Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940420Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 PRESERVATION HONOR AWARDS ........ 220 W. MAIN STREET - EUROPEAN FLOWER MARKET - FINAL WORKSHOP - NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTIES .... 303 E. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING 204 S. MILL - COLLINS BLOCK MINOR DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON MAIN STREET ........ 1 2 3 4 9 11 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 20, 1994 Meeting was called to order by chairman Joe Krabacher with Donnelley Erdman, Les Holst, Linda Smisek, Tom Williams, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer and Martha Madsen present. Excused were Karen Day and Scott Samborski. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS Amy: The Habitat gallery in the Wheeler wants to put out a light fixture outside the building and I came up with two possibilities. Either recessing a can in the flat roof area in the soffit above the door or having the can exposed and painted out. The wood trim looks historic and if they recess the light a large hole will be cut. There is also an air conditioner beside it. Donnelley: Surface mounting underneath would be better than recessing it. Ail that is required is a little hole. Amy: During Preservation week we usually have a forum and does anyone have an ideas. Les: The trust has $1,200. It is very seldom that you get numerous people together in one room. What keeps people together is the awards and their friends and family. We could spend part of the money on advertising. Amy: I have $1,000 from the Stromberg's tax credit application. The topic I was working on is not coming together. I also feel Nore Winter is over loaded and probably cannot come. Roger: What about the State Historical Society who did the slide show on infill. Amy: I need a narrative description of neighborhoods for the West End and East Aspen townsite. I will get historical photos from the Historical Society. PRESERVATION HONOR AWARDS Amy: We have ten nominations and need to narrow that down a little more. For anyone who wasn't here at the last meeting we have 134 W. Bleeker; 610 W. Main if it gets almost finished. 127 E. Hallam, a sepsrate carriage house structure. Harris Concert Hall for a new structure to Aspen. 716 W. Francis is an addition to a victorian. SAt. Mary's addition and the Cantina Trellis. 234 W. Francis carriage house that was turned into an employee unit. The Elizabeth Paepke award for an individual who has given a contribution to historic preservation, those are Bill Poss and Larry Frederick. Also we have the Welton Anderson award for an architects contribution to the new Aspen. Amy: If we have a smaller number of awards it may make it seem that they are harder to come by. I would suggest we take off the concert hall and the trellis. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 Roger: I would take off 610 W. Main because it is not finished. Donnelley: They really need to be finished before they get an award. Amy: It is a good statement with the addition. Joe: It would be nice if it was done and we can always give it an award next year. Les: We can drop the trellis. Joe: We can drop the concert hall also. Amy: 134 E. Bleeker - restoration, renovation, residential 610 W. Main - restoration, renovation, residential 127 E. Hallam cottage infill 716 W. Francis - restoration and addition St. Mary's public addition 234 W. Francis - carriage house renovation Elizabeth Paepcke - Larry Frederick - Bill Poss MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that HPC approve the nominations as discussed; second by R~ger. All in favor, motion carries. Amy: If 610 is 5 months from being finished I will delete it. 220 W. MAIN STREET - EUROPEAN FLOWER MARKET - FINAL Amy: HPC gave the project conceptual approval on January 26th with the condition that the applicant study the use of wood instead of masonry on the south facade and three options have been presented to you at this time. One is with chanel lap horizontal siding; one is masonry and one is vertical clapboard siding. I have recommended that HPC approve either or the wooden options. Wood is more in keeping with the character of Main Street. Glenn Rappaport, architect: At the last meeting we didn't get a clear consensus about stone or wood. I can think of options both ways. The project is basically about the front facade. The materials on the building presently are marginal. There are some walls that are corrugated fiberglass with no insulation and the roof in the middle section is fiberglass also. We are required to keep 75% of the outside wall area so that we do not have to go through Growth Management. We are working with Bill Drueding to determine how we are going to deal with that. It is an issue whether we go with wood or stone. The stone is nice but it will not be a stone building, it will go back to a certain point and then it will turn into wood siding. We don't have the option to do the building in stone so it might look funny with just Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 the front in stone. The owner is also concerned about the masonry front. The wood facade would work better for us and it would be less expensive. Donnelley: Which of the two wood solutions do you prefer? Glenn: Representing the owner I would say the horizontal one. straight forward. It is Tom: What is behind the facade? Glenn: The building is divided into thirds. The front third is the flower market. The only portion that is two story is the back area. It is a cinderblock building with a garage under it and two bedroom apartment upstairs. We are deed restricting the apartment upstairs. The middle section will get redone. The front section has a basement and that will have to be reinforced but we will keep the same footprint. Tom: Are the second story windows functional? Glenn: There is a stairway to the second floor by the small window and the green house is located where the two large windows are. The offices will be upstairs. Tom: Was this basic facade approved? Amy: Yes, the only issue here is materials. Donnelley: I agree with Glenn to use the than the vertical. It is less complicated. horizontal siding rather Roger: Glenn: wood. Are you using stone or dryvit at the base for less maintenance. If the base becomes exposed we will use something under the MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC approve the final development plan for 220 W. Main Street as presented with elevation C being the approved elevation and that we find that the development review standards have been met; second by Roger. Question called: Passes 7 - 1, Tom opposed. Tom: I feel this project is out of the character with Main Street and that is why I voted against it. Donnelley will be the monitor. WORKSHOP - NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTIES Amy: We need to discuss how national registered properties are to be Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 199% handled. Should we be holding them to higher standards while an applicant feels listing on the national register is mainly an honorary thing and maybe it wasn't fair to them. This has been advertized in the paper. The national register was created in 1966 and it is a national list of properties, sites, objects which have importance to the community, state or entire country. There are about 25,000 sites or objects on the national register. It is an honorary thing saying this is an important building. The only time there are implications is if CDOT wanted to six lane Main Street they would have to do an environmental impact statement on any national registered properties that would be effected by their project. I looked at some of the regulations that we have and Aspen is a certified local government which is a status the state gives us and allows to have certain grant funding. One of our responsibilities as a certified local government is that our standards, criteria and procedures be consistent with the Sec. of Interior Standards for rehabilitation. The Sec. of Interior Standards talk about uhings like not removing existing features and making things reversible. They are tough standards. We need feedback from everyone. What is important besides being on the register is that all of the buildings are in the highest of rating of significance and I think it is not out of line for us to be really treating them with a wary eye and also we should realize that if we were to approve a project that changes the character for the national register it could be delisted and it is not appropriate for us to be approving that kind of activity on a structure. Worksession discussion followed. No Minutes required. 303 E. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING Jake stepped down. Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. Roger Kuhn: This is what I call home and if you grow up here it is hard to live anywhere else. What I noticed very quickly is the housing problems and it is really difficult. If I were to go and get a job all my money would go to rent. Luckily I have understanding parents and they let me stay home free. I have a finance and marketing degree and my goal is to open up my own business and that is the only way to get ahead in this town. I talked to Leslie in Planning and I was going to go through this process by myself but I figured it out that I didn't know what the HPC wanted. I was told that you need parking, employee housing etc. That is why I went to Jake. Niklaus Kuhn, owner: This lot is a lot and a half. Roger Kuhn: The original house is 1250 square feet. Roger: Is the proposal to move the existing house forward? Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 Jake: Maybe I should summarize. Joe: You stepped down but since we are having trouble summarizing what is going on I have no problem. Jake: The existing house built in 1887 has 1321 FAR feet and the shed on the rear is 198 sq. ft. for a total of 1519 sq. ft. The proposed new construction above grade is 2817 sq. ft and the total FAR as proposed is 4879 sq. ft. The allowable FAR at .75 is 6750 sq. ft. The point that I am trying to make is that this thing is 2/3rds of the allowable of the FAR. Donnelley: We do not have a site plan showing where the outbuilding is. What is being moved? Jake: On the basement plan currently the little structure is encroaching and will be moved to the south west corner off the alley. The house will be moved four feet forward and two feet sideways. It gets pined to the west property line. Donnelley: It is clear to see that the new workings are on the east side. Jake: It is 1.5 so the total would be 6750 sq. that can go up to two to one by special review. sq. ft. ft. allowable FAR and The proposed is 4879 Roger Kuhn: Donnelley: divisible. The lot next to it is narrow. I consider the entire area as one lot as it is not MOTION: Roger: This is not a complete application and I move to table in order to have all aspects of the proposal clarified. This is not a complete application and was submitted to Staff late on Friday afternoon. It is unfair for us and unfair to the applicant. We are putting Jake in a position that is not fair; second by Les. DISCUSSION Les: Do we have enough information to give them direction. Donnelley: I will vote to table if we can discuss this minutes. for five Roger: I would agree that they need direction on mass and scale. Amy: Due to the agendas being so long we need to start discussing this. We have a three and 1/2 hour meeting April 7th and one meeting in May. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 Joe: We can throw out our comments. Donnelley: I understand the project and feel the articulation between the building is a good idea but I question the railing with a combination of horizontal wires and diagonal cross bracing. It gets very busy and gets competitive. I am not worried about the balance of the building and it is a good solution to keep the scale down on the street. All I am concerned about are two things whether you have looked into breaking away from minor victorian vernacular in terms of roof form for the long shed like addition, whether something else or another approach might further differentiate the old and new might be looked at. Just the treatment of the railing in front is busy. Programmatically it is a good solution to put the density back where we do not get the impact. It solves the owners requirements for spacial situations and keeps the employee housing back in the rear. It is also a nice way to keep the existing historic house separate as possible and it is a good way to start. I just had a question about the roof form and business in general. There is a plethora of these same kind of roofs which are 12 and 12 or approximately 14 and 12 in the whole area. That should not dictate us sticking with that same roof form necessarily. Joe: I like the program of moving it back but I am concerned about the connection between the new and existing and how it takes place. As a problem in the zone district with height limitations to three stories I guess if it is done right I am not necessarily opposed to that. It makes a grain tower effect at the back of the property. I agree with Donnelley that the long portion needs to restudied and with that rail on top of the one story flat roof it ends up to be a story and a half. That needs to be softened up. Tom: I think Jake has done an excellent job in achieving an overall composition in relationship to the house and to the garage as treating this as a whole rather than an historic building with an addition. I have no problem with the railing as once it is up it will not have that much of an impact. This treats the project as a whole which is important. Another thing that is good is that it alludes to the existing structure and ties in everywhere. I would also suggest that the long wall be a common wall with the adjacent building rather than have the additional complication between there. On 610 Main Street I feel it was inappropriate to have that gable dropped, again it wasn't treated as a whole. Roger: The width between the two buildings is 2 1/2 feet and how will maintenance occur. Donnelley: It is 2 1/2 feet by 5 feet and you will be able to get between there and work. Roger: As you are looking at the new building and you have the new space to the east what is the space between the porch and the historical structure. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 Jake: That is three feet also. Roger: You could still leave that space and connect the new addition to the historic structure as one wall rather than have the strange roof configuration. Jake: In terms of connection to the house all you have is a vertical wall and I was trying not to interfere with that wall as least possible. There is a drainage problem and we will create snow melting areas. The option would be to build a parallel wall and drywall it. Roger: I would concur that the overall mass and scale is good. Jake: Can the Board gi~Te us direction to keep us moving. Joe: I haven't heard any negative comments. Amy: Are there parking spaces on the site? Jake: The owners decided to keep the garage there is only one parking space. as a storage'area so Amy: The garage or storage area is what makes the tower have a third story and while we have a parking problem in town and HPC shouldn't just waive parking spaces away could that storage space be below grade? Jake: They are going to use it for a garage but we would like to ask that those two spaces be waived so that they have the ability to use it for storage. Niklaus Kuhn, owner: We want this to fit in with the existing victorian. Out of security reasons we get hit in the alley three times a month so we were finally forced to put in steel posts. I do not think it will even help if we set the building in three feet because the large trucks have to park because of the two restaurants in the area and there is a lot of traffic. What we would like to do is use brick on the new addition for security and also to show the difference between the victorian and new building. Joe: I feel wood works better but I wouldn't rule out brick. It is a three story building and maybe something could be done on the first floor that addresses your needs. Jake: The roof on the model is a hip roof and the roof shown is a cross gable. Does the committee have any thoughts on that. They are virtually the same height. Donnelley: A cross gable is more of a silhouette against the sky. For pedestrian the solution you came up with is better for the massing. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 Amy: I am concerned about the light wells right in front of the house and the stair case. Roger: We do not have a site plan or a landscaping plan. Jake: On the basement plan you will see the light wells and the stairs going down. One of the things the city has done with these projects is give the basement area free of charge so owners can use as much basement space as they can. It puts the development below grade but as part of that we need to lighten up the basement and that is what the light wells are here for. Joe: There is a new foundation going under the entire property so the house will be lifted up and moved. Jake: The house is moving forward and sideways and has an existing stone foundation. Niklaus Kuhn: The foundation is rocks on top of rocks and the only foundation is where they used to make the root beer. They closed that up during the hippie years. Roger: Why does the house have to be moved? Jake: To maximumize the space to allow the store to go between the historic building. Roger: Is making space for a store a good enough reason to move the historic building? Jake: There would be no change to the house itself, not even on the inside. Putting the leasable space is the basement is preferable. Roger: You will jack the house and move it and you will need to have a bond posted in case something goes wrong. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to table the conceptual development of 303 E. Main to a date certain, May 18, 1994 and continue the public hearing until that date also; second by Les. All in favor of motion and amended motion carries. Amy: We need clarification for Jake because I do not know what you are wanting him to bring back and this is a large proposal. Donnelley: The site plan is always required and in addition there has been some discussion that at least a portion of the building be rendered in brick. If so we need to see the architectural manifestation of that. Niklaus Kuhn: To clarify for Roger why we decided to move the house, we felt that when you look over to the gas station or if you come from Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 the Main Street Bakery if you move the house a little forward it is going to be more dominant, the entire building. It will be renovated and enhance the building as you will see it on the corner first when looking down the street. Joe: I do not feel there is a great objection to moving the house. Jake: What I have on my list is a) lightening the rail, b) considering an alternate roof and maybe more detail on the light wells. Those are things we can handle at final. Linda: This is a large project and we need time to digest it. Roger: Rock on the alley side would solve the issue of the vehicles. Jake: The general approach and height and mass are all shown in the drawings. Donnelley: We have been known to give conceptual and final both at the same time. Jake: We would rather get the conceptual. Les: The detailing will be the most critical part. I dislike the crossings on the railing. Your reason for moving the house forward is not historic enough. When it is historic you usually don't change anything. Roger: I would like you to look at not moving the original footprint but if it doesn't work because of the square footage and requirements for living that is fine but I would like you to just look at it to see if it doesn't have to be moved. You need to defend moving it or not. 204 S. MILL - COLLINS BLOCK MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: On the Collins Block what is being proposed is adding a new window on the front corner which is the same size as the existing double bungs and there is also a window on the east elevation that they want to change into a door. The window in front can been seen but when the building beside it goes in it will not be visible. Peter Kuntz, designer and preservationist from Columbia University. Joe: Why do you think it is more historically compatible to add an opening to this landmark property? Peter: It is mainly for internal use and the way the room works inside. Joe: I was on the committee when we approved this building and it Historic Preservation Conunittee Minutes of April 20, 1994 was very difficult and there was an original proposal to put a window there and the HPC turned it down. I am not so quick to approve this. This is a new opening. Peter: There is a cornice that drops about a foot down from the roof top. We want the window changed into a door to do a little veranda outside that elevation. Joe: Is the veranda shown on the drawing? Peter: No. Donnelley: Technically you can't do that because handrails etc. are involved. Joe: I would have to see what it is that you are going out onto. There was also discussion about using these windows into a door and it was denied. I also wanted to know how the vent for the stove got added on the one side of the roof? We had agreed that there wouldn't be one there. Amy: I looked back through the files and at the time it was being reviewed as an investment tax credit application through the park service it was turned down for those credits because the east wall was taken down and rebuilt. I have had concerns about the project also and felt at east when the Park Service turned it down. As far as changing it you would have to have a hand rail and that is quite visible. Peter: Since it would be so visible lets delete it from the application. It is not that critical that we have the door. Joe: We made the applicant rebuilt the entire east wall and why did we require that if you are allowing him to change it. Roger: Before the east wall was rebuilt was there a window there. Amy: This wall has been changed a number of times including window openings. It has always been a secondary wall. Donnelley: Where there are two windows now and a third one proposed on the west elevation that portion never had a window where you are questioning because there was another building built next to it. That is why there is an off set in the wall. The buildings were built on zero lot lines. Joe: My opinion would change in allowing the third window to go in if the first two windows were not originals. Les: I am sure we allowed the first two windows and they were new. Regarding the open space I still feel it should have been covered in the alley. 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 Roger: I agree. Amy: That application is coming to us and we should discuss it at that meeting not this one. Les: Why is the arch different over the new window? Amy: They are proposing the same but I was recommending that the arch be something different. Joe: Are we trying to make three different statements. I feel the third window should be like the two that were installed earlier. Peter: It has always seemed like it was missing a third window to me some how. Roger: Ail three windows should match. Amy: One of the Secretary of Interior standards is not to add features which mislead people to think that they are historic features. That is why you try and separate the old from the new. Joe: Can't you argue that you would be misled by the two windows there that they were originals and the third one different. Amy: It has always been my thought that the first two should have had a different arch. Peter: What if the third arch was a different color. MOTION: Donnel!e¥ made the motion that HPC approve the minor development application for 204 S. Mill. We do not allow any changes to the window facing south and only approve a window on the east facade. A further condition that the new replaced window be similar in all matters to the existing windows on the house; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Amy: Also the silver equipment on the roof should be painted out. Peter: We can comply with that and can paint it that dark green. Joe: There is a lot of equipment on top that was not approved. Amy: That is from the Alley Cat cafe. Joe: We never saw an application to approve that roof top equipment. Donnelley will be monitor. WORKSHOP ON MAIN STREET Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 Amy: I have done an analysis on the area using the GIS map of Main Street Historic District. I walked down Main Street and wrote down white lots had potential development and which didn't. Some lots have another 500 to 5,000 sq. ft. There are a few empty lots and I have marked the buildings that are for sale. There are about 62 building sites on Main Street, 24 landmarks and 11 inventoried sites. That indicates that 56% of Main Street is historic. There are 22 sites that have potential for development and that means 35% of Main Street could be redeveloped. Amy: There are only two historic buildings in the top category that are on the national register or of the highest importance; 17 in the middle and 16 in the lowest category of historic significance. One of the reasons we are discussing this is because Main Street was zoned office and this is the intent of the office zone. I did a comparison of what could happen if it was zoned R6 because of its residential character on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot and what could happen if it were in the office zone. The real big difference is PAR: 3,240 in R6 and office zone you can go up to .75 to one or one to one which would mean 6,000 sq. ft. There is a significant difference in FAR. Jake: The purpose of the workshop is to try and establish some policies or precedence that we can use when applicants come in. Rather than try and make decisions once they get here because then we are in a reactive position. If we know what we are trying to accomplish we as a board can be more consistent the way people are treated and really have the tools to save or work with some of the little houses. Right now I don't feel we have that in place. When they rezoned this area to office it almost shocked the little houses in the roof because of what can happen to them. Because it is one of our two districts and the primary street in town I think we have to get some attitudes about what are we going to do with these little houses. I took photographs of the entire street. There are a number of little houses that need to be looked at. Donnelley: One of the key issues here is the impact of FAR. Right now you are allowed one to one with special review if 60% of that is employee housing and that employee housing cannot be subgrade. Joe: What rule requires it to be above grade? Jake: Stuff that goes into the basement is not FAR. If that were the case then you would have a .25 increase above grade in office space and an additional basement level space which would mean more parking, more impact, more everything. Joe: Stapletons got the bonus and used it by increasing the size of the house lifting the foundation up basically and because you have the calculation of what is in the basement based upon how much is exposed above the natural grade they put it in above grade but it is in the basement. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 Jake: That is a little trick. Roger: When was Main Street rezoned? Amy: In the 70's and the purpose was to provide offices and associate commercial uses but you are to preserve the visual scale and character of the former residential area. Roger: You can't the way it is set up and could it be changed? Jake: Here is the glitch and it puts the onus on us because it is in an historical district. That is why we have to have these tools. We may step into situations when people wanting to build out to their maximum FAR is compatible with the historical patterns and we will need to defend it. Roger: With Stapletonwe reacted and today with this we reacted on 303 E. Main. You have a small historic building and all of a sudden comes this huge thing around it, behind it and they are allowed to do this. They have all this FAR. If we say no you can't do this where does that put us. They are going to say that they have the FAR and are allowed to build this much square footage and you can't stop us. Well according to this maybe we could say this is totally out of character and scale with the victorian heritage of the town except for 610 W. Main. The addition is smaller than the existing building. Do we continue as we have already let one go through. Jake: We need to make sure everything that we want to defend in this zone is on the inventory in such a way as to defend it. That house of Stapleton's was not on the inventory. Roger: If the house is on the inventory we can say no and that any addition has to be less in mass and scale than what exists. We could do that. When I looked at Kuhn's I said this was too much, too massive. Les: Nobody is entitled FAR. Roger: Kuhn's project destroys the integrity of the house. If it is allowed (the FAR) then the design is great. If we are going to allow this then the whole plan works. Jake: If you look at it as an isolated picture. Roger: The issue is do we want to have all of Main Street like this. Joe: The commercial core is worse as you can go two to one. Jake: This is also 2000 sq. ft. below the allowable FAR. Roger: I think that is great. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 Joe: Every week I hear someone saying that they don't want to deal with the HPC. I think we need to have something consistent, you can't just say because you are historic and are coming in this week we will knock down the FAR. Then next week the composition of the panel changes and someone comes in and we relent and give the FAR to them. Then. we get inconsistent results and people are saying what a chaotic board. Roger: An analogy is the Highlands who are being penalized by all the other projects that went up there that didn't deal with the transportation. Now they are putting it all on one applicant. There was no proactive thought by P&Z over the years on how to deal with the expansion. Joe: You could do a downzoning. Roger: Lets go to city council and say we have a problem. 303 is a great design but is that what the city wants, what people want. The same thing happened in the west end. Amy: Council is very sympathetic and just because things go a certain way for some time that we are not allowed to go in a different direction. People all over the community ask me why this or that is happening in the west end. People want to see a change. I am not a property owner and do not know how it feels to be the last guy going through the door when the decision is made. I do not feel we have to sit back and say that will continue and be OK. Les: Politically we have a Mayor that will not run again and he could do something in s~ppozt and so could the other council members. Amy: Knowing the Planning Dept a downzone in the office zone is not going to happen tomorrow. We do have 22 vulnerable sites here. Jake: We have the ability to administer policy at our board here that would have a similar effect if we have the guts to do that. Amy: Main Street is not a nice place to live anymore and it is zoned office and maybe it is appropriate for office uses to be there. It is just that the buildout isn't appropriate. I do not feel Main Street will continue to have the residential feel. Jake: More houses are going to get destroyed and there are large lodges already along the street. Amy: LeBerge's or Swiss chalet is the entire block and is not on the inventory. At some point they could come in a wipe out the block. Roger: If LeBerge's came in would we have review over it? Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 Amy: Yes, because it is in the Main Street historic district. Les: We need to look at scale and massing and then do we request to city council to downzone or drop the FAR and do we make a public stand that we will not tolerate something. Jake: We need to look at the 0 zone where it says to provide associated uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and preserve the residential areas. Amy: We could get fast and hard and say we are not going to allow people to max out their properties or we can say a good architectural feature maxing out the property is appropriate. Les: If it is great architecture we can give them the FAR and we have never done it because we have never had great architecture. Donnelley: The problem gets worse the smaller the lot is. A lot would be impossible as they are already on a grid unless they are under separate ownership. If it is one ownership the City wouldn't go for a lot split. Jake: For example Stapletons project has an R6 zone right behind it and in a situation when parking gets waived people have to park somewhere. There is a real impact across the alley. Joe: During the StapletonpresentationLes stated that the bulk should be at the front not the back and the comment at that time was this is an office zone and it should go from a greater height to a lower height as it transitions into a residential zone. That is one of the reasons people say you never know what you are going to get at the HPC. That certainly impacted me because my design had all the bulk up front and impacted my residential use in the back. Roger: It was unfair for Joe because we didn't have a policy set on how to deal with Main Street. They have all this FAR and want to use it. Les: I keep putting myself as a streetscape. What kind of street do would be little victorian buildings. pedestrian and look at the I want to walk on. To me it Joe: On Stapletons they should have put the mass up front and the little part in the back to preserve the alley scape. Jake: I like the mass in the middle of the site, low in front and low in back. Jake: In my mind i% isn't an office zone. It was to allow these offices and commercial uses because it isn't that great of a place to live anymore as a house. 15 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 Les; I feel it is strictly greed, everyone trying to max it out. There are still people living here and are staying here and we have to maintain community for these people. Amy: The character of Main Street doesn't have numerous offices, there are a lot of lodges and a number of buildings that are strictly residence. Joe: The problem is that nobody builds offices anymore because you can't afford to pay for all the employee housing. With the employee housing the exactions are about $150 a square foot. Roger: It is interesting as they are loading up certain parts of town with employee housing and why not put it on Main Street. Downzone it and get back to residential. Joe: I am not sure that is the solution, the main thorofare into town will probably be a four lane some day. There will still be a few people living on Main Street but it certainly is changing. Amy: A mass transit may be coming down the middle of the street. Joe: You already have the HOV lane. Amy: I agree with Joe that the solution is not to change it back to R6. It is not an R6 area. It is not the west end. Jake said he thinks Main Street is a good place for adaptive reuse but not at the expense of the character of the street. Roger: Adaptive reuse could be employee housing. The office worker is there seven hours out of the day. Why does the office worker have to be up high and the employee be put in the basement? Why can't the office be in the basement and the employee be upstairs? Amy: Because people feel office space is not valuable if it is below grade. Joe: It is 8:15 and we should continue this discussion at a later date. Amy: I feel a joint worksession is long over due between HPC and the city council. Les: Lets start with a brown bag lunch. Les: We need to all agree that nobody is entitled to maximum FAR. Roger: It was my understanding that you could maximumize to your allowable FAR. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 20, 1994 Amy: Our standards state that it has to be in character with the neighborhood. Les; You cannot meet the standards if you are using the maximum therefore they are not entitled to maximum FAR. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Les. motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Ail in favor, Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk