Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20010613ASPEN'HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ June 13, 2001 515 G1LLESPIE STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL- LOT SPLIT - ETC. PUBLIC HEARING ....................................................................................... : .................................... 1 935 E. COOPER AVE. - FINAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING ....................................................... 10 501 E. HYMAN AVE. - LANDMARK DESIGNATION ........................................................................ 11 214 E. HOPKLNS AVE. - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PH ..................... : ............................................. 12 ST. MARY"S CHURCH - PROJECT MONITORING AMENDMENTS - 104 S. GALENA ............ 14 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, JUne 13, 2001 Chairperson Suzarmah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Hal£erty, Susan Dodington, Lisa Markalunas, Rally Dupps and Melanie Roschko present. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the minutes of May 9, 2001 as amended; second by Rally. ,4li in favor, motion carried. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Lisa brought up a concern on the Hunt project and it appears that damage has occmxed to the cottonwood trees in front of the historic house. Jeffrey inquired about the remedial plan on the Schelling project. Stephen Kanipe, building official met with the attorney Doug Allen and reviewed sketches from the architect which were rejected with a list of requirements. A survey will be required. The neighbor to the west has been addressed as far as back filling. Amy has two monitoring issues on 330 Lake Ave. and 329 Park Ave. that will be discussed at the end of the meeting. Disclosure: Rally will step down 735 W. Bleeker and 515 Gillespie St. Jeffrey will step down for 935 E. Cooper Gilbert will be stepping down for 515 Gillespie and 935 E. Cooper MOTION: Melanie moved to continue 735 W. Bleeker until June 27, 2001; second by Susan..,Ill in favor, motion carried. Yes Vote: Melanie, Susan, Lisa, Suzannah, Gilbert, Jeffrey 515 GILLESPIE STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL - LOT SPLIT - ETC. PUBLIC HEARING City Planner, Fred Jarman presented. This is a request for landmark designation, lot split, partial demolition, relocation and the 500 square foot bonus. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 The difference in square footage is 160 square feet which was removed and relocated in the garage on Lot A. Nothing to the house changed. On the garage they added the square footage on the grade level and added a stairway on the Eastside which accesses a door to the mechanical space. Fred presented drawings. Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Randall Bone, owner. Randall said the 160 square feet was an opportunity to make the mechanical and storage space under the garage more accessible and possibly at some point have a sufficient size that would work for an ADU. Lisa asked about the Lilac bush and Randall said he would relocate it if need be. Susan relayed that any historic glass should be protected. Fred said by code you can have an cave that extends over the setback by 18 inches. Melanie had concerns with the extension and Randall said they are still four feet from the property line. Suzannah opened the public hearing. Charles and Jan Collins were sworn in. He feels the 500 square foot bonus should be attributed to the historic house lot A not B and according to his calculations it is allotted to B. Suzannah said no it specifically applies to lot A. Charles said in the R6 zone you are permitted 44% FAR of the lot size and this is 62% and in addition when we talk about character of the historic resource the house next door will be 2/3 again as big as the present one. Suzaunah said that is what is allowed by the land use code regardless of the historic house. Charles said the west faCade stands on its own and if it moves 8 feet further west to the adjacent property it will be significantly blocked by trees which will be effect by that appearance. Ditch Comment: Charles said the Parks Dept. gave approval for the ditch relocate in which he feels is a significant change in the character of that 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ June 13, 2001 part'lcular site. Since this came on board the trees have been moved on the site and that has made a significant change on the site. What is proposed is a detrimental change and will have a negative impact. Jan Collins said she spent time on the guidelines and she has concerns with the roof design of the addition. According to the guidelines that is not something that you do. There is also a new window and that is not allowed in the guidelines. The house was moved there on a truck and is not as old as the ditch. It is the last of the Si Johnson ditch. The ditch serves the music festival in the tent and the wild flower garden. The house sits behind the ditch and is part of the front faCade of the home. This is part of the ambiance of the west en& The gradient proposed will not carry the water and will have to go up hill. Jan is opposed to the new ditch relocation. Suzannah closed the public hearing. Melanie recused herself. Amy said originally Randall came here with a three house scenario and clearly he has pulled back from that as it would not be appropriate for this neighborhood. The two houses proposed is something anyone can do on a 9,000 square foot lot. He is not accruing any other development rights than anyone else. Commissioner comments Jeffrey stated that he appreciates the neighbors concerns and the applicant has taken a lot of what they have said and applied them to the proposal. Jeffrey stated he is a big proponent of the lot split and it is an excellent way to aid and downsize the potential additions that can go onto historic resources. Bailey moved the house their in 1971 and it had a different context and a different relationship to the street that it was on and to the neighborhood. The relocation of the historic ditch has not been privatized by putting it internally on the lot. It is changing course to allow the applicants right to build the allowable square footage that he is allowed by our land use code. The straight lot lines is an excellent way to solve some of the issues. The shed dormer is the most appropriate dormer and the materials are acceptable. The new window penetrations are OK as long as the detailing is 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ June 13~ 2001 different and more contemporary. At the junction where the historic corner board meet the new material that there be a detail in line that can be reviewed by staff and monitor. The new proposal has accommodated a lot of the Collin's concerns. Lisa disagreed with Jeffrey's comments; She is opposed to moving the house to what she feels is an inferior location which has major impacts on the prominence of the house and impacts on the west faqade. She feels more could have been done and this is not an exemplary project warranting the 500 square foot bonus. Impacts on the streetscape, landscaping and the ditch are tremendous even before the property has been constructed. She also feels there are conflicts with out guidelines. There is also concern about the relative sizes of the structures compared to one another. Another concern is the impact on the neighborhood character. Susan was gratified that the addition is small. She is mostly concern about the ditch and would hate to see it not work and the water cut offto the music tent. She said moving the historic house isn't making it an outstanding project but keeping the addition small might apply. Suzannah said she is always in favor ora lot split because it is better for the neighborhood. To have two small houses as opposed to an historic house with one very large and challenging addition to it. That is the motivation behind the lot split. In this case the addition to the historic building is very small compared to the existing building we are going one step further. She feels this is an outstanding effort. She shares the concern about the ditch and in every project have tried to keep the ditches in their original orientation as much as possible. We do have to allow some flexibility when it is on private property. She would prefer to see the ditch run up between the Collin's and this house and cross the front. Clearly there are slop and functionality issues to that. That is something that we should direct the applicant to address for final. It is more appropriately appropriately routed in front than around the back. The only concern of the addition is the proposed change to the second window on the upstairs, eliminating that takes away from the aesthetic of the back of the house that exits now. Fred said the numerous city staff walked the street and the grade was a question that came out and it was determined that it could be relocated. One 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ June 13, 2001 thought was maybe the ditch should run down 5t~ Street and do its ~nction there. Randall said the ditch moved to the back because the grades wouldn't work going through the front. There was concern if it backed up that it would go into peoples houses. It is a legal obligation that the city has to deliver water to the tent. MOTION: Jeffrey made the motion to approve conceptual review for 515 W. Gillespie Ave. and that HPC approves ])request for partial demolition, 2) relocation, 3)the 500 square foot FAR bonus, 4) recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Ave. with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the iPitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of finaI approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause; 2. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain splat note stating that any development of £ot "B " shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing; 3. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 4. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shah contain a plat ntoe stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ June 13~ 2001 5. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well as Section 26.4 J 0, the "Residential Design Standards," 6. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A " receiving 4, 639 square feet of lot area and Lot "B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Providing it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A " will be 1, 753 square feet (Including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet offloor area on Lot "B". The information specific to exact allocated FAR as indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 7. That the applicant shall provide the Subdivision Exemption Agreement that includes the elements outlined in Section 26. 480. 030(A)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.480.070(E). (The Community Development Department can provide an example of this agreement to the applicanO ; 8. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recording fees; 9. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 square feet bonus) to be 4, 093 square feet in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner; Lot "A "as having 1, 753 square feet and Lot "B" as having 2,840 square feet prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e. slopes, access 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2601 easements, etc.) Further, these lot sizes andJToor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County and Clerk and Recorder's Office; 10. All information regarding possible future development on newly created Lot B of this lot split shall be removed from the site plan prior to review of the historic lot split by City Council. Only the existing structures, proposed lot lines, and existing vegetation shall be represented; and 11. That the applicant shall record a final Plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot A of the Beck Lot Split of £ots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to'the recording of saidplat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 12. That the applicant shall 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; 13. That the applicant shall 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; 14. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 15. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 16. That there shall be no deViations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 1 Z That 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; 18. That 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 pf the building permit application indicating that all conditions o£ approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying.for the building permit. 19. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shah be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 20. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 21. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 22. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 23. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction as a requirement of the City of ,~spen Streets Department; 24. That the HPC grants a 500 sq.. Ft. FAR bonus to be allocated to Lot A with the historic house (for a maxim floor area of l, 753 square feeO. Lot B will then maintain the balance of the remaining FAR to be 2,840 square feet. 25. That the applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 26. That the applicant, prior to Final Review before the HPC, provide the Community 'Development Department and HPC with a signed agreement regarding the relocation of the Si Johnson Ditch and any tree relocation/mitigation issues with the City of Aspen Parks Department; That the applicant confirm for final from the City Engineer confirmation of the information provided here. 27. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building Code (UCBC) ; and 28. Bill Bally, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. However, The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of#30, 000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the Engineering Department to ensure safe relocation of the structure. 29. The large window on the south elevation needs to be restudied(smaller or deletion). Motion second by Susan. Yes vote: Susan, Suzannah, Jeffrey2 No vote: Lisa Motion carried 3-1. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ June 13~ 2001 935 E. COOPER AVE. - FINAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING Amy said conceptual was received a month ago to replace an existing second story addition with a new one. The buildings are already significantly altered and the addition is low in profile. At the last meeting there was one condition to narrow down the stair cases on the east side of the building which they did do and there are minor modifications to roof forms in order to address Rally's concerns. Staff recommends approval. Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Jerome Hatem Jeffrey Halferty, Gilbert Sanchez, Melanie Roschko recused themselves. Jerome said they have tried to take care o£all the concerns by shrinking the stairway dormer and simplifying the roof. Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing. The board members had no questions or clarifications on the proposal. MOTION: Lisa moved to approve Resolution 26, 2001for 935 E. Cooper Ave. Lots H & I, Block 118, East Aspen Additions to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado finding that the review standards have been met and with the following conditions: 1. All exterior light fixtures will need to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 2. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 3. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 4. 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. 5. The applicant shall 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. 6. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a buildingpermit. Motion second by Rally. Yes Vote: Suzannah, Lisa, Rally, Susan. Motion carried 4-0. 501 E. HYMAN AVE. - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Amy said this is a straight forward application. It is landmark designation for the Aspen Arcade building. Ute City Banque proper was clearly designated a landmark in Ord. 57, 1981 and at that time all they did was list the street address and after talking it over with Stan Clausen I didn't feel it was clear that the arcade section was intended to be covered by that. These are some of the more important buildings in our downtown. Staffrecommends approval and that it meets standards A, B and E. Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Stan Clausen. Lisa clarified that this recommendation includes Ute City Banque, the Arcade structure and also the building on the alley so it is the entire parcel. Stan said the owners are investigating different options for the building and perhaps the installation ora full basement. They would be able to take tax credits and also utilize those portions of the code which deal with 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OFt June 13, 2001 growth management for historic structures. There is no specific design at this time. MOTION: Rally moved to adopt Resolution 27, 200Ifinding that the review standards have been met; second by Melanie. Yes Vote: Melanie, Susan, Rally, Lisa Suzannah, Gilbert, Jeffrey. Motion carried 7-0. 214 E. HOPKINS AVE. - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Jeffrey recused himself. Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland swore in Heidi Hoffman, architect for the project. Amy said the changes are specifically exterior. There are a number of changes but very little that actually effects the historic part of the building. Hopefully in the future there will be a chance to building this building back to its original character. Removal of the grill work is great. More information needs provided about stripping the stone, location of flues and vents, light fixtures and design ora railing. There is one concern about the moving of a non-original stained glass window to a non-original location on the historic house and the image that it presents. One suggestion about a pair of windows that are supposed to be ganged together not be so because that is not the pattern in the original part of the building. Heidi presented graphics as to what was happening on the building. Mary Hayes lived in the house and was married there. The second photo was the remodel which was done in 1973. The proposal is to get rid of all four wood burning stoves and fireplaces and we will be installing two new gas fireplaces and the flue will probably be in the same area which is on the south elevation and is somewhat obscure from the eye level of the street person. Exterior light fixtures have yet to be picked and they will be submitted for review. The intent on the roof patio is to bring it to code and adding the balusters to match the existing balusters would make it a little too cluttered: The 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ June 13, 2001 stained glass window is actually a leaded glass window. There will be no changes to the windows on the front except removal of the iron work that is very visual The windows are casement windows. There is deterioration at the flashes on the west side. Gilbert had no problems with any of the proposals. Lisa said in general she is OK with the proposal. Susan is also OK but she wished the front would be brought back to its original. Melanie commented on the wonderful references used in the proposal. MOTION: Gilbert moved to adopt Resolution #28, 200] for 214 E. Hopkins finding that the review standards have been met with the following conditions: 1. Further information must be provided as to the methods for stripping and repointing the foundation stone. 2. The location of any new flues or vents will need to be approved by staff and the HPC member assigned to monitor the construction of the project. 3. The exterior light fixtures will need to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 4. The design for the railing around the observatory deck will need approval by staff and monitor.' 5. More information is needed abut the nature of the repairs and the location and design of any new gutters. 6. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor.' 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 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 shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are know and understood and just meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 10. The General Contractor and or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. Rally second the motion. Yes vote: Gilbert, Suzannah, Lisa, Rally, Susan, Melanie Motion carried 6~0. ST. MARY"S CHURCH - PROJECT MONITORING AMENDMENTS - 104 S. GALENA John Kelleher said they have three issues: the front door, we have asked for two windows to be replaced with doors and we ask not to have to build xing gables in the towers. Photographs were presented. We are looking at two French doors six foot 8 high with a wood transom. That is the calmest solution. We have accent gables on the tower and through all of our research we cannot find out anything on it. The church board would rather build the tower and leave the gables off. On the front door it has plexi-glass and we would like to change the door out. Historical doors are a combination of horizontal and vertical panels. They would like a better insulated door. The existing door is from the 1960's. John Kelleher, member of the church said that the church has been extremely sensitive to the historical integrity of the church. They will save the windows and put them in shrink wrap. Paul Taddune, parishoner stated the decision of the board reflects what Father Michael can do with regard to the use of the building. He recommends that we take out the mullions on the windows. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ June 13, 2001 Amy asked why they want both windows changed into doors, couldn't just one be changed so that one of the historic windows is retained. Father Michael said the functiOns get quite large and he does talks and food etc. is served and things are coming back and forth and it is a disaster trying to get through one door. By creating the double doors we will have the opportunity to have direct flow back and forth. Suzannah ask if there are any railing issues in the patio? Melanie asked if the doors would be the same height as the windows? The applicant said yes the doors would be the same height and some of the jam on the inside would have to be replaced. Suzannah said at the last meeting we talked about the ridge venting etc. from the tower and the applicant said they decided not to vent from there and it will be vented like a normal roof. Suzannah agreed that it would be better than the big thick ridge vents. The deck would be a wood deck or a brick paver deck. Comments Gilbert said with the two openings it is an appropriate way to do it. It also preserves the punched openings on the historic masonry wall. He has no problem with the front door. The tower he still has concerns as there is evidence that something was there. The photographs show that something was there. Lisa agreed with Gilbert's comments. She could approve the doors in the existing window openings as it preserves the south fagade, No problem with the doors and she would prefer to see some kind of gable on the tower. Rally said this is a very special building and putting the tower back is enough for him. He sees no reason to put the abutments on the tower. The two windows that are now turning into doors are an issue. Those are original windows and the original part of the building. We are trying to work with what is there and he cannot support the notion that the windows become doors. Even though this is a much better proposal than the first and the 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, June 13, 2001 functionality has changed over the life time of the building he feels we are etching away at the foundation of an historic resource. There are no handicapped requirements that are forcing this to happen. Susan said she had no problem with the door but she feels the same as Rally regarding the windows. We normally never change historic windows on such an historic fagade. The windows are very visible from Galena Street. Regarding the tower she feels something was there. Melanie also agreed that changing the front door from plastic to the new design is appropriate. The restoration of the tower is commendable and there is evidence that something was there and she would like to see that pursued. She also feels the changes from the windows to the doors functionally will work. Suzannah said she had no problem with the replacement of the front door. The one proposed is reasonable. The windows on the side was a solution that she suggested and will work. It covers the issue of functionally and preservation. She would like to make sure that the brick opening is carefully reconstructed to make sure that the brick is woven in to make a new finished brick opening. Saving the windows is great. On the tower she agrees with Gilbert that it is a difficult decision but since there is evidence that there was something there that was part of the character of the original building she feels an effort should be made to put something that approximate what we know to have been there. Continue to determine what was there on the tower. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the modification of the two south windows as presented in the drawings at this meeting, the replacement of the front door as presented tonight and that the HPC encourages the applicant to pursue a design for the tower elements and present those at another HPC meeting. The tower element shouM closely represent the historic photograph. Motion second by Suzannah. Yes vote: Gilbert, Suzannah, Lisa, Melanie No vote: Rally, Susan Motion carried 4-2 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ June 13, 2001 MOTION: Suzannah moved to adjourn, second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 17