Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19890712Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 204 S. MILL (COLLINS BLOCK) EASTERN WALL 1 309 & 315 E. MAIN STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT 7 309 & 315 E. MAIN STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION 8 514 N. 3RD. STREET 9 319 N. 4TH STREET 9 211 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 11 135 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 12 400 E. HYMAN - AWNING 15 17 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES city Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall July 12, 1989 Meeting was called to order by vice-chairman Georgeann Waggaman with Nick Pasquarella, Joe Krabacher, Chris Darakis, Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe and Bill Poss present. Zoe Compton and Charlie Knight were excused. MOTION: Nick made the motion to approve the minutes of June 28, 1989. Charles second. All approved. MOTION: Charles made the motion to add 400 E. Main to the agenda. Nick second. All approved. Motion carries. MOTION: Don made the motion to add the east wall of 204 S. Mill, Collins Block to the agenda immediately due to the life and safety issues. Charles second. All approved. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: PR brochure has gone to press and should be complete by the end of July. 204 S. MILL (COLLINS BLOCK) EASTERN WALL Roxanne: This is an urgent situation applicant to come to this meeting as this immediately. and I encouraged the needs to be dealt with Harley Baldwin: This is a life safety issue and we have a wall that is about to fall over. Roxanne: I received information that the entire east elevation wall has been found to be extremely dangerous by the engineers of the project. We all went over to look at it but it was unclear to me as I am not an engineer or a masonry expert as to whether or not it is; however, these people are very qualified and we always refer to the applicant to give us the correct information and we respond to the information we get. My problem with being able to say yes or no is that the plans that I received last week for the final development of the building did not indicate that the wall was going to be rebuilt in the form that it is in right now. Therefore, because of that design issue and because we were going to be loosing the entire wall of that building I was not comfortable with allowing it to come down. I have the final development plan right here and the floor plan has changed from the original conceptual that we approved. It is very important that the Board remember what we approved conceptually: We gave final approval to Phase I which was the restoration of the Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 building, which means walls, storefronts etc. We have conceptual approval to the second floor loft with the condition that the parapet buildup along with the new windows would be submitted at final review and approved at final. We gave conceptual approval to the new infill design that we have seen. The final that I received has changed from the original conceptual approval. So there is clarification that needs to be made as to exactly what did the HPC approve for the final on Phase I so the Board can direct and guide the applicants. Those issues are connected with this life and safety issue. Obviously we want a safe wall. We have received a letter which I have passed out to the Board from Newstrom Davis. Part of it is incorrectly stated in that it is stating that "Roxanne has taken issue with how the fall will be reconstructed and as a result of her stand she has refused to let us take down the wall." It is not for Staff to make that decision to take down a wall. That would not be my position anyway. I want this to be in the record that it is inaccurately stated. We want the safety etc. of that wall. What has to be clarified is how the wall is going to be reconstructed and what are we ending up with as far as preserving it. Georgeann: Are you concerned that what they are showing in their plans is going to make it impossible to reconstruct it the same way. Roxanne: The plans are unclear to me as to exactly what they intend to do with the upper level of the east elevation wall and they are very clear to me that the first floor level of that wall is not going to exist as it is right now, even if it exists at all. It is just small stem walls that are going to be reconstructed and maybe just in facing stone. It is not what we had approved at conceptual. Don: There are two issues here, one is the structural integrity of these walls. The east walls were built of a brick that is soft and not a facing brick with mortar joints of approximately 5/8" that have been penetrated by moisture over the years and we agreed that the wall is not structurally sound. There are two issues one is whether to let the contractor proceed with removing the existing brick and starting from grade level actually they are starting from a level below grade because the building is intended to have a full basement not only under the existing Collins Block but under the new proposed mini mall above. They would start at one story below grade and reconstruct the entire wall. That is issue A. Issue B is we did not know as a Committee that the intent is now something quite different from what was approved in the last plan we have. The new plans which involve a complete new redesign of the portion of the building which lies on the east side, in other words the boundary between 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 the new mini mall area and the existing Collins Block. A complete re-design of all facilities there including stairs, elevators, egress, everything has been changed. The question here is whether we are willing to accept a structure which only maintains its historical integrity from the second floor up. Or are we demanding the integrity to continue down below to grade level so we can deal with one or both of these issues right now. The most important is the issue of whether the wall can be brought down and reconstructed. Whether it is reconstructed in its original historic mode or not, we can wait a few days if there is time. They want to take the wall down because it is not structurally sound. The two alternatives are to re-point all the brick and it is not a load bearing wall, waterproof the brick, patch the cracks and say OK go with it. Roxanne: The issue is are there methods that the contractor can come up with to preserve and structurally stabilize the wall as it is, the applicant is saying no. The next question is do we allow the wall to come down before the Board is satisfied with the reconstruction plan. Georgeann: We need to hear from the applicants before we resolve this. Charles: Is this being done because it is being under-minded by the digging of the basement, is that what is causing this problem in the first place. Dick Arnold: Letters were presented the Board with a letter from Carl Schiesser who is an certified structural masonry inspector that states that the wall is deteriorated to a point beyond repair. Another letter is from Thomas Duesterberg saying that the wall is no good and a letter from Newstrom-Davis and myself. One issue that needs to be looked at is that we have to take the wall down. The contractor, engineer and myself don't care what it looks like when it goes back up, that is definitely a separate issue. As of today or tomorrow that wall must come down or we do not have a safe project. I said that about the interior part of the east wall and we took that down and now we are finding out that the two wings coming in on the side are in the same shape. From a technical point of view we would like to take the wall down and there will probably be a longer discussion on what goes back up. There will be an east wall on that building. Don: They have removed approximately one third of all the east wall. We granted them that because of the fact that the wall is not structurally sound. Now they are coming back and asking for 100% of it to be removed. The one third that we granted removal Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 on is being reconstructed in a way that leaves the exterior of it look as it did historically with the historic openings, coursing and brick being used. Now they are saying lets rebuild it all. Roxanne: The letter from Newstrom-Davis was sent to Bob Gish, director of the Building Department and Bob Gish explained that basically he feels this letter is putting the City on notice and if this Committee doesn't respond and something happens the City is going to be held liable. Georgeann: Is this building being weakened because they are trying to build a basement underneath or because the center of the east wall has been taken out and is this problem going to continue to grow once we take the rest of the east wall off. Harley Baldwin: There was no guttering and all the water for 20 years has run into the masonry and is now rotten and the wall basically won't hold itself up. Georgeann: But that wall was perfect when you wanted to take the middle out. Harley: We didn't want to take out more than what we had to. Ron Bland: I would like to address that fact. It was our feeling that the sheds of the center of that building were actually holding that wall. We took them out and found that was the case. The other end of the building was also being held by a shed and it has vertical cracks all the way through it from top to bottom and is sitting on a rock foundation. Both east walls have settled to a great extent that they have opened up large structural cracks all the way from the roof to the ground. If we point and patch you still have a wall that is not structurally sound. Tom Duesterberg: Of the four walls that are at the structure three of them now have begun the underpinning process and the north wall is almost completed. The south wall will be completed by the end of this week. The west wall is more store front than brick so we have provided for the underpinning of that without any difficulties. On the east wall the north part of the east wall has a basement foundation underneath it which is in bad shape and the rest of it was on 3 to 4' deep rock foundation and has been subject to a lot of weathering through the years. Two months ago we had to shore it up because we felt that it had leaned to the east and if they go to excavate underneath it that shoring will have to be removed so they can excavate and they are taking shoring out when we badly need it if we had to underpin it in and it stayed in place. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 Don: We granted approval to remove and replace approximately 1/3 of the total wall area previously. That one third is going to he a veneer not what it was before. It is going to be a four inch brick veneer on top of four inches of wood or masonry and it will be approximately an 8 inch wall. If we grant permission to remove the remaining 2/3rds of the east wall of this structure it would be questionable historically to allow it to be rebuilt in this same fashion. It should be rebuilt as a brick masonry wall. Roxanne: Using salvaged brick. Don: When you see openings they have to be the same kind of openings that exist now. Roxanne: That is possible to do through photographing and measuring which we would require if the wall were to come down. I don't think it is reasonable if the wall is to come down to require them to rebuilt it exactly as it is now. Don: It should be a masonry wall that reads the same way. When you see the openings you see brick and that can be accomplished by wrapping the brick but I want to make sure it doesn't appear to be a veneer over a CMU, a concrete masonry unit wall. Bill: That was my understanding when we approved to allow it to come down. Charles: Use the brick in the fashion that it was used in. Bill: We do not want it to wrap and we don't want a concrete block, we want a full masonry brick wall. Don: We allowed a veneer wall over one third of this total east wall surface. I am not in favor of doing that over the other two thirds of the wall. Charles: The bottom line is we want to end up with what we have right now. If you have to take it down for safety reasons we want it to be put back up so it resembles what is there now and accurately as possible. Further one of the issues that I am troubled by is we are already disturbing the east end of this. If we let them take it down we want them to put it back exactly the way it is now and not deal with a design change at this point. Just say the wall goes back as is. If there is a design change that is an application they should come in for. Georgeann: We have three ways to replace it. One is a veneer, Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 one is some sort of modern technique where the brick is wrapped so it resembles the old or three put it back brick by brick exactly as the old was built. Don: There are just two ways. Tom Duesterberg: Are you requesting that the rebuilding of the wall we would take exactly the same bricks back in the same locations because there are three weights of brick right now, the outside facing, the inside core and the inside facing. The core is rubble brick and if we are rebuilding the core it is never seen and wouldn't it be better to come in with a better reinforced masonry core as a structurally sound wall then to put in rubble brick. Don: I might go along with that. I would like to see brick on both sides of that and the same thickness. Wayne Polson: The present proposal is to do a masonry block wall with brick and obviously the windows would be wrapped. The impression is that we changed the plans in order to sneak something by the HPC. That is not the case. The only area in where the wall perforations were changed were on the first level and when construction is completed are on the interior. We went 5 months to consider all kinds of options. We sacrificed views and a balcony in order to give HPC what they wanted. For you to ask us to give away more and build this wall exactly the way it was when it was never asked of us before is just going too far. Don: The issue was never raised before and further more this building has more architectural significance than any other building in the area and within a finite number of years the addition may be torn down. When that addition is torn down one wants to see the Collins Block again. That is the whole point. Nick: I would like to make a point, you aren't giving me anything. We are here to protect the community. You aren't giving me something that I want on that building which is what you are inferring. We want to see that Collins Block remain historical. Joe Wells: We are here to deal with this one issue of whether to take the wall down or not. We are coming before you in two weeks with another application and maybe that is a more appropriate time to address some of these issues of how things get built. Roxanne: The final is scheduled for the 9th of August. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 Georgeann: Do we let them take down the wall keeping all the bricks and resolve at a later date how they are going to put it back up. Roxanne: I am opposed to that. MOTION: Charles made the motion to allow the east wall to be taken down for safety reasons only with the understanding that they carefully document the wall, photograph it, draw it, whatever they have to do for Staff's satisfaction/and or monitor Donnelley and with the understanding at this meeting that the wall is to be erected exactly like it is now. With the possible exception of a reinforced core to the wall but brick on both sides and brick wrapped around the ends. That would constitute a four inch core. Nick second. CLARIFICATIONS: Roxanne: The exterior brick would be the exterior brick that is there now so they will have to be very careful with the disassembly of the brick. Charles: Exactly, because we are trying to preserve the building as it is. Bill: That wall should be preserved as if it was never touched all the way down to the street level or the foundation in the event that the next owner came in and bought it and wanted to make an open space park. VOTE: Ail favored. Motion carries. 309 & 315 E. MAIN STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: At the last meeting the fence and signage was denied with the requirement that the applicant come back and give us more of a master plan of what they are going to do with the entire parcel. Bob Oxenberg is the tenant of 309 E. Main. The parcel is non-conforming in the zone district for that size lot. The parcel merged when it was purchased and therefore we will be reviewing the entire parcel. They will not put the sign on the exterior of 315. Carl Bergman is going to be removing the graveled walkway and replacing it with a narrow path of flagstone brick. HPC needs to come up with a maintenance plan on the structures. Ordinance #7 of 1989 included maintenance provisions. Staff is recommending approval with the condition that the porch of 309 E. Main be restored within six months from the date of final landmark designation. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 Carl Bergman: We want the project to be 100% acceptable to HPC. We ars not moving it and we are not adding onto the building. There will be inside restoration and outside. Georgeann: Are the renters and yourself working on a restoration plan for these buildings. Carl: Yes. Bob Oxenberg: We want to keep the integrity of the building. The porch is my obligation and I plan to do that off season. SUMMARY: The Board discussed the walkway and it was determined that use of brick for the edge would be more appropriate then the use of rail road ties. The monitor will work with the applicant. Railroad ties were not used for landscaping. On 309 the brick walk abuts to the building. The monitor will also work with the applicant on 309 in regards to the step, whether it should be faced with some kind of brick. The fences are different on the two properties. There will be a gate at 315 and a fence on 309 with no gate. Bob Oxenberg: On 309 the porch there had been a sign hooked up but not on the clapboard. Roxanne: The Board does not want the sign attached to the clapboard. Use a free standing sign or something that is attached such as a wrought iron bracket that hangs out. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the application as presented with the condition that the walkway be faced in brick and approved by the monitor and the front porch/exterior maintenance to be taken place within 6 months from landmark designation. Chris second. All favored. Motion carries. Monitor will be Charles Cunniffe. 309 & 315 E. MAIN STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION MOTION: Joe made the motion to recommend landmark designation with Staff's recommendation. Charles second. All approved. Motion carries. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Hinutes of July 12, 1989 514 N. 3RD. STREET No applicant or representative came to meeting. No action taken. 319 N. 4TH STREET Roxanne: This is an application for a skylight on a principle facade. It is a flat roof skylight. There have been numerous changes to the structure over the years. I cannot recommend approval based on our guidelines. Bill Lipsey, architect presented photographs of different skylight throughout town. Bill Lipsey: 20 % of the original structure is visible. In the 1880 there was an original cabin on the property and there were a series of additions done. Porches were enclosed with glass and you never see that on a victorian house. Certain types of casement windows are there and they were not used etc. Picture windows were not used and solar collectors were not used on victorian houses. Numerous others. This house has no victorian integrity. The skylight is to go over a north facing sink and there is only one small window in the room and it is dark. Functionally the room needs light. Nick: I find it real difficult to approve a skylight regardless of what the situation is due the steps that we have taken in the past against skylights. Don: If we are going to allow a skylight a flush skylight/non operable would be more historically accurate. A roof window not a velux window. Mrs. Blaich: This is a distress matter and we are going to be living in the house permanently in about two years. When we bought the house in 1985 we knew we had to get light into the kitchen but chose not to do so at that time because we were only part-time residents. This is a distress case not a design element that we would like to have. It is necessary to have light in the kitchen in order for the house to function. The time you did inventory of the historical structures in Aspen we got a notification that our house was given the lowest evaluation and that we could do anything that we wanted to it except tear it down without a review of this Committee. Now I understand you don't go buy those guidelines anymore. Robert Blaich: I don't consider this a kitchen it is a dungeon. At one point we went to the Planning Department and asked for a 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 solarium and that was turned down. We asked to enlarge a window in the upstairs bedroom and that was turned down. This is a functional change that is necessary. In the summertime it will be hard to detect the skylight as there are large Aspen trees there. The skylight would be 2' x 4'. Bill: I am in support of skylights on roofs because I don't feel they compromise the integrity of the shape of the victorian structure. In this particular case the house has been changed so much that its integrity has been compromised. Georgeann: I also agree the flat skylight is a better solution. I am more concerned on how this building got designated when they didn't know it was designated when they bought it. Roxanne: The City Clerk is required to record the ordinance designating the structure. Years ago some structures were not recorded on the property so the title company could pick it up. Georgeann: Some owner at some time decided to designate the house. Bill: Bill Clark designated the house. Charles: I am for the skylight but there are a lot of people that have interior kitchens with indirect lighting and never have complained about them. It is a matter of personal taste rather than usability. Chris: In in the past problems. regards to the flush or flat skylight our experience is maintenance. They have nothing but leaks and Joe: This is a local historic landmark and it doesn't meet the guidelines. Don: A double glazed light has more problems because it breaks at the seal. Bill: Does the architect think he can design a flat skylight. Bill Lipsey: I would prefer to go with the standard because it is something from the result of literally hundreds of engineering hours to make a product that doesn't leak. Bill: I measured the skylight presented the shingle it measures 2 3/4 "above the a 4 inch frame on the sheathing. in the packed and from roof even though it is Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 MOTION: Bill made the motion to approve the skylight as presented for 319 N. Fourth St. finding that it doesn't compromise the integrity of the structure. No more then the minimum curve that is presented which is approximately 2 3/4" should be exposed. Chris second. VOTE: Yes: Bill, Chris, No: Nick, Joe. Motion carries. Georgeann, Don. Joe: It says in the guidelines that skylight should be mounted flush with the roof to avoid altering the roof and I don't find it compatible if we are going to use a velux skylight. Charles thought there were other ways to get light into the area. Roxanne: I am concerned that we are setting a precedence here. Charles: We need to discuss what we want to do with this standard at a worksession. Georgeann: I would be inclined to say that skylights on this building are appropriate to the level of non integrity that this building has; however, I would also recommend that the applicants consider de-designating this building. Nick: At one time someone wanted this building designated. 211 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Applicant did not send the notifications out of public hearing and could not present the certificate of mailing. 211 W. Main tabled until the 26th of July. MOTION: Joe made the motion to table 211 W. Main until the next regular scheduled meeting. Charles second. All approved. MONITORING Bill: George Vicenzi wants to add a fire place to the upper level of the carriage house which subsequently has a chimney on top. Roxanne: You are talking about a projection of 2 feet above the roof. The carriage house is already non-conforming as far as height in the R-6. Bill Drueding: Chimneys are allowed ten feet. Joe: So you are not increasing the non-conformity. 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 Bill: He is asking if he can add a chimney. Don: On the Hallet house there is a section of the log cabin wall which has no continuity. I told them to take out the stack of firewood that is between two sections. 135 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC WR. ARING The public hearing was opened. Roxanne view of 1989). Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner presented the over- the project as attached in records (memo dated July 12, Roxanne: It is a designated historic structure within the office zone district. The applicants own the building and want to live in the city and put a dwelling unit onto the rear. We need to deal with height, scale and massing. Is the size of the addition appropriate to the historic resource. The west elevation is the most visible. A full basement is being proposed which possibly could be used for habitable space and reduce the height of the addition. They are under the FAR and are only asking for one rear yard variation for the garage area that accesses off the alley. Staff recommends tabling until Aug 9th to allow the applicant time to restudy the alternatives as stated in the memo and taking into consideration massing, height and scale. Possibly vertical breaks in the south and east elevation to prevent so much horizontality Bill Drueding: You will need a variation for the rear, side upper level and a parking variation. APPLICANT RESPONSE David Melton: I have owned the building and have preserved it since 1979 and have landscaped heavily. I need permanent housing for my family. We eliminated windows we originally had for the upper basement walls. We separated the massing and lowered the height by making the entry at ground level. We also reduced the square footage and changed windows. (See memo June 12, 1989 in records) David: Height: The addition is two feet high because we wanted a minimum 8 foot wall on the second floor. David: I have no problem with changed the west elevation windows and eliminating one window on the east elevation. On the south elevation the two arched windows will match. Due to the 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 mature landscaping the visibility of the north elevation roofline will be mitigated. We have gone through a process to get where we are and we have an application where the existing building is unchanged and that was one of our basic desires. Jake Vickery: There are no changes to the existing building. COMMISSION~ COMMENTS & CLARIFICATIONS Georgeann: The smaller windows on the west elevation are more appropriate. Gideon Kaufman, owner of house two doors down. David has owned this house for about ten years and he intends to preserve the house intact. It has one of the best lawns and landscaping plans on Main Street. The FAR of the building is under what it could be. The addition is under 2000 sq. ft. which is minimal for a family. They have come up with a perfect solution. They have kept the historical integrity of the house, get local housing and everyone wins. Rich Shariff, owner of property nearby. I go to the building a lot and have reviewed the project and I am in support of the project. The building is set back off Main St. and the integrity of the building and landscaping is kept. Roxanne: The code does allows for more square footage but we are looking at a compatibility issue which is the number one criteria. Don: In general I like the project but do have questions about the abrupt changes in the west facade of the addition and the south and east facades. The south and east facade both contain elements both on plainer surfaces such as the balcony railing which is horizontal and also there are cantilever overhangs without any vertical~ supports under them which change the character of the house from vertical victorian which is basically the way the whole neighborhood is to a very sharp break stylistically. Possibly there is some way without changing the plan to make those two elevation south and east of the addition more consistent with the vertical expression of the neighborhood. I have no problem with the height change of two feet. Bill: I like the verticality of the west elevation but possibly the horizontality could be worked on further as Donnelley has stated. I also have no problem with the height and do not feel there is a need to force the basement into an habitable area. Jake: I like the "aggressive" approach but the overall building 13 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 is basically quiet. Charles: The shifting of the porch element is where the strength comes from. It needs some supports or elements that make it work in harmony with the original architecture. David: One of the reason for the cantilever back and the deck with no supports is that we have to provide for the off-street parking. Don: There are other ways of doing it, brackets etc. that give a vertical line. Charles: Parking space #5 is impractical to get into and you can stack 5 & 6. Bill: We could waive one parking space. Georgeann: Perhaps if the railing was a spindle type you would get more of a vertical. Charles: We might want to request a model if we are concerned about massing. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the proposed addition for 135 W. Main Street as presented with a smaller west window and with the condition that restudy be done about the verticality and supports of east and south elevations, the balcony deck and a study model be provided for final approval. The length of the windows in the hyphen of the house to remain as they were in the packet. The part of the house adjoining the addition to the original, the windows to remain on the west wall (windows that link the house) as they were in the packet. Rear yard setback variation be granted as the Board would prefer to see the addition pushed back. The side yard variances to be resolved at final. Exact information on parking variation request should be presented also at final. Further plan on landscaping be presented at final also. Chris second. All approved. Motion carries. Charles: The existing house does go setback. Conditional approval at this the way it was submitted. into the east side yard point is in general for Roxanne: What kind of partial demolition is proposed for the rear wall of the existing building to allow for this structure to abut. Jake: There is a porch that was added in 1974 that will be 14 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 taken off. AMENDED MOTION: Charles made the motion that the applicant should show the Board at final what the partial demolition consist of. Don second. Ail approved. Motion carries. 400 E. HYNAN - AWNING Brian Neveln, American Awning Company: The condo association has approved the awning as they want to add awnings throughout the building. The color would be burgundy. There are awnings already on the building. We are proposing a different shape called a lateral bow awning. It goes from the corner around. Don: It is radius on all top surfaces. Charles: You will need an encroachment license. Georgeann: In the past we haven't allowed different kinds of awning on buildings. You have to be consistent. Roxanne: As long as it is compatible. Charles: They read like two different buildings. Charles: A sub-committee could look at the building and determine if the lateral bow is appropriate. Don: These awnings would appear to be much bulkier. Brian: The projection would be even. There would be a four foot block between the awnings at the present time. Don: Why don't we have them do the same kind of awning and material that is already there. Charles: We could approve the matching awning wanted to change it they would have to let us know committee could go out and look at it. but if they and the sub- Georgeann will monitor. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the awning to match in material and color the other awnings that are on the building, a more of a shed shaped awning same dimensions, material, color shape and construction. Joe second. All approved. If the association is not comfortable with the decision of HPC they should contact her. 15 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 12, 1989 MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn second. Ail approved. Meeting adjouned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen ~ Str~ickland, Deputy City Clerk the meeting. Don 16