Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19890927Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Sept-mher 27, 1989 624 801 E. HYMAN - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - DEMOLITION APPLICATION . E. HOPKINS-PUBLIC HEARING-DEMOLITION & RE-DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL . 17 QUEEN STREET - PUBLIC HEARING - DEMOLITION AND RE-DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL 1 7 12 17 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall September 27, 1989 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Chris Darakis, Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe, June Kirkwood, Leslie Holst and Glenn Rappaport present. Joe Krabacher was excused. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve minutes of September 13, 1989. Second by Glenn. All approved. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: A lunch session is scheduled at the Wienerstube Oct. 2, Noon till 1:00 p.m. 801 E. HYMAN - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - DEMOLITION APPLICATION Public hearing opened. Roxanne: Stan Mathis will be presenting the re-development plan. Staff is recommending suspension to allow the City and applicant time to study a relocation alternative to demolition. All the demolition standards are not met and the Board has the ability to deny the application based on that. There were two issues connected to the tabling at the last meeting Aug 23, 1989. Investigating the building to determine that there is nothing historic underneath and look at a re-development plan that primarily dealt with massing, height and scale before taking action on a demolition permit. Andy Hecht, attorney: The code states that buildings rated 0 and 1 shall be removed from the inventory. We have a structure that is not historic and is not in an historic district. Why are we applying the regulations for demolition and removal from the code. The city council reviewed this in connection with the lot split and found that they did not want to make it part of the requirement that it be preserved or incorporated into another structure. Roxanne: The code states that when a re-evaluation occurs that structures which have been rated 0 or 1 shall been deemed to have no historic value and shall be removed from the inventory when a re-evaluation occurs. Sunny has received a letter from the Planning office that addresses this issue. Since that time Ord #17 has taken place which states that all structures on the inventory will go through an HPC review and approval for demolition, partial demolition on the location. This structure falls into that. Sunny: There is no reference as to "when" a new inventory is Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 done. It doesn't say the last inventory, next inventory etc. The Planning Office wrote to me and stated it was referring to a future inventory. That interpretation could be appealed to City Council and we chose not to do that and submitted an application under Ordinance #17. Andy Hecht: Ord. inventory but as I be deleted. #17 says it applies to all structures on the read the code this structure was supposed to Roxanne: With an evaluation which is not due for another two years. Andy Hecht: We are here because we believe in the process. Georgeann: I was at the meeting when City Council was trying to decide on Ord. #17 and specifically the one and two's were to be addressed in the ordinance. That is Council's intent. Fred Gannett, attorney: the code issue. The applicant can appeal to Council on Fred: My assessment is if you go forward today you don't get two cracks at it. Andy Hecht: So whatever that is, it is. specific from us. Do you need anything Fred: No but that issue may come up if you decide to go to Council. Andy: Let's go ahead with this. Roxanne: I am recommending suspension up to possibly a relocation is a good solution and John is interested in working on that. six months, Elmore, owner Sunny: My recollection of the previous meeting: The building is structurally sound, and probably could be moved. It was determined that if nothing was found under the skin then it could be demolished. We were to bring back a massing and bulk model. There was no discussion that we were required to relocate the structure to another site. The owner offered to give the house to someone and we would hold off on demolishing the structure from 4 to 6 months. What is the historical preservation for requiring us to move it. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 PRESENTATION OF INVESTIGATION FOR ORIGINAL PROPERTIES Stan Mathis, architect: I investigated the south side of the structure and took off the shingling and cut back the tar paper. All I found was the one by sheathing and asphalt roofing paper. There was no siding underneath. The original fascia's are not there. The entire skin of the house underneath, all the asphalt shingling appears to be removed. The windows are not original and the entire house has been remodeled within the last 30 years. Bill: Was the hole punctured at what you perceived to be the historical part of the structure. Stan: Yes, the wall that faces the garage which was original. Les: I spent a lot of time looking in that hole and to me you didn't get into the original building at all. John Elmore: The carpenter knocked a hole in the wall on the inside and if you look at it it can easily verify what Stan has identified. Georgeann: What is left. Stan: Studs and possibly the sheathing. PRESENTATION OF RE-DEVELOPMENT Stan presented photographs of the neighborhood. Stan: We are keeping the mass of the two story building to the east property line toward the alley. Keeping the elevation of the ridge as low as possible by sinking the building. By sinking the building it will keep the ridge 25 ft. above finished grade. Another part of the guidelines stated that porches are appropriate. If we are above natural existing grade porches count as FAR. If by sinking the house the porches/decks don't count so I am able to add porches at the first story level. On Original street side there is a livingroom above a 2 ft. recessed bedroom. On Hyman St. side there is a bedroom that is set back 14 ft. from the property line. 10 ft. is requirement. The face of the garage door is set back. By dropping the house we can landscape the patio. We want to maintain the ratio of windows to wall and keep them more narrow. There is 35% open space in this zone. Bill: The only reason you are proposing the court yard is to get more FAR for the deck. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 Stan: FOr the porch and to hold the ridge height to 25 ft. Bill: Or if you let the building at grade you would have to design a lower building. Stan: The code allows 30 ft. Stan: On parking we have two cars in the garage and two stacked behind. Stan: Per the code there is an accessory unit. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Glenn: I am for re-location and I am also not convinced that there is nothing under there. The zero lot line setback on the rear yard possibly could be looked at since the buildings already occupy that corner. Opposed to sinking the building. Charles: Opposed to depressing the first floor below grade. A house would look more natural on the ground. Georgeann: Raise house up to ground level. Possibly a few feet could be taken out in order to maintain a low ridge line and have a house that sits on the ground. I like the porch and deck treatments. It feels a little massive for that corner. Possibly boarding should be incorporated. With the suspension and relocation of the house unless after further investigation we found something underneath that is historic, I don't see where this relocation is an historical problem but rather a housing problem. Les: Problem with massing and the building should be at ground level. Possibly stepping the front a little will cut the massing down. I have a problem with the vaulted ceiling on the second floor with all the glass. June: I agree with Les on the vaulted ceiling and mass of glass and it looks huge for that site. Don: This resembles a large sunken suburban house. are very heavy. The fascia Chris: I don't oppose it being sunken even though I would prefer it on ground level. The Hyman Ave. elevation shows a 25 ft. elevation but behind it there is a piece of roof that sticks up. I agree with Georgeann regarding the re-location. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 Stan: It is 25 ft. to the highest piece. Bill: I am troubled by the look of the building because I can't tell whether it speaks of a residence or an office building. I can see both. With regards to the sunken terrace if it were more urban in feeling it might relate better. Stan: I have followed the historic guidelines. Bill: The guidelines are only guidelines and not all are appropriate for that area. Glenn: The house isn't the greatest but the yard is well taken care of and you are taking that away. You should take advantage that it is a transitional building from one area into another type of area. By doing a 45 degree entry off of the two streets you chose to treat them equally and I don't think they are equal. DISCUSSION Les: The demolition guidelines have not been met and that needs to be resolved. Charles: We need to give the application clear direction. Sunny: I would like to see no requirement placed on the applicant that he has the responsibility to re-locate the building. Georgeann: We are going to vote for it to be demolished if #1 it is proved that there is nothing historical remaining and #2 when we are satisfied with the massing. At the moment we aren't completely happy with the massing. Sunny: Each time I come back there is a new issue. I want an expression from the HPC that they will allow the demolition of the structure upon our submission of a satisfactory re- development plan. If we can't get a satisfactory plan we never get a demolition plan. Sunny: At the last meeting we had talked about demolition criteria and the majority seemed to agree that it had lost it's architectural significance and to require us to comply with the other criteria was inappropriate. The regulations do not address this situation. Charles: At the last meeting it was agreed that demolition would be appropriate if they came up with a satisfactory scale Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 and massing for the site or they didn't find anything historic in the building. Georgeann: I would be willing to go along with a motion that says: The owner agrees to not demolish for a period of time and actively pursues relocation not at his expense and if satisfactory massing envelope is created we would allow demolition. Don: The site has a rating and this Board has design input as to what will replace the building. At this point the building will be replaced or demolished. Bill: The straw pole confirms the last meeting that the Board is going to allow the applicant to demolish or re-locate. Chris: We need to set some standards for advertising. Sub-Committee to verify the research. Les, Glenn, Bill, Chris Dan Levinson, builder will join the sub-committee also. Georgeann: If it is historic then re-location is mandatory. Jon Elmore has to prove to us that he actively has tried to find a re-location. Adam Walton: How do you determine looking under the skin of the structure whether it is historic. Les: I tie a dimension into all of this. the massing integrity of this town. We have to preserve MOTION: Charles made the motion to allow demolition or re- location of 801 E. Hyman Ave. with the following conditions: That the applicant provides us with assurance that there is no historical significant construction under the existing envelope. That the applicant make a considerate effort to find a site for the location of the structure including advertising etc. until March 30th. The massing be reduced and re-design the submission for a more appropriate character for the site. Georgeann second. All approved. John Elmore: It can't be demolished before the 30th but a permit can be issued. We have to come back and prove there is nothing underneath. Charles: It is inherent in the motion if they find something that they have to come back to HPC and it is a new ball game. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 Sunny: You are saying that you are allowing it to be demolished under conditions: We have to come back a demonstrate that there is nothing historic underneath. If there is you will reconsider your approval for demolition. We have till March 30th in which we have to attempt to re-locate the structure. We must come back with a re-development that addresses the concerns we just heard. Charles: If something is determined under the skin then we will have to have a new meeting. Sunny: Lets close the public hearing and if we have to re- advertize we will as we don't know if we can get plans submitted by the next meeting. Public hearing closed. 624 E. HOPKINS-PUBLIC HEARING-DEMOLITION & RE-DE%q~LOPMENT CONCEPTUAL Charles stepped down due to possible conflict of interest. June Kirkwood seated. Public hearing opened. Roxanne: Any financial interest of the property or any kind of biased opinion in whether or not a vote can be made fairly constitute conflict of interest. Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner presented the over- view of the project as attached in records (memo dated Sept. 27, 1989). The cottage is in an advanced state of deterioration and is rated #1. Relocation would be difficult. With the rate of historic structures being demolished in the east end we anticipate by the year 2000 there will be nothing left. The rate is 3 per year. We only have four buildings left in the Cl zone and this structure is one of them. There are numerous alternatives for the owner if this building were designated. Staff finds that the application doesn't meet the review standards. The Planning Office is recommending suspension for a period not to exceed 6 months. Sunny Vann, planner: The structure was rated #1 due to no architectural significance to the building nor was there any historical significance associated with people or events that have taken place there. It was stated in the code if it were inventoried and still found to be a #1 it would be removed from the inventory. The original structure was a two room box and the 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 additions have been modified starting around 1949. We believe the structure is appropriate for demolition: #1 structural condition poor; lack of significant historical importance. The structural engineer hired states that the building is in an advanced state of deterioration and possibly in the early states of collapse. It is unsafe at this time. We have provided a cost analyses of restoring the structure and the architects conclusion was that the restoration of the structure was economically unfeasible in its current condition. The issue is whether or not it can be reasonably utilized. If we restore the two room box then it will not be large enough for any reasonable residential or commercial use. If we attach only a modest addition then there would insufficient square footage that we could rent or sell at a reasonable cost. If we impose a requirement it will be a hardship on Ellen Kuper. Ellen can't afford to sell this thing at less then its appraised value. To require Ellen Kuper to sell her property at less then its worth in order to permit the restoration of a structure which is neither architecturally or historically significant is not fair in this case. The third criteria is whether the house can be moved. The house mover basically said he wouldn't touch the project due to the advanced structural deterioration and that his machinery cannot get under the house. It would have to be done by hand. To require the house to be moved when the professional mover states that it is unfeasible does not seem to be a reasonable requirement including the additional costs. The final criteria talks about the mitigation of impacts that may occur as a result of demolition. Staff feels that the loss of any of the four structures left in this zone district is untenable. I don't think that is what Ord. #17 says. It is to provide a mechanism to review when preservation was appropriate and was not to simply maintain structures in the community if they did not have significant architectural importance. Dan Levinson, builder: I have no financial interest in this project and there will be no fee. The building has no architectural significance to me at all. As far as the structure is concerned it is in an advanced state of deterioration. Maryann and Philip Altfeld, proposed owners: Maryann is a retired school teacher and Philip is an attorney. They have been coming to Aspen for 20 years and they expect to be productive in Aspen. They intend to build a small 2800 sq. ft. house small urban single family home. An elevator will be installed and reduce the living space to 1800 sq. ft. Owners are sensitive to open space and the total lot is 4500 sq. ft. and the foot print is only 1500 sq. ft. There is 3000 sq. ft. of open space. The existing trees will remain. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 Ellen Kuper, owner: The two room box was owned by my parents and it was built onto with logs in 1949. The front was covered with tar paper siding and in 1963 my mother put on aluminum siding and put in a picture window and removed one door from the front and one window from the side. In 1984 I rented it to some people who closed in the front porch. If you people do not allow me to demolish the house and sit there and say that I have to live there I will be totally condemned to living in an unsafe house. There are electrical problems, leaks, no washer and dryer and my children are sleeping in one room. If we are allowed to demolish I can live somewhere where there is a washer and dryer and bedrooms for the children and I will be able to provide my children with a college education as a fringe benefit that I cannot do presently. In your consideration please take all this into thought. I hope the Board does not decide to imprison me in that house just because it looks good on the block to someone passing by. Roxanne: It is no ones interest in historic preservation in this community to imprison anyone or cause a hardship. Regarding the cost estimate there are a number of ways to apply a per square foot cost to an renovation. We are taking about compatibility here. We want to see creative architecture design that takes the small scale form of the structure, renovates as much of it as we can and allows for a step up type of design that still allows the same square footage and using all the benefits that are available through landmark designation such as an open space change. The house movers recommended $12,000 and when I look at the cost of relocation as compared to the cost of the total new development $12,000 it seems to be reasonable to me. With regard to standard #4, the character of the neighborhood and historic importance is going to be effected with the demolition. This is a very difficult and transitional zone. The intent of Ord #17 is to look at all the issues and examine them and try to come up with a way that we can work with the applicant and get them and the community what they need. Tom Isaac: I was on City Council when ordinance #17 was adopted and the intent was to be able to take a look at the demolitions that are taking place so that we don't loose everything but to allow the change in buildings which really have served their purpose and have no significance in our town anymore to be removed and updated. Mrs. Kuper's house doesn't have any value historically or architecturally to Hopkins Street at all or to the City of Aspen. Ord. #17 was not intended to say no more demolitions it was intended to control the demolitions. Dan Levinson, builder: I am discouraged with the process and the fact of the matter is this ordinance was designed also to be 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Septe~ber 27, 1989 reasonable and make common sense. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Don: This house has an historic compliment which when revealed (the first two rooms) I think will be a great asset to the City and to the block. The first two rooms could be explored and used as an entrance to a modern rear portion. Also the benefits of landmark designation would give the designers and owners greater flexibility. Sunny: If the two rooms require total reconstruction wouldn't it make more sense to demolish it and totally replicate the two room box with the context of the new development and require that type of mass element as part of the re-development. Don: We have had several houses in the last year which have been considered to be in semi-dilapidated condition but when a new foundation was installed and perhaps new plates you find that when it is leveled it is still strong etc. and not an over whelming job. Albert Kern, attorney representing Mrs. Kuper: Are you suggesting that the house be torn down to its basic two rooms. Don: The additions were done in 49 and 63. save the significant portions of this City and of that building is significant. Our charge is to I feel a portion MaryAnn Altfeld, applicant: Would the two rooms be built out so the public can see them or would they be built around. Roxanne: Landmark designation which I recommend allows for a FAR variation to up to 500 sq. ft. Sunny: This house does not have jewel like details. Philip Altfeld, applicant: We have spent an inordinate amount of time on the design and we have tried to present something really attractive that will fit into Aspen against two very brutal buildings. Les: We need to go through our process and I feel there is something here that will work for everybody. My choice would be to keep the front rooms and redo them; give you the maximum of 500 sq. ft. on the addition in the back and utilize a gable peak. There is something magical about walking down the street and seeing a little gabled roof. 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 Sunny: We are going to continue to have pressure from developers in this down. Georgeann: What is significant about that house is we know the size and shape of the house, the cross gable which is very historic for that caliper of house and we know what the porch looked like and we have photos and documentation. The cross gables are important, shape and proportions are significant. I would also not be unhappy having it replicated instead of restored because I know the wood is rotten etc. but the scale and proportions are good. It could also be moved back a little. You could use the rooms as an entry to the building and when people walk by they get the felling that this is what was once here. It would also help insure the house across the street and adds interest to the town. Adam Walton, neighbor: If they can save something of that small structure even Ellen would view it when completed and say that was my little house where my mother lived. Possibly the city should give more incentives. Sunny: As far as incentives we don't need a parking break, and probably don't need an open space break due to the size of the house we can do. It has to go up to have reasonable use as a residential structure due to the large buildings behind us. A variance on open space won't help us very much, and the 500 feet might be helpful to keep the retention of the front rooms. Glenn: If we had 100 buildings on that block no one would look at this building and because we don't have many left we are being very critical. If keeping the two rooms allows the plan to create better open space in the center where its more private maybe that is something that ends up being a plus. The HPC has a responsibility to historic buildings and citizens who spent their lives in Aspen and I respect that. In this case I don't see the loss of the building as severely damaging the community. I am in favor of a win win solution if that can be possible. I am not saying save the building I just feel that all the possibilities have not be explored yet. Sunny: You want us to look at it but you are not adamant about saving the two structures. Chris: I would like to see it explored to the fullest and I don't necessarily thing that the building needs to be saved but I also don't thing the $12,000 in cost to move it is a considerable cost. I would like to see the front saved if it can be. Bill: An example of additions that the Board uses is the 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 Explorer Booksellers. We want to see the shape, massing and the perceived significance that it was a small structure. Philip Altfeld: The views are significant. Les: I am looking for a small entrance way with an addition on the back. We are talking about compatible architecture. Bill: You have to come up with a compatible way to build as much of the 2800 sq. ft. as you can because you have the two structure on each side. 2800 sq. ft. will not hurt that zone. Don: We have indicated direction in which you can go, three story structure, let the little victorian stand on its own. Sunny: We have to decide whether or not that is a alternative the client wishes to pursue. Philip Altfeld: I have been listening to many of your hearings and I see inconsistencies in their positions and it concerns me. If we don't do this house we're OK but Ellen isn't. Bill: I would be in favor of a contemporary addition to the back. Georgeann: mean steel your plans. When Bill says contemporary that doesn't necessarily and glass. We aren't asking for a major remodeling of There are numerous versions of contemporary. MOTION: Chris made the motion to table 624 E. Hopkins until Wed. Oct. 25th, 1989. June second. All approved. 17 QUEEN STREET - PUBLIC HEARING - DEMOLITION AND RE-DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL Public hearing opened. Public: I have lived here 20 years and built a house on King St. and drive by Queen St. every day. If there were historical value to 17 Queen st. it should have been looked at 30 years ago instead of letting it deteriorate. There is no historical value left and I am looking forward to seeing something new there. Roxanne: There maybe some opportunities here for preservation of the cottage and to allow a new structure as well. The parcel is large enough and if there was a code amendment it could allow for two detached structures on a designated parcel and we may be able to have a win win here. There are numerous incentives that can apply. We also know that a re-location could happen on this 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 site. I am recommending a suspension to allow time for me, applicant and the planning office to process the code amendment. Lennie Oates, attorney for purchaser Lana Trettin: Presented affidavit of posting. We intended to come in with demolition but after the site meeting and listening to the Board tonight on other cases we see some validity and are prepared to work in this matter with the HPC. The Trettins are building a primary residence. We would propose that the basic T shape of the cottage which is original be moved to a new location on the northerly side, King Street side of the site. We want a consideration of a replication of the structure in the event from an economic standpoint that this is virtually impossibly or extremely impractical to move it. This addresses the win win criteria. The end result would be that this structure would be an accessory building and as an accessory building it would be entitled to the uses that are available to accessory buildings. We would like to explore the parking variation. We think we can deal with the site if the structure is moved. We want to create an illusion of a separate lot situation. With that illusion we should then be free to develop within the constraints of zoning and the FAR on the other portion of the lot which is not committed to the illusion of the separate lot. Therefore, the issue of a re-development plan is not critical in this situation given that this is a 21,000 sq. ft. lot. The issue of suspension does not appeal to us and a table to next meeting is in order. We need to know if this direction is appropriate. Lanna Trettin, buyer: Introduced individuals involved in process. When we purchased the land there were no encumbrances and then it was given a rating. Lennie Oates: A deferral would be appropriate which would allow us to temporarily wearhouse it while the Trettin's replenish their bank account. Terms of 2 years and we would provide the bonds or safeguards required. Tom Isaac: I live at 975 King Street around the corner and there has been no effort for 17 years to take care of this house. I would encourage the Board to work with Mrs. Trettin and allow her to re-develop and not hold her up for 6 months. Three citizens commented in favor of Mrs. Trettin's proposal. Ted Guy, architect: The concept of replication or re- construction. The porch has already collapsed and 2 x4 are holding it. The floor is rotted out and it would be difficult to move the structure. We would hope the Board would allow us to use new materials to match the current form. 13 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 Historic Trust representative offered assistance in determining the proper course for this structure. Rudd Construction: I examined the property and it would be difficult to move it but every effort will be made by the Trettin's. Plans presented to Board. The T shape element is setting in the center of the site right now and would be relocated to the upper area of the site and set back more from the road. We would develop the rest of the site. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Don: Design is appropriate and the contrast between the existing structure which may be relocated and the contemporary work will be mutually beneficial. Georgeann: I agree. Les: You are going in the right direction. Glenn: It is a good plan and addresses the issues of the streets in a sensitive way. Les: I don't like the idea of wearhousing what is left of the house for two years. Lana Trettin: It would be kept on site and we had discussed framing it with plywood to stabilize it. Georgeann: Not necessarily restoring it right away. One alternative would be to build the foundation for it and deal with the existing structure so it can securely rest on that foundation. In order to do it well there are $ involved that might be available for one or two years. Les: It is capable of being moved and I don't see any problem. CLARIFICATIONS Roxanne: You propose to relocate the T part of the structure. How many square feet is that. Lennie Oates: 600 to 700 sq. ft. Roxanne: A sub-committee should go to the site and determine 14 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 the square footage and if in fact it is the T structure that needs to be saved. #2 Your best efforts to replicate. Lennie Oates: We will take pictures etc. and if it can't be moved we will replicate as an accessory structure. Roxanne: If duplication, replication of a new structure is what this committee is interested in that is one thing. I think that a reconstruction if it starts to fall apart or whatever that is why we have a performance guarantee bond that insures that a relocation will take place appropriately so that it does move. There are two issues. A reconstruction is one issue and the Board needs to decide if that is appropriate. If we are moving "the structure" or if it falls down we are going to rebuild something new. Architect: What is structure. Preserving originally built. the intent of your thinking on this as it is or as it was when it was Roxanne: Closer to as it was when it was originally built, it was smaller. Lennie Oates: We can accommodate the housing issue within the primary issue itself. Roxanne: This HPC looks at historic use as well and there might be a way that this unit could be used as a dwelling like it has been for 100 years. I am asking if you are interested in looking at that. Bill: A guest house. Roxanne: If that is an option that they want to come back with we need to be addressing a code amendment to allow for two dwelling units. Lennie Oates: We don't want to do that. Lanna Trettin: I am trying to do some economic housing down at Preshana and you keep all your electrical etc. lines together and it costs less money as soon as you have to put in a separate kitchen and bathroom it is going to be more money. If we could afford to have a separate house that could bring in income that might be wonderful but in my reality the money that I think I can raise to build our home I don't think that we will have the money to make that structure into a code housing dwelling. We intend to complete it as a structure but I just don't know if we can afford to make it into a house. 15 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 27, 1989 Roxanne: A performance guarantee bond is appropriate and an action plan on the renovation of this in the future. Bill: The ideas presented only got developed this afternoon and the applicant and architect have not had time to think about all the alternatives themselves and possibly tabling is appropriate. We have a structure that is going to be saved and a contemporary structure that is going to be designed and everything seems to be positive. We haven't had time to evaluate. Lennie Oates: We want to come back at the next meeting. Roxanne: You need to complete a conceptual application. A full action plan on what you are going to do with the is appropriate for the next meeting. cottage Lennie 0ates: What is your thought on separate lot, we don't think that should be due to the size of the lot. the illusion of the a big issue in this Les: I feel the house should be moved a sa dwelling so that I know it would meet code and stay there forever. Georgeann: I don't believe it should be a dwelling but it has to be something that will not be torn down tomorrow. I want to see a specific action plan. We want to protect the house and I am not concerned about the development plan of the new building. Don: There are no studs in those walls and it will be very difficult to move and we may have to accept some sort of compromise situation which involves applied studs to stabilize the structure. It is proceeding well. Don: We will need scale and massing and elevations. Georgeann: You have one parcel and we will ask to see conceptual and final as we have to be consistent. Bill: Why don't we table until the 25th to give them time to re-think their approach and we can comment at that time. MOTION: Don made the motion that further consideration for the re-development of 17 Queen street be tabled until Oct. 25th. Georgeann second. All approved. Motion carries. Meeting adjourned 9:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 16