Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880901HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall September 1, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Augie Reno, Joe Krabacher, Charles Cunniffe, Zoe Compton, Nick Pasquarella and Georgeann Waggaman present. Charlie Knight was excused. 309 E. HOPKINS-BERKO BLDG. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Charles stepped down. Roxanne: The applicant has submitted revised conceptual development plans per HPC's request on the project and is seeking your approval for the relocation of the historic structure and the redevelopment of the site and they are attempting to demonstrate with the additional information the inability to adequately utilize the historic structure on the site's development. A suitable relocation site has been found at ACES and a redevelopment proposal is for a three story vertical commercial structure. There are three parts and I will present all three portions. I have a clarification in regard to GMP exemption: Alan Richman and I discussed it again and an expansion of a landmark building can be exempted from GMP going through P&Z. If in fact that is what they choose to do by rehabing the existing structure the deadline for Sept. 15th is now no longer a "push" date. Gideon: While you are exempt from GMP competition you're not exempt from the requirements. You still have to pay all the exaction fees. Roxanne: I would like to clarify the Nov. 10, 1987 meeting which the applicant has continued to bring up. The applicant at that time had requested time to just get some feed-back from the HPC and had asked to be added on to the agenda at the end. There was no information that was presented prior to the meeting and Staff's concern at that time was the ability of the Committee and the Staff to formally review without a chance to review it ahead of time. The applicant stated at that time that it was an information discussion. Emphasis at that meeting was on getting GMP exemption and for the relocation of the structure which continued to be borough up in the minutes as the first option. Members of the Committee responded that possibly relocation was a better option then adding on a larger addition that would be six times out of the existing which was proposed. No formal action was taken at that meeting it basically was for information only. On March 23rd a pre-application meeting was held and Staff informed the applicant at that time that further study was warranted on whether the building should in fact be moved and HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 that their assumption that HPC and staff would approve a relocation may be premature. Staff's follow up letter to the applicant suggests a variety of on-site rehab alternatives stating that these items would require formal application. Then in July the applicant came before us and I went with them for a view of the ACES site and it seemed to be a very good alternative. I reiterated again that it may not be approved through HPC. In your packet you have four facade sketches that incorporate the Berko building into a rehab and one revised new development facade sketch plus floor plans, letter from the applicant that reviews the history, design conflicts plus Joe Wells has gone to a lot of work to produce cost estimates of construction and resulting income for each of those alternatives. We need to be satisfied that the applicant has in fact demonstrated sufficiently that an on-site rehab incorporating the Berko building is or is not feasible and that the relocation is the best possible alternative for this structure. Consideration of the integrity of the district in the immediate block is necessary in studying context and the future neighboring development. Will the proposed move adversely affect the special historical architectural character of the district and would an addition be compatible with the historic character of the building or will it alter the structure so much that it's integrity would be lost. Regarding the demolition removal standards particularly standard #2, beneficial use has been demonstrated by the applicant therefore based on these standards, approval to relocate the historic structure cannot be granted. It is not HPC's position to review and grant approval for removal based on highest and best use, the standards specifically say any beneficial use. The Planning Office is still not convinced that an on-site rehabilitation could not be accomplished to the best use of the historic structure allowing the owner a good return on investment. A creative rehab would provide a unique highly desirable space in the Commercial Core District and Staff feels that the applicant has demonstrated that with a little more effort an on-site rehab solution is not far off. That is step one: should it stay or be relocated. Step ~2 is the relocation considerations which were reviewed at length in the other memo and an acceptable site has been found. The applicant has provided information from a structural engineer and moving company and in their opinion the structure can be moved without damage. I am still a little concerned about that but it appears that they are professionals and know what they are doing. The structure would be returned to its original use as a residence and would provide for needed housing for ACES staff and the structure would receive exterior restoration and interior renovation which could extend its functional life. Step #3 is the redevelopment considerations and after seeing the model I'm not convinced that I agree with the design solution for the new development. The guidelines specifically state that in all new 2 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 commercial construction compatibility to adjacent building types should be considered. The characteristics that have already been established can be respected while at the same time~d~eveloping new and creative building designs that avoid the ~~ of earlier historic styles. The redevelopment as proposed may in fact replicate a bit too much victorian styles but we will need to discuss that. I have given you alternatives in the memo. The Historic District must accommodate growth and change but at what point does a district lose the character for which it was established because of the volume and density of the new construction. Staff does not agree with the applicant that this miner's cottage could not be creatively renovated inside and out and provide a highly desirable commercial space in the cc zone district. Staff also disagrees with the applicant and the statement that the interior renovation cannot be accomplished sympathetically without destroying the historic integrity to adapt the structure to a commercial use. Some of the most successful historic renovations involve adaptive uses of residential structures. Staff recommended that HPC deny the application for relocation and redevelopment for the project finding that the structure can be rehabilitated to provide for beneficial use of the property. Staff also recommends the applicant apply for conceptual development approval to rehab the historic structure adding on a compatible addition and apply for landmark designation to take advantage of the GMP exemption for expansion of a designated historic landmark. Lisa Purdy: We have come up with five different scenarios. Kevin MacCleod: The original siting of the Berko house on a small 3,000 sq. ft. lot cuts it in half and leaves only half of that lot for any future expansion. It is an extremely small area to get all the vertical and horizontal circulation that is required. It became apparent no matter how big one story or two or three story it always became the same problem the vertical circulation took up so much square footage and the Berko house became nothing more than an entrance with a long hallway back to the vertical circulation. We would not want to see the case where any expansion would be built over that, which would allow us to bring the stairs, elevators forward, that would not be acceptable to us or to you the HPC. The retailers want glass store frontage so they can sell their product. We studied several alternatives which lead to the new building which would allow us to have the required store frontage and the circulation was cut down to a more appropriate percentage. Bill: Could you demonstrate how much more exposure you do in fact have. 3 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Kevin: With the Berko building the front frontage is 15 feet and the only display is the bay window which is a limited amount of glass and with the new it would be 22 feet. Georgeann: The Berko bldg. is two parts: one the original bldg. and one the storage area put on behind it. Are you looking at saving both. Kevin: We will not save the storage area behind it as it was added at a later date and made out of inferior material and would compound the problem. Georgeann: If we save only the Berko bldg. we are only saving about 20 ft. of depth. Kevin: The biggest problem is vertical circulation, stairs and elevators take up a tremendous amount of square footage. Georgeann: In the new bldg. you have separated the back circulation from the front circulation and in all of the remodels you have made that a continuous piece of circulation. Wouldn't breaking that into two separate pieces of circulation help you a little bit. Kevin: The problem again is the front to the rear connection. The space would have to have two means of egress. It was the clients choice to be able to fit in two occupants on each level. If you have a rental space in front and one in back we would have to provide a corridor to connect the two and the frontal rental space would have to have two means of egress and the back would also. Georgeann: On the new building you just egress through the rental spaces and in case of fire I would think it could be done that way also. Kevin: If the square footage was arranged so that they both could reach the stairs. Georgeann: I'm not trying to say this is a good or bad option but it seems to be that in a way you are padding the circulation here and cutting it out in that one. Kevin: In order to get the rentable square footage up we have eliminated the parking. Bill: If for some reason the employee housing wasn't built on the site we could get a smaller building which wouldn't dwarf the little building. 4 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Joe Wells: We looked at the costs of the projects and various alternatives not only the construction costs but the City's exactions, bldg. permit fees, hookup fees. Planning, architectural and legal fees are not in these numbers so that we know on the cost side the cost numbers are too low probably by $100,000 to $150,000. None of the alternatives work on paper. The costs of the project range from $800,000 to 1 million 300 thousand dollars which exceeds the projects value of $500,000. Another important point on the numbers we didn't discount for some of the awkward spaces that we know are less rentable then some of the alternatives. Bill: What is the point you are trying to make. Joe Wells: None of the numbers work on paper. Joe: You are saying he paid too much for the land. Joe Wells: To have gotten this property for a number that would work out on paper he would have to have gotten it around $50,000 to $100,000 and we all know that is unlikely. We simply supplied numbers to each alternative in the same manner, we didn't draw any distinction as to the efficiency of any of these layouts or as to the quality of the layout. Gideon: We feel if you construct a building that has poor space and doesn't have as many windows your chances are that it is going to be a loosing project. If you are able to construct a building that has good space and windows and good circulation then you are going to be able to rent it sooner and get higher rent. Zoe: Why did he buy it in the first place and he knew what he paid for it. Joe Wells: The rules were totally different then. Since he bought it there is now a $15,000 per space exaction for parking; open space cash in lieu provision; employee housing has gone up from 35% minimum in the commercial core to 60% minimum. Bill: Would you say the City exactions are the economic hardship here. Joe Wells: Yes. Bill: If a deal could be worked out that the exactions weren't there how does that change the picture here. Joe Wells: Dramatically. 5 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Bill: I have two thoughts: Is there any flexibility on the exactions with the City. How does the employee housing and residential unit hurt the size of the development. Gideon: The problem with that is there are conflicting community desires. Bill: If the City wants to save this building can in fact that be waived. Number one we don't want the mass of the employee unit there because it will detract from the house and is the City willing to waive that. Nick: Who in the City wants to save the building. Joe: The Mayor made a comment. Nick: I talked to 150 people out in front of the Berko building last week and the opinion was "no" that the City wants to save the building where it is. They want to save the building but there was no reflection at all in the mass of the people that want the City to save the building where it is. Bill: We took public comment the last two meeting and some people spoke up and wanted to save the building in that site. Roxanne: We also had a petition with 103 names. Georgeann: When I look at all these numbers granted that the numbers won't work the relationship between the two of them doesn't seem that much different in any case. I would think that it would be in your best interest to get rid of the employee housing because then you could get more viable numbers even using the older building. Gideon: If that was the only alternative then maybe that would be the best but there is still an argument to be made that moving this building to the ACES site may be a better alternative. Bill: We are here today to find out to see how we can save it. If it doesn't work we can go to the alternative, ACES. Lisa Purdy: I was hired for my professional evaluation and came to the conclusion that relocation is better: 1) The context has been lost on the place where it is now. 2) For the long-term preservation of this building that is accurate historically moving it is better. 3) There is not a single addition in my opinion that doesn't bastardize the victorian house. I can't figure out how to make it work as you have lost the first half of the lot in order accommodate the historic house and pushing the retail to the back. 6 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 A narrow lot makes it difficult also. Joe: What if you move the building forward on the lot. Kevin: What's the difference between moving it forward or moving it to another site. Georgeann: The grass and little lawn in front of the house makes the building have character. If it was pulled forward I think you would defeat the whole purpose of the little building. I'm not concerned about the interior I'm concerned about the exterior. Another thought that bothers me, lets say we told them to keep the building and change the window. I don't think we can asked them ever to change this to completely restore this to its original form because that would mean one window that was about 5 ft. high and 2 1/2 ft. wide and I don't think we could ever ask a commercial building to have one 2 1/2 ft. wide front window, so we are looking at a change regardless. I also find the scale of the Berko building refreshing and a delight. Bill: If we want to save it on site we want it to keep its own identity. If you force them to max it out with an employee unit it tends to make it bigger and ruins the scale of the Berko building. Nick: Removing employee housing would not be in standing the way the community is going today. The stress is to have as much employee housing as we can get. I don't want to see any reaction by this committee that would remove any employee housing. Bill: The employee unit is being put on here to get more footage. Gideon: The City Council wants employee housing on-site. Bill: The only way to save it on-site is for the City to give up some of these exactions. Nick: It is our responsibility to the community to act as part of the City and make these decisions. Georgeann: In a way we would be loosing two units of employee housing, the one that we would be putting on the site and also the employee housing for ACES. Nick: I went down to the ACES and that house is being used properly and I have been assured that when this house goes down there it would be utilized properly as employee housing. It will only be a period of time when people will say that was the Berko house and used to be uptown. The building doesn't have to 7 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 stay where it is. I would like to see the building moved in a proper way with the proper protection. Zoe: I would like the building to stay and the windows be put back and possibly the building be moved forward and that the City relieve them of some of the exactions. The exactions have to be worked out but we don't know if the City will give up any. Georgeann: I think in a way this has to go to Council because they do put us in a box. Zoe: We can make our recommendation but we will need support from Council. Our job is to retain the historical character. Augie: I looked at this project with potential developers and I believe the building should be moved. I don't think that the past was wrong allowing the other buildings to be built but I do, however, think that the architecture didn't respond to this little building, that was the mistake. They didn't respond in scale or setback. I think the building should be restored in a different location. Joe: I am certainly convinced that we have a problem with the floor plans based on the scenario that is presented here. After looking at this and going through the problems we have with the City code I feel the code language that we are operating under right now doesn't work to allow us to do a relocation. On the other hand the code language doesn't allow us to give any exemption to get away from some of the City's exactions. So, I have a problem both ways. My feeling is we have to establish our priorities. My feeling is if Council is willing to allow the developer to get out of some of the exactions so we can do a project on the site that makes sense, great, otherwise I'm in favor of relocating the building. Bill: Looking at the four alternatives that the applicant has presented I don't see a viable alternative that allows this building to keep its identity and scale. We could move it and finish up the block neatly in scale and do our battle on the other side of the street. The City Council and P&Z have the ability to deal with exactions not us. It will be hard for us to save this building without the Council sitting down and negotiating with the developer. Zoe: If we want to save this little building the City would have to give up exactions and if they won't give them up then I am for moving it. Nick: There are three houses beside City hall and when we start making concessions we are starting a new precedence. We are 8 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 going to take the building and make a viable use out of it. The building geographically doesn't fit where it is. We have to look at what the preservation needs really are in the community and I find that you do that by getting out and talking to the community. Gideon: It was very difficult to find a site as there aren't very many around. Most of you have dealt with the City Council and this will take at least six months and will not get resolved right away which means we will be placed in limbo and Council may not change their mind. Augie: Forgetting the interior plan do any of these additions help the building or go along with it. It is all "big brother" hovering behind it. I'm convinced they don't work. Joe: The more I think about it the more unlikely it seems that Council will grant any exemptions. They will be under a different political spotlight and it is an issue (employee housing) that will get a lot of attention. Bill: We have looked at 1/2 dozen additions to small miners cabins and we have yet to see one that doesn't look like "big brother". I would recommend that we table action on this with a recommendation to the applicant that they proceed on our next agenda to look at the new building. That we proceed going ahead and moving this building to the new location and that we set on the agenda the new building that will go on the site to keep them on the GMP track. Within that we recommend that P&Z and City Council come to that meeting to work things out. Georgeann: I would like to pose the question is big brother bad, we have the choice of big brother or no small buildings left downtown ultimately. Bill: You have to look at it case by case and on this location the add-on structure is destroying the integrity of the structure. Gideon: While I appreciate your effort of compromise in reality when you have a GMP deadline of Sept. 15th you have to be prepared and can't wait until Sept. 13th to see what kind of building you are going to ultimately approve or see what the City Council is going to do. Roxanne: Either approving the relocation and the redevelopment and give them 101 conditions or you are denying the application and you don't want the building to be moved. They have to have some direction. A tabling is not going to be effective for us or 9 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 them. Are you convinced that these are the only addition alternatives. Bill: There are variations but basically we are looking at the massing. Georgeann: If this was required to remain I think we would have to allow them to put in larger windows in the front so we wouldn't have a perfect restoration anyway. Bill: I don't agree with that because some use may not require a lot of windows. Roxanne: There are a variety of businesses that would love that space. Bill: I don't see how you can add on to this and keep its identity. Georgeann: If it didn't have the employee housing it could work and there are times that we will have to relax the requirements. Either move it or relax the requirements. Roxanne: It is unfortunate that we have to review this under demolition/removal standards. Based on standard ~2 which specifically states, has the applicant demonstrated that there is any beneficial use out of the property and they have in fact demonstrated that there can be a beneficial use out of this building with an addition that may or may not be compatible. Are you convinced that a relocation is warranted. Joe: You can always make some beneficial use out of anything. I think it comes down to a question of compatibility and looking at the floor plans and the alternatives are pretty grim. After looking unless we can get relief from the exactions... Roxanne: What are our priorities here, to act as P&Z, no. The burden is upon the applicant, if they have a problem with the numbers and all, that is not our issue. We can only recommend. Zoe: I moved here seven years ago and some day I would like to have another store or shop and right now if you don't have a glitzy building you don't have a worth while space and we are loosing what Aspen is. I think the building should stay and the windows should be restored and there ought to be an addition to the building and it is unfortunate that possibly the developer paid more money for it than he should have because he knew he had to keep the building. 10 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 MOTION: Nick made the motion to move the building to ACES location and guarantees of a solid move. The developer of the building be responsible for all eventualities and done in a contract basis. I would like to see a $200,000 bond picked up by the developer to assure me and the people in Aspen that that building will be moved and moved properly and will be set in a site that will be a beneficial use to employee housing by the ACES people. In that contract there should be deed arrangements to assure the longevity of that building on that site. This does not in any way indicate acceptance of the new development diagrams. Augie second. Augie: I question whether or not we should have language in that motion that relates to the development that this action would take place if we approve a redevelopment plan. Roxanne: The relocation is not just for relocations sake so we need to include in that motion about the redevelopment. The application is for relocation and redevelopment. AMENDED MOTION: Nick, the motion is subject to conceptual redevelopment approval. Zoe: If this building gets moved the three across the street will go next. If the City doesn't give up anything the little houses are going to come down. Quite frankly if I was a developer, and unless the City gave me something I would say I want to move the house. Lets try to keep the town the way it is supposed to like. Bill: We can't make a motion to give them the direction and tell them to go to Council. Georgeann: If it isn't this building it will be another project with a desperate reason. Augie: I agree if the three houses across the street were to take this same fate it would be terrible but those three structures are under a different situation, different context. There are three buildings that are adjacent to an historical building. Right now we have two contemporary buildings that totally ignored that existing Berko building. There is no validity in saying if this one gets moved the three across the street will also. Joe: Based upon what Lisa has told us, moving it, restoring it is the best way to accomplish the objective which is to preserve the historic character of the town while not compromising the other things that are important like employee housing. Based on what I have seen I am leaning on toward moving the building. 11 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Bill: I already said I am in favor of moving it because of what I have seen how. If you make a statement that it has to be saved how do you control that and how in the next development which is on the corner, do you save compatibility. How do you save the identity of that structure. You don't know if you have that tool. We have looked at how it can be added on and saved in this location and we are not pleased with the outcome of it. You either turn it down or let them go ahead. Roxanne: We need the motion restated and clarified and I want to deal with the bond issue on that motion. NICK RESTATED HIS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION: Nick: I move that we approve the moving of the Berko building to the ACES site to be developed as employee housing. To that I would like to have written guarantees in a contract to guarantee a solid move and that the developer be responsible for all eventualities in the moving process and be responsible for all costs to repair any damage in the moving of the building. To assure that move I would like to see a bond of the appropriate amount put up by the developer to guarantee the payment of any of these eventualities. The property deeds be developed to ensure the longevity of the building on that site and to approve the redevelopment of the piece of property after the building is moved, subject to the conceptual approval of the redevelopment. Roxanne: We need to clarify the conceptual development as proposed. Nick: We just want to look at the plans they presented but we don't want to accept that. Joe: Nick is saying OK let them move the building but we want to approve what is being put in its place and that is a condition. Roxanne: The application includes that redevelopment in your packet for the three story commercial building. Nick: I don't want to give conceptual approval for that. Augie: We can have a second motion. Joe: We are going to look at the redevelopment this afternoon. Roxanne: I am concerned that we aren't tying redevelopment. The application before us development of that particular building. We conceptual approval. this motion into a is for conceptual have to give them 12 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Joe: Why not give approval to move the building subject to conceptually approving the redevelopment. Augie: If we don't approve conceptual the building can't be moved. AMENDED MO?ION: Nick: Lets add subject to conceptual approval of the redevelopment. Augie second. Roxanne: The motion is to approve moving the Berko building to the ACES site to be developed as employee housing with a written guarantee for a solid move and that the developer be responsible for all eventualities in the moving process and cost to repair any damage that is done in moving the building and a bond be put up by the developer to ensure the longevity of the building on site and to approve the conceptual redevelopment of the site. Joe: It will be used for employee housing and have some guarantees on the move and there is going to be a deed restriction on the new location and it will be subject to conceptual. Georgeann: Mr. King also stated he was going to give monies for the restoration. Roxanne: That needs to be added in motion. Joe: I would like to add removal of the bay window and complete restoration of the porch. Georgeann: Just restoration will cover that. restoration be reviewed by HPC. Will that Bill: Only if it is designated. Roxanne: It also needs to receive landmark designation to do this so that it can move to that R-15 zone site. There are problems with that because ACES doesn't have their parcel legally yet to even be able to accept that building. There will have to be two bonds, the mover and the bond from the owner on the restoration. I will get with the Eng. Dept. Bill: We are giving direction to the applicant to go ahead and come back to us at a certain date with a redevelopment plan. VO~E ON MO~ION: Ail approved except Zoe and Georgeann. Motion carries. 13 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Georgeann: Everything will have to be bonded and they will have to come back before us with the new building and the restoration of the old building in its new site. CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF NEW BUILDING ON BERKO SITE Richard Klein: The model is simplified by the removal of the pediment. Because of the context on the block being adjacent to a new building this will be more of a contemporary building. Materials, possibly glazed brick, or tile. A colored store front might possibly be a direction to go. The parapet is 36' high and its relationship to this building and the entire block we have shown that this isn't in fact too high of a building. The porches or decks in front have similar relationships of Gordon's and the banding line continues. I think the pediment is important and helps the building. The pediment is at 39 feet and the roof behind it is at 38 ft. Joe: What is the maximum height in this zone. Richard: 40 ft. Joe: What is the height of Gordon's. Joe Wells: My recollection is around 29 ft. Roxanne: In the guidelines it mentions new development infill be respective of the context of the adjacent buildings. The adjacent buildings are extremely horizontal. After I saw the model I thought that the new development doesn't appear to be appropriate. I have a problem with a lot of the victorian replication. The whole reason for removing the Berko building is to finish off this block architecturally to make it a nice clean break between what is going on across the street and this new very contemporary horizontal block. To "puncture" it with a vertical building is not necessarily going along with the character of the streetscape. We need to come up with a design that reflect what the guidelines say which is a contemporary building. This design you have presented is a replication, why not keep the Berko building with an addition behind it. Lisa Purdy: Ail the guidelines say make it vertical and repeat the openings that are in the historic buildings. This building follows each of the items that were in the design guidelines but violates one which says don't imitate the old. Roxanne: This building in going through all the details misses the whole picture. In the initial paragraph it missed the whole purpose. 14 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Richard: There is no way in a 30 ft. long lot that you aren't going to appear vertical. Roxanne: My point is, is this a better design for this block then the Berko is with an addition. Based on block context it doesn't. If it doesn't help the block then why are we moving a small cottage off the site. Georgeann: We are ending up with a lot of buildings that are going to be called in the future late 1980 art deco victorians. They all look the same and are made with brick and sandstone. I don't think we need anymore. I think this is a place to break the scale and change the pattern of the horizontal that are going on and I think we can change our scaling pattern enough to have it reflect a little bit the feeling of the other side of the street; possibly an angled roof. Augie: The massing doesn't bother me but the closer to the replication does. I think the building can be done in a more contemporary manner and yet relate to the victorian heritage and to the existing buildings. You are taking the guidelines very literally in saying this is what we are doing. It might be nice if the building did step out a little bit further to give that block some relief. Richard: It has an 8 ft. setback. Augie: Because of that long horizontal facade on the Mill St. Station if we get something too similar then we get this wide expanse of sidewalk that is out there and that becomes undesirable unless it is landscaped the entire length which right now it really isn't. It looks too much like a replication to me. Joe: I'm concerned about the height of it a little bit and it makes the streetscape look massive. I would like to see some other designs. Bill: I don't have a problem with basic massing but I do have a problem with the look of the rendering there. Even if you took the pediment off that building would look better in another area of the core. I would like to see the building more compatible with the buildings adjacent with their rhythm of the store fronts and the windows and not so much verticality. You are changing the rhythm that is neither complimentary to the building to the left or to the right and you have to make a choice which way to go and then we will be able to relate when the next building comes in. I think the three stories hurts it a little because the massing of the other building, Mill St. Plaza is more of a two story in nature. 15 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Richard: It is 2 1/2 stories. Bill: I agree with staff that it should relate to the neighbors on either side. I don't think you can relate to the buildings across the street because they are different styles. I don't find the building that far off. Georgeann: I think the contemporary finish will help tremendously. I would like to see some relief of the scale to break it up. Joe Wells: In the old code there was a provision that required that HPC grant conceptual approval prior to any GMP submissions. I can't find that in the new code and I wanted to know if any of you know whether its been eliminated. Roxanne: I was told it needed to be in the pipeline and you need conceptual approval. Georgeann: I see no problem giving them conceptual approval. Roxanne: We could go with conceptual approval with conditions to restudy issues and state them. Bill: When you look at the rendering it is not compatible with this street. It is the use of materials, color and little details that relate this building to other parts of the core and not to its neighbors on the other side. MOTION: Nick: I move to give conceptual approval with stipulations that we look at the front facade, height and massing. Gideon: Everyone has a problem with the front facade but I got three people on the board that said massing was OK. Roxanne: The massing relates to what you are going to apply for with GMP. Richard: How does the Board like the curves. Augie: There are no curves on the block so I don't think they relate and to me they look like a replication of victorian structure. Roxanne: We could schedule a worksession but I am not sure that is necessary. Bill: I am sure Richard doesn't want a building designed by the Committee. 16 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Bill: Is there eight inches of clear space between the buildings on both sides. Richard: Right now there is four inches. Bill: Whose building is not against the property line. Richard: They will be right next to each other. Gideon: I need direction on the massing. If we are just changing the facade then the GMP allows that kind of change but when you change the building drastically then we may have a problem. Bill: I have a motion on the floor. Gideon: If we would eliminate massing then we would have it. ON MO~ION: Georgeann second Nick's motion. Bill: Does the Board have a problem with the massing as presented and if so what are you against. Georgeann: I want to see something that is not so symmetrical and I don't like the way it goes in on the third floor. Roxanne: Possibly breaking up the massing and not so solid. Georgeann: Mill St. Stations has a lot of rhythms going on with it and I think that is interesting and appropriate on this block. Nick: I like the way the building steps out in front but I don't like to see all the steps the way it goes back into the structure. Bill: We told him to restudy the massing but how does he do that; should he lower it eight feet, three steps, two steps. His massing is really two story. I find his massing to be correct. Georgeann: This would look nice next to the Wheeler block bldg. I don't think this kind of massing that looks like the contemporary victorian is an appropriate massing here when we have all these themes going on in the massing next to it. Richard: What if you didn't perceive columns. Augie: You could make that a contemporary building with just a new facade. 17 HPC.MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 Nick: I am not going to change my motion; show it with or without the columns. Bill: I don't think the applicant has direction here and I am trying to help them. There is a misunderstanding of what massing is and what facade fenestration is within that massing. The massing is the width and height of the one story and with width and height of the second story and the position of it. In this particular case I find it to be correct within the massing of the street. If you were giving them direction on massing you would either tell them you want it one story and the second story step back or you want it three stories all at the front. Georgeann: I think to step the third floor back might be appropriate. Richard: I think we should get together in the office and come up with something we like and show it to you. ON MO~ION: Bill: Ail in favor of the motion. Ail approved. Motion carries. Roxanne: We can schedule a worksession 4:00 p.m. Sept. 8th. Adjourned 5:30 18