Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19891108Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 624 E. HOPKINS - DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT 801 E. HYMAN - RELOCATION AND REDEVELOPMENT 210 S. GALENA ST. - THE ELKS BUILDING CONCEPTUAL 940 MATCHLESS DRIVE - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 1 8 10 14 19 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES Second Floor Meeting Room City Hall November 8, 1989 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with, Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe, Les Holst and Glenn Rappaport present. Chris Darakis was excused. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the minutes of October 18th and 25th. Second by Glenn. All approved. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Bill: I did meet with the people from the Historical Society on their addition to the carriage house. I will try to get with the architect to go over some of the concerns. 624 E. HOPKINS - DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT Public Hearing Opened. Charles stepped down. Roxanne: Letter from Marcia Poutous entered into the records favoring plan presented. Staff is recommending tabling to allow comments one more time. The revised plans do not meet the standards or the guidelines for demolition. The two issues are demolition and the re-development. The revised plans indicate a complete demolition that no rehabilitation is involved and that the re-development includes a replicated cottage with a large addition to the rear. Does it meet the demolition standards of the code and secondly what should the re-development be. The application still shows a demolition. Mary Martin: This house is rated #1 and there are no rules national or state that you can control that this house cannot be demolished. You have not changed the re-evaluation system. It is still #1 and #1's can be demolished. Georgeann: They can be demolished after they are reviewed if the decision is made that they meet the criteria for demolition. Bill: Ord. #17 gives us four standards to review whether we can allow it to be demolished or not. Mary: This can be challenged in court if you do not permit a demolition permit. Bill: Standard #1 is that the structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owners efforts to properly maintain the structure. Standard #2 the structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on the site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. Standard #3 the structure cannot be practically moved to another site in Aspen. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 Standard #4 if the applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates the greatest extent practical any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur or that they can mitigate any impact on the historical importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel or adjacent parcels or that they mitigate any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Those are the standards that we review demolition under. Steen Gantzel: If you took a vote of the public I believe a vote would be positive for a complete removal of this particular building as it has no historical significance. I have not been shown anything visually in that building that has anything of importance that should stay there. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS MEETING Roxanne: For clarification from the last meeting the Committee had determined that the architectural integrity was not terrific on this project and that the Committee felt that there was enough integrity in its scale that you wanted to preserve as much as you could of the original front portion of the house and then allow for an addition to the rear. The applicant apparently heard that the Committee was just interested in preserving scale and that scale could be replicated with a totally new structure. Don: The understanding at the last meeting is in the minutes. The Committee was in a majority of agreement that the original portion of the structure would be saved and serve as an entrance to a new structure that would rise behind it to the rear. It was a very simple concept. Don: The original front was covered up. On almost all occasions the original materials should be used and replaced when necessary. Behind that front is the original materials. Georgeann: At the previous meeting I stated the only thing of importance was the scale. Les: thing. bldg. My approach was that scale and mass was the most important We had talked about the first 10 feet of the original and the rest behind it to be demolished. Ann Turnbull: The scale that is there now doesn't fit in with what is surrounding it. Glenn: I was interested in looking underneath the building and seeing if there was anything worth saving (structure and volume). Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 I also approved demolition if these other issues were not viable alternatives. The Board was trying to come up with alternatives that would benefit the seller and the buyer and the City. Bill: We were trying to help the owner not to perceive a hardship and see that the building retained its shape and massing and be incorporated into a larger building that would be allowed in the zoning code. We are trying to preserve a character in that neighborhood and incorporate the shape and massing on the site of 624 E. Hopkins. We tabled action to see if we could work with the new applicant and the buyer to see what we could do to incorporate that structure. Steen Gantzel: The neighborhood is lost in that area of town. Mary Martin: You either approve or disapprove demolition. Richard Klein, architect: I would like to do a presentation. This building is a #1 and our engineering report does indicate that it is not feasible to rehabilitate this building and the client is not interested in utilizing that existing structure. We want to save the fabric of the town, size, scale and massing. The new submittal takes the same scale and the same form of the existing building and rebuilds it and presents it as an entry to the new three story structure behind. Georgeann offered some graphic illustrations on her computer to see what would happen if we did that. Georgeann: I did this as an educational tool for HPC and received no pay. I did not do this for Mrs. Kuper or the Altfelds. Richard: After further discussion with the client, it was indicated that they were not happy with this alternative and we would prefer to build a new three story building that does not mimic anything. Richard Klein presented the Board with new plans. Bill: Roxanne has not had time to review these plans. Mrs. Altfeld: We really tried to incorporate the massing, size and scale of the original structure. We did OK on the inside but the outside did not feel right or look right to me. Roxanne: We have seen this problem to additions to small cottages; how do you make it compatible, flow and fit. Richard: We are still requesting demolition. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 Bill: We are trying to determine if that house contributes to the character of that area. We are not trying to do a restoration of that house. Carl Berg]nan: I am in favor of what the applicant wants to do. Mrs. Kuper has a hardship. Steen: Possibly the City should buy the house. Richard: The Planning Staff feels that we don't meet demolition standards and the applicant feels we do meet them. The Board must decide. Mrs. Kuper: The boards underneath are rotten and pushing the aluminum siding out. If I am not allowed demolition then I will loose the buyers and that will make me a human sacrifice. I should not have to suffer. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Georgeann: This building meets the criteria for demolition in three categories. The fourth category: Is there any use possibly for this building on site. Something can be done with any building but in this case it is a marginal possibility. I will vote for demolition and then I would like to work with the people who want to redevelop it. Joe: I am not in favor of keeping a few beams and building around them. None of the door or window openings are original. Whether the building could be reused on site I think in this case that it will be difficult for me to find that there is going to be any reasonable way to reuse that structure. I am leaning toward demolition. Glenn: I agree with Joe and would favor demolition. My main concern would be to follow the project. What happens on that street is important. Don: The original structure was two rooms and we really didn't dig into the building to find out its condition. We have been presented with two plans which are basically the same. I am undecided. Bill: I would be in favor of demolition if I saw a good solution that went along with the guidelines, preserving some of the character of the neighborhood. I would like to work out a re-development plan before granting demolition. Our charge is to preserve the character. If we grant demolition what happens if Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nove~mber 8, 1989 this person doesn't buy it, then we have no control over the re- development. Les: We are almost there and I want to continue to work until this is resolved. Richard: Until the Board decides that the re-development is adequate nothing happens. Roxanne: If the Board finds that it meets the demolition standards action should take action. If you want to make a condition of that approval subject upon the approval of the redevelopment then I would recommend that you do that. Mary: To what degree do you have control drawings if the demolition permit goes. design review board. over the architectural You are still not a Roxanne: Since 1987 the HPC has had the ability to review and approve any re-development plan regarding a demolition of inventory structures. The code state that they have to meet all four criteria for demolition. Chairman closed the public hearing. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to allow for demolition of 624 E. Hopkins on the grounds that it meets the criteria for demolition except for standard #4 which has not been establish to the satisfaction of the HPC and require that the applicant work with HPC until standard #4 has been fulfilled and that a permit for demolition cannot be granted until approval of standard #4. Joe second the motion. VOTE: All approved. Roxanne: We wrote into the code a minimum maintenance requirement provision that allows for a $10,000 zero interest loan for cases exactly like Ellen's that deal with minimum maintenance with regard to economic hardship. Glenn: I would be interested in exploring the possibility of commercial/residential of the property. Joe: Most appraisers would tell you the property is worth more as residential. Clarification: Georgeann: My motion says that the demolition is approved and when the applicant comes forward with a re-development plan that we find acceptable they can be issued a demolition permit. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 Mary: What if there were no buyer. Bill: That would be a completely different case. Glenn: Almost everyone favors demolition. Georgeann: Possibly the Board could meet after the meeting to give them feedback on the plans submitted since the applicant is here. All approved. Public Hearing closed. REVIEW OF RE-DEVELOPMENT Public Hearing reopened. Charles stepped down. Don: It appears to us that there are no significant differences in the floor plans. Richard: There is a slight modification on the exit stair. The client is happy with the floor plan. Mrs. Altfeld: To avoid the house looking top heavy we had to start with a large basement and come up smaller. Since the views are on the top floor I wanted the kitchen, dining room and living room there which is the area that I have the least amount of space for. If we could massage the plans a little more I would like to have more space on the top floor. Don: I believe in the C1 district a owner could without subdivision develop a 350 sq. ft. space that is commercial, in this case perhaps the replication of the existing historic structure. Could not an owner say this is commercial space and this is office space and lease the office space and then develop the rest with a separate entrance as a residence. There is no problem with open space and it is the desire of the Board and applicant to get up high and achieve views and somehow deal with the massive blank wall to the west. Mrs. Altfeld: building. I don't like the idea of living behind an office Glenn: If you had an office with control over it it does a few things; it is compatible with what is happening across the street and I think it would make your house better, there would be an entry right in the center and it would probably offer you an economic alternative. Historic Preservation conittee Minutes of November 8, 1989 Roxanne: We are talking about uses that have nothing to do with the HPC and the applicant doesn't want a multi use. We are to deal with the urban design of this lot and how it functions with the context of the neighborhood. I have recommended landmark designated. We have to go past the uses and look at the design. Don: We have two plans one that relates to what was there and another one that breaks the scale down, smaller massing. Glenn: The plans do not represent any type. If it is going to be a townhouse lets review that. We need to work with the type. Les: We are concerned about the transition between mass and street. Don: Have you thought about not having pitched roofs. Georgeann: Possibly a simplified building in front and something more neutral in the back. Richard: We are not exactly set on the look of the latest plan. Bill: In this zone the buildings are very squared off and with other projects our office tried to fit into that realm and we also tried to get heights at 30 ft. In this zone pitched roofs are appropriate. The long balcony bothers me but I also would like to see a terrace. Living on the third level is where the views are. You also need to get the height so you don't cut off the mountains. Glenn: I would like to see that building stand on its own, not something that is slammed into the KSNO building. Between the building and the street is important, whether it turns out to be a stoop, porch etc. That needs to be tied in as to how you want to live. When you are two feet above the street it is different than 8 ft. above the street and makes a difference. That is part of urban design. Don: Your plans show the stairs in a perfect location and you could get another 8,000 sq. ft. of outside space. Possibly at street level that whole story could be a different scale and material. Georgeann: I agree with Bill about the balcony. In this building you feel like the whole world is watching you. The shape seems too large and too plain. Don: You could have one gable end as recognition of what goes on across the street. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 Les: You need to look for something that has never been done before, new architecture. Richard: I need to talk with the applicant about what has been said and go before you informally. MOTION: Don made the motion to table the Public Hearing on 624 E. Hopkins to the ~q~1%-o~-~7~~ Glenn second. All approved. MOTION: Don made the motion that the Dec. 27th meeting be cancelled and moved up to Dec. 20th. A worksession is scheduled Dec. 20th at 4:00 to review design progress on this project. Glenn second. All approved. 801 E. ~ - RELOCATION AND REDEVELOPMENT Continued public hearing opened. Roxanne: We have been discussing ways to eliminate a subgrade affordable unit by renovating an historic out building and relocating the cottage. Also reviewing a re-development plan that fits within the scale etc. The two issues the applicant needs to make this work are a code amendment that allows for a detached accessory dwelling unit and a FAR bonus on the site. The other variations could be granted by the Board of Adjustment. We have a parcel and designation is for the benefit of preserving a small element on the big parcel and the majority will be new. Does that fit in the code. Staff is recommending conceptual approval with conditions. Stan Mathis, architect: I keep the original footprint on the corner of Original and set any new development back from the ridge line of the structure four feet. Then progressively set the building back from the face of the building as we went down the street in order to form less intrusion past the setback and try to create a greater tie to the neighborhood down the street. Once you came into the entry of the house you come down two feet and that allows for lowering of the garage elevation in the back. By use of flat spaces on top of the roofs I can span more roof without it getting up in the air a lot. Les: What is the square footage. Stan: The allowable is 3,240. We are going to try and do pitched roofs. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 Glenn: Approve of the elevation from Original and the porch is a much more habitable situation. I like seeing people living above ground. The design is moving in the right direction. Georgeann: I am torn on the sidewalk because I don't like sidewalks but that is one of the places that it is needed. I do like the porches etc. Possibly the shapes overhanging the little building could be pulled back. I like the way it drops down into the ground. Georgeann: The historic context of this building will ride on the remodel of the out building. We discussed whether we make the whole thing an historic parcel or only that portion. Possibly the applicant can get what he needs through code amendments. Roxanne: Stan has met with Jim Adamski in an effort for the City to take over the building for employee housing. Joe: I feel the Board should do what they can in trying to work with the applicant since they are trying to provide employee housing. We should also try and work with them on the landmark designation of the site. The two cross dormers need to be brought back. Don: In terms of massing there needs to be more study on the corner. Georgeann: If we do not designate the whole parcel can we still have review over the context it is in. Roxanne: Yes. I am looking at how we can designate the land context around the relocated historic structure to be able to get their designation without the whole parcel getting designated. Roxanne: The applicant would either have to go through a code amendment to have a FAR bonus and a detached accessory dwelling and then go to the Board of Adjustment for everything else, setbacks etc. Glenn: The applicant has worked with the HPC and I feel strongly about this type of situation and feel it can work. If we can designate the parcel and lessen the review process that is a positive step. I would support designation of the parcel. Charles: The only concern I have about the bulk of the building is the east corner of the north facade and as Donnelley stated you are working on that area. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 Bill: I am in favor of the landmark designation of the whole parcel. I am not worried about the size. The house starts to preserve the residential character of the town and makes a statement. Possibly softening the massing a little. Roxanne: Basically we are granting a relocation and conceptual subject to conditions. Glenn: If he goes for a code situation whereby future projects than if he goes for designation. amendment does that set up a incur less of an encumbrance Roxanne: Yes. MOTION: Charles made the motion to grant conceptual approval for the relocation of the principal structure at 801 E. Hyman and the redevelopment of the parcel as proposed with the following conditions: 1) The new location of the relocated structure be compatible and that every effort be made of the part of the applicant to provide the structure for an affordable housing use. Staff shall assist in the relocation process. 2) The Final Development application shall include detailed elevations and a site plan of the new structure and the adapted outbuilding. 3) The Final Development application shall include detailed information on the renovation of the outbuilding, including percentage of original materials being preserved, foundation repairs, garage door treatment, etc. 4) The Planning Office continue to pursue the "Cottage Infill Program" and that the applicant sponsor the code amendment addressing FAR bonuses for detached accessory dwelling units. The cottage remain and the original house be moved when an appropriate location is determined. Apply for landmark designation to keep the cottage on the property and thereby designate the whole parcel. Joe second. Ail approved. Public Hearing closed. 210 S. GALENA ST. - THE ELKS BUILDING CONCEPTUAL Roxanne: We are dealing with the addition of the elevator stair tower on the east elevation. The building has received landmark designation. The second issue is the store front renovation on 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 the Galena Street which is the west elevation. which is a change of materials could be development or significant development. The store front considered minor Roxanne: The tower meets the condition of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards except for the transition and the break. There needs to be a break between the old and the new. On the south elevation they have a row of windows and no structural break between for a number of reasons, snowmelt and drainage. Michael Doyle, architect with Hagman & Yaw: We used the Wheeler Opera House as the prototype. In the existing building we are dealing with height. The Elks organization wants to relocate to the third floor. With conventional elevators we are in violation of the height limit. The tower is about a 43 ft. tower and over the height limit. Roxanne: The Board does not grant height variation but we could recommend to the Board of Adjustment to approve the height based on hardship for design purposes. Joe: Is this the same width and depth of the tower on the Wheeler. Michael: No. The elevator tower at the Wheeler is separated from the building and we can't afford to do that to this building. We tried to use the glass as a visual separation. We would like to work with the existing opening of Esprit and also create a "vest pocket park". Roxanne: Where there is a 25ft setback right now it would be about 22 feet. Michael: The canopy is to protect the entrance. precedent for the arched opening. We want to before you enter. There is some shed water off COMMITTEE COMMENTS Roxanne: This needs to be as small as possible. Joe: Is there anyway that the tower could be moved back away from Hyman. Bill: I have no problem with the size and the massing. I also like it forward not quite to the Mason & Morse but it varies the street pattern. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 Charles: What about the issue of the connection to the building. It is not clear what is the new addition. It needs to be compatible but not matching, possibly a darker brick. Glenn: I would suggest switching the placement of the stair and elevator then any gap in the building could be appreciated by people walking up the stairs. Bob Walker: The reason for our placement is we thought the height problem would be a big deal. On the upper level we have a major entrance from the lobby into the building and if you flip flop it you would have no room for a doorway. Don: This is conceptual and they have more design development to do. Roxanne: Regarding partial demolition just the openings will be removed. No mechanical equipment will be above the roof. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 MOTION: Charles made the motion to table Conceptual Development approval for the storefront proposal and to grant Conceptual Development of the elevator/stair tower with the following conditions: 1) Partial demolition (east elevation) shall be detailed. 2) Restudy tower design transition/break between old and new to enhance appearance or separation between the old and new. 3) All mechanical equipment shall not exceed respective roof height. 4) All mechanical equipment shall be clarified, i.e. relocated ground floor equipment, east elevation and shown as to size and location for final. 5) Tower entrance detailed drawing, including canopy, windows, door and signage be provided. 6) Exact material representation, including sample of brick and sandstone. 7) Maintenance plans for entire building, addressing external surface cleaning, brick repointing, storefront system repainting, etc. 8) Consider fenestration on North elevation of stair tower at the landings. Georgeann second. Ail approved. Storefront discussion: Roxanne: There are original architectural features that do not show up on the existing conditions. The large sandstone base and door need addressed. The proposal indicates demolition of those features and I could not recommend approval of that. The wood trim around the windows does appear to be original. If that is the case those original elements need to be preserved. Georgeann: The glass on the Galena Street side is original. Bob Walker: again. The ceiling was dropped and we will tear it out Roxanne: Possibly there should be a sub committee to work with applicant. Bob walker: Our intent is to bring it back to the original construction. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve Conceptual for the storefronts of the Elks building with the condition that the applicant work with the HPC monitor to investigate the condition of the windows and come up with ways the existing windows can be restored and at final development the restoration plan be presented. Georgeann second. All approved. Motion carries. 940 MATCHLESS DRIVE - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: The applicant had not mailed out the public hearing notice so therefore the public hearing cannot be opened. I have also received a letter from John Kelly, attorney with regard to the confusing manner in which the City, the Building Dept. has reviewed this and has allowed for a demolition to take place. Sandy Stuller, City Attorney: The notice was published in the paper so the meeting should be opened to see if there are any comments. Then if the applicant want to pursue the application then continue it to a date, which he can notice adjacent owners and still meet the time limitations. Chairman opened the public hearing. Roxanne: The issue at this time is the proposal for redevelopment and whether that proposal meets the guidelines and the standards. I find that the proposal does not meet development review standard #2 (The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. I have recommended that HPC work with the applicant to figure out a way to possibly design it and to do what is necessary to bring it into conformity for the development review standard and with the HPC guidelines. The next step is to hear the presentation from the applicant and what his goal is. Joe Dunn, Owner: The goal is to try and avoid this going to legal in order to get this finished and resolved. I have been advised legally that I should just rely on my permit. This meeting is an attempt to try and find a way to look at the house and see if there are compromises that are acceptable and financially feasible to do. Roxanne: There are three issues that do not meet the standards: The gothic pitches that are evident on the south and west elevation of the house. The two story bay window projecting off the front facade and the third is the gamble roof form off the back. There are examples in town of HPC review projects that allow the one story form to remain in front and allow for 14 Historic Preservation Comm%ttee Minutes of November 8, 1989 additions to go to the back. We are saying the way the square footage has been added on is not appropriate. We are not saying Joe is not allowed to have an addition. Roxanne: This is a re-development plan. Les: At the first meeting we agreed to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and at that point we said anything done without a re-development plan would be at the applicants own risk. We are dealing with the re-development plan. Bill: Is a site plan available to determine if there is the ability to add a porch on the front and a rap-around to try and reduce the mass. Roxanne: I don't have a site plan. Joseph Dunn: There is about 25 ft. of square footage left that I could use and a porch would require 50 sq. ft. Bill: A porch is exempt up to 15% of the floor area. Charles: If it is covered beyond three feet it counts as FAR. Joseph Dunn: If I can find some middle ground in windows, bays and porches I am willing to work with it but I can't change the structure. The way it is structurally is what went through the Building Department and I got a permit for it. Why is it my burden that one department didn't tell another department to send me to HPC. Charles: The burden on a demolition permit is always on the person who is getting the permit. The demolition permit is at your own risk. At the public hearing here, you were put on notice that if you continued with your own plans it was at your own risk. You continued with your own plans and a building permit that was questionable. Georgeann: I understand the problems with the Building Department. You came into see us two months ago and we had a special meeting a week later and made comments on the roof and you said the materials were there. It has taken you this long to come back with alternatives and you kept building putting us in a more difficult situation. The materials were raw. Perhaps at that point we could have worked on the roof. Joe: With the house most of it was done on paper and ordered. I have the flexibility of the windows and looks of this but 15 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Nove~ber 8, 1989 financially it would have ruined me to change that house in mid stream. I had been into the house six weeks. Georgeann: Why has it taken you two months to come back. Did you just decide that you were going to build it that way and then talk to us. Joe: As far as the structure, yes. windows, bays, porches etc. I will work with you on Charles: The three principal areas are scale, massing and overall form of character. After you were put on notice by HPC you continued to build a roof form that we had already told you was unacceptable. Joe: I didn't hear anyone say no on the roof, it was discussed that possibly it is compatible etc. Charles: To take a house and drastically change it that much from what it was to bastardize the character to that degree is adversely effecting the other historic structures around it when it was in a such a neighborhood context that it was one of four. Don: Do you have a more complete drawing because one of the issues is the gambrel roof and I believe you could come up with materials to produce a different kind of roof. Joe: The reason for that gambrel is so that the gables wouldn't be interfered with. Is that more acceptable then not seeing the roof. Georgeann: The problem with gambrel it is incompatible with an historical building and is one of our major problems. Possibly we could have found solutions that you would be happier with. Sandy Stuller, attorney: I think there are grounds for a violation and withholding an occupancy permitted if this is not resolved. That is my decision. If your contention is that you do not have to concede to their jurisdiction then lets go to municipal court. Joe: It is financially impossible to take the roof off. If we can do something with the window, porch, details and trim I can do that. Les: Can you take off the back part, the barn. Charles: There is not a full body of information for us to review to determine if the second floor is acceptable. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 Joe: What do I need. Charles: Floor plans, elevations, building and a good rationally of done should be reviewed favorably. photos or a model of existing why you think what you have Roxanne: The City Attorney has recommended to the applicant that he should obtain the services of an architect. Georgeann: I can't tell from the drawings if that is an open porch with rails below it or closed with boarding. Les: If we turn them down what happens next. Roxanne: You can table until a date certain and give him clear direction and that he send out the public notice. We can table until the 29th of Nov. or you can deny it. Glenn: What is the floor area. Joe: 2485 and we are allowed 2500. We are 15 feet under. Bill: If this were designated would we have the ability to add 500 more feet in order for this to work with decks etc. Roxanne: Yes, however there is not an historic resource to designate. Charles: I would recommend tabling 940 Matchless Drive. Georgeann: Would you be interested in getting an architect. Joe: Yes but if you are going to ask me to take the second story off I am going to have to fight it. If we can work around it. Charles: We are not going to be able to tell you that until you have public noticed and we have all the information. You have to give us the information we need to make a decision. Don: A great help would be a sub-committee of three going to the site with Joe in order to get a better understanding of the actual conditions. Site visit scheduled for Nov. 13th Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 8, 1989 MOTION: Charles made the motion to continue the public hearing and conceptual/redevelopment of 940 Matchless Drive until the Nov. 29th meeting in order to give the applicant time to reconsider the materials he might present to HPC and have the opportunity to work with professional design services and to post public hearing notice as required. The applicant will meet with the sub-committee to determine what alternative may be practical. Georgeann second. All approved. COMMUNICATIONS Roxanne: I had a inquiry; would the HPC consider recommending as an incentive a waiver of tap fees for historic properties. Roxanne: Kentucky Fried Chicken is no longer proposing a parapet and they claim that the mechanical equipment is far enough in the back and wouldn't be seen. Minor Development approval was given subject to: mechanical equipment not being seen and signage. The signage is large cutout letters. The letters can only project 6 inches out of the wall. The applicant has devised a way to light the building from the letters so the building is washed. Or they could use lighting similar to the Hotel Jerome. Georgeann: Somehow we are going to have to tell that large is not historically compatible with core district. them lettering the commercial Roxanne: The sign might conform to the sign code. MOTION: Charles made the motion to deny the sign application based that it is an inappropriate size and character for the Main Street historical commercial district and we request that they come back with a significantly smaller sign proposal. Georgeann second. All approved. Bill: Possibly the total square footage should not exceed 5 or 6 sq. ft. per sign. MOTION: Les made the motion that the mechanical equipment for Kentucky Fried Chicken not be seen from street level or any view plane and cannot be a reflective material. If this is a problem the parapet must be raised to prevent this problem. Georgeann second. All approved. MOTION: Don made the motion to adjourn. approved. Adjourned 10:20 p.m. KAthy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk Second by Glenn. Ail 18