Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920527Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 27, 1992 17 QUEEN STREET MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND SETBACK VARIATION PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM 5-13-92 414 E. COOPER STOREFRONT 401 E. COOPER MINOR DEVELOPMENT - MINOR DEVELOPMENT 413 E. COOPER MINOR DEVELOPMENT STOREFRONT RENOVATION 303 E. MAIN STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT METAL ROOF 624 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING 334 W. HALLAM - BOA SUPPORT CANTINA AWNINGS 1 9 9 10 10 12 14 15 16 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 2?, 1992 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer present. Excused were Linda Smisek, Martha Madsen, Karen Day and Don Erdman. MOTION: Jake made the motion to approve the minutes of April 8, 1992; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Jake: The blue tarp over the skylight on top of the city hall roof needs to be addressed. Regarding other buildings we have had problems with tarps on the roof. MOTION: Jake made the motion to direct Staff to write a letter to the City Manager expressing the committees concerns regarding the blue tarp and that the committee feels it should be removed; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bill stepped down Joe chaired Kim Weil, architect: I am requesting that 334 W. Hallam be added to the agenda regarding the site coverage basically related to the square footage of their porches. They will have to go to the Board of Adjustment and I am requesting that a resolution or memorandum be send to the Board of Adjustment in support of the variance. MOTION: Roger made the motion to add 334 W. Hallam to the agenda; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. 17 QUEEN STREET MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND SETBACK VARIATION PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM 5-13-92 Bill seated Roxanne: In looking at the development review standards and the development guidelines what they are asking for does not violate either of those and I leave that option to the Committee. The only thing you are reviewing right now is the outbuilding and whether it is appropriate in design and location and whether you can grant a side yard setback variation according to the development review standards. This review has nothing to do with tree removal or parking. Let me clear the parking up, they were approved for one parking space up above which is in and they were also approved for their other parking space down below on Queen street which has not been put in yet. They were granted one parking space reduction. They were not approved for the request for a parking space to be accessed off of Neal Street. I understand that a tree was removed and if you want to deal with that I would suggest we do that in a Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 27, 1992 worksession or another time because that has nothing to do with this application. If the tree was part of an historic landscape pattern that was an important element then it is appropriate for the HPC to discuss. Joe: Was the public notice correct and received by Staff? Les: There was a discrepancy in dates when it was mailed out. Bill: The affidavit of mailing needs to be checked. There were no negative responses to the letters. Roxanne: The notice was published and the property posted correctly so the concern is the mail out date. Since the item was moved to this agenda people would have had plenty of time to notify the Planning office and we have not had any responses. Anthony Pellecchia, architect: It is unfortunate that the process has taken as long as it has. The collaboration that took place to arrive at where we are today has either been forgotten or because there are different members on the committee. I am referring to the existing site and the relationship to the original cottage and the possibility of us saving some of the original outbuildings in relationship to how the main structure was to be designed. The concern of the sheds was reactivated when the cottage was built and how ski and bike storage could occur. Rather than place another element someplace else within the site we thought we would go ahead and associate it with the parking area. The shed is the same material that is on the new addition of the house. The vocabulary goes back to the idea of the other structures that were on the site, grouped around the original building. The old buildings were falling apart and had no substance to them. The idea was good and we applied that same idea by associating the shed along with the parking area and that would minimize the impact that we would have to the site. We placed the shed in the position that it is because we wanted to keep the significant line of trees that already exist. We wanted a soft buffer as a continuation of the one that already exists between the two sites. We spent a lot of time in positioning the shed and determining the size of it. In the original design it included a path and a footbridge and when.we finally got out there and took a look at the configuration of the trees and the size of them we were made aware that if we went ahead and put the path in and put the foot bridge in it would effect some sizable trees and we decided against it. We also decided that we wanted to maintain the entrance of the original house as still the main entrance of the house. There would only be one tree effected and we took pictures of the area and the tree that was removed. We kept the larger trees and took down an aspen. That was the minimum effect that we could have on the site. The size of the Historic Preservation committee Minutes of May 2?, 1992 shed has to do with the fact that it snows here and we didn't want it to be an architecture of a shed so we have it above the ground plains so that the ground continues to go under it so there is no misperception that it is a fixed building and has a very gentle feeling on the site. That means that the floor of the interior part of shed sits up about a foot above grade which allows us to still drain the area below it into the ditch and have it sort of float rather than something that has a complete foundation. The other aspect of it is a pragmatic one with dealing with the height of ski's. We wanted to minimize the width because the wider it gets the more impact it has on the vegetation at that part of the site. Bill opened the public hearing. Roger: In your landscaping plan would the shed be totally screened from the neighbors driveway. Anthony: There is an existing tree there but if we planted something we would be in the neighbors property. We felt that this area would be the least damaging and most positive aesthetically in relationship to the entire idea and design of the house. Les: I like the design but have a problem going into the setback. Roger: Could you plant vegetation in the easement? Roxanne: It is not their property it is the City's and they would have to talk with Parks. Ernst Kappeli, neighbor: They have destroyed a very nice corner of natural growth. They had approval of flag stones which would not effect the growth or trees on that corner. I feel they should be forced to stay with the original approval. Where is the off street parking and there is no way to put it on that area. You need to site visit the area. Everyone who comes in here goes out the one way street for some reason. There is not room. I should be able to keep the area the way it is, if it is on my property. Roxanne: It is important that we get comments that directly deal with this proposal in the minutes so that the HPC can base their findings on comments that really deal with what is going on. If there is a vegetation dispute between neighbors that is not an HPC issue. Ernst: There was approval of a foot bridge and some flagstone and I would like to know how that approval was changed. That original plan would not have affected anything of the natural growth. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 27, 1992 Bill: The parking space was approved by this committee as shown on the landscape plan. Ernst: It is not offstreet parking. If a shed goes on that space there is no way a car can go their. Roxanne: The plans indicate that a parking space according to the dimensional requirements of the City code was approved. They were required three spaces and one was up above and one below and the HPC waived one parking space. The zoning officer could verify that the spaces were done correctly. Public: Ernst is saying that it is a very restricted area and that a car cannot fit near the shed. Roxanne: The plans indicate that it can and they will have to build it according to the plans that they submit. Public: The plans might not be correct. Anthony: The drawings are correct and both will fit side by side. Roger: If the shed were to be built and if there was room and a buffer could be placed on the property would that be acceptable to you Ernst? Ernst: They should have left it alone. You can never fix what has been destroyed. The ditch is another problem. Bill: I have looked at the area and my 20 years of experience indicate that it is accurate to scale. Anthony: We have worked with the neighbor and bought a new culvert and installed it so that the ditch can be cleaned out. Bill: with. The irrigation ditch is not something that the HPC deals Public, Pete Lund: I trimmed the tree that was removed and it was over 50 feet high. Should they answer to someone regarding the removal of that tree and are they not obligated to build a foot bridge? Anthony: You are contradicting yourself because if you go up there to the site you immediately become aware that if we build a path and a foot bridge we will effect more of the vegetation than what we have done to date. Pete Lund: How can they build the shed? 4 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of May 27, 1992 Bill: They are allowed to amend their application and that is their request today to also change the access to the house and that is what is being reviewed here by the committee. Bill closed the public hearing. Roger: The monitor moved out of town and had he been here the tree issue could have been resolved and should be cleared up at some point so that in the future it doesn't happen again. Joe: As to the parking space the code requires $ 1/2 feet by 18 feet and what is shown here on the plan is shown 9 feet by 19 feet so the parking space meets the dimensional requirements. As for the tree, Les talked with the Parks Dept. and they said they would not do anything unless someone filed a complaint. As to the ditch if you own the ditch you have rights under law and if someone causes something to go into the ditch you are entitled to have them clean it up or reimburse the cost to do that. The Board is looking at the shed as to whether it meets the development review standards for the setback variation and for the design. I would prefer to see it built within the setback even though we are only talking two feet. I have no strong preference in the design as it is not attached to the historical structure. I would be in favor of granting the design review but not the setback. Les: I agree with Joe and if we didn't have an alternative site my opinion would be different. We have alternative sites and because of that I can't see granting the setback. I like the plan. I would like to see an approval of this without the variance and then maybe a meeting onsite with everybody to work out something with the neighbors on vegetation that would be binding. Anthony: If we don't ask for a setback variance what is the issue at that point and why do we need to meet with anyone? Les: For this and approval the shed, you are dropping out of foot path and to change the shed is not in the original plan and you would need for the shed and the change in the foot bridge. Anthony: One of the reasons the shed is where it is, is because it fits in between two trees that are there. If we move it closer to the house we are going to infringe on the parking space dimension or we are going to wind up effecting another tree. That was the logic in placing it there. Les: I like the shed and I like moving the path but I just can't see granting the setback. Historlo Preservation Committee Minutes of May 27, 1992 Lana: If you put the shed two feet closer to the house it impacts the entire beauty of the way the house sits there. It was done with tremendous amount of thought over a long time. Les: Giving the variance sets the precedent because you do have alternatives. Lana: It does impact the original structure. Anthony: I would like a closure here rather than meeting another time. Jake: I am a little concerned about the location and setback, it becomes a foreground element to that side of the house when you do that and this is a great building. We are involved here in artistic expression and if you feel that is what would work best for your project I am supportive of the artistic endeavor. The second concern is that it spans the ditch and is going across it and I feel it wants to be left open. I would prefer to see it to the south of the parking space and if you did that you could use the three or four grade change and reduce the height and it would reduce the impact in the whole area. That is my suggestion but I will support this as presented because it is an artistic endeavor and I support that kind of thing in our community. Roger: I would prefer to see the shed moved and I would concur with the others that I would approve it but not with the setback. I feel two feet can be dealt with. Also if we approve the shed we should have the monitor work on materials. Joe: It is clapboard siding. Bill: I am in favor of this proposal as presented. I think that this location appears to me to be the best location for the shed. I would not be in favor of moving it closer which would impact them more. The applicant has saved this victorian and has done an excellent job for which we have awarded them. I think 8 feet between the main house and the shed is adequate and I would not reduce it more as it would impact the house. We encourage sheds in town. I am in favor of granting a setback variation. Roger: Do you feel the two feet could be dealt with in some manner? Bill: Only by reducing the length of it and then you are getting down to a six foot shed which might not be usable. ; MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC approve the minor development application for 17 Queen Street as proposed and grant 6 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of May 2?, 1992 a side yard setback variation finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with the dimensional requirements; second by Bill. In favor, Bill and Jake. Opposed Joe, Roger and Les. Motion denied 3-2. Roger: You could have doors on both sides. Anthony: We can't because of the way the grade and trees are. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC approve the minor development application for 17 Queen St. as proposed with exception that the sideyard setback variation is not granted and that the applicant work with Staff on creating another footprint for the shed within the existing setback; second by Joe. Jake: I have a problem putting it on Staff. There has to be specific direction to Staff and monitor as to what you want them to do. Roger: We want them to have a shed but we do not want to have to do a setback. Anthony: We could have done something else along with the different steps of this entire process but the good faith that has been demonstrated with all the participants here wasn't a situation where we said we aren't going to do something and we went ahead and worked with everyone and now to be put in a situation of being told that we certainly could do something else when we never really presented that as an option to saving this structure and working with the entire site and the entire process I find that a difficult comment to receive from the committee. Bill: I have discussion also, the street is over 25 feet away from the property line and a two foot variance on the side of this structure from the street would never be noticed if it was two feet into the setback, it is not over the property line and it is not illegal. It is two feet into a setback where we grant more than that to other structures when the neighbor is only three feet away. I find it somewhat offensive when we have a problem with the setback when in other cases setbacks have been granted for more than this like additions to building two and three stories high. This is a small shed. I am siding with the applicant because of the unique situation of having the street so far away. I find it to be more compatible to be further away. Roger: The process has been underway long before I came on and there were three sheds on the property and part of our role is to save out buildings as much as possible. To my knowledge the Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 27, 1992 applicants were asked to save them if possible or save the materials and use them over which is certainly admirable. The whole concept of saving the old house is fantastic, it is one of our best. They say they have been planning this process for a long time and why did they not plan for the storage two years ago. They say they acted in good faith, have they acted in good faith. What about the tree. Why was the tree taken out at night. Lana: The tree was taken out at night! That is a real big insult! Roger: This is what was inferred. Bill: Things change and people do come back and amend their applications all the time. Roxanne: If you are going to deny their request you need to be specific on that as well as to why it doesn't meet that development review standard and I find that it does and support it. Jake: We have to stick true to what we believe and I went out there to the site and the placement of the shed is in between two trees and if you move it two feet the two trees will not move. So the relationship is tucked against the trees. Also the parking space has been leveled and filled out and if you move the shed two more feet even in that direction you will go over the bank and it won't fit properly. Where they are trying to fit it is the best location within that location. Anthony: I will have to talk to the owner as I do not know what we will do. If we take the design and position it in such a way that it does not effect the legal dimensions of the parking area and it is not within the setback, do we need to do anything? Roxanne: You need to have it relocated on the site plan and get a revised site plan to us so that we can sign off on it before you get a building permit. There is no other public hearing. Lana: I would like to say for the record that Mr. Moyer's comment was slanderous. I think to say that I or my representatives removed a tree in the middle of the night is slanderous and after the tremendous amount of money and effort that we have put forward I think it is an incredible slap in the face and not only am I insulted but I think you have acted disrespectfully to the process and in stead of something being done well I think it has ended on a very very ugly note and I acknowledge as being an emotional person but when you put yourself in a position of a panel you are not to say slanderous things and it was slanderous and it did go on the record and I am going on the record saying that I am. appalled and am sorry for Roxanne and the energy that she has put 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 27, 1992 forward because at this point now I have a very ugly feeling about the entire process and I will go on record with anyone who wants to talk about going to the HPC process and tell them what has happened to me. This is not meant as a threat but as a statement of shock and dismay! Ernst: To me it was meant as an illustration and that was the way that I heard it. Every cottonwood tree on that property I planted over the past 15 years. I just wanted you to know that it wasn't slander. 414 E. COOPER Roxanne: This is a contemporary building located on the Cooper Street mall within the historic district. It is not adjacent to an historic landmark. They are proposing to revise the storefront which is to recess the portion in the front to the level that the entrance is now so that they can divide their interior space into two retail spaces and reuse the sliding door that they have now. My concern is the recess in the storefront because generally within the historic district it is important that we retain that with the facade line and pedestrians and also whether or not the sliding doors are appropriate. Raul Gawry, architect: The present four thousand feet will be divided in half and our intentions are to use the same storefront and substitute an exact door for the entry to the other shop. It is important to recess the new storefront so that both stores have visibility. All materials will be identical to what you see. Roxanne: It is also south facing to get the light. Bill: I feel the massing defines the line along the street and recessed entries are fine. This is an acceptable application to me. MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC approve the minor development at 414 E. Cooper as proposed; second by Joe. All in favor, motion carries. 401 E. COOPER MINOR DEVELOPMENT - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Bill stepped down. Joe chaired. Joe: This is commonly known as Pitkin County Dry Goods and a storefront renovation. Roxanne: I find that the storefront renovation as proposed meets Historic Preservation committee Minutes of May 2?, 1992 the development review standards and we are recommending approval. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC approve the minor development approval for the proposal at 401 E. Cooper finding that the development review standards have been met; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. 413 E. COOPER MINOR DEVELOPMENT STOREFRONT RENOVATION Roxanne: Staff recommends approval and that the standards have been met. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant minor development approval for the proposal at 413 E. Cooper finding that the development review standards have been met as shown; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. 303 E. MAIN STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT METAL ROOF Bill seated Roxanne: I have recommended that the only compatible material for that building would be wood shingle. Perhaps there could be a new design that could be partial metal/wood or asphalt. That was the direction at the last meeting. The application is still a metal roof and standing rib. This is a national register building that deserves quality materials. Niklaus Kuhn, owner: There are metal roofs all over town. Roxanne: Sometimes on commercial buildings metal roofs are allowed. Residential buildings deserve residential materials. Niklaus: If I don't use metal I will not be able to get rid of the snow. The snow hangs and the eaves are starting to break. Les: I'm afraid we are starting to get demolition through neglect. The old roof could be taken off and plywood placed on with bitchuthane down and get an acceptable roof which will solve the problem with some insulation in the b~tchuthane. Maybe the board has been negligent in not explaining the incentives that we have in order to get the job done. If you have an economic problem the city will loan you up to $10,000 and we can get you a 20% state incentive. Roxanne: The issue is long term maintenance. He needs to hear that they are not a maintenance problem and can be done correctly. Niklaus: The snow is not coming down, that is the issue. 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 27, 1992 Bill: A metal slip sheet could be used to solve the problem of the weight on the eaves. I still feel strongly that these historic structures should have shingles on them but shingles will not necessarily have the snow slide. I cannot represent that the snow will slide off. Because of the configuration of this building metal does have to be employed on the shallow pitches because even there you can't use shingles. A combination of both has to be done. Roger: I concur. Jake: This house sits in a set of three houses and the other two houses have asphalt and the decision should be the same for all of them. When Carl comes in to reroof his houses they should be of similar treatment. That would be a lot of metal. The asphalt does provide a cheaper and certainly durable alternative to the wood shingles. Niklaus's house may not be insulated at the roof level and if you do have a cold roof the snow will sit there. Niklaus: Will you tell me clearly how far I can come down with the metal on the bottom, the slip sheet. Bill: On that part of the building you could come one foot past the interior wall surface. I think your overhang is about 12 to 18 inches. I would think two feet to thirty inches on the steep part would be acceptable. I am trying to get it to a point above the heated wall surface so that it slides and you avoid ice damage. One foot higher than the inside wall surface is adequate. Les: No more than 18 inches. Joe: The color of the metal should be the same color as the singles. Niklaus: Wood is out. I would do asphalt shingles with metal. Bill: The metal should be smooth and not textured so that it does slide. MOTION: Roger made the motion that the HPC approve the minor development application for 303 E. Main Street finding that the application of asphalt shingled roof with a metal slip sheet on the overhangs that extend a maximum of 12 inches up the roof slope beyond the interior heated surface by 12 inches be approved and that we find that it meets the standards contrary to what it was in the memo. The color and details to be approved by Staff and monitor. The color of the slip sheet to match the asphalt shingles which would be dark; second by Les. 11 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of May 27, 1992 Niklaus: You didn't put anything how far up. Where the porch is shingles about three feet. in about the flat portion as to right now up there are asphalt Bill: Anything under three and twelve should be metal. paper will be replaced with metal. The tar AMENDED MOTION: not to exceed motion. Roger amended the motion that the flatter portion 18 inches. All approved of motion and amended Roger Monitor and Les Alternate 624 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING Bill stepped down. Joe seated as chairman Joe opened the public hearing. Roxanne: This is a revised application over the redevelopment which was approved about two years ago on the Altfeld redevelopment. The original plan was for a three story townhouse that was infill. The revisions are to develop a two story version and it still maximizes the site on FAR. This is not a designated parcel and is not within an historic district. Our design guidelines do not deal with townhouses. You will have to look at the development review standards very carefully and look at the elements around the block. I find that it does meet the development review standards and recommending approval with no conditions. One of the issues you deal with in a worksession was the infill factor and whether or not it was filling in the entire width. The original plan had an area of unusable open space. It is a 6,000 sq. ft. lot and is very narrow in the C1 zone district. When you look across the street and incorporate everything, I feel this is a pleasant design approach that handles a tough infill issue really well. I might add that there is a 41 foot height limit in the C1 zone district and this proposal is smaller than you originally approved and is no where near 41 feet in height. Roger: The cottages across the street can never be demolished unless they meet the demolition standards. Kim Weil, architect: The medium roof pitch is about 31 or 32 and I am 35 at the top. We took pictures up and down the block and we discovered that it is probably the most perfect example of a transitional zone. There are large buildings and across the street are the three small cottages and there is also the armory. There is a rhythm goin~ on and both the buildings beside the lot are out 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 27, 1992 to the property line and we felt that it was important to continue the townhouse type of feeling with the parapet walls that read through the design. We picked up on the dominance of the roof shapes and because the client only wanted two floors we were able to play with the roof forms. Every building is set back from the street and there is open space in the front and that was another element that we picked up on. Roxanne: Not only is the roof form strong the facade is very specific. Kim: There is an office and a bedroom and garage on the lower floor then you go up to a livingroom, diningroom, kitchen and master bedroom upstairs and downstairs there is a game room and one other bedroom. We held it back from the street even though this zone has conflicting thing. There is an open space requirement but no setback requirement. We aligned our building up with the balconies of KSNO. We let the structural walls read through and enforced the dominance of the roof and we are taking some dormers and gables in order to break down the scale to relate to the cottages across the street. Roger: How deep are the window wells? Kim: Front to back six to eight feet and down seven feet. Jean Aldor, I was contacted by Dr. Jordan Block to appear at this hearing. Dr. Block just purchased the residential condominium directly behind Dr. Wesson's building. As I understand it the proposed structure is going to block all of his southern view. The old development plan was approved and maintained a portion of the lot as open space and there is less intrusion of the view plane with that design and Dr. Block opposed this design. Kim: The tree is large and quite full and will block his view and we are significantly lower than our 44 foot height limit. Jean Aldor: As far as Dr. Block's view from the livingroom he would not be able to see it. There is a roof deck patio in which he currently enjoys the view of ajax mountain and there is a huge pine tree that would block his view plane if that was retained. Kim: The tree will remain and it is in the plans. Les: My only concern was standard B (development consistent in character with the surrounding neighborhood) and you stated that most of them run lot line to lot line and are two or more stories in height. I looked up neighborhood in websters and neighborhood is a district considered in regards to its inhabitants and 13 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 27, 1992 distinctive character. You have not related to the old historic flow of the neighborhood and the district. All the little houses have side yards and my concern is the transition. Jake: The massing on the south elevation is sympathetic to what is already there the way it steps down. Roger: The massing and scale is appropriate to that side of the street being the north side. They also have not maximized the height. Joe: My concern is that we do not have any standards that apply to infill buildings and they are not historic structures or located in an historic district. We have one standard to deal with, is it consistent with the character of the neighborhood and I feel it meets that standard. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant conceptual development approval to 624 E. Hopkins as presented; second by Jake. Motion carries 3-1. Les opposed. 334 W. H~LLAM - BOA SUPPORT Roxanne: The applicant is asking your support to go to the Board of Adjustment to request a site coverage variance. They need a written report from the Board one way or the other. Site coverage that deals with properties other than an accessory dwelling unit have to go to the Board of Adjustment. What they look at is hardship or practical difficulty. Kim: The definition of site coverage has two components and the first one is buildings; we are OK with building coverage. It is the decks and overhangs and porches. This house has five or six porches with overhangs. You have to project everything that is hanging down has to be considered in the site coverage. Joe: You would have to remove a roof. Roxanne: They also have had several additions and there greenhouse. Kim: We are 200 square feet over which relates to about 3%. is a MOTION: Roger made the motion to direct Staff to write a letter of support that endorses the applicants application process; second by Joe. All in favor, motion carries. Roxanne: We are recommending under practical difficulty which the board can approve and they look at historic resources differently 14 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 27, 1992 that because of all the overhangs and how that all calculates out, it is more of a penalty on historic resources than it is under new. Les: The practical difficulty is that he can't build a bigger house. Roxanne: They may deny the ability to build the green house. Joe: That is why I said I would be in favor of supporting it because they might be forced to move a porch in order to meet their site coverage. Roxanne: I think a 3% over on a 9,000 sq ft. lot that is historic is appropriate. We are getting boxed in with numbers and if we can help these people we should. This is an incentive for an historic landmark and is eligible for the national register. Joe: We need to state the reasons why we are writing the letter and that should clearly say that it could be on the national register and that we want to encourage and provide incentives that we like to see porches stay on historic properties. The architectural style of this house also dictates wider overhangs. CANTINA AWNINGS Roxanne: I wanted the notify the board that the Cantina is changing their awnings and the building will be painted. Joe: I'll monitor 414 401 and 413 ^E. Cooper. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Bill. favor, motion carries. Ail in Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk