Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940413Historic Preservation Comm%ttee Minutes of April 13, 1994 300 W. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT 610 W. HALLAM STREET - PARTIAL DEMOLITION 520 E. DURANT STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT (CHANEL) THE ASPEN MEADOWS - REFERRALS . PRESERVATION AWARDS 1 5 13 16 19 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of April 13, ~994 Meeting was called to order by chairman Joe Krabacher with Jake Vickery, Tom Williams, Scott Samborski, Roger Moyer and Martha Madsen present. Excused were Donnelley Erdman, Les Molst, Karen Day and Linda Smisek. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS Amy: May 10th will be the awards ceremony and I am trying to arrange Allen Feinberg who originally wrote our design guidelines and some architects and HPC members to talk about infill projects and compatible additions. Amy: I am also concerned about the mass transit committee and they are looking for input along the lines of our community character guidelines. Scott: In Durango they have their own train as a tourist feature and their own train yard. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of February 23rd and March 9th; second by Tom. All in favor, motion carries. 300 W. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: We reviewed this project in an earlier meeting and it was continued so that the applicant could give more specific information on how the fence would be constructed and materials. Caroline McDonald, owner of 300 W. Main: The elevation of the fence from the top to the bottom is 2.1 feet. Joe: Is there any height difference in the pickets along the grade? Caroline: It would be the same except for the last ten feet on the wall which drops from 80 to 90. It would drop to 42 inches and the others being 48 inches. It would run 48 inches at the 80 height and 42 at the 90 height. Amy: On that street corner you can't have anything higher than 42 inches on the corner. Caroline: We would prefer to do the 2 1/2 inch pickets but we will propose the wider width of 4 inches. Scott: It wouldn't be 4 inches it would turn out to be 3 1/2 inches because standard lumber comes in 3 1/2 inch width. Joe: You have alternate A which is 2 1/2 inch wide pickets and the end posts are hidden behind. Plan B is 4 inches or whatever it comes cut as with four inch end posts. Historio Preservation Committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 Roger: Amy, you wanted six by six posts with one by six pickets and do you have any problem with four by four post with three inch pickets? Amy: I don't think so but the six was mentioned at the last meeting that it be significantly larger to fit in more with the scale of town. Joe: The one by fours also have spaces between them. Joe: The question to the committee is whether that breaks up the long feeling of the 90 foot run. Roger: Doesn't it seem that most new fences are one by six and older fences are narrower slats. Wouldn't a narrower slat be more historically compatible? scott: The reason why you would go to a wider slat is that labor is a little cheaper and it is more of an economical issue. I like the narrower slat. Caroline: The narrow slats don't couple and the wider slats do. Amy: At the last meeting it was discussed whether the fence would wrap around the corner. Caroline: We wanted it to end straight mainly because we have that row of trees and it would cut their sun. We wanted to terminate it with a post. Roger: I feel the fence should wrap a foot or two as it would aesthetically look better. Scott: Three feet would look better and it is appropriate that the fence wrap. Amy: Just turn the corner and have a couple of pickets. Caroline: The Elisha side has a cement wall ready for an iron fence to go around. Tom: You could end it with a metal brace and that would finish it off. Martha: I cut my lower branches on my pine tree all the time and it doesn't damage the tree. Joe: It seems awkward to just have it terminate, just stop on the Historio Preservation committee Minutes of &prll 13, 1994 retaining wall. It has to have something. Caroline: We have one on the alley side that just ends. Joe: That is on the alley not Main Street which is very vislble. Amy: It is the matter that people will see this coming down Main Street and it doesn't meet our guidelines but given the environmental conditions we think it is OK but there has to be some treatment that it isn't so harsh. It is a long wall. Caroline: Yes, it is a matter of taste. Amy: It is not in the character of Main Street to have a long wall like that. We are trying to soften it up. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC approve the minor development application for 300 W. Main with the following conditions: That the fence be constructed of 1 by 3 pickets with a chanford top and four by four posts. That the fence height be within the City of Aspen Code. That the fence height and that the ending on the west and east side be worked out with Staff and monitor; second by Tom. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: How are the pickets attached between the posts? Caroline: The two by four is drilled into the post. Jake: So there could be some relief between the outside face of the pickets and the outside street side face of the four by four posts. Caroline: You are saying you want some kind of relief on the front. Scott: You would get more relief instead of notching it into the four by four just nail the two by fours in back of the post and you would get more relief. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended the motion that the fence when constructed shows relief between the pickets and the posts and that relief will be determined by the width of the two by four and the post; second by Tom. -Ail in favor of motion and amended motion. Motion carries. Joe: What is the spacing between the posts? Scott: Six feet. H~storic P~ese~-v&tion Commt2tee ~nu2es oE ~pr~l ~3~ 1994 Joe: And the transition from the 48 inches to the 42 inches is that going to be done with a six inch drop or a gradual. I personally would prefer a gradual drop. Amy: The issue is whether the fence should be 48 and drop to 42 or 42 inches the entire 90 foot span. Amy: The monitor and myself can discuss that issue when we finalize the design. 6~0 W. H~LL~I STREET - P~,RTI~L DEMOLITION Amy: This is an application for a partial demolition of a victorian house that is listed on the inventory. I have brought maps of the footprint of the house in 1896 and 1904 which I can present to you and again HPC is only reviewing the partial demolition whether or not it compromises the historic house. I have found that the demolition did not meet our partial demolition standards. I did say that the applicant can demolish the existing porch because it has already been changed and it is not the original porch. I recommended that the applicant request landmark designation because the house is worthy of it and it is the best way for us to allow them to have the additional space that they want. Jim Terry, Gibson Reno Architects: Jim Iglehart, owner: Jim Terry: Our major view of this in going through the standards for partial demolition is somewhat confusing in our minds as to how the leanto on the back of this building holds any historic value. We are looking at demolishing the leanto in the back. Having looked at the structure it is deteriorating to the point that something has to be done. It is settling throughout the building significantly. The leanto was added on to the original miners cottage and it was the easiest and cheapest way to increase the living area. Amy: The footprint of 1904 indicates that the leanto was added around that same time. Jim Iglehart: What is the validity of that map? Amy: It is the Sanbourn fire insurance map and it is extremely accurate. Amy: The house was built in 1888 and the leanto was built by 1904. Historic Preservation Co~ittee Minutes of April 13, 1994 Roger: What will replace the leanto? Jim Terry: We are looking at different scenarios at possibly adding onto the back, new entries etc. Roger: Does the leanto have a basement and will you be putting in a basement underneath the historic structure? Jim Terry: It is a possibility. Roger: It is recommended that you landmark and does that interest you? Jim Iglehart: I have seen no value in landmarks and I have been to many meetings and they designated and were denied additions and subtractions to their houses. I see no financial value either. I do not need any variances. On the one hand you say there are financial benefits and on the other hand it costs $1,000. for the application. I am not interested in a full blown review process. Amy: It is not $1,000 it is around $269. Landmarking is free and their is a two step review. Jim Iglehart: I am still not interested. Roger: Do you review over the historic house if it is not landmarked? Amy: Just partial demolition and relocation but not what is added OR. Jake: It states that you are demolishing 46% of the house. Jim Iglehart: That is basically the leanto and the front porch. Jake: How did you calculate that? Jim Terry: We took it off survey maps and used square footage and floor area. Jake: The kitchen is presently in the leanto. Is their any evidence of a kitchen earlier than this in the front part of the house? Jim Iglehart: No, there is a livingroom and bedroom. Jake: When they built the house they had to have a kitchen and if this leanto is non-historic where did the kitchen go? Historic Preservation Committee Minutes oE &pti1 13, 1994 Jim Iglehart: Jake, I do not know as it was 100 years ago. Maybe they didn't have a kitchen. They had an outhouse and I can answer that. Roger: If the leanto is not removed and a foundation were placed under it would that give it enough structure so that it could be secured better. Jim Iglehart: I have been in this valley for over 20 years and yes given enough money you can do anything you want to do to make it work. I have earned every penny and I intend to stay in this town. I have no interest in chasing good money after bad money and have no intentions and that is not my goal. My goal is to save the front part of the house which is the most interesting and work around that and make it something attractive. I have a monster next to me that the HPC approved and I am not interested in building the same kind of monster. They designated it to get more mileage and I am not interested in doing that. I am only asking for permission to take down a portion of the house that restricts my ability to add a two car garage and do a couple of other rooms around the building otherwise if I don't my only other option is to do my monster on the left side of the house and back and build around it and there you go, you have something less attractive than what you are seeing today or what you may see. Unfortunately since I am only asking for 46% you guys don't have any review over it. I do not know how I can assure you that once I do something maybe you can take a look at it and give me input if you want. I would be glad for anybody on this board to come over and help design whatever it is you like without me having to designate. I will not go through a full blown review. I would like to have your input on the design. Roger: If you were allowed to demolish the leanto would you allow historical review of what you were going.to add on in mass and scale compatibility with the historic house? Jim Iglehart: In a worksession yes I would. If I didn't agree with it since this is my personal property and I have owned it since 1980 and in 1986 was put on the inventory. All my dreams and aspirations have gone down the tube. I am making a concession by making the front part of the structure which is the most highly viewed portion of the house somehow intact. I have watched the process with my next door neighbor and I know the amount of money he spent and I know how it turned out and quite frankly I see no historical value in what was allowed to happen to that house. It is the house to the west of mine. People walking by want to know what happened architecturally. Historio Preservation committee Minutes of ~pril 13, 1994 Joe: In the photographs it shows a chimney but it is not in the drawings, is it old or new? Jim Iglehart: It is a flue for a boiler room. There is no chimney or fireplace connected to it. There is forced air heat. Roger: On drawing C4 that looks like a large addition. Jim Iglehart: Those are drawings that we had done a long time ago but I brought them as I thought people would have some questions. I didn't choose any of those and we are still looking and trying to refine something that is appropriate. I know what the square footage is that I need to live in the 1990's. I know what my family needs to live in and presently I do not have that in the existing situation that I have. I am trying to figure out with the size of the lot that I have to deal with how I can build enough square footage to deal out with three kids and a wife and live there in a comfortable fashion. If I had three lots I would do something like down the road on Hallam across from the red brick school. Quite frankly I have spent a lot of time and money to try and get satisfaction. Joe: The shed room that you are proposing to remove connects to the historic structure; is it your intent to remove the top section of the roof and restore the existing roof to its original gable form? Jim Iglehart: That existing roof lives under there. We will re- shingle. Jake: What is the square footage of the existing as it looks really close to me? Jim Iglehart: We actually knocked off five feet and didn't add that on, so if you need the five feet we have it. Amy: One of the reasons we end up with certain designs is that people want to max out their property and we are dealing with small buildings. The committee can do only so much as it is up to the architect to do a good design. Jim Iglehart: I watched Cunniffe do the first design on the house beside me and it was a much better design and then it got changed due to recommendations from this board and it is worse. I am interested in working with something that I know will work for me not what the committee wants. Amy: By denying your tearing down this portion of the building is historic preservation. There is a code pending that inventoried Historic Preserv&t~on Committee Minutes of April L3~ ~994 structures are going to have design review over their additions. Jim Iglehart: I see what is coming down the pike and that is why I am here today. The house that I live in was a mobile home of the 1800 and it was not intended to be lived in this long. I understand that there is architectural qualities that this town wants to maintain. I am here to tell you that the integrity of some of these miner cabins is causing a great degree of burden on some of the people in town. If I was 80 and lived in there and want to sell the property there is a financial burden on it. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Joe: Standard A, partial demolition is required for the renovation and restoration and rehabilitation of the structure. I feel that this standard has been met because I do not see anyway realistically you can rehabilitate this structure without using the back of the property in some fashion. Joe: Standard B, the applicant has mitigated to the greatest extent possible impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. I guess the problem I am having with this standard is the same problem with the other partial demolitions that we have reviewed which is I do not know what the impact is on the historic importance of the structure without seeing what else is going to happen on the parcel. I am up in the air on that standard. Joe: Standard C, impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure. Againm, I am not sure I can find that the applicant has mitigated that impact to the greatest extent possible without having some idea of what it is that is going to be impacted in the architectural integrity of the structure. In other words what is the new addition and how is it going to impact the existing structure. I have the same concerns because I have a house that is an historic house and I am going through this process myself and I share the same frustrations. Historic houses are stigmatized and the people who own them, it costs them money because it is not the same as the property next door. Roger: There are two issues one is philosophical and one is what we are here to do. By the guidelines it would be difficult to allow demolition. The philosophical point is that when I came here the town was far more charming and part of that charm was the little old houses. I have seen a immense percentage of those disappear and horrendous things be constructed in their place. I agree that HPC has gotten a lot better and a lot of mistakes have been made and that the additions to historic structures some have been OK and some awful. At least it was an attempt and the Historic Presez-vat~on Committee Hinutes oE &prll 13, 1994 historic structure wasn't removed. Quite frankly a lot of architects that come in do not grasp the significance of the history of the town or have any concept on how to work with it. They don't seem to care about it. I would like to work with you so that we at least have mass and scale. Jim Iglehart: I would be willing to show you what I intend to do. I do not want to go through the hoops of saying you will tell me what I am going to do. I will work together and I am not sure I have seen that in the past with this Board. I have a fear for that and I had a fear for that in 1986. If I had the Stallard House I wouldn't be sitting here asking for this change. I have a little miners cabin and I have the right to do what I want to do and you have the right to deny it and I have the right to appeal to council. I could build something on stilts over top of the thing that I am trying to get rid of. It would be an architectural nightmare. I would jeopardize my position for resale but does it jeopardize it anymore than what I may end up with if this board doesn't approve something that I would like to live in, maybe not. Jim Iglehart: If I demolish less than 50% it is called restoration. Amy: The code is very clear. Jim Iglehart: Yes, but in the language the definition of demolition is there. Amy: If the applicant was denied partial demolition it would be difficult to add onto the house unless it were landmark designated because HPC has the ability to give some variances. I tried to work out the impact of the recommendation that I was making and if we were to give a variance for the back yard there is the possibility of building a two story addition with a total square footage of about 1,000 more or less. Roger: If the applicant decides to add on without the partial demolition does he have to come to us? Amy: No, he would not have to come to HPC. That only applies if he is demolishing something on the historic building. Roger: If we allow partial demolition he still can add on the 2000 sq. ft. Amy: Absolutely. Jake: The evidence that Amy brought in establishes that the leanto Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 was added around 1904 which establishes it as an historical piece of the house. If this were an addition in the 70's or 80's I would have no problem granting the partial demolition. But because it is an historical portion of the house my position in general is whatever is going to be added to make the house livable has to be considered at the time you are deciding what has to be demolished. Like Joe says how else do you know what the impact is going to be. Jim Iglehart: Then you have to change the rules Jake because they do not say that right now. You have to vote your conviction as to what is there now. You and Roger have said you would like to review it and until you change the laws and rules then it is impossible for you to do that. You have to rule on what you have in front of you. Jake: Then lets go back to the standards, you are taking the kitchen off and the bath off. It says necessary for the restoration and renovation. I do not know if it is. Jim Iglehart: Its not, I could build 1,000 square feet. Your code is written so broadly that you can do or say anything. This is the loosest code that I have ever read. I know there have been similar situations Hyman and Aspen, the little white house that Dr. Hartman owns. It is an historic designated house and you allowed him to tear down approximately 2 to 300 square feet of a similar leanto on the back and I know because I built the addition. And it is historically designated and it had a full blown review. If you are telling me that I have to get in the historic register list to be able to get your permission I am feeling strong armed about that and coursed that the only way this is going to happen is if I go with what you want it to represent. Presently that does not have to happen. I also have problems with the code the way it is written. Amy: The code is written that way to not allow things to happen that are not within our goals. It is a judgment call. Jim Iglehart: And when you are done is that preservation, that is a big question of mine being a resident of this town for 21 years. I do not want to see the character of this town change. Sandra Iglehart, owner: We are not going to jeopardize the integrity of the front part of the house. We want to keep that looking historical and work around that and we do want to work with the Board. MOTION: Joe made the motion that the HPC approve the partial demolition for 610 W. Hallam with the following conditions: That in order to satisfy Standard #2 that the HPC will review the 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 massing and scale of any proposed addition; second by Martha. DISCUSSION: Scott: I feel this is appropriate because when you are on the street you cannot see that leanto no matter what. Scott: The motion is important because if you drive down town some of the mass and scale is horrendous. Jim Iglehart: I do not mind coming in here and asking for your input as long as it does not have legal reprocussions. You can look at it but I don't want you in my way and making it look like the one beside me when I am done. I am concerned about mass and scale and I want to keep the front part of the house. Joe: The City Attorney will have to do a ruling and I am sitting on the Board not as a lawyer but I read the standard as the applicant has mitigated to the greatest extent possible impacts on the historic importance of the structure that have been caused by the partial demolition. I do not know how to make that determination without seeing what is the impact to the historic structure as the result of the partial demolition. That is why I am suggesting this motion because it is a compromise. It you wanted us to call the vote you would get a denial of the partial demolition. Jim Iglehart: the code book historical. How to you propose to do that under the language in because I am not going to designate this house Joe: I am not asking that you designate it. I am stating that the condition of granting your partial demolition in order that we can evaluate the impacts of the remaining structure that we look at the mass and scale of the proposed addition. Jim Iglehart: What kind of teeth do you have at that point? Amy: The committee does have the authority to put on any condition of approval that they want and that is why it can be discussed. The idea behind us looking at it is so that we can have an input. Joe: It would have some input or rather teeth but the only issue we are looking at is mass and scale. We are not going to look at the detail of windows, materials. We will look at height and how does it connect to the historic structure. Roger: Let me offer a suggestion. I the current climate of the city council they are very seriously contemplating overall design His~orio Preservation committee ~inutes of ~p~il L3~ 2994 review so if we reject your proposal and you go to city council my. feeling is that they will say no because they are getting really serious about historic issues. My feeling in knowing how you work, if you came to us in a worksession with your plans I bet you will have no problems with the Board. And at the same time we have to believe in what you are doing because you are compromising also. We are only asking for mass and scale. It is a two way thing. Jim Iglehart: My intentions are the same as the Boards. Roger: When I came on the Board it was reactive and since then it has become proactive and the majority of other projects after the dialogue between the applicant and Board said they had a better project. Roger: There are some things that were approved that we didn't like but like or dislike they got approved. Go with the motion. Jim Iglehart: Go ahead and read the motion again and I am willing to work with the committee. I heard mass and scale. Joe: The motion stated in order to review standard number 2, A & B of the memo that we look at mass and scale of the proposed addition which would include height, bulk of the addition and how the new connects to the historic house. We will not look at window placement, window design or material design. VOTE ON MOTION: All in favor of the motion. Motion carries. 520 E. DURANT STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT (CHANEL) Amy: The applicant wants to lower the window ceil heights where the new Chanel store will be and also install new entrance doors. This is a new building but we need to look at the different types of doors. Chris Carlson, Brand & Allen Architects representing Chanel: What is distinct from the other spaces in the building is that this is the corner leased space. It is cut at the corner on a 45 degree. Due to the size of this particular lease it is the largest tenant and it starts to become the anchor corner and faces Little Nell and the gondola. Chanel is a fashion company and therefore they need to use manikins to display from head to toe. The present windows do not allow for the size and proportions that we need. Our colors are black and white. Because of the covered walkway around and because of the intense sunlight we have in Aspen it starts to become a very dark storefront. What we are trying to do is visually open it up so that you can see our retail store. We Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 propose lowering the window ceils 18 inches or seven bricks keeping two courses plus a row lock course at the base to get a better view. A signature piece from all of their stores world wide is a glass door in a stainless steel frame, a very minimal frame. There would be custom designed door knobs. The glass doors would allow customers to see in the doors. Quite frankly the doors there now will not begin to reflect the quality of the doors that will be built inside. We would like to get our image while we are not changing the exterior of the building. Signage is not being presented at this time. COMMITTEE MEMBER QUESTIONS Roger: At one of our other meetings we determined that the awnings had to conform on the entire building. If someone else wants to change another opening that they then have that right also. I am more looking toward the future regarding that. MOTION= Roger made the motion that HPC grant minor development for 520 E. Durant the Chanel store to enlarge the windows as proposed with the condition that if any other shop wishes to increase the size or their store windows in the future, that they are of the same dimensions as the windows at Chanel; second by Joe. All in favor, motion carries. Amy: It was determined that all awnings on the building had to be navy blue and conform to the Polo store. Chris Carlson: This building is more restrictive than other buildings in the district in that the signage is tied in with that color scheme. In other buildings throughout town the awnings are the same but the sign is different. Chanel's standard sign is black and white and that is what they were founded on. We are not interested in blue awnings. The awnings have been taken down. Amy: We don't require that all the awnings be the same, just the colors. If there are regulations about the blue sausage shape that has to do with Steve Marcus owner of the building. We don't have requirements that the signs look alike. Chris: As long as we comply to the Aspen sign code we are OK. Joe: Yes, but you do have to bring an application to us. Roger: The sunlight up here quickly destroys anything you put the window. Will you then not have a problem with that? Chris: image. in I don't think so but we cannot do blue awnings due to the /'"'~ Historic Preservation Committee ~ ~nu2es of ~pril ~3, 1994 Roger: What kind of awning would you want to have? Chris: White awning with black lettering. Roger: Is there any problem with the building having different colored awnings? Amy: I have a problem with it because that was the motion the committee made years ago when the building was built. That is a large building with approximately twenty shops and if everyone had a different awning it would look like a circus. If we make the exception for one person we would have to make it for the others. Roger: The building spaces are very linear except for the corner space, so why couldn't the corner space have a different color awning and the other spaces maintain whatever they maintain. Is that a possibility? Amy: If the committee agrees. Chris: If you put awnings up the only place for signage is on them. Chanel is very opposed of blue awnings with gold Chanel on them. We would prefer no awnings and take the risk of fading. Amy: What about a shade inside the window. Charles Phillips, senior vice president of Chanel: We do put a shade or filter inside the glass as the clothes fade in simple daylight. We would prefer no awnings what-so-ever. The use of shades during the daytime defeats the purpose of us having display windows. We would either have to shut them down entirely or put some kind of prohibitor in the window. We would desperately love to have awnings. If we got everyone else to change to white would that possibly be acceptable? Amy: Yes, that is the other option. Roger: Polo didn't buy the awnings for the other spaces, they bought their own. Joe: The direction you are getting is either come in and convince us that you can do a black and white awning or don't do an awning. Roger: Or the entire building would be changed to black and white. Chris: Would the Committee look at changing the ruling on the awnings? ~4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 Roger: To me if you have a linear building with no architectural definition I would certainly want to see a color of awning on the building. If the building has two architectural fronts then I am not opposed to the other portions of the building having a color and the projected front having another color awning. I would certainly be opposed to any building that had eight or nine colors of awnings. Amy: I am sure it wasn't a good judgment call to make all the awnings on that building blue and gold. Planet Hollywood wanted to use their colors and make their awnings like a corporate logo. Something worked out but not what they wanted. Joe: My strong presumption would be to have them all the same unless you can present a real compelling case as to why we should do something different. Roger: To quote Les who isn't here, lets have a little fun. Charles Phillips: We don't have awnings on all of our buildings that Chanel has. The reason we wanted awnings on this building is that it is so ugly on the exterior that we felt white awnings would dress it up. Roger: As a proactive committee we are willing to look at other proposals. THE ASPEN MEADOWS - REFERRALS Joe: The proposal is to build a new seminar room. Amy: Because this site has relationship to Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedits and it was an important part of the cultural history of Aspen HPC was allowed to review the project. At this point their is a proposed amendment. I am bringing it before you not as a public hearing but just for referral comments. Jim cook, Theodore Guy & Assoc. representing the Meadows: Basically we are adding an addition. The things driving this addition primarily are the existing facilities. They are archaic at best as far as restroom facilities, electrical facilities and what we are doing is taking an existing module and adding new bathrooms to meet code. We are taking space that we would have had in the Laughlin seminar building and transposing it to a module that is the same size as the existing west seminar building. As far as keeping the integrity of the building it will be the same size and the detailing will be the same. 15 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 Ted Guy, architect: We are upgrading the building and putting in a new furnace and air conditioning system. The interior of the spaces will be renovated and the rooms will have a lot more flexibility. Amy: Is the original part concrete block? Jim Cook: Basically the entire building is block with a metal band. Ted Guy: We would also like to make the windows operable. Roger: Rollout windows would be appropriate. Jim Cook: The only area that we were thinking about sun screening is the area in the back. It will be a lattice type thing and in character with the lattice work on the front door. Ted Guy: We have access to the old drawings. Joe: Are any of these structures historic. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: There was a question as to whether the entire campus was historic or not. So as an accommodating when we did the original approvals we came through the HPC. Most of the focus at that time was the music tent and trustee houses. Joe: As architects do you think there should be a differentiation between the old and new? Jim Cook: There will be a little difference in the character of the windows. Ted Guy: I am not a real strong believer in the fact that you should change the architecture and style when adding onto the building. I remember the Luke Short house and I thought it inappropriate to do a flat roof contemporary. Roger: That is why I joined the HPC because of the same issues. Jim Cook: The entire structure needs painting. Amy: It should be easily recognized as a new part of it. Jim Cook: The statement if we do our job as architects in blending in you should be able to recognize that it is a new structure. Roger: I would suggest that the cement block be changed just enough that it is obvious that the original block is the existing Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of ~pril 13, 1994 three pods and the new pod is a different pot maybe in texture as it is going to be painted. Jake: This a theoretical question and if you were to take the pod concept as a starting point and you were to adapt it giving it the high tech use and equipment, the building technology of 1994 is there anything you would do that would work better for those functions? Ted Guy: We have work hard to maintain the sense of a campus by maintaining the same stone pattern, exterior block patterns on the parking garage. Amy: I will send referral comments to P&Z and would it be appropriate for me to say that the committee approves the design but would like to see some subtle distinction between the new and old. MOTIONs Joe made the motion that HPC provide referral comments on the proposed new seminar room that the HPC approve the design and that the architect study some subtle difference between the new and old either with materials or brick facing; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of ~pril ~3~ 1994 PRESERVATION AWi~RDS Amy: The nominations were: 134 E. Bleeker - Jake Vickery 700 E. Main - Riverside, John Elmore's project - new building ACES 610 W. Main 127 E. Hallam Harris concert hall Aspen Institute Harris Concert Hall 312 S. Galena Planet Hollywood 716 W. Francis 311 North St. Mary's elevator Cantina Trellis Pioneer Park 234 W. Francis Amy: We have residential, commercial, infill, renovation, restoration and new construction. There is also an award for a member of the community that has made a contribution in terms of design or preservation advocate. We will vote on the nominations at the next meeting. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk