Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19870714 HISTORIC PRESBRVATIONCOM~ITT~ MINUTES Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall July 14, 1987 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Georgeann Waggaman with Nick Pasquarella, Zoe Compton, Bill Poss, Marge Riley and Charlie Knight present. Charles Cunniffe was absent. Patricia O'Bryan had an excused absence. MOTION: Nick made the motion to approve the minutes of June 23, 1987. Second by Marge Riley. All approved. Motion carries. COI~IITTEE MEMBER AND S~AFF COMMENTS Nick: I volunteered to watch Elli's and the three trees that were transplanted to the 9th hole of the Aspen golf course are doing very well. Steve: The house on 209 East Hopkins has been partially demol- ished. It is being investigated as to whether a building permit was issued which led the owner Robert Appleton to believe he could demolish the structure or if a violation occurred. The house was rated a four. Concern is whether the demolition was for the shed behind the structure or whether it was for the structure itself. PUBLIC CO.lENT Shelley Herrington, architect from Caudill Gustafson & Associa- tes: I am representing Central Bank on Main Street. Central Bank would like to do a major addition which would be in their present court yard. Central Bank is in the historic district. We would very much like to proceed in this year's GMP process. We have to receive conceptual approval from HPC before applying for the GMP and advertise in Thursday newspaper, fifteen days later we would require a special meeting with HPC to review our conceptual design. Georgeann: This was brought to my attention and we are not generally in favor of special meetings, but it was brought up by the architect that perhaps since we just changed the rules for public hearings that would a mitigating factor. Since we are changing the rules flexibility is required at this time. MOTION: Nick made the motion to have a special meeting Friday July 31, 1987 at 12:00 Noon. Charlie second the motion. Ail approved. Motion carries. 701 E. HOPKINS HISTORIC DHSI61~TION ~ CONCEPTUAL Stan Mathis: At the last meeting comments were made that we needed to reduce the apparent mass and bulk of the proposed addition more in scale with the existing structure. I have changed some roof pitches and moved some of the floor area off the front of the building around to the rear of the building. Before we had a little area on the back side of the building, we took some of the floor area off the upper floor and moved it to the lower. We turned 150 sq. enclosed space into balcony and entrance porches. We effectively took 500 square feet off the upper floor and moved it primarily to the east side. We elimin- ated the triple gable and made it a double gable to reduce mass. We now have a two story elevation whereas we had a two elevation but it was cut by a roof. We have to try and get as much net square footage out of the addition and the existing structure to made it viable in the market place for us. Right now with our walkways, stairs and patio space we are up to around 750 sq. feet that is exterior to the building walls, prior to that we were 400 sq. ft. of walkways. We are giving up 300 sq. feet. which would be rentable space to try and make the court area small to make the mass smaller. We have increased the floor area on the first floor, reduced it on the second floor, changed the pitches on the roof and turned the original house 90% on the site and pushing it over to the setbacks where we can accomplish off street parking providing six spaces. Steve: The applicant is requesting designation of the structure and also conceptual approval of the proposal. He is only requesting designation on the condition that you would approve the addition. The original house is 830 sq. feet and the addition proposed is 3,670 sq. feet. This would be exempt from the GMP quota system competition if HPC gives approval. At the last meeting four main issues were raised: (1) massing and bulk of the addition (2) scale of the addition's architectural elements such as the span of the gable ends and height of roof lines as they relate to the original structure (3) the restora- tion plan of the original house (4) the quality of the open space on the property. The structure was given a three and it is a good example of a miner's cottage in the east end particularly in the site that it is in. The Planning Office would also support that the structure does have enough architectural and historic significance to warrant designation. However, I cannot access that those qualities will be maintained with the alterations that have been proposed. The mass and bulk of the addition continue to overshadow the existing structure and it affects the historic authenticity of the project. The scale of the architectural elements also seem to be in excess of what is in the original structure. The basic height of the roof line is 8 feet taller than the existing. The existing is a very small house. For these reasons I do not recommend in favor of the designation or 2 of conceptual approval. Georgeann: We also have to remember that this is a commercially zoned project and zoned for a duplex so it does have the right to have a large square footage on this piece of property. Nick: I understand the fact that it is commercial property and it should be developed as commercial property and I don't have any problem with that at all. I also specifically remember that they were abhorred that they were going to be designated six months ago, now an opportunity has come to use the law to advantage a situation. I strongly agree with Steve. If they want to build commercial property there, get your approvals and build it, don't hedge on the opportunity of becoming historically designated to take advantage of the situation as it is written. Georgeann: That is why we put in the incentives. Charlie: Is all the original house kept? Stan: Ail the original is there. Charlie: Was the shed roof in the back an addition to the cottage originally? Stan: There is a shed roof structure that was added to the original cottage. I'm proposing taking that off and re-aligning the roof structure back over what was added on to the original house. Marge: You said there would be spaces for six cars. Where will those cars be parked. $tan: They are parked off of the alley. We will have to receive a variance for seven other parking spaces. The code requires three per thousand feet with a potential reduction. The existing building is 830 sq. feet and there is a shed that we will not retain at all. The total square footage of our proposal is 4500 sq. feet that's gross which includes the balconies, walkways, covered entrances etc. Charlie: Do you have the same amount if you go through the GMP process. Stan: If we go through GMP we can request 4500 sq. ft. or ask for a bonus of another 1500 sq. ft. to provide for employee housing or cash in lieu or whatever. Bill: Was the existing house original on the site? Steve: It was recorded original on the inventory. - 3 Marge: How many businesses will be represented in the new structure. Stan: This building will be owned by three individuals. only zoned for office. This is Zoe: In order to apply for historic designation you do plan to keep the exterior exactly like it is. Stan: We will submit a restoration plan not a replication plan. Zoe: Has there been any consideration having the original structure detached from the rest? Stan: We did but there isn't enough room on the site and the square footage would then have to be rearranged and we would loose open space that we are trying to provide. Bill: I'm in support of the concept that we are trying to do here if the Committee is of the feeling that this is a structure worthy of restoration preserving. Utilizing miners cabins is a good concept but I am still concerned how this applicant has handled keeping the restoration, giving its own identity and how the large mass is handled. Stan: There are new owners at this point and I would like the Committee to take that in consideration. Georgeann: Our incentive package is trying to preserve a little more variety in architecture by letting people restore old buildings. I'm not bothered by the height because the building behind it across the alley and the one beside it are quite high also. I feel Stan should be congratulated for making a definite improvement from the last presentation. I'm a little bit concerned about having the building turned sideways because of the orientation of all those buildings, the one beside it, the ones across the street, all go one way and suddenly you are turning the orientation which might be startling in this area. My main concern is the fact that this building seems to come virtually right up to the lot line. Stan: The building is six or seven feet from the property line to the curb. Georgeann: The residential feeling will be kept and the open space on the other buildings. Will the trees be kept. Stan: The trees are on City property. Georgeann: Public Hearing is now open. Regina Lee: I think the same thing that is happening to him 4 happened to me when I was trying to get my fence approval that everybody has commented on everything that they don't like but haven't helped in a positive way. Steve: When Stan and I first looked at the project there were ideas that were not nearly as drastic in alternation. I gave him encouragement and it was a good restoration project. The concept was to leave the house in its place, to do something at the eastern rear portion of it where it is not historic and possibly to look at either basements or gables to increase the floor area. Use the original cottage as the principle structure on the property. I understand that there is a problem in trying to make that type of plan satisfy the space requirements needed. That was the direction to me that seemed appropriate. The Committee is hesitant to address the issue of bulk, to say it is not in keeping and there is a problem with this Committee talking about floor area ratio and trying to say well I think it should be this instead of this. I don't think it is appropriate for the Committee to be specific on that. I feel this is partially what Regina is listening too. Georgeann: We have to look at this from two sides, on one end we have a commercial project and on the other side we have a small victorian which adds to the character of the community and we have gone on record to encourage. Now we say you can have your large building if it doesn't dominate. Nick: We first agreed to keep the little building as it was, now we have it turned around and chopped off. How far do you go with saving that little building. Zoe: I think this is exciting and this is what we have been wanting to do in Aspen in town. I think it is a great way to preserve a little building that is worthless for all practical purposes. It is a whole new concept in Aspen that hasn't been done before and it is a great idea for preservation of old buildings and there are compromises that you must make in order to get what you need to make it viable. I agree with Bill in how the larger structure compliments the smaller one. I think maybe the larger one needs some more modifications. I have no negative comments about it, a real positive step toward preservation for a small building that could easily be torn down. Charlie: One of our dilemmas is we don't know how to address or let these people circumvent the planning process and it is our responsibility. The equation is a lot of what Zoe pointed out if we don't allow this to happen they will build 4500 sq. feet and they will demolish the site and we won't save the house. There is no way to take an 800 building and put it next to a 3500 sq. foot building and make it look particularly integrated. I think the best approach is to keep it isolated and treat the other one a little differently. Try to keep the identity of the small miners cottage. Bill: Maybe keeping the two buildings separated and have the second floor more as a roof with dormers for windows and doors. Zoe: The compatibility is too compatible where the cottage is not distinctive anymore. Georgeann: community. This is our opportunity to make a message to the Regina: This is clearly a good example of an incentive for the community. Georgeann: Public hearing closed. Steve: I certainly agree with the Committee that it is really your mandate to try to make incentives work but I think that it is important in regards to what is an acceptable restoration project one that you feel is worthy of the incentives. Stan is trying to work with the Committee to find an acceptable project. The Committee does not have to say we have to help the applicant achieve the maximum allowed FAR on the site. If that doesn't work in terms of a viable, authentic restoration project then the Committee has to say it doesn't work. Georgeann: Steve you are saving you have problems with the size of the addition and problems with turning the building. You would be happy to have him continue with some sort of restoration and new building in this theme. Nick: I have no problem with the massing, my concern is totally with the building as it sits. If you can work around that and everyone in the past has then it would be a wonderful way to really preserve the building. To pick it up and move it the character of the building is destroyed. Charlie: The building has a score of three at what point do we not consider it a valid approach to miss the GMP process and go for this kind of designation. We are right on the middle ground, if that were a two we may say we are getting manipulated in the situation. As it stands I feel this is a very valid approach. Georgeann: It sounds like everyone is pleased with the concept but not comfortable with the execution. Stan: I would prefer a motion that would approve the conceptual with a condition that we improve the addition so that it flows better with the original structure. Zoe: There must be a distinguishing difference between the two buildings. MO~ION: Nick made the motion we give conceptual agreement and that the main building remain in its physical location. Marge second the motion. Steve: The motion has to be clarified Nick in terms of designa- tion and conceptual approval of the project. Nick: Give it designation and conceptual approval but the building stays geographically north to south rather than shifting it east to west. Marge second the motion again. Zoe: I would like to hear from Stan why he actually can't leave the existing building in its place facing the way it is at present. Stan: The building is set back from Hopkins St. to such a degree that if we start trying to meet some of the things that we are going to end up with an addition that surrounds the building. It is almost in the center of the lot and if you want to maintain one of the side elevations and the front elevation only being able to build on the east side of the house and to the rear it will be hard to deal with the massing and anything other than some pretty straight walls because there is quite a bit of space between the west side of the building and the street. I've looked at that and when I look at it and I don't believe I can sell it to you then I'm not even going to try. Nick: I don't know how far it sits back. Move it two more feet west. Georgeann: Nick, in your motion you told him he absolutely could not move it. I would like to suggest that motion die and we change the motion slightly. I would like to suggest that we ask him to present possibilities with the house moving slightly but staying in the same orientation towards Hopkins. Georgeann: Let us vote that motion down. All in favor. Bill: I have some discussion on that motion, to me Stan by rotating the building you get the benefit of the best two sides of that cross gable victorian on the corner as it sits in its orientation. He has taken the flat side which is the most simple side and turned it to the interior of the site and Adam Walton is turned and some of the other ones are turned also. There is precedence for orientation or changing of orientation on lots. Since the importance is to save a miners cabin which hopefully Stan will restore and it will keep its integrity as a miners cabin that will be able to use he has taken the cross gables and 7 used them on the site correctly. That is my comment on the orientation of the motion. Zoe: I agree. Georgeann: Lets vote on this motion. Zoe, no, Bill, no, Georg- eann, no, Charlie, no, Nick, yes, Marge, yes. Motion does not carry. Does someone want to make another motion? NO~ION: Bill made the motion to accept this applicants proposal with the conditions that it be restored as an original miners cabin and that the identity be kept as such and the massing be reduced on the second addition, that the architecture be devel- oped to keep its identity. Zoe: Second the motion. Charlie: Just to try and mediate between Nick's position and what the second motion is if we leave that cottage over there and he does surround it and it is against the building that Andre's built it will be lost and shadowed and it will not be prominent. If it is moved at least it will come to the corner and it is the main focus and considering that there is a new building with a large mass behind it and one beside it I think it will be acceptable right on the corner. Georgeann: On another note the entrance right now is hidden behind trees. The message should go to Stan that we want to see another concept. Steve: A clarification on Bill's motion: to accept the applic- ants proposal does that mean you are recommending designation and conceptual subdivision approval? The designation part has to go to P&Z and Council. Does the Committee want to see this project develop further before we take it to those two bodies? Georgeann: I would say yes. Stan: P&Z and City Council don't approve what this looks like, they are simply approving HPC's recommendation for the designa- tion, so I don't feel why it can't go forward and we still come back here and work this out. We need to proceed forward. It still has to go through first and second reading at City Council and if we get to first and second reading and we can't come to an agreement then we're dead in the water. Georgeann: You also don't want to be stuck with designation when we haven't found anything that we approve. Stan: We can drop out of the program before we sign up for the second reading. Steve: That is part of the problem Stan you are requesting designation only on the condition that you are getting this addition so it seems to be that it has to be raised in front of P&Z and Council so they have some basic understanding. Stan: I don't have any problem with that but I don't want to get into P&Z and Council and then start making decisions about what is right. Steve: It is important that this the project. Stan: I will come at the same time we Committee be comfortable with back at the next meeting July 28th and still can be on the agenda for the 3rd on P&Z. Georgeann: I don't think we want to approve this for designa- tion until we have a more comfortable feeling on the presenta- tion. Stan: We'll throttle the seller until he gives us a little extension. Georgeann: vote on. We still have this motion on the floor that we must Nick: Clarification on the motion: the motion says he can pick up the building and move it 90%. Charlie: Nick, the motion is that it be designated, it stays historic, it can be moved to the corner, we're going to review the mass but in concept we will approve it. It is to stay a miners cottage. Georgeann: I don't think that the fact that it is designated is in that motion. Charlie: That is what he is applying for. Stan: I can't have one without the other. Steve: I wrote down two conditions: Bill's motion was to accept the application under the condition that the original structure be restored and that the architecture be developed to keep the identity of the two structures separate. Bill: Correct. To clarify in keeping in its concept if he comes up with a compatible solution we would give him designation. We don't give him designation first. Georgeann: This motion will only approve that he can continue with his concept. 9 Stan: Agreeable. The concept has to include if we are able to work out our concept then we get recommendation for designation. Georgeann: Right. Steve: I am still troubled by that. There are the Committee is considering one is designation conceptual approval of the development project. I think a clean motion it should be recommendation of conceptual given certain conditions of approval. Charlie: If we don't approve this and don't give him two actions that and the other is to make approval designa- tion he will have to go through a different process. If it doesn't have a designation tag to it then we should tell him to take it to P&Z, so it has to include designation and he is applying for it that way, it comes with the application. Steve: Are you giving conceptual approval so that he come back on the 28th with different plans? Georgeann: Yes, he wants our approval and knows he has to come back with something different to get it. Stan: We won't apply to the P&Z agenda until HPC is comfortable with the proposal. Zoe: We have another choice, we could let the whole thing go and not try to help the people that apply and the next person that comes along just tear it down. Nick: I would like to comment in that frame of thinking. There is a house that we gave historical designation to, they started to work on it and after about three weeks all that was standing was the skeleton. I got telephone calls and other members of the board got telephone calls stating that it wasn't a restoration. This is exactly the same situation if we say to him that he can pick that building up and move it bodily, it stays there as a white house on a corner but facing the other direction that is fine but if he goes and builds up a whole new foundation and puts up a whole new structure we're in a mess again. We just don't want that to happen. When you start giving free reign once we say that place is designated that building is designated not what he does with it after it is designated. Georgeann: It is not a reproduction it is a restoration. Stan: As part of your motion why don't you include that I will commend with the restoration program of some sort. Georgeann: We can make that an amendment. Steve: That is included in the motion, one of the conditions. Georgeann: I think we should vote on the motion. Ail members favored. Motion carries. MESA STORE HOUSE-NASSER SADEGEI Bill Drueding: It was brought up at the last meeting that the building did not look like the proposed plans. The building doesn't look exactly like the plans but needs to be completed before the scale will get to where it is. There is a little difference and Nasser should explain that. You don't see as much shake roof as you should. Nasser: Portions of the shingles are hidden due to a trough and gutter which are a code requirement to have no water dripping over the streets and sidewalks. The plan has been done according to the approved plan. It is the visual aspect of the plan that one of the members has brought up. My recommendation is that the fascia does look too wide but it is three feet which was proposed on the drawing. I would suggest we wait through this week or the middle of next week when we get the moldings in. You now see the plywood and it really looks like a lot of lumber. The moldings will soften it quite a bit. At that point I suggest I call Bill to look at the building and see if it still has the massiveness. When you are standing it is up 12 feet high. The pitch is the same. Possibly removing four inches of the cap will expose more shingles. I want to please the Committee and have the building pleasing to the eye. Charlie: Right now it flattens the roof too much. like a contemporary building. It looks Georgeann: Nasser is sincerely trying to comply with what the Committee wants and possibly Bill Poss should work with Nasser and see if they can get something more satisfactory. Zoe: The fascia needs to be cut down, too much of the roof is being lost. Committee all agreed that Bill Poss should work with Nasser to come up with a revised plan. Nasser: I have had somebody duplicate the original doors. CLUB PARADISE AWNINGS Bill Poss stepped down. Gary Reed: We're proposing three retractable awnings at garden level on a very plain store front. One would be over the main entry way and two windows bordering the entry. There is no signage on the awnings. The awnings will be for esthetics and dress up what frontage they have. They are retractable, two are 7'10" in width the third over the door is 8' in width. Marge: Explain the location of the awnings. Gary: The top of the awnings are going to be three inches below the street level. Zoe: What is the metal bar running across the awning? Gary: That is the header bar which comes in aluminum or bronze anodized color at present. We are developing new colors. Zoe: They are very simplistic and the concept is great, I just wish the header bar could be another color, possibly the same as the awning. Georgeann: What color are the window frames? Gary: They are white. Gary: We are coming out with anodized colored paint and possibly the header bar could be painted to coordinate with the materials. Nick: The color chosen (burgundy tweed) compliments the new color of the building. NOTIOH: with the bar. Georgeann: condition that Made the motion to approve the awnings they put an anodized color on the header Marge: Second the motion. Ail approved. GORDONS RESTAURANT-PRE-APPLICATION Steve: Cancelled at the request of the applicant. STOREHOUSE BUILDING 121 S. GALENA-NINOR ANENDNENT Mac Cunningham and Bruce Sutherland gave the presentation on storefront window enlargement. Bruce: Mac Cunningham is the developer of the project. Mac: A minor change was done on the windows to reflect what exists as you walk up Galena Street. The windows are very similar in design to all the other windows that you see up through the blocks. The reason we did it was that the original windows were designed for the Storehouse Restaurant, the owner of the property had financial problems and was unable to go forward with it so we acquired it. The brick is the same that was used on the Jerome building. Bruce: We would like to use the actual stone copings for window sills in lieu of brick that was proposed before. The purpose for changing the windows is that the Storehouse had a window that was scaled for a restaurant inside, they were rather narrow windows. A narrow window in a retail store doesn't work. We would like to get approval of the brick in the roof etc. and come back later for the window trim itself. Mac: The ordering of materials is critical. balance off between City Hall and the Brand sandstone will be a significant upgrade to that. We are trying to Building. The Zoe: What are the windows? Bruce: Windows are wood with a metal anodized covering. Georgeann: Lets treat this in two motions, one the materials and one the windows. Lets talk about the materials first. How wide is the header. Bruce: Approximately 8 inches. Marge: I have to refresh my memory, this wasn't supposed to be a victorian design, they were trying to lean in that direction. Bruce: Mac wasn't involved at that time. What we wanted to do was be compatible and the building have its own identity. Steve: The sandstone was part of the GMP application. There had been a kickplate with the windows and mullions. My general comment is I find the narrow window more pleasing and relate better to the second floor yet I find it somewhat difficult to make a definitive call to say which is more compatible. The sandstone is very pleasing. Charlie: Are the tops of the planters and the column made of sandstone also? Mac: The tops of the planters are sandstone. Zoe: The materials are well selected, the compatibility in reference to location and surroundings are compatible also. Bill: Historically in this location the narrow windows are more compatible. Bruce: May I address the verticality. The restaurant had a mullion right up the middle and that gave it the vertical look. In a store you don't see a mullion up the middle. Had we not had the mullion we wouldn't have this situation. On the second floor we have the vertical look but on the first we don't. We feel that is OK because what you are doing is seeing it in two different masses, you are seeing the windows in the store fronts as it relates to the rectangular brick mass. The second floor relates to a different kind of architecture. I think a vertical mullion in the storefront window is an unfair hazard to place upon a store owner when none of the rest in town do that. Georgeann: What about the possibility of the kickplates below the windows as you had before that gives you more of a vertical feeling. Now by eliminating the kickplates as well as making the windows wider and taking out the mullion you have reduced all the verticality. Charlie: I think one of the things the Committee isn't aware of is that on the roof line there is a horizontal mullion which helps the model come together. Georgeann: I have no complaints about the second floor. What do you all feel about a kickplate? Bill: I don't care if there is a mullion or not it's the theme of the verticality that is needed. Whether it needs a kickplate, which I personally think it does is up to the architect. Steve: What is the comparison of the width of these windows compared to the previous. Bruce: The other windows were 5 5ft.0 windows 4.6ft.8 window. Georgeann: So 6'8" as opposed to 5' wide. Mac: I went up and down Galena Street and measured every window. What we have done was reflect the standard width between and to have some kind of wall space on the inside. Georgeann: I think the windows will look more vertical when you consider the sandstone cap above it. How do we feel about the width of the window, can we live with the 6'8 wide windows. Bill: I don't think it is a matter of how wide it is, its the rhythm, it has to relate to the building it is. Zoe: Those windows do not look like they belong to that building. The second floor windows are acceptable. Georgeann: They look to square for the wall space. Mac: If a kickplate is placed underneath you will get the vertical look. Steve: What is the height dimension between the sidewalk level and the sill. Mac: Only 2 and 1/2 feet. One of the problems is that you are looking down on a model. Bill: I sympathize with the applicants, the height that the zoning code has when you try to do these historic buildings is almost impossible with the floor height that we have to have to fit within the present height code. You can't get vertical windows without getting them real small. Georgeann: I would be very comfortable to approve the metal, the brick, the sandstone but would be hesitant to approve a 6'8" wide window without looking at the elevations. Bruce: We do have a drawing with the kickplates etc. with us. Bill: By the time you get the kickplate and the awnings you will get the vertical look. Georgeann: Do we want to do two motions, one to approve the materials or one motion to approve the materials and the width of the window with further study to be done to the area below the windows. Committee chose one motion. MO~ION~ Georgeann made the motion to approve the window shapes, openings and mullions as presented with further study to be done on the area below the windows. This would be final approval but will be back July 28, 1987 for public hearing. Marge second the motion. Ail favored. Motion carries. 400 W. SMUGGLER-GREENHOUSE-REGINA LEE OWNER Regina Lee: Made the presentation to enclose the porch that is behind the kitchen in the middle of the house and add a door which is needed there that wern't on the original approved plan. Georgeann: What faces the porch? Regina: The back yard faces the porch. The enclosure would be glass and is not visible from the street. Georgeann: According to our new guidelines if it is hidden from view that it is not much concern to us. Bill: These drawings are hard to relate to. Regina: Because this is glass I didn't realize I needed details. An architect will design the greenhouse. -- 15 Bill: Do you want conceptual approval and then come back with the design? Georgeann: We need some kind of design to sign off of in order to say that you have followed the concept that we gave you approval for. There are many designs of greenhouses. Regina: Are you opposed to a metal greenhouse or do you want wood? Charlie: We aren't dealing with the cosmetics with this because it is an historic structure and other than to a neighbor. Because it is part of need plans. we're dealing is not visible the process we Georgeann: When your architect copies to Steve and we will approve get a building permit. draws up the plans send two the plans in order for you to MO~ION: Bill made the motion to approve the conceptual plan for a greenhouse on the west side adjacent the eating area to include a door as shown on the preliminary plan from the eating area to the proposed greenhouse. Charlie second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. Georgeann: Ail we are asking for are details. If there are problems with the details come talk with me and we will iron it out. I can see no reason why you shouldn't build a green house. Regina: The scroll work on the two porches on the outside of the house is chipped and I want to replace all of them. This is what you see from the street. Also a balustrade would be placed around the two porches. Also some additions in the gables. Georgeann: You want to change all the fret work on the two porches. Steve: In reference to the changes in the trim details I feel it is premature for the Committee to make an approval at this time without a chance to review it. It is very difficult for me to look at this without actually seeing the structure itself, to look at the existing fret work etc. There is not enough inform- ation presented. Georgeann: It would have been nice to have a snap shot of the exterior as it exists in those areas, a xerox of the page that shows the exact balustrades from the catalog book. Regina: I have the catalog book. Georgeann: We're not trying to oppose your suggestions we have a communication problem on the amount of information we need. Zoe: What designation does this house have? Regina: The woman voluntarily designated the house and it has been completely changed. Steve: There is an application process whereby you can submit and clarify your proposal. Bill: I feel conceptually you are OK. Georgeann: If you would have taken this to Steve first he would have asked most of these questions before hand. Zoe: The Committee would like something specific from your architect showing exactly what you are going to do and what piece you are replacing and not be so vague, be specific. A complete elevation of the house so the Committee can relate. Georgeann: If you have to be out of town send your architect. Charlie: Can you also bring us photos of what is there also. This would be a renovation and the Committee would like to know if we are keeping the continuity of what is already there. Steve: We can schedule you for the next meeting July 28, 1987. SPECIAL PROJECTS Steve: Any comments on the fact sheet such as the style in which it is written, the method of distribution should be directed to me. This is an attempt to correct some of the mis- information about the HPC is and what it does. Georgeann: I have a few corrections: appeal of an evaluation rating made". when. You don't answer how. On page three" How is an You ask how and answer On page four there is some confusion (provided the use is allowed in the zone district) this needs to be explained more clearly e.g., how are they going to find out if it is allowed in the zone district or something. Also on page four (No historic designation is strictly voluntary at this time. The City is not now nor has in the past mandator- ily designated properties as landmarks. Take out (nor has in the past). On page six (A number of options are considered in the Plan Element, and an implementation plan sets the direction for future efforts... I wish you could make that a little clearer, possibly two sentences or explain what the implementation is. The concept of what you have Steve I liked. It seemed to cover most of the question to me. We get so involved here that sometimes we don't see it. Steve: Maybe I should wait to hear from other Committee members before making it available on mass level. Regina: Will this fact sheet be advertised in the paper. Bill: Lets put an ad in the paper stating that we have the fact sheet. Committee directed Kathy to place a box ad in the Aspen Times. Meeting adjourned__~__5:00 p.m. Kathleen J. St~ickland Deputy City Clerk