Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19950412ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 624 E. HOPKINS - FINAL ........ 2 939 E. COOPER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT ...... 7 ASPEN PHYSICS ........... 12 702 W. MAIN STREET - FINAL ....... 15 KUHN - WORKSESSION ......... 16 1--7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 Meeting was called to order by first Vice-Chairman Les Holst with Jake Vickery, Sven Alstrom, Roger Moyer, Jeff McMenimen, Linda Smisek, Susan Dodington, Melanie Roschko and Martha Madsen present. Donnelley Erdman was excused. Alternate Sven Alstrom was seated as a voting member. The commission welcomed the newly appointed members. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roger: Have you talked to the attorney about historic buildings and holding CO's until subs are paid? Amy: Roger had asked whether the city could be involved before issuance of a CO if contractors, subs of a project are not paid. The City Attorney stated that he felt the city should not become an arbitrator of civil contract disputes between contractors and subs. If we got involved at the CO stage we would have to have hearings and become decision makers on the validity of all sorts of claims. Linda: I had a comment about the Conners memorial and I see that it is gone. The plants that were there were very old and the old plants could have been salvaged. I watch all the gardens in the town and it should have been relocated to a park or something. Roger: I am on the overlay committee and attended two meetings and at the second meeting we were review only. What we were shown were basically monster homes. I took an applicant around town to show him what we were trying to do. I am also going to go to council and show applications that have been submitted to the overlay committee that we have no control over. We need firmer ground rules. Michael Lipkin, architect: If you took those same drawings and reduced them to 85% of their size my guess is that they would still be ugly buildings. Roger: Actually you are right. Les: I did follow-up on the satellite information and if a municipality has guidelines against antennas then the FCC guidelines do not apply. Amy: We do not have guidelines against antennas. Les: I would like to go forward on the antenna/satellite ordinance or whatever we need to do. Les: I went to the s!~nposium on the entrance to Aspen and all were pro for four lanes coming in. The experts that were there stated ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 that would be the worst thing we could do to Aspen. Switzerland used to have two communities with no cars and now there are nine of them. What the department of transportation does when they do their projections they build in the expanded amount of traffic that the new roads are going to generate so there is never any release of congestion, there is added congestion. The minute you build it we go from 29,000 to 30,000 cars a day to 35,000. Roger: Walter Paepcke wanted an intercept lot in 1952. Les: Aspen now has one last chance to survive as a viable community. Linda: I have one more concern and it is about Angie Griffith's deteriorating property. Amy: I have approached the City Attorney as to the proper procedures we need to do in order to stop the deterioration. Les: I volunteered to do the roof for her and she did not want me on the property. We need to set a deadline. Amy: I want to come up with some alternatives. Sven: On 125 W. Main the porches need repaired. MOTION: Jake made the motion to add the Aspen Physics to the agenda; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of March 22, 1995; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. 624 E. HOPKINS - FINAL Amy: At one time this lot had an historic house on it and about four years ago the commission gave approval for demolition of the house with the condition that they review the new development. It is outside of the historic district. The issues that need addressed are the setback of the new building and we discussed this at conceptual and the applicant represented that he would split the difference between the setback of the KSNO building and the medical building in the interest of creating something of a street facade line. They have represented since then that they are not going to do that. It will be pushed back to the KSNO bldg. which I feel is not the appropriate solution. Now that we have seen final materials we need to discuss pedestrian friendliness of the facade. Martin Mata, architect for Lipkin Warner: We still intend to do the masonry wall that goes along the perimeter of the site that ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 could be used as a pedestrian venture. It gives the feeling of a fence without putting a fence up. Gives you privacy. We pulled it back in order to create a more appropriate yard in front as well as provide us the open space that we need to maintain for the CO requirements. We have minimumized the light wells and they will not be noticeable from the street. The material will be natural material of brick and aging copper and some metal used as decorative. We want to break it down to a human scale in character. Amy: You will meet the open space requirements by splitting the difference if the lightwells could have a grate over them and I am not sure that is what you are proposing. CLARIFICATIONS Linda: At the last meeting we discussed the size of the expanse of glass on the front L. Martin: The concern was that we do not put 8 ft. by 10 ft. panes of glass but rather break it down. Linda: I was under the assumption that the window would be smaller also. Roger: Will you discuss the chimney? Martin: The chimney is to serve the fireplace and it is not a wood burning fireplace. Amy: I was concerned about the pedestrian scale issue and I feel it gives the building a heavier character as compared to the rest of the neighborhood. Michael Lipkin, architect: The chimney is not at the face of the building and in the colored renderings it looks different. The skylight will be anodized aluminum. We are attempting to break it down. Melanie: Will there be roof top furniture? Martin: There is a three foot high parapet to hide any equipment. Jake: What is different from conceptual on the plans? Martin: The only changes have been the long vertical element and we combined the two and the trellis. We also changed the size of the grid on the entry side. COM~ITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 Martha: I have liked the project from the beginning and a lot of ingenuity has been brought forth with the limitations on this piece of property. You had talked about glass block windows. Michael: On the lower level we had talked about glass block on the recessed porch area. The applicant wanted something softer and more domestic and that is why we replaced the panel with a weathered copper that would be acid etched. Martha: I had felt the glare would be taken away with the use of the glass blocks. Linda: I am still having trouble with the large group of windows and the way it sits right now it looks like a warehouse. Les: This is one of the last two demolitions that we have allowed within the last five years. I feel you have done what we asked and it is a unique block. I share a little of Linda's concerns but when I look at the colored rendering it starts to work for me. I feel this building will help spruce the block up. Roger: This building is great fun and since it sits in a quasi- industrial block I feel it is appropriate. I feel the wall on the street side provides privacy and still allows messy vitality along the sidewalk. The skylights work. Because the front face is very (city) possibly the window could project in a foot or so to soften it. Sven: I feel this building will work for this block. I feel the metal trellis is a much more integrated design as opposed to wood. I would have encouraged larger lightwells to let more daylight in the basement and to encourage solar heat gain. The fenestration is the only issue and I would like to encourage the use of a dry stack mix and get away from gray mortar joints. Jeff: The architecture is compatible with the two buildings beside it and you talked about addressing the street character by bringing the building closer to the street then projecting the low seating wall out to the sidewalk. The setback from the street is one way to address street character and I feel the low wall coming out to the sidewalk fails as it is like a Band Aid on something that is a bigger issue. Perhaps large cottonwoods would enhance the character of the sidewalk along the street as well as the distance from the street. Aspen trees are flimsy as street trees and cottonwoods are the only trees we have here that are successful as street trees. Aspen trees are residential and this building is not. Melanie: I feel the architecture works and I have concerns about ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 the trellis but do not feel it will be seen from the street. I feel no one will sit on the iow wall. I am also concerned about what is to be planted behind the wall. A hedge would not be appropriate. Susan: The building is interesting but it is not very residential looking. It looks like a commercial city-type building. I realize that is an ugly block and I feel this building will help the block but it doesn't seem to be softening the hardness of the rest of the block. I also realize they have gone to a lot of work on the parcel. Jake: This building was a residence in the commercial core in addition to being an infill building in a block that has been damaged by over scale architecture. It was very difficult for me to review it and to grasp criteria to review it with. I do wish now that we had a required model at the conceptual stage. If this were a commercial building you would have to go through GMP competition and I wonder if we shouldn't be looking at some of the criteria related to the GMP. I also am concerned about the streetscape. The city engineers should be consulted regarding sidewalk and streetscape plan. I would make that a condition of approval. I liked the little house on top of the roof and I am sorry to see it go. It made a reference in terms of scale. I am devastated by the rear elevation. In terms of alleys and what we are trying to do with them it is not totally destroyed. It is a thorofare and the rear elevation is not sensitive. It is a big wall creating rear yard space and I do not feel that is a good resolution. I support the architecture but would like to see more detail above the large surfaces that could break down the scale. Roger: A recommendation would be to put two benches in between the masonry wall to break it up. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the final development for 624 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the streetscape i.e. breaking up the stone wall, adding substantial cotton wood trees etc. 2. Do not use a prominent mortar in the joints. Study staking and other masonry techniques. 3. Possibly softening the entry in some manner, fenestration and creating it to be more residential. Motion second by Melanie. Roger: I would also like to add the little house. Amy: For clarification that is a pent house and will house the mechanical equipment for the elevator. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 Les: We are asking that it be whimsical. Les: What about the north wall? Roger: That does not bother me. Sven: With regard to fenestration of the large window I am concerned about the interior treatment of the drapes. You would not want to see a white drape closed behind the window due to the size of the window. We do not want the closed off look. If the drapes were white it would be very reflective. In this case you need to not only look at the fenestration but how that window is closed. Roger: I am not sure we can regulate interiors. Melanie: The little house is a great idea but it does change the relationship between the chimney, trellis and what is happening. Jake: We need to understand what the glass is in that window. Michael: It is clear glass and is on the drawings and we had talked about it at the last meeting. The exterior surface of the interior shading whatever it is could be a material that is not visually active. Les: I do not feel this is enforceable. Sven: If that is the case then you need to re-think the fenestration. Linda: That is why I suggested a restudy of this huge 18 by 12 foot mass of glass. We cannot enforce interior. Roger: We basically have an acceptable structure and the details need worked out. Amy: The amendments could come back to the commission. Martin Mata: Some of the issues that are coming up now we have already addressed and have to a certain degree been approved. Two particular items one the little house which is whimsical but at the previous meeting there was a lot of negative feedback. We have had the large window in there since the beginning and I assumed that it was OK. We want this to go in the right direction. Les: Ail of us agree that the front yard needs restudied. monitor and staff can handle the window. The ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 199K Jake did a straw poll on the whimsical house and only two members voted in favor. Jake did a straw poll on a restudy of the entry window and only three members voted in favor. AMENDED MOTION: Roger moved to withdraw the whimsical house on the roof and eliminating #3 of the original motion which was restudying the fenestration of the entry side; second by Melanie. Motion and amended motion carries 6 - 1. Linda opposed. Sven and Donnelley are the monitors of this project. 939 E. COOPER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Jake stepped down. First Vice-chairman Les Hoist chaired this portion of the meeting. Amy: This is final approval for two of the five units that will be built on this project; for the historic house and the historic barn. In terms of the historic house I think that the proposal is very appropriate and a compatible addition. Conditions of approval would be that the proposed new foundation for the historic building is a rubble stone foundation and I suggested that they use a coursed ashlar sandstone veneer because it is a more appropriate and compatible material and more historically accurate. On the south facade of the addition in the gable end the architect has extended the windows through the gable I feel at least on the street scape side this presents something of a scale issue and that the gable should have clapboards instead of the window. Any information discovered during construction regarding original window location or original detailing has precedence over our approval tonight. Amy: As far as the barn there have been changes since conceptual and it has been turned 180 degree so that the taller side is now facing west to increase the light. My recommendations are eliminating the skylight on the east facade which lights a storage area. On the west facade there is a large skylight that could possible be eliminated. We also need to have a discussion as to the means of preserving the barn. The proposal is to take the barn apart and build a new structure and side it with the old siding. It is not really an appropriate preservation solution and a number of bonuses were received by the applicant for preserving the barn i.e. square footage bonuses, the ability to have an additional unit and preservation grants and other incentives and setback variances. I feel there should be true preservation as a result of that. Scott Lyndel, architect for Studio B: Turning the building gives ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 us the only view from the site which is a down valley view late afternoon sun. There is a large building behind us. Our logic for wishing to take the barn apart is that structurally it doesn't meet code. We would have to fur it out completely under the interior which would be increasing at least four to six inches all the way around the interior walls. Right now the footprint is only 600 sqft. and the floor area is 580 sqft. If we had to do that we would loose 60 to 80 sqft. We would like to reconstruct it to the exact scale and dimensions and reuse the siding. Currently the roof is leaking and not functional. We would like to do a corrugated material for the roof. Amy: As far as the corten skirt are there any other options or treatments that could be used on the existing material to have the same effect? Scott Lyndel: We could go with a stone material but it would be more expensive because we are going to the window well. Corrugated would work better due to the proximity of the adjacent bldg. We were trying to keep the idea that this was an out building. Marsha Goshorn: The maximum that can be spent to build this building is $145,000. Scott Lyndel: Leaving as it is now and bringing it up to code would cost more. Amy: Everyone realizes that the preservation way is more expensive but that is what we are here for. It is unfortunate that it was not thought through price wise bringing it to a category 3. Marsha: Dave Tolen stated that he would look at the additional costs. Amy: If it could be a category 4 and sold for more it makes more sense to invest more money in the because you can recover that. in the future preservation Martha: As a board we have a problem with replication vs preservation on certain situations such as the gazebo and as a preservation board we need to deal with this head on and that means we preserve the barn. Roger: Your proposal is to place it on cement block and put a metal skirt around it. Scott Lyndel: We would do a poured foundation and a basement. Sven: I support Amy on this in trying to retain the existing barn as much as possible. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 Les: Basically the barn will stay and we are here as a resource for the applicant. You don't have to fur like another entire house. All along we have talked about moving this and putting down a slab. We will work this and I do not feel it will be that big of a problem. Scott Lyndel: It is basic code requirements. Les: We have building codes for historic buildings and the Bldg. Dept. can help you with that. Scott Lyndel: To what extent in the level of detail do you want the windows and existing barn door. Can the barn door be restored or do we have to find old wood to match. Les: We have stacks of old wood and where it cannot be replaced you can use new. Amy: We want you to preserve the original materials as much as possible but we do not want you to retain things that are going to cause the building to deteriorate. Martha: Who makes that determination? Amy: Staff and project monitor. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the barn for 939 E. Cooper with the orientation north/south without skylights and that the skirting on the barn will be metal as proposed. The barn will be preserved in its entirety without replication and all surfaces of the barn that can be preserved will do so. A bond will be posted and a bracing plan submitted before the barn is moved; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. Amy: On the historic house I recommended approval with three conditions: That in lieu of the proposed rubble foundation a coursed ashlar sandstone foundation be used because it is more compatible and more accurate. On the north elevation I recommend the removing of the window on the gable end addition and replacing it with clapboard. Any information found during construction that is more accurate about window placement etc. details supersede the drawing before us at least on the north elevation. Darnell Langley: This is what we presented at the worksession and the only thing that changed is on the new addition of the N L and on the E L instead of board and batten we did a wider siding so you can distinguish between old and new and set it apart. From staff recommendation we changed the garage door to fade in more with a clapboard so that it doesn't look like a garage. The windows Amy ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 has mentioned set the building apart, the old from new. Roger: Is there anyway to make the garage door less of a garage door, make it go away. Darnell: We thought we addressed that changing the siding on the garage door to fade in. Roger: On the N L, the balcony above the garage door there are two doors what is the height of those doors? Darnell: I believe they are 7' which is 6'8". Roger: Is the window larger than the historic window? Darnell: Smaller. Roger: Were you proposing river rock for the base of the house? Darnell: It is not river rock but a rock with wide mortar between it. It is local stone. Roger: Do you feel the historic house should have as tradition a sandstone facing and the newer addition would have your selection of stone or do you feel it should all be the same. Darnell: I would prefer to be consistent and have the rock base all the way around. Sven: The applicant has presented overhead rolling door which are the most common. I am not considering cost but you could make a panelized custom door so that it looks like an old carriage house door. Historic homes never had an over head operating door. You need a door that looks like it operates like a carriage house door. I also like the different stone treatment suggested by Roger as long and the color treatment is similar. Melanie: I wondered why you wanted the clapboard around the window in the front when it is definitely a new part of the building and it carries throughout the rest of it. Amy: I feel it is an interesting way to subtly distinguish old from new. This is a new solution for us that Jake has presented. I feel it works well on all facades except the street facade. I have a certain concern that it is an element that disturbs the scale of the historic house. Darnell: The historic house is 17 feet forward. Sven: The east elevation needs restudied and the fenestration ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 needs looked at. If you are changing the garage door to the recommendation of a carriage type it will force you to restudy the glazing. Les: Our job is not to redesign and direct you. Susan: I agree with Roger about the garage door since it is facing the street. Darnell: The comment from conceptual is try to make the garage fade in and that is why we put siding on it. There will also be a three to four inch mortar between the rocks. There is limited stone base and we would prefer to have it the same all the way around. Roger: My comment would be that the foundation would be coursed ashlar on the historic part and rubble on the new to show the differentiation. That the garage door be redesigned and would be custom door. 280 Lake Ave. has an example of the carriage door. The doors on the balcony and the adjacent windows would be the same scale as the historic resource and that there be a restudy or elimination of the windows above. Jeff: I concur with Roger on the rock base and the garage door. I rather like the combination of the clapboard and board and batten as it gives the building an added on look to it. After reading the minutes it seemed there was a concern on the glazing of the second story as it takes on a look of some of the newer houses. I agree with that and feel there are more creative ways to get light into that upper story than simply glazing the entire wall. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the historic house at 939 E. Cooper, unit A as draw with the following conditions: A) Landscape plan be submitted in full for the entire project. B) Garage door be redesigned to become an historic carriage door which is a custom door. c) That the foundation wall of the historic structure will be coursed ashlar sandstone and that the foundation wall on the new structure will be rubble of the same color and type of stone. D) That the north gable porch and window treatment be restudied so that the lower doors and windows maintain the same scale as the historic structure and that some other treatment is restudied for the other windows. I am talking about the north porch and gable only, that the fenestration and doors be restudied. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 second by Sven. DISCUSSION Martha: I am having trouble with the two types of rock and seems to be that it is not compatible. Amy: It will be the same material but laid differently. Les: You will barely notice it. VOTE: Ail in favor, motion carries. it ASPEN PHYSICS Brad Ziegle from Harry Teague's office did the presentation: The Center was part of the Aspen Institute and about three years after they were founded they became their own center. The goals is to have their 90 participants on campus and in a suitable environment. Summer program is the main program and they have up to 400 participants. As you come down Gilespie the idea was to minimumize the site and the peak is 17 feet high and 25 feet wide and faces the street as a house would face the street. There will be offices and meeting rooms. We have recommended pushing the trail easement over to the trees on the Physics property. Jake: What were the concerns of P&Z at the meeting. Brad: The length of the building and crowding. Also the impacts of the neighbors. Neighbors were concerned about the overall length of the building and they were concerned about S0 cars and how does that work. Ramona Markalunas: It was like a great wall. Brad.: A neighborhood concern was the access to the race track and that the new building mitigated the existing trail. They also felt that the campus and physicists were turning their back to the neighborhood. This project need to be a private space and somehow that has to happen. The building sits on the line that was defined as the circle of serenity. Jake: You have several schemes in your book and which one do the physicists prefer? Brad: Scheme B takes out two offices and six inches out of each office. It pulls us away and gets us on the west side of the existing ditch. Scheme B is preferred. 1--2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 Jake: So the SPA is driving you into connecting the buildings. Brad: Physicists like the internal circulation. Sven: I am also in support of that as it is more energy efficient. Brad: Thy physicists looked at B, F and C. Amy: Our roll in this is to ensure that the historic resources on the property are not impacted and they are not. The commission also made a finding that this had neighborhood compatibility issues and should not be approved. They are back to us hoping that we will change that recommendation. Brad: Our goal is to leave all the cottonwoods. Jake: We need to focus on the alternate schemes and give the applicant input or a response. We need to deal with the external program like impact on neighbors and the impact on the streetscape and preservation of existing trees. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Melanie: It is a long building and I understand the need for that but I have a concern of the closeness to the lot lines on both sides. There can be a lot done to screen it. I would like to see it smaller in length. Sven: Although this is a long building it is not a very large building and we should vote for priorities of the neighborhood. I would urge you to vote for scheme D which creates more open space. Linda: The major problem that we saw the last time is the big long extensive length of the building as one which creates a large wall and that is something we wanted to get away from. Scheme B is very similar to what we are trying to avoid. Scheme C would break it up a little more. We need to have something in keeping with the neighborhood. Les: I feel the interaction is critical and I also feel the neighborhood character is valuable. Roger: This is a long linear mass as though it were a barrier and actually it probably wouldn't be with good landscaping and a little bit of pulling back. Seventeen feet isn't that high and it might work reducing it a little and pulling it back as opposed to breaking it up in different masses. I feel the real critical issue is the landscaping plan as well as the site plan and dealing with 1--3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 the easementS. Susan: I like Les's idea in having some of it lower so you can see through as it is an awfully nice view from Strannahan. Martha: I am more in favor of being energy efficient and therefore I would recommend scheme B. The surface of the wall seems broken up and does not turn its back on the neighborhood. I also agree with Roger that the plane might not be as obtrusive especially with vegetation. Jake: Visually breaking it up makes it feel more friendly. Breaking up of the roof would make it more compatible. PUBLIC COMMENT Ramona Markalunas: We would like to see the buildings more interiorized on their site. The Hilbert Hall is at the opposite end of Strannahan and there are three large cottonwoods and it would be better placed along the west property line or along the North Property line. With the reduction of 22 feet the building would be 225 feet long and if along the north side it would allow access to their auditorium. Charles Collins: Gilespie was once a dedicated street continuing west and that has always been a good access for people coming out of the west end to come down through the track. I would prefer to see something like scheme E. Historically I would like to see Gilespie stay somewhat open to get good access and in fact that was where the trail on the original SPA was to come through. Les: I feel we will need a few more public hearings and that story polls will need to be put up so people can see how it will effect them. Brad: I would like to get a consensus in order for us to put up story polls. Les: I need a site visit and story polls. MOTION: Roger made the recommendation that HPC finds the following with considerations from the architect and the neighborhood: A) A long liner building is not acceptable. B) That the existing pathway from Gilespie to the race track area be maintained open. C) That buildings be pulled back from the setbacks, west and south. D) That there is the possibility of breaking the buildings up into smaller ones which is more in conjunction with the neighborhood character guidelines. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 E) We encourage the site visit and the establishment of story polls. F) That a landscaping plan be presented. G) There is not enough information available for P&Z to make their final decision without having a site visit and having polls places etc. H) That the design reflect and coincide with the neighborhood character guidelines. Motion second by Linda. DISCUSSION Brad: Regarding the long linear building, it is part of an institutional organization and institutional buildings and there are guidelines for us to deal with in that regard. Linda: It has to be compatible with the neighborhood. Sven: If the building is a certain distance then the length starts to diminish as a concern for the neighborhood and that is why I keep wanting it moved back. He hasn't presented a final configuration. The fact that we have asked him to move it back and preserve the trail forces him to reconfigure the design. VOTE: Ail in favor, motion carries. 702 W. MAIN STREET - FINAL Amy: They are proposing Hope windows and on the W L they are fire rated and clad on the rest of the building. Les: I want a monitor to see a window. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the final at 702 W. Main with the condition that staff and monitor see the final window selection; second by Roger. Jake: What about the restudy of the W L windows. Is the material on the second level shingles? David Panico: The gable is shingles and the wall on the second floor is siding. VOTE: Ail in favor, motion carries. KUHN - WORKSESSION 1--5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1995 Roget Kuhn: We decided to go with the tower scheme with the corners included. We will have a deck on the top floor of the tower the same size as the one below on the west side and we feel this will be more compatible. In front of the new store space we had a light well then we had to convert to a stairwell in order to have the required two exits to the basement and due to the location and drainage problems we are asking to lengthen the roof three feet in order to cover it so we do not have maintenance problems. We have modified some of the windows. We are proposing a window on the alley side of the tower. To distinguish between old and new the material we are proposing brick on the bottom and wood on top. Amy: As far as material changes that is appropriate but when you get into window changes we need to see full elevations. Roger: I feel the tower should be left brick as it is a new element and the rest wood. You could combine brick and wood. Amy: The overhang over the lightwell is not clear enough for me. Jake: It is supposed to end up looking like a little porch. Roget: We were going to have employee housing and needed a light well but that is not going to happen and we want to eliminate the lightwell. Amy: Can the front lightwell move to the back? Jake: No due to the two egresses. Amy: Brick will probably be appropriate on the first level of the carriage house. The lightwell in the back can go. The balcony on the third floor OK. Roger: Sven: Jake: MOTION: Les made the motion to adjourn; second by Roger. favor, motion carries. I do not like pladium windows. I have a problem with the corners being cut. A logical place to change materials is at the skirt. Ail Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 1--6