Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19950712ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 523 E. COOPER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT AWNING .......... 1 939 E. COOPER .......... 1 130 S. GALENA WINDOWS ........ 3 525 W. HALLAM CONCEPTUAL - PH ....... 6 406 E. HOPKINS ISIS THEATRE - WORKSESSION 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 Meeting was called to order by chairman Donnelley Erdman with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Linda Smisek, Martha Madsen, Susan Dodington and Melanie Roschko present. Sven Alstrom and Jeff McMenimen were seated at 6:15 p.m. 523 E. COOPER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT AWNING Amy: What is being presented is a traditional awning over the shop and a 6 inch deep awning along the other windows and it doesn't provide any shade for those windows it is being used for signage. When we talked on the phone Don the owner is amenable to having awnings on all the windows as he does have a sun problem as the Rocky Mountain candy is made by the window. Donnelley: The suggestion is to have awnings on all the windows rather than a combination of awnings and skirts. That makes a more continuous line of awnings around the corner. This is not ekactly what the application states and I want to make sure the Board is clear on the amendment. Martha: I was wondering what the board thought of the different color combination of awnings by Chanel. I realize it was a lengthy meeting but it looks odd to me. I feel very strongly about awnings being the same color. Donnelley: It is clear and if it is changed to be consistent with the awning on Parenesi in material, color and size I would recommend a motion. MOTION: Les moved to approve the minor development of 523 E. Cooper with the condition that the awning be the same color and size as the awning on Parenesi. Also that the lettering be the same; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. 939 E. COOPER Amy: On unit A the garage door should fade out and be siding. On final it was stated that it should look like a carriage house door. In discussions with Jake I was not in favor of the carriage look as it calls more attention to it than the siding did and also suggests an historic element and confuses the situation and the owners feel the same way. The Board needs to decide if we have to hold to that carriage house door treatment and part of the problem is that the door be one that didn't bend. Jake: Either design could be an application over a folding garage door. If they swing out like the old kind they are not practical especially in the winter. Roger: Could it be designed so that the trim doesn't exist. ~,~ Jake: A garage door is not flush with the wall surface. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 Roger: I am saying you do not have to define it with the trim. Don: Do we want to decrease the excessive historic because it is not an historical element and keep the siding on the garage door. expression horizontal Martha: There isn't any landscaping and if there were a bush on either side to de-mphasize it that would take some of the look off. It is a, garage door and should be dealt like a garage door. Jake: It is set back eleven feet. If you want it to go away the less stuff you put on it is better. Donnelley: The second level is highly articulated and there is a lot going on and then you go below and there is horizontal siding and they are very different elements. There is argument for having some detailing on the garage. Darnell Langley: I like the garage door with a few windows. Donnelley: This would be an upward acting panel door. The other option would be to leave horizontal siding and have three or four small square windows in the top panel. Les: When you frame the garage door it is more obvious. paint a wonderful tree on the front. I would Donnelley: There seems to be a desire not to have it a carriage house door but to have it be quiet and I feel it could be left up to the monitor, staff and owner. We can eliminate the condition of approval stating that it could be horizontal siding treated in some way as to make it less of a historic feeling of a carriage door. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC remove the condition of approval on cottage A of the garage door to look like a carriage house door and that Staff and Monitor will decide on the actual application as long as the door is unobtrusive as possible; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. Roger: I feel a hedge or lilacs would look great. Martha: If the color of the main house came down lower would that reduce that massiveness. Donnelley: I would assume it would all be painted the same. Amy: We had decided it was too hard to keep on top of required paint colors. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 199K Amy: The applicant has gone over their FAR. After numerous hours of discussion the want to request the removal of a porch which is not historic and after the CO is issued for the project they will put the porch back on. After they get their CO they will be under the new rules that allow porches for free. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC approve the removal of the porch as requested; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. Linda: I feel it should be included in the motion that the porch be put back on. Jake: It is a 138 sqft. porch. Donnelley: We should not include that in the motion. Darnell: I just wanted you all to know that is what we are intending to do, put the porch back on. Jake: We have one more issue, the glazing of the diningroom. We are using pella windows and are trying to thin down the look. The design of the windows is carried out throughout the new portions of the house and there was a concern from the Board that the look might be too strong but we are trying to make the windows thin and not be a strong element as it faces Cooper Street. New construction should be of current technology. Darnell: In the approval it said restudy the glazing and we restudied it. Jake: It called for putting clapboard above the gable and we have a transparent gable with a thin detail. It is only 13 feet wide. Roger: It can be worked out with staff and monitor. Les: Linda and I are the monitors. It looks a little strange to me but I am willing to work with it. 130 S. GALENA - WINDOWS Amy: The City Engineer and I have gone back and forth with this for a year. The grant that I got from the Colo. Historical Society was to restore the windows. We budgeted $30,000. for the project. We went out to bid last August and only got one bid and it three times what we had the money for which was probably reality but more than we could afford. We held off and the general contractor submitted an estimate that he could replace all he windows for $32,000. I have been opposed to outright replacement of the windows. These windows on the second floor facing west and the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 side windows on the first floor are basically the same windows. They have the original glass. On the first floor down in the front the windows used to be only half a light and then they were opened down into casements and now are a mess. Almost all the windows on the back of the building are new as well as on this side. If we restore some and replace some will that visually be strange and incoherent. What we have come down with is that there is a system which only replaces the sash and you use a jam seal to make the new sash fit into the old woodwork. In that way we would restore and use the old woodwork. We will not loose the small amount of detailing inside. The only other option would be to try and make one elevation look right. I do have concerns about precedents as we go after everybody that has an historic house in town and ask them to keep their windows and I would hate for us not to play by the same rules. I also suggested a condition of approval that the City make some sort of promise to improve the maintenance of this building. The windows are dry and the window ceils are cupped and water comes back into the building. We need a commitment that they will be taken care of like they should be. Linda: If you kept the original windows were you talking about double pane glass? Amy: On the Juan Street project Roger took out the existing glass and rout out enough space to fit a double pane in 3/8" which is a possibility. Then you keep the sash. I talked to a preservation contractor and it indicated it would be 10 to 15% more than the $30,000 to do that. Linda: You take the glass out and widen the opening. Roger: You gain nothing by putting in a thermapane. The R factor is below minimum because you have to go with a thin thermapane and it has no value. You are better off keeping the original glass. You could do an interior/exterior storm window that could be taken on and off. Donnelley: Would the windows be double hung pella? Cris Caruso: It is a similar manufacturer, Marvin. Jake: Marvin makes a good historical replacement sash. Melanie: What would the replacement windows look like? Amy: I think we would be aiming to replace and go with what is on the second floor west elevation windows in terms of profile. Donnelley: The issue is reuse historic windows and save them. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 Roger: I see no reason to take out the old glass and put in thermapane. If you have to put in a window get one that totally matches it. Cris Caruso: The bid we got last year from Roger for the windows was $70,000 to $90,000 and we could not find anyone else to bid on the project. Roger: No one will give you a precise bid. We also said we would give the savings back to the city if there were any. Cris: Marvin and Pella are coming out with windows all over the country that look like historic windows and the trim is detailed very closely. I am pushing for that based upon my limited success in getting a response for repair. Amy: The advantage of replacing the sash is that you improve the energy efficiency of the windows. Les: Did Craig bid on this last year. Amy: Not on these windows. Les: If I let these windows go I will never be able to ask anyone else to repair an old window and I cannot do that. I would rather see you take the $30,000 and get some great guy and start on this end of the building and get the best he can and then find other money to replace the rest of the windows. I cannot let these windows go. Donnelley: It appears that the preferred method would be to restore existing double hung windows and replace existing casements with Marvin double hung which match the existing. Roger: The price we gave was also to repair inside and out. Let someone pull one apart, fix it and paint and see what it costs. If it takes less than 40 hours great. Amy: That $30,000 did not include the painting. Roger: I find it appalling that you have to continually go out of town when you have capable people in Aspen that can do the job at a reasonable price. Roger: You have to take the trim off and pull the window out and strip it and adjust it and get new rigging etc. Then you decide if you are going to strip the inside or what and seal the window ceil and fix the outside sash, prime and paint it. Martha: Personally I can go with the line of reasoning that is ASPEN NISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 more reasonable and that is keep as many windows as you can. I am not as much of a purist as other members. When we talk about an individual house we are talking about saving one or two windows. Amy: It sounds like the Commission is sending us back to the drawing board. 525 W. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL - PH Sven and Jeff seated at 6:15 p.m. Amy: We went through the landmark designation the last time but will need a motion. They are proposing a two story addition to the house in basically the same location. It has an eight foot setback off the east property line. In our previous discussions most members were not in favor of a second story but if they were to review it they wanted a more significant setback on the east side. Eight feet is three feet more than the absolute minimum but still requires a substantial combined variance. It is staff's opinion that the two story addition is less sympathetic to the overall design and character of the original house. The trees in front of the property are dense but trees can go away. They are also asking to widen the front porch and that would be true for either proposal, one story or a two story house. The new proposal for the porch seems more accurate and maybe we need some discussion about the detailing. On the garage addition they have made changes to accommodate the neighbors view on the west. I sent the project through the new residential design check list and they do have a problem with the primary mass calculation. Only 70% of your building can be unburied in terms of plate height, ridge height or wall surface. Because of the size of the historic house existing they do not meet that criteria with the one story addition. This commission has the ability to waive that. They also have a problem with the volume calculation, they have windows in areas that are not considered no window zones. We now have a penalty system when someone carries a window through where we expect there to be a floor structure system and they have done that in several areas. I feel that can be easily resolved. I recommend approval of the project and the landmark designation with six conditions: More information about proposed restoration. Limit the decorative detailing on the new porch. Review the height of the garage (they are one foot over height limit) Report from structural engineer regarding the shed. Variances from the residential checklist and setback variances requested. I recommend we not approve the two story addition. Glenn Rappaport, architect: We read the committee clearly at the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 199K last meeting regarding the two story but we would like to explore that anyway. I feel the model is convincing. We intend to put story polls up for the neighbor on the left but we have incorporated the shed roof approach. As far as the neighbor to the east we pulled back to 8 feet. We feel the location and size of the addition is a good proposal. It does mitigate the concerns of the neighbor to the east. If the addition were put farther to the south it would impact their view and sight more. We would also like to address the height limit with the ADU. It is to our advantage to connect the building to the main house so if we attach a breezeway to the house we would not have a height problem. The fact that we want to detach it and give it a basic vernacular shape it is not doable under the code. If you want to encourage people to build out buildings with additional dwelling units on top of them and you want them detached which I think that should be an option you should not be penalized by the height and I would like the board to think about that. Glenn: In the memo it was mentioned about creating a 65 foot long street facade and I do feel the trees mitigate that. I also feel it is difficult to talk about how buildings were added on to historically with any real accuracy. The fact is if most of the lots in town were narrow and long the obvious way to add on was to continue to add on towards the back of the lot. This lot is a little bit wider. The owner has that option of making a viable back yard. If you look at this site everyone would say they would like to make a nice back yard out of it. I feel that is a reasonable use of the parcel. When you see the shape and the general scale of the addition you realize that the plate height on the street side is only an additional few feet and then it goes up farther on the south side. Even if the trees weren't there you could make a good argument for compatibility and it echoes the little shed in the back. Donnelley: We should deal with each element in question. Lets address the variances. Amy: They are identical except for the east yard and the combined setback variance. For the one story plan it is a combined total of 14.2 and they are supposed to have 27.5. For the two story plan it is eight feet and three feet. Jake: What is the height of a variance we can grant for a second story bldg. under the cottage infill? Amy: They can go to 16 feet to the 1/3 mark because it is a 12 12 pitch. They are showing 17 feet. Glenn is worried about that from a policy standpoint because we are encouraging that but it is physically impossible. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 199K Jake: They would have to go to the Board of Adjustment. Glenn: We do not have a hardship. It would have to be historically compatible or a code amendment. Donnelley: You would have to drop to a four foot plate height on the second floor. Glenn: That is not unreasonable, the problem is that we have a garage underneath so that makes the stairway happen on one side or the other and we will have head room problems. Glenn: We modified the front porch and brought the pitch down. Donnelley: We do not want to give conceptual approval if there are drastic changes that effect the outward appearance of the garage/studio. We have no ability to allow you the heiqht variance and do you think you can work within those parameters~ Glenn: We can work with the stairs. The easiest solution is change the pitch of the roof. Amy: It has to be 8 and 12 or 12 and 12 for that height to work. Could you not add a dormer above the stairs. Jake: If you used a steeper roof you could drop the plate and gain space. Amy: There is no limit on the ridge height. Susan: The studio garage has been modified for the neighbors view. Glenn: Yes. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Mr. Bauer: I have no trouble with this as it will not negatively effect my property or view. What is finally approved by this HPC. Donnelley: This is conceptual approval and the scale of the drawings do not have to be larger than 1/8 scale. Final needs a lot more detail. We do not encourage additions to look like the original historic house. Mr. Bauer: That would imply the more different the better. Donnelley: No it also must be compatible with size, color scale, shape of windows etc. Mr. Bauer: I can gather it will be an eight foot setback. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 199K Julie Wyckoff: I was unable to get the letter from the engineer by tonight but I am interested in keeping the shed. I am afraid that it will fall down. Donnelley: We can give approval with conditions. Glenn: It is only ten feet wide and it can be braced. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Donnelley: The grain of the neighborhood is such that there are no setbacks typically at this magnitude but we are dealing with an historic resource. The applicant is requesting approximately 11.4 feet of variance. Roger: I do not have a problem with the variance. Martha: I had a problem but it looks like we are working toward a reasonable solution. My concern is the impact of the neighbors and he has definitely demonstrated an effort and resolution of that problem. Donnelley: I will not take general comments such as the massing of the new element and how it works with the historic resource. I feel we have dealt with the height of the garage studio. We also need to discuss the deck. Jake: How are we dealing with the one story or two story. Glenn: Either approval for a two story solution with an eight foot side yard setback or a one story solution with a five foot setback. Donnelley: Either one has the same solution for the garage studio. Jake: In looking at the variances what is being proposed is more compatible with the historic resource than what would other wise be allowed under the code. There is a side yard variance for the two story bedroom wing, a rear yard variance for the relocated shed and an upper floor variance for the ADU. The neighbor doesn't have a problem on the east and I do agree that the 8 foot side yard is consistent in that area and it does free up more area of the site for a yard for usable open space. Historically outbuilding were located on the alley so I do not have a problem with that variance. The 16 foot height will have to be lowered or lower the pitch. The deck is allowed to encroach 1/3 of the distance and I do not have a problem with that. In terms of the variances I do not have a problem. I was concerned about the relationship between the old ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 199K and new. Typically I would be looking at something that keys off of the historic structure and that reiterates some of the character. Here you have a hip shape guy and a shed shape guy and they seem to be from different worlds. Donnelley: A hip is a closed form. Jake: My concern is this a compatible addition. It is interesting and fun but what makes it compatible. Glenn: One argument that I can make about compatibility is that we took the cant of this existing roof plane and pulled it through and tried to differentiate it so that it wouldn't look as one continuous thing. Linda: Not only is the addition not compatible but all the different roof shapes, the gable, the shed, the hips. It seems like a conglomeration of stuff and nothing is drawing it all together and I am having a real hard time with that. It doesn't seem that all those things should be in one yard. Susan: I am bothered by the addition and I like the idea of a one story. It has always bothered me that the additions are higher than the original. I will not vote but that is my comment. Les: I am having a conflict since I just came back from Santa Fe. I would rather see the eight foot on the east side to the neighbor and the five foot setback. Melanie: I am having trouble with the three different pitches which are right in a line. It definitely feels like Sante Fe and very different to me. I like the proportion as far as size but I just feel' that this should not be the final solution architecturally. Jeff: I would prefer the massing of the two story to what was opposed before, the one story. To me it felt like the building bled out to one end. As I understand it the hip roof is not an historic piece of the structure and this is the most bothersome part of the project. I would much prefer shed or gabled roof styles. I do not have a problem with the setbacks. I like the porch better. Roger: In regards to the one or two story addition we had a house that was long ago ruined by the new roof that was put on at some point. I would recommend landmark and provide more information and the decorative material on the porch be simple. Variances are not a problem including the deck on the garage. We can waive the design checklist in this case. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 199~ Glenn: The only rationale for changing the roof was for weather protection. Donnelley: The applicant wants us to deal with the two story rather than the one story. The two story is presented in the model form. Staff is recommending approval of the single story. Amy: The addition is pushed all he way forward and whether the trees are here right now or not it is a 65 foot long facade. I feel the second story does not work well with the house. Our reasoning for giving variances is that you are supposed to find that this is more compatible with the historic resource than would be development in keeping with the setbacks. I not sure that is really true. Donnelley: The facade steps back the same amount for either scheme and is three feet shorter on the two story scheme. Glenn: The hip roof structure is a difficult design to add onto. I really think the one story addition doesn't resolve anything and actually ends up hiding the problem behind the trees and doesn't resolve it architecturally. The only other viable solution is putting something above the house. We did not find other solutions that were compatible. We are only touching the structure in one place. This is an unusual lot. Les: You are telling me that you cannot restudy the roof line to make it work for this committee in the double story. Glenn: If we have to do that we will but I feel this is one good solution. If we go to the single addition we will not have a legal bedroom. I have not heard a convincing argument why this is not compatible from the Board. If there is another solution and we all can talk about it I would be glad to discuss it. Donnelley: Maybe there could be a hip reference on the street facade and a shed reference on the internal facade. Possibly clipped and a manipulative termination. Glenn: There is a five foot plate height facing the street and that would be on consideration. Jake: Our focus should be on the old house and I understand that it is impossible at this time to do restoration of the old house but I am curious as to what used to be there. Glenn: It was a twin gable. Amy: Like an M. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 199K Glenn: This proposal is the closest the ensure that possibly some day the twin gables will go back as we are not changing what is there presently. Jake; It would still be interesting to know what was there and someday try to get back there and have a restoration plan on file since you are asking for designation. Donnelley: You are saying if the addition reacted more to what was there you would be more comfortable. Jake: Yes. Amy: Buildings evolve and who is to ever say they have to go back to what was original. Donnelley: There is consensus that either a five foot setback on the single story or the eight foot setback for the double story would be acceptable to the commission and that the relocation of the existing shed provided proof can be given that it can be moved would also be an acceptable approach. That the new porch as shown for the main entrance which is widened be shown in more detail. We discussed the garage studio situation that would have to be worked on by the applicant to make it conform. The motion would have to include a variance for the second story above the garage as it will be used for a dwelling. No one has a problem with the approach as well as the deck variance. The commission is somewhat divided as to whether a one story or two story solution is appropriate. I would accept the two story as it is articulated for the main mass and secondly it is effectively screened by the spruce on the street, however; I am still ambivalent about how the one and two story addition terminate toward the east property line. I still think it can be restudied and a better solution resolved. In terms of compatibility and mass and general form of the project as read from the street I agree with Jeff that the way the project is organized around the rear yard and the usability are both positive features and therefore the rather extensive street facade is a good approach. I still have reservations as to the termination of the east side. MOTION: Jake moved that HPC approve landmark designation of Lots C,D and the west 1/2 of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen finding that standards B,E and F are met. Address what efforts could be done in research of a restoration program even if it is not proposed at this time. That information can be integrated into a landmark motion which will get us to a more authentic location and restoration; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Don: We had an extreme situation, the Hernandez residence and it evolved and there is no indication that there was a cabin there at ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 199K all. We know it happened as it is documented and the cabin is in the interior. Glenn: I fully agree with what Jake is saying and we could do some kind of analysis of the property and could be part of what is included. Don: A new owner may want to take it back to its original. MOTION: Jake moved that HPC approve the two story addition as proposed tonight with conditions: 1. Provide more information about restoration/repair work for final review. any proposed 2. Limit decorative detailing on the new porch and present that at final. 3. That the height of the garage be lowered to the 16 feet maximum. 4. Provide a report from a structural engineer for final review stating that the shed can be moved. The applicant must post a bond for the relocation, the amount of which will be set by HPC at final. 5. HPC shall grant the appropriate variances described on pages 4 & 5 of this memo and a garage variance of an additional four feet for the upper floor of the garage ADU structure on the alley south side. 6. HPC shall waive the "Residential Design Checklist Standard" dealing with primary mass due the dimensions of the historic structure. The architect shall revise the design to meet the volume calculation. second by Roger. DISCUSSION Les: I would like a restudy of the east end 2 story addition. The abruptness does not seem historically compatible. Out of your research something wonderful might come. Don: It maybe that a total vertical chop off of that end which is totally consistent with shed roof structures doesn't appear quite as consistent with the hip roof structure which one knows is on the street facade. There might be a way to accommodate both aesthetics in a slight restudy of that portion. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 Roger: Could the house be set back three feet on the front? Glenn: It is trying to match up with the existing porch on the side and that would not be possible. Don: Is the east end too much of a problem for a condition on the motion or should we table? Glenn: I could present some options. will work for everyone and we can do approval. We just want something that that even with conceptual AMENDED MOTION: Jake amended his motion to add condition #7 7. That a restudy of the east end addition occur at a worksession. second by Roger. Ail in favor of motion and amended motion. 406 E. HOPKINS - ISIS THEATRE - WORKSESSION John Wheeler, from Cunniffe & Assoc. presented: We are here to talk about the H. Weber Building 1892 circa approximately. It has been a theatre since the 20's when sound movies first started. The intent is to utilize it as a theatre and add more theatres. There is a vacant lot between the fire station which is intended to be expanded into the 9,000 sqft. parcel, all three city lots. The first level will maintain the existing facade and be restored back to its original condition. We are pulling the facade back and there was an assayer's office in the vacant lot that is presently there. Is it more important to have a street facade or an open space that steps back. Upper level will become two theatres and the lower level will be excavated with smaller theatres below. The project buildout will require additional space on top of the building. The upper levels will consist of employee housing that is required by the site. The house onsite has been moved as far back on the building to the alley facade and there is a lower mass with a open market housing unit and we have pulled that back to relieve the facade to preserve the integrity of the original facade. We are in study mode only. Fox photo is to the west. There is an elevator tower. One free market unit will replace the existing unit and there are four two bedroom employee units. Amy: They need to mitigate 60% for employee housing and they are showing 100%, so they are giving more. John Wheeler: The application is going to be an exemption from Growth Management for the expansion of an historic landmark which is approved by the P&Z. It requires the HPC to recommend and the 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 City Council to adopt historic landmark designation. It is on the inventory but not designated. The P&Z approves the exemption for the expansion. The criteria for the exemption is that the additional commercial square footage which is the additional theaters in this case must have their affordable housing mitigated. The expansion allows you to book first run releases on movies. They will be able to use a variety of benefits etc. The theatre can be used for other public events like an auditorium which has not been used in the past. Donnelley: Is there an operator yet? Sonny Van: Not yet. Donnelley: Then there is no guarantee that this will be used for community events. Roger: Is the front facade as close to the original as possible? John Wheeler: We have one photograph and he building was originally a wearhouse. In the 1904 map the building was separated into three partitions and the far east was a plumbing shop and remains that way today. On the alley it will be a rebuilt masonry facade. Roger: Why did you not draw any windows in the upper west elevation? John Wheeler: In this zone there is zero lot lines and the next parcel can build right up. The upper portion of the addition falls in to the Hotel Jerome view plane. We have to assume that both sides can be built to 40 feet at some point in the future. Sven: I am an advocate about things going out to the property line. John Wheeler: We have to maintain some open space. Sonny Van: You can waive the open space but we have to cash out. We thought it important to have the open space to separate the old building from the new addition. Sven: We have some problem with brick and the duplication of historic detailing that is put right up against old masonry. Jan Darrington, Cunniffe and Assoc.: We will be removing some old brick and will keep it to repair existing walls etc. Jake: Is there a basement? ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1995 Dan: No, there is not. MOTION: Jake moved to adjourn; motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. second by Sven. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Ail in favor,