Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19870908BISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall September 8, 1987 2:30 p.m. Meeting was brought to order by chairman Georgeann Waggaman with Nick Pasquarella, Patricia O'Bryan, Charles Cunniffe, Bill Poss and Charlie Knight present. Zoe Compton was excused. NOTION= of August approved. Charles Cunniffe made the motion to approve the minutes 25, 1987. Patricia O'Bryan second the motion. All Motion carries. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF CO[~IENTS Steve: There is a work 5:00 and hopefully Council the incentive program. session on the incentives tonight at will give some definitive direction on HII~Iq)RIC DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, P~BLIC HEi~dllNG ON EXPANSION AI~ RESTORATION OF 309 AND 311 E. MAIN STREET Gideon Kaufman: Due to the nature of the questions that have been addressed in Steve's memo it is not possible for us to deal with it at this time, therefore, we ask that the Committee continue the public hearing so the architects and owners have the opportunity to discuss the issues. My only question is do you want to continue it until the first meeting in October or should we continue it in September with the understand that we may not be able to be ready? Georgeann: Will having it in the October meeting on a firm schedule make any difference to you or would it be of help if you could get to the other meeting? Gideon: Depending on how fast we can work it would be nice to have it in September but on the other hand I don't want you to have to come to a meeting and us not be ready and disrupt your schedule. Steve: My only concern is that we get a complete submission and that was the only aspect that was not in my memorandum. conceptual background Nick: I'm very interested in those two pieces of property and I'd like to see it concluded in September if possible. Steve: I doubt that any action will be taken. I also feel there will be items coming up for the next meeting. Georgeann: Perhaps if the next agenda looks like it is getting huge at the last moment you might check with Gideon and see if they will have anything or not and if they aren't ready you could table it. Steve: That is part of the problem, I can't wait till the last minute. Gideon: A week in advance we will know if all our information is together. Why don't we continue this till the next meeting and a week in advance we will know if we can make it or not and if I'm the only item on Steve can contact me. Gideon: So we will open the public hearing and continue it till the next time. Georgeann: I'll open the public hearing on 309 and 311 E. Main St. Any comments from the public? No comments from the public. We will continue this until the next meeting September 22 and at that time we will continue the public hearing. Public hearing is continued. MINOR DEVELOPMENT: CLEANERS EXPRESS ADDITION 435 E. #AIM ST. Chris Rightings: I work for Stan Mathis. They would like to realign the exterior wall and in doing so gain 100 square feet and the wall would be made of existing brick part way and finishing with stucco with colors that are condusive to every- thing that is on the building now. Patricia: Is that the east facing wall that faces the gas station? Chris: Yes. Georgeann: My immediate reaction is that there is work that needs to be done on that building right now. For instance when they came in originally they were going to put in a facade in glass that was similar to the other building and they didn't. They put in bright aluminum and it is not like the anodized aluminum that is on the rest of the building. It doesn't look good. The window that is raw metal painted blue and faces the restaurant next door looks tacky. I would like to use this opportunity to upgrade some of the materials that they said would be similar. To me what looks like blue paint over stainless steel and bright aluminum when everything else is anodized aluminum doesn't look like the same materials. Does anybody else on the Board feel that way? Chris: We are out of touch of what was done before by somebody else. Patricia: Who was the architect before? Charles: Wayne Stryker. 2 Georgeann: If we were to decide to approve this there would be a condition to bring the other things up as they promised. Steve: There was representation originally from Dec. 9, 1986 that it would be bronze and that the storefront frame would match the Great Western Spirits as well with the original Oasis enclosure. I would like to ask if stucco works well. Chris: We are using the existing brick and the new wall that is going to be put up is longer than the brick that we take down. There will be a brick veneer that goes up four feet and stucco above that. Georgeann: Is there stucco on the back of that building now. Chris: No, it is all brick. Nick: This is totally visible. Georgeann: Is there a problem with matching that brick as it is a fairly new brick? Chris: stucco. It would be less expensive to use the brick we have then Georgeann: Stucco is an inappropriate building material in downtown Aspen. Charles: What does using stucco relate to? Bill: The Great Western Spirits fascade has dark bronze anodized and brick all the way around. Georgeann: I'm not unhappy with them enclosing it but I'm unhappy with the stucco and the way it has already been finished. Chris: Are you saying approval hinges on going back and redoing what they have already done and bringing it up to what they originally said they would do. Nick: I think we should go to the letter of approval and to the spirit of the approval. We felt that if you went along with what Great Western had you had a good thing going but then you deviated. Charles: In order to have an opinion on this the presentation should have a photo of what the front looks like and a better presentation on how you plan to do this and hope to get approval for and how it fits in with what is already there. Georgeann: The original set of drawings came to us 12-2-86 and we approved them on 12-9-86. We asked them to match the existing material. The plans indicate bronze canopy and columns. Painting them blue is not in keeping with bronze columns. Georgeann: I also feel that the window looks terrible. Charles: We're being asked to approve something for this owner who has already gotten one approval in which he hasn't followe~. To go ahead and give approval is not proper. Georgeann: He is on Main Street with a quality building and it looks like they did everything as cheap as they could and it has cheapened the whole building. Charles: They represented that they were going to use materials in a refining way and they haven't done that. Georgeann: If the wall was all brick it wouldn't take away from the curve design of the whole structure but having a wainscoting 4 feet high we suddenly get into rectangular shapes which conflict with that curve. I would be inclined to make a list of recommendations that you can take back to your client and let him make a decision on what he wants to do. He may decide not to enlarge it. I don't see how we can let him enlarge when we feel he hasn't followed up with what he originally said he would do. Steve: Anodized bronze I believe was used on the original Oasis building and I believe the Great Western is actually wood painted black or charcoal grey and now we have aluminum which was supposed to be anodized bronze. Charles: Anodized bronze is an aluminum storefront window made to look like bronze. Steve: What can they do now so that it matches? Can they anodize it? Bill: They can't anodize it but they can paint it. There is a finish that matches it. I remember talking to Wayne Stryker about what is anodized and what is bronze and it was determined that they would match what was there. Instead they painted it blue. Georgeann: And it isn't the same, one is blue and one is metal. It also looks like it needs an extra piece of framing around the window. We need to make a motion that we will not consider a new application until the materials are brought up to the standards that they were supposed to do on the original construction. Chris: I would like to have something specific as to what you would like in order to bring it up to existing conditions. Charlie: We are having some problems with executing what was 4 given approval and someone should was approved and then give him necessary to bring up the original follow this up and review what a report on what we feel is renovation to standard. Kathy: I'll try to locate the tapes. Georgeann: I'm convinced we asked him for similar materials. Bill: Is this a preliminary review Steve? Steve: This is considered a minor Yeview so it is one step. Bill: We could give preliminary approval with conditions based on these other issues to keep progress moving. I think I would word it to give them preliminary approval based on what is presented here I would much rather see a full stucco wall or a full brick wall as I cannot see the relation of half and half. That approval would be conditional upon them coming back and fulfilling what was originally proposed. Charles: We shouldn't be telling them what they can do. We should be reviewing what they present. Steve: You are doing a two step process, giving preliminary approval contingent upon them coming back with a full design. Bill: That will keep them moving and they won't walk out of here with nothing. Steve: Technically they must come back anyway. Nick: I'm concerned about the stucco. To me stucco is cheap and it doesn't fit particularly in that section of Main St. Everything else is firm and solid and they want to throw a cheap wall out there. For a little more money they can have a brick wall. Georgeann: DO most of the Commission prefer to see brick? Commission: Yes. Georgeann: What if we give them approval of their expansion under the condition that the wall be all brick. And furthermore that the approval is on the condition that they come back to us with their solutions to our concerns about the improper materials that are on there already i.e., the bright aluminum on the entrance facade, the blue painted window on the curved facade and that these should be painted, rebuilt or whatever to match the existing. Bill: If you could do it all brick we could give you approval today with the conditions that you satisfy the Commission in terms of what was approved in the past. Chris: I don't have the authority to say they will use brick. Charles: I would like to table this as that shows that we are taking a firm stand. If we give them any kind of approval at all, first of all we changed it from the way it came in and secondly we would be admitting that we are flexible and willing to accept anything. We should table it because we haven't gotten what they said they would give us so far. Patricia: I feel comfortable tabling the presentaiton. Georgeann: I think you are going to have to come in anyway because you can't make these decisions and we're going to need to see a brick sample that matches the other brick and it would also be good to have a picture that shows the window and shows the front. I would say that we would table this. Chris: Upon approval of this expansion we must bring what has already been done up to what was agreed or approved. I would like to have something specific as what we need. At this meeting you said basically the window frames. MOTION: Bill made a motion to request that the applicant re- submit his proposal for the wall to be full brick to match the existing and that the existing store front match the anodized aluminum which exists on the adjacent stores within the complex and the window on the front of Main Street. Nick second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. Charles: The Building Dept. should have a record of HPC approval and the first person we should be able to turn to is the Building Inspector. When the building started to go up someone should have said it wasn't being constructed as approved. I don't know how we let that happen. We had the same case with Little Cliffs, we approved a lot of stuff just because it was Little Cliffs. That is fine because they are good citizens but I don't feel that is the right way to handle any kind of approvals. Bill: We did say one member would be assigned to monitor a project. What is the Building Department position on this? It is their job to make sure it gets built the way it was proposed. Charles: Monitoring is a good means Building Department should be taking without our assistance. for a secondary but the on that responsibility Georgeann: Realistically the problem is that the Building Dept. doesn't pick up everything and they only have so much manpower. Since the Cleaners Express did not build according to plan I feel this building should be flaged to the Building Department. Also 6 Chris should talk to Steve before the next meeting and you can give the information to Steve what your clients want to do. Charles: The idea of monitoring for the Mesa Store; it was never changed and now it is done. It was not done as it was presented and we brought the architect in and we left it at that. The minor detail changed the ambience of the building and if it was monitored we might have caught it in a timely fashion when they could have changed it without a big hardship. Steve: Maybe the Committee should direct me or take it upon yourself to contact Jim Wilson and say we have a problem and that the plans do not comply. Georgeann: Chris, if your clients need to know what is going on Kathy can give them a copy of the minutes. WORKSESSION Bill: We did not have a monitor at the beginning of the Mesa Store project and I saw that the building wasn't being built properly. It was recommended that we contact Bill Drueding and ask him how the project was being monitored. At that time Bill came in and said he had no power to make them do other than what they submitted. The drawings that the artchitect submitted were the approved drawings. I had voted against that solution and I also was elected to be the monitor and work out something that I had voted against in the beginning. They had changed the original sloped canopy to a false front western look but they had shown it to be a sloped roof behind the fake western front. In the drawings it showed that it would show 4 inches more than what they had built and they had it almost all built and I decided for four inches at the angle from which people view it at you could not tell the difference. The drawing was incorrect and they built it differently. To make them built it somewhat closer to what the drawing showed you would only pick up four inches so I reported back to the Committee that we allowed them to go ahead with what they had. The drawings wern't accurate. Patricia: What do you mean the drawings wern't accurate? Bill: The drawings showed more roof showing over the canopy. Patricia: Should we have caught that? Bill: It depended on the angle, what had happened when you got it up at 12 feet you could barely see the roof anyway. The drawing showed a true elevation and because the height of the building and the angle that you viewed it at it almost cut off anything that you saw. It is only a matter of four inches in accuracy on the drawing and it wasn't worth arguing about. 7 Steve: It seems that there is a second violation now. They were going to do the detailing of the fascade of the canopy the same that it had been which I believe was vertical slat wood and now they have put in a different type of detail that matches the kick plate which is what they wanted to do originally. Georgeann: I think that was approved because as I recall he said he couldn't put the slats in because they had to raise it up high enough so that the ski's didn't hit. There simply wasn't enough space to build the roof and get those slats in and still get the sloped roof underneath the window. Georgeann: One of the reasons he said he couldn't do it was he was required to have enough gutter to catch snow off that roof. Charles: The building code shouldn't dictate. Look at the canopy across the street. That is a canopy that doesn't have a gutter. Georgeann: Maybe somebody should have research that more. Georgeann: John Cottle called me on the Elli's building. Elli's was a restoration and it didn't have to go through GMP. It did go through HPC and that is why we wanted them to restore as much as they could. John said all they can restore are the walls. When you restore an old building you get certain breaks from some of the codes. Now the Bldg. inspector says he will not allow Elli's to put up the walls because they aren't 1R walls. He doesn't care what HPC says those walls can't go up. Suddenly we have a dilema. Steve: HPC needs to talk to Jim Wilson and see if anything can be resolved. Georgeann: We have two problems: one if someone doesn't comply and the other is when we ask for one thing and the Building Dept. won't accept that and we go head to head with each other. Bill: The UBC and our own zoning code give the building inspector leway at interpreting the building codes when they pertain to historic buildings and Jim could be a little more lenient on that. Charles: There are ways of putting a fire block between the outside face and inside face of the wall. Georgeann: We are going to get into the same situation with 309 and 311 E. Main St. Charlie: Before you move Express we should solve some would do and didn't. on to the next project of Cleaners of the things that they said they Charlie: Someone brought it to my attention that not one piece of Elli's would be put back to its original building and the developer brought it to my attention that they circumvented the housing requirements. Steve: The Housing authority only becomes involved if it is a GMP application and this project is exempt. We need to figure out whether the HPC exemption for expansions and changes of use is appropriate without having P&Z or Council involved which then invoke some of the other impacts such as employee housing, such as site design. Nick: Incentive is something you earn for work accomplished to better a situation. It has nothing to do with getting a free bus ride, or getting free beer. Incentive is something that causes me to do a better job than what I am doing right now. Some of these incentives that we have I feel are really not incentives. I see an incentive to save an old building and you save that building[ But to get it designated historically preserved so you can get so many square feet to bypass this and do that is not what I feel an incentive. Charlie: It is a disincentive to restore an old building because often it is more costly to renovate these old buildings than to do new. Part of the incentive is that there is an economic burdon taken upon by the people who are willing to do these buildings. The idea that you buy a piece of realestate and you sit with it for maybe a year or two to go through the GMP process is very costly. Maybe because they are going to add costs and give us what we want as a Committee, we can say to them we are going to solve your problems. If we are just being manipulated to circumvent GMP then we have lost our function as a Board. Nick: The word incentives should not even be involved in this. We should use trade off or some less dignified term. Charlie: Why shouldn't they earn something for wanting to save a building? Should they just do it as a matter of good will? Charles: Elli's building is a restoration. anymore. What is there now is far from an building. It is not that way historic designated Nick: One more trip across that foundation laid on the ground you won't be able to use it at all. I watched it being picked up, boards thrown down etc. Georgeann: With find this problem. after getting in these cheap little buildings we are going to People saying that they want to restore then there, there is nothing to restore. On the incentives I like the thought that they don't have to go through housing because if that gives them that big of a financial break then we have the right to be more demanding. Steve: Size definately has to be a concern of this Committee when it comes to what is considered compatible for an GMP expansion. Georgeann: In the case of Elli's located on a prominent corner my thought was years ago if ever they come back to HPC I would like the building to be colorful and made of wood to compliment the corner. They are keeping the look and the scale of the corner. The fact that those planks are the original planks or new planks, does that really matter except at what point does it not become a restoration and they are taking advantage of us. Steve: The Committee has the right to tell someone they must meet the requirements for massing etc. whether it is a GMP project or an GMP exemption that is going for historic designa- tion. Charlie: Elli's is a replica now not a restoration. Georgeann: Maybe we should have a second category and not call these restorations but call them historic replications. If they get out of housing, out of GMP and only replicate then we have the right to be demanding in what it looks like. Patricia: At what percentage do we stop at, one wall two walls? Georgeann: With replication maybe nothing. Charles: If you are going to give someone a GMP exemption and exemption from housing then they have to do a lot to earn that. They have to do more of a restoration than what was done with Elli's because that is not worth 2 or 300 thousand dollars for those two walls. Georgeann: With these little there isn't anything to restore that mass and that look. wooden buildings on Main Street yet we want to keep that scale, Steve: There are techniques available for restoration and research needs to be done on the availability. Patricia: My concern is where do we draw the line, way, one porch, two walls, between a restoration and tion. Do we need this in our guidelines? one stair- a replica- Georgeann: We would develop this as we go along. If a person does a replication he doesn't get as many advantages. The mass has to be that much smaller. Bill: There is no way that you can deal with 50% regulation and we're giving you 50% on the square feet. You have to remember what preservation is and you have to get away from replication. The spirit was lost with Elli's. That building could have been saved. Charlie: On 309 and 311 we said if you could leave the fronts of these buildings old and funky we'll put up with your addition and new roof on but we get the facade. Bill: I think we should get Jim Wilson, Building Inspector here and try to restore the facade as much as we can on Elli's. On 309 and 311 we have to decide whether these two little buildings can be saved. If not let them go through GMP. The ARA bldg. looks great and is a good example. On our overall game plan of preservation we might have to give up on the old buildings. Georgeann: Do we want to do that? Steve: If you save the little buildings and the wood is funky that is fine as it shows that it is authentic. Bill: You have to keep the spirit in preservation. Charles: During the discussion of the guidelines it was brought up now much do we want to make Aspen just one particular period of time. There are a lot of buildings that will still be here. Maybe we should save the buildings that are really fine and make them be saved in a more stringent way. Nick: I feel we will have to just take portions of town and try to maintain historic preservation and let other areas go. Bill: 309 and 311 are the only small miners buildings close to the core. As you go further west down Main Street some residents are still using the small miners cottage and they probably are still in good shape. We will have to fight to get them to restore the fronts. If not, replicas just won't fit well there and you might as well let them go. Georgeann: No one will come in and use that small of a scale. They will come in and do a building that is low in the front and big in the back because we aren't going to let them do anything but low in the front. Steve: I think what the Committee is saying is that the factors are restoration, location and the importance of the structure. The Committee has to weight everything and come up with a balance. On 309 and 311 if that addition over shadows the ARA building I'm not sure we have achieved what we should have with that project even if they do restore the buildings. Patricia: What about two floors on 309 and 311 instead of three. Steve: You could go down instead of up. Charlie: I think we should suggest that. Charles: Ail they are concerned about is what they can build it out to be. If they can't build it all out they won't buy the property. Georgeann: I would like someone to figure it out and tell me how much money they are saving by not going through housing and not going through GMP. Are we looking at 300,000? Patricia: I would like to see money figures also to see what they are saving. Charlie: I talked to Gary Watkins who owns the house on 715 West Hopkins, the house that they wanted to turn on the lot. Apparen- tly he is not going to back track but he offered the house if we had a place to move it expediently. If he moved it he would have to spend $5,000 and if he demolished it the cost would be about the same. He doesn't want that building on his property getting in his way. He is going to put a duplex on the land. If we could move it to the Koch lumber or whatever we could save that house. Kathleen J. Strickland Deputy City Clerk