HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19871013 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO~ITTEE
Minutes
Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, City Hall
October 13, 1987 2:30 p.m.
Meeting was called to order by Bill Poss with Patricia O'Bryan,
Charlie Knight and Augie Reno present. Georgeann Waggaman, Nick
Pasquarella, Zoe Compton and Charles Cunniffe had excused
absence.
Since no one had reviewed the minutes of Sept. 22, 1987 approval
was tabled until the next meeting. The election of officials was
also tabled.
Bill welcomed our new member Augie Reno to the Committee.
GORDON'S RESTAURANT EXPANSION FINAL REVIEW
Joe Wells, Planning Consultant: This is a 1000 square foot
addition to Gordon's Restaurant in the area of the existing deck
that is used for outdoor dining at the present time. We have had
to resolve the concerns of a lot of different groups: the owners
major concern had to do with the economic viability of the
balance of the project; we had tenant concerns about impacts on
their space most significantly in the area of the court yard.
The P&Z Commission's greatest concern had to do with the entry
stair, the new entry stair and what was at the time the vestibule
and has been removed. Last night we went to Council and their
greatest concern had to do with a handicapped access that was not
provided in the original construction effort which had been a
condition of the original approval for the project. We agreed to
provide a handicapped access to the restaurant. We feel we have
addressed your concerns within the context of everybody elses
concerns.
Jake Vickery architect from Harry Teague's: The intention here
has been to leave the architecture for the existing building
alone and to have it read intact and to put a kind of a gentle or
quiet statement on top. All the materials we are proposing to
use in Gordons have no color they are basically grays and metal
colors. In terms of general massing the intention here is to let
the existing parapet line read as it does now. Having gone
through the conceptual review there were two things that emerged
that HPC had suggested we study in greater depth. One was the
issue of transparency and the other was the issue of setback from
this wall surface. First I will deal with transparency:
everything that can be glass is glass. We have put in windows
wherever possible. The spaces that remain solid are the coat
room, the area below the back bar which has coolers, condensers,
compressors and the toilet areas. There is an area on the court
yard side that is a wall for structural reasons. We looked at
using glass blocks in that area but the primary problem with that
was you could see through the glass block and see objects beyond.
We felt in cases of the cloak room and the toilet area it would
detract the overall appearance of the building. The other reason
is the glass block doesn't meet the energy code and we will loose
too much heat. Instead we selected a mika-laiden dark gray slate
and it has a sheen to it. The idea is if you look across at
windows you'll see that they appear somewhat dark and that they
have some reflective quality to them and the idea is to kinda
approximate that in a solid material to give it the appearance of
glass. The purpose of using the material is to achieve the
effect of glass but still have a solid surface. The roofing
material is a gray metal roof, a neutral color. The roof is so
flat that it will not be visible from very many areas. You will
be able to read it from the fascia bands. The stair itself is
coated with stainless steel which is sprayed on with a new
process called metalizing. That finish will also be used on the
columns.
Charlie: Are those columns on the exterior?
Jake: One is in the wall and the other two are exterior.
Jake: The second issue suggested was the setback. We have set
the exterior plain of the new wall to the interior plain of the
existing parapet. That is about a 10 inch setback. We also have
set the windows back an additional amount so there is a combined
effect of the set back at the top of the parapet and the setback
at the windows. The windows on the north side are curved and
that reflects the curve in the bar. What is happening the bar is
curved on the inside and penetrates all the way into the existing
dining room and that is tying the new into the old. The curve in
the glass mimics that parallel. There is a solid area around the
toilet room and around the coat room. There is a solid sheer
wall needed for structural reasons and everything else is glass.
We have turned the roof around and the larger overhang is on the
inside and that holds a flatter surface on the outside. There is
an all glass door and the inside of the court yard is all glass
and you can see out into the court yard. The secondary door also
to the deck is glass. We have done all we can in terms of glass,
all that can be glass is glass.
Steve: The memo in the packet gives a detailed background to
the project and Joe also mentioned the project has to go through
P&Z and Council and has at this point done so meeting their
requirements. I wanted to mention the Mill Street Station Bldg.
was approved originally back in the GMP competition of 1980. The
record of the original approval shows in 1980 the applicant, P&Z
and HPC were concerned about the Hopkins Street elevation as it
relates to the small scale historic structures; the Berko
structure next door particularly but also the small structures
that are across the street from it and that there was a good deal
of effort to try and keep the Hopkins Street elevation low. In
2
approaching this structure it seems to be that HPC was basically
understanding that some modification may be appropriate however
the idea of keeping the sense of the Hopkins Street facade fairly
low was still important and on July 28 at the conceptual approval
HPC attached conditions basically that the Hopkins Street
elevation be furthered studied with regard to transparency and
setback as Jake has addressed. In my memo I've addressed the
concern that it doesn't seem that the basic concept has changed
from conceptual, they haven't really responded in staffs opinion
what HPC had requested them to do and I think the project could
be improved if they were indeed to do some response. I made some
calculations of the transparency and arrived at approximately 50%
transparency on the Hopkins Street side. The original concept of
the structure was somewhat of a glass block and I think everyone
wanted to see that direction in this project to increase its
compatibility on that streetscape. The setback is another matter
that I think they could further address. As you may recall some
discussion of a two foot or three foot setback from Hopkins
Street. I'm not sure if this is possible that they can go back
three feet but perhaps something could address that area and it
could be that structurally it would be no more difficult to do
than would be the case simply to make it flush with the facade,
the front parapet. Our recommendation is that this action be
tabled and that the applicant come back addressing those concerns
that had been HPC's primary concerns at the conceptual meeting.
One other comment, I did have a chance to talk to Georgeann and
she also was concerned still that the structure could be improved
in the ways the staff's memo is going and she is supportive
without having the opportunity to listen to the applicants. The
slate treatment doesn't give a feeling of transparency. It seems
to me that the south elevation really is the glass box concept.
While I'm sure there is some flexibility for rearranging the
internal aspects to make for further transparency I'm not the
architect and I don't know exactly what all the design const-
raints are but I feel it is an important enough aspect and it
should be furthered studied.
Patricia: I think they have done a vast improvement on the
transparency part but I would like to see something else address-
ing the setbacks. Is everything in scale?
Jake: Yes.
Patricia: I think they have done what they can with the glass
but I don't like the slate.
Charlie: I have a question on the setback situation. I read
steve's comments that the Building Department says you are going
to need some structural support under the existing decking, the
roof of the kids store. Is it feasible that it move back?
Jake: No it is not. Below the proposed bar there is an I beam
with joists that span in between there. We can't live with a
narrower space as the inside space is only 18 inches which is
relatively small.
Charlie: I know we would be reducing the square footage if we
asked you to set it back. I'm asking you whether or not it is
structurally necessary that you are going to have to re-support
the roof or decking that is there now to support the building as
is?
Jake: No we won't have to. When the roofing was put in it was
sized to handle the structural load of a floor. That is not the
problem. The problem is bringing down the roof loads down
through the existing columns.
Charlie: Are they set on the outside walls then?
Jake: The upper columns have to be set above the lower columns.
We could come in two or three feet and make it narrower but we
can't do that because right now even with 18 feet width we only
have a 3'6" circulation area in front of the bar. We really
can't loose two or three feet. The other option is to take the
whole thing and slide it out but that would be a structural
problem with the joists.
Joe Wells: P&Z was more concerned with the impact on the
corridor. Technically speaking to shift the building back over
the walkway would cause that space in the walkway to count in FAR
and would knock us out in the FAR calculations. If we reduced
the square footage we would have a non viable project. In your
new guidelines you do not encourage any setback from the property
line. Your guidelines clearly encourage the completion of the
building right on the property line in every victorian structure
in the commercial core. The major commercial structures are all
built to the property line and this building is already set back
nine feet.
Charlie: That is not the issue. The issue is architecturally
the new addition seems to esthetically hang out over the other
part of the building. It really doesn't feel comfortable as part
of the addition to the building. It doesn't seem to be compat-
ible. My other concern is: I like the look of the building but
I don't know that I like it in terms of compatibility and I
assume the objective is to be significantly different to the
building to make it part of Gordons Restaurant and I'm curious as
to the gray on gray where the rest of the building is shades of
red.
Jake: We don't want to over power the existing building so we
toned it down with a colorless scheme.
Charlie: Don't you feel massing a large area like that with
4
gray rather than the reds will be pronounced rather than blend-
ing? It's distinctive enough that people will be attracted to it
without having it be so dramatically different. The dark
material will make it feel larger than it actually is.
Jake: I think it will be rather subdued as the slate is not a
black black it is gray with a sheen to it.
Augie: Could you point out the Berko building plane wise?
Jake: The planes line up basically with the front wall of the
Berko building.
Augie: In relationship to the west wall where the restrooms are
how did you come up with exactly where that particular wall is in
relation to the big arch way or was that not a consideration?
Jake: The wall comes off the existing wall.
Augie: That is the only thing I find a little uncomfortable but
now that it is explained I see why. I think the building works
well and as far as the setbacks the building is already set back
so as far as scale I don't have a problem with it.
Bill: My comments are similar to Augie's and Charlie's. The
setback doesn't bother me. When we talked about transparency
both Joe and Vick was to align more with the original intent and
approval of the original building in that the lower scale
buildings, the one story buildings related to the other buildings
on the street which were one story. The change in materials
gives us that change in use or the height that is there. The
color bothers me and I feel the darker tones are not going to be
light enough and it will look like it is added on, stacked on top
of another building. The architecture is great and very interes-
ting and I like the project and the setback doesn't bother me.
Jake: There are different color slates available.
Augie: I feel if they do go to a lighter stone that it will
almost be a washed out surface and be more pronounced than the
gray.
Jake: The slate has a sheen and has mika in it.
Bill: It will probably lighten up somewhat when the sun hits
it.
Jake: Because it is a contemporary building we would appreciate
a little latitude.
Bill: Anything you add on is going to look like it is added on.
Charlie: We try to keep the integrity of the remodels that are
going to happen. I think what Bill says, that architecturally it
is a very strong statement. I think that it is picking up the
arch with the arched roof and it is doing it's transparency.
What we really want to see is that the materials come on line.
That building does have a continuity; the tile work of red and
purple; it has arch ways through it; it has some terra cotta in
it; it's a very large building and there is a lot of massing and
it also has a lot of continuity to its window shapes. This will
be dramatically different and I think that it will be a statement
but I think to treat it with a completely different color and a
different material is inappropriate.
Steve: I guess I keep going back to the matter of transparency
as a potential solution to the material problem and the add-on
feeling of it that if it could indeed be increased perhaps even
to come down further and create some transparency on the eastern
wall it could be that the material would be less outstanding.
The sense of massing would be less outstanding.
Bill: I don't think it will Steve, I think Jake is correct.
With glass it does have a black tone to it and you still see the
lines of it and I don't think adding any glass changes that.
Steve: At some point ability to create a glass box concept
truly does seem to minimize the sense of massing but at what
point they have to go and if it is a different color tone of
glass I don't know exactly. I thought they could have been
encouraged to follow through with that.
Joe: We have a time problem and we can't afford any tabling.
Could we convince you if we bring alternatives back. You are not
satisfied with the materials and want to look at some alterna-
tives. We have time to allow that to happen we just don't have
time to postpone an action because we need to get the permit.
Bill: They can't start construction until we approve the
materials because we would be holding them up and Bill Drueding
won't give a permit until we approve it.
Joe: Could you give approval on the condition of the approval
of a final exterior material.
Steve: It would have to be prior to the building permit.
Jake: We have other samples here of slate. We are trying to
keep this a low key statement. We want to do what you want to do
but we have a problem with the color of the slate.
Charlie: My feeling is a point of compromise. We're not going
to get the setback as it is not going to work for you; the
structure won't work. If we compromise at that point to give
them the extra square footage by not having that setback we get
something that blends in and that is a point that we should come
to a balance.
Bill: I agree with Charlie by moving the wall back the roof
defines the massing and your mind sets up lines and so whether
that wall is ten inches back or two feet back it is not going to
solve some of the concern. I think Jake and Harry are on the
right track by changing the materials to allow the original
building read through and the new addition to be its own entity.
Charlie: How many layers of slate will go across that band?
Jake: Just two.
Bill: Actually there are three showing. It's a twelve by
twelve slate so there is another slate and part of another.
Steve: If action is taken do they still have the ability to at
least start to look at the project.
Bill Drueding: They can be in the process but the permit would
not be issued until approval of HPC.
Jake: I believe the gray slate with the mika is the best
choice.
Charlie: Don't you think with the daylight coming from the
other side that it won't be so dark because during the daylight
it will always be translucent that you'll have the tendency to
read right through it.
Jake: It will be interesting the way the light hits it, it will
change.
Augie: Do we have jurisdiction over color?
Bill: No we don't but we're dealing with material here.
Augie: We don't have any right to tell these people what color
that material should be. We have the right to say whether it is
slate or brick etc. and that should be the issue here.
MOTION: Augie: Augie made the motion that we approve the
design with the materials that have been presented according to
the drawings and the particular model with this particular slate
material as presented. Motion dies for lack of second.
Bill: Your concerns are mainly that another slate might look
better.
Bill made the motion to give approval as presented
conditional that we do study the final material on the outside
which would allow them to go ahead other than that material.
Patricia second the motion.
Steve: At what point do you study and resolve it?
Bill: At the next meeting because they have to get moving.
Steve: Is it prior to building permit?
Bill: Yes it has to be.
Bill: I do tend to think that this plum slate is in the same
color range and it goes with the tile and the brick.
Charlie: I feel the plum is in the color scheme that is there.
Jake: The plum would be our approval but if we wanted to change
it we would have to come back again.
Joe: We would accept that.
Augie: I have no problem with that.
Bill: I'm trying to stay out of the color but with its compati-
bility with an existing structure it enters into it.
Charlie: Generally we would ask you to be compatible with the
materials that are on the building which is brick, tile etc. and
I think for us to compromise to another material that it should
read in the same palate.
Jake: We can accept that.
Bill: We are dealing with a mika slate verses a plum slate.
NO~ION: Bill made the motion to approve the design as presented
with the condition that the mika slate material be changed to a
plum slate material and that we would entertain a change later on
if the applicant so wished. Patricia second the motion. All
approved. Motion carries.
ASPEN SKI LODGE
Wayne Ethridge: We're proposing to add an enclosure off the
existing entrance to the building and to relocate an existing
fence. The entry is currently off Main Street. The cantilevered
canopy was not designed properly and has sagged about 3 1/2
inches on the corner. We are trying to solve that problem by
putting a structure back underneath it about six inches to jack
the edge up. We also want to move the existing fence which used
to be on the property line closer to Main St. to solve some of
the problems we have with noise. We are asking permission to
enclose the entrance; close the entrance off Main Street and
provide a new entrance off the corner into the main portion of
the building. We are going to encourage everyone to load and
unload off of Garmish Street side. The new enclosure would built
out of clear cedar the same that is in the outside of the
building. The new fence would be six foot in height.
Patricia: Are you adding height to the existing fence?
Wayne: We're bringing it up to street grade and we are bringing
it up higher about 1 1/2 feet. The fence at one time was on the
property line but some how got moved back. We're proposing to
move the fence out to the property line and use the existing
grade in that area which is roughly the same as the curb.
Bill Drueding: The fence would require a Board of Adjustment
variance.
Wayne: We're dealing with Jim Wilson on that. The two existing
trees will be relocated.
Steve: My concern is along Main Street you start to see a very
long continuous facade and the existing structure according to
the condominiumization map is 92 feet long and this would be
adding at the same area which is basically on the property line
another 32 feet so you have a total of 120 feet. The enclosure
adds a little more sense of bulk right onto the property line and
there is a ten foot setback. I feel that the four foot setback
that presently exists with the fence is indeed a very good
breakup and as you may remember there is an idea in our old
guidelines which are still applicable that there shouldn't be
more than 90 feet of continuous frontage of the structure and it
applies to some extent to the concept of six foot fence because
that really does seem to add some bulk. I think it is a good
plan and I would recommend approval subject that they set it back
to where the existing fence line is, that it be four feet back.
Wayne: The four foot setback causes us some problems. We need
to solve the problem with the sag and if we move to back to four
feet we are under the middle part of the overhang and that won't
do us much good. If we stay on the four foot setback as it
exists the entry point becomes very narrow, we are only 4.2
inches and with suitcases etc. that creates a physical problem so
we really need the full width to allow a logical entry we're over
eleven feet with the entry point now. If we would stay at the
four foot we would have an eight foot entrance narrowing down to
4.2 inches and back out to eight feet.
David Jones: The sound on Main Street is just inhospitable and
has increased since I purchased it in 1978 and built this in 1979
and it is a severe problem that I am sensitive to. Secondly the
road is very dangerous and there is darn little speed enforcement
and I invite you all to stand there and watch the buses etc. go
by. We want to kill off the noise as best we can; put the fence
back where it used to be and enclose under the canopy so as to
kill off that awful Main Street noise.
Steve: Even though there is a short distance where it is
inconvenienced I would make that recommendation as a compromise
that might be considered; maybe the jog should be after the stair
tower and there also be some additional window space to break it
up a little more.
Wayne: The only thing you are dealing with in terms of addit-
ional bulk if you will is the section that is enclosed currently
which is a breezeway and if you add a 1 1/2 feet to the existing
fence all the way across that is what you are looking at. I
don't think that is a significant increase in the visual effect
along Main Street. We have added significant landscaping: 5 new
aspen trees, the spruce and pine have been rotated along Main
Street and a more interesting sidewalk pattern then current
exists.
Augie: I agree with Steve that maybe the fence should step back
somewhat but maybe not the full four feet but just something to
break it. You want to enclose the windows due to the noise.
David: You can't converse in the pool area and
have the windows open and we're willing to put all
mature trees and landscaping in.
you can't even
the additional
Charlie: It seems to be a continual problem for us that we try
to make decisions without enough input. I have to agree that 130
feet of a straight run as close as the building is already to
Main Street that it already has impacted the streetscape. I can
see all of your concerns and I think it is a very logical
approach. I would like to see some kind of stair stepping and
relief in that area and to enclose under the area is a very
reasonable thing to do. My feeling is that the more area you can
leave outside with which to landscape the better sound deterrent
that you can eventually build over even a six foot fence. You
can have low shrubs, higher trees etc. I would agree with most
of the board if there was a way beyond the stairwell if we could
get some relief maybe even at the point where the overhang is
where you are going to glass that in as a vestibule if we could
even drop back a little bit and then come down with your wall and
when we hit the end of the stairwell drop it back again and then
come to the corner so that you would have to make some kind of a
move off of the corner into your space and a walkway that would
come back around so that we get some stair stepping there so that
the vegetation work.
10
David: The 1 1/2 feet higher on the existing fence is all we're
requesting. I think we can step it back if we go closer to the
corner but then we mess up the graciousness of the entryway.
Charlie: You want to come into the corner, enter into your
space and you want to direct people along the street, along the
fence to come into the vestibule.
Charlie: Come into the corner, come into your space a little
bit and stay with the existing fence as you turn right.
David: That would make a great planter.
Charlie: One other question from the existing fence on the
eastern side, what is between the existing fence and the new
fence? Is it currently landscaped?
David: There is a 3 1/2 to four foot strip of grass.
are on the inside.
The trees
Charlie: Did you leave any overhang on the existing canopy?
Wayne: About a six inch overhang.
Bill Drueding: If you enclose the overhang that will have to go
to the Board of Adjustment because you are enlarging a noncon-
forming structure and that portion of the setback encroachment,
you have a ten foot setback encroachment in that zone, the L3
zone. What I'm saying is if HPC approves this approve that in
writing because the Board of Adjustment cannot act on it without
your approval.
Patricia: I cannot approve a six foot fence on Main Street. To
me it doesn't look inviting at all. I walk by there and I can
hardly see over the fence as it is and I know it is not for my
benefit to look in at your swimmers in the pool but I don't feel
a six foot fence going that length is very inviting. Breaking it
up may help.
Bill: Your extending the mass of the building and I would like
to see some relief on it.
Wayne: As a compromise could we go with a trapezoidal arrange-
ment of the fence to allow more landscaping on the Main Street
side?
Bill: Is it still a minor development as opposed to a major
development?
Steve: It is still minor in terms of the number of square feet
and the number of elements. It is a one step process.
11
Charlie: We need to see the landscaping on it. We would give
you a lot more massing into the building and we would give you
more massing on the fence but I think we want to know that the
impact is mitigated with one vegetation and I don't know what the
alternative would be a transparent top to the fence or even if
that is a reasonable kind of thing or if we want that kind of
look.
David: I'll do it but I was here when the smuggler fence was up
and everybody was happy when I tore it down. It was a glass
fence and it was ugly. What I need is noise protection and
splash protection.
Wayne: The concern is the fence on Main Street.
Charlie: We want to see the landscaping and the architectural
relief. What is the distance between the end of the roof line
and the stairwell?
Wayne: Nine feet.
Charlie: Right now is it about a four foot passageway or the
doorway.
David: Yes if we keep the same fence.
Charlie: If the building came down under the overhang and
stepped back in architecturally it would be pretty to have a
window even on that eastern front and then have that fence and
when you come to the corner bring the fence out so that it flares
out and it makes your entry way so that we can keep as much
vegetation and landscaping. We would be more inclined for you to
have that fence if it were disguised with enough greenery and
setback that it wasn't a continuation of your building that it
was your courtyard and that it was a fenced area but it was
nicely landscaped and when we came to the building then there was
a definition that said this is the building. Right now to me it
reads that the fence is actually going to have windows in it and
look like it is part of the building and be just a straight shot
for 130 feet. We want to see a relief.
Patricia: I think we still need to see the plan not just a
sketch on the old plans.
Charlie: What is the distance you are asking to move the fence?
Wayne: Roughly four feet.
MO~ION: Charlie made the motion that we would accept the plan as
presented with the exception that the only area on the Main
Street fence that will be moved forward will be that area
parallel to the stairwell and not to be more than two feet closer
mink farm out where Difficult now is. E.S. Gould purchased it in
1945. Gould is the owner of the Mesa store which is still here
and is designated. His three daughters are responsible for the
Crystal,~i~ll.~grbert Bayer architect whose wife Joella is ~
~,~.~,Be~dic~, B~ is willing to give a long list of individuals
who have'stayed here as a result of his connection with the Aspen
Institute. In 1950 Herbert Anderson who was a manager of a
utility company lived there with his wife. Chester Anderson was
responsible for creating electricity in the mines in Aspen and
for the first mines in the world to ever have electricity. After
the Andersons left Bil Dunaway who currently is the owner and
publisher of the Aspen times and has recently turned it over to
Jeannie Bascom.
As far as architectural importance it is understated and not a
lavish victorians. It gives scale and character to the West End
as well as the victorians.
Steve: I did think the historic association was interesting and
the addendum has some good information on that. In my memo I
merely stated that I thought that the neighborhood contribution
and the architectural significance of the structure did warrant
that this be a designated structure. I understand that they
would like to do some restoration of the structure and to remove
the existing car port and replace it with a garage in the rear of
the property. My recommendation is that it be designated on the
condition that the applicant follows through with the general
restoration plans thus far presented and to be considered at
subsequent HPC development review. Subsequent plans should
increase the historic importance of the structure.
Jim Colombo: We are trying to get pictures of the house.
Bill: Maybe you could check with the Historical Society for
pictures also.
Patricia: You are going to get rid of the deck and do you plan
on putting another one on?
Jim Colombo: Our plans are to remove all of the renovated
structures that were done in the early 60's. The car port will
be removed, the back 60's contemporary design living room will be
removed and the sliding glass doors.
Charlie: Do you need this approval prior to designing?
Jim Colombo: We have basically done our designs. We would like
to come back to you as quick as possible with what we plan to do
with our changes while the approval is going through P&Z and
first and second reading of Council.
Steve: We are doing the designation prior to the restoration.
Bill: By being designated they are binding themselves.
Charlie: After designation they would have to come back to us
for approval before they do any alternations. Are you on a 4,500
sq. ft. lot and is the building on the property line to the west?
Jim: The building is five feet from the property line. We have
setbacks, we have additional FAR and we have a garage incentive.
MOT~ON: Patricia made the motion to designate the house on 215
W. Hallam as a historic landmark with the understanding that they
will come to us with their demolition and remodel condition that
the applicant fall through with the restoration plans thus far
presented and to be considered at subsequent HPC development
review. Charlie second the motion. All approved. Motion
carries.
Jim: Could we be on your next agenda?
Steve: That is not possible due to the 15 day notification.
Adjourn 4:3? ~ ~ ~ _
Kathleen J. S~rickland
16