Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19871119 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes Old Council Chambers Second Floor Special Meeting November 19, 1987 Chairman Bill Poss called the meeting to order at 4:12 p.m. Answering roll call were Georgeann Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Zoe Compton, Charles Cunniffe, and Augie Reno. Charlie Knight arrived shortly after roll call. ELLI'S RESTORATION PLAN AMEND~NT John Cottle: What I would like to do is address what has become known as "the gap" and go through very briefly how it got there and the solution we are proposing to remedy it. Just so everyone is clear this is the existing wall facing Main Street. The gap is on the Main Street wall. There is a gap of 8 and 1/2 inches here and a gap of 12 and 1/4 inches right there. When I speak of the gap generally it is here but that is the problem. There are several things that contributed to--we made representations to you that when the building was put back together it would fit. It obviously doesn't. There are several things that contributed to that. 4 and 3/8" of that was a dimensional error on our part--incorrect recalculations from the skin back into where the foundation was set. 1 and 1/4" of that was a Building Department requirement--after the Building Department had--after the building permit had been issued, after the concrete was poured and after steel was up--to add gyp sheathing to the inside of the old walls on all four sides. That added 1 and 1/4 inches. That comes to 5 and 5/8 inches. That amount is an amount that the skin itself--the skin being the siding is actually larger than the original Elli's. It is important to note that all the FAR calculations, all the open space calculations and all those that were taken from our working drawings, those are accurate. The building did not get bigger than done in the working drawings and because of the structure being inside of the old Elli's wall, the inside is actually smaller. And an addition 2 and 1/2 inches--the original Elli's wall had a 3 and 1/2" piece of trim--there is an addition- al wall furred out that was 2 and 1/2 inches there. So this trim was actually 6 inches rather than the 3 and 1/2 that we showed here. Now that can be--in other words that is not a shrinkage or a gap. It is just a matter of where this wall is positioned on the old wall. So that--and that could be handled either in trim or the way that we are proposing to do it. But that accounts for--that is 8 and 1/8 inches of the gap. Now as I said this gap right there is 8 and 1/2 inches so that basically explains what happened in this part of the building. There is an additional HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 gap right here of 4 inches and I have done a drawing here to explain. Now that everything is up on a straight flat square structure behind it, it is a lot easier to see what happened to it. What happened was that I have drawn this angle slightly off skew, which it was, and I have drawn this angle more steeply off skew which I believe it was. So the dimension across the bottom of the building is not the same as the dimension across the top of the building. When this wall has been put back on the existing part of the new wall, what we have tried to do to this wall we tried to make this vertical--it is not quite vertical but we have tried to make it--what that has done by the surveyor's measure- ment is this is actually a little out of skew--that is on a viewplain--that is 2 and 1/2 inches low but there is still a gap right there. The gap that is bigger than here. If you add that 4 inches onto the 8 and 1/2 inches, you get 12 and 1/2 inches. That is a fairly brief technical explanation as to how the gap got there. As I said I represent the firm and I am the design professional who came here and said we will put it back and it is not put back the way it was but as far as responsibility goes that is to me. I represented to this body that that wouldn't happen. The other side of that is I think there are several solutions and we would like to propose one for consideration. There are several variations for that. Before we get into solutions specifically though I would like to make a couple comments on perspective. We are proposing to add some new siding in this area of the building. The area that we are proposing to add here is 10 and 1/2 sq. ft. of siding. The total area of siding that was kept on Elli's--the original siding is 604. It is like 1%--1.6% that we are proposing to add. In addition to that in our original restoration plan--or final restoration plan--there is a struct- ural header above the windows right here and above the entire Mill Street side of the project. It is the white trim piece right above the window. Our final restoration plans called out to have this entire header removed because it appeared at the time that it was structurally unsound. What we have found is from this trim piece over we have kept that piece of trim right there. That in itself represents 50 sq. ft. of original material. Again that is 5 times the amount of what we are proposing to add to the new material here. So I think in terms of perspective, I think this is within the scope of the approval and that is how I would like to proceed with it. Now as far as the actual piecing in of the boards to close the gap--we are proposing several methods. HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 Just to the west of the windows the original building had a 4" piece of trim right there. We would propose to add an 8" piece of trim right there and visually that would make 12" of trim on a different plain. The 4" piece of trim would be in plain with the window it sets out and would be in plain with the siding. That would make that piece of trim right there which is about 12" and that piece then visually frame the window. So that would address that gap. In terms of this parapet here, this part of the original cornice has dry rot in it and whether the wall is being slid this way to join or not we are proposing to remove 4' of that parapet, cut it at a 45 degree angle and patch it in so that it meets at the corner. That would be that parapet. Then as far as the siding goes, there would be a 3 and 1/2" piece of trim vertically there which matches most of the other trim on the building. The trim varied from place to place on the original building but we would take these boards out and patch them into the end as I have indicated here so that they would be staggered, so that they would be feathered in. These boards are enough to do all the ends above the window and below the window and these boards right here would be replaced so that there would be no joint from new material to old material, so that it would not be discernable. At the header above the window which is made up of 2 separate pieces there is a piece of vertical what I call vertical flat trim in my letter which is right there and we would add on to that on this end. Then there is a piece which is right in there which projects out which is a horizontal projection from the wall. What I would like to do is take that off, slide it forward and add to that over on this end and that is what that cross section represents so that there would be no vertical joint from where the old is patched into the new. And then this piece of this wall would be as shown. It would be a 3 and 1/2" piece of trim and would be completed. So I think as far as the gap goes which seems to be the primary thing of discussion; the primary reason for this meeting, I would like to leave that issue now and let discussion begin on that. Steve: I think the entire presentation should be made then discussion. Bill: Everybody will want to comment on each one and it will take a lot longer. Gideon: I guess as far as we are concerned this is the real issue that we would like to see addressed and resolved. I know it is more difficult than the other thing. I am just concerned HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 that if we discuss everything and the issues come from all over the place we won't get the kind of concentrated discussion that is probably appropriate on each one of these things. I would prefer to let everybody have discussion on the gap before we start going into different extraneous or other issues and then we never get back to that. I think it is important to keep things focused a little bit so we all know what we are talking about and don't get 20 minutes later or 30 minutes later and then have to come back to something. I think it makes for a more efficient meeting if we can deal with it that way and try to keep comments to those items. John: There is a couple more issues on the Mill Street on the siding and wee could get the siding issue out of the way. Bill: Why don't we just briefly touch the issues that everybody knows is going to be discussed. What I am afraid of is the one issue will get traded off and we will get off the track but I will compromise and say let's just briefly make a full presentat- ion then we will take it issue by issue. John: On the Mill Street side of the project there is some pieces of siding that need to be patched in here. That would be new material patched into the existing. There would be a 6 and 1/4" trim piece that is added on that corner and it is rather curious at the site but right now it looks like this corner, the cornice piece--the very parapet of the building stops 2 feet short of the corner. When the asbestos was taken off of that it was actually incorrectly placed. That has to be removed, slid to the corner and you can see in this photograph that it is too short. It would have to be slid to the corner and a new piece patched in right there. That I think concludes all the siding issues. There were two other issues that were raised. One is height. We had the project resurveyed by survey engineers and very briefly it is within or under to viewplain at all points. And it is within or under because as I said this piece that was replaced slopes. It is on there and it is a little low there. There were at the time the survey was taken two mechanical projections back on this very tallest part of the roof which intruded and those have been lowered. The height is a original. The mechanical equipment we have presented in drawing #5 a sketch of a wood screen that would be made of wood siding that would match the same siding the same lap siding that warps around the closest piece of equipment and continues to the end of the 3 swamp coolers. 4 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 Bill Poss: Is there any questions or clarifications from the Board. Steve: The first thing I would like to do is present for public record the original approval of HPC which is this document and it was approved on March 31st of 1987 and some photographs that show Elli's prior to the undertaking of construction. One photograph also shows with regard to the height issue the concern that I raised in my memo which is I am not sure if the height is over or not but I did notice that there are some boards that prop up the Main Street wall and just to show them to the panel as well. As most of you know a red tag was issued on the restoration component of the project on November 10th until a plan was presented that showed that either they would be able to bring the restoration into compliance with the approval or that an amended restoration plan is approved by HPC. So that is basically what has hastened this meeting. For background, on June 23rd the restoration plan was approved and that included to remove the Main Street wall and the Mill Street siding parapet, brace it and reposition it onto the new structure. Within that there was the approval for replacing damaged boards but I would like to point out that not to take into account the replacement of the entire structure which we call reconstruction with new materials nor did it take into account the possibility of adding on boards parapet trim etc. because of dimensional problems as to how the original walls fit onto the main structure. The applicant explained basically how the mismeasurements and other problems resulted in there being a problem with the original walls fitting on and I just note that there appears to be a problem with the length of both the Mill Street wall as well as the Main Street wall and possibly the height. It appears that after counting the number of boards that I could count in the original photographs and comparing that to the present, I noticed that there is foot of board propping it that it would look to be a little bit taller as well. But they did survey it and found it was not taller so I don't know. The approach that the applicant has made is to stagger the boards with new boards to cut out old boards and put in some new that would increase the length of it to; add new cornices to make some of them wider and also to add a lighter piece of trim on the Mill Street elevation that would take care of that gap. Our concerns are the appropriateness of making alterations to basically cover up for errors and jeopardizing the integrity of the historic restoration. When I speak of jeopardizing the 5 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 integrity, I'm concerned about the approval for this project as it was based on restoration and that included a GMP exemption for over 8,000 sq. ft. of new commercial space based on the ability to accurately restore the structure. We are concerned that the public interest will perhaps not be well served if the restorati- on is not continued as it had been originally approved. Obviously Elli's is on a very prominent corner in Aspen and therefore any alterations that did not work and were noticeable would be highly visible and we are very concerned about that. We think it is a very prominent building. The structure is highly eligible for designation and it is an important resource in Aspen. We are concerned that if the old boards are shifted around in the patching method that this could leave to gaps between the siding and that would lead to the structure looking quite rough and it could also lead to further weathering and this could be a problem for the deterioration of the building. We are also concerned that the butting of the old cornice and the old board that is directly across the window on the corner of the structure is really the focal point of the building and we feel that this should be entirely authentic and should be correct. We think that there are ways that they could come into compliance with that. we are concerned that if restoration cannot be done as it had been because of the errors, because of some damage that has been done to the boards, because of the handling during the removal and the repositioning and perhaps for other reasons as well then this project is not a restoration as it was approved and it may be appropriate for HPC to consider rescinding designation and then the project could continue through other channels, i.e, the commercial GMP and we would have to work on an appropriate method of doing that. If the restoration can be accomplished then it should basically comply with the original approval. There is one area that we feel that is appropriate and that is the proposed treatment at Mill Street where they would be replacing some boards because of damage and they would be moving the cornice down and wee feel that this is appropriate and we would recommend that that portion of their request be granted. With regard to mechanical equipment on the roof I did have a chance to take some photographs of that equipment today. I haven't had a chance to thoroughly analyze it but we feel that a thorough plan and some further study by the applicant should really be presented by the applicant to the committee and that it is particularly troubling to see all the mechanical equipment 6 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 that was not shown in the HPC's original approval. It appears to loom somewhat larger because of the way in which the roof line steps up behind the parapet so that the parapet cannot hide all of the mechanical equipment. We would propose or suggest that you table action on the screening of the mechanical equipment. We have presented 5 alternatives for action on page five of the Planning Office memo. They include to deny the requested amendment and also to initiate the rescinding of the historic landmark destination if HPC is so concerned that they can't meet that restoration. To deny the request with regard to how the Mill Street wall could be amended to be changed but to approve the Mill Street aspect of it. To approve the request as proposed or to table action if you feel that further time and considerati- on is necessary to mitigate the problems. Our recommendation is as I mentioned before #C which is to not approve the Main Street but to approve the Mill Street and then to table action on the mechanical. Bill: Thanks Steve and I would like the Commission to address all the issues before we get public comment. Georgeann: I do think with so much of the building changed we do have a question of whether this building is truly a restorat- ion or not. But I think this is not the fault of the architects or the fault of the Commission or anything but a gradual study of the project. These old wooden buildings that weren't built to last. I think the root of the problem is a re-evaluation of what we can honestly restore or not restore in a building. But I think at the moment we are attempting to restore as much as possible to this building. I think the scale, the color, the materials that will remain on that corner will be an addition to the community. It is unfortunate that this happened but it did. I think that the approach that the architects have submitted is a reasonably good approach on the siding and I am only dealing with the siding not any of the other things at the moment. I am concerned though because I understand that when this is painted the old areas of the siding will show up very distinctly as old areas and the new siding will probably show as new siding. So if we decide to go along with this approach I would like to at least not have one whole chunk of new siding in there. I think it might be better to discretely take boards from other areas of the building and use those for patching so we get a random new board, one board here, one board there. Now whether that can be done without damaging the integrity of the structure 7 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 itself I don't know but I don't boarding. like one whole chunk of new The more I look at it now when I went and looked at the site before I was inclined to say to just change the patching method. But the patching concentrates so much in that corner and that corner is so critical I don't know the structure of it but perhaps it would be better to take the upper part of the Main Street elevation and push all of that upper part to the left and do the patching on the right hand side. That is just another possibility so we keep the integrity of the traditional materials as much as possible right in that corner. John: The wall can be slid to that side. Georgeann: But I mean so that the bottom part stays where it is and only the top part is slid. John: That I don't know about. Georgeann: Because your other point was that you don't necessar- ily want to replace every board down that whole right hand side and that was perhaps a possibility. John: I guess there is a possibility that it could be soddened in from the back. Georgeann: But whether that would damage it more, I don't know. Zoe: It is unfortunate that this has happened and I am sure everybody in this room feels the same way but it has to be addressed and my comment on the patching is: First of all I think this brings up the big question whether this is really a restoration project or not. If it is a restoration then there would be certain ways to deal with it and if it isn't probably you would have better options visually what you would do to it. I think that the corner being blotched up like that and patched in a big hunk would not be the most attractive thing from that corner. So I agree with Georgeann and I think the patching method should be changed at the way to achieve that to where it would be the most attractive would be to take this whole section and really do it right and then you could of course adjust the color to where it would look right. Then there would be so much augmentation that it brings up the question will it still qualify and is it still a restoration. Bill: What is the difference between the in that cross hatching? Is that new siding use? darkened shade boards that you are going to 8 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 John: This cross hatching right here and these existing boards would come out and be fit into these gray areas. So that's an old board that has been fit into an old and that patching right there (other than Georgeann's comment) would be new. I think Georgeann's comment would be the fact I've noticed there are some boards over here that are fairly short. We could take out individual boards there and put a board or something in there so there is not a square block. Bill: What is your professional feeling about trying to make these match to Zoe's comments about the paint or staining of these boards and the difference between the new and the old? John: If you look at the Mill Street and I have looked at it fairly carefully with the painters this has had a tremendous amount of more weather than the north one has. These boards are relatively beaten up and weather checked whereas a lot of these boards especially in this corner are relatively smooth. In other words there is no chipped paint or very little chipped paint on this section of the building relative to any of this over here. There is a memo that we gave to Steve which I assume got to the HPC on how it is going to be painted. The existing will be power washed and scraped which will just take off the loose paint. It won't take off any wood and it won't take off all the paint at all. It will not take off the paint that is solidly adhered to the wood so that when it is painted over you will be able to see that it has been painted before. In this area along the entire eastern side I think that is going to have a lot more weathering than this part will. That is the northern exposure and it doesn't not crack as much. Bill: I think I could help you there and I have done some of these older victorians where we replaced boards and after a year the weathering does help if you have them spread out enough when you have a concentrated area it is a little more noticeable but my experience has been it can work. As time goes on more boards are going to have to replaced. John: The more you look at the walls you can see pieces that have already been patched in an ongoing manner. Bill: Any public comment? Lona Trenton: If I understand correctly the concept of restorat- ion; maybe Steve could explain that to me. Steve: It is basically to restore all of the original parts that can be and replaced what needs to be. What is called an authen- 9 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 tic restoration would be no change in the dimensions that is essentially a matter of bringing an old building so that it is properly treated and is structurally sound. Lona Trenton: Because it seems to me that what they have done is made a very sincere attempt to "restore" it the way you have said and in terms of changing whether or not they should still be an historic restoration, they are off by a matter of inches. And that seems to me something that was done inadvertently. They did not do it to try to get more floor space or anything else. And in the concept of restoration it still seems to be a very authentic restoration. My husband works in Hollywood Land and I can assure you for probably not very much money, I could get you a set designer that could distress those pieces of wood and I would almost defy anybody to see which was the original wood and which is the new. If those are in truth what the problems are and it is that a patchwork would be unattractive then I think that is a very easy thing to take care of as there are painters that do restoration especially in view of the fact that they did go to the trouble to keep the original wood and that there probably should be a process so that as the wood deteriorates that it can continue to be replaced and that is not going to diminish the quality of the building but will in fact enhance the quality of the building. Malcolm MacPherson: With regard to the issue I think that the significance has to do with the Commission itself. We can all consider ourselves well served by you people up there for bringing this matter to our attention and to giving it your time. It is you doing your job and watching out for our welfare and for our benefit. I think that this building is not Monticello or it is not Mount Vernon. It is a shabby little building on an important corner in town. There is no real architectural significance to the thing although I am glad it is being maintai- ned. I think that the matter though is one of perspective. Somebody said it is 8 and 1/2 inches. I mean in the scheme of things it does not seem to me that those things are terribly significant. I think it really is a matter for the Commission. Perspective-- what is over, what is under, what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed. That is something that you folks have to decide for all of us. It does seem in just listening to some of the comments that right from the start this thing was like the idea of a wildebeast--something put together by God and a committee. This whole process seems to me to be something like a wildebeest. It just happened and now that it has happened I don't think that it should be halted or stopped or anything just because of a matter of perspective. HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 Art Pfister: I have been here probably longer than anybody else in the room since 1946 and I don't think the building was significant. It was an old building and it was colorful and has been there all the time and so we like it. I like the way it looks now. I like it a lot better than all the new brick things that are going up New York style. My problem is that somebody gets a designation from the society and you have got to know when you are going to restore an old building that you are going to have to replace things. They are rotten; they are falling down. How can you justify trying to red tag something like that. I just don't understand it. Woman at meeting: I would just like to say I tried to save the Roy Reed realty building and the old Tom Thumb. I didn't go very far on that and it was only 160 sq ft. I am really pleased with how it has turned out and I think time is of the essence. We are going to have people coming into town very shortly and getting down to business as soon as possible is what is important and not delaying and not tabling it. Larry ?: I think this building and this process has been dealt with to an appropriate level of significance and the level of significance that the building deserves. I would ask in making this judgment that we view what the building really is and does 8 inches or 4 inches or 5 inches difference in the facade of this particular building, at this location, and when it is appropriat- ely and well patched. I think it makes no difference whatsoever to the public's perception of it or even to a professional's perception of the character of the building. I think that therefore there is probably a little too much to do about this. I was glad to hear in an informal conversation that this committ- ee is thinking about appointing someone from the committee who can deal with these things perhaps outside of the context of a committee and 400 people. I am glad that that is being anticipa- ted. Dick Butera: Speaking as a neighbor and part owner of the Jerome I would first like to say that we are extremely pleased as neigh- bors to look at what is being done. The quality and scale of the project and I agree that maybe the whole premise of this whole discussion is a little bit faulty in that the building was a frame building and they did not have the luxury of a brick building that we had and it was easy for us not to make these kinds of mistakes because we had two things: We had bricks to deal with and we had Zoe. Everybody, the Planning Department etc. thought this could be preserved and I also hear through this gentleman that it is some great monument to the community so we feel that they have brought that corner up to scale with the other 4 corners in terms of size. The Department of Interior 11 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 insisted that the back half or our building did not conform exactly to the front half of the Historic Preservation. The policy is not to have new things tied in exactly as old things and let's not be too phony about this whole thing. Therefore, we think, and it seems a shame that these people who made an honest mistake and are being treated as criminals and let's get the corner cleaned up. Holzac Schmidt: My great grandfather provided the furniture for Elli's. His company did. I like Elli's very much and I knew it as it was before. I came here for a long time a long time ago. I think that it is marvelous idea that this town tries to keep itself in touch with it's historical roots and so on and so forth such as they are. A lot of towns have not done that and I think it is a good project and it is a nice idea--kind of like America. and I don't think that it should be stopped. I think that something should be done to make it succeed. I think it is a positive idea--a positive project and I think that these gentlem- en and ladies involved with this project have made sure that the City and so on and so forth understand that they will do whatever is necessary to make sure that whatever mistakes and problems are rectified and I would love to see it continued. Karen Centerfield, Leasing agent on the project: I have tenants planning to be in the building. Three of them already have their businesses in Aspen and three of them will be new businesses to Aspen. They have invested considerable amounts of dollars and energy into the project as far as what they are going to do. Their biggest concern right now is are they going to be in there for Christmas or not. For some of those businesses it can make a difference. More than 20% sometimes maybe even 40% of their entire annual gross. If they miss those 3 weeks around Christmas time it is really going to make a difference in the success or failure of their business. As you all know Elli has been out of business for 6 months and they are planning to be back in there. The restaurant tenant needs the time right now to get in there and finish or they are very much hurt by the delay so I am very concerned for them. Also one of the reasons why they have chosen the building to be in is because they like it. They like the old part. They like the new part and they really like the building and they are very anxious to be there. Some of them have checked out every building in town in order to choose this particular location. I have shown them buildings all over town and this is the one they want to be in. Also in my position I see interests from all different people every day who have told me how much they like the building even if they aren't going to be tenants in it. HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 Bill: I think we are all concerned with the urgency of the matter that is here and that is why we are holding this special meeting. Bill: Does anybody have any comments that are different from ones that have been expressed here? Owner of Sushi Masa restaurant: I own Sushi Masa restaurant and I moved near Ace Building and this is my chief problem. If I can't open for Christmas--miss Christmas season my problem--~ one. Dailey Nelson: For people who do not know the developers, the construction company, the architects who are involved in this project, I would personally like to thank them for the effort and time and the tears that have gone into this project. They have really cared and they have really made an extreme effort to make this building right for all of the tenants and for all of the people in this community. I do thank all of them and I think it is an beautiful building and let's go ahead with it. Carl Bergman: I respect what is happening from the City's standpoint here and I think that has to be done. For the last 10 years that used to be an empty lot. No one ever knew what my job was to pick up beer cans and beer bottles every single day. What is happening now is these people came to me as a good neighbor a number of months ago and I said "Well it looks good". I can't tell you how delighted I was through the planning process to have that corridor through there by our building. I said to my wife, "You know, this is almost an impossibility but this is a 100% approval for a neighbor on my part". When I put the Miner's Building up, it wasn't that way. It was all types of neighbor obstructions to everything I went through. I feel the project is coming along good and from a neighbor's standpoint I am very happy. We have let them use our water, our electricity and they bored a hole through the building which they had to do. Let's keep it going. Hans: I have been here since 1964 and I really can say--and I am not worrying about the people that own the building. I think it is a tremendous strain on them. I can't see how somebody can red tag a project like this on a corner like this since they are sincerely trying to work out a few little problems. That corner is a problem as long as there is work done and we want to get that out of the way before the ski season starts. So I think a sincere effort to work things out will more in order instead of red tagging and saying "Hold it we are going to have another study and we are going to do this". Let's get to work and get 13 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 that over so that people in town can pass there and have the traffic going right again. George Hart: Just as the neighbor on the other side, the Bank of Aspen, we are very pleased with the new neighbors and I think that the corner is great addition and upgrade to our neighbor- hood. Bill: Is there anybody here with comments against the project. There was none. Public Comment: I remember when the Cantina went up and it was an eye sore and nobody wants that again. I thought the issue today was whether it was historic or not rather than if the building should go on or not. Nick Pasquarella: I sat here in June and I studied on the Board but I remember the applicant coming in and Elli came in and said she wanted to see her building kept and saved so it would look like that corner always did. The applicant beseeched the Committee, historically preserve us, it will help us a lot, and I think we all went along with that thought and we were sincere that Elli's would look like Elli's and I think, and I would like to say with respect to Steve that he did his job to try to get it to come out like that. Right now I would like to say--Elli, what do you think? Are we doing what you wanted us to do? Elli: I guess I would say if you keep the colors and the building, I like it on the outside, it is just as good as it could possibly get. Bill: Since this is a public hearing I guess we should hear from the attorney's office. Tuesday's meeting--we have moved this meeting up. Should I keep it open? Fred Gannett: This is not a public hearing. For a public hearing you have to have an affidavit of notice for publication. You have done the public a service in hearing what they have had to say. I think those that have known that there has been adequate notice that there has been a meeting here today. I don't think you have to address that issue unless you want to continue it from your point of view. Bill: I think if we can address it we have a meeting coming up Tuesday and if the public does show up this is not an issue. Fred: I don't think you need to have public comment or have public input to make a decision on this issue. 14 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 Bill: I would like to thank everyone for coming and expressing your view points with us. Bill: Does everybody feel comfortable with the height issue? Steve: I think the only issue that has not been discussed is the screening and I would like to show you photographs if you want to go into the issue of screening. John: What we submitted to Steve in addition to the sketch that you have in your packet was the working drawings basically of a wood screen fence to go around the mechanical. Gideon: We understand some of the concerns from some of the comments that have gone on. Time is certainly the essence of this project. What we have done in a quick kind of way and in the interest of being able to resolve these things so you can finish with it and we can finish with it, we have done studies that will enable us to move the one swamp cooler, that is the one closest, the eastern most one, and if we move that over I think that will eliminate the most visual aspect of the items that are on the roof and that is one that we can do..it is a big expense on our part but we are willing to do that in the spirit of trying to mitigate that concern and get everybody off center and get on with the project. Bill: When you say move it over what do you mean? John: From the eastern most of the three it will become the western most of the three. Bill: So it will move back from the viewplain. John: The sketch #5 is just with the screen around the existing mechanical equipment and then what this sketch shows is just the outline of where that sketch #5 is and what would happen if that were moved to the western edge of it. Steve: One of these photos shows that. Zoe: I think that probably this is more of a problem than anything else and this is something that can be resolved and this is an easy thing to fix. I think that whatever you propose--the visualization of this is really real noticeable from both east and west sides. From the corner you don't get it but you do from both sides when you are looking at it. John: The big one closest to Mill will be moved over there. John: And then do the screen around the new reconfigured 3. 15 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 Zoe: And when you say screen, do you mean more siding? John: I think what would be most appropriate solid wood wall that is raised up off the roof on can come under that. would be...it is a so that ventilati- Georgeann: It looks like another parapet. Zoe: You are proposing the wood. John: I think that one thing that at this point to keep in mind here is that right now the building at the stage it is in you have got a mostly completed building and then you have got a big wall in front of what is generally the life of a building so that your eye has nothing to look at but a construction barricade along the entire site and then a roof. And what that of course does is focus your attention on the roof more than would normally be the case with people and things in the store and lights on and activity inside. So I think that while the issue is raised it will definitely diminish when the barricades come down and your attention will change down to street level. Zoe: Some of that is restaurant equipment and some of it is building, right? John: The towers up there? They are cooling towers for the building for all the spaces. Steve: For clarification about the shiny saying that those can be moved entirely? that are visible from the Hotel Jerome. restaurant???-you are There are two of them Heidi: One is a boiler flue that is 4" into the viewplain and that has been lowered. The exhaust, that big 36" diameter, 42" height exhaust fan is not really necessary given the present tenant configuration so it has already been removed. If there is a tenant reconfiguration or there is a conference room instead of the way that we have got now, it will have to go back up. Georgeann: I am very unhappy with what is going on with these coolers. To start with the proposition for this building was that the Elli's building would sit there as the Elli's building. This other building would appear to wrap around it. We have ended up now with about a fairly distinctive parapet above the Elli's building which immediately visually attaches it to the new building and destroys the separateness of the buildings. On top of that we are adding an extra parapet to further join new spaces that should be kept visually separate. I find personally that I am totally unhappy with the solution of the evaporative coolers 16 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 there. We have had buildings in Aspen for 100 years. We haven't had to have cooling in them. There are a half dozen days of the year when that is critical there and the other 359 days of the year we will stare at it and it will be inappropriate. There has got to be another solution. I don't think moving this back further from the street does it completely. I went over and looked and we will still see too much with the parapet around. It is ugly with the cooler up there and with the parapet up there it will look even more architectural. It is never going to solve it from the Jerome even if it is moved back. Whether it means a different kind of unit maybe an air condition unit which can be lower and smaller, I don't know what the capabilities are but I would certainly like to see it addressed to the point of exhaustion before this was accepted. Gideon: Ail the buildings that are being built in town today have some kind of cooling system and tenants want that. I know in our building we went out of our way to get because when you have offices and stuff like that and the windows, there are more than a few days a year when you need that. I myself walked around town and just about every building in this town has unbelievable amounts of duct work and things on top of them. You come next door to me, there is a 15 foot aluminum flue that goes up from a restaurant that was having a problem with the smoke and the smell to the various neighbors. All of these things and every building in town it is a fact of life and you don't see it much sometimes when you are walking and not looking at it but I'd love to show you how there isn't a building in the downtown that doesn't have this kind of situation. With the Hotel Jerome, the duct work did not get addressed on that building either. That is something that has been accepted over time as a necessary situation in terms of the downtown area and all these buildings have these kind of protrusions on them. Georgeann: I know they have them and it is a bad situation allowing it here on the principle corner in town, on the leading front of the building. There is no reason to add to it with this. I think the whole problem of the mechanical stuff has got to be addressed. It is atrocious. In most cases at least the buildings are tall enough, they are out of the way but this is the leading front corner of the main corner in downtown Aspen and that is why I think it is more critical here. There has got to be some way that this can be solved. Because it is everywhere else in town is no reason to allow it here. 17 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 Nick: Why wasn't all that equipment put on the new building instead of on the little building we are trying to restore? John: It actually is on new construction. It was not put on the highest part of the new building because this is the first time in my history in this town that I have ever done anything that was too low. There are mechanical reasons why that was put there. Nick: When I look at the old Elli's building, what I saw last year at this time, when I look at it now I see that equipment on and I ask why wasn't it put on the other building. John: The needs of the building necessitates these be in the center of the building. The mechanical room is right below. It could not go towards Main Street because it would start to protrude in the viewplain. Charlie: Would it go on the back of the new addition and stay under the viewplain? Heidi: The viewplain is marked on the Mill Street elevation. John: There are some requirements for induction. I don't know if they can be moved over there or not. Charlie: No, the question was can they be moved back here and stay under the viewplain. John: You mean put them on top of the tallest part of the building? Georgeann: Is there any way you can indent your wall there so they can set back a little bit further. Heidi: Part of the original idea was to tuck them in but the coolers need at least 30 inches around them to get the air into the sides. Georgeann: Well if you are telling me that then that means your parapet that comes out from them is going to be 30 inches out from where we are seeing the evaporative coolers now and it will be even more visible. Bill: Do you think by maybe screening it with something that is different than the building material so it wouldn't look part of the building might be more palatable. Most of these restorations have to be modernized anyway. 18 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 John: We have talked about something like that, maybe in the realm of a wrought iron fence which broke the silhouette but did not hide the equipment like a widow's walk that is on the Aspen Block building. I don't have any problems with that. In fact the wood fence idea partly came out of a meeting on the site last Friday. Zoe: That is almost like adding insult to injury. More wood. Georgeann: I don't know what your configuration is. Is there no way that you could at least nestle back in that wall a few feet? Are there no lower smaller units of any kind? I just can't believe that the only thing in technology that is possible to do to cool you building is these huge ugly evaporative coolers. I think at this point we ought to vote on the siding and table this and ask them to try and research stuff but allow them to continue with the work that they are doing otherwise. Bill: Are there any other comments from the Board? Zoe: I would like to know how you feel about it? Bill: My personal comments are that I would like to see mechanical equipment to be mechanical equipment. The issue is a strong issue that the building should keep its integrity as a historic structure, as an older building and by siding it makes it look like we are bringing the new on top of this old. That is the basis of the issue. We are trying to protect the massing, the shape and get it restored. I have the confidence that you are doing that. I think the applicant has done a very good job of keeping us informed. I still have the confidence that you can do it. But like everybody has said there is going to be more mechanical equipment up there and it has happened on every other building. It is part of the modernization of a building that makes it even more useful. The town is growing up. I think moving it over somewhat and if you can't move it somewhere else, I would like to see it softened up either with material or color but Elli's should stay as the original building. Augie: I agree with that especially if you are going to move the eastern one unit to the west. The way I read this is that all the units with the exception of that first one now is basically on new construction of where the old Elli's building really didn't exist. John: To be very accurate, this lines up with that wall. There was a little addition right there. That little cinder block part. 19 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 Augie: So from that aspect I don't have a problem with that and I would prefer just not screen it to add to it. Just to move the one over. I was not on the Board back when this was approved and one of the things that I have a problem with this whole process is that I don't personally consider that this building is a restoration. Because I don't consider that putting two facades back on a new building is a restoration. I think the structure of a building is just as important in a restoration as a facade. So as far as the proposal that they have I don't think that that takes away from what has already been approved and these people have relied on what the Commission has already stated that that process and that direction was the way that they could go ahead and present that. Charlie: I came on this Board midway through all of this. I was at the first meeting at the approval on March 23 and my interpre- tation is really the first initial introduction to the building is these plans which are stamped and in going through the whole process a number of things have changed. I think that this Board in conjunction with Steve and Nick who oversaw the project did not keep track of some of the subtle things that changed and we really missed the opportunity to help the developer get the project really restored properly so that you have got Elli's as it was expected to be as original as possible and have the addition put on it. I don't think it will serve anybody's purpose to correct it radically at this point. I think it is probably a learning process that we should take advantage of. I feel that correcting some of the things that are wrong, the scale of the building, my own interpretation is that there is something on the roofline that is out of context. The mechanical issue just adds to that and I think it should have been addressed and I think that since it is still can be addressed that it should be addressed in an alternate fashion. It is absolutely necessary. I know that for a fact that you have to cool these spaces but we are into Fall. You can still put your ducting in. You can get your building done. You can find another way. I think that we already have enough visual obstruction on the top of this building, that the new building is spilling out over the old building and I think that you should find another solution to it. In terms of the gaps my comment would be it is a mistake and I think it could be simply rectified and I think everybody in here would be satisfied with the restoration at that point. It will all blend in if it is done well. Steve: It sounds like there is pretty strong consensus with regard to the restoration with possibly some modifications that Georgeann has suggested. 2O HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 Gideon: The first thing I would like to do is deal with the corner and come to a resolution on how we should address that. Then go to the swamp coolers. Steve: The swamp coolers is not a critical issue itself and I don't think it is going to hold up the rest of the and it is something that could be dealt with later. tonight project Gideon: This is a critical enough thing. We have been held up long enough that I would like to deal with one issue now nd if there is a consensus of the Board that we can deal with it now, fine. If there is a consensus that we can't, we don't. But I think the Board should be given the opportunity to decide whether we have to resolve the swamp cooler or not. Let's at least deal with the gap in the boards now, get a resolution on that and then move forward to the next thing. Bill: I'll entertain a motion at this time. Fred: The red tag is really a business of the Building Depart- ment and it is not a function really of this Committee. I think the motion can clearly give direction without having to direct an authority, an action that it doesn't have power to direct. Gideon: But the red tag was placed based upon a restoration plan that they said was not in conjunction with what was approved. I don't want to fall into any cracks here. We have been shut down for a long period of time and I think that if the Board feels strongly about it the Board should be entitled to say they want the red tag lifted and I would ask that you make that very clear. Charlie: We are the toothless dog. The City is the watch dog and Steve, they monitor the situation. Part of the process we hope will be that we will have an employee in the near future employed working with HPC to oversee this. I think when the Building Department and the City decides that the approvals of HPC aren't being adhered to that is the time that they step in to do something. We can only tell the applicant what we want to have done. We cannot force them to do that. And I think what you are asking us to do is setting a precedent that we cannot do. zoe: I think that there is a general consensus as to what we need to do in terms of doing a re-application of the siding. I think that is one of the major issues to get this building cooking. What if one of the members of this Board was appointed to deal with how this application is done to move this project on and lift the red tag so that they can get cooking. I wish that when you looked at the roof line that you didn't see all that commotion going on. I think that something could be done to 21 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 minimize it and that there could be something done to the top of it to cause a minimal visualization. If we are generally concerned about this and this is our reason for being here that one or maybe two of the members should start working with the developers. Bill: We do have a monitor. That was addressed in one of the earlier meetings. Nick is the monitor on this. Gideon: My concern is I don't want to get caught in the twilight zone. I don't want to get you out of it and then be told "now it has got to go to the Building Department, now it has got to go here". I want the City to know that as far as the HPC is concerned we have addressed this and you feel that the red tag can be lifted. If they choose not to lift it, that is fine but I don't want to then have to go and have to be told "Well it is going to be a couple of days because the Building Department has to have the following agreements". I just don't think that is right. MOTION: Georgeann: Before we get to the red tag, we have to have a new motion. I move to approve the following request of changes to the Elli's Restoration Plan. 1. Replacement of the cornice piece facing Main Street as the applicant submitted, the piece that is rotten, starting the new piece approximately 4 ft. back. 2. As the applicant submitted treatment of the Mill Street wall at the southeast corner to install new siding where damaged or missing but not exactly as proposed but as amended taking some boards from other areas of the building to make a mix of new and old boards. Then as the applicant also submitted, move the existing cornice to the south corner and add a new piece approximately 1 ft. long and install a 6 and 1/4 vertical trim board along the southeast edge of the historic store front. Charles seconded the motion. Steve: Are you going to deal with a separate motion or would you like to include in this motion the treatment of the Main Street elevation? Georgeann: I would also amend that motion to approves the restoration plan for the Main Street submitted by the architect. say that HPC elevation as Charles seconded the amended motion. Fred: You should resubmit the entire motion as an original motion and vote on that. I think you made clear what your motion is. 22 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 Georgeann: Then I re-submit my motion with both parts being as one motion. Nick: How does this relate to their status as a landmark in our City's files? Is it going to remain an landmark? Does Elli's still have historic designation? historic historic Steve: I think if the Committee is approving this as an approved amended restoration plan that is it does not affect the designat- ion. Gideon: The Board has the right and no one can take away from the Board the right to put forward your feelings about something. And it seems to me the Board can certainly say that it is your desire to see this building be able to continue as quickly as possible. I don't see anything wrong with doing that so that we don't get into a situation. Each day now is so critical to us that we would like your support on moving the process forward. Georgeann: Let's vote on this and see whether we like this or not and then once we have done that we can have a separate motion to recommend to City Council or to the City staff that they remove the red tag. Fred: You have a motion on the floor and the discussion has ended and can be voted on. Bill: I entertain a vote. All in favor. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Motion carries. MOTION: Georgeann: Department that the red time. I move to recommend to the Building tag be removed on Elli's building at this Charlie seconded the motion. Fred: The motion is purely advisory and has no bonding effect. It indicates an intent of the Board to recommend a particular course of action. A course of action for which it has no authority to either take one direction or the other but it speaks to your intent. The fact that it is somewhat superfluous is up to you. Bill: My feeling is that you are taking off the red tag and you have not addressed all the issues yet. You have taken care of one issue and are taking the red tag off. Gideon: That is my whole point and my whole concern that we don't leave this meeting now and then go to the Building Depart- ment and then have somebody come up and say "Well, we are not 23 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 satisfied that all the issues have in fact been addressed; therefore, until the HPC comes back and addresses these following issues the red tag is not lifted". So what I want to do is make sure when we leave here all the issues necessary to remove the red tag have been addressed. John: The red tag covers the restoration or any work on the old wall and all tenant work a tenant interior finish. So any tenant that wants to get into that building cannot work on that job. In addition they cannot finish the walls. Bill: Does the red tag pertain only to the gap in the siding or all the work that is going on? Steve: The red tag pertains to the restoration component of the plan. John: And interior finish. Correct? Fred: To read into the record so that the record reflects what the red tag says to goes: Stop work order; Stop work on restora- tion. No tenant finish work. The preservation of this historic- al sides of Mill Street and Main Street is contrary to HPC approvals. HPC approval is a commission of the Building permit #10537. Until revised approval is obtained all work on historic- al facade is hereby suspended for Section 24-9.14 Aspen Code in Section 303 sub section E 1979 UBC as adopted by the City of Aspen and no tenant finish shall will be permitted. That is the extent of the red tag. What you have done tonight by your motion has approved the applicant's plan for a particular area that is addressed in this particular stop work order. What remains for the Building Department to evaluate is whether or not the revised approval has been made and it has been made. John: The Building Department acted on the Planning Department's recommendation. Fred: That is correct. John: Then I guess what we are trying to clear up since HPC approved it, they again are going to act I believe on the Planning Office's recommendation. Fred: If you are asking for the Planning Department to stand up and say I am going to go ahead with your recommendation this is the wrong place and time to address it. And I think that you are misdirecting the issue. You have got the approval that you sought from this Board now it is up to whether or not staff follows the Board's direction. If they don't, you have relief 24 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 and other avenues. It can't be in the context of Steve standing up here and saying "I approve". Charles: First of all the red tag did not come from the HPC. Most people think the HPC went out and red tagged the building. It did not. We can't recommend that something get red tagged, we can't say that something get un-red tagged. We can make a suggestion to the Building Department or the Planning Office but that is all we can do. Sam Houston: Are you saying that all the problems that were in the stop work order have been addressed by this board's approval of the restoration? Therefore that the developer is no longer doing anything wrong because they will be working on the amended restoration which has been approved and therefore all conditions for the stop work order have been satisfied as far as the HPC is concerned. Fred: The HPC has approved certain amendments to the restorat- ion project, they specifically relate to the Mill Street and Main Street side. The red tag was issued on basically deviation from that proposal. So to that extent it satisfied the Planning Department for which this is the improper form to say yes or no. They have gotten direction from the Board. There are other issues apparently that have been discussed tonight that need to be clarified. They don't need to be, and they are not the subject of this red tag order. That is not to say that should the applicant move forward in a different direction that there will not be another red tag put into place. What you have agreed to do on an informal basis is work together to find a solution. I think that is the next motion that is going to come forward on how the parameters of that particular project is going to take place and I think you have accomplished what you wanted to accomplish and that is direction from the HPC and staff that they approved the new program on that specific issue regarding the Main Street corners. Sam: And did you also say that at no time did the stop work order affect the two new additions. They only affected the historical section so the tenant finishing those could go on anyway? Fred: We are getting way off those issues. Augie: Traditionally how the process works is this body approves the plan and then the architectural firm or engineering firm submits those particular documents to the Building Department so they can make sure that those plans comply with what we approved and then they do whatever their process is. So I think that is 25 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 all we can do tonight and then the ball is in your court to make sure that it gets complied with. Bill: We have got a motion on the floor. Could you please repeat that motion. It has been seconded. Georgeann: My motion is very simple. It is to recommend to the Building Department the removal of the red tag. To amplify on that because the applicant has brought forward an acceptable plan for the restoration of the exterior of the existing building. In favor of the motion were Georgeann, Nick, Zoe, Charles and Augie. Bill and Charlie voted against the motion. Motion carries. Bill: There are some other issues to be addressed yet. Do we have a motion for that? Fred: Perhaps I could suggest to the Board a motion that might be appropriate. That the Board table any further action on the areas relating to the mechanical equipment on the top of the Elli's building and the new wing surrounding it until the applicant has brought forward alternate plans relating to its design and location. Gideon: There are some people on the Board that So I guess that motion needs to be discussed that the motion. are satisfied. is going to be Fred: You could make the motion and it either fails or passes. MO?ION: Georgeann: I move that to table the action on the proposed screening and placement of rooftop mechanical equipment until the applicant has come back with further study on different possibilities to lessen the impact of that mechanical area. Nick seconded the motion. Gideon: If this is passed will this them be utilized by the Building Department or someone to say that we can't remove the red tag or there is an issue that hasn't been addressed and therefore we can't continue work. I want to make certain that this isn't used to keep the project shut down or that the project cannot continue because of this question. Bill: The mechanical equipment is not part of the red tag. is only the restoration plan of the building itself. It Gideon: stand. I would like to have it made clear so that I under- 26 HPC Minutes November 19, 1987 Nick: I think you are kind of using us a little bit. I get a feeling that you are putting a wedge in and saying "remember we want you to tell the Building Department. Gideon: We have been shut down for ten days and I don't want to wait until Tuesday and then find out we are shut down some more. Georgeann: Then you will have to wait I guess. Nick: You were shut down because you did not go on with the historical preservation that was recommended or approved and re rectified that. Bill: Ail in favor say I. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Motion carries. Bill: I'd like to thank you are for coming and I'd like to thank City Council for letting us take an hour of their time. Meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. Janice M. Carney, City Deputy Clerk