Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19890823Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 132 W. 211 W. MAIN STREET 801 E. HYMAN AVENUE 403 S. GALENA & 425 E. COOPER ST. MAIN ST. - ASIA RESTAURANT - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 6 7 11 14 17 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES Second Floor Meeting Room August 23, 1989 Meeting was called to order by vice chair Georgeann Waggaman with Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe, Glenn Rappaport and Leslie Holst present. Bill Poss and Chris Darakis were absent. PUBLIC COMMENT Roxanne: The issue is a code violation of 940 Matchless Drive a rated #2 cottage off of Neil St. The cottage was demolished. The applicant has submitted plans and application to the Bldg. Department for a second floor addition and became exuberant in his partial demolition and ended up with the building being demolished. Permits were issued from the Bldg. Dept. and it is unclear as to how it all happened without HPC review which is required on any historic inventory structure. All the City departments have taken strides to tighten the process on historic buildings so everyone knows that we are dealing with an historic resource. Partial demolition we review as well when it involves significant character changes to a building or if it renders a building inhabitable that is considered demolition. Georgeann: When this came in as a partial demolition for a starter what occurred. Bill Drueding, Zoning officer: The original permit came in for a second story addition. It was rated a #2 and did not require HPC approval. Bob Gish, Building Department Head: The original permit went to zoning for approval. The scope of that work included a second floor addition and that included a room off the back. Having the approval from zoning implied to me that there was a certain degree of demolition. Joe Dunn came to my office to request information on getting the job started quicker while the total permit was being approved (6 to 8 weeks). As chief building official I do whatever I can to allow the contractor to get started. We looked at the permit and the approval was for a second floor addition meaning the roof had to come off. We talked about making the changes in the back to allow the addition in the back to occur. With that in mind I issued a demolition permit with a limit and scope to take the roof off, do whatever necessary to make the addition in the back. I have done this 300 times before to help expedite the process. I thought the approval was implied that in order to put a second floor on you have to take the roof off. As I understand it the demolition was carried farther then just the roof. Georgeann: Joe Dunn, was it clear what Bob Gish was allowing you to demolish in order to make your addition. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 Joe Dunn, owner of property: Yes, my first stop was with Bill Drueding and he told me I would have to go to HPC and I explained that initially when the numbers were attached to the houses two's did not have to go to HPC. Bill D. said no, that I had to go through HPC and set up an appointment with Roxanne. That was the first step and I was never told the extent of the demolition permit and it was my understanding from the day that I bought the house with a #2 designation that it did not have much historical significance and I could basically do what I needed to do with it. I have always intended to keep as much of the house as possible but when the roof came off (a 2 x 4 roof) with 2 x 6 cords that tied the walls together that stuff went as there was no structural significance to it as did the side walls that I intended to keep; as the sheet rock came off you could see old doorways and windows and none of it had been headered. Structurally the two sidewalls did not have anything. The bathroom and bathroom wall, part of kitchen wall, foundation and subfloor stayed. I was not informed that I had to keep this or that. Georgeann: Council passed a ruling that partial demolition had to go to HPC so going on. all ratings 1 or 2 for we could know what is Joe Dunn: If I would have been informed of that I would have done it. Roxanne: Joe came to me before ordinance #17 was underway and explained that there would be an addition and I encouraged him to go through the designation process and explained since it wasn't a designated structure that we would not be reviewing alterations to the building but explained the steps in reviewing an application. Joe: Why didn't you go through HPC when Bill Drueding told you you had too. Roxanne: He was not designated at that time and therefore didn't have too. Joe: The plans were for a second floor addition and an addition on the back. How did you plan to rebuild the first floor after it had been demolished. You had approved plans for the back addition. You have a whole new section that you have to build and have no plans. Joe Dunn: The plans show everything on them. 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 Gary Lyman, Chief Building Inspector: It is a second story addition and a complete remodel of the house. That is what the plans are showing. Joe Dunn: The plans show it but unless you ask what is going to happen, it was never said to keep this wall, take that one. Gary Lyman: The plans don't give the amount of information needed to understand what will stand and what will go. Joe: When you got your approval you intended only to take the roof off and to add the back on. Joe Dunn: I never knew it was that limited. me to keep the walls, windows etc. No one ever told Bob Gish, Department Head: If I would have know this was historical I would have written detailed letters of the demolition what I have done with other historic houses numerous times. I had no idea it was historical but we discussed the scope of the demolition to take off the roof and do whatever he had to do to add the back room. Joe: Would that include taking down the rest of the house. Bob Gish: No. I did not tell him his limits of the demolition. Fred Gannett, Attorney: Joe is my builder and I have a conflict so Sandy Stuller, attorney will represent the City. I knew exactly what Joe was doing with his house and I helped write ordinance #17 and it never occurred to me that the provision for ordinance #17 applied to the scope of what he was doing. I know for a fact that there was very little of that house that could be saved. Joe did talk to Roxanne and Bill Drueding without any inclining of the scope of this. His demolition permit was a demolition permit, it is not a conditional or partial demolition permit. In the context of what has happened here I don't feel there was an intent on anybody's part to circumvent the system. We have complex legislation that involves interaction of agencies and there are times when they don't get caught like they should. Joe: think down. If you had pulled that permit to add a second floor do you that permit would authorize you to tear the whole thing Fred Gannett: If I have a permit that is a partial demolition to retain X,Y and Z. If I have a demolition permit that says demolition permit that is unrestricted then I would say yes. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 Bob Gish: I don't use or write partial demolition. I put demolition per the attached letter per restrictions. I did not put restrictions on that permit. Georgeann: The walls went down on a Monday and the following Monday he got an approval from the Bldg. Dept. to build his new building so all the drawings were in the Bldg. Dept. in such a state that whether all the walls or half the walls were down you were able to be issued a building permit within days. Roxanne: The permit was signed off by the Bldg. Dept. and Zoning officer and the permit had not been issued. Then another permit was issued for demolition, then the building came down. The Bldg. Dept. was notified on a Tuesday and Thursday it was red tagged. We had an emergency meeting to discuss it and during the weekend Rob Weien, Building Department issued a building permit. Georgeann: Did the drawings show what walls were to remain etc. Gary Lyman: We get plans at different levels and some are vague and some are not. Leslie: I can understand why you didn't restrict the walls. Fred Gannett: Prior to April of 1989 Joe could have gone in without any consultation with HPC, get a demolition permit, tear the building down and put whatever he wanted there. Joe did not realize that there was going to be a pending change. This event took place at the crossroad change of ordinance #17. The ordinance was not in effect when the applicant talked to Roxanne but was in effect when the permit was issued. There is a violation of the ordinance and we need to decide what to do to avoid similar problems coming up in the future. Joe: In ordinance #17 the property could be sterilized for five years. Georgeann: The city has already given him a building permit. Charles: This is not a forum for debate concerning fraud. We need to see what we can do now given the circumstances. When we have a demolition we ask for that project to come before HPC for a re-development plan. I would suggest that we put the permit on hold and have a re-development plan reviewed by HPC. Don: Do photographs exist before the building was demolished. Georgeann: We have them in our inventory. 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 Don: The plans that were submitted for the building permit were on the low end for being complete plans and they may not be adequate to reconstruct the portion of the building that was demolished in the manner that it existed before stylistically. I would hope that we could resolve this by making sure that whatever happened in the future was duplicating what was there in the past and we have adequate information. If that information is not in the hands of the building department that it be supplied in the forms of professional and accurate drawings before this process continues. Joe Dunn: It was intended to be a replica just a bigger scale and that was all voluntary when I split the lot. Before that I could have put a duplex there. We had the lot split in order to maintain the victorian architecture of those buildings on our own. Georgeann: A re-development plan is appropriate. Glenn: I am concerned with preserving the character of the area. Georgeann: The City Council has asked us to review demolitions and we need to take precautions that this doesn't happen again. Gary Lyman: We have taken future precautions. Don: The Building Department has a check list and possibly all for all existing and new work it should be defined clearly. Fred: On the demolition permit we need a check off block that goes to Roxanne so she can identify if it is historic and the permit cannot be issued until she has checked it off. Bob Gish: That will be a zoning checkpoint. Bill Drueding will mark the plans with an H so that when the plans get to the Building Dept. it will be identified. Charles: We need to schedule the applicant for the next meeting to review the re-development plan. Sandy: Joe can proceed working but if HPC indicates that changes need to be made when you have already done the work you will have to comply. That is a risk that the applicant will have to take. That has to be perfectly clear. That does not constitute reliance or approval by the City of Aspen what so ever. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 Georgeann: Joe, what the Bldg. Dept. had approved might not be what the HPC would have approved so we need to see the re- development plans. Les: We could proceed with Ord #17 and freeze the property for five years but I feel it was an honest mistake but it is in violation of an ordinance and the applicant needs to go through the full process, plans, material etc. Joe: After the fact, the roof is on. Roxanne: The Board is heading for the work to stop immediately and for a re-development plan to be resubmitted and a public hearing notice made and to go through the review process. MOTION: Charles made the motion that HPC schedule a study session and site visit to be coordinated by Roxanne Eflin, Planning office for the week of August 28th. Study session will consist of the applicant Joe Dunn and the HPC. This meeting will be in no way be binding on HPC. If the applicant proceeds with construction before all formal meetings have been held it is at his own risk. Georgeann second. All approved. Motion carries. MOTION: Charles made the motion that the applicant Joe Dunn of 940 Matchless Drive present a re-development plan before HPC for new development of the site. Les second. All approved. Motion carries. 211 W. MAIN STREET Roxanne: The owner of the Innsbruck Inn had concerns of the second floor addition to the rear of the main house. The applicant has changed the windows to two over one, true divided lights and I find them very compatible with this building. Ron Robertson, architect: The main house had the window change and we have presented a landscape plan. Georgeann: Have you addressed your neighbors problem with the storage shed at the end of the porch. Ron: It is the traditional lodge vs. the resident. The upper deck screens the Newkams from the lodge members looking over. Georgeann: Could it be lowered to be a compromise. Georgeann: This is a change in the general discussion on the change in the shed roof storage area beside the porch. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 Don: This is a change from a gable to a shed roof. Roxanne: They are four feet over in the side yard variation and I feel it is appropriate. It is a family that has lived here for awhile and they are doing some interior remodeling to try and continue to stay there and this particular building need some "care". This is a reasonable renovation plan for this structure. Don: On the site plan, the roof plan does not show the dormers that are incorporated in unit four. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant final development approval for the main house based on the drawings that have been submitted here and finding that the side yard variation is more compatible from an historical context and subject to Donnelley's proposed revision of the storage which is conditional on Staff's approval. Also to grant conceptual for the alley structure. Charles second. All approved, motion carries. 801 E. HYMAN AVENUE Don stepped down. Public Hearing opened. Certificate of mailing presented to Roxanne for the records. Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner presented the over- view of the project as attached in the records (memo dated August 23, 1989). Roxanne: Sunny Vann, consultant requested that the structure be removed off the inventory. It is rated a #1. We are going to be involved in a re-evaluation process and we are not sure at this time what exactly may happen. We may decide that some of the number ones be removed as they have no historic integrity. This is somewhat of a test case as it is not a complete application when you are looking at Ord. #17 and all of its requirements. Sunny also has concerns on the re-development plan as he feels that it is not appropriate for the HPC in this particular case to be looking at the re-development plan. He is strictly asking for a demolition. A lot split has already been granted by City Council on this 12,000 ft. parcel. The Planning Office and Staff feel that a suspension is appropriate at this time in looking at all the issues especially in the east end given the City and the applicant time to study all the issues. The house has been changed dramatically over the years but is structurally sound. The architectural elements have been completely removed inside and out. The two out buildings do have some integrity but we are Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 dealing primarily with the main house. From an architectural standpoint should this building be allowed to be demolished. The immediate context of the neighborhood has been diminished and for that reason should the HPC allow this house to go as well. In the east Aspen townsite we only have 25 historic structures left and this is exasperating the problem and the context issue will continue to come up in stronger ways once we start seeing the smaller structures go. It is a small scale structure that has been on that corner lot even though it has been changed. The lot split does indicate the building envelopes and the amount of square footage that they are intending to build; two new single family structures. Sunny Vann, Planning Consultant: The structure was inventoried and evaluated in Oct. 1980. Little if any historical significance remains in this structure with the results of the extensive architectural changes. It was rated a #1 as there was no remaining architectural integrity of the building. Ord #17 extended the review to include all structures including ones. Roxanne raised several issues to warrant the suspension of this application up to six months: Whether or not there is historic integrity; context of the neighborhood; affordable housing; out building themselves. The last two issues are not revellent to this review. Council's approval of the lot split carried a mandatory requirement that we provide an accessory dwelling unit to meet our employee housing requirements on each lot. The out buildings are not contained in the inventory and carry no rating nor are they reflected in any of the review comments on file. The applicant is willing to make the structures available to someone and we have no plans for demolition in the immediate future. Roxanne stated there were several aspects of Ord. #17 we did not address and we have reasons for doing so. Ord. #17 is designed to preserve historic structures and to provide for the review of re-development plans when re-development might have some impact on surrounding historic structures. If in fact this structures does not have architectural significance at this point then the issue is unwarranted. Roxanne also raised the issue whether or not the structure should be saved for the purpose of retaining the character of the neighborhood. If we retain it there are no other historic structures in the immediate vicinity. I don't see the justification for suspension. The real question is the structure historic. Roxanne: This structure is historic, that is why it is on the inventory. Whether or not it has architectural integrity is another issue. Architectural integrity is one element of what we review. We can define context as the entire City of Aspen and that is what we are looking at here. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 Les: The lot split damages the whole process to me. We have an historic building based on its footprint. It is important that this neighborhood stay residential. The size makes it historic and removal of this structure would be inappropriate. Glenn: My concern is what happens if you find a great building with original clapboard after you start demolition. The parcel is on a busy corner and I would encourage a sensitive solution in trying to establish the character in the area. It is right to try and keep historic structures in certain cases but I am not convinced this is the case to do that. John Elmore: We probably will not be demolishing anything till next spring. We are trying to find a site for the main house. Joe: The scale of this building is small and I am leaning toward the re-development plan as a condition of the demolition. I also am concerned about what is remaining after it is torn apart. Charles: I am leaning toward a demolition with a re-development plan review by HPC. Georgeann: I would encourage the developer to make that building accessible to other people which he has already indicated. The historic scale is most important on that corner. I would like to recommend that if a new building were put there we give it a specific envelope and height limit. This building and the one next to it should not match. Les: If demolition is approved we should review the re- development plans first and it should be contingent on the condition of the house, possibly there is original clapboard underneath. Roxanne: A re-development plan as it reads in the code right now requires that it meet all the standards of re-development as well as conceptual and final. Charles: I believe an envelope of scale and mass would be appropriate. Scale and massing doesn't necessarily mean tiny. It means you handle the form in some way that it breaks it up and makes it more interesting rather than a big box. Within the zone district the limitations of height and bulk are already set. Sunny: We need to know what it is you are going to be looking for. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 Les: It is our job to preserve the scale also and I would prefer that you leave the building alone and put something behind it and also to build something new on the lot next to it. John Elmore, owner: We have 12,000 sq. ft. on the two lots and we could build legally a 12,000 sq. ft. structure which is not our intention at all. We intend to build two single family houses each which are limited to 3,240 sq. ft. Georgeann: The historic scale of Aspen is small and large houses next to each other. We are loosing that as developers are building out to zoning. We want to keep the historic grain of the community. Sunny: Then you should have individual requirements on all of the lots. MOTION: Joe made the motion to table action on the application and ask the applicant to restudy and make sure there is nothing of historic value underneath the building that would change the Board's decision and that we require a re-development plan before taking any action on the demolition permit. Les second the motion. AMENDED MOTION: Charles made the amended motion to schedule the re-development plan for September 27, 1989. The re-development plan would have to be submitted by September 15, 1989 to Staff. Les second. All approved of the motion and amendment. Motion carries. DISCUSSION ON MOTION Andy Hecht, attorney: The motion should state that demolition is not in-appropriate but what you are looking for is a re- development plan that will satisfy your historic appetite. Looking underneath the house could be a condition. Roxanne: I disagree as that is setting a precedent that we already approve demolition subject to conditions. Glenn: When I suggested that we look underneath the building I was in no way meaning we couldn't move the structure. Charles: I feel we should give them some we will require in the re-development plan certain. The re-development plan should massing only. direction as to what and table to a date consist of scale and Georgeann: I would rather leave it open. 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 Glenn: The two out buildings that are there occupy a zero lot line setback. We should be directing as best as we can out building solutions. Sunny: If we come in and demonstrate that there is nothing under the skin of the building of architectural significance and that we have an acceptable re-development plan whatever that is, then permission to demolish the structure would not be unreasonable. A re-development plan that addresses your concerns mass and scale is what the Board is looking to review. If we submit materials that is our prerogative. Board agreed. 403 S. GAr~NA & 425 E. COOPER ST. Public Hearing opened. Roxanne: In the pre-application there was a lot of discussion on the second floor addition, the deck of the chalet building, the bridge between the two buildings, the third floor and the facade treatment. The second floor addition to the chalet building is a good alternative, the roof form is good. It does not damage the integrity of the building. My recommendation is that the bridge be completely eliminated and that the materials for 425 E. Cooper be further studied. Certificate of mailing presented to Staff. Roxanne: Letters from R.R. Woods & David Fleisher and Don Fleisher opposing the 3rd floor addition entered into the records. Kim Weil, architect: We chose stucco with a sandstone base due to snow removal with a wood detailing around the windows. We greatly scaled down the connection between the two buildings. The chalet has to be serviced from the elevator as neither building meet current exiting codes (handicapped access). The zoning allows for a height of 40 feet but we could go to 33 ft. and still do the third floor. We don't want to take the open space that is around the chalet or take away the present parking that exists. We only can grow up. Lennie Oates, one of the owners of the Red Onion. We do not object to the re-development but to the configuration. There will be very little light on the Cooper Street mall and views will be cut down. On the Red Onion we limited our height to two 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 stories above grade. I have been wondering if any shadow studies have been done. Augie Reno, architect: Basically the south side of the mall is small two stories at the most. Most of the buildings sit back at the first level or the second level so its scale is kept small. I am a little concerned with the over-all mass of having the three story structure directly on the property line. I am not opposed to the development of the property. Possibly there should be more relief with the third floor in stepping it back. Kim Weil: The restaurant is moving to the second floor and the first floor will remain the current retail. The chalet will become retail. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Glenn: From the Wheeler Opera house view plane it is not visible. As far as shade on the Cooper Street mall I don't see that as a negative at all. I would like to see the bridge, passage way opened up a little. I am for the development and do not feel it is out of scale. Joe Wells, consultant: From the Wagner Park view plane you can see the story pole. The 40 foot height was established with related community issues. The Wagner view plane has pushed the third floor forward on the site. There is new language in the code that states when a view plane is blocked it is not necessarily required that every structure meet it. The Wheeler is already block by a 1/2 dozen bldg. Charles: I would prefer that the third floor addition be put in either view plane. The community would like to see the view plane from Galena and Cooper maintained. That is a very significant corner in Aspen. I also feel the shadows are a serious problem and to add another story of shadow in the winter would not be appropriate. We need to consider the scale and context. I don't want us to fall in the precedent set by the Snowmass mall which is to make commercial space predominant over the view that the community wants. Joe Wells: The fact that we are not doing any development on the restaurant site at all preserves the more important view toward Aspen Mountain. The third floor addition impinges on Shadow Mountain but certainly not on Aspen Mountain. Les: Guido's is an important building in town and I like what they have done in the back. The third floor addition now becomes 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 the dominant building instead of Guido's. the predominant building. Guido's should stay as Joe: I am not comfortable with the massing or the height of the building. I echo the same concerns that the other members have. Georgeann: I tend to agree with the majority. Possibly the center portion of the third floor could be pushed back and possibly get more space with the back at an angle. The materials are a good selection and I like the treatment of Guido's. I am concerned that the elevator massing next to Guido's compounds the massing. We need to see a re-working of the bridge design and a re-working of the third floor. Joe Wells: If the third floor is unacceptable to the board then we do not have a project and I need direction. Charles: I don't like the third floor. Georgeann: I would like it smaller. Joe: Lowering the height and stepping it.back. The building should read Les: I don't think you can make it work and satisfy the view lines. Glenn: I see us setting up criteria that makes it impossible for this project to work. Joe Wells: The project is the way to make Guido's worth preserving. Georgeann: If you found more transparency in the bridge, found some way to hide the elevator inside the structure so that it doesn't impinge more on Guido's and possible pull back the front of the third floor maybe we would react more favorably. Joe Wells: To move the building back would block the Wagner Park view plane. Kim Weil: There are two dumpsters that will remain between the two buildings and we are just trying to screen them from the mall. That is one of things the connection does. MOTION: Joe made the motion to table conceptual development of 425 E. Cooper Ave, Guido's restaurant to September 13th and restudy the third floor massing, elevator and the connection of 13 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 the two buildings. Les second. Ail favored except Glenn. Motion carries. 132 W. MAIN ST. - ASIA RESTAURANT - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Donnelley reseated. Charles stepped down, potential conflict. Public Hearing opened. Georgeann: I have a potential conflict to declare but it is minute. I have worked with Kemper Penny, the house behind where the new building will be. Roxanne: In the pre-application we addressed a lot of issues and I find that their plans leave too many significant design issues unresolved. A great deal of study needs to be done on materials, fenestration and detailing. One issue that all agreed on was the verticality of the infill structure. Other issues were: should the building be pushed back as far as it is and how is the landscaping treated. There was discussion as to whether shingles would be more appropriate instead of a metal roof. The design issues are fenestration on the east elevation. The facade is not compatible with the Asia building and the design does not meet the guidelines. Charles Schwab, designer: There was a walkway and it has been made into a fountain and oriental garden area. The outside seating has been moved back 30 feet in compliance with the Hotel Aspen's view corridor and Asia's view. The building has also been dropped down to 26 feet. We can down 4 ft. from original height. It is the same height as the building next door. There was concern about the style of the building and it is not victorian. There is an atrium area that is opened up. The form is generally what we had before but the fenestration has changed. A building on Main St. should have its own identity and finesse. I am adamant about a metal roof. I want to get the verticality element back in to break down the massing. The employee housing will be nine to ten. Dennis Green, attorney: One feature everybody did like was the oriental garden in the front and we had in mind quite a bit of glass in front with subtle lighting and a hanging garden on the second floor which would echo what is being done in the front of the building. We have turned a plane building into a building that has a nice feature to it and would be an addition to Main Street. 14 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 Charles Schwab: The glass will help our view corridor from the restaurant and help open up the view. The inside is an extension of the outside and the outside is an extension of the inside bringing the garden inside. Dennis Green: There was concern about the view from next door and there is a line of large trees there. Kemper Penney, Owner of 121 W. Bleeker: I completely loose my view and have concerns where the nine employees will park and the people in the offices. If anything had to get through the alley it would be difficult. Another concern is the alley and trash, it needs organized. Charles Schwab: We are going to try and organize the parking. We have space enough for 14 parking spaces. Roxanne: How have you calculated your parking. Dennis Green: We have not done that yet. Roxanne: The Board has the ability to make a variation on parking. It is also a site design which is a concern to the HPC. I believe it is 3 to one, 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable equals three parking spaces and that needs to be calculated. Joe: We cannot react without the information and the variation has to be for compatibility reasons. Georgeann: You will need to go to the Planning & Zoning meeting. Public: The employee housing this project as the applicant problems. is ridiculous and I am in favor of is trying to resolve some of the COMMISSION-~ COMMENTS Joe: I would like to see still not comfortable with "disappear". something simple go in here and I am the massing. This building should Don: This is a small infill space between two structures which are stylistically different from one another. The architectural design is ambivalent and there is a lot of contradiction in this design. It is perhaps over blown and has unresolved massing. We are not there yet in the site plan and massing. 15 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 Les: This is a unique opportunity to get creative. There is too much "stuff". In laying out the site plan there is a way to take the needs of the neighbors in the back into consideration. I don't quite see how the garden relates to the streetscape. The massing is wrong, the density is wrong and it doesn't relate to the houses on each side. Glenn: Joe's comments are to the point, it needs to be simplified. There are too many forces going on. Possibly your building could be used to buffer the noise for the neighbors behind you in some way. Georgeann: I would have to reiterate the same concerns. Another concern is why should this building have an oriental garden in front of it. I am not unhappy with the building being back but it needs to be simplified. You are trying to put too much into that little space. It needs simple windows, simple detailing and does not need to make any statements. I get the feeling that you are trying to make the front of this look like Asia's and it is not. Dennis Green: Everyone is saying more simple. MOTION: Les made the motion to table conceptual development for 132 W. Main until Sept. 13th, deadline for submission September 1, 1989 at the Planning office. Don second. All approved. COMMUNICATIONS Oct. llth meeting unanimously changed by Board to October 18th. Don: The Hallet house is having a problem finding windows that are true divided and insulated with mullions that are thin enough. Marvin Co. does not make anything that will suffice. Meeting a~journed at 8:48 Kathy J~,/Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 16