Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940713Historic Preservation committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 935 E. HYMAN U.S.L.M. UTE #4 WORKSESSION 2 709 W. MAIN STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION 5 COLLINS BLOCK MINOR DEVELOPMENT - 204 S. MILL 5 303 E. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING MAIN STREET SIDEWALK DISCUSSION ...... CITY HALL ROOF 6 13 14 17 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OF JULY 13, 1994 Meeting was called to order by vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Linda Smisek and Tom Williams present. Joe Krabacher, Martha Madsen and Karen Day were excused. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Amy: I would like to add two things to the agenda, roofing for city hall and adopting the neighborhood character guidelines. Donnelley: I need to review the guidelines first. Roger: I would recommend going with these neighborhood guidelines with refinements as needed. Jake: I see these six months as a time when we can iron things out. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jake stepped down. Lucy Deque: I know Jake has come before you twice to present the house that I am restoring. I wanted to bring up one point one last time. The house was started in 1993 and the roof has fallen in twice of the addition that was put onto it. I am anxious to get the roof in place. The height of the roof is left to resolve and at the last meeting you decided to lower the roof 1 1/2 feet. That causes three things to happen and the first thing is that the exterior of the house is not as appealing as it would have been with the extra 1 1/2 foot. I know you have guidelines and one of them is it recognizes the stepping of buildings of roof tops. If you cut that off and have it set back this far it will appear to be the same height as this roof. The house is behind two trees. As a result of having this 1 1/2 go up you have allowed a larger dormer to accommodate old furniture. I want you to reconsider this 1 1/2 foot because even with it my house is much less taller than other houses in the neighborhood. This would be more in keeping. The stepping up idea would make the roof look exactly the same. I do not like that large dormer and it costs more. I know you have a great job and I have taken courses at Yale etc. and I want it to look as good as possible. I would like to invite the Board for tea or wine to just look this over. Donnelley: If you wish to have the approval an application needs to be made. Amy: I know Lucy is not happy with the approval and HPC's decision was valid. The original was a request for a three foot reduction and she asked for an appeal and got 1 1/2 feet. According to the attorney that is the end of the discussion unless she would like to submit a substantial different application. That is the decision the attorney told me and I do not know how we can help you Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 anymore. Lucy: I met with Roxanne three times about this and in the meantime the rules have changed. Because I started before the rules changed I feel I should go under the rules. I started the project in 1993 and it has taken me some time due to the different boards. Amy: When she started the 50% rule was in and then the code changed but the fact is until you have a building permit you have nothing. Vested rights are to protect your project against changes. No one is going to ask you to take down something that has been started. Lucy: I don't know about that and I plan on having a meeting with the attorney. I also feel this has nothing to do with historical and is not victorian. Amy: We didn't ask for that and talk with your architect about changing it. That dormer was not to be a particular size. Donnelley: Ail the discussion was based upon the ridge height. Lucy: I was just looking at what was noted in your guidelines. The 1 1/2 feet takes the stepping idea away. Amy: There is nothing else this Board can do. You would need to submit something else for the board to reconsider and you haven't done that. 935 E. HYMAN U.S.L.M. UTE #4 WORKSESSION Amy: The rock on the east end of town became endangered and the Committee felt that it might have historical significance so we iniciated a landmark process. Part way through, ownership changed and we are now resuming. The designated was approved by HPC and P&Z and we have not gone to Council yet and this group is here to get a feeling about what the Board's concerns will be and how much you need to review and what incentives you might be able to offer. Chuck Brandt, attorney for the landowner Richard Kent and Kim Raymond is the architect. Ron Cannan is here who built the house that Richard Kent owns. We are asking for a response as to whether a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus could be granted for the duplex. There will also be rquested a sideyard variance on the east side and one parking space variance. Assuming we supported the rock designation what would be the extent of HPC review. Historic Preservation committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 Kim Raymond: We tried to stay within the setbacks that are code for the area. You have to have a 5 yard minimum side yard setback and a 15 combined side yard setback so we tried to design a site footprint to accommodate that. The only problem we have with that is a window well and we would need a one foot variance. We would push the house back five feet from the rock. The same owner owns both the lots. Jake: What is the zoning here? Chuck: RMF residential multifamily. feet lots. The lots are two 6,000 sq. Jake: What is the allowable FAR? Amy: Around 3,600 sq. ft. for a duplex. Kim Raymond: The owner wants a brownstone duplex type house. Donnelley: The guidelines are constructed so people can find out what the intent is and the bonus would be granted if the character supports the neighborhood guidelines for that particular part of town. We do not know enough about the design to grant a bonus. As proposed I could not grant the bonus, it is not compatible. The elevations do not subscribe to the design guidelines. Roger: I can give direction as to what we are looking for. This duplex design is inappropriate. The guidelines for this area talk about graduated roof lines, no grand entrances and reduced fenestration so it is more in character so that the buildings are in a human scale not a minature hotel scale. The entrance should be on the street not lower or above and in scale. Kim: A lot of the porches are up three or four steps in older houses. Roger: This concept I call the Denver track home concept. Amy: If landmark occurs the Boards primary concern is keeping the rock at a certain distance from the building and look at mass and scale, general detailing of the building but not details. Roger: If the guidelines are followed I have no problem giving incentives. Ron Cannon: This drawing should never have been submitted and has nothing to do with what might be proposed. We were told to do a footprint. We are here to get assurance that you will not have design review. I represent the owner and will share a profit in 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 this project. We are trying to save the setback and the view corridor and that is all we care about. We moved ahead and that is all the house is right now. We are not coming before you with materials and design. Donnelley: If Council approves a temporary moratorium all structures that are over 80% of current allowable FAR will be subject to scruteny, not denied. We cannot at this point guarantee the extra 500 feet. Ron: The owner looks at this as square footage and resale. Donnelley: The character guidelines are flexible enough to allow and to encourage people not to do mock architecture, fake victorian. We are not sympathetic to maxing out the envelope. Ron: We are trying to get assurance before the design begins. Amy: You got feedback and the Committee is not just going to rubber stamp the 500 extra feet and the guidelines will be incorporated. The mass and scale need to be looked at if the Board intends to give you a bonus. Chuck: We would like to have another worksession to see if things can be worked out before we designate. Donnelley: A scheme that is sensitively done is still subject to reducing the FAR by 20%. So there is real incentive to come up with a scheme that is appropriate recognizing the character guidelines. Basically we are dealing with a character study. Jake: The character guidelines should not be an excuse to jump on people. The guidelines should be aware of. The things I might suggest regarding the foot print are consolidating your open space around the rock. Move the massing around and make it more of a park etc. that could be shared by both residence. A vest pocket park visually. Landmarking will allow you to build two separate houses rather than one large single structure. It is the large structure that is difficult. If you consider doing two separate structures it might even be better economically for you. It certainly supports what the HPC wants to do and that is break down the mass. The other remark bring the forms forward in the middle as you have done is something we are opposed to. Even if you keep them together create a break between the two masses and make it appear that they are separate. Possibly a hyphen. The HPC can give variances. Also hold the form down around the rock to a one story so it kind of honors the rock. Think of the the rock as something valuable and do a creative architectural feature. The Board just wants to save the rock. 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 Ron: I wanted to slide the house to the east to the lot line and take those required setbacks and slide them with the house so that you maintain the same opening space between. The other lot will be able to handle some of the stuff that this lot cannot. Les: I disagree with Jake and every site is critical. My fear factor is that anyone who would not save this rock has no idea what Aspen is about. This is an incredible opportunity to do something special. There is a market for something tasteful. I undertand that you do not want us to have architectural control and I don't blame you. If you go along with the character guidelines this should be wonderful. I would like us to look at a PUD so that we can do something special. I do not mind getting rid of parking if it is positive. Donnelley: There is a lot of possible flexibility. Les: I really want this to work and we are willing to work with the applicants. Amy: This site is a very sensitive site and there aren't a lot of historic buildings around but on the other side of the single family lot is the little group of log buildings that might be on the inventory and I feel this is an important place for you to do something that respects what the east end used to be. Tom: Make it more of a design element. Roger: We have lost so much in the last ten years in this town. Ron: I see the solution you need to stop people from selling out and cashing in because when I guy pays so much money for a little piece of land he wants to do what he wants. Put a limit on what people can sell their homes for. Les: There are a few people that feel maximum is not always everything. Roger: The reason most people came here was because the victorians were small and charming. What human needs a 32 foot livingroom. 709 W. MAIN STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Amy: This house is on Main Street and it is across from Joe Krabacher's house and is hard to see due to two enormous trees in the front yard. It is a structure 1886 and there is an historic 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 shed in the back of the property. It had been expanded in 1904 and there are a few alterations, one stucco on the building and the front porch removed. It is a good example of a residential structures that used to be all over Main Street. The owner is requesting landmark designation with no current plans for redevelopment. I am recommending approval finding that Standards B, E, F have been met. Roger: What is their reason for landmark designation? Amy: The grant and also when you have a landmark and the adjacent property is redeveloped we are supposed to take into consideration how they impact the historic structure. Mary Lackner, owner: We have no plans at the moment but will probably put a new roof on since the present one leaks. MOTION: Roger made designation of Block 19, that standards B,E and favor, motion carries. the motion that HPC approve landmark Lot G City and Townsite of Aspen finding F have been met; second by Les. All in COLLINS BLOCK MINOR DEVELOPMENT - 204 S. MILL Amy: Two years ago Phase II of the Collins Block was approved. The third floor loft was part of the approval and a roof top plan that showed numerous skylights. Not all of the skylights have been constructed and they are in the process of doing an interior remodel for the second condominium that is on the second floor. They want to do some skylights to light into the new diningroom etc. I am proposing that we approve their two new skylights, a round one and a small square one for the master bath in exchange for the ones that were approved and not built. That we do not end up in a net increase in skylights. The round skylight is not to exceed the height of the parapet wall and the skylight on top of the bathroom should be as low as possible and match the other existing one. Donnelley: There are two existing and another proposed rectangular that are almost as large as the two existing. Amy: It was already approved and they are the two large ones over the bedroom. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC approve the minor development application as presented for 204 S. Mill Street with the conditions that the proposed skylights replace those that were previously approved but not constructed. The diningroom light may Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 not exceed the height of the parapet wall and the bathroom and master bedroom lights must be as low in profile as possible. The proposed skylights should match the existing ones; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Les: When you say match the existing there isn't a round one there. Amy: I mean height and color. 303 E. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Jake stepped down. Amy: At the last meeting we made a number of advances and made some solutions to the aspects of this project. I had listed 6 items that we needed additional restudy on. The first was the deck and they have changed that and I am in support of the design. The basement stairway is being relocated inside the existing structure. They also eliminated the shed roof. They are now proposing a light well in the front of the property but in front of the addition not the historic building. Also one is added where the Board asked them to put it, south courtyard. Also they are still asking for one on the west side of the building along the sidewalk which I have mixed feelings about but we should discuss it as they need light in the basement. There are three proposals in the packet for the tower. A gabled tower reduces the height about 2 feet. I am in favor of tower one which was the original one proposed because it relates well to the rest of the project and can be lowered two feet. Regarding the outbuilding being kept in its current orientation I still feel the building should not be rotated but the applicant will want to discuss it. By bringing it to the sidewalk you no longer have the big guy little guy relationship between the two buildings. If it is turned sideways you see skylights etc. which were never meant to be visible and you loose something by not having the gable face the street. If we can settle on a tower solution and the orientation of the shed and aspects of the lightwell we can give conceptual approval to the project. Donnelley: Lets address each issue separately. Niklaus Kuhn, owner: This is our fourth meeting before the HPC and I am not happy about it. I would like to discuss something before turning it over to my son. First I would like to discuss the things we have given up. Number one we are solving the encroachment problem of the sidewalk on the west side. 2, we are 7 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 giving up valuable land by solving the encroachment problem with the shed in the alley. 3, you didn't like the light well in the front of the main victorian so we gave in and removed it. 4, you didn't like the stairs going down on the west side with the extended roof so we gave in. Five and lastly and most important you didn't want us to shift the main house which is the basis of our entire project. It is difficult for me to understand why you refused to let a shift in the house slightly. Because you let the Katie Reed victorian to be moved off the entire property and then let them paint the victorian and move it in the corner of the property line. Again our whole project is based on shifting the victorian and I still want to do so. You also keep on complaining about the tower. Let me first say we are concentrating on our square footage in the tower. This is the only living spot that we went up three stories unlike the Katie Reed victorian which is surrounded by three stories. We also have made the third story similar to the entire site. Its appearance makes it seem like two stories. This only gives us 64% of our allowable FAR. I understand the sensitivity of our project and that is why I hired the best architect. I want to do something like the other projects in town. The architect and myself thought we could past the first HPC meeting. If you still refuse to let me shift the main house which is totally unfair I think, I will only agree to passage of the entire project. I do not want special treatment because I am a local. I want the same treatment as anyone from out of town coming in. Roget Kuhn: I would like to continue because Mr. Bergman has two victorians and if he decides to build he will concentrate the square footage in the rear and by building up three stories. If you compare that to our project we have concentrated our addition to the half lot. Our neighbor doesn't have the additional half lots so I feel it is incorrect that someone said at the last meeting that the three story will set precedence. Donnelley: On the Katie Reed project we were trying to save one house that is surrounded by a large development. There were reasons to moving it and one was the community effort. Amy: It was also not on the national register. Roget: If you compare projects it is on the corner and I still feel it is similar in ways. I will explain the drawings and studies. The maximum height is 36 feet and we can build up to 40 feet. On the hip roof if you are concerned about maximal height of the tower it will differentiate between the two. By going with this roof size we are able to go down to 31 feet. That is a substantial amount to lower it. On tower one it is 36 feet because we are coming in three feet on each side. Tower three is the cross 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 gabled roof and we discussed lowering it to 34 feet. If we lower it from 36 to 34 we loose 9 square feet. I am asking you to look at the three towers and I need livable space and choose one. The space has to be livable. Roget: On the lightwell we moved one and will have a heat element due to the shedding of water and snow off the roof. You had talked about a flat grate or a fence for the lightwell. I am opposed to the grate as the appearance would not look well especially if you are down in the basement and looking out. On the victorian behind us on the south side the lightwell was done in a tasteful manner. My parents love flowers and I feel they can do a regular lightwell and incorporate flowers in a tasteful manner. I really feel strongly about that and feel it would look better for the project. Roget: The shed has grass around it and if we would move it to our proposed site we would keep the grassy area. If we move it like the Board suggests without turning it the entrance of the shed would now be on the sidewalk. I feel the entrance should be toward the grass because that is now it is now. By doing so we can have the parking space and feel the one parking space is not too much to ask for this entire project. We have the entrance moved now and it provides an entrance for the apartment and well as the back door of the store. I am asking you to waive the parking and leave the one outside spot because right now you have the power to do so and I will have a hard enough time with P&Z. I would like you to be consistent with the other projects in town that have been waived. At the last meeting Les was concerned that the most important part of the project is that the house should not be shifted and that he will compromise with us. We need to compromise. Amy: What I have told the Kuhns given Joe's recent experience with P&Z that I am concerned about them going with less than two legal parking spaces but they feel they only need one. I do not have a problem with HPC giving them one but have a problem as none are proposed inside the tower. If the first floor is for storage then put the storage in the basement. I am recommending the legal space be in the garage. Roget: It will be difficult to move the lawn mowers to the basement and my inventory for the store is very large. Amy: It could be two spaces and they are saying don't ask us to make them legal spaces as we will use only one under the deck. Roget: If you look at every other project you have waived the parking, Katie Reed, Caribou Club, Elli's. Katie Reed has employee housing. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 Donnelley: There is one thing that Jake didn't show as far as a tower option and it has validity to discuss. Take tower number 2 and instead of having a hipped roof lower the gable to 32 feet and you don't loose any of your interior space and the slope is reflected is in the historic house and it has advantages. The disadvantages of a hipped roof is from a pedestrian point of view and you don't see any of the roof and it looks like a flat roof. Roget: We actually came up with that but we were concerned about keeping the angles consistent with the rest of the property. You are actually saying to use the window orientation in tower two and combining it with tower three. Donnelley: Actually everything below the third floor in tower two and three is basically the same. The tower structure doesn't need to refer to the historic so directly that it has to have the same roof pitch. Tom: You are talking about lowering the cross gable. Roget: Tower number two and put a cross gable and lower it to 34 feet. I agree and we like the hipped roof because it maintained the square footage. Amy: Jake and I talked about the 12 & 12 pitch. Tom: I never minded the height and it could be 36 feet as long as the ceil horizontal line remains. Donnelley: The Kuhn's concern is space and our concern is height. Roger: I think Donnelley's suggestion is well thought out and I would still give them conceptual approval. Les: I am fine with Donnelley's suggestion. Donnelley: Is there any clarifications in reference to the light well plan. I understand the Kuhn's concern visual because when I look up it is constraining. If the space is purely utilitarian a grate would probably be better. If it is a living space or office space something else could be used. Roget: We are planning on building employee housing and some is residential and some commercial. We want it to be decent space. Hotel Jerome has grates and people throw their cigarette butts down in side the grate. Most of the properties around us have gone with a regular lightwell. 10 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 Amy: The one behind your building has nothing. Mr. Kuhn: The iron fence was around and they figured it was protected enough. We would like to come up with an iron fence 36 inch light and put bushes and flowers around so that you could still get out in an emergency. Les: I do not have a problem with the fence. Roget: They will just be windows for emergency exits. Les: You show coming out six feet and that seems too far out. Roget: We can do what is acceptable. Donnelley: The only light well that is directly impacting ones experience with the house and the historic structure is the one on the west close to the sidewalk. I am only concerned how it is handled. The lightwell at the rear is almost invisible from a pedestrian standpoint. Roger: I have no problem with the lightwell on the south or the north but I wouldn't want the one on the west and when they come in for final we need to see how the lightwell will be treated, stepped or a square fence around it. Suppose the lightwell on the west is only 1 to 2 feet out and along the foundation and allow more light? Amy: I do not feel anyone would be able to get out as there is a set width requirement. Roger: If there were a set of stairs going down they wouldn't need a lightwell. Roget: The architect was thinking of making the lightwell on the west side similar to the Museum of the World so that it is more of a landscaping feature rather than a light well. Amy: That one works well because the fence is away from it. Tom: I was wondering if a reverse hip with a different grade would work and keep the green space instead of having a hole there with a fence around it. Roger: So you wouldn't have to have a large rectangle in the corner you could have a longer skinnier lightwell around the foundation wall and the ground grade would come down like Tom said and there would be green space. It might only be two feet in 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 height but would still get the height. Les: One of these ideas will work and we can work that out. Amy: Can someone explain what we decided on the lightwell? Donnelley: My reading is that it is a detail matter and that at conceptual we don't need all the information. Amy: The next issue is the orientation of the shed which pulls in the issue of the parking. Donnelley: The existing orientation of the shed is more of an east west orientation and eliminates any possibility of a parking space. That is the functional drawback. The change of the shed would enable them to have a parking space. Les: I have no problem with eliminating parking. Roger: I would prefer the shed remain on its original orientation and creates a life along that sidewalk. At some point we will have to deal with P&Z about their attitude on parking. Amy: Looking at all the uses on this site there has to be at least one parking space and the paid parking is going into effect in November and we should be conscientious and waiving two spaces is a critical. It is OK for us to do it but it is a big deal. Les: This shed will be right on the south property line and if you moved it back a foot and did flowers would that work. Mr. Kuhn: The sidewalk is encroaching into their property more than two feet so that has to be adjusted. Roget: Obviously we have to take care of trash. Les: Are you looking at the new compactors that are out? Donnelley: On the revised site plan there is no location for a dumpster. In reality it would encroach into the alley because of the revised site plan and not moving the house forward. Roget: If we leave the shed in its original orientation and not turn it we will loose the deck. Donnelley: If the shed is rotated functionally are you OK with the location of the dumpster. Mr. Kuhn: Underneath the sundeck we would still have enough room 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 even with the parking. Roget: The deck on the third floor is really small and it was only put there to get the furniture u9 as the stairwell is very small. Donnelley: The shed would have to be in the rotated position. Mr. Kuhn: When I come to town I have to take my wife and double park and go down to the park to park the car and drop off the equipment. Les: The compromise is they are way under in the FAR and that is a major compromise. I hate to see the shed turned. Roger: Are the skylights on both sides? Mr. Kuhn: No just one side. Donnelley: One or two parking spaces is not going to solve the parking issues in the core. Roget: If we do turn the shed this is going to be a very small space and not show the distinction between the buildings that we really want. If we don't turn it, it will be looking away from the property a people will interpret this as no longer part of the property. Right now we have the green space and if we just turn it, it will remain part of the property. Donnelley: I do not object to rotating the shed. I am concerned about the skylights. Linda: Why can't we get rid of the skylights? Roget: We can move them to the other side of the roof. Donnelley: The shed can be turned and we can work out the skylights to be moved to the other side or eliminated. Donnelley: Any comments about the addition to the east? Roger: Is the fenestration appropriate on the windows as it shows delineation. Les: It works for me and it is a matter of detail and colors. Donnelley closed the public hearing. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that the conceptual development 13 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 be approval for 303 E. Main Street finding that the revised scheme meets the development standards 1 thru 4 and that the approval be based on the following conditions: The tower be altered from as shown in tower number two elevation to include four gables rather than a hipped form. Those gables could be the height at which should be the discretion of the architect, however it would be preferred to be around the 32 foot range. Condition number two that the proposed light-wells be deal with in such a way as to provide protection but that protection be of the option of the architect. Fence would be preferred for the south light-well and the west light-well either be eliminated and light provided by another means or a creative solution be found. The shed be rotated as shown and be located along the north and west property line but rotating it 90 degrees. The shed be oriented in such a way that the roof does not expose the skylights to the street. That there will be one onsite parking space and that we recommend the waiver of the requirement of the two spaces; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. DISCUSSION: Roget: When you say provide protection to the south are you also referring to the north light-well? Donnelley: South and north light-well. Les: We have all grown to love that property and are concerned. Roger: I hope this project and your business can flourish. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of May 18, 1994; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. MAIN STREET SIDEWALK DISCUSSION Amy: The City desires to finish the sidewalks on Main Street rather than wait for each individual site to do their own. They have hired a contractor out of Colorado Springs and are talking about scoring the sidewalk so that it looks like a boardwalk. My first reaction was that it is too cute but it is more interesting than just gray square pads. Les: Tooling them is better than cutting. Amy: Some of the sidewalks will be infilled as they are not replacing all of them. 14 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 Roger: If you cut them the sidewalk becomes weaked over time and that would not be the acceptable thing to do. The Blue Ribbon would deny that. Sidewalks are tough enough to maintain. Donnelley: The need is a concrete sidewalk and why not just do one with a bench etc. instead of this gimicy idea. Les: Where they have the expansion joint just square it. Amy: There are some people that like it and I would like the committee to think about it. I am not sure how this will effect the Mesa store. Amy: The streets department wants us to look at was doing exposed aggregate. It is hard to maintain. Donnelley: It is expensive and very contemporary. Tom: A sidewalk should be a sidewalk. CITY HALL ROOF Amy: We are looking at August through October for doing city hall roof. You have given us a go ahead on the standing seam metal roof and I would like the option to do laminated asphalt shingles. A standing seam metal roof is not very exciting. Donnelley: If you have singles it would retain the snow and this building has a problem. They are high definition shingles. Linda: Did we rule out wooden shingles? Amy: The City ruled it out due to the expense and maintenance. Roger: In this environment the deterioration and maintenance would be higher. I still think you should look at Folensby steel with the roof that patina's out. It is a light coating and as the sun beats on it the color changes. Amy: You have given approval for the standing seam. Donnelley: We need to look at the materials. Les: I need to see the warranties etc. COMMUNICATIONS Amy: The City has agreed to give Saint Mary's a couple of years to build the neck down. 15 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of July 13, 1994 Amy: E. Cooper AH needs to put their lighting in and the public works is recommending a pole with a victorian flavor. When you come into town you don't hit the victorian lights until the bridge. Donnelley: It is OK if the lighting doesn't start at the bridge. Les: If the city gives St. Mary's an extension it has to be less than two years and a condition of a CO. The entire basis of giving the church the entrance was based on bringing out the entire thing so there would be a common unity in front to congregate and they do not want to do that. Roger: Right now there is a lot of activity in front of the church because cars can be there for weddings and funerals. Les: They would only be loosing two parking spaces and conceptually it was one nice plan. Amy: I will tell Bill Drueding that we do not want to change our minds. MOTION: Les made the motion to adjourn; second by Donnelley. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 16