Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20010523ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF: MAY 23~ 2001 101 E. I-IALLALM - CONCEPTUAL ......................................................................................................... 4 640 N. THIRD STREET - CONCEPTUAL, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT ........................... 8 LOT SPLIT CODE AMENDMENTS - REFERRAL COMMENTS ..................................................... 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 23, 2001 Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Lisa Markalunas, Rally Dupps. Melanie Roschko was excused. Amy said the city will be reviewing the Ute Cemetery. Suzannah read a letter into the record from Margaret Saunders regarding the conditions that are existing between 213 W. Bleeker (Schelling) and her house 215 W. Bleeker. She is having deterioration of her bank because of the conditions that have not been repaired on the Schelling house. David Hoefer said this is all being disputed between the two parties at the present time. The Building Dept. is working on it and they will make a determination if there is an emergency problem. MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue 735 ~. Bleeker until June 13, 200!; second by Lisa. Motion carried 5-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Susan, Lisa MOTION: Rally moved to continue 629 W. Smuggler until June 27, 2001; second by Gilbert. Motion carried 6-0 Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Susan, Lisa, Rally 515 GILLESPIE Rally and Gilbert recused themselves. Planner, Fred Jarman presented. This is a public hearing to consider conceptual development and historic landmark lot split for 515 W. Gillespie. As a result of the last meeting there have been considerable changes to the proposal. Scott Lindeneau presented Randall Bone. Fred said there is a partial demolition, relocation and 500 square foot FAR bonus request. The applicant has gone to a direct lot line split creating two parcels 4,500 square feet each. In doing this the lot size of the Lot B will drop below the 6,000 square feet. The historic house will be relocated to Lot A and construction of a garage in the rear. All requests for variances have ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt MAY 23~ 2001 been dropped including setback variances and parking variances. There can only put a single family house on Lot B. The changes to the historic house have not changed since the last meeting. There is a dispute as to the western lot line by the owner, Charles Collins. The design proposed assumes the most easterly line is what defines the property assuming that the 329.4 square feet is lost. David Hoefer, city attorney said the applicant is assuming the worse scenario. Fred said Lot A has 4,639 square feet and Lot B 4, 571 square feet. What has changed is that the garage has come away from the Collins property line further east. There are no changes to the north fagade that faces Gillespie. Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in: Scott Lindeneau, Johanas Whiel, Naomie Olfelder, Charles Collins, Jan Collins, Christie Kienast, John Thorp, Mike Luciano Scott Lindeneau presented for Randall Bone. The alternation to the rear of the house are on the non street facing fagade and consist of 120 square foot addition. On the south elevation that doesn't face the street on the upper level we are adding a comer to enhance the livability of that bedroom. We are adding a window to the south for fire egress and light. On the west elevation three other windows are being added. Questions & Clarifications Suzannah said now that the lots are equal do you know the reasoning for moving the historic house to lot A? Scott assumed it was for the views. Scott said the moving of the ditch will enhance both lots. Susan said moving the house, the west bay window of the historic house won't be seen. If the building were left where it is and the new house set back would that work? Scott said the owner intends to sell Lot B. Jeffrey asked if the existing sub-grade foundation would be the same and Scott stated that it would be at the same grade. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY23,,,_ 200! Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Charles Collins said his concern is the 500 square foot bonus on Lot A. The historic house has had 1681 square feet with very little change. When you calculate the historic house has 1093 and the 500 is added but the historic house originally had 1681 square feet so where did 1093 come from. The bonus then flows over to Lot B and is that appropriate or even necessary. By going to Lot B it allows 3,000 square foot house whiCh is a factor two times larger than the historic house and if you read the guidelines the character of the resource needs addressed. The question is whether the bonus can go to Lot B. When you cut the parent lot do both lots become historic and can both lots have access to the 500 square foot bonus. It is not necessary for the bonus to go to Lot B. His other concern was the light well but according to code is allowed. Having smaller lots is appropriate with the Community Plan but that is not the case in the west end. The density should be consistent with the character and when they took the trees out or moved them it effects the character. Fred said there is a discrepancy in the FAR which will be confirmed for the next meeting. Suzannah said we could table or give conceptual to what has been presented. She would not want to give conceptual to a design that would change completely at the next meeting. Scott said we should table until he can talk the issues over with the owner. Johanas Wheil complimented everyone for moving in the direction that is moreo compatible with what the neighbors want. MOTION: Susan moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual of 515 Gillespie until June 13, 2001; second by Jeffrey. All in.favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Suzannah, Susan, Lisa 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF: MAY 23, 2001 101 E. HALLALM - CONCEPTUAL Amy said the owner has scaled back the alternation and one door on the historic portion of the building is being replaced. A non-historic addition is being expanded slightly. The heart of the matter is the shed on the alley. The previous approved allowed it to be demolished and reconstructed as a slightly taller building but the previous approval expired. This board had indicated concerns for demolishing the structure. The applicants have talked to Bill Bailey and feel there is no way to retain the structure or use it in any way for an effective garage. The board had suggested that they have a problem with that and staff has discussed this at length and feels the building has lost its integrity due to the addition of stucco to the outside of the building which cannot be removed without destroying the structure. The structure is in poor condition. Staff feels what is important is the character of the alley and the shadow on the alley and that is what is being proposed. Staff recommends approval and there are variances requested in order to maintain the placement of the shed. The board needs to discuss whether it is a good idea to salvage the materials from the existing building and apply them to the new structure as that implies that it is old and possibly it should be acknowledged that it is a new building and treat it that way. Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Mary Holley, Jim Gorman, Lisa Purdy. Mary said the majority of space is being put below grade even though that is not the desirable space but everyone felt that it was the best thing to do to retain the character of the existing brick house. The wall would be flush with the new addition and there is a change in plane between the brick and new shingles. This is a non-conforming lot and is 35 feet wide which is also the reason why we have the variances requested. The existing building does not conform to the city code and the setbacks are not where they need to be. There is no on-site parking currently. Basically what they have done is taken and connected between the existing house and shed currently sits. They did not want to increase the height of the shed as it would be out of character for an out building in the alleY hnd also the neighbor was against that. The shed 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAy23,~ Z00! is half on Don Crum's property. They have brought the new part out at the same height as the existing flat roof and dropped the connection. Rally asked if the proposal is to take down the entire shed and rebuild this or are you just doing half?. Mary said the idea is to make the best effort to keep Don Crum's half of the shed as it is, take down and rebuild the half that is on Jim Gorman's property. The problem with that is that we have not gotten into the construction of that. If we are able to save half of the shed that is what we want to do. If a problem arises during construction we do not want to be held stringently to the fact that we have to save that half of the shed. It is split right now with a 2x4. The shed was stucco over brick then siding over the stucco. Framing on the roof is needed. The issue is what is the shed sitting on. If it is rubble then the shed will shift and bend. If it is on stone that goes down a couple of feet then there is a chance that we could keep the half of the shed that was better maintained. Lisa said by renovating half you could potentially risk the other half. Mary Holley said yes but Mr. Gorman is experienced in working with brick buildings and feels he can do it. Suzannah asked Amy if she would want to see the reconstruction with the historic materials to include the detailing, if in fact the shed does get reconstructed. Amy replied yes because there is a certain character that we are trying to maintain and the idea of using old materials on top of the new material was a concern. Gilbert asked where the old materials would come from. Mary Holley said they are digging out and possibly could use some of the old brick depending on the condition of it. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. COMMENTS Jeffrey said this is a modest proposal and preservation of the north elevation and west elevation which are the most prominent is commendable. He is undecided about the resolution of the shed. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 23~, 2001 Gilbert said overall the proposal is fine. The issue is do we encourage rebuilding a new structure that straddles the property line. What does the current code require in terms of a fire wall or exterior expression of that fire wall. He is not sure about the shed issue without that information. If you maintain the other half and rebuilt on this property there needs to be a relationship between the old and new and the drawing presented could be approved. Susan felt that the shed should be kept and she is in favor of keeping all sheds in the alleys. Sheds contribute to the "flavor" of our alleys. The preservation plan for the historic house is great. They are part of the old history of Aspen. Lisa said she does not favor demolition of the shed. It is probably the only brick shed in the west end and it adds to the alley scape and the west end. She would not support demolishing half of the shed. Rally said he has issues about the shed and what kind of party wall would be constructed. The other issue is that the garage is attached to the building and there was no garage before. When he looks at the west elevation it seems to be a continuing house. He is not sure about the connecting garage. Suzannah is pleased about the direction taken with this project. The one story addition on the back is well thought out. She shares the concerns of the board about the "gray area" of the shed. She could agree with staff that the shed has been seriously compromised in terms of the integrity. Stucco does make it irretrievable and she could support the reconstruction of the shed. The important thing whether or not the other half of the shed is able to be preserved or needs to be reconstructed is that she would like to see consistency of the detailing that exists there now because that gives it the small scale and a shed character. She could support the demolition of the shed with the hope that the other half could be preserved but if not a reconstruction that would maintain some of the character of the existing structure on the alley. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve Resolution 23, 2001with the following conditions: 1. The salvage brick will not be used on the new garage and documenting existing detailing needs to occur during construction. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 23~ 2001 2. The HPC hereby approves the following variances: a . 5foot west side yard variance for the existing house, a 5foot east side yard variance to buiM in the location of the existing shed, a 3.5foot west sideyard variance for new construction (the linking elemenO, a 5.5foot combined sideyard setback variance, a 9. 4foot combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 5foot rear yard setback variance, and waiver of one parking space. 3. The partial demolition approval also applies to the half of the shed that sits on the 105 E. Hallam Street property will be reviewed by the board when additional evidence that is uncovered during the construction phase is provided. 4. That the applicant shall also present for board approval any exterior expression of the fire rated wall that will be required on the property line. Jim Gorman stated that the adjacent property owner and himself prefer that we keep the shed and stabilize it. Amy said the drawings in the packet show a completely reconstructed shed but Gilbert's motion is saying he is not approving rebuilding Don's half until they come back and tell us that there is no way to save it. Gilbert said yes. Amy said even if they can save it they need to come back because it is not going to look like the picture if they are trying to hang onto it. Gilbert said that is correct. So you are basically approving the demolition of the ½ on the Gorman's property and withholding judgment on the other half until we know more. Gilbert has agreed that 101 part of the shed can be demolished at this point. The 105 half and how the pieces will join etc., the UBC issues need to be submitted. Motion second by Rally. Motion carried 4-2. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Rally No vote: Susan, Lisa 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 23, 2001 640 N. THIRD STREET - CONCEPTUAL, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT Planner, Amy Guthrie stated that the HPC is being asked to approve Landmark Designation, Conceptual, Variances, Partial Demolition, On-Site relocation, and Historic Landmark Lot Split. In terms of the landmark designation the staff recommendation is that the criteria are met and the board needs to make a recommendation to P&Z and City Council. Staff has had reservations about a number of issues: More of the floor area is being placed on the historic house and not on the new lot and staff feels that is the exact opposite of what we want to accomplish with the program. There is some demolition of portions of the honse that are original, although we have acknowledged that they have been altered. There is not enough separation between the new and old construction. There are issues about the proposed landscaping although that can be held until final review. There is the ongoing discussion of adding a new window on the south side of the historic house that in staff's opinion is not appropriate in light of the bonuses and variances that are being requested; however, the board has not taken up the same issues and we have provided a recommendation to allow the project to move forward with a few items that need fully addressed. The first is the issue of the flanking windows on the south side of the house and staff feels totally inappropriate. It has also been suggested that they look into the elimination of the shed dormers on the original front gable in the spirit of trying to really restore the building. Two issues can be dealt with at final: Material palate and the various modern almost industrial kind of materials that have been used in some cases but are too "aggressive" on this project, particularly in light of the fact that the Lake Ave. area which was once considered for an historic district really does have some of the higher style Victorian homes. There are concerns about the angled decks and the high visibility from the street. The heavy corrugated metal covered columns that are being used for the decks and landscape plan are of concern. Materials and landscape plan can be held for final review. Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Janver Derrington, architect and James Daggs, applicant. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 23, 2001 Janver said he wasn't clear on what Amy referred to as non-traditional landscaping. A lot of the trees are existing trees. The proposal is at grade planters that have a brick border. Regarding staff's comment about the physical separation between the historic house and the addition we set back on the south side two feet eight inches and on the north four feet and consistent with the function of the addition of the master bedroom on ground level and the living room on the top level. We think this is appropriate because the top level of the dining room of which kind of links the two story element in the middle of the lot which is the main part of the visual element of the addition is set back by another'ten feet on the south side and another two feet on the north side. So there is six feet and 12 feet prospectively which are pretty significant setbacks. Model was passed around. Regarding materials we went to different materials deliberately to set it apart from the historic residence. The condition of the house in 1955 when Carol Craig bought it was a tar paper roof. We now have a cedar shake roof on it and in keeping with a delicate profile would use a cedar shingle roof. The cedar shingle is more in keeping with the neighborhood. We will have to have ventilated roof system according to the UBC. Having a corrugated metal roof on the addition and the central portion element breaks it up into smaller pieces. This effect reduces the scale. Regarding the configuration of the deck we wanted the lines of the deck to converge on the historic residence to minimize their visual effect from the street. The corrugated steel columns are in part of keeping with the contemporary character of the addition and the are only 12 inches in diameter. We do not know if the shed dormers were there originally or not, they were there in 1955 and that is as much as we can confirm. As far as the inconsistency between the architecture of the historic house and the addition, yes, that was deliberate. We are calling it a "distinct" change in materials to 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 23, 2001 set it apart from the historic residence which is our understanding of all of the historic guidelines. We are conforming in the spirit of the guidelines. The two flanking windows on the south end of the two story historic element is needed to meet the requirements of the building code as far as light and ventilation for living space on the second floor. We would be glad to work with a monitor regarding window choice that is in keeping with the historic windows. James Daggs pointed out that the south elevation is not visible from either 3rd St. or Lake Ave. We have tried to restore at least the part that will be visually seen from Lake Ave. back to what appeared to be the original historic house. Susan asked on the south elevation second floor windows of the historic house what is there now? Janver said there is a single window on the top level and a double below it. Susan said it seems that there is a lot of light coming in from the dining area to make up for not needing the flanked windows. Amy clarified for the board that the building dept. will allow certain variances from the UBC for the historic part of the building. She did not know how they would treat this issue. When it is not for egress they might be more flexible about it. Janver said they feel the windows are in character with the historic house. Rally asked for clarification that the shed will be demolished and part of the wall in the back. Janver said there was an addition that sticks out beyond the historic house and that will be taken off. Lisa asked how much light from the ridge skylight will be emitted during the evening. Is it straight glass? Janver said it will be frosted glass and not visible from either street. Is the skylight flush with the ridge? Janver said it maybe three or four inches above the roof in order to get the flashing under it. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 23, 2001 Gilbert asked about the dormers that are on the historic house and do they open to the space below? Janver replied yes. James said it is a small room and is not open to the lower level. It has a floor at the same level as the second floor. Gilbert asked if the intent is to open them up to the space below? Janver said yes once the stairway is in it will all be opened up. Gilbert asked for a report during construction on the status of the framing. James said he is almost certain that it has been there from day one. Susan asked if the framing is new will you eliminate it? Janver said that would be a directive from HPC. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Rally said there are three major things going on why he cannot support the project. One is the south elevation with the additional flanking windows on either side of the historic window. He stated for a fact that those are not required for light as he is doing an historic project himself. Second is the connector piece that connects from the historic ridge back. That should be lower than the ridge height of the house. On the south elevation it appears to take away the significance of the house and that coincides from what staff said that this is an opportunity to do a restoration to bring the historic hOuse out away from all the other additions that have been added to the house over the years. The third is the garage. It would be preferable to have it pulled away without any breezeway connector. This is a larger lot and has a lot of opportunities. Lisa said in general she could support the project. She would not support the flanking windows on the south elevation. She has some concern of the skylight and illumination on the ridge and the height and how it will be handled. She shares staff's concern over the detailing of the porch columns and landscaping issues. She re-looked the facade on Lake Avenue and the design is probably OK and will not have as much impact as she originally 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 23, 2001 anticipated. She does like the preservation of the Third Street facade in its current configuration. Susan had numerous concerns about the project. She agreed with Rally regarding the linking section being too high. The link should be minimal. This is not an outstanding project with the entire west wall of the historic house being demolished and a two story equal height connector being put in there. That is not doing the historic house any favor. She is not in favor of the ridge skylight and opposed to the flanking windows on the south elevation of the historic house. She would like to see "space" between the garage and house as Rally indicated. She is also concerned about the shed dormers from the front gable. If they are not historic they should be removed. She agreed with staff that the materials are overly modem. The decks angled out seem to add to the bulk of the addition. She would not be in favor of the bonus for the above reasons. Gilbert said this is one of the few sites in town that could accommodate the solution that you are proposing here, the bulk of the addition and the massing. In general the improvements presented tonight are good. Because you are being more adventurous with the forms maybe the palate does need restudied. He agrees with staff that the corrugated columns maybe too much and needs restudied. He is concerned about the materials of the railings and that they need to be as transparent as possible. The fact that they do angle out if they are less than transparent and become opaque and solid that is additional bulk and that does add to the massing that we would not want to see. There is a great inflection in the upper level where you step back to the dining room and that will be read from the street. Gilbert agreed with Lisa's comments about the historic house as how that needs to be an outstanding restoration in order to have the 500 square foot bonus. He believes that due to the flexibility in the amount of square footage we are allowing on this site. Staff has pointed out that we are allowing more square footage where the existing house is than the new lot so there really does need to be as much effort put into restoring the house as possible. He would not agree with the addition of the flanking windows and maybe explore moving the living room back in the new addition where it has more glazing. If during construction the dormers are found to be new construction they should be removed. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 23~ 2001 Jeffrey is in support of the restoration of the house. He is opposed to the flanking windows and agrees with Gilbert that the internal programming should be looked at regarding the living room. The connector piece could be lower from the main historic ridge. The decks in plan are OK but more study should be done on the angulation because it might actually hurt the Lake Avenue elevation. The flanking sides might be too visual. Regarding the columns he would consider them a little too "brutal" next to the historic resource. The lantern component on the historic resource is an add on and whether you leave it is the right of the property owner. He echoes Staff's concern if it is not historic and we are going to call this a preservation and landmarked if there is no evidence of the lantern being historic it should be removed. If the garage could move to the west a little it could work. Suzannah agreed with Gilbert that the two story addition is more acceptable considering the circumstances of this property. An additional effort has to go into the restoration/preservation of the historic house. That would be the flanking windows and restoring the original roof line if in fact the dormers are not original. The preservation is tied intimately with the 500 square foot bonus. She would have a hard time granting the bonus and the larger allotment of FAR without the restoration/preservation. The plan form of the decks is OK but the materials and how they are handled is critical. In general the columns, metal and other materials are aggressive. It would be nice to find something that is contemporary but a little quieter. The historic house does have lovely detailing. She has no concern about the connector. Janver Derrington said the skylight was discussed at the last meeting and it was thought that it would be acceptable. The ridge of the two story element of the historic house is at 25 feet and that is five feet lower than the allowable. If we lower the middle element any lower it will not be a very good livable space. Since it isn't visible from the street he doesn't understand why there is a concern. It definitely will not be higher than the original ridge of the house. The decks are a wire mesh and very open. We select colors that will further diminish its visual impact from the street. If we do not need the windows on the south we would do without them but we would like to have them for better light on that end of the building. The proposed master bedroom is in the same location but the living room in its current space is facing north and we would like the room facing south to get more sun. The breezeway connector is compatible in height to the Altimus 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 23, 2001 house. We would be glad to study the palate. A work session could occur to determine what is acceptable. Gilbert moved to adopt resolution #24 series of 2001 finding that the review standards and design guidelines have been met with the following conditions: 1. The HPC hereby grants a five foot rear yard setback variance and 500 square foot floor area bonus. 2. The HPC hereby grants a waiver from the maximum footprint requirement for ADU bonuses. 3. Eliminate the flanking windows on the upper floor, south facade of the historic house. Eliminate the shed dormers over the front gable unless it is found, during construction, that they are part of the original framing. 4. The scale and materials of the columns needs to be restudied to be more appropriate to the scale of the house. 5. For final review, there will be significant discussion about the material palette. 6. Further information will be required about the character of the landscaping in the areas in front of the old house. The applicant should be clear about whether the proposed planters are raised planter boxes or just flower beds (preferred), and what the detailing of the lightwell at the front of the house will be. Rally second. Motion carried 4-2 Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Suzannah, Lisa No vote: Susan, Rally LOT SPLIT CODE AMENDMENTS - REFERRAL COMMENTS Amy relayed that the McDonalds want to bring forward a code amendment. Right now the historic lot split is allowed in R-6 & R15, west end and Non Problem Joe's neighborhood. In both of those neighborhoods all it really did was say, all right you can already have by right two detached houses and now instead of being condos they can be fee simple lots. It did not increase density it just changed ownership. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 23, 2001 In the office zone district right now you cannot just by right have two detached houses. That is a conditional use and then we would be adding a lot split. There are a couple of questions. First of all if you want to allow or encourage lot splits do you want to suggest that it shouldn't be a conditional use that if someone has a 9,000 square foot lot that they can by right have two detached house just like the west end which is right next to them and they can lot split. Or no, you aren't that comfortable and you think the office zone district is different and the idea of having more than one house should be reviewed and scrutinized. Suzannah said the office zone district is basically Main Street. Starodoj said this is the first half block on either side of Main Street. Amy said it goes from 7th and Main to the Hotel Jerome or so. Amy said the first issue is how you feel about the possibility of increasing density in the office zone district and whether you want to go that direction or would you rather say more than one house needs scrutiny which is what the code currently says. The second issue is that the lot split language says it is for the purpose of creating one single family house which is great in the west end but the office zone district is a commercial zone district, so do we leave that language the way it is and certain properties will be locked in to stay a residence or do we change the language and say now in this area it is different. Suzannah said the minimum lot area is in the office zone district is 6,000. Starodoj said no matter which way you go you come to a conflict that in the office zone at 6,000 square feet and in the residential zone it is 9,000 square feet. This particular property is 9,000 square feet and for the last user it was office space. The present owner is converting it back to a resident. Philosophically you have a down zoning but I do not think that the present owner wants to give up the office zone should someone 20 years from now come in and say its on Main Street and there are a lot of traffic impacts and maybe it ought to be office zone. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 23, 2001 Suzannah said one of the issues talked about in infill is whether there should be any new residential created on Main Street. We need to encourage the type of development that is appropriate for that neighborhood and not just have people doing single family houses because that is the easiest thing to develop through the code and eating up the only space that is zoned for commercial office and then complain that it is too noisy because of the commercial space next door etc. Is this something that needs to be considered on Main Street. Gilbert said a lot split on Main St. would result in probably two lots or at least one that would be non-complying in terms of size just like it is in R-6- and R15 b. Amy said the staffs vision is that this is for 9,000 square feet lots and larger and there are only four properties in the Main Street district that this will even apply too. We were not applying it to 6,000 square feet lots but maybe we should. Suzannah said we need to look at that because generally the sizes on Main Street are larger but there are some smaller ones. Suzannah said she doesn't have a problem with the concept as to whether it is residential or office.' It is the same issues we don't get a monster addition to an historic house. On the lot split the FAR would be applied to the larger house because you couldn't make a house that is nonconforming on the lot split. Amy said staff is struggling with this because we do not want to tie someone down to whether they have a residential or commercial use. We do want to do things that encourage not having the massive additions on historic houses. Starodoj mentioned the Flora Dora bldg. and that got added onto and took all the character away from what was a nice historic house. Suzanah said it would have been great if we could have split those two. Rally said he is totally in support of higher density on 6,000 square foot lots by right. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MAY 23, 2001 MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting.adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 17