HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19870728HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
Minutes
Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, City Hall
July 28, 1987 2:30 p.m.
Meeting was called or order by chairman Georgeann Waggaman with
Nick Pasquarella, Patricia O'Bryan, Zoe Compton, Bill Poss and
Charles Knight present. Charles Cunniffe and Marge Riley were
excused.
MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the minutes of
July 14, 1987 as corrected. Nick second the motion. Motion
carries.
COMMITTEE COUNTS
Charlie: It seems that the Committee got splintered on the
issue of the miner's cottage presented by Stan Mathis. There
were some negative comments and positive comments. Apparently
they felt frustrated to the point where they are going to do
something else and we have lost our opportunity to save a
cottage which would be surrounded by a victorian style structure.
One concern of the Committee was whether the cottage should be
attached or detached, and the massing was a point also. Maybe we
should have gone into a caucus at the end of the meeting and
given them something more definitive. When I review this so much
is hanging. We need to figure out how to be more effective.
Georgeann: That is an excellent point and was on my mind also.
I also had heard Stan wasn't coming back and now they can put up
whatever they want and it is because of our attitude.
Zoe: I couldn't agree more.
Steve: I talked with Stan and got the impression that it was
more of an internal decision between the investor and the
architect as to what they were willing to do to makes this an
acceptable project. My attempt to staff was to make a clear
motion as to what Stan had to do to come back before HPC. It was
a conceptual approval with conditions that he still had to meet.
I feel the Committee really did try and work with the applicant.
I feel they had other economic considerations.
Zoe: I was also approached about this and this has been
bothering me. I feel we as a Committee as a whole were fragmen-
ted in our encouragement to him. We did not encourage him to do
this and therefore he felt he would end up with problems so they
went off in a different direction. It was our fault as a Comm-
ittee that we steered him in another direction. We had a great
opportunity to preserve a cottage and now it is going to be a
contemporary building and the cottage is gone.
Bill: I just came from a meeting and the architect asked me how
the Committee would react to a similar problem with miners houses
on Main St. The architect wants to connect the houses with a
building on the back. I tried to relate on how to keep the
identity and the massing of the miners houses. This Board has to
come up with a decision on how to deal with this and also I feel
someone should contact Stan and find out what the exact facts of
the matter were and try to clarify those and leave it open to
Stan if they want to come back.
Nick: I was contacted and the person didn't give me any
alternative. He said you just lost a new building, we wanted to
do it the way you wanted to do it but you wanted to do it very
severely so we are just going to tear the building down and just
forget it and you have lost your building. If you want me to
communicate with a person like that you better start talking to
that person because that is not the way to approach a person if
you are going to work out a program that would make savings in
town one thing and give-a-ways another thing.
Georgeann: I feel the caucus is a good idea. If people come to
us and want to take advantage of historic designation I don't
think it behooves us to call them manipulators. We have the loop
holes so people can come and do things. We are going to have to
confront the problem of massing. We can't ask people if they buy
a victorian to sacrifice three quarters or one quarter of their
retail space for the good of the community. A person without
going to any regulatory bodies can build 4,000 sq. ft. and he
comes before a regulatory body and they give him a lot of
trouble. I'll be happy to talk with Stan. HPC is vacillating
and saying one thing with the left hand and one thing with the
right.
Nick: I'm not vacillating, I'm very clear. That fellow knew
when he bought that piece of property what he was buying and
where it was located. The advantages are there and spelled out:
He can get into GMP and meet the requirements of the City and
build what he wants. The legislation is there and written out.
If you want to vacillate and give him the opportunity to do
something else then you aren't in agreement of what I feel is the
way the law was written.
Georgeann: If he can go before GMP and get whatever he wants
what is the purpose of having HPC in the first place and why
bother save an old building.
Nick: That is a good point but we did set a plan whereby we
were going to save buildings and we were going to save them the
way they were at that time. You can do it in accordance with the
laws that are written or circumvent the law. By circumventing
the law we say move the building and when we're done we still
have something that looked like the building when it was there,
facing in a different direction, people of the area won't
recognize it as it is and then it will be totally overshadowed
with a monstrosity built all around the building. Two years from
now there will be another group of people on this board that will
say that building looks terrible with a monstrosity built around
it. This is the kind of situation you want to be concerned
about. We should moderate our thinking and not just say you can
do anything you want with buildings.
Charlie: How can he pay a quarter of a million dollars and save
that building and not expand? If you take that stance and we
can't compromise where the developer can come and expand the
potentials of the building it is not a realistic approach for us.
Nick: Historical preservation should not be totally interested
in expanding the possibilities of a piece of property. Histor-
ical preservation's job is to restore the building and hold the
building as it is.
Charlie: I think these people come to us in the spirit of
compromise.
Georgeann: We should discuss this in a separate caucus instead
of keeping people waiting.
Bill Drueding: Stan has a right to tear down the building and
build a duplex to a certain size and avoiding everything. Then
he has a right to get it historically designated and not have to
go through GMP and avoid the GMP restrictions and he can also go
to a different size. There are certain benefits to getting
designated and keeping the building if it can work with his
figures. By getting designated he could increase the size and
make it viable for him.
Georgeann: We are going to see commercial development when we
go for these designations. I don't think these people are all
coming here to leave buildings exactly as they are.
Brill Drueding: When you go through GMP you do get scrutinized
by other committees and people like to avoid that.
Zoe: This has been brought up at a good time because this is
getting ready to be brought up again and if we want to preserve
buildings we have to be sensitive to the developer and compro-
mise. It is our job to work together so everybody gets what they
need.
Committee scheduled worksession for Aug. 4, 1987 5:00 p.m.
FINAL REVIEW/PUBLIC HEARING RUBEY PARK TI{AN$IT CENTER
420 E. DUI~ANT ST.
Augie Reno: The site plan is similar to the original, we are
creating an island with buses along Durant Street. Ail the
permanent trees and vegetation that currently exists on the
property will be moved off the site temporarily and then brought
back in. The vegetation will be in a different configuration.
There are a series of low planters about 4' high that wind down
to create some traffic flow from Galena Street mall. We also
will have integrated benches and low lighting. The building sits
in the center of the property which is close to where the
existing facility sits. It will sit back further than the
existing building.
Bruce Abel: In essence it is the same plan that was presented
at the conceptual stage with a couple of stipulations from City
Council. The marquis is not going to be there due to budget
reasons. The buses that are in service will have dedicated bays.
We are trying to maintain a visual screen of the landscaping.
Augie: City Council asked us to increase the restrooms facil-
ities. In doing so the center of the building has become a
little wider. The building will have a metal roof with a brick
masonry structure that has a long over hang so people can stand
underneath. We have incorporated a clock cupola on top of the
building which is basically a clock on four sides. The building
is a transportation facility that needed some kind of clock.
Georgeann: What is the material of the face of the clock?
Augie: It would be a wood structure that will be painted.
Patricia: What color is the metal roofing?
Augie: Right now we have indicated that it will be in the grey
tones.
Patricia: Why did you choose a metal roof?
Augie: The building material will last much longer for the
dollars that were put into the structure. The building also has
a little historic value and metal roofs were used on public
buildings back in the 1890's. It comes out as a much more
cleaner more finished product for the building.
On the north elevation the lower one has three bays, the center
bay is a doorway into the drivers lounge which will be only
accessed by employees. On each side of the center bay there are
ski locker bays so that the skiers can have a place to drop their
skies off.
Charlie: Are they rental lockers?
Augie: They are metal rental ski lockers also in the grey color
scheme.
Steve: At the first meeting June 9, 1987 there was some concern
about the snow melting off the roof. One comment was whether the
structure could be set back a little. The clock tower was
acceptable for the Committee at conceptual review. This is a
public hearing and is the final stage of this project. This
structure has been designed to be a reminiscent of a depot. I
feel the clock tower is more appropriate on the structure rather
than as a separate structure.
Georgeann: What is the material on the windows?
Augie: The windows will be a clad window. On Durant there will
be a double series of lantern lights with low lighting. On the
planters and throughout the site there will be indirect isle type
lighting.
Georgeann: Do you feel you have directed the issues of the last
meeting e.g., planters and the snow melt.
Augie: In the first plan we didn't have any planting at the
outdoor benches. We now have put vegetation in those four
corners. We also have included snow jacks on the roof.
Bill: What materials will be used and will it duplicate the
mall.
Augie: The brick pavers will be a dark terracotta color so we
can pick up on the same material. The concrete will be a light
color that will compliment that. It will be different from the
mall.
Nick: What were City Council's comments in the loss of parking
places.
Augie: They really didn't comment on that. Their primary
concern relative to what is presently the parking area is how
many buses would we stage in it during the middle of the day when
the drivers are relieved for their lunch breaks. It was at their
request that we make the parking area smaller. In doing so we
lost 6-8 spaces over our original proposal.
Patricia: I'm glad the clock tower was eliminated but I still
feel it is a little large but I like the design and the land-
scaping.
Georgeann: I'd like to open the public hearing.
Georgeann: I'll close the public hearing and do we have a
motion to approve this.
MO?ION: Bill: I move that we approve the plans presented
today on the center. Nick second the motion. Ail favored.
Motion carries.
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW/PUBLIC HEARING STOREHOUSE BUILDING
121 S. GALENA STREET
Perry Harvey: Originally this plan was for Little Cliff's
Bakery and Nature Storehouse Restaurant and when we designed the
building we had a basement use below the Nature Storehouse for
their bulk display and also the basement would be Little Cliff's
bakery. Because of the uses in the basement we used up all of
our FAR. We were creating three different store fronts. What we
have done now is eliminate the 800 sq. ft. in the basement and
we're moving 520 feet up to the second floor. We have enriched
the facade of the building by using more stone.
Bruce Sutherland: We have done a window detail to create the
verticality. We are also requesting an option to do another door
or window on the Hopkins side based on what happens to tenants,
whether we end up with two thousand sq. ft. tenants or one two
thousand sq. ft. tenant.
Perry: The first floor expansion is about 125 ft. and takes
place on the North, on the alley side and is a reconfiguration of
the stairways, trash, utility area and results in the net gain of
floor area. The second floor is adding an element on top of the
northern part of the building.
Bruce: The visual line of the old plans was basically lifted
and three windows were put in. The elevation remains the same on
the top. There will still be the same set back of the second
floor from the first floor.
Steve: One of the aspects appreciated was
elements fit onto the site very well and I don't
floor addition would change that.
that the mass
feel the second
Bill: The Building Department really hasn't had a chance to
look at this other than the HPC design here. The Bldg. Dept.
doesn't necessarily agree with the deletion of the FAR, we aren't
sure that is correct.
Perry: Our FAR calculations?
Bill: Your deletion that this was accounted before ....
Perry: Your not saying we're over the FAR.
Bill: We're not saying that you are able to delete this FAR.
We're not saying it was counted the first time.
Georgeann: That comment is recognized here, we will approve
6
this design on the presumption that it goes through and if there
are problems with the FAR later you'll have to come back with
other changes. This is only conceptual approval.
Zoe: I like the whole concept of the building and the architect
did an excellent job. It reminds me of the Brand Bldg. of 1987
in terms of the way it is scaled out. The store front idea is
appropriate and the proportions are wonderful and the window
sills are well done. It almost has the Mesa Store flavor, a
western flavor yet it is contemporary. I still prefer the
smaller window but realize that is difficult with retailers.
Patricia: I have no objections and like the proposal.
Georgeann: I like the detailing in the kickplate region and
have no problems with the second floor.
Georgeann: Opened public hearing.
Georgeann: Closed public hearing.
MOTION: Nick made the motion to approve conceptual review with
the option to use doors or windows depending on the tenants.
Zoe second the motion. All favored. Motion carries.
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW/PUBLIC HEARING GORDON'S RESTAUI~ANT EXPANSION
205 S. MILL STREET
Jake Vickery: I'm Jack Vickery from Harry Teague architects and
we are proposing to add a second floor to the Mill Street plaza
building which is where Gordon's deck is currently located. We
want to enclose it permanently for year round use. It is
approximately 1,000 sq. ft. expansion. To differentiate the
addition and minimize the overall height we went to a round roof.
The material for the roof will be metal and the window treatment
would be similar to the existing. We want to curve the windows
and set them back a little. The other element that is in the
building is the stairway in the courtyard that is visible
partially from the street. The proposed stairway is considered
an artistic sculpture and is there to draw people into the
courtyard to increase the exposure to the existing businesses.
Presently the old stairway is hard to find.
Steve: I had the impression from the conceptual drawings that
there was going to be a lot of transparency an element that would
actually reduce the mass and another concern is the setback.
Zoe: Possibly the use of glass bricks would be appropriate.
Jake: The setback is approximately 6 inches but it is already
set back some.
7
Steve: In the sense of reducing mass or bulk it would be good
to set it back. I generally think it is an unobtrusive and
acceptable design. One concern I have is how it relates to the
building next door. I feel it is very good that there is no mass
on the western portion of the structure because that would shadow
the adjacent structure.
Bill Drueding: I may have some problems with the stairs in
reference to the open space.
Charlie: My only comment is more of a safety factor. Being
that the kitchen is in the back and the other access is through
the hallway before you go to the back stairs it would be a good
exit to have the existing stairs remain.
Jake: That is under consideration.
Bill: I like the design and it is creative. I do agree with
Steve to make it compatible with the rest of the building and not
look like it has just been added on top of the building. The
transparency is one way of doing it.
Zoe: I also feel that a transparency effect would keep it from
being bulky.
Georgeann: The emphasis on the original building was to keep
the bulk small. Because of that I am concerned about the bulk
and possibly the setback should be a couple of feet on both
sides. I would also like to emphasize the transparency element.
The building over shadows the building next door and the bulk
needs to be kept smaller.
Nick: I also agree that it needs to be set back to avoid the
bulk feeling.
zoe: We all have said the same thing that it is too bulky and
the transparency and having it set back will cause it to be less
bulky.
NOTION: Bill: I move that we approve the conceptual approval
with the conditions that the integrity of the original massing of
the building be addressed by way of either transparency of use of
materials for set back. Nick second the motion. All favored.
Motion carries.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: REGINA LEE REMODEL
Ted Guy: Regina came in at the last meeting without presenting
the entire blueprints. We have gone back and revised the
drawings to reflect the changes so that everything is current
with what she is proposing balustrades, spandrels, gable trim,
brackets. She wants to put gable trim in 4 locations. She also
wants to redo the porch to replace and redo older trim that
currently exists. The trim is cumberland trim which was also
used on the Chiffon house on Lake St.
Steve: The nature of the direction that Regina was given at the
last meeting was whether there is any historic precedence for the
type of trim that is being considered and whether by adding the
degree of ornamentation it would effect the original integrity of
the structure. For this reason it is very important for the
Committee to take a look at the original building. Photographs
are available by Christie Kienast and one of the photographs is
from the 1890's and it shows that the original structure did not
have the addition to the west or to the north. Both of those
were done at a later time. Another photo presented was taken
perhaps in the 40's and it is probably from a vintage of 1910
that another addition was added with the basic trim. The windows
had been the vertical double hung windows and that alteration has
been the major one that has taken place. I think that the
Committee would probably agree that the additions had really been
done in a sensitive way to the original structure without really
changing the basic character of the house. I looked at the
detail in the molding that is in place today and noted that it is
in very good shape. I don't think that the reason to change it
is because it is deteriorated and I am concerned about the kind
of trim going into the small gable ends and various other places.
With the gable trim we are getting into a situation where it is a
new feature which is an outstanding feature that I think would
detract from the original plainness of the structure as the
style.
Zoe: There wasn't a widows walk on the original photo.
Steve: A railing and widows walk had been added. As far as the
railing its visibility is low so it is no problem. By addition
all the details it begins to compete with the basic plainness of
the structure and I would also be concerned about that. It
should be pointed out that this is the addition and if you want
to do some "neo-victorian" on the house I guess it is a little
bit less concern. I still think it starts to compete and I would
request that the applicant not do that as well. In the interest
of preservation of the style that the original structure is I
cannot recommend approval.
Ted: I had never seen this original photograph until today and
the point that I would like to make is that the photograph shows
that this house has changed drastically through the years. This
element, the projection on the south elevation is not there in
that original photograph. The windows that we have here are now
casements rather than double hung sash, they have added an awful
lot of trim. We have been renovating the inside and we took off
all the paneling and found that the brick chimney is supported on
a piece of 1/2 inch plywood in the ceiling. Its sole purpose is
to shield a draft that comes out through the top, it is not an
historic chimney. The chimney on the other side is the same way.
There also is a 1950 or 1960 two car garage also. The breezeway
enclosure was added also. The last changes done on this house
were in the 70's. The point that I would like to make is that
victorian buildings haven't been "static", they have always
changed and that is part of their charm. They weren't built in
1890 and left static and unchanged since that time. I think the
trim, the style is not as overpowering as it appears. Also with
the color of the gables we can accentuate them or make them blend
into the background.
Charlie: After our last meeting I went buy and looked at the
ornamentation of the porches and later on went over to discuss it
with Regina. One of her comments was that they were deteriorat-
ing, and the ornamentation was added at some point and all the
bracketing has been there for some time and when you look at it
it is almost like the corner of a persian rug, it is really a bad
rendition of victorian. Perhaps she wants to add a little more
gracefulness to the corners then what is there.
Bill: What is the historic designation of this house, is it
because of architecture character or what.
Steve: It is primarily architecture and Christie was around
here at the time it was designated and may recall some of the
reasons. The structure has no number.
Christie Kienst: It was because of the architecture.
Bill: Based on that I find from the original photographs that
Christie brought in that the house has been changed so much from
its historic character architecturally speaking that it becomes
more of a question of whether you are going to allow people to
add victorian gingerbread to a house. I think it is more of a
question whether you will allow this to happen and this is
something we have to address. I would add since there is so much
changed that maybe they should file to get off designation.
Nick: I'm sure the new owner when she purchased that property
was aware of the conditions and the preservations attempt that
were being made by the community and we have to respect those
conditions. If the gables etc. are in deteriorating form then
they should be replaced. I would be agreeable but if they are
applicable and strong and look proper I would go along with
having them stay as they are.
Zoe: A lot of our conversation reverts back to the original
structure. This house is a working class victorian house, the
widows walk was not there and the windows have changed. There
was no porch. The basic shape is there but it has been added on
to and there was no fret work on an original working class house
10
and if so very little possibly on a porch. This house didn't
have a porch. I don't think at this point whether you put new
fret work or replace it because it is nothing like the original
house. I think at this point they should be able to do what they
want to do because they are never going to be able to get it back
to the original. The gingerbread that is on the house is a very
poor example of a reproduction fret. I don't have any problems
with letting them change the fret work, it doesn't make any
difference.
Patricia: I tend to agree, the house has been changed so much.
Georgeann: Although this is not a public hearing one of the
citizens in the audience has asked to speak.
Christie Kienast: Those additions were put on the house at
about 1910 those are not recent additions. The one between the
back porch and the garage is new but the original additions were
on the house when my parents purchased it. There were no windows
there basically, the house was like a barn. I don't object to
Regina changing the trim if she wants to but I think what she has
designed, there is not a house in Aspen that has trim this
glorious and it seems inappropriate on a victorian of this style.
It is too over done.
Zoe: You mean the porch. I think it is real important that
Christie is here. I know the porch was added and obviously the
house is not the same as the original.
Christie: The earlier picture is from 1890's when it was built.
Georgeann: I feel this building has been significantly changed.
I am not at all unhappy that she wants to put fret work on the
house but feel it is a little over scale. I do not feel if the
fret work is put in that it will effect the neighborhood one way
or another and people have property rights. I do feel the house
has been tremendously changed as a lot of house in Aspen and that
is an ongoing process.
Steve: To me when I look at this house the way it looked in
1890 then 1940 and the way it looks today I can't understand how
you can say it is radically changed. The matter is if the
windows were restored it would be essentially the same block of
the structure and the additions have been done in a way that they
are set back so that they don't really compete with the structure
in my opinion. I think they are compatibly done additions.
Zoe: I think it has become radical because so many have been
added to the little house.
Steve: I think the house has significance as the style in which
it is, a working class type victorian. I find in particular the
11
gable on the Smuggler Street side, if you fill that in with a
detailing that will change the feel of the house. The fact that
their is a neighbor interested in the historic authenticity and
vouch for the way in which the changes were made to the structure
is significant. Furthermore I think if trim of this type is
allowed with no historic authenticity to it anything will be OK
if it has historic basis or not.
Georgeann: Then we're saying at this point you
the first 100 years but you can't change anymore
change is incumbent of these buildings.
can change for
now. In a way
Steve: Compatible change is what historic preservation review
is all about and if you find that this is compatible then it
should be approved. If you find on the other hand that it
detracts then it should not be approved. Alternations always
Occur.
Georgeann: Another point is that these aren't "deathless"
alternations.
Nick: The term "radical change" is a very subjective statement.
If we took the house and moved it 90%, that is radical. If the
windows are changed is that radical? I don't see radical changes
in the house.
Charlie: Now that the fence is up the lower spindle on the
fence will be hidden. I feel when you dress the gable on the
front you are adding treatment that was not there. You already
have the widows walk. With this addition of the gables it
becomes over done, it wasn't there and it isn't in keeping with
the house. I feel the applicant should be able to make changes
in terms of replacements but we have the right to deny over-
dressing the building.
Zoe: After listening to what everybody says I still feel that
the applicant should be able to express themselves because it is
their own property. But after thinking about this I think
"overdressed" is a good description and if she wants fret work on
the porch and wants to change it that it ought to be kept in
keeping with what is there.
Christie: There was no fret work on the house.
Ted: The fret work was added in the 70's.
Christie: It was not added in the 70's but much earlier. The
part that was done in the 70's was the addition connected to the
main house.
Zoe: The porch work is fine but the fret work makes the house
look like a high victorian rather than a working class house. If
- 12
we want to conform to what it originally was the fret work is not
in keeping.
Ted: The gable trim is certainly in keeping with the false
widows walk that was there at the time of designation. The
historic house dressing up was already done.
Zoe: We just have to decide if we want to keep adding ginger-
bread work or stop it.
Georgeann: I would like to approve this but asking that the
scale on all the fret work be smaller.
Ted: That is difficult to do as we would have to have it custom
designed which increases the cost.
Zoe: Regina wants the fret work. She wants it to look like a
high victorian.
Ted: Why don't we break it into two parts, porch treatment and
the gable treatment and take a separate vote on each.
Steve: I didn't quite hear whether you felt that the spandrel
is overdressing or not.
Zoe: I feel that the applicant should have some rights and our
job is to try and maintain a certain preserve of what these
victorian houses once represented, we do have to make a compro-
mise and if I were sitting over there I think a reasonable
compromise would be to allow the porch work. I feel adding the
fret work on the gable is another drastic change and that is what
we have to decide.
Georgeann: I don't think it will make the slightest bit of
difference whether she puts the fret work on or not.
Nick made the motion to disapprove the whole thing.
Georgeann: Motion dies for lack of a second.
Charlie: Might we vote piece by piece on this.
MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the fret work and
the porch rail and spandrel as shown by the applicant and exclude
the gable ends. Patricia second the motion. All favored except
Nick who abstained from voting. Motion carries.
Zoe: The day the widows walk was installed was the day that
it's OK to put the fret work on the gables.
MOTION: Georgeann made the motion that approve the fret work in
the gable ends. Motion dies for lack of a second.
13
Steve: A formal motion should be made in order for them to
appeal it if they desire.
MOTION: Zoe made the motion to not approve the gables.
Patricia second the motion. All approved except Georgeann who
opposed the motion. Motion carries.
Bill: I think we should discuss at the worksession on Tuesday
how we are going to address houses with high victorian, when they
can have the trim or when they cannot. We should make a policy
and put it in the guidelines.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING
209 S. GALENA ST.
Bill Hewitt: I want to bring the same kind of handrail up to 42
inches. The handrail is 18" now. We have had problems with
people going across the roof and we are worried about somebody
falling over the rails.
Bill Poss: Will it still be wrought iron.
Bill: Yes. Same exact design but higher.
MOTION: Bill Poss made the motion to approve the railing. Nick
second the motion. Motion carries.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT Ii,VieW COUNTRY ROADS RESTAURANT
Gary Reed: We're trying to find a design of awning to appease
the owner of the restaurant and differentiate the entrance to the
bar and the restaurant. Sometimes a family will come into the
restaurant and go into the bar by mistake and have to go back out
the door. We have chosen an european retractable canopy awning
to get rid of the bulk feeling which we were directed to do at
the last presentation. The color has not changed, it still will
be burgundy. There will be awnings on the side of the restaurant
and awnings in front of the door area. There will be a Country
Roads logo on the awning.
Georgeann: Will the awning be pulled back in line with the
window.
Gary: The awning will be pulled back about 1 1/2 feet in line
with the window. This will be a two phased operation. The
Country Roads people want to eventually put up another awning on
the Mill Street side.
Bill: Because of the historic nature of buildings applicants
are forced to come to us with these awnings. We have to deal
with them as how they relate historically both within the
districts or on the historic buildings and we have a problem.
14
We're trying to help an applicant.
an architectural review committee.
It is not in our powers to be
Patricia: Are we just approving the Country Roads side and not
the Mill Street side? Country Roads owns space on Mill and
eventually want to put another awning up there. The windows on
Main Street on the western corner are not owned by Country Roads.
Georgia: We can approve the both.
Gary: Because we do business in town we have to live with what
we do. It would be more compatible on the building if all
awnings were the same no matter what company does them.
Georgeann: We could give
awnings for the present and
dates for the whole building.
approval of conceptual design of
installation of awnings at future
Gary: We have a letter from the owner of the building approving
the awning. If the awnings are the Same for the whole building
it will simplify the next persons process knowing what has been
approved.
MOTIOn: Nick made the motion to approve the awning design as
indicated on the stamped drawing for the presently to be inst-
alled and the future installation of like awnings. Patricia
second the motion. Motion carries.
Charlie: What Country Roads wants to do is get people into the
restaurant without going through the bar with their families.
SPECIAL PROJECTS
Bill: We have an issue for the guidelines, overdressing a
building which is historically correct in Aspen. The guidelines
are a way to act and have a policy. If that policy needs to be
changed over time there is a way to do that. But to keep
operating without guidelines and policies gets frustrating
publicly and for us also.
Zoe: I agree with Bill. We have to get more documented
information.
Patricia: Committee member and staff comment is new on our
agenda. We always open up pandora's box in front of the public
and I'm wondering if it shouldn't be put at the end when every-
body is gone. It also delays the meeting.
Georgeann: I don't mind having it in front of the public
because they have to understand what we are working through.
Steve: I wanted to have staff comments so I could tell you what
15
meetings are coming etc. and if I can do that at the beginning of
the meeting is more effective.
Nick: The Committee has a right to speak our opinion before or
after the meeting whether I embarrass you or you embarrass me is
not relative to the situation. The citizens should know we are a
board of individuals thinking and feeling as we feel.
Bill: The way it should be handled is let the comment occur and
if it is involved schedule it for a worksession.
Adjourned 4:30 p.m.
K~hleen J.~i~kland
Deputy City Clerk
16