Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.198711199 V-%.'IR ..~~t, 1'.. *# W ...... 11<....:...",-,44, 746 dy- f 553_ 'r.. MEMORANDUM .AC TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Elli's Restoration Plan Amendment (Special Meeting) DATE: November 19, 1987 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests an amendment to the restoration component of the Elli's project, including to add on new siding, trim and cornice where the old walls are shorter than the new gypsum walled structure, replacement of several damaged boards, and screening of rooftop mechanical equipment. BACKGROUND: The Elli's Building, at 101 S. Mill Street, was designated a historic landmark by City Council on March 23, 1987, at the request of the owner. Final approval for the addition was given by HPC on March 24, 1987. The plan approved was to restore the original building and wrap an addition around the structure, adding 8,045 square feet of floor area to the existing 4,024 4 j'. square feet. A condition of approval was that a detailed restoration plan for the treatment of the existing Elli's Store shall be submitted to HPC for final review; restoration shall be accomplished within 20 months after a certificate of occupancy is issued for the addition. HPC's approval of the project constituted final City approval for the addition according to the Historic Preservation GMP exemption in Section 24-11.2 (b) , stating: "The enlargement of, or change in use in a structure which has received individual historic designation." At the time of review of the addition there was a clear understanding between the HPC and applicant that the existing structure would be "restored". This understanding was embodied in the condition of approval, and was a requirement for eligibility of the project for the GMP exemption. Various approaches to restoring the existing structure were being considered by the applicant until a plan was presented to the HPC on June 23, 1987. A June 19, 1987 letter from Heidi Hoffmann, Project Manager, explained that they had determined that the existing clapboard-sided north wall and the entire parapet wall above the Mill Street storefront could be braced, removed and stored on site. Those walls would be repositioned, powerwashed, and damaged boards replaced to exactly match the existing. Other detailed representations were made in this letter that HPC 1 discussed and approved. Within the approval, the applicant was made responsible for informing the Planning Office when any 3 replacements were necessary, so to minimize destruction of old materials and be able to inform the public of what is occurring. We note that both HPC and staff were concerned that this restora- tion plan was unusual and sounded risky. However, the project architects successfully argued that the wood frame building was so unsound to require this radical technique and that the applicant was sure that it could be accomplished. On September 22, 1987 Heidi Houston and John Cottle spoke with HPC about rebuilding the walls entirely, informing HPC that the old walls were structurally unsound and there is evidence that they are not original. Staff explained that without use of the existing walls, there would be no restoration component in the project; therefore, eligibility for the GMP exemption for historic preservation would be nullified and the project could not be occupied without a GMP allotment. Consequently, the owner and architect did not make the request and pledged to fulfill the restoration plan. A plan to remove asbestos sheathing behind a portion of the existing walls was presented by John Cottle on October 13, 1987. On October 16 the procedures were described for this operation in detail. Subsequently, one of the owners and the project archi- tect and attorney stated that the asbestos sheathing would not be removed, and therefore the walls would go back up without the boards being removed and repositioned. However, the contractor performed the asbestos sheathing removal anyway during the following week. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Planning Office has the following comments on the applicant's request pertaining to the walls and screening of rooftop mechanical equipment: A. Compliance with prior approvals. 1. To the best of our understanding, the dimensions of both the Main Street and Mill Street gypsum supporting walls are oversized for the original walls to fit on correctly. The Main Street supporting wall is too long - both in total distance and from the west edge of the window frame to the northeast corner of the building- and may be too tall. The height dimension is in question because the number of rows of clapboard siding appears to be the same as the original and there is another approximately 1 foot of boards propping the wall up at this time. However, David McBride of Aspen Survey Engineers reported in a November 13, 1987 letter that the historic facade along Main Street was rein- stalled at the original height on the northwest corner. The Mill Street supporting wall appears to be too long, and may also be too high. We do not fully understand how all of these dimensions turned out to be in error, nor is it necessary for staff and HPC to make that 2 determination, but it appears that a variety of factors came into play, resulting in the substructure exceeding the size of the original building. 2. The amendment before you is being proposed for the principal reason that the wall measurements are in error. In only two areas is replacement of boards requested because of serious damage. The applicant states that the cornice piece facing Main Street is rotted entirely at the eastern corner and would be replaced back approximately 4 feet. In addition, damage of the boards on the Mill Street wall at the southeast corner requires replacement. We note that some other boards have been damaged or removed as a result of being handled. 3. Approval for the restoration plan given by HPC on June 23, 1987 was for the plan presented in the applicant's letter with the understanding that the applicant has the leeway of putting up new boards where old boards' are naturally damaged. The HPC discussed the difference between restoration utilizing original building parts and reconstruction using all new parts. It is clear that the HPC's approval did not encompass either recon- struction using new walls or the need for patching because of dimensional errors. B. Arguments as to why proposed changes may be inappropriate. 1. The staggered board replacement approach requires removal of sections of old siding and adding in new pieces. We fear that this otherwise unnecessary remedy Will result in further damage to boards through handling, undermining of the walls' stability and gaps between the siding because the old boards had conformed to each other. Some gaps are evident where the asbestos ·sheathing was removed on the south portion of the Mill Street wall. Without repair, they will likely weather and deteriorate quickly. 2. It is our opinion that the integrity of the restoration depends on the correct repositioning of the old walls. Changes to the structure that do not relate to replace- ment of damaged boards and actually change the dimen- sions of the original walls because of errors are not appropriate. If restoration cannot be successfully accomplished, then rescinding of historic landmark designation should be considered. The owner or the City could initiate this process which would then allow the applicant to rebuild the walls with new materials and would require the applicant to address growth impacts through the appropriate GMP process. 3 3. Success of the restoration has special significance because of the prominence of the building on the busiest intersection in Aspen, the former historic integrity and interest of the structure, and the granting of an exemption from the growth management quota system for over 8,000 square feet of new commer- cial development. The applicant, furthermore, has taken pains to stabilize the walls with the intention of following through with a quality restoration, and it appears to be in the best interest of both the appli- cant and the general public that the restoration be accomplished successfully. 4. The corner of the structure is the focal point of the building. This area most importantly should be accur- ately restored with the existing boards. C. Arguments as to why some proposed changes may be appro- priate. 1. It can be argued that the staggered boards and new trim and cornice work will look just like the old. Once completed, the changes proposed will have little effect on the appearance of the entire project. 2. The problems are the result of understandable errors based on good faith efforts and not an attempt to obtain more space. 3. Some of the wood is rotten and needs to be replaced separate from corrections for the dimensional errors. 4. The plan for treatment of the Mill Street wall at the southeast corner appears to be acceptable because the new siding patch is needed due to damage, the 6 1/41' vertical trim board will not be too noticeable, and this area of the building is less significant because it was an addition and is not on the corner. D. Screening or moving of roof-top mechanical equipment. 1. The mechanical equipment on top of the roof was not part of HPC's original approval of this project. It is typical for minor alterations to occur in a project after it has received approval; however, those changes must be approved by HPC or approved through the Planning Director' s sign-off as "insubstantial changes to an approved plan." In this case, the applicant installed the equipment without such approval. Further- more, the surveyor noted that two ventilators encroach into the Main Street view plane by 4 inches. 4 We believe that the applicant should further study the placement and screening concepts to reduce visual impacts of the large amount of mechanical equipment on the roof. The presence of the shiny equipment seems excessive and detracts from the old structure. As of the time of writing, complete plans have not been submitting identifying the equipment and screening; therefore, we recommend tabling of action on this subject. 2. Staff will try to have photographs available at your meeting showing the roof-top mechanical equipment from public ways in the vicinity in case you choose to deal with the issue at this time. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative actions that HPC can take include: A. Deny the requested amendment to Elli's restoration plan in total, requiring the applicant to bring the structure into compliance with the approved plan (i.e., reducing the length and height of the supporting structure and reducing the Main Street opening so that the corner will fit together). B. Deny the requested amendment in total and initiate rescind- ing of historic landmark designation allowing the walls to be rebuilt with new material and requiring the applicant to address growth impacts through the appropriate GMP process. C. Deny the requested amendment to Elli's restoration plan as it pertains to the Main Street wall to fit properly in place (i.e., reducing the length of the supporting structure and reducing the Main Street opening so that the corner will fit together) and approving the proposed treatment of the Mill Street wall at the southeast corner. D. Approve the requested amendment to Elli's restoration plan to accomplish patching of the original walls where the supporting structure is too big and where indicated that replacement is necessary due to damage of original mater- ials. E. Table action on the requested amendment in order to give the applicant, HPC and the public additional time to consider appropriate ways to mitigate the problem of the walls not fitting back together. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: The Planning Office recommends Alternative C as the appropriate way to mitigate the wall problems while tabling action on the proposed screening of mechanical equipment, in the following motions: - "Move to deny the requested amendment to Elli's restora- 5 tion plan as it pertains to the Main Street wall to fit properly in place (i.e., requiring reduction in the length of the supporting structure and reduction in the Main Street opening so that the corner fits back together)." "Move to approve the following requested changes to the Elli's restoration plan: (1) replacement of the cornice piece facing Main Street that is rotten, starting the new piece approximately 4 feet back, and (2) treatment of the Mill Street wall at the southeast corner as proposed to install new siding where damaged or missing, move the existing cornice to the south corner and add a new piece approximately one foot long, and install a 6 1/4" vertical trim board along the south edge of the historic storefront." "Move to table action on the proposed screening of roof-top mechanical equipment until the applicant has prepared a complete application showing analysis of the location and height of the equipment, specifically identifying the equipment and the screening." sb.ell.19 9 6 13 November 1987 IAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS LTD 210 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Members of the HPC 303/925-2867 City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear HPC Members: This letter will serve as the formal application letter for the upcoming HPC meeting; an update on our progress on the restoration of the existing walls, and answer questions regarding the height of the project and the visual impact of the roof top mechanical equipment. As you are aware, there is a gap in the north (Main Street) wall where the repositioned existing walls do not fit together. This gap varies from 8 1/2" to 12 1/4", depending upon where the measurement is taken. (8 1/2" occurs at the side of the window facing Main Street and 12 1/4" occurs at the northeast corner at the top). After extensive review of the original survey, photographs of the building before construction began, a recently completed survey, and our own construction documents, we can account for the following discrepancies. When calculating the foundation dimensions back from the original wood siding dimensions, an error was made which set the size of the foundation 4 3/8" larger than was appropriate. In addition, 2 1/2" of the gap is attributable to a piece of trim of the northwest corner of the original building which was not continuous to the roof line (stopping approximately 2'-6" from the parapet) resulting in the bottom of the building being 2 1/2" larger than the top. Because 'survey dimensions were conducted on the ground plane, and because the larger dimension represented the most accurate mass of the building, the new construction was built to those dimensions (see photo #1) . Finally, 1 1/4" of the gap is attributable to the extra layer of gypboard sheathing which was required by the Building Department after a building permit had been issued, concrete had been poured, and steel erected. These factors taken together come to a total of 8 1 /8". The fact that the gap at the northeast corner of the building is substantially greater than that is, I believe, due to the fact that the original building was neither vertically plumb, nor square, nor straight, and the northeast corner of the original building had settled considerably due to the lack of foundation walls. Letter to Members of the HPC 13 November 1987 Page Two It is important to note that, even though the existing walls do not fit together as planned, the building as constructed is in compliance with all open space and FAR calculations submitted to the Planning Office for the project's approvals: In other words, the building has not increased in size. We are proposing to take several steps to complete the restoration of the existing walls. Main Street The existing wall will be placed to the western edge of the structural wall, which will allow trimming of the wall and window, and join to the new west facing wall without modification. The cornice piece facing Main Street is rotted entirely at the eastern corner and will be replaced back approximately 4'-0", where it will be cut into the existing cornice at a 450 angle. The window header above the Main Street window will be dealt with in two ways: The flat vertical trim will be added on the eastern edge, and the cornice projection will be removed, moved to the east, and a duplicate cornice added to the west to be flush with the finished window trim (see drawing #2). This will produce corners which match nicely and avoid vertical joints of "old meeting new". The gap in the siding at the corner of Mill and Main can then be filled in with a combination of new and reused existing siding (see drawing #3) ; a solution which would replace an area of siding of only approximately 1'-9" x 5'-6" on the entire north (Main Street) wall. Mill Street The cornice piece (presently positioned incorrectly) will be moved to its correct position by sliding it to the southern corner of the structural walls and a new piece of cornice and fascia board will then be added at the northern edge of that panel (see drawing #4). New siding as required will be patched in at the southern face of the parapet where boards were unable to be saved as the wall was removed from the concrete block to which the siding was attached. As a general note, all siding, whether new or existing, which is to be patched into an existing wall shall have the joints staggered so that there is no discernable line of old to new. All trim or other wood which must be removed to patch in Letter to Members of the HPC 13 November 1987 Page Three new siding (or must be removed for any other reason) shall be removed carefully to avoid any damage to the board and reused using the existing nail holes in every possible case. We are pleased with the fact that the asbestos boards were removed without damage to the wall in which it was placed; all patch and repair work described in this letter shall meet or exceed the quality of that work. It is imperative that boards which are undamaged remain so and boards which are damaged be repaired. In addition to the conclusion of the restoration plan, the Planning Office has asked us to address the height of the building and the visual impact of the mechanical equipment. We have resurveyed the building to address the issue of height. At this time Survey Engineers (who performed the original survey of the project) is completing their calculations and a letter of their findings will be presented to the Planning O ffice when it is completed. We are proposing to screen the three major pieces of mechanical equipment with a wooden fence that will match the new siding. This will visually screen the mechanical equipment from their predominant viewpoint along Main Street (see drawing #5). As was anticipated and mentioned in our final approval meeting of June 23, 1987, the restoration process has proved to be an extremely difficult one, and the "leeway of putting up new boards" will be a great benefit in completing this project in a manner in which we will all be proud. Thank you for your help with these proposals. Very truly yours, John Cottle AIA / Partner \ Heidi Hoffmann AIA Project Manager JC:HH:sv enclosures CC: Heidi Houston Gideon Kaufman Dave Reams Steve Meyer Phil Holstein 4tl /74 ., 12 1 WEer WAU- AppITIDAI NOT CoArri k) Uous To 4 c,Oft·w log (*27€') .Le j "r r . '114 , 0 ..2 A I 0i IAA/A S[MEET AT AJW COA NE'IR~ - - 1 ., I. N .... Azz.. i' ... 6. A ... . 4.'. 14* 4: 0 9 -r,-3 .41 1 -t. t. ..3,..rk i.' ,~ ..3"LJLD~ -·- I .--···,··· - *.; '73#77·· -' 074:**1--'t·· - ./' .- I. . c:~·,5/·.1 .it;p#{ 1, fl.- :*1 ' - · ' Atti>fr. , ...... - - ....:t:.....1135..Zt~ & - /-1 : ·.:.....-r~.~I./I"~~ZA,/./~. fj ') 427444/5 ./I /---- -0-*--. . -1 ., ·€6•3&:1:.4* . A . .4. -· ·*Y ' . -: 44 .il·.'~ ' ; 6 -It.Ji-3 3 ., .41 i ':2 :. I.,417 . .. 1 1 .., .4..1 44 '1 '4 J .. . - ./.- *Ir.... f 1 .- -i:f.11 + 01 1 1~3-9 3 3*/st ...~~t'*1€12 .2 ...tij/1.54 / 44<%*91- ?%31- -0.... 44#.u75 .49.... gli#. ~, 1 re¥4 • 44'il.,0/Vi~i: r 44,1, '"I.'Tilil», !1 -ta.".614...4.1,~ e i NO . i. ¥.1 n.7 re" 2 ., 1 ; 11 i. 7/7. t...14]A: i r».. i:· '--·-257:'NTT -- C a A - - 5/0 ' ,-1~ ED PA/27. A -- -- - 1 - AOM"/CS 76~2*5_X_- - -- - Ue,Cat:>--~ __t -- - 432 -- - . 2 -%-t 1 4 4 ..... IL AL)fA- -5, .- .. : I. a k e ·-.r- ' 46'*8-- - aZxiaTTF- / 1~ 11 ·ane. \- rnN- --- 1 Kfah,>F €40,NG,113 es FM5,Y,oveD -1- >N•MI.'f. l 4 t£ FERACED · 9 r?/A)6 86.knoVAD vtfirICAL F+T) 1*422 - < CD EF. c)€65 D *Cl -7?0 FrUCU a) RVA -0 25--,7-' , BC 1 - A•*PE $ BELOW . £ ,~ KPOED 1 - 7, t. lilli -,(.9 67-311'~ plf=/a: 2-2 ,/<L, ' 1 1 P ~¥ 46*Cm:2 720 EEADI~h ) //. 9·87 -/» V 1 1 L_- -3- . - EXIST/Alt, aLL/06 / 1 / i:, 1 1 71 3 5-€Aer-ABLE - le/A-4 13 ~ 1 - - PA/47- 2 - ' /in SEE ra 1 1:~~1 -\--/,- r77--7 - , /+~6 <031 b Fol 77) N 17*73 1, 1 11 1 1 (437 ; 11 4/* M r#I= 1 ' 1 -= 11 /1-1 :~ ---- -_-,492 3 ---1 971 I l 'It-04 DIF F O 11 li; 11'11'11.1 $ " 1 -· O- Cohic- ~ al- 95· 5 T / 0 1 A 43 -9*4 0-i < k 9=== ELL{ .6. NOFTH 0144. TYEW<Piolic#JTLAN 5.1 * E----1-Ip-ill- --- ,- 4 11 vaTED w,/ dc=23 18 9.87 , i W H E>417'<· ..#4-· -1 73 EL <L··72.3-1.'.- - 11./· Move BRA (CE Tb 6-OB,derz- 18680'LD e---F~ 500-ER EA)O 41 FLE TU„) TO AL.L 24 NEW 674" TAM 923734«377=.=- CZE>~~NER 5/0/A]3 - £'f=Ill=*--~ 3-0,4 FATEHED 'ro -„,~U-1.Lt / i,k.* . i · L--2 12€50UIUD HEADER PaK ARCHITEa-UFLAL 4 pgAW"ues -7~24/El 0 1.7.1 .r '.1 W 0 - E-Mth 1 MiLL OEIREEL_-9-gnE-RE_2(*SE r *ovice *O 50'ReEN FERCE ARDUNC> EVABRAT) V€ CoolerR»- MATCH A[q. 290(A)(6 70*111- P.fiE3 < rt*Bl Famsre COVE PHOTO OF H v AC €8 0 1 P rv~ENJT - -*- .-' .-I --- 41:6 ' I-%-- it({7#~1 Allf ' 6 1987 , 1 12.'' 1 ... HAGMAN YAW 16 November 1987 ~ 2 l.· L-- _i ARCHITECTS -.--.- I.TD 210 SOUTH GALINA , ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 303/925-2867 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office i 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Elli's of Aspen Dear Steve: As mentioned in my HPC application letter dated 13 November 1987, attached please find height and view plane verification from Survey Engineers stating that the replaced Elli's wall are reconstructed to their original height and that the original building and the addition do not interfere with the view plane. As Mr. McBride's letter also notes, two exhaust fan units protrude i into the view plane by 4". Please note that these are not the three evaporative cooling units located to the north of grid line 6 (the major step in the building) which has been the focus of attention to date. If the Planning Office and HPC deems it necessary, we will move or shorten the fan units so that they do not interfere with the view plane. I trust you will forward this lettter and attachments to the HPC members. Thank you. Sincerely, Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd / IL- /John Cottle AIA ~ Partner JC:aa cc w/ enclosures: Heidi Houston Phil Holstein Steve Meyer Dave Remin Paul Taddune Gideon Kaufman ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. 210 S. Galena St. P.O. Box 2506 ISM* Aspen, Colorado 81611 NOVEMBER 13. 1987 13031925-3816 JOB NO. 16360 JOHN COTTLE HAGMAN YAW. LTD. 210 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN. COLO. 81611 REFERENCE: ELLI'S OF ASPEN DEAR JOHN: AT YOUR REQUEST. OUR FIRM VERIFIED THE HEIGHTS OF IHE NEW CONSTRUCTION AT ELLI'S (LOTS G.H. & I BLOCK BO. CITY OF ASPEN) AND FOUND THE FOLLOWING: 1.) THE HISTORIC FACADE ALONG MAIN STREET WAS REINSTALLED AT THE ORIGINAL HEIGHT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER AND IS AT OR BELOW THE "MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE" FOR ITS ENTIRE LENGTH. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS HISTORICAL FACADE IS OUT-OF-SQUARE. £. 1 TWO OF THE NEW EXHAUST POWER VENTILA*FORE WERE FOUND TO ENCROACH INTO THE "MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE" BY 0.3 FEET (4 INCHES TOO HIGH). THIS VIEW PLANE IS DETERMINED TO BE COINCIDENT WITH THE ORIGINAL HEIGHT OF.ELLI'S HISTORIC FACADE. 3-) THE REST OF THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE WAS FOUND NOT TO ENCROACH INTO TI-IE MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE AS DETERMINED FROM MY FIELD SURVEYS OF JAN. 6. 1987 AND NOVEMBER 13. 1987. WE TRUST THAT THIS WILL MEET WITH YOUR APPROVAL AND THAT WE MAY BE OF FURTHER SERVICE TO YOU. SINCERELY YOURS. , -5-22--1.---·•-~~~_CL_ j Lt0. /b , DAVID McBRIDE » PRESIDENT RI.-S 16129 1,/ W'.M~4~ ~«·'%3 "fal., 4<€41't,A,S. r- / /1 1 «.0 07 I ./ f /53/ C T/1 f "" LU I <-4 3181 14 311 ' 6141 iwi , .7 '1111111 14-=.4- A ~ _9//C f «C--rd Lif -(i _ ~_ fE@:SFBEUVE FEkim o P f909023 L./.7-4,- 1 AA HUAC 8413' 5 l.l ! 1-El ~ au FM26 1.©f tp:U,Q: *LE, . - --i-I--9~~.-