Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19900822HISTORIC PRESERVATION COM)~ITTEE Minutes of August 22, 1990 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Les Holst, Joe Krabacher, Charles Cunniffe, Don Erdman and Roger Moyer present. Glenn Rappaport and Jake Vickery were excused. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the minutes of April 25, 1990. Les second with all in favor. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to move the election of officers to end of the meeting. Don second with all in favor. 204 S. GALENA BLOCK 94 - SPORTSTALKER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Roxanne: On July llth the HPC reviewed a conceptual development application at a public hearing and tabled action with the following conditions: Restudy of the general fabric of the building including materials, articulation between the breaks and the plane, window fenestration and the trim. A massing model of surrounding building and a restudy of the parking area. A clapboard material for a thr~e story building in this particular place is not appropriate as it has no reference to the historic district. Brick was the preferable material for a three story building for a number of reasons, safety and also for the image of a prosperous community that Aspen was. The fenestration does appear to meet the guidelines. The applicant extended the north elevation wall to include an archway entrance into the parking area. We are recommending tabling until Sept. 12 to allow the applicant to restudy massing and storefront facade. Welton: In 1988 HPC and Council approved the second floor expansion on this building. That included a second floor above the existing retail that included 4 deed restricted employee housing units and one free market housing unit. It didn't even come close to reaching the maximum allowable FAR for the property which is about 13,000 sq. ft. vs. 18,000 sq. ft. that is allowed on that property with employee housing. It was also 32 feet high which is way below the 40 foot allowable. The current proposal started out as office on the middle floor and the same basic mix of housing on the top floor. This one is 37 high, however the client didn't want to compete in the GMP competition for commercial core which would basically put office space against new retail space not a very cost effect competition. He decided to conce~crate on employee housing for the employees of the Sportstalker and for the employees of the Aspen Sports which they also own. The mix on the top two floors is entirely residential and would be 8 or 9 deed restricted employee housing units and one free market unit. There is no competition involved. The one Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 free market unit in which Gerald Barnett will live in himself. The lot is three lots, 9,000 sq. ft. and the FAR is 18,000 sq. ft. which is 2 to 1. The lot is also non-conforming as to open space. The applicant proposes to build out the maximum 18,000 sq. ft. in order to house the employees. Because the existing building is a little over 6,000 sq. ft. these recesses in the corners are a way of stacking a second and third floor on the top of the 6,050 sq. ft. footprint and keeping the total square footage less than 18,000 sq. ft. This also has the added advantage of breaking up the elevations into more nearly vertical bays. It also gets an outdoor living space for the dwelling units. Our proposal is for a three story frame building with commercial and ground floor and residential above. It is not designed to mimic an historic structure. It is designed this way to be softer. It is not a building that is as important as the historic structures around it. This building is intended to be a product of its own time. By treating the recesses in a different color and connecting the outer surface to these recess surfaces by a reflective glass material this is clearly not going to confuse anyone that this is an old building. This is a new building treated with compatible materials. The guidelines say that wood siding maybe appropriate in some locations as a relief from the predominance of brick and stone. Clapboard presents a less serious, a less important image than stone. There are three story contemporary buildings in town that are not brick. With the divisions in the windows we tried to make the proportions more vertical and less horizontal. We eliminated the archway to the parking lot. The model shows that this building is not too big and is in scale in context with the neighborhood. The applicant hopes that you will consider the points and that we can come up with a synthesis of these ideas and that we can proceed with the project. Bill: The use on the second floor is all employee units. Welton: floor. There is a mix of employee and free market on the third Bill: For the record you are making application before us for residential use building. Welton: We are making an application before this Board for this building. The mix inside of this building has changed from the pre-application. Bill: From the exterior we are reviewing how windows and things work based on the use inside. 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 Glenn Horn: Representing Gerald Barnett, applicant: The building was originally going to be office on the second floor. In analyzing the possibility of using that second floor for office we did an analysis of development exactions that are associated with the commercial development process. One of the conclusions that I, could draw from that analysis is that it is very doubtful based on the amount of development exactions that are involved in the process that you are going to see anyone in the commercial core ever again leave potential floor area on the table that they can use in their building. People are going to maximize their floor area to try and cover the cost of exactions. You should think what it might mean to the city of Aspen if you stick to a policy of keeping all three story buildings brick. If the applicant has to do this building in brick he will have to tear down the entire building and start over again and that will kill the project from a feasibility standpoint. A third point regarding the non-conforming nature of this building, the footprint can't be extended because it is non-conforming in respect to open space right now. That is one of the reasons why Welton's been precluded from making any additions into the parking area because that would extend the foot print and increase the degree of non-conformity of the building. COMMITTEE COMMENTS' Don: I believe that Staff is correct in saying that three story wooden buildings did not occur with any frequency in Aspen. We are talking about a masonry tradition that was predominantly brick in Aspen. ~There are other materials beside brick that qualify in terms of creating a masonry architecture; stone, concrete, stucco. In terms of my response to the building I am dumfounded. To find a building that appears so arbitrary and so capable of having such a chameleon personality both on the exterior and the interior does not convince me that this is a strong solution. The revised treatment of the ground floor and the kick panels are appropriate. Those are detail revisions that are appropriate but I am not convinced that there is any strong philosophical base for the design. It has no compelling strengths for me. Georgeann: There were allot of wood siding buildings in downtown. I am not convinced that this building needs to be brick and stone. This building is so much lower than the building beside it that it is in effect a minor building. In this case we might even ask to have purview over color because it is very important that the colors be very quiet. Historically, yes we had our three story major buildings brick and stone but if we go with that because the trend now is to have three story buildings we will end up with everything having three story brick 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 and stone in town and it will not be historically appropriate as a mix in this town. I do not like the reflective glass because it is too demanding of an attention on a building that is supposed to be a moderate building. I do not like having the arched area over the parking, in this particular building it appears too contrite. In this building it may be important to have awnings because if it does not have upper transom windows then it needs covered with awnings to reflect some of the scale of the other buildings around. Charles: I don't have a problem with the use of wood especially if the building does intend to be less significant than the brick historic buildings around it. One of the problems I have with it is that it looks like the Elks Building but only in wood. Has the same appearances as a major brick building would have. Wood gives you the opportunity to do playful things as a surfacing material than brick would other wise do in this context. I feel there are other ways to cut out the square footage than cutting off the corners. The entire third floor could step back a little. The scale of the building should not resemble the Brand building. Joe: I don't see why the building can't be wood if that is what the owner wants to do. In addition it is a little much to force someone to build a brick building because you like brick especially if he has to build a new foundation. Maybe there are other types Of treatments. This is a difficult building to make three stories without having massing problems. I prefer B over A primarily because of the treatment of the corner although the treatment in the corner of B is still too opposing probably due to the gable end. I also prefer landscaping as opposed to the archway for the parking treatment. Roger Moyer: Charles idea appropriate. appropriate. idea. It is housing. It I have no problem with the concept of using wood. of possibly stepping the third floor back might be Also possibly some kind of overhang might be Taking away the arch for the parking area is a good wonderful that someone is putting a building up with is too much like a landmark building. Bill: It is not the philosophy of this committee to dictate to applicants what materials they should use. It is our duty to make sure that the buildings meet the standards. We need to determine if mass and use of material is compatible in the district and its neighbors. I am also in support of using masonry and wood in the downtown as long as the massing works with it. Most wood structures in our town had developed in a two story western false front facade, meaning that it also could be tall and go to 30 or 35 feet but it had a two story character to 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 it. Most two stories were wood, false front type of design. The massing that you are showing here in a three story design I find to be incompatible with our historical character of our district. If wood was the chosen material because that was the economics that were created by the client maybe a different massing might be in order. The use of wood on this site and the massing chosen to be compatible. I am not in favor of doing this building in wood based on the massing that is shown. On the massing I do prefer the massing on plan B without the corner being recessed. I prefer the wood storefront kickplate that are represented by alternate B revised. I do agree with Georgeann that awnings might be more appropriate around the building to strengthen the streetscape since we don't have the traditional transoms. Awnings would carry the horizontal line that is prevalent in the district. Georgeann's suggestion of the use of colored wood might be compatible if dark but I would have to review that. Georgeann: I think the problem of the use of wood is that all landmark buildings were masonry. Perhaps the conflict is that Welton has gotten this mass in the tradition of a landmark building and perhaps there is a way not to create that four square landmark look. Charles: Possibly a two story with a setback third floor would not look like a landmark area. If the massing were changed a · little it would be more reasonable to make it out of wood because it wouldn't try to resemble a major brick building. Les: I basically agree with everybody. I feel the entire third floor has to be restudied. We started off with a design that we were not happy with and we are just modifying that. Georgeann: Every time Welton has come in he has gotten a better building. Don: In looking at this contextual model and analyzing Welton's desire to make this a building that doesn't compete with it neighbors etc. This building has a residential fussy scale along the skylight so that no matter what you do with materials brick, stone, glass or wood makes its profile against the sky such a competitor just by its very nature of having these gable ends and pediments. Welton: I am responding to what the committee has asked for by showing variations. If we step back the third floor it won't be like the massing of any building in wood or masonry. Does it want to be historic or modern. Does it want to be of its own time or look like an old wooden two or three story building. What era does the Committee want. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 Charles: A modern building with a simplified conservative approach to it. Not over gestured so that it competes with the other buildings around it. Welton: If the Committee would like to see the third floor set back I will bring that to you in two weeks. Georgeann: I am not sure pulling the third floor back is appropriate. I would respond to what Don said "simplify". Charles: On a wood clapboard building if you would treat it more as a two story building with a lesser addition on top of it. Don: I disagree with Georgeann, if you look at all the historic pictures of Aspen there were no three story historic structures. If someone wanted .a more important building they put up a false western front and extended the two story higher. If the client wants a clapboard building, build a two story clapboard building and the third floor could be stucco and possibly set back only eight inches. That is only a suggestion as the client wants a clapboard building and staff and some of the Committee feel a three story clapboard building is not appropriate. Bill: I see too much association with a three story clapboard building that is historically incorrect for this district. The design is too tightly tied to an historic replica. Roger: Lets suppose the first two floors were horizontal clapboard siding and that the third floor could be vertical siding and the peaks removed so that the roof line was straight and the lower floors one color and the upper floor another color with or without a setback. Joe: That is a possible solution. Les: The solutions don't work. There is nothing that makes a statement about wh~t it is. Cut the peaks off and possibly do something with the windows. Don: We are asking for a "dumb" building, a simple building. Roxanne: We are struggling because we are dealing with an addition to an non'historic incompatible one story building. To add two stories to an already inappropriate building and not make it worse and not make it historic or a replica is a dilemma especially where it is located. It is right in the heart, right on Galena St. and surrounded by critical two and three story national registered buildings. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 Bill: I would be available to give you my suggestions. Roger stepped down. Roxanne: Possiblya worksession. Welton: Possibly lowering the windows. MOTION: Charles made the motion to table conceptual development approval to September 12th to allow the applicant additional time to restudy the massing, storefront facade and material elements of the building. To create more of a two story appearance and to simplify the profile of the building. To de-emphasize the third floor. Joe second with all in favor. CONCEPTUAL DE~-ELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING - 610 N. 3RD ST. BLOCK 102 Bill opened the public hearing. MOTION: Georgeanni made the motion to table continue the public hearing until Sept. 12th. all in favor. 610 N. 3rd and to Second by Don with 534 E. HYMAN A~-ENUE - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Bill opened public hearing. Joe stepped down. Bill: My firm is representing an applicant that is in competition for the growth management quota system as this building is also and I don't find it to be a conflict but I leave that up to the applicant. I feel I can do a fair judgment. Andy Hecht, attorney for applicant: We are comfortable that Bill will make a fair judgment. Roxanne: This is conceptual development for a two story addition to the Pitkin County Bank building. It is not an historic landmark but is located right on the fringe of the commercial core historic district. The proposed height of the finished addition shows to be 34 feet. The guidelines and standards that are applicable are in the memo presented to the Board. We find in general that the three story design accomplishes compatibility with adjacent structures but a three story on the edge of the district may not be entirely appropriate. The pedestrian experience is being enhanced by this proposal in making the park area in front more of an active area for pedestrians, seating 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 benches etc. I am recommending that they eliminate the berming that is shown in the landscape. Consider wrapping the active park space around to the west corner of the building to integrate more with the Pitkin Center building. There is a rigid canopy that does effect the open space and they are going to remove that and do a retractable awning. The massing is a concern on this building when they are adding directly onto an existing condition and we are already looking at a non-conforming situation with regard to massing with the guidelines, how the new massing works and is it appropriate. On the south elevation on the main facade the pickup of the detail elements of the Pitkin Center need to be looked at. The openings and windows along with massing are a concern of mine in relationship to the guidelines. I am recommending replacement of all the windows and restudy of the upper floor fenestration and the west elevation. Eliminate the recesses of the second floor. We are recommending that the mortar be fixed to match. I am recommending that you grant conceptual'development approval with conditions as stated in memo dated August 22, 1990 (see records). Scott Smith, architect with Gibson & Reno: The existing building was built in 1979 and it was a contemporary styled two story brick building with a basement and a combination of flat roof and sloped metal roof at the corner. In 1981 HPC approved a small two story brick addition which was added onto the rear of the building. That is the way the building exists today. Over the years the bank has grown and they are looking for additional office space. The lower level will remain as it. On the main floor plan the street level plan one of the additions at this level is an elevator in the corner to provide handicapped accessibility to the building and an additional stair back into what used to be a storage area. We are providing an enclosure for the trash area. We are proposing a landscape area (vest pocket) for pedestrians. We propose to relocate the existing sign out toward the corner and create more of a meandering type of stone path with seating benches interspersed with landscaping. All existing trees~ on the street will remain. The second level plan would be the! one floor added to the bank which would be above the mezzanine and at this level we would have the two stairs, elevator and loft and additional office space. We are including a small recessed deck to help break up some of the tall elevation. One o~f the primary concerns of the owner was to maximize the efficiency of the office space added while at the same time being able to keep the bank operating. Our basic concern was to incorporate the existing contemporary structure in a way that would help it blend more with the historic context. Some of the ways we did that was the matching brick and materials. We also tried to keep the massing at a more traditional fashion. On the west elevations Staff had concerns 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 with the openings and after further study of that wall, possibly we can do an 8 inch brick recess to indicate an opening pattern as opposed to the actual opening. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Charles: building windows. The proposal has great elements in it. Because this is so contemporary I don't see a problem with the You might even want to repeat that on the top floor. Don: The vest pocket park needs made a little less fussy and should work as well in the winter as summer. I concur that the berm should be eliminated. Georgeann: I concur that the park needs simplified. I see that there is a fence around the park and if this is a park that is supposed to be open space that fence would tell me that I couldn't walk inside. You should consider removal of the fence. I have no problem on the west elevation with the empty spaces and I am not sure you need any reflection of the fact that there could be windows in there. You have enough texture and pattern going on that wall. On the south west end those windows seem too large for that wall, make it too transparent since it is so narrow in the front; I am uncomfortable with them. Possibly scaled down a little. The window on the gable end is acceptable. I also like the roof treatment and the reflection of the low pitched metal roof so you don't end up with one element of a metal roof. Les: I like it and also feel the west wall should be broken up and the sign should be pulled out of the park. Bill: I like the program and as a .suggestion I think the park should really be green space and be landscaped space. I don't think the windows along the existing bank building are conducive to walking along the building and the green space is a nice transition between the sidewalk and building that is there. By having a vest pocket park you tend to be inviting traffic to cut the corner and walk along there and they will cut the corner and the windows are not that conducive to that kind of foot traffic. I would prefer to see more of a landscape. I like the building in general and the massing but offer one suggestion that if this massing was a problem to other committee members which it doesn't appear to be, just staff you might free it up a little more as a tower. It bothers me from the west elevation in looking through here as it looks like an industrial building and needs broken up to look more like a tower effect. Doing so you would achieve two things, break up the west elevation and in massing you would perceive it both from Hunter and Hyman as a building that is more 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 in line with the other buildings on the street and the tower out in the open space. It might be an interesting effect. Then the window on the south elevation works in a tower element. The windows on the east elevation on Hunter, because these are existing I would like to see a better window study that would add more prominence to,this element on Hunter. Augie Reno, architect: Regarding the mortar the applicant is willing to look at what can be done with that. Possibly it might be stained to blend. Pulling out all the mortar and re-grouting is not an acceptable situation. With the windows we feel strong about keeping the existing windows on the lower level as is. They present a vertical format which is in keeping with the historical guidelines. MOTION: Don made the motion that conceptual development approval for the proposed construction of a two story addition to the Pitkin County BanR building at 534 E. Hyman Avenue be granted subject to the following conditions to be met at final development review~ Restudy area dedicated to vest pocket park with simplified solution and elimination of berming. B. Relocate bike racks to north of present location. Exact material representation be presented for brick, mortar, roof, windows, awning and benches. Restudy the large south west stair elevator tower considering separation from the west wall plane. E. Open space clarification. F. Add horizontal mullion to third floor windows to make them more consistent with windows on the first two stories. Study possibility of unifying mortar color throughout the entire structure and present at final. H. Mechanical equipment shall not protrude above parapet. I. Call out location of sculpture if it is to be retained. J. Restudy possibility of sign location and sizing. K. Clarification of fenestration and detailing of entire west wall. 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 Charles second with all in favor. Motion carries. Clarification of motion. Andy Hecht: I would like to take a look at the mortar as it is the existing building and not the development. I don't know that the bricks are the same. Charles: The mortar correction could be done with color or repointing. Les: What about the park. Charles: You might say restudy possibility of pocket vest park. MINOR DE~-ELOPMENT FOR ThE BLACK DIAMOND SALOON - 520 E. COOPER Roxanne: This was the old Eastern Winds building, a non-historic building. There are three shed awnings proposed over the store front windows and then the replacement of the barrel awning material over the arched canopy. The material that they are proposing is off white but looks more like tan, black lettering. The barrel awning frame that exists right now projects into public space and the zoning officer will not allow that to continue. It will need to be cut back to the plane of the building. The shed awnings will be retractable and they are proposed to be 4 feet. No other awnings on that street and relatively few are that wide. The awnings that are closest to that are 2 1/2 ft. wide. I am recommending that the shed awnings be no wider then 2 1/2 to 3 feet and the framework of the arched canopy cover be cut back in line with the building. The material choice is fine. Daniel Wardwell, manager of restaurant: I asked them to do the same thing that is on Boogie's restaurant so if that is less than 4 feet we will be more than willing to go with that. We have agreed to push back that old canopy that was hanging over the sidewalk and they are taking it down tomorrow morning. We are in agreement to do what Roxanne is suggesting. Les: It will be c~t back approximately a 1 1/2 ft to 2 feet. Don: Both the applicant and staff's proposal seem very reasonable to me. Georgeann: That particular building needs awnings. 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 Bill: It is a southern exposure and there are specific requirements in the city that you do not extend below eight feet and I would say that the width of Boogie's awning is fine. I believe they come .out about three feet. I would try to align with that and not ibelow 8 feet. 2 1/2 feet wouldn't give them the shade. Georgeann: Whatever Boogie's is he can go that wide because we already have that on an existing street. Charles: As part of the clarification we might say not to exceed Boogies. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the minor development of Black Diamond Saloon, 520 E. Cooper, awning proposal as presented with the width not to exceed 3 feet. Any minor adjustments can be signed off by Staff. The existing entrance canopy would be pulled back to align with the facade of the building. Georgeann second with all in favor. Motion carries. (Boogies is an example) 320 LAKE AVENUE, MINOR DEVELOPMENT PARCEL #1, MARSh{ALL LOT SPLIT Roxanne: This was built without a building permit. It is not visible from the facade. We find that this particular detached development does not effect the facade and the character of the Hallam Lake Proposed district however, concern focuses on the visual impacts that this particular development has on the historic Hallam Lake area. Hallam Lake area is in the process of annexing into the City. Hallam Lake is a very important site to us. We are recommending HPC approve the screened development from the Hallam Lake view plane and that a revised detailed planting plan be submitted for Staff's approval prior to a building permit. James VonBrewer, representing applicant: The contractor who built this is from Grand Junction and I am mitigating the situation. I have acquired a landscape contractor's recommendation for this proposal. I visited the site with him and what he has proposed here effectively meets the recommendation for screening requirements in terms of using native vegetation. I had him steak it out and locate the plants. He is ready to put them in subject to what transpires here. Roxanne: The question being does the vegetation proposed screen the development enough all year long. Historic Preservation committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 Bill: If Tom can confirm that the vegetation proposed is native to that area it might help us make a decision. There are 7 junipers 3 to 4 feet wide and 4 to five feet high. There are 5 alpine currents that are 4 feet high and 3 feet wide. There are 15 sea green junipers that are approximately 2 feet high and 3 feet wide. James: The sea green juniper will fall over the wall and tend to break it up. Tom Cardomen, ACES: I have seen so called native plants turn out not to be native plants even though they do quite well. In this situation it is formal deck and the large and screening is more important to me than being specific to native species. I am working with the Planning office on an environmentally sensitive area overlay that will protect us and we are working with the neighbors concerning over development etc. on our borders. We are interested in' ~rotecting the steep bank and screening homes to the extent that we are not overwhelmed by the feeling of homes surrounding us but,so that homes are left with views. This deck was one of the important factors with working with P&Z because part of the project was involving moving quite a bit of dirt, 10 yards or more andl was dumped over the hillside and broke our fence. It was irretrievably placed at the bottom of the hill and we have kinda worked it out but in my mind that has not been worked out satisfactorily. I would hope that we can continue to work as neighbors and that the screening can go in place. Georgeann: When they dug the dirt out for the hot tub they dumped it over the edge of the bank. Tom: There were allot of rocks etc. and to carry them back up was too much work so we just tried to uncover the grassy hill side and encourage them to come back and pull a lot of the stuff to the bottom of the hill. It needs a little more attention. Georgeann: What do you think it needs. Tom: Two guys for a full day and some seeding and shrubs and a better irrigation system would be useful. The original contractor agreed that he would screen it and he planted shrubs but they died within a few weeks. Les: Can you see this deck. Tom: It is apparent to us and we are down looking at birds and it is out of character or distracting to look up and see a hot tub in use. I also feel the owner of the hot tub would feel more comfortable with significant screening. 13 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 Les: Has there been discussion about cutting down the deck down to lessen the impact. Tom: It would cost more to do that then plant shrubs and keep them healthy. Two or three cottonwoods at the bottom of our property could be part of the plan so that they have natural irrigation and would help in the plan. Bill: We are here to deal with historical compatibility of development in an historic district done to this designated structure. We cannot be a policing issue between neighbors. It is up to neighbors to work that out. Georgeann: Historically you wouldn't see a structure here from Hallam lake. Hallam lake's view plane is an historic element. Les: If approved do we have any perimeters regarding maintenance of screening or do we have to deal with part of the deck. Tom: The proposed environmental sensitive area overly requires maintenance of a 75% screen but that hasn't gone through yet. Don: If this is to be approved, concurrent with the approval would we perhaps~ require an automatic irrigation system to maintain the g~owth. Tom: The junipers are 4 feet high and that gets up to the deck height but doesn't screen the deck. There is a trade off in that the bigger the tree you plant the slower it grows. Georgeann: The man with the spa puts in screening and if Tom doesn't think it screens it he has to come back and complain to someone. Bill: We don't require any of the other applicants to have to screen the neighbors view and in fact there are numerous people complaining about their view being blocked. We have to also protect the applicant. The screening has to be a good attractive development. ~ Georgeann read a letter into the records from Ronnie Marshall dated July 26th: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. It does not in any way distract from the historical character of the existing residence. Georgeann: I believe our best and most valid approach here is to say although this is in the back of the building it is a fairly 14 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 large deck and it does distract from the historical character of the existing residence which can be solved by softening and screening it further. Les: If this was proposed now and we had an open hearing and all the neighbors came in and Hallam Lake says this will protrude into our historic visual, we would make them put the deck back and that is what I am dealing with. How can we ignore somebody coming in saying this is obtrusive to the historical perimeters of Hallam Lake. It is within our perimeters to require something reduced. Charles: Possibly the applicant could stagger three more junipers and provide ground cover down the hill. thought this Jim: That would be acceptable and the contractor would be acceptable. Georgeann: Once it is planted Staff could sign off after viewing it. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion that HPC grant minor development approval for 320 Lake Avenue spa/deck subject to the condition that increased vegetation be planted along the lake side edge of the deck to screen this development and make it more historically compatible with the building and the buildings around it with the goal of minimizing the visual impacts of the new development along the Hallam Lake bluff. This planting is to be approved in situ by Staff and if need be, more planting will be put in with Staff's direction and if satisfactory Staff is authorized by HPC to sign off on the building permit. Charles second with all in favor except Les. Motion carries. Plans were exhibited and marked for records dated August 21, 1990 as presented by James VonBrewer copy to go to Staff. 15 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 22, 1990 ELECTION OF OFFICERS. Les made the motion to nominate Bill Poss Georgeann, all approved. MOTION: Les made the motion to adjourn, all in favor. as chairman, second by second by Charles with MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to nominate Charles Cunniffe as first vice-chairman and Joe Krabacher as second vice- chairman. Bill Poss second with all in favor. Meeting adjourned 8:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy city Clerk 16