to the Given doesn't work because what if the option on the given doesn't get exercised. Ann said the option for the Given is to still purchase it for 3.7 million. Mitch said the terms of the option on the Given will be determined with city council. Nora asked about the impacts on the Given and whether single family homes are being built and how many cars are we looking at. I need to know what 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 exactly we are being asked to approve. Also is there an option 3 public /private. Mitch said we made a proposal and this is a negotiation and there can be other options but at the end of the day it is an ordinance #48 that has to be a mutually acceptable agreement. Bart said the idea of this being a public campus and ACES and the Red Brick being included is a possibility but I doubt it involves us. It would involve someone else doing a deal with CU rather than our client. I don't see how this would work from a free market perspective. Brian asked staff what can be done with the R -6 zone by right. Chris said there is not a lot by right. The minimum lot size is 6,000 and they are well in excess of that. The FAR is calculated by scale, larger lots would get more FAR. A subdivision process would also trigger growth management. Brian said he is trying to determine what could happen if they end up with a denial vs. their present proposal. Brian also asked about the marble deck. Mitch said the existing wood deck and the existing marble deck may remain but with the tree remaining possibly the wood deck would have to be removed. There is actually no guarantee about the decks. Brian asked if the applicant and staff are confident that the revised setbacks will allow the development not to be seen from ACES. Chris said the point is to minimize the impacts and all 3 lots will be visible from ACES. Stan asked about the 2 ''A acre site and if it is one lot how big a house could you build on it. Amy said a little over 6,000 square feet. Bert asked what the total proposed under the current plan is including TDR's etc. Amy said 16,000 not including the Given and the Given is 12,000 which totals to 28,000. Bert asked if this were two lots would there be less FAR by right? Chris said FAR coincides with lot sizes. Bert said we could make a recommendation that this be one lot or two lots and that would impact whether it is 28,000 or something less. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 Bert asked about the relocation of the miner's cabin. Amy said in the scenario of the public purchasing Lot 2 the 700 square foot building could be moved there. The applicant is not proposing that the cabin be moved to lot 2. That only is suggested if lot 2 becomes open space. Bert asked if the city has discussed tying the duration of the vested rights whether it is three years or ten years to match the duration of the city's option to purchase. Mitch said one year would not work for us. LJ asked if berms are allowed in the city. Amy said you are not allowed to build them in the setbacks and there are regulations as to where they are allowed. Chris said they are about 30 inches in height. Amy said the applicant is asking for three TDR's to be landed on each of the lots. They are asking the city to create and award them. They could either build them or sell them. Jay pointed out we live in a unique environment and in the design please take into consideration that you can see anything from the mountain. Jay asked about the affordable housing proposal. Amy said they are asking to be exempt from providing either a unit or cash. Nora asked what the estimated mitigations are at. Amy said the applicant said $1.375 million. Jay asked what the R -6 requirement is for setbacks. Chris said it is a sliding scale and the smallest setback is five feet. Jay said one concern is the sensitivity to the historic resource. Jim True, attorney said HPC is here to make recommendations to council under the ordinance #48 negotiations. CU takes the position that they are exempt from our code and the courts in Colorado have not made a final determination. Brian said if we gave them a denial what kind of exemptions would CU have over our head. I'm on this board to preserve historic resources and it difficult to determine if that is worth one TDR or numerous TDR's etc. It is 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 difficult to weigh an historic resource against any monetary value to the town. Jay said the Dean of the medical school was at our meeting and said they are not interested in developing this property at all. Vice - chair, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Tom Cardamone, ACES director The bluff review was created some 20 years ago working with a neighbors and it took a lot of work and compromise. We will continue to assert that the bluff goes all the way up to the back of the Red Brick because of reading of the Francis Street centerline language. About 1/3 of our neighbors don't see the lake, they see the marshes and beaver ponds. The east bluff looks down in to ACES property which is an acre and 4tenths which is largely preserved as habitat. Regarding the trees there are 30 trees that aren't heritage trees and we are assuming they are disappearing in this proposal. We think of those as heritage trees of the future. I am sensitive to the negotiations and process and contract. I have talked to numerous people who are interested in a community value conservation approach. The property will lose value if the building is torn down. Assuming CU is thinking clearly they wouldn't tear down the building. On the flip side they might not be thinking clearly. I have heard a lot about the character of the Given and it has so much to do with the grounds and not just the building. If we are to save it as a community asset we need to look at the entire property as a piece of that asset. If we sever it from the ground and from the views of Hallam Lake we have diminished that historic building significantly. Michael Fox, ACES board member It feels we are doing this backwards. We are trying to get all this development onto this site to justify a price to CU so they can hit their hurdle on this property. The property is worth more with the Given then without it and you get a lot more diverse uses with the Given staying there. The Given in a different negotiation does stay with a whole lot less development. We are destroying the site in order to save it which makes no sense what -so -ever. It is time to take a step back and move onto something that works better for the community. Dave Smith, Garfield and Hecht representing the Lewis's who are neighbors. The fundamental issue is what asset are you seeking to protect. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 With the base FAR for duplexes does that mean we are looking at 8 potential dwelling units rather than four and if it is limited to single family then why start at the duplex FAR. Is it worth the bricks and mortar to destroy the rest of the site? You would have five dwelling units on that site with no public access. The best case scenario is that you come up with the 3.75 million in a year to buy the Given plus an estimated 1.3 million to reimburse the developer for all of the impact fees which is good for the developer. Either the city will be paying the impact fees or a non - profit will be paying the impact fees or it will not be a public building at all. One of the provisions in the code that hasn't been talked about a lot is the fact that as a base line any vacated or proposed rights -of -way are removed from your FAR. This site does have a lot of constraints. You have never been asked to go below the base line property rights but you have been asked to continually give more and more additional property rights in order to justify the value that has been assigned to the contract. Junee Kirk, It has all been said and I would urge preservation of the site and trees which are important as the building. Mrs. Paepcke's niece said she used to take walks through ACES which is a totally isolated area protected by this property. Once you start building you will see the building sites from ACES and you will have a totally different feeling. It should remain as it is and not be subdivided. Johnathan Lewis, 414 N. First Street The heritage trees vs. the normal trees we are getting into semantics and it is a slippery slope. The length we went to protect trees on the same sight with soils and prunings, the trees around the site need to also be protected. They deserve more respect. Alan Richmond was hired by CU and Sunny Vann was hired by my family to review the code and they couldn't understand how you get to four lots or three additional building sites based on all the road abandonments etc. I urge you to look at this carefully. Bill Stirling, public Bill said because the site is in the R -6 zone and there was never anything discussed to rezone it academic until now. CU asserts that it is exempt from local land use. The proposal may be in the best interest for CU but it is not in the interest of Aspen, Colorado. The applicant has come up with good adjustments since the first meeting but I don't think it is enough. A TDR is 250 square feet each and before the regression they sold for $250,000. They couldn't sell them presently and there would be too many coming at the 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 same time. The greatest likelihood is that they would apply them on -site because it makes the most sense instead of trying to sell them. Each of the three lots are 2 '/ times the size of the largest West End lots in the R -6 zone. One of the criteria is whether this subdivision is in character with the neighborhood. Next door is a 9,000 square foot lot and across the street is a 6,000 square foot lot. This is an extraordinary location. Below grade space is allowed. You are down to 5,300 square foot average on each of the three lots and below footage would be 2,500 to 4,000 square feet. The highest sale of a 6,000 square foot lot has been 3.8 million. The highest sale of a 9,000 square foot lot was 9.1million pre melt down. Lot 1 is to sell for 3.7 million. What would it cost the city to isolate and sterilize lot 2 which is the most valuable part of their program. They could sell the other lots for around 2lmillion each. A deal has to be struck in order for the city to do a deal to buy lot 2. The area is like a mini Aspen Meadows with a Hallam Lake overview. Any deal has to work for the long term interest of Aspen. Exhibit I - Ronnie Greenberg letter objecting to the bonuses and exceptions. Exhibit II - Gail Shugars letter talks about the preservation of the trees and the Aspen Idea. Two phone calls: Kristin Cannon, 3490 CR 117 Glenwood Springs, called to say that she is the former director of the Snowmass Conference Center and she contacted 11 corporations today encouraging them to consider buying the Given Institute for a conference center. David Scruggs, 324 W. Hopkins, Aspen called to suggest that the new houses be built towards the center of the site and a 50' or so setback be provided along the bluff that could be accessed by the public. Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and open space director Ann asked Stephen to address the tree on lot 2 and the impacts of possible construction, runoff etc. Will that tree stay healthy in the middle of construction? Stephen said the revised plan has addressed a number of concerns we have had in terms of saving trees. An analysis of the root zone of that tree in a building permit submittal would have to be performed. It is likely that sub - grade areas adjacent to that tree would have to be looked at carefully. After looking at the analysis we can determine what building envelopes can be explored. It is our assessment that the tree can be preserved and you could 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 build adjacent to it. Sub - grades would need to be addressed and possibly they would be precluded. LJ Erspamer asked about other trees on the lots. Stephen said all the trees are important. The trees on lot 3 and 4 are not in the same category as the other trees on the sites. Discussion: Bert Myrin said 6 or 7 thousand is a long way from 28,000 which is what is proposed. The current building is 8,392 square feet seems to be larger than what is allowed there by right if it was replaced. I have concerns about destroying something to save something else. It is hard to imaging Lot 2 with the Victorian moved on it and the wood deck on one side and garages etc. without any sub - grade. I cannot support a 20,000 + square foot bonus no matter how you get to it such as FAR and TDR's. I would recommend to Council that no TDR's be created on this property. I would also recommend council rezone the property academic. I support staff's recommendation of relocating the miner's cabin onto Lot 2. I would support tying the vested rights to be the same as the city's purchase option for both lot I and 2. The vested rights are handing out a dollar value. The bluff review should be applied to the entire site as Tom Cardamone has suggested. I would also recommend to council they consider fewer lots, maybe 2 or 1 single family home. I would also recommend no reductions in affordable housing mitigation. There is a $100,000 request. If the subdivision approval is given by council it be with no grade development unless the hydrologic study confirms there is no adverse hydrologic impacts on the springs on the ACES property. I would also recommend no sub -grade use on Lot 2 in an effort to preserve the root system of the heritage tree in the center. I am in favor of increasing the building envelope on the north side of Lot 1 be increased a little bit to protect the historic resource. I would also ask for a higher standard of the lighting code be applied to protect the ACES space. We also need to provide public access along the ridgeline of the bluff. The applicant recommended that each building envelope would be surrounded by construction fencing and nothing outside that would be allowed to be disturbed. Michael Wampler said he is struggling with the amount of lots and the potential sizes they can do. The Given should be kept historic and personally three lots should be reduced to two. One should go to the city. The view planes of ACES should be protected. I cannot accept the TDR's. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 Stan Gibbs said on the design standards I keep hearing that the standards that are applied are minimal and I wonder why even bother to waive them. We need to all remember the motivation is to remove development potential from the historic resource. We are taking TDR's which are intended to remove development from around the historic resource and we are putting it on or very close to the historic resource. The bluff review is not negotiable. I was happy to see the pull back on the design. The value of the Given is not just the architect who was very famous but the use of it. If the Given was a private house it would have no value to the public. We don't know what is going to happen and we might go into a double recession. Going into a negotiation saying we are trying to find the money to do is thinking backwards. I object to the public subsidy of this being almost half the purchase price (7 million is unreasonable — 9 TDR's at $250,000 each, waived fees 1,375 million and the Given sale $3,75 million. There is also too much density on this site. You could develop this site sensitively to ACES and do a nice job but the Given is in the way. I feel the review should follow the development process per the code and not deal with Ord. #48. I would be fine with two large buildings back toward Francis Street. We are getting into a trend with development processes which just seem to happen and they don't go through Planning or HPC and this is a bad thing. Ord. #48 leads us down the wrong path. The property should be rezoned to academic to preserve it. LJ Erspamer recommended nothing be done to the property but the risk is tearing down the Given. I would recommend to council that you keep the heritage site as it is beautiful and spiritual however they are involved in negotiations. If anything, the city should keep lot 1 and 2. There should be no TDR's. I would wait on the residential design standards until the application comes in. Regarding the vested rights I would suggest 5 years and I saw what they did in Snowmass giving them 20 years and it is a real problem. I would support Bert's recommendation if the city had a purchase option. There should be no bluff variances and the property should be rezoned academic. The cabin can also be moved if needed. • Brian said he agreed with his colleagues on P &Z. Essentially we are destroying this site. I am inclined to deny the application and the city could end up in a better place if the applicant came through the regular application process with the city. If the board does not want to go that way we need to figure a way to preserve Lot 2. Throwing TDR's is not quite the solution. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 Jason said he echoes all the comments made. The setbacks need to be honored on the north and east side. There needs to be sensitivity to the bike path. I don't agree with the TDR's. There should be no exemptions to the secondary mass and other residential design standards. The trade off is not worth it with all the other lots. I can't get past the criteria for a subdivision. Regarding the heritage trees vs old trees I justify separating them. I also don't agree with the affordable housing proposal. The 30 foot setback on the north side should be honored. If we had a schematic plan it would have helped in the location of the trees etc. I can't support the new site plan. MOTION: Brian moved to extend the HPC meeting until 7:30 second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Stan moved to extend the P &Z meeting until 7:30 second by LJ. All in favor, motion carried. Jamie commented that for the last 30 years this piece of property has and is a private piece of property that has been opened up to the public. CU is closing the doors and saying we are not open to the public anymore. I don't think it's this board's position to say you need to create public space on a private lot and or a walking path around this. I can't support the amount of density or the subdivision on this lot. I don't want to see the Given go away. Possibly zone the Given as academic otherwise leave the lot as is. Visually keeping it as one lot would be good. Ann thanked the public for coming to the meeting. The proposal is just too much and I would agree with what Bert said. We would need an environmental sensitive plan in place. We need to keep the Given as a public amenity as we pay taxes to Colorado. It is the State of Colorado's property. Possibly tie the Given into non - profits and other programs. The development should be in the character of the neighborhood which is smaller lots. Nora also thanked the public for attending and providing good information. This is a community effort to save the institute. I can't support option one. I agree with Bert and Stan. I feel there is a third option involving the overall public benefit. Possibly incorporate non - profit public private proposal. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 Jay stated that the 500 square foot bonus if approved by HPC would go to the Given Institute. I also do not support the TDR's. The requirement that the community wants a public amenity on this lot the Given should be donated to the city. I also do not support the subdivision and density proposed. I also do not support public /private and I don't support this because I do not see a public benefit. We are saving a building that could end up being private and only viewed from a street. Jim True said with ordinance #48 HPC should make some recommendation on the value of the historic resource and whether they recommend the applicants proposal as a method of preserving the resource or not. Chris Bendon said HPC should provide guidance on the value of preserving the Given Institute. Both boards together should make a recommendation on the proposal as it has been presented and ask Council to consider the comments made by both board members. Mitch said we need to keep in mind that this is and ordinance #48 negotiation. If the recommendation is clearly not mutually acceptable to the ord. #48 applicant then the recommendation is to take this property of the list of potential historic resources. Jay said with ord. #48 negotiations in the past we have worked with the owner not the potential buyer. The negotiation should be with CU in my opinion. They came in and now a potential buyer has presented. Jim True said this still is an appropriate method. They are at this point equitable owners because the property is under contract. They have a right to proceed in this manner. Mitch said before we came along CU was pulling out of the negotiations. MOTION: Bert made the motion to transfer the comments from tonight to council, second by LJ. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Bert made the motion to deny the overall plan, second by LJ. All in favor motion carried 10 -0. MOTION: Stan made the motion to adjourn P &Z; second by Bert. All in favor, motion carried. P &z meeting adjourned at 7:40. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 Jay said council needs to know that the Given is very high on our score sheet. The attachment is not just the building it is the surroundings including ACES. The Given is a great value to the city but this plan is too much. Jamie said the Given is not worth what they are asking. Ann said this plan does not preserve the Given the way it should be preserved. Brian said he hopes council continues to negotiate. The landscape associated with the Given is important and could be preserved as open space which is Lot 2. Jamie said there needs to be a reduction in lots and FAR size. Jason said council should work with the applicant and rezoning should be the last card. Maybe lower the price so we can find someone to purchase the property. Chris said HPC needs to let council know if there is value in this historic resource and is it worth the tradeoffs presented and all other options council could incorporate. Jay said as proposed the tradeoffs are not worth it. Maybe there is a middle ground. Jamie said motion needs to refer to ordinance #48. The property has historic relevance and we think it should be saved but not to these means. Council should work with the applicant on an idea that they agree on but not to this extent. MOTION: Brian made the motion to recommend to council that the Given has historic value but not with these means proposed. Council should work with the applicant and continue the negotiations because the building has historic value, motion second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried. 6 -0. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn, second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011 •1 /CC Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 17