Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20030326 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26~ ]00~ MONITORING ISSUE - 920 E. HALLAM ............................................................................................... MEADOWS.TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES - UNIT 3 - MINOR REVIEW - Pl~IBLIC HEARING ........ 2 331 WEST BLEEKER - CONCEPUTAL - PUBLIC HEARING ............................................................ 5 819 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL - ON-SITE RELOCATION - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 17 ASPEN I-IISTOmC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MXRCH~26~ 2003 Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Michael Hoffman, Derek Skalko, Valerie Alexander and Neill Hirst. Teresa Melville was excused. Staff present: Intern, Katie Ertmer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner Sarah Oates, Planner COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Michael informed the HPC that he attended the city COUncil meeting regarding the Holland HOuse de-listing. He was mostly concerned by the lack of any statem~n~ by any councilmen that historic preservation is important, and is an in, ferest that competes with economic viability of our lodges. Michael feels, our historic preservation process doesn't work well for operating lodges that are existing and operating out of historically designated Propertl se.~r_that-arepi'0posed for designation. Our limitations are extreme. ~We are charged with enforcing regulations tMt are very clear- cut. /- Valerie said it was her ~nderstanding that council chose to de-list due to inaccuracies in the documentation and inventory and the 46 vs. 50-year discrepancy. Mic, hael also relayed to the council that he feels some other process needs to be~ established for our historic lodges. Jeffrey said he was disappointed in the outcome of the Holland house and ultimately it will threaten the longevity of the Holland house. The Holland house is a valuable asset to this town and a pioneer in the ski industry, ski on, and ski off. We are also loosing the Sardy hoUse from a bed and breakfast to a time-share. Jeffrey also agreed that we need to look at some of our standards. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2003 Monitoring issue Sarah Oates, planner presented the approved plans and the change order that the was submitted to the Building Dept. for a retaining wall that will run along the east portion of the lot adjacent to 920 W. Hallam. Jeffrey and staff are bringing this to the board to see what kind of imPacts will occur on the historic resource. There Will be a foOter and a 2-½ foot exposed retaining wall. Jeffrey relayed that he is the monitor. There is a grade change and the concrete retaining wall might be too ridged and will impact the vieTM from the front of the house. Valerie asked why the applicant needs the retaining wall and did they submit a grading plan? Sarah said no grading Plan was submitted. Jeffrey said there is a significant drop in grade toward the river and there are drainage issues. Sarah said the applicant also requested raising the grade and staffrelayed that the request would have to go to the full HPC board so the applicant presented the wall as an alternative. Jeffrey said the floor level shOUld remain as low as it can so it does not impact the historic resource. Derek said when you physically look at it directly you will just read the cut line. If the wall was done is a successful finish it would not have a great impact on the historic resource. Valerie suggested the applicant research a trench drain or a more substantial foundation drain that WOuld be less visible. Michael suggested the wall have an unobtrusive coloration. Jeffrey suggested a clad stone on the side to look more natural. MEADOWS.TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES - UNIT 3 ~ i~NOR REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in - William Lukes, architect 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26~ 2003 Katie said the proposal is make changes to windows and a door. They want to remove the kitchen window and replace the south facing door with a half- height door and remove the east-facing door that leads from the outside entry to the laundry room and several windows to the west elevation. Staff found the proposal consistent with changes that have been done on some of the other townhomes and recommends approval. Bill said there are no changes in mass or volume. The main change is on the front side, which faces Meadows Road. The change is to replace an opaque painted door, which is the main entry door with a partial glazed rail and style type painted wood door with sidelights. The carport has a door into the storage and laundry room and they are proposing to remove it and make it an indoor access and replace it with tongue and groove siding. On the south side which is a party wall there is an existing door that goes into the mechanical space and they are proposing to reduce that door to a half size door. On the rear elevation is where most of the changes are occurring. There are 8 units that are part of the historic Bayer Construction and there are three other townhomes that were constructed in the 90's. The original Bayer design had one small window that was placed quite low and down in the comer of the living room wall. There are no other windows in that wall. The new president will live in the proposed unit. The goal is to provide significantly more glazing on this side, which is the primary view over looking Castle Creek. There is an existing window and the proposal is to add a couple similar proportioned windows. On the north side the proposal is to remove a window in the kitchen~ The windows will all be white which is the trim color throughout. All the materials will match the existing. Questions & Clarifications Valerie asked if the new door replacement on the east elevation would be the exact same size, as the door exists today? Bill said the door width is the same but the sidelight would take up ten inches of space, which is now wall. The sidelight will have three panes of glass with a white ipainted frame. Neill asked what year the buildings were built. Bill replied in 1966. Katie said they fall under the category of Herbert Bayer. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2003 Neill asked staff how the changes relate to our guidelines 3.2 and 3.5. Katie said they are using materials that are the same. This is a more modem architecture and changes have been done on other units. Modem architecture has different standards. The proposed changes offer more light. Michael said the signature of the Bayer architecture is the street facing fagade. Bill said the west facades were treated as not a faqade. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. David Brown said he has worked on this project in previous years and what is being proposed is very sympathetic to the Herbert Bayer composition. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Derek relayed that the proposal is sympathetic to what is going on with the Herbert Bayer architecture. Some of the changes with make the units better and more usable. Michael relayed that guideline 3.2 saYs when enclosing an historic window the opening in a key character defining faqade is inappropriate as is a new window opening. Michael agreed that the key fa¢ade is toward the street and he would consider this a rear wall. Valerie agreed that most of the revisions to the architecture are occurring on the rear wall and the architect did a good job in accommodating those changes. The only issue not compliant with is in guideline 3.2, which states that the original opening should not be increased to receive a larger window or door on a primary fafade. The door on the primary fa!jade is being enlarged. At the site visit those doors are tucked way back under the carport, so although the applicant may not be compliant it can still be seen as a minor change. Valerie said she is not sure how this should be handled. Jeffrey said there are additional openings that the architect is applying for on the primary facade. It is underneath the carport. Valerie said these are modest changes and tucked behind the carport. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2003 Jeffrey said the design and original character of that wall is a very flat- shingled surface. The only reason he agrees with the rewisions is because they are not perceived from the campus or street. The east elevation is the faqade that the general public sees and it should be protected. The homeowners architectural committee approved the changes. The language or fcnes~ation should remain consistent with other revisions in the future. MOTION: Valerie moved to approve Resolution #6, 2003 approving an application for minor development for 31 Meadows Trustee, Unit 3 of the Ttrustee townhomes at the Aspen Meadows; second by Derek. Motion carried 4-1. Valerie, yes; Derek, yes; Michael, yes; Neill, no; Jeffrey, yes. Neill informed the board that this has been a disheartening and disappointing presentation by staff and discussion by this commission. Philosophically it is very disturbing. 331 WEST BLEEKER ' CONCEPUTAL - PUBLIC HEARING Affidavit of posting entered as Exhibit I. Letter regarding covenants entered as Exhibit II. Sworn in: Christopher Berry, Mitch Haas, David Brown. Katie said the site was approved for an Historic Landmark Lot Split in Nov. 2002. The applicant involves the construction of a new single family home on the new lot. The neighboring property has an historic Queen Ann style house on it. The maximum allowable Square footage is $1,800 and that is what the applicant is proposing. Staff finds that the project is compatible in height and scale and is setback slightly from the historic resource. There are several concern about the walkway and material palate. The width of the proposed walkway is 6 ½ feet wide, which is significantly wider than an historic walkway. The prominence of the proposed brick material and wood siding on historic structure seems too dominant. Staff recommends approval for conceptual. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ~RCH 26, 2003 Mitch Haas said this is a vacant lot. The walkway can be narrowed down. The building next door is a Queen Ann style. Miter feels the material palate will not detract or compete with the Queen Ann building given the degree of preservation that is taking place on the historic structure. Anyone who looks at the historic building will know it is historic on its own right. David Brown, architect said this is going to be perceived as subordinate to the Queen Ann next door. The faqade of this house is sel: back th_tee or four feet from the faCade of the Queen Ann. There is an 18-inch sandstone wainscoting base around the house. The landscape architect has not been brought in yet so revisions can be made to the walkway. Jeffrey asked the applicant for a street elevation. David Brown said he had none and didn't think about it due to the dominance of the trees. Valerie said the board is used to seeing a full street elevation. David said they are trying not to mimic or copy any of the banding and materials on the Queen Ann. Derek said at Final if we have a drawing of the Queen Aun and an explanation of the relationship it would be helpful. Neill said he agreed with Derek as it is hard to visualize what is going on. Derek asked what was the height of the metal batten cap ,on the chimney? David said it is two feet above the ridge and the ridge sits; around 128 feet. Katie said the height of the chimney was brought up at the staff meeting and it meets the zoning requirements. Valerie asked what the height of the existing Queen Ann is and what was the height of the proposed new structure. David said they do not have survey information about the Queen Ann. David said the height of the new building is 23 feet to the third point of the roof. The ridge goes to about 30 feet. Valerie asked if it is taller or shorter than the existing structure? David said without survey information he cannot answer correctly. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2003 Jeffrey asked the applicant if there is a ridge height cap in that zone? David said he doesn't think it's capped. Mitch said the height is 25 feet to the middle point andwe are at 23 feet. David said it is 19 to top of the plate and we are looking at 30 or 31 feet to the ridge. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing. Valerie said she is disappointed because she is not able to compare the new structure with the existing Queen Ann. It is critical when we are trying to discuss mass and scale. She was on the site and a lot of conceptual things are working. She has no concern with the material palate at this time. Generally it is similar in shape and size and massing. It is setback seven feet from the face of the Queen Ann, which is great. Michael said he feels he has the same disadvantage as other members mentioned. A streetscape is necessary tS see how this proPosal works with the historic structure. He stated he is prepared to make a motion to continue the hearing to allow the applicant time to provide the additional information. Jeffrey requested that the remainder of the board members make their comments before a motion is made. Neill said he finds it difficult when we are supposed to see relationships and make judgments on relationships to historic structures when the historic structure is absent. It should be a requirement before the applicants are even allowed to come before the commission. Neill said he would vote against the project for lack of information. Derek said he did go to the site and actually made a little mockup. He feels the massing is good and the height OK but the problem is we need some kind of study showing the relationship of the historic structure with the new proposed structure. Jeffrey said typically when we look at a lot split we review front elevations. Also a survey to show the relationship to the Queen Ann. Jeffrey said he has some concern with the two story wall massing. The stone band and some accents are helping to pull the sale down from the 19-foot plate height. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2003 The Queen Ann has a defining porch element that comes down as an inflection to bring the scale down to a human scale. He also echoed some of staff's concerns regarding the material palate. The architecture is Ok and is starting to work. The north and south elevation are pretty straightforward but when you get to the side elevation there is a lot ofthlngs happening. Chapter 11 deals with new buildings on landmark properties. Chris Berry asked for clarification of the elevation fi.om the Queen Ann side which would be the west side of the house. What are the concerns with that elevation? Jeffrey said the Queen Ann has that sloping porch element. Another concern is the two-story wall of brick with the sandstone. The plate height is a little too high. Restudy the ridge height. The interpretation and new architecture will make this a good project. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the conceptual development and public hearing on 331 W. Bleeker to .4pril 9th. ~4dequate information should be submitted for the board to compare the new construct,!on with the historic structure; second by Derek. ,4[[ in favor, motion carried 5-0. Neill said he would like to know the ridge and plate heights of the historic house. 819 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL L ON-SITE ~LOCATION 2 VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in: Rally Dupps, Miter Haas Katie informed the board that the 500 square foot bonus l~las been withdrawn. The FAR proposed for the project is 9,000 sq~uare feet and that needs confirmed. They are also asking for Residential Design Standard variances but the public notice is for April 9th SO a decision cannot be made tonight. This may be more of a worksession but the community development director recommended to proceed with the hearing. Miter said we are here for conceptual. Whether we have 9,000 square feet or not is irrelevant. The proposal requires two residential design standard variances. They are noticed for the 9th and can be heard separately. The 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2003 standards do not have to be heard by HPC they can be heard by separately by P&Z or DRAC. Katie relayed that staff reviewed the application and the applicants did not meet two of the residential design standards and they did not request variances from those standards. The standards not in compliance are inflection and front entry. A public hearing is scheduled for April 9th. Mitch said this is not a worksession, it is the first part of the public hearing. Chris Bendon recommended that HPC cover the points that are in their jurisdiction. Kathy suggested that the HPC hear the public comments since this was a noticed public hearing. Katie said HPC has to approve the residential design standards. Miter said he disagreed. Michael suggested we hear the applicant but no part of the hearing will be complete until after April 9th when the entire application has been noticed properly. Jeffrey said conceptual is pretty major in this project and the board desires not to piece meal projects. Neill said where in our discussion do we cross the boundary unwillingly into the other area. Mitch said we simply do not discuss the Residential Design Standards. Rally said this is a very complicated project, the tree etc. amd he would appreciate what the HPC has to say. Chris said if you are going to take public comments then you need to open the public hearing and continue it until April 9th. Jeffrey reminded the applicant that our design standards are very much congruent with the residential design standards. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ~RCH 2'6~ 2003 Katie said the historic structure is to be relocated to the east and construct a multi-family to the west and south of the historic building. The applicant is proposing to restore the historic house to its Sanb°m footprint and its original conditiOn. They are proposing demolition to a non-historic portion of the building. The applicant is also requesting to demolish the shed at the rear of the property. They were also given direction by the Parks Dept. to retain the historic cottonwood tree. Staff has minimal concerns about the reStoration of the historic house which are typically addressed at final or after some exploratory work is done regarding the materials, siding, porch columns, roof materials etc. The structure was log then expanded into a miner's cottage. Guidelines: Guideline 11.3 talks about larger masses being separated by smaller modules, staff feels the mass needs to be broken up more to be more sympathetic to the historic resource. Guideline 11.4 & 9 talk about the scale of the front elevations and the building components. Staff finds that the front elevation :is out of scale with the one story historic structure. Staff finds that the four unit building is a separate building even those it is part of the complex. The guideline clearly talks about defining Primary entrances to new buildings. There is not a clearly defined entry at the front of the new proposed structure. There is also concern with the front porch element. Historic porches are typically not two story elements. Staff feels moving the structure to the east doesn't meet the standard regarding diminishing historic architectural or aesthetic relationship of adjacent designated properties. The building to the west of this site is listed on the inventory. The proposal is to put a two story large building between the two historic structures, which diminishes that relationship between the two historic homes. Staff finds t]hat the partial demolition to the rear of the existing house to be appropriate because that is not an historic piece to the house and not on the Sanborn map. There is concern about the demolition of the shed. Staff recommends continuation of the meeting. Mitch said there are several goals in the project: One the client, the cotton wood tree that sits in the center of the property and the historic building. The main concerns from staff are at the front of the prope~y and they deal with massing, where the front door is and the size of the porch and whether 10 ASPEN HISTORIC,PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2003 it is as true historic type porch. Flipping the site plan might address all of the needs. It also addresses the massing concerns. To do that the tree doesn't work. We also talked about taking the other historic building and incorporating it into this project as the .owner is in the process of purchasing that building as well. That might make it more palatable ilo the HPC. We could then put in a more sensitive addition that this commission might accept and we would restore the historic front portion of the building. Mitch also stated they are providing three deed restricted units on this property. The property is zoned residential multi-family, which allows a one to one FAR. They have 9,000 square feet to work with while preserving an historic house and tree. They have five units and according to the code they could have more. What the does the commission think about flipping the project. Rally does not want to remove the tree but they are forced to if the only answer is flip flopping the plan because they are convinced that there is no other answer to address all the massing etc. Rally said they incorporated recommendations from the last worksesson. They broke up the massing by eliminating some flat roofs and articulating the different buildingseven further with pitched roofs. Rally handed out a plan that flip-flops everything and also shows the streetscape elevation. Rally said when he site visited the shed on a previous application the evidence was inconclusive as to its age. The Sanborn map shows the shed in a different footprint and a different location. ObvioUsly Something happened after 1904. Questions & Clarifications: Neill inquired about the structure on stilts. Rally explained that it is the master bedroom for Unit 1. Michael said at one of the worksession the Community Development Director suggested that perhaps the neighborhood has changed to the extent that it doesn't make sense to retain the historic structure on-site and that it may make more sense to move it somewhere else. Rally said he has had a long history with HPC and he is a preservationist. He is here to preserve the buildings where they are. Moving them off-site does not accomplish a community goal. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2003 Valerie asked if there was an opportunity to modify the print in the flipped version to accommodate the tree and still meet your FAR needs. Rally said he studied that but in understanding the affordable housing component and the clients needs and space required for the cottonwood lhe could not find a solution to preserve the tree. Rally said all most all of the parking requirements would be handled on-site off the street. There is only one that is not met. Jeffrey asked Rally as a preservationist if he really feels the shed is not an integral part of the site. Rally said he feels it is nOt. There is very little that he finds historic about the shed. The shed is not visible from the street it is not really something that you can enjoy that is clearly historic. Neill asked Mitch and Rally why they didn't ask council to cut the tree down? Mitch said we considered it but we think there maybe another path to preserve it and do everything, The plan is to restore the house and bring it back to its glory. Aaron Reed, City forester relayed that the tree is significant in the code because of its age and location and position in the neighborhood. There are not a lot of cottonwoods in this area. Staff feels that there is enough room on the property for both the tree to co-exist plus a reasonable structure. The code clearly spells out that we cannot take away the economic enjoyment of the property. It is a large property and we would like to preserve it as possible. The health of the tree is excellent. This is not an overly mature cottonwood. It is still actively growing and producing new leaves. Aaron estimated the tree to be about 65 to 70 years old. Valerie asked the level of severity of root pruning can the tree take and how manly sides. Do you have to do a 180 degree of roof pruning and how far into the canopy can you get? Aaron said as you begin to :remove viable portions of the root system you will see some comparable reduction in the canopy and the health of the tree overall. Preferably you would never take away more than 20% of a tree's root system at one time in order to allow it to continue to grow. There are some instances in which you can take more if you provide a long extensive maintenance program and provide a viable growing area for the roots to move into. We have worked with this group to come up with a plan. We feel it is important to come to some compromise 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2003 for the viability of the tree and the project. The proposed plan is beyond the 20%. We maybe flexible to pruning the lodge pole pines but that would have to be reviewed. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Paula Brodin stated that she represents 10 people in the audience that have lived in this are for over 25 years and they are against the density of the project. The also object to the removal of the tree. The project dwarfs the little house. There is no open space left. We thought the area was zoned for four units. Jerry Goldman said when the property came up for sale 5 years ago he got a sheet to see how it was zoned and at that time it was zoned for a maximum of three multi-family buildings, either one single or two tmmes. Has the zoning changed on that. Chris Bendon said the zoning has not changed. The allowable density depends on the level of affordable housing built on the project. The preliminary drawings look like Willits Lane and it is not an attractive project to have to look out onto. It is more dense than so:me of the places in the neighborhood. George Woods said he has lived here since 1984~ His overall reaction to the project is that it looks likes an attempt to crowd every bit of housing into an area to the detriment of the neighbors and neighborhoOd. He highly agrees that some development should occur to restore the property. George asked the applicant what the legal occupancy would be on the proposed structures. How many people could be legally housed in this project. Mitch said the whole Property has ten bedrooms and you could assume two people per bedroom. Chris said there is no limit on occupancy other than fire code compliances. George Woods also asked how many permits would they receive to park on the street? Katie said they are only asking for one street parking on the 13 ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMiSSioN MINUTES OF MARC~H 26~ 2003 street. The other six required spaces are housed in the garage at the rear of the property. Mitch said the city would be obliged to issue one street-parking permit for residence. George said they normally issue one more per unit guest. Mitch said there could be 6 on'site spaces and possibly 10 street parking permits. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Comments: Derek said he is concerned about the public comments. He is not in favor of flipping the units and in doing so we run the risk of loosing the tree. By doing this you will compromise the little house. He is also concerned about the pruning process of the trees and its visual effect. Neill relayed that the project is over whelming for the historic slzucture and takes on a character of a crowded apartment complex. Density vs. the breathing space of the historic structure is a primary concern and so is the massing of the buildings. In Particular, the master bedroom architecture and position of the porch and balcony and everything about it is detrimental to the historic resource. Michael said the property and an historic house and an historic tree both valued by the community. The result is a huge problem for the developer and architect. The solution does not meet our guidelines. Guideline 11.3 having to do with mass and scale has not been met. He totally agreed with staffthat the current plan does not do that. 11.4 states that a front elevation should be designed similar in scale as to the historic building. In the worksession we talked extensively about the master bedroom on stilts. The result is having the density crammed into half the lot and it doesn't work. We are charged with enforcing and interpreting our regulations. Michael found it perplexing that the community development direc~tor suggested moving an historic building off site. He also said he feels City Council would endorse that idea. Valerie said she sympathizes with the situation in tackling all the different problems and goals. She feels the density is acceptable but the guidelines need to be met. The way the density has been arranged on the site and its 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION cOMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 26~ 2003 relationship between mass and scale with the historic structure, particularly the master bedroom does not seem to be subordinate to the historic structure. The master bedroom porch is awkward and void. It does not fulfill the guidelines especially the relationship of porch and front door and the orientation to the street. With the re-working of the relationship of the new multifamily structure to the historic structure that c~m happen with tapering down of buildings. The building on the east side is OK. Derek said he is well aware of what the guidelines say and this is a multi- familY area. It is a one to one ratio on that site. Another ipoint, being and advocate ofinfill it is providing 3 affordable house units. Sometimes when we review our guidelines we loose the bigger picture. Neill said the HPC has no power to approve the density and zoning and the number of people, it is done through the Planning & Zoning commission and city council. Sometimes people loose why this commissiOn exists when they continually naught away at our guidelines. We need to respect some things that are old and beautiful. Jeffrey said echoes many of the commissioners comments. This is a very difficult site as applicants. There are three major components; house, the out even in its new configuration and the trees. Plus you have a zone that is multi-family that allows a lot of FAR. The.re are only so many ways that you can mass and change the form ora structure. On the flip-flop scheme it is the closest because it places the new historic structures in scale new to one another. He would like to see that with an alteration of the footprint to make the tree survive as well and potentially the historic out building. The neighbors have very valid points. Mass, scale and inflection is very much part of our review standards. Jeffrey also said he appreciates the amount of work the applicant has done to re-vitalize the historic resource. It is an asset to the community. On the flip-flop it puts volume When volume needs to be. Preservation of the tree would make this a fantastic project. Mitch said density drives itself. You have so many bedrooms offi'ee market and once you provide that number of bedrooms that can only be 40% of the total mount of bedrooms on the property so you have to come up with 60% of your total development in affordable housing so you end up with more bedrooms in affordable housing. We only have four bedroom of free market 15 ASPEN HISTOmC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MA~R~ii~ ~6~ ~]~03 in two units so it requires us to provide all these bedrooms in affordable housing, which in turn requires more density. The code :further said it 50% of your units are deed restricted you have to have so marty more units. We are not at the maximum density. Valerie said she is in favor of the flip-flop plan with modifications. Neill said Rally is capable of doing the flip-flop but it might not meet his client's demands. Michael said if it were feasible he would look at the design. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing, and conceptual development on 819 E. Hopkins until April 9, 2003; second by Neill. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Neill. Ali in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 16