Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19870324MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 24, 1987 Meeting was called or order by chairman Georgeann Waggaman with Nick Pasquarella, Patricia O'Bryan, Bill Poss, Mary Martin and Charlie Knight present. Charles Cunniffe and Marge Riley were both excused. Absent was Zoe Compton. Georgeann made the motion to approve the minutes of March 10, 1987 with corrections. Mary Martin second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. ELLI OF ASPEN RESTORATION AND ADDITION PUBLIC HEARING--FINAL REVIEW John Cottle, architect, stated that he will address the three design issues, present them and open them for question. The first issue is the kickplate which has been incorporated in the design, it is 18 inches high made of vertical siding and is on front of everyone of the new store fronts. The second issue of the design is the stair tower on the Mill St. elevation. The tower was eliminated by a couple of ways, rather than drawing attention to it as the previous design did. By raising the fascia on the Mill St. elevation 2 and 1/2 feet and actually dropping the height of the building we can take the same fascia detail across the entire new edition. Visually there is no tower feature there. In edition we have taken the same window pattern across what is now a setback so the same pattern reads visually across the edition in that area. The net result is an actual lowering of the building and a slightly more historic proportion to the edition. The third issue which really wasn't shown in anyway before was the west face of the existing Elli's building. What we have tried to do is very quietly bring the edition and rap it actually behind the existing Elli's building and very quietly let the two buildings come together rather than bringing them together abruptly. By letting the two buildings come together we are trying to create some light to a prominent wall in the courtyard. Georgeann Waggaman asked John about the entrance. John Cottle stated that there is a curved partial roof over the entrance. Steve Burstein stated that Elli's has met most of the conditions. In regards to the entrance on the western wall he feels it would be more in the flavor of the restoration that is an essential portion of this project; to retain that segment and not bring another door into Elli's and not break into that western wall even though he can see that functionally it does have advantages. Steve urged the Committee to not approve that portion, with regard to B the store front features look good with the 18 inch kickplate, and the stair tower is a big improvement from what had been a fairly elaborate design before. Steve also pointed out in condition #6 that this should still be a condition of HPC's final approval that the detailed restoration plan still needs to come back for HPC's final review and that there be a certain time limit. Eighteen months had been what was stated by HPC at the last meeting, after the certificate of occupancy. Steve stated that seemed a long time given that restoration is a key element of this and is a key component of why this is a growth management exemption. As you know this is exempt from any other City body review and it is being done to a designated structure. So with those comments Steve recommended approval of this project. Patricia O'Bryan asked Steve Burstein what his objection was. Steve Burstein stated the architect should retain as much of the original building as possible and retaining that portion of the western wall would give more flavor to the entire building and to the courtyard. It would still be advantageous. Mary Martin asked why the Committee had these critical questions because number one any historic building is entitled to have a new window put in many places. How long is it going to take to give this historic structure designation. Steve Burstein stated the building already has historic designa- tion and these were conditions of approval. He was reiterating those conditions. Mary Martin stated she feels the window is a nice addition rather than a blank wooden wall. She feels it will serve the store. Mary stated first of all we're not here to fight a business. Look what we did with Esprit, we practically almost let them have windows from the ceiling to the ground. Esprit is no longer an historic building in her mind. Mary stated she has studied that building for some time and approves the window scheme. Nick Pasquarella asked what alternatives would be offered. Steve Burstein stated that the other alternative would be to leave the wall blank and save the existing wall. Patricia O'Bryan stated that she has no problems with the window. Charlie Knight stated that he agrees, he feels the window will draw attention to the building. Georgeann Waggaman stated she approves of the window. Georgeann also asked the Committee if they were comfortable with the 18 months. If they get tenants in and make significant changes in the windows and in the corner, do we want them to come back. 2 Mary Martin stated that at the last hearing she understood that Elli's was going to be an operation while they build around it. Owner representative stated that was correct. Mary Martin stated she feels that 18 months might be a hardship for Elli's. She feels that 18 months is not a relevant point. Georgeann stated that Elli's had asked for 18 months. Owner representative stated that she had discussed this with Gideon Kaufman, attorney, about the timing. Gideon Kaufman, attorney, stated that there is an existing tenant in the building that has an existing business, this gives us the flexibility to work with them. Gideon Kaufman asked for 20 months instead of 18 months due to the construction schedule. Gideon stated they would be able to finish it and would not have to come back to HPC if given the 20 months. Georgeann Waggaman stated that she is not uncomfortable with 18 or 20 months as long as a deadline is set. Steve Burstein stated the main point is for the applicant to do the project simultaneously if possible in a short period of time. Gideon Kaufman stated it is cheaper to do it that way and they preferred to do it that way. Steve Burstein stated restoration of the existing building requires displacing of the present tenant. Georgeann opened the public hearing. Georgeann closed the public hearing. Georgeann made the motion to give Elli's of Aspen final review approval with a condition that a detailed restoration plan be submitted before HPC and that restoration will take no longer than 20 months from issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Bill Drueding stated that he wanted included in the motion that Elli's comply with all other applicable building and zoning codes. Mary Martin second the motion. Ail favored. Motion carries. SBAF~ BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION Public Hearing--Final Review Bill Poss stepped down and Kim Wiel, architect, resumed the 3 discussion on the Shaft building. Klm stated the biggest comment from the last meeting was the entry feature. Kim stated they continued the brick and elimin- ated part of the glass to the ground. There will be wood windows to match the rest of the store fronts, and not steel coming all the way to the ground. Rather than a glass awning, it will be a solid awning. There will be a two part sand stone band around the building and it is a very strong element. The band elimin- ates the vertical ribs in the building. That is the only major change we made. Charlie Knight asked if the awning was going to be solid or translucent. Kim Wiel stated that it would be a solid material. Klm stated that the top banding is in two steps, a band that sticks out 1 1/2 inches from the face of the brick and another band that sticks out 5/8 of an inch from the brick. There will be two different textures of stone on the building. Steve Burstein stated he noticed that there is an indentation to get to the store front windows on Hunter Street and could he explain the concept of why that is indented like that. Kim Wiel stated it basically is indented to keep the floor area down. We are only allowed to build so much floor area and it is a balancing act and we felt that on Hunter St. would be a better place. Steve stated that it is a good looking building but he is concerned about the glass exposure from Hunter Street. Perhaps with the parapet it will be improved. Steve also stated that the materials should be clearly marked on the drawings. Nick Pasquarella stated he was concerned with the doorway and asked if it was addressed properly. Kim Wiel stated the door and window frames will be made of wood. Georgeann stated that Kim will have to come back to HPC and state whether the awning is metal or canvas. Kim Wiel stated that he will come back with a full account of the materials. Mary Martin asked why an awning is needed when they have an overhang. Kim Wiel stated that an awing is needed to prevent rain from getting into the store. 4 Bill Drueding, Building Department, asked schedule. A total of 13% of the total floor south facing. Kim Wiel stated that an energy calculation had building. Georgeann asked if the glass will be flat glass or what. Klm stated the glass will not be reflective glass. It will standard glass, no color, called green glass. Georgeann asked the Committee if the green glass will appropriate with this kind of metal work. Klm stated they originally were looking at wire that was common with atriums, but in an atrium and breaks the glass and they will not warrant chemically ventilated. Charlie Knight asked about the awnings. Kim stated the awning will be canvas retractable. Mary stated that the south side might be hot. Klm stated sun control blinds will be on the inside. Georgeann asked informally for Kim to check on the glass. Georgeann opened the public hearing. Georgeann closed the public hearing. about a glazing area can be non been done on the glass the wire it. The be because gets hot glass is Mary Martin made the motion that this building with its component parts of brick and sandstone be accepted for final approval with the exception that they return to HPC when they decide on the awning for the front door. Bill Drueding asked if the awnings were retractable. Kim stated the awnings were retractable except for the front door. Patricia O'Bryan second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. Steve MINOR AME~D~ 131 E. P.%LLAN ~. WI~)OW INSER~ Serna, architect, stated what they have is an existing 5 stairwell with a long victorian window off to one side. They would like to make that one window into two windows maintaining the existing size. Steve Burstein stated that all the other work approved was to the rear of the building and this is to the front elevation. Georgeann stated that the double window looks more appropriate than the single window. Patricia O'Bryan made the motion to approve the addition of the window to 131 E. Hallam St. Charlie Knight second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. UTE NOUNTAINEER SECOND FLOOR EXPANSION Preliminary Review (continued) Graeme Means stated the added square footage is on the second floor. P & Z gave approval last week for the footage. Graeme stated that the street facade and the railing would have 1 by 3 tongue/groove with a little seed on it similar to the Brand building. The colors have not been addressed yet. Graeme stated there is a false gable with holes in the glazing. There will be tongue/groove on the facade and railing but the rest of the building would have wood siding. Charlie asked if the front of the building would be torn off. Graeme stated yes. Georgeann stated that she liked the building and the wainscotti- ng look but isn't sure about the windows with the holes. If they intend to keep the look of the building as it was she prefers they leave the present windows there. Graeme stated we're not trying to continue the look of the building as it is now. It is to keep the roof form. Charlie stated the lower windows are treated with a victorian element and the upper windows have modern block cubes. Graeme stated they were dealing with something that would give us light but not too much of it so it serves as something that is functional. Georgeann stated the rustic feeling was already there in the detailing on the lower windows and then the upper section gets out of character. Mary Martin stated the building is a chalet building more than anything and she would rather see a sky light put in along the 6 north that doesn't give you sun and glare and forget all the little windows and put a different shingle pattern in or wood pattern there. Graeme stated we would like to get glass there and possibly will use a sky light. Charlie asked if the railing on the balcony was flushed to the front. Graeme stated the railing is set back on both facades. Georgeann stated HPC does openings and possibly they feels Graeme's presentation review. not have guidelines on the square need a little more study. Georgeann is quite acceptable for preliminary Patricia O'Bryan made the motion that HPC approve preliminary approval for Ute Mountaineer Building as presented. Nick Pasquarell second the motion. Ail favored. Motion carries. Charlie stated that he feels Graeme is taking the weakest element of the building and trying to reinforce it on the second floor with the idea that you are following the concept of a false facade...an ornamentation on the second floor. Graeme stated the gable element is a strong identifying characte- ristic of the building and part of what the owner wants to do is keep somewhat of the same image to the remodel to carry through. Georgeann stated that she is disconcerted at looking through the openings. Bill Drueding stated this is a novelty, they are using design features for attention to their particular building. He feels they should blend in more with the surrounding buildings. The gable is fine but all the little windows are a novelty. Mary Martin made amendment to the previous motion to come back with a different design. Georgeann stated there was no second. of a second motion. The motion fails for lack Steve Burstein stated that the criticisms perhaps are that too many elements are going on; to have so many repetitions of a window. Without being specific possibly you should come back with a kind of a design that comes together better with the simplicity of the building. Georgeann stated that this is a quiet little building and with 7 the "novelty" it is not becoming especially looking up into the sky. Nick Pasquarella made a strong comment that the windows in the false front gable be eliminated completely. Graeme asked if he meant getting rid of the whole gable. Nick Pasquarella stated that he has no problem with the gable, he would rather see a pitch than see a flat roof. He doesn't feel it should be dressed up. Graeme asked if there is a way to apply for a knowing this issue can be worked out. building permit Georgeann stated she feels they should return next week and have a special meeting. Georgeann stated there will be no more motion just direction for the windows on the gables. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 4TH FLOOR EXIT STAIRS AT 415 E. ~ ST. Stan Mathis, architect, stated there are two changes to the Roaring Fork Building next to the Paragon. Essentially these drawings showed an exterior stairway from the fourth floor to the third floor. We simply have moved that over. Stan stated in 1972 the fourth floor was approved without two exits. The building now has only one exit. Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshal, stated that a second exit must be placed on the building or the building will be closed down. There is a roof plan which shows the fourth floor and a third floor partial plan that shows the hallway that they intend to go down into. The fourth floor of the building steps back from the face of the third floor giving us a six foot wide walkway roof which is in existence now. Stan stated they had gone to the Board of Appeals and received approval. What they propose is coming out of the dentist's office as an egress window. The tenant in the back unit can come out on the rear deck, leap over the wall, walk on the roof surface which has guard rails that are set back from the edge of the building 2 1/2 feet and then come down onto a steel stair that is cantilevered from the third floor roof down to the third floor hallway so it is a single round of stairs from the third floor roof or fourth floor to the third floor and it will be against the wall. It is 44 inches wide. The stairway is set back from the mall and hidden. From the street you would only see a tenth of the railings. You could see the stairs from the alley and the neighbors. Mary Martin asked Stan what the construction of the stairs would be. Stan stated the stairway would be made of steel in order to be cantilevered from the building itself. Georgeann asked Stan if he felt the neighbors in the condominiums that face onto the stair should be notified. Patricia O'Bryan stated she felt those tenants would be the only people who would have an objection. Mary Martin stated they have no choice as the fire marshal stated proper exits must be available. Mary asked about stairs going up in the alley way, the back of the building. Stan stated they would have to extend the entire shaft up the rear and he feels that is not a good solution because then it becomes a solid mass above the roof line. Georgeann stated the condominium tenants will see the railing and see the steps coming out approximately a 44 inch intrusion into their space than what is existing now. Bill Drueding stated that the neighbors should be advised of the intrusion. Georgeann stated that letters should be given to the neighbors and they should have an opportunity to comment as they can see the stairway. Mary Martin finds it no problem for putting the fire exit in the back alley. Stan Mathis stated it would be an have to go over their property line. provided to the tenants. encroachment and they would Stan stated letters will be Bill Drueding stated the area is required open space. Bill is concerned that the stairway is an intrusion to open space. Bill stated again that the neighbors should be notified. Georgeann stated that possibly Stan should get an encroachment license and place the stairway on the alley. Georgeann stated there are smaller lighter stairs available to be used as fire stairs. Stan Mathis stated the Board of Appeals can only accept certain modifications of the code, they cannot rewrite the code. Stan stated he already tried dumb weighted stairs with the Board of Appeals and it wasn't accepted. We've tried that on the Indepen- dence Square Hotel. 9 Georgeann stated what if you had a recommendation from HPC to consider some of the other stairs available. Stan stated at the Board of Appeals when we were speaking about the Independence Square hotel, the HPC recommendation of the dumb weighted stair was brought up and it is a matter of record and that is not a viable solution because the fire code specifically prohibits that dumb weighted staircase as an approved fire exit. Mary asked Stan if a glass elevator would be possible to con- struct. Stan stated there is a cost consideration. Mary asked if it was not possible if the neighbors were told this is a requirement from the fire marshall that the neighbors would have to agree. Stan stated that he is showing a method that he would like to do that is cost efficient without adding another whole stairway mass above the fourth floor but that is a option that can be examined. Brian Rhodes stated that he is 80% owner of the building. Brian stated that if an added stairway is constructed that half of the dental office would have to be ripped out. Georgeann stated that she would be inclined to say this is a minimal impact from the point of view of the Historic Preserva- tion and it is a contemporary building but on the other hand it ought to go before a public hearing because it does have an impact on the neighbors and if the neighbors don't complain that is as much as we can do. Patricia O'Bryan stated that she feels letters should be sent out. Georgeann stated she also feels that people in the condominium would be more aware if they received a letter rather than a public hearing notice. Bill Drueding stated there would be approximately six condominium studio units that would be involved. Bill stated that possibly there wouldn't be any complaints but the rules basically say that the public must be protected. Nick Pasquarella made the motion to approve preliminary approval of this project with the provision that letters are written to the owners and answers returned to Stan. Mary Martin second the motion. Ail approved. Motion carries. 10 Stan asked instead of a public hearing if he could show proof of mailings and returns, and if there are no objections voiced before the April 14, 1987 can assume we have final approval. Steve Burstein stated that is too complicated and the issue will be resolved April 14, 1987. Nick Pasquarella stated that a public hearing is part of the process and if anybody is here we will listen to them. The fire exit has a major impact on the tenants. PRELIMINARY REVIEW: SPORT STALKER-ASPEN 204 S. Galena St. Bob McHugh, architect, stated about 20 years ago the store (previously Bullocks) was face lifted with a canopy that covers the walkway on the sidewalk and done in a rustic alpine style. The new owners would like to do a face lift and rename the building to Sport Stalker. In looking at the neighborhood there is quite a variety of buildings, modern, victorian etc. Most of the buildings are more than one floor. Many of the buildings on the corners have front gates, meaning the front is cut out at a 45% angle. Example would be the Ute Bank etc. Many of the buildings have false facades or pediments, some on the corner and some half way down. Many have awnings and canvas around town. What we have tried to do is to take some of these elements and make this building fit into the context of the neighborhood by using these details. The canopy is there and we would like to use the existing structure. That is an encroachment and we have talked to the lady upstairs regarding the encroachment and she feels that since it is already there and it benefits the public that most likely we'll get it approved. We would like to cut the corner off the building and open it up and put a display window there. We feel that will benefit the owners and the public with displays. We would like to frame the canopies and put copper roofing in because it is more durable and we feel the color will blend in much better. The edge of the canopy would be canvas and the entry would be canvas and we would use the dark blue. Most of the stores use dark blue. The brick waynescotts we feel should be left there and is durable. Georgeann asked if stucco would be used in the gable ends and what the front entrance awning was made out of. Bob Mchugh stated that the awning would be a steel frame canvas awning and stucco would be used in the gable ends. Steve Burstein stated that this is a reconstruction so there is no need to change the basic horizontally of the structure. Steve stated the windows have been changed to add a more vertical element and that will be more appealing. Steve stated his only 11 concern was the graphic snowflake, he feels it is a playful novelty item that is not necessary for the building. Steve stated according to the letter Bob Mchugh had intended to use reflecting glass under the canvas and he would recommend that not be done since that is not the way canvas awnings are being treated in Aspen. Bob Mchugh stated that he feels there is a misconception, they do not intend to use reflecting glass. Steve Burstein stated that he was referring to reflecting lights under the canvas. Back lit canvas is not presently used in the commercial core. Bob Mchugh stated they do not intend to back light the canvas, but intend to set the canvas back and place lights shining onto the canvas. They would be cafe lights. Bill Drueding stated the graphic display will not be permitted by the sign code, basically you cannot have a logo more than 18 inches high. The logo outside the building is a device to promote the interest of somebody inside and cannot be higher than 18 inches. That is why McDonalds only has their arches 18 inches high. Mary Martin asked if Bob reduced the size of the sign could he still have it. Bill Drueding replied yes if it is less than 18 inches and adheres to the sign code. Bill also stated that an encroachment license will be needed for all the awnings. Bill stated if you are remodeling the overhang, and it requires a building permit, which it will, then you will have to go for an encroachment license also. Bob Mchugh stated that he was aware of that. Nick Pasquarella stated he was concerned with the ratio of the window to the walls, e.g., window then wall, window then wall, all about equal size. Bob Mchugh stated the windows and the stucco wall would be about the same size. Charlie Knight asked what the gables would be made out of and of. decorative balls on top of the what the roof line was made out Bob Mchugh stated the balls and roof line would be made out of copper and they were intending to pick up some of the details of the neighborhood. 12 Charlie Knight asked how far out the copper awning would be. Bob Mchugh stated the copper awning would be exactly what it is right now. The canvas entrance way would extend about a foot beyond the copper awning. Charlie Knight asked at each end of the building, the parking end and at the alley end the awnings seem to end. Bob Mchugh stated trucks have been hitting the canopy. Ending the awning would also allow more light into the display windows. Charles Knight asked why the copper and not extended vertically into the than the proposed canvas. was ended soffit as on the roof slope it is more durable Bob Mchugh stated he canvas is a decorative appointment. He feels that major maintenance on canvas would be on the slope not on the vertical addition. Mary Martin asked about the snow dropping off the roof onto the sidewalk as it only comes out about a foot. Bob Mchugh stated that the roof covers the entire walk and the snow would drop onto the grass portion which is between the sidewalk and the trees. Mary Martin asked what was holding the roof up. Bob Mchugh stated there are cantilevered beams in the building right now. Georgeann stated it is the exact roof he has now but is putting copper on it. Bill Poss asked if the building line along Galena St. was out at the property line and everything hangs out over the sidewalk. Bob Mchugh stated it is. Bill Poss stated our historic guidelines call for carrying buildings and keeping the building line along the sidewalk. You have a nonconforming element of this overhang which if we approved it we're enforcing that nonconforming element. Before you had an architectural element at the property line with canvas awnings (retractable) and more of a temporary feeling to them architecturally and this is more of a permanent structure. Georgeann stated this is a good pedestrian amenity. Mary Martin stated that the hardware store has a covered sidewalk 13 and she approves of it. Georgeann stated this is a remodel. Nick Pasquarella stated that the sidewalk is covered now and when they leave it still will be covered. Charlie Knight stated that portions of the sidewalk are covered but they are eliminating three elements that are not covered, the corner and both ends of the building. Nick Pasquarella stated that Bill said we are extending out beyond the property line with this overhang. Bill Poss stated that the argument is that we are reinforcing this permanent nature of covering the sidewalk and he forgot about the hardware store that has that. Mary Martin stated that she likes the building. Steve Burstein stated that Bill is raising a important but somewhat of a subtle point with regard to the canopy. If this was clearly an unacceptable encroachment then it seems that City Council actually decides on encroachments, and we would want them to remove it at this time and that they are going about a major change to the building. If it is considered an amenity and if the architectural aspects more or less lend themselves to making it compatible in the district then I imagine this Committee might find it acceptable and Council may also find the encroachment acceptable but the general principle is that they should maintain the street front. Steve and Bob looked at it and discussed that issue and the architect also feels it is an amenity to have the sidewalk covered. Mary Martin stated she thinks it's a wonderful things, that the sidewalks are such a mess everywhere and the City doesn't fix them up. Georgeann stated she does a lot of walking from covered walkway to covered walkway. Georgeann stated if you put copper roofing on, is it the kind that we have to wait for a year for it to weather or can we weather it more quickly. Bob Mchugh stated there are ways to weather it quickly, and if that is a requirement we will do it. Georgeann asked the Committee what they feel; she feels a bright copper roof downtown for a year would be a little disconcerting. Patricia O'Bryan stated that was one of her questions as to how 14 long before it looks weathered. Bob Mchugh stated there is an application of chemicals that will bring it to the color they want. Georgeann stated she is a little uncomfortable with the blue piece of awning that hangs underneath the copper roof. Mary Martin stated she feels there would be enough lighting inside without the awning. Georgeann stated it would be more of a signage issue than lighting with the blue stripe. Charlie agreed. Georgeann stated that she doesn't know if we have enough official reasons outside of our guidelines to tell him he can or cannot have the blue stripe awning. Bill Drueding stated he wasn't sure how to treat the awning as far as signage goes, but he feels CCLC would have to approve the lighting proposal so they could make recommendation and HPC needs more detail on the lighting. Charlie Knight stated the presentation of the blue stripe and extending the canopy at the entrance beyond the awning is actually a signage treatment although the roof line will add very nicely. Charlie feels the balls on top of the gable do not add architecturally to the building and he feels a stucco sign should not be added; extending the awning around the corner to pick up the roof line is a more subtle fashion. Charlie feels the corner element should be more softer. Georgeann stated that you don't see stucco downtown and it's a little bit disconcerting. Bob Mchugh stated they did have another idea on the light color, one was lap siding much like the Elli's building, but the architect feels that stucco is more permanent. Georgeann stated that the Committee would be more favorable to lapsiding. Mary Martin stated she much prefers wood siding to stucco. Steve Burstein stated on Cooper St. there are severalstucco buildings e.g. Guido's. Bob Mchugh stated that he did a drawing with the around the corner but the problem is if you look at in town the corners are cut off without awnings. awning coming other corners Georgeann stated that Bob's first inclination here was to have a 15 large slab with signage, but that large graphic element is not in Aspen so you end up instead with a very large slab of stucco. Georgeann also stated that the architect will have to reconsider what they have there since large sign are not permitted there. Bob Mchugh stated on the snowflake there is something in the sign code that refers to a graphic design and we have to get a separate permit. Bill Drueding stated the permit has to be approved by HPC then it must go to City Council. Nick Pasquarella stated he had no problem with the snowflake. Bill Poss supported a motion of granting preliminary approval with the conditions that we study the blue stripe awning as it is not structural or functional. Also the snowflake is not of historical nature for a sign. Bill Poss made motion to grant preliminary approval with the conditions that we get further study to the corner element that the awnings at the entrances be looked at being pulled back in line with the copper awnings, and that the blue canvas stripe underneath all the awnings may be looked at a more permanent situation; which kind of lighting goes along with it and that the finished material be looked at with alternatives if possible. Nick Pasquarella second the motion. No discussion. All favored. Motion carries. HERON APARTMENT BLDG., COLOR SCHEME 333 W. Main Steve Burstein stated this is a request by the owner, Bil Dunaway. He has requested that HPC give guidance on choosing new colors and brought a color guide book. Zoe and Georgeann will help Bil choose colors. SPECIAL BUSINESS Nick Pasquarella stated that he had two comments to make for the record. He commended the new secretary for the planning of the minutes and commended Steve Burstein for compiling the large historical guideline book. Georgeann thanked Madeline Osberger from the Aspen Times for the good coverage she does for the Commission. Steve Burstein stated that at the City Council meeting the demolition moratorium expired on March 22, 1987. Direction was given from Councilthat work proceed on incentives and work on the code amendments. Basically the program is going forward with the 16 guidelines, the code amendments and the incentives. Eight structures were designated also and first reading approval was given to the code amendment as P&Z had recommended. HPC resolu- tion will be discussed at a joint meeting with P&Z and HPC April 7, 1987. Georgeann stated that one thing that was brought up on the demolition removal review, which the City Council asked us to look at, is that the proposed demolition and removal review applies only to historic landmarks and not to non-historic structures in our two historic districts. Georgeann stated by an historic landmark she presumes Steve means what things have been voted historic or will that mean everything that is on the inventory except the ones in the zero that will be deleted, we will have to clarify that. Also we must review if we want demolition review of non-historic structures also in the historic districts. For instance the building that comes to mind is the log cabin which the huge trees that is by the Elisia house, that is not an historic building, it was built in the 40's and they can tear that down tomorrow unless we put that in our review. At the moment most people in the historic zones think they have to come before HPC for everything. Mary Martin stated if you make a district and you don't say that everything in the district must come before HPC for approval to remodel or for demolition then we don't need an Historic Preser- vation Committee, planners can do it all. Mary also stated there is no point for incentives if we do not include all 95 landmark buildings, which include around 30 on Main St. Georgeann stated should everything on the inventory review be under demolition review. Georgeann stated it should. Steve Burstein stated the term used in the new code is historic landmark and that refers to buildings that are designated. The Mayor suggested that other buildings should be looked at on the inventory and particularly what we are coming to in light of the possibility that there will not be mandatory designation, we are not sure what is going to happen at this point now we don't have the demolition moratorium and we're still working to have incentives that attract people. Steve suggested these issues be discussed with P&Z at the next meeting. Bill Poss stated if you choose not to mandatorily designate the buildings then you should have an incentive that is strong enough for these people to step up for designation. Georgeann stated she would like to propose to send a resolution to P&Z when they study the incentive to also study mandatory demolition review of everything on the inventory as it now exists plus all buildings in the historic districts. Georgeann stated 17 she would like this to be considered as a starting point. Mary Martin stated she felt the same way. She also stated in the code if you tear down or are given a permit for demolition of an historic structure that person must bring a plan of the new building. Georgeann stated public didn't like that comment. Georgeann stated she moved that HPC send a resolution to Planning & Zoning asking them to consider along with their inventory package to consider mandatory demolition review of everything on the inventory as it now stands, that means with the zeros and the ones deleted and that all buildings in historic districts come before HPC for mandatory demolition review. Patricia stated she was behind Georgeann on the resolution. Nick Pasquarella second the motion. Ail favored. Motion carries. Georgeann stated that Gideon Kaufman, attorney, commented on the proposed ordinance #11 Gideon said section #3 when a regular member resigns and an alternate member with seniority be automat- ically appointed in his place is not standard on any of the other boards. If we put that in it is not that way with any other boards in the City. Another point of concern was section #6 (ii) that the secretary shall mail notices to be received two days in advance. Georgeann said Gideon said that too tenuous to be received two days in advance, he felt if we wanted to do it that way, mail notices three days in advance or telephone two days in advance as opposed to the person saying I didn't receive it. Another concern of section #6, if you can't get a quorum after two meetings the matter should be automatically approved. That is apparently standard on most of the other boards. Gideon stated there should be something to protect the applicants from the Commission of not having a quorum. Gideon's suggestion was if a matter was postpone for more than two/three meetings or a period beyond 30 days we get a hammer that forces us. Patricia asked what the other Boards specifically say. She is not comfortable with the idea that something is automatically approved because someone is home with the flue. Meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. 18