HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20001115ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
November 15 2000
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................... 1
513 W. SMUGGLER - CONCEPTUAL, (CONT'D FROM OCT. 25'a~) ................................................ 1
303 S. CLEVELAND ..................................................................................................................................... 3
719 E. HOPKINS - REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM THE HISTORIC INVENTORY - PUBLIC
HEARING ................................................
427 E. HYMAN - BAGGAGE CLAIM GLASS DOOR - MINOR ....................................................... 10
BAVARIAN INN REFERRAL .................................................................................................................. 12
484 E. COOPER - MINOR - BATH & BODY ........................................................................................ 13
15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
November ~
Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Members in attendance were Rally Dupps, Gilbert Sanchez, Lisa
Markalunas and Jeffrey Halferty. Susan Dodington was excused.
Suzannah recused herself on 719 E. Hopkins and 303 S. Cleveland
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Gilbert suggested documenting all building with photographs on the
inventory. That would be the HPC tool for evaluating buildings.
Staff was directed to research funding sources and see if the Historical
Society would be interested in the project.
513 W. SMUGGLER - CONCEPTUAL, (Cont'd from Oct. 25th)
Fred Jarman, planner relayed that the applicant is requesting a renovation
and an addition. An existing addition would be demolished and the cottage
would be relocated and renovated. They are also requesting a 500 square
foot bonus and a 2.5 side yard setback variance.
Swearing in:
Eric Headrix
Harry Teague
Harry relayed that the concept of the bonus opened the idea of separating
the two houses. The idea is two houses connected with a connector. At the
last meeting the commissioners felt that the two houses were too close
together and not reading as two houses. The two story portion of the house
was lowered into the ground 16 inches. The board also had concerns with
the connector and four feet was added. A flat roof is proposed for between
the two buildings which will be better for snow removal.
Harry showed a movie depicting the two houses and connector on the lot.
The connector is six ½ feet and was 2 ½ feet.
Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing.
Commissioner comments.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
November 15. 2000
The new revised massing relates to the historic house.
One of the big issues that will be reviewed at final will depend upon the
materials and palate.
The computer images identify the prominence of the historic house.
The flat roof vs the glass roof is an improvement.
The glass connector is a positive improvement.
The east massing is too overwhelming even with the 14 inch reduction to
the historic house.
The reduction of the ridges is positive.
How the barrel vault transition meets the historic house clapboard needs
addressed.
The detailing of materials is essential.
One technical concerns is that we need a set of drawings of what was
presented today as a record.
MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve Resolution #52, 2001 granting
conceptual approval for a partial demolition, relocation o fan existing
historic cottage and construction of an addition for a residence located at
513 ~. Smuggler, LorE, F, and G, Block 21, City and Townsite of ,4spen
with the following conditions:
1. The HPC granted the following variances at conceptual review: a 7
foot rear yard setback variance, an 8foot combined front and rear
yard setback variance, and a 5foot east sideyard variance for a
lightwell, and a 240 square foot floor area bonus;
2. The design of any new fencing on the property will require approval.
Fences may not be more than 42" in height anywhere in front of the
street facing walls of the historic structures;
3. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set,
indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed
as part of the renovation;
4. Submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set,
indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will
be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original
materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff
and monitor to be beyond salvage;
5. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not
previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has
'2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
November 15, 2000
been specifically approved herein may be removed without the
approval of staff and monitor;
6. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of aH
exterior lighting fixtures;
7. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved
without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor.
8. The preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of
approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of
construction.
9. The applicant shah be required to provide the contractor with copies
of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must
submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit
application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and
understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit;
10. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shah be required to
obtain a specialty license in historic preservatton prior to receiwng a
building permit; and
11. AH representations made by the applicant in the application and
during publlc meetings with the Historic Preservation commission
shah be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
12. The applicant shah submit drawings that represent the design
discussed at this meeting and that this resolution will not be in effect
unless those drawings are consistent with the revtew tonight as
determined by the board
Motion second by Jeffrey.
Yes vote: Gilbert, Suzannah, Jeffrey, Rally
No vote: Lisa
Motion carried 5-1.
303 S. CLEVELAND
Gilbert chaired.
Fred Jarman, planner informed the board that this agenda item is a
continued public hearing from Nov. 8, 2000, to consider resolution #54
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
November 1--~5 2000
which would effectively remove a property located at 303 S. Cleveland
Street from the inventory of historic sites and structures. The property at
303 S. Cleveland contains three cabins. On the northern end of the site is a
500 square foot one bedroom unit built in 1948. A duplex cabin with two.
studio units, built in 1950, sits along the west property line and a third
duplex with two studios, built in 1952, is sited along the alley.
Mike Hoffman, attorney represented the applicant.
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney informed the board that he has been
working with Mike Hoffman and they have agreed to disagree. The
information that has been presented on the 1992 jurisdictional issue will not
be handled by this board. The board will determine, based on the criteria
handed out whether this property should or should not be removed from the
inventory based on that criteria.
Mike Hoffrnan represented his client, Charles Tower. The only remaining
issues given the constraints that David mentioned are the factual ones set
forth in the architectural inventory form, Amy Guthrie's memo of October
1 lth and John Feinberg's testimony of Sept. 13 th and his memo of November
7th that was handed out last week.
Mike addressed the issues raised by Amy and John. Amy identified the
following physical attributes of the property as being the reasons they
continue to have historic value as required by the white sheet that the
attorney handed out.
They are: Properties are one story; rectangular planed buildings, low
pitched roofs and built from local materials. They have small horizontally
oriented windows and little detailing. Further, Amy believes that the
structures retain their architectural integrity. John Feinberg sent his
historian to the Colorado Historical Society and looked at 25 representative
examples of state apprOved nominations of rustic style. He desCribes his
findings on page four of his report. TWo of the six characteristics listed by
Amy appear on that list. Independent of Amy's statements John looked at
the unequivocal criteria set forth in the architectural context to determine if
Mr. Tower's property met the definition set forth in the context by
Suzannah Reid. By unequivocal he meant those are the things which define
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRl~ SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
November 15, 2000
the rustm style m Aspen. )n page six of the memo that was handed out
Nov. 8~ the table exhibits the rustic style·
1. Locally available matel isls. Mr. Tower',,; materials did not come from
Aspen, they came from Grand Junction.
2. True log construction ¥ ~ith overlapping log ends, coped, and stacked·
The materials are not k gs, they are machined lumber with no coping and
only half overlapped.
3. Chinking· There is no :hip_king.
4. Window openings are ,, pare. There are multiple windows, not spare·
5. Wood trim is used to fi ~iSh out the window openings. There is none in
the structure.
6. Building plans are sim de rectangular forms, with smaller additive
elements. That is true vith this building.
7. Roof springs from the ag wall, and gable ends are infilled with standard
framing. That is also t ue.
8. The emphasis is on har dmade materials and the details come out of the
use of the materials, otl terwise the detail and decoration is minimal. The
materials are milled, nc log details and no handmade materials.
Of the eight characteristic~ that are used to define the rustic style in the
historic architectural cont~ xt three of them are present in the Tower
property. Mr. Feinberg al:.o listed certain characteristics that might or
maybe part ora rustic stru :ture as defined in the context and of those nine
elements he found that six are not true. Two were true and one might be
true for the Tower propert ~.
On Sept. 13th Gilbert aske~t how many elements must be present in order to
have something rustic. TI: at is a good question, two out of six and three out
of nine perhaps is not eno~tgh. Amy's conclusion was that the properties
retained their architectural integrity. At the bottom of page seven Mr.
Feinberg refutes that conclusion. We believe these structures are not rustic.
In 1992 the HPC said thes~ structures were of the panabode style and now
you say they are not. We~to not believe these structure are hiStoric at all.
We ask that they be remox~ed from the ~nventory of historic structures. In
closing let me address Amy's argument that Mr. Tower has somehow
admitted that the structures have h~stonc value. As stated agmn a report
created by his consultant ih 1997 the context of that report was an historic
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PR~ SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt
November 15~ 2000
land marking. If he wante/1 to pursue redevelopment of his property he had
to or was required to purst e land marking and designation. He was frankly
under duress at that time. 9n page one of exhibit B of Amy's report A
states that it could be argu ~d that these cabins at the time they were built
were a direct response to a significant cultUral and social change in the
history of Aspen. B states although not magnificent examples of more
glorious architectural style s these cabins do clearly represent an
architectural type that was both practical and easy to construct. We do not
disagree with that. D talk~, about the small scale of the cabins much like the
other miners cabins that mtce dotted Aspen's east end.
Gilbert opened the public i ~earing for comment. Public hearing closed.
Board member comments Io the presentation.
Rally said personally with this property he has been torn. He made his
mind up when Gilbert ask, :d the question how many of the items need to be
answered yes in order to q ~alify substantial. By your own admission two
out of six of the first groul ~ of questions and three out of nine in the second
group of descriptions you ~ay yes to. If it is at least one, which it is we need
to consider it. The definit: ons under contribution it says all those historic
architecturally significant :esources that do not meet the criteria for
"significant", provided, hr wever, these resources have maintained their
historic integrity or repres mt unique architectural design. When we think
of unique architectural de~' ign I think of something that happens here in
Aspen and I think that pro Certy is unique to Aspen and to a time that is long
gone and for that very rea~.on I would vote to leave them On the inventory.
Lis____~a agreed with a numbeI of Rally's comments. While there is only a
pOrtion of these particular items that match this particular historic resource,
those that do match are th~ more significant of the list. The massing and
architecture itSelf is more ~ignificant than some of the detailing of the
property. They are definil ely unique to that period in Aspen's history and
would not be in support ol'removing them at this time.
Jeffrey informed the boar t and applicant that he visited the site many times
and also remembered goir g through good development work sessions with
the applicants architects. ~te thought everyone was getting to a direction,
and the architect was Gle] n Rappaport who has a good history of helping
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRI~ SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
November 15, 2000
preserve Aspen's history ~tot for it architectural integrity but more for the
cultural integrity of the Cji y. He preserved Wagner Parks's tower and
Paepcke Parks old lighteni ag rod. These were examples that Glenn used
pertaining to the Tower pr. )jeer. The project is contributing again for the
skier worker housing whic was very prevalent in developing this down as a
cultural skiing icon and it. very important. Unfortunately we didn't have
the criteria in a ru. stic, we ,lon't have a lincoln log; we don't have a milled
panabode type criteria thal this building fits in. The rustic nature exists
because it was milled. Gn nd Junction is local as it was a milled
industrialized city in the e~ ~ly 40's and 50's.. This property is contributed to
helping develop the worker housing and pa~L of our inventory which is very
important to remind oursel yes about how this town got to the "Little Nell".
As Lisa indicated and other colleagues some of the architectural treatments,
the chinking and connecti~ Lg details cannot be the same because it was a
milled product. There is value and we are evaluating our inventory and
inventory categories. We ~re trying to document our history and preserve
the simple forms. The reg onal nature of this type ofpanabode or lincoln
log or rustic is very impor ant to the development, He remembered the
work sessions that were s]~ ent helping to develop this property. He thought
there were amicable soluti )ns from those work sessions and from the city to
help encourage the develo )ment of the property. Jeffrey stated that he
would defend and support staff's motion to continue leaving the property on
the inventory.
Gilbert stated that he app~ eciates what Mr. Feinberg has done and it is a
terrific document and the ~ ~alysis that has gone into it. Gilbert would like
the analysis done on all otr inventory properties. The problem with the
document is that Mr. Feinl ~erg takes the point that the discussion is all about
the criteria for the Nation~ 1 Register. It seems that he is holding these
properties to the highest c] iteria and the most stringent criteria and when
one views it in that light fl ~ey would agree with his assessments. The
properties are probably nc t eligible for the National Register. Our
ordinance allows for more flexibility. We do not have the best buildings in
the world in Aspen. The ~ rchitecture here may not meet world class
standards but that is not w hat we are judging these by. We are judging them
by Aspen's standards and our ordinance takes that into account as Rally
pointed out. If a property is significant they are eligible for the national
register of historic places. This property would probably fit into one of the
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PI~ SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
November 15~ 2000
lower categories,, probably contributing. Contributing mentions unique
architectural design. With unique it means there is room for deviations
from the various styles. T ~e last category, supporting is saying that these
are properties that lost thei r original integrity. In Mr. Feinberg's memo he
has a sheet of five items tX at discuss integrity; major windows have been
changed, buildings have rr odern doors, major addition, the building has a
plastic skylight. Gilbert fe it that those four/.tems fell into the supporting
category. Those items car be change and the building can be retrieved to
what it was like in its orig! nal state. The property meets the requirements of
the City ofAspen's ordinance and is eligible,' for the inventory. Gilbert
supports maintaining the 1; roperty on the current inventory.
Mike Hoffman, attorney: It is impossible to have this discussion without
talking about process. It i:~ clear that this will move onto a different venue.
The only real direction 1-IF C has in its decision making is 26.420.080 B that
says the inventory of histc tic sites and structures shall include all structures
in the City of Aspen whicl are at least 50 years old and which continue to
have historic value. Mike agreed that some of the language allows HPC to
categorize but how catego 'izing relates te the historic value of the structure
is not clear. In terms of th ~ work sessions Mike agreed that progress had
occurred. The applicant i~, seeking to remove the property from the historic
inventory. It is conceivab e that city council will not see things our way and
we could be back here ani if we are we could work in good faith and work
in a solution that would be mutually beneficial.
David Hoefer relayed to tt.e board that the motion should read: I move to
adopt the resolution remo,'ing the property as a contributing property from
the inventory so that it is (.one in the affirmative way that the applicant has
requested it.
MOTION: Jeffrey moved ~dopt Resolution #54, series of 2000 removing
the property at 303 S. Cie' ~eland St. lots H & I Block 35 as a contributing
property from the City of, Ispen's Inventory of Historic Sites and
Structures; second by Ral, ~.
No Vote: Rally, Gilbert, isa, Jeffrey
Motion denied 4-0
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PR[ ~ERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
November 15, 2000
Michael Hoffman correcte :l his stated per Mr. Towers regarding the
materials and they were fr, ~m the Roaring Fork Valley.
719 E. HOPKINS - Req~ ~est for Removal from the Historic Inventory -
Public Hearing
Fred Jarman, planner toucl led on the background of the property. The
property was originally lis :ed in 1980 and on Sept. 13th this year the I-IPC
took formal action to remcve the property from the inventory. I-IPC found
that the property no longe~ met the review standards. On Sept. 206 the I-IPC
rescinded the action it too]: on SePt. 1 lth and. 13th recommended by City
Council and therefore putt ing the property back on the Inventory. Staff
recommends that the prop, :rty be removed from the inventory.
David Hoefer, City Attom ~y stated the rescission was part of an entire
package and not in anyway specific as to this piece of property. The notice
of posting was entered int~ the records.
1
SwOrn in was John Laudelback
John relayed that staff and I-]PC recommend the property be removed off the
Inventory and HPC Voted )n it and agreed. John relayed that he researched
the property back into the 1800's and spent a lot of time with the Historical
Society. He informed the board that there are two properties on the parcel,
an apartment complex bui t in the mid 60's and a residential home. He did
a title history on the property and could not find anything significant.
He
then tried to contact different owners. By phone he contacted the individual
Who built the house and itwas in the early 50's. The house is slab on grade
concrete. ' 1
Jeffrey inquired if the prol ~erty was on the Sanborn map and staff did not
have an answer.
Lisa stated that there was reference indicating that it was on the map.
Julie Ann Woods, Commt nity Development Dept. Head said she could
verify the information but staff feels there is not enough material left that is
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRl~ SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
November 15, 2000
retrievable. Due to the sit~ ration that it is in now it is not one of our better
examples of an historic bu ~lding.
Lisa said the memo states nat the original roof shape has been lost due to
alterations. The board eit ~er disregards the sheet that states that the
building was built in 1888 and go with the t~act that it is being represented
being built in the 1950's. The plate height is higher than usual.
Sulie Ann said she cannot ~xplain what the changes were on the roof form
and what it was previousl3 This property was handled by Amy before she
left and the staff is going x ith their recommendation.
Gilbert opened and closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments~
From the site visit and loo ring at the images it appears that the roof has
been re-framed and the ph tes are higher and the pitch is less steep. From
the site it appears that the ."oundation has been altered.
Lisa relayed to staffthat si ~e is disturbed not having the information for
verification.
The majority of the memb ~rs supported the removal of the property from
the inventory.
MOTION: Rally moved tq approve Resolution #53, 2000 approving the
removal of 719 E. Hopkin~ from the City of Aspen Historic Inventory;
second by Jeffrey.
Yes Vote: Rally, Gilbert, Lisa, Jeffrey
Motion carried 4-0.
427 E. HYMAN - BAGGAGE CLAIM GLASS DOOR - MINOR
Suzarmah re-seated.
Fred Jarman, planner relayed that the request is to improve the recessed
entryway and replace an e~sting 1960's glass door with a wood frame with
10
ASPEN HISTORIC PR~ SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
November 15, 2000,
a solid glass door. The building is a landmark property and located in the
commercial core. Photographs were presented to the board depicting the
existing door and the proppsed changes. A site Visit was done and staff is
recommending approval
Sworn in was Kent and K~ren Woodard.
Karen relayed that she is i tenant in the Aspen Block building and she has
been a tenant for 20 years.~~ The new entrance is for a new store. The door
would be open during the rammer months. The door that faces the street
will be painted out. The s: ze will not change. The entryway and trim are
not historical. They are in the process of get~ing the building on the
National Register.
Fred entered a letter statin that the managing agency supports the project.
MOTION: Gilbert moved ~ adopt Resolution #55, 2000for a minor
development request to re ~lace an existing wood frame glass door with a
solid glass door with the ~llowing conditions:
1. That the applicant ~grees to utilize a contractor that has participated
successfully in the I~istoric Preservation Contractor Licensing
Program·
2. That the applicant ~ tall not install or use the proposed glass door in
a manner that bloc~ s the existingfire..exit door at the back wall of the
landing in the entra ~ceway. Discussions with the City of Aspen
Building Departme~ ~t indicated any blocking of the fire-exit door
represents a signifi~'ant fire hazard and shall not be permitted. The
fire-exit door shall ~'emain fully functional at all times;
3. There shah be no d~ ~viations from the exterior elevations as approved
without first being ~ eviewed and approved by HPC staff;
4. The applicant shah be required to provide the contractor with copies
of the HPC resoIuti >n applicable to this project. The contractor must
submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit
application indicatz ~g that all conditions of approval are known and
understood and mu~ 't meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying fo, the building permit; and
11
ASPEN HISTORIC PR[ SERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
November 15, 2,000
5. .4ll representations ; nade by the applicant in the application and
during public meeti~ ~gs with the Historic Preservation commission
shall be adhered to ~nd considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended ~y other conditions.
Motion second by Jeffrey.
Yes Vote: Rally, Gilbert, ~uzannah, Lisa, Jeffrey
Motion carries 5-0 I
BAVARIAN INN REFERRAL
Fred Jarman, planner said Lhe project is now going through its final stage
with P&Z and Council. C ty Council has requested referral comments from
the HPC.
David Brown, architect: ' 'he project is muc]h smaller in scale and flat roofs
are incorporated. The nei hbors met for a year and their input was included
in the design. Alternative rites are currently being sought for the cabin. A
two-bedroom unit will be n its replacement..
Suzannah asked if any che nges occurred from the last meeting.
David stated that the S3 m tit would go three feet deeper toward the alley.
The intent is to have a mo, tulated facade, bay windows as much as possible
for each unit and have a ri 'thm in scale and massing.
Lisa mentioned the Anderpon property as a possible site for the cabins.
Members supported the affordable housing project.
Gilbert stated he understm tds why it is all flat roofs but ifHPC were to
review it in accordance wi th the guidelines it would be reviewed as an
extension of Main Street e nd have a different result. The concern is the
depressed building into th ,~ ground. There is a precedent for having three
floors similar too 7th and ~ ~Iain. This will be a prominent building because it
will be on the Main entrar ce to Aspen. It appears like it is sinking into the
ground.
12
1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
i NoVember 15, 2000
David relayed that during he finishes there will be an opportunity to look at
the base, middle, crown ot the building but it would be at a different height
than the other structures.
With the mixture of mater: als and sinking of the building it remissness the
Benedict Commons buildi ~g. Some of the massing is a little odd but
affordable housing is need ~d.
David informed the board that the material were taken from the Herbert
Bauer and Fritz Benedict t :ustee own homes over at the Aspen Meadows
which are heavily singled. The palate is horizontal siding, shingles and
stucco from adjacent buil~ ings.
Suzannah said the flip-fiOl ling of the plans is contributing to the mass of
the project. It needs broke . down to create a rhythm that is working with
you rather than against.
Julie Ann said because thi is a PUD and going into final mode the
architecture could change.
484 E. CO(] PER- MINOR-- BATIt & BODY
Nick Lelack, planner infoi med the board that the property is located in the
commercial core and in th ,~ historic overlay zone district. The property is
not on the inventory. Frit:: Benedict designed the building. They are
proposing to add a couple of windows to the east facade which faces Galena
Street On the ground level It is the only facade of the building that is all
brick. Staff prefers the bri ck to preserve the integrity of the building but the
windows are compatible v'ith the building and other buildings in the area.
They comply with the stat.dards.
Cn'aeme Means was sworr in.
Graeme stated that the wil tdow is contextual[ with the building and it is
located at a minimum of 3 feet away from any historic resource.
Gilbert relayed this is a di ?ficult building because it is a Fritz Benedict
building and is not on the inventory. This building was discussed to be on
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PR[ SERVATION C~DMMISSION MINUTES OF,
November 15, 2000
the inventory. On the crit~ :ria this is an acceptable solution because the
building is not on the inve ~tory. He is opposed to the window addition and
and there is so much ofth~: wall being removed that it is something that will
never be reconfigured. W, are loosing an important element of the
building.
Lisa dittoed Gilbert. She vould hope that the owners would look at the
impacts that the window x 'ould have on the building.
Jeffrey would question th~ t this building was a Fritz Benedict building
because he did research a~ d there was a fire in this building. He feels the
window would encourage ~ better use o£the commercial space.
Suzannah said presently t~ standards do not support denying the window.
MOTION: Jeffrey moved , approve Resolution #56, 2001 approving the
minor development of 484 E. Cooper with t~e following conditions:
1. There shall be no d~viations from the architectural designs or
materials as approved without first being reviewed and approved by
HPC staff.
2. The applicant shah ~e required to provide the contractor with copies
of the HPC resoluti~n applicable to this project. The contractor must
submit a letter addr ~ssed to HPC staJf as part of the building permit
application indicati :g that all conditions of approval are known and
understood and mui t meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying fo. ' the building permit.
3. ~IH representations nade by the applicant in the application and
during public meeti~ tgs with the Historic Preservation commission
shall be adhered to ~nd considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
Rally second.
Yes vote: Rally, Gilbert, ~uzannah; Lisa, ,le~ffrey
MOTION: Gilbert moved'to adjourn; second by Rally. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:0C p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Ch iefDeputy Clerk
14