Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19870922 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall September 22, 1987 Meeting was called Nick Pasquarella, and Charlie Knight to order by chairman Georgeann Waggaman with Patricia O'Hryan, Charles Cunniffe, Bill Poss present. Zoe Compton was absent. MOTION: Patricia made the motion to approve the minutes of September 8, 1987. Nick second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF CO~MBNTS Steve: The plans for the restoration expansion of 309 and 311 E. Main had been tabled until today. At the request of the applicant they would like to table it again until October 13th. There will be a public notice. Nick: I would like to register a disappointment that they are not here today at this meeting. Steve: I believe they are having difficulty getting organized on the project. Steve: Gordon's is going to be scored by P&Z for their GMP application tonight and staff is recommending as a condition that the issues of transparency and set back of the enclosure of the second floor deck area come back to HPC. It should be dealt with at HPC on final review. It hasn't changed much since it was conceptually presented to you. Nick: They have to come back in regard to the setback. Steve: The historic incentive ordinance is going to Council for first reading on Sept. 28, 1987. Possibly some of the HPC members could be present. The guidelines are scheduled to go to Council October 26, 1987. The guidelines will be adopted by resolution. Steve: I attended a conference in Steamboat Springs last Friday and gave a panelled discussion of the design plans and guidelines that Aspen has. It was a western slope APA conference. PUBLIC COHNENTS Chris Rightings: I would like to have something added to the agenda. Georgeann: Chris would like to put a review of the Cleaners Express building on the agenda today. We can take a vote on that to see if all the members are willing to add the Cleaners Express to the agenda. Chris: At the last meeting I was under the assumption that I would be on the agenda this time. Georgeann: Apparently there was some confusion. MOTION: Bill made the motion to add the Cleaners Express at the end of the agenda. Nick second. All favored. Motion carries. BRAND BUILDING "SKYLIGHT" Welton Anderson: Presently in the apartment that Harley Baldwin occupies which is almost right over the Country Flower there is a 6 x 12 motorized skylight. There is a spiral staircase that leads up to the skylight and you hit a button and the skylight moves and when opened up you get access to the roof. Any building more than three stories high which lofts the aggregate of loss for the building exceed 1/3 of the floor area an additio- nal exit is required. It was not required when we built that initially and there was a different configuration at that time. That skylight has never been real satisfactory for Harley because particularly in the winter time to get access out onto the roof means that the heat from the inside of the space can exit through a 6 x 12 space; it has to retract at least 50% of the way to get out. The small staircase comes up about 1/3 of the way across the length of the opening so you have to open it up at least half of the way to get out on the roof. Georgeann: What is the shape of the skylight now? Welton: On the curve it is a bubble shape. Georgeann: Your saying you need to come up with an angle that might be viewable. Welton: In an emergency the access is useless and snow falls into it and heat escapes out of it. We are requesting that a triangular wedged shape skylight with a sliding glass door at the end that is 6' 8" high be installed. There isn't adequate headroom to meet all codes but we are hoping that the Building Dept. will buy this as a compromise between the esthetics and providing an exit from the upper level of the building. Steve said it would be more visible from the North extension of Galena St. It would be a pella sun room system. The frame would be a dark brown anodized aluminum cladding and dark tinted bronze glass. It is basically a minimal response to solving a problem as we can come up with. Georgeann: Your loft space has been changed for quite some time. Are you really absolutely required to put in another skylight or are you kind of going to use this rule because you 2 also want to change the motorized skylight? Welton: Yes. Short of a trap door or motorized skylight there is no other solution that I can think of to provide a safe egress. Georgeann: I feel he has made it as "quiet" as he can. Patricia: If you don't get approval from the Building Dept. what are your alternatives? Welton: We could go to the Board of Appeals. Steve: I was most concerned about the visibility as you come up Galena St. because that is an important perspective. Looking at that building you sort of get the entry into the historic district of the commercial core area. There are many positive aspects of what he is doing. It is set back 9 feet from the parapet and it stands about six feet high and the dark glass makes the transparency less visible. He certainly has tried to minimize the visibility of the structure. There is nothing that is visible on the Brand Building's roof top at this time and in fact as you come up and look down Galena Street you have a sense of all the buildings being pristine. I feel this juts out and the existing seems to work so well and was designed to be totally invisible with no impact. It is a minor thing but I feel it is not appropriate. Welton: Most buildings that I have been to there was some sort of roof access. The Mark Justin Bldg. is an example. Georgeann: Could you make your roof access from anywhere else in the building at the top of that stairwell that you are fixing, up in the back or something for your code requirements. Welton: There are two apartments right now that have roof top access and each one has their own method of getting out onto the roof and down to the fire escape. This is the third unit that has roof top access. Georgeann: Do you need three from the roof? Welton: You can't go through another apartment to get out onto the roof again, it has to be directly from that space. Steve: But the existing seems to work. Welton: The existing one seems to work but it there was a fire it would be of no value. Nick: On that same roof somewhere going south wasn't there another structure built up? Is that higher or lower or does it 3 fall between the plane? Welton: There was a structure. Georgeann: I don't see why you have to have this one in that particular place. Welton: That apartment is 16 feet wide by 24 feet deep by 16 feet high. The opening is as far from the parapet as it can be. Nick: Ne wants some light in that apartment, to open that apartment up to the sky. Welton: It wouldn't change the opening in the ceiling just the height of it so you can walk out the side of it rather than climbing out the top of it. Georgeann: Do you feel that Steve's suggestions which have some validity have enough validity to stop this going through or do you think what Welton has tried to make as minimal as possible is the best solution. Steve: I don't know if it has to be six feet high. Georgeann: Will they let you have a little less than a standard door height? Jim Wilson: For an egress door you cannot have less that six feet. Georgeann: We have two questions one is what could we do to get safe egress and Harley wants to make a little more ease of access and to save some of the heat loss in the winter time. Is that a reasonable compromise to end up with a new modern structure on top of the building? Welton: The structure is going to be entirely glass and bronze aluminum cladding. In regards to the Secretary of Interior's guidelines for additions to historic structures they should look like they can be easily removed and not try to mimic what is already there. Nick: The applicant is trying to gain some space, to be nice looking and positive for that area above the detriment of what we see from the street. it is going the roof to MOTION: Nick made the motion to approve the skylight as presented. Bill second the motion. All approved except Georg- eann who voted against it. Motion carries. 513 W. BLEEKER PORCH CHANGES 4 Charles Cunniffe stepped down. Jan Derrington, architect: This is a modification of a previ- ously approved remodel of this structure which was formerly owned by George Hamilton. Jerald Barnett has purchased it within the last year who has some modifications he wishes to do to the building. The original modifications were to expand the living- room somewhat to the west and add a porch around the west and north ends of the existing house and add a kitchen to the south east corner of the existing first floor with a covered porch around it. Add on eight feet to the rear of the building to create another bedroom and above that to enlarge that space eight feet also for another master bedroom. The south of the house faces to the alley. The porch will still go along the front of the house which is the north side facing Bleeker Street. The porch will wrap around from the north to the east side of the house and somewhat to the west also on the front. We are not changing the front porch as this is what was approved before. The FAR calculations prompted us to delete part of the porch on the east side. Our proposal is to have a decorative element above the doors which will come out a maximum of 12 inches from the wall. The pavilion roof like roof structure over the back porch which surrounds the kitchen addition that was previously approved is going to remain. On the back side facing the alley there was a portion of the roof over the lower floor which was going to be a roof deck, they want to close that and make that into a large master dressing area. Georgeann; I don't have any problems with this. Steve: The renovation plans were first approved in 1985. We realized that this was fairly massive alteration of the structure however the Committee felt that it is primarily in keeping with the structure and many other aspects of the building had been changed over the prior years. The existing porch is not orig- inal. The changes that they are proposing are minor to what had been approved and they seem appropriate and I would recommend approval. Nick: It looks like we have an increase in bulk but not in mass. MOTION: Patricia made the motion to approve the plans as presented today. Nick second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. ELLI'S MINOR AMENI)NEI~T REBUILD WALLS Steve: This is a request to replace the existing walls with new construction. If the existing walls are not reused as the plans were submitted then we don't believe this is an historic preser- vation project as it was granted an allocation to proceed through 5 the GMP exemption. That exemption states its for the enlargement of or change in use in a structure which has received individual historic designation. If you don't use those walls which were the only restoration component of the project then it is a completely new structure and we feel that is very troubling. The exemption does not say you can construct a new structure replica- ting features, that is not what it is for. If the applicant wishes for this request to be considered a stop work order will be issued at the direction of the Planning Director. A public hearing should be scheduled with this committee for a full review. It is not a minor amendment it is significant. At that time I would also initiate a hearing whether or not the historic landmark designation should be rescinded. Georgeann: Would the applicant like to explain their position? John Cottle: We have done everything that we had represented to you. The walls are braced and laying there ready to be replaced. The money has been allocated and that direction is still there. About six weeks ago the walls had been moved and the contractor brought up the point that we should look at the walls. The siding has all been replaced, the columns that went down between the windows are rotted and they will need to be replaced. The stud walls that hold the siding have been burned at some point and there is very little of those left. We are ready to go down the course that we said we would go down. It just raised a question..is this really sane? Jim Wilson and I resolved the solution of the walls before this meeting. Georgeann: You and Jim have decided on a way that you can rebuild the existing walls to meet the one hour fire code if we decide that you must use the existing walls. Jim are you comfortable with this? Jim Wilson: Yes I am. Heidi Houston: I thought I should state the concerns so that maybe you can address this in the future with somebody else that if there are problems you can address them in some way that makes sense. We have put the money aside, we are going to do it however you want. There is a matter, is it sane to do what we are doing, does it make sense? We will do it even if it cost us $20,000 to do it that way. We had planned for it so we will have the cranes come back and do it. There is a lot that has to be replaced and you must be aware of that. Steve: The condition of approval was piece informing the planning office replaced. to replace on a piece by prior to what has to be Heidi: There is going to be a lot. You should come to the site and look at it and Dave will be happy to show you. The constru- ction guys told us that we were going to loose the whole wall and that it needed to be replaced. Georgeann: We suddenly have a building restoration with nothing old in it. That says don't worry about HPC, keep coming back every day and tell them things have changed and pretty soon you can build a whole new building. Heidi: How are you going to know if a little house from the street, when somebody starts pulling it apart if it was original or old until they pull it apart. They don't know. John: You can go by and identify board by board what is old and what is not because the dimension change. The old boards were a full one inch wide for trim and new ones are 3/4 inch. Nick: Two weeks ago I stated in the minutes "one more trip across the foundation you won't be able to use those walls at all". That is what has been going on over there. Those walls are subject to whatever activity is going on at that site and they are not really being protected. They are going to be in worse shape before you are done. You haven't even started with your outside walls. I really believe when we originally approved to save that as a historic structure was a mistake and we have to pick it up from there. I don't believe we have anything there that we are restoring because of the condition it was in and the way it has been moved around. It hasn't been moved off the site, it's laying up against the building. Heidi: It hasn't been touched since it has been there. Nick: I walk by there everyday and I've seen beams bang into the sides of the walls. I've been monitoring that building at least twice a week and I see no way at all that you are going to save any part of the boards and planks particularly the condition they are left in while the work is going on. Heidi: I'll check it out with Dave. He's telling me that nobody has been going near them. Charlie: I think the question is how responsible does the applicant need to be to obtain the opportunity to take a building and historically restore it and renovate it. At some point when you get approval from this Committee to do that it seems to be that there is a responsibility that lies with you to accomplish that task. To put the full foundation of the basement underneath there you saw the necessity to do the restoration and in my opinion you saw the necessity to dismantle the walls rather than leave the building intact and jack it up, go under it and put the foundation in and put the building back down and go from the inside and restoring it. It seems that the opinion of our Committee is that there are ways in which you can restore these buildings, even the wood buildings. But at this point the hardship is that perhaps your approach to restoration by disman- tling the walls individually they become next to impossible to deal with. Heidi: We didn't know until the backs came off that the wood had been burnt. John: We aren't really claiming a hardship. What we are claiming is the realization of the fact of what is there. Our early representation was that we would take the walls off and put them back and we are ready to do that. There is a lot of damage there, the fire and the rot and to me changed the issue enough to come back. Steve: If you had been conscientious enough to discover that prior to disassembling the building perhaps it would had been appropriate to say we can't disassemble this building and put it back together as it is too unstable and we need to try a differ- ent method. That would have put us in a better position to understand. Charlie: When I came on the board at the very end of this application when I voted it was on the architectural second phase of the new addition to the building. One of my comments was that you should be commended because there was a lot of integrity added to the building but I was of the understanding that the old building was having a new building attached to it and in my opinion it is going to be almost impossible to accomplish that even with whatever effort you make to restore what is there. Georgeann: This is a problem with our wooden buildings, they aren't Mt. Vernon buildings that have been preserved for 200 years. We have buildings that have been used, changed, covered up, burnt and re-panelled and everything else and we are going to have a problem. We've got to figure this out. Heidi: Our point was to come back and bring it as an issue so that hopefully, maybe it is something that needs to be looked at and you could address it in another way. We decided to go ahead and spend the time and money to come here and at least discuss it. Georgeann: I appreciate the effort you are going through and I appreciate the expense of the walls and the fact that you are taking the time and money to do so. Saving you from going through the GMP process also has saved you money. Money is not necessarily an issue here. We've saved you a lot of housing also and we have done a lot of research to understand where we stand on this situation. I'm glad you are coming back because what you represented to us is not what is really there. I don't mean you did this on purpose but maybe more study, more taking of the 8 backboard off the wall etc. should have been done and more investigation. Maybe you couldn't because it was still owned by Elli's etc. etc. but maybe whoever comes before us with a building ought to know better what his building is before he comes. John: Again, we can carry this out and our representation was to take the walls off and put the walls back. Georgeann: Steve, what were our alternatives when you gave us those notes at the beginning. One that we can stop work. Steve: I stated it in terms of what the Planning Office would do in the situation that this request has made. The only way that we feel we could process it is in a manner of stopping the work because any further development would be on the basis that what they are doing is according to the approved plan and the approved plan had changed so radically that we didn't feel that should be the method of operation and that a public hearing could be scheduled for the review of this request and at that time I would also initiate rescinding the designation of the structure because a new structure is not an historic structure. Georgeann: Is the Glidden house designated? Steve: The Glidden house is designated. Georgeann: That is virtually rebuilt also so it shouldn't be designated either. If this is designated that should be desig- nated. Those two places to me should fall under the same category. Steve: The other aspect of it is the GMP aspect of it and the Glidden house did not do that. We have language in here that says "In a structure which has received individual historic designation" that is what the changes, additions and enlarge- ments can occur to. We simply can not say that they are fulfill- ing that aspect, that they were given an allocation for via HPC's approval if it is an historic structure. Georgeann: However we can't just stop and tell them to go through the GMP process unless we want to have a hole. John: We're not going to do that. Steve: That may be the result though. Georgeann: That may be the result but it serves no one. Bill: What everybody said is true and all I can impress upon John is that this Committee has given quite a bit of leeway to this project and relied on you as a professional. Your office 9 came to us with a solution on how you were going to save the facade of that building and before that you were allowed to circumvent the GMP system and were allowed to build a nice project. We have to impress upon you that we have to work both as a committee and you as applicants really closely together to do the best job that we can to restore these walls. Not just put those walls back up and make a mockery of this system. I think we really have to work hard on it and get back into it. It was a learning process and we knew we were gambling because we all suspected the building probably was in bad shape because it was a 100 year old building and had not been taken care of. It was a model project and we made some mistakes along the way on both sides and I think we have to do the best we can to rectify that. I'll offer my help as a Committee member if it is necessary. Your office came to us and we thought you were more than qualif- ied to do the job so I think you can do a good job. John: I have no doubts that we can put them back in better shape than they were taken down. Heidi: We also came to you because from the City point of view we were getting things saying we were going to have to replace and I don't know how you solved it John but we were in a fix because HPC wants us to do this and the City wants us to do this and what do we do now. If John has solved that, that helps us right there. We didn't know which direction to go until this meeting today. Georgeann: We don't need to vote. What we are saying is we want to continue in the direction of restoration because we feel that is the only direction we can go. I was concerned about one thing which is under restoration, since we only have to speak the walls and the paint on the walls I presume the paint is going to stay as it is on the Elli's building. Heidi: I'm not sure yet as the color that is on there is not Herbert Buyer Blue. We are trying to get the new colors right now to see what it really is. Georgeann: We are really interested in the color. If you would work with us on that we feel that in the original minutes you all agreed to work with us on the color and that is all that we have left under these circumstances. John: Roger Moyer of Aspen Painting said the color that is on there is not the original color and he has the original color. Bill: We're using this as a model project and we all are learning from it and hopefully everybody can benefit from it. People are looking at this as somebody who has circumvented the GMP and they look at it as a totally new building. We have to make it as much of a restoration as we can with what is left. 10 Georgeann: I think the applicants have been more than agree- able. Steve: On the landscaping I had a call from Darin of the Parks Dept. saying one of the trees on Main St. has been killed from the construction and will have to be replaced and also he is concerned about the mistreatment of the pine trees that are being saved in the rear of the lot and he is afraid they may die. MINOR DEVELOPMENT EXPLORE BOOK STORE REAR ADDITION Jim Breasted: If you would refer to the south elevation. The four windows will be changed to one fixed window and we want to make the back look like the front and enclose the area under the deck. The west elevation changes somewhat also with the projec- tion of the balcony. Charles: Would that go right to the property line? Steve: No as they still have a fenced in yard. Steve: This is a designated structure and the enclosure of the rear area under the deck would increase the square footage by 144 square feet and that is a commercial expansion that would be exempt via the GMP expansion for historic expansions. They would be replacing windows and the materials would match the existing. Because the alterations occur in the rear of the structure its virtually not visible from Main Street or Monarch Street. It is an alteration to the portion of the house that does not appear to be original. Charles: Is that part of the remodel that was done by Erdman & Lipsen? Steve: I believe so. I feel that it is in keeping of the character of the structure and it is not an inappropriate alteration at all and I would recommend approval. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the additions to the Explore Booksellers as presented by Jim Breasted here today. Nick second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. CLEANERS EXPRESS BUILDING Chris Rightings: At the last meeting the Commission felt what had been done earlier was not what was approved. Tom Shrader and Wayne Stryker are here. Instead of making a partial brick wall and the rest R wall we have found a place where we can get brick to match in Kansas City. The wall will be all brick. Georgeann: Does one loose some of the bricks when torn down? Tom Shrader, owner of the building: There is a 20% loss. Georgeann: Your proposal is for the brick wall and Tom will explain what happened on the previous approved plans. Chris: Your objection to the wall was that the R wall did not match with the bottom half of the wall in brick. At that time we did not think we could match the brick. We have located brick and will do the wall in brick. Tom: I feel we had completed what we had to do other than the color. We put in a matching store front and the color of the store front is grey as opposed to a bronze and the trim paint was never discussed. Georgeann: When someone comes before us and says the materials will be the same materials and colors to match we assume that means the same colors. We approved bronze fascia and store front frame. When you say bronze it doesn't make sense to have aluminum instead. Tom: I understand and don't know where that went astray. After it passed here Wayne and the tenants got together and the tenants wanted to upgrade and it has worked. The metal on the store front is anodized metal and it cannot be painted. Georgeann: The other store front buildings are bronze. Tom: You cannot paint the metal frame. Charles: I know someone who did paint it but sanded it down first. Nick: metal. The commitment was to do the frame in a bronze anodized Wayne: They are both aluminum store fronts and they are the same materials. Georgeann: I'm sorry Wayne but we have a miscommunication. When we say to match we mean 'to match' and that means anodized aluminum is a material verses regular aluminum. Charles: It is to be the same and look the same. Wayne: Anodizing is really a color. Georgeann: I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you. Nick: The remark was made that it looked better between the owner and the person on the street, different than what was 12 planned. You should have come back to HPC to discuss that arrangement rather than going ahead and doing something differ- ent. Georgeann: HPC is unhappy and may or may not grant the exten- sion for the Cleaners Express. Tom: This is not my business it is a leased business. I'm here representing because I was here earlier. The outside colors were selected between Wayne and the owners. I feel they have some right to do that. If they avoided going through the proper channels then we need to do some kind of compromise. I really didn't want to put a brick wall in there but fortunately the Cleaners Express is making money and needs more room. I'm giving up four feet of parking space to make this expansion. I don't want to try and do anything with the aluminum windows; it was very expensive and more expensive than the bronze. It was a special color and it is inside the doors, locks etc. I'm sure if you researched you could find some kind of sandblasting, painting etc. to change the color but I'm worried about breaking the glass in doing so. Chris: If aluminum windows are to be done needs to be pulled out and the whole front has to do it right. the whole window to be taken down Tom: The color on the top does match the canopies next door but I'm willing to change that. Chris: That color was chosen to pick up the color next door. Georgeann: Why is that color a model blue? Tom: We had to use an automobile paint to get that color. would like to stand up for the grey color on the window. Chris: If the blue trim now was painted to match the dark bronze there wouldn't be such a contrast and the aluminum on the window wouldn't stand out as much either. Charlie: we want the integrity of the building to stay the same. If they want the store fronts to look different then they should make that interpretation from the inside of the store front or with a canopy. Georgeann: That building now stands out raucously it should in relationship with the other buildings. most objective way I can put it. beyond what That is the Steve: The subject is material, when I see bronze there is no misunderstanding about that. Now it is a matter of how to remedy something that was not done as represented. If the Committee can 13 work out something that is satisfactory that is great. Georgeann: What is interpreted here "bronze columns", obviously we should have made you specify it out as bronze anodized aluminum but we are talking about a material that would not generally be painted. From that point of view the paint is inappropriate. Steve: Take a brick building that is unpainted whenever paint would be applied that would be another material and that would be something that HPC would then become involved with separate from color. If you paint a material then in effect you are changing the material itself. Georgeann: You specified a material existing would not be a material to paint color would be inappropriate. that in order to match the be painted, therefore, a Tom: Wayne is no longer the architect on this project and we are trying to resolve a previous problem that I obviously was not aware of but am responsible for as the owner of the building. Tom: I could apply any paint and/or material to cover up the blue and match the canopy with a brown. That would take away the flashiness that is there now. We would do that now. Georgeann: You are still saying that you want to leave the actual mullions in the window etc. the aluminum color they are now. Tom: Yes because it would be very hard to change it. Charlie: What is the material that is painted? Tom: The aluminum color is a baked on color, the same as the bronze. I would like to paint anything that is blue right now and rebuilding the new wall with old and new bricks. Georgeann: Patricia has brought up a point that the corrections should be brought up to standards before we give you approval of the new part. Tom: We are starting to look at freezing weather. Charlie: Is it not unreasonable to ask that the mullions on the windows be the same color? Tom: The windows on Main St? Charlie: The mullions on all the windows. Tom: The windows will not take the paint but the blue trim can. 14 Charlie: I thought they told us it was a paint that was especially put on. Tom: No, previous there is a coating on the aluminum that is called core loc and it is a treatment that they do to the aluminum so when you paint it it doesn't...you know how you look at all the houses that have aluminum trim and it's pealing off all the time, that is straight galvanized metal, this is one step further so that it holds paint more. Georgeann: So that is a different material than the actual mullions. Tom: Absolutely, that is the sheet metal with the core loc on it. Georgeann: I looked at the building and found that the concrete footing is an inappropriate material there. I would like to ask if you had enough brick left over to face the front of the concrete or paint it dark brown so that it won't stand out as raw unfinished concrete. Tom: It was intention to finish that but my gotten to it yet. We have a brown R wall concrete that would match the brick. contractor has not to place over the Steve: I would like the clarification on the brick that it will match the original. Tom: The brick that we got for the cashier's booth matched fairly well. You could tell but from 25 feet away you couldn't. Steve: Is the Committee satisfied with that or would you like to see a sample of the brick? Nick: I'm totally satisfied. Georgeann: You would almost have to see a bunch of them together in order to judge. Charles: They would try to blend them together. Georgeann: I suppose reluctantly I could live with allowing this addition if in order to bring the things up to code they painted all the areas which are bright blue a dark brown. I would like to see the color personally and if it is a color that meets with my approval perhaps that would go along with the rest of the Committee and I would also like to see the cement finished on the bottom. I would very reluctantly accept the aluminum left as bright aluminum till we could find something else to do with it. 15 Charles: I don't know if it is necessary for them to change that if they do everything else. I feel they are more than willing to try and make adjustments to this to bring it within reason. Nick: The use of brick instead of stucco carries my vote over to the positive direction. MO~ION: Charles made the motion to approve the changes that the applicant has suggested to the building. Used brick on the exterior wall of the addition to match the brick on the building, repaint the blue areas with a bronze brown type of paint and work with Georgeann on the color and that they would apply a brown colored R-wall surface to the concrete base as soon as possible prior to the issuance of the building permit or ten days which- ever comes first. Bill second the motion. All favored except Charlie. Motion carries. 4:30 adjourned Kathleen J. Strickland 16