HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19871222 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
Minutes
Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, City Hall
December 22, 1987 2:30 p.m.
Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann
Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Charles Cunniffe, Augie Reno, and
Charlie Knight present.
MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve Nov. 19, 1987
minutes. Nick second the motion. All approved. Motion carries.
MOTION: Augie made the motion to approve Nov. 24, 1987 minutes.
Nick second the motion. All approved. Motion carries.
MOTION: Augie made the motion to approve the Dec. 8, 1987
minutes. Nick second the motion. All approved. Motion carries.
MONITORING PROJECTS
Georgeann: The Stallard House. The Historical Society decided
not to clad any of the windows but they are going to restore the
windows close to the entrance and along the porch. The other
windows on the south and west side they would like to still put
in new windows but not clad them and keep them more authentic and
pay a little more for maintenance. I've talked to Charles and
doing single pane windows with the storm window in the inside
does keep the look visually down to the same small scale as the
original windows and we would like to point out that they do need
the storm windows because as it is they keep the temperature at
60% and the heating bills are high. Especially in the south and
the west they need the kind of glass which cuts the glare and
keeps things inside protected. I feel what they are doing makes
good sense. Fran was going to find out how many operable windows
you have to have. If they restore the old windows and make them
operable they have to go into the walls from the inside which
they don't want to do.
Fran Davies: Ail the windows open now but they don't stay open
by themselves.
Charles: The windows being added are single pane windows on the
front and there is a storm window with a clip in on the back. It
doesn't effect the frame size.
Bill: How does this compare to the size of the muntins that are
there now which is 1 1/8".
Charles: The new muntins are 1 3/16".
Bill: Are you going to do the diamond pattern windows at the
top?
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
Charles: They would be restored and we wouldn't be replacing
the windows at the porch only restoring them. We found the cost
of restoring windows is considerably more than the cost of
replacing them.
Ken McCaskal from Cunniffe and Assoc. architect:
plans.
Presented
Georgeann: We talked about which was the greater emphasis
whether you walk up the stairs and see this window on this side
or these on this side or whether you see them all from the bay
window. From the inside they have lace curtains.
Charles: We could not think of a better way to do this given
all the conditions that are here.
Bill: You don't feel that you have jeopardized the Stallard
House's position for any future grants?
Fran: No we have not.
Ken: The window on the east side by the
elements and we would like to have it as
restore the ones that are under the porch.
entry is exposed to the
a pella also and just
Charles: The one to the right of the front entry when you go
in.
Fran: That is part of the bay window.
Georgeann: I am not uncomfortable with that.
Charles: What works for us nicely is: the windows that you see
most closely when you enter the building are under a porch and
they are on the side of the building that receives the least
weather although if it didn't have the porch cover it would get
severe weather being facing south. Because it is covered it has
never been in the sun or rain and those windows are in the best
condition and the most important we feel for people who go up and
really look at them.
Charles: We haven't done actual chalk lines of the windows yet
and we intend to do so and Georgeann will monitor it. As near as
we can tell the difference between the muntins is 1/16 or less.
Steve: One of the concerns at the last meeting was it was going
to be 1/8 of an inch different or perhaps more. It now is very
close to what HPC had approved two meetings ago.
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
Bill: What about the profile of the shape?
Charles: It is close also and is as close as we are going to be
able to come. This is a historic replacement window designed by
pella.
Bill: Do we need to pass a motion?
Steve: I don't think you do.
Georgeann: At the last meeting we decided if they could give us
an exact reproduction then are motion has already passed. I feel
this is close enough to fall into the category of exact.
Charles: We will stay in touch with Georgeann regarding the
existing windows and what replacement windows we do and we are
trying to restore the windows whenever possible.
Georgeann: Do we feel comfortable enough that we want to
recommend to City Council that they try and help the Stallard
House with their restoration?
Bill: Is the money you received from the Aspen Foundation
enough to cover this?
Fran: We have $21,500 and we need around $34,000.
Augie: In the recommendation we should say how much money they
are shy.
Fran: I will get the exact figures for Bill.
Steve: At the last meeting it was decided that a letter should
be sent by the chairman. I would suggest that be done and state
the figures that are needed and let Council decide what amount if
any they want to contribute.
Augie: Barn~t~t House. Steve provided me with the minutes on
the Barnett House which was the Hamilton house originally at 513
Bleeker. The minutes and drawings were vague as to what happens
to siding etc. There is another set of drawings that do not have
the HPC stamp on them. There are some discrepancies as to what
is going on out there. The whole building has been stripped of
all its siding whereas the particular drawings that we have show
it only to be patched and to match on the new sections.
Charles: The trim detail and window locations should be made
sure they are in harmony as to what was approved.
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
Steve: The Committee has to make some sort of finding as to
whether you think there is a problem. Do you think they are out
of compliance at this point with the prior approval. They did
amend the approval in the fall. If there are findings that are
inappropriate they should either be brought to the Zoning
Commissions attention or say we feel this building has gone too
far that it ought to be rescinded, designation should be res-
cinded.
Charles: The first set of plans that Augie has were the
approved plans and the second set was the amended plans so the
two sets work together. The house went from Hamilton to Barnett
around two years ago. Actually there was another owner after
Hamilton for about a year Tom O'Garra. There were no changes
while O'Garra owned it.
Bill: What were the amended changes?
Charles: They pushed out the porch and there was a section
added to the master bedroom upstairs where the roof deck was.
Bill: What course of action should we take?
Steve: The basic question is whether this structure is preced-
ing contrary to the approved plans. If we can determine what
they are some action is appropriate.
Augie: After looking at these plans I would say that there
definitely are changes from these plans.
Bill Drueding: The chairman should direct the building depart-
ment to get updated plans and present them to HPC.
Bill: I direct the Building Department to contact the builders
and owners of the Barnett residence 513 W. Bleeker to provide
updated construction documents.
AMENDMENT TO ELLI'S ROOFTOP SWAMP COOLERS
John Cottle: As a slight point of clarification we are not
actually amending we are bringing you up to date.
Steve: It was something that was never shown on the original
plans so therefore it is an amendment.
John: We are addressing the three coolers on the rooftop.
Alternate one option would be to screen the units as they stand.
It would be wood siding. Another option would be to continue the
parapet stepping on the roof. Both these options don't address
the mechanical units themselves but would screen them from view.
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
John: Alternate #2 has the net effect. We would relocate the
more prominent cooler which is toward Mill Street so it is not
visible. Option three would be to move both units from the
corner invisible. Alternate #2 has A and B components to it: A
unit would be moved up on the highest part of the roof and duct
across the roof and down into it or B component would move it
over to the side and duct across the roof.
To make both coolers go away from Cantina on Mill Street we have
to put one unit on the highest roof and move one over. If we
make two of them go away from Mill and Main we are solving one
problem but we are then putting that unit on the highest part of
the building and from certain areas on Mill Street it would be
seen and from the rooms in the Jerome it would be silhouetted
against the sky. So rather than being tucked against the
backdrop of the building as they are now we can make them so they
would not appear over Elli's. By doing that they are visible
from other areas.
Augie: When you move any of the units is there a reason why we
have to go onto the roof with the ducts v.s. within the building?
Bill Kimbell, engineer: Because there is an occupied space
underneath that has no ceiling.
Bill: As it stands all the ducts are hidden in the building and
all we would see are the three coolers.
Bill Kimbell: Yes.
John: In any case we would paint the units so that they would
blend into the area.
Bill: What about the option of not having any coolers there?
Bill Kimbell: We run into ventilation code requirements.
Nick: When the original renderings came to us there was nothing
on the roof of the old building. Nobody addressed that.
John: The HPC drawings were done at the design development
level and the design mechanical are never presented at that
stage.
Steve: When architectural components are added even after the
final approval they should be brought to the attention of the
Planning Office and if necessary to the HPC.
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
Nick: I'm not an architect and when I looked at what we
approved I thought Elli's would look like Elli's used to look and
when coolers appeared on the roof they don't come to me in that
same manner. I'm concerned as fellow citizens walk down the
street and see huge swamp coolers on the roof.
Bill Kimbell: When a building is remodeled you must bring it up
to present day codes. You have to provide ventilation on
interior spaces that don't have office windows etc. and that is
one of the reasons those units are there.
Bill: But if it does have historic designation that code can be
waived by the Building Department.
Charlie: I'm involved in a law suit right now in an historic
building that doesn't allow for ventilation and if it is by law I
would like to know that. I understand the necessity for it.
Bill Kimbell: When
than 50% you have to
the occupancy.
you increase the value of a structure more
bring the building up to code or you change
Charlie: On ventilation but these are swamp coolers, they are
cooling units.
Bill Kimbell: They don't have to cool the air by code but there
must be ventilation in those interior spaces. They are doing two
things with one unit.
Augie: Are there any windows that are operable in the building.
John: Yes and they provide a portion of the front retail space.
Nick: I assume these swamp coolers will cool parts of the
original Elli's building.
John: Yes.
Dave Myler: I'm the neighbor across the street and my office
occupies Chitwood Plaza (Cantina Bldg.) and having offices you
must have some cooling. There is a parapet around the roof of
the Plaza to conceal the cooling system there. We should all
recognize when older buildings are renovated that there is going
to be mechanical equipment on the roof. My office is looking
down on Elli's roof and everyday I can see it and I would like to
see the swamp coolers hidden.
Steve: On Nov. 19, 1987 HPC tabled the roof top mechanical
equipment until the applicant would come back with further
studies of different location and height and screening of the
6
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
equipment. You have three alternatives before you with two sub-
alternatives for moving or screening that equipment. HPC's
concerns on Nov. 19th were that the coolers are obtrusive and
call attention to the new construction that seems to encroach
onto the old portion of the Elli's building. It was suggested
that in order for this to be successful that they be less
visible. None of the alternatives fully meet these concerns as
they are all visible from one place or another. It seems that
alternative one is the least appropriate because it adds a
further architectural element and I feel it is better not to
screen them at all than it is to perhaps add a four foot wall or
something of that sort that would be rapping around it particula-
rly close to the Mill St. parapet which would be more obtrusive
than where they are presently. Alternatives #2 and ~2A relocate
the coolers and they make them less obvious from Mill St. and one
of the points of reference are right in front of the Cantina on
the sidewalk you get a few of at least two of the coolers. If
that is HPC's primary objective then the relocations would help
although the 32 x 32" ducts would also have some visual impact.
Alternative ~3 puts the coolers in place where they are really
not visible from Mill Street and the duct work is minimal and
that seems to be the best although I would suggest maybe you
could have cooler 9A somewhere down lower possibly farther west
of #B rather than on the high roof.
Bill Kimbell: The problem with that is the restaurant equipment
has to be 10 feet from the intake of exhaust. If that would
happen it would push the restaurant equipment to the north.
John: There is only room to move one of the units over where ~B
is located. There is only code room for one piece of equipment.
Steve: I verbally talked to Heidi Hoffman about two options
that were not presented in the report: one is to put the coolers
in the basement and the other would be to inset them into the
high roof. She verbally reported that it was impractical because
if you put them in the basement you must have ventilation for the
system and that the ducts then come through space that is now
retail commercial space. With regard to insetting them into the
high roof that is a problem also because it displaces space and
it then presents structural problems because the equipment is so
heavy. My recommendation would be 93 with some compromise. I
also notice there is some indication of future restaurant
equipment and it should be clear in the motion that since we
don't know what that equipment looks like that should not be part
of the approval today, that you are simply looking at the swamp
coolers.
Bill Kimbell: If we brought the units into the building
7
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
(basement) there would be code problems. We also looked at
locating the unit on the side of the building in the open space.
Charlie: Is it possible that you could put air conditioning in
the basement?
Bill Kimbell: If you change the units to air conditioning units
regardless of where they go you then have to have some way to
reject the heat and that means a condenser coil, compressors etc.
Charlie: Compressors on the roof?
Bill Kimbell: You could do that but again you start getting
more space requirement. If you take a evaporative cooler unit
that pulls air in on three sides and a supply duct into the space
and replace that unit with a refrigeration unit you would then
have not only supply duct work but return duct work and then you
have to find space for the heat rejection equipment which is the
condenser coil and the compressor.
Charlie:
coolers?
Aren't they considerably smaller than evaporative
Bill Kimbell: No, they get bigger. Looking down on top of an
evaporative cooler now the duct work comes out and goes into the
side of the building or variation of the wall. We take air into
all three sides of the unit, that is with the evaporative cooler.
If you do the same situation with a refrigeration unit because
you can cool the air at a lower temperature the fan system gets a
little smaller but it doesn't reduce to half size. You now have
duct work going into the unit with a fan system and you have to
have a refrigerating coil. On refrigerating systems the coil is
normally one piece. Instead of drawing air on all three sides of
the unit because of the cost of manufacturing the coil has to be
added. With refrigeration units we also must take return air
back. So now we have a return duct also and we have to put a
compressor and heat rejection coil on it.
Charlie: I had had two spaces in the Mill Street Plaza one
airconditioning and one with an evaporative cooler. There was a
great distance from the air conditioning unit to the compressor
on the roof and the roof unit was considerably smaller than any
of the swamp coolers. My understanding was that the piping was a
freon system and very small in relationship to what you have
diagramed.
Bill Kimbell: True, this piece could be made remote and the
other problem is that their is a higher consumption of energy and
to get that energy we would haves to bring in a new electrical
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
system and new transformer. The building is not sized for
refrigerator airconditioning.
Charlie: I have a comment that should be made clear to the
Committee. On the original schematics we as a Committee thought
we were getting what we visualized and that was important to us
and we have been hard pressed to get that in this entire project.
One of the things we asked for was a compliment to the building.
You put your plans up and I look at the original plans, one of
two views, and I really anticipated seeing the views from the
original plans. In another drawing showing the same angle I
don't see the roofline or any swamp coolers and these are what we
asked for. We thought we were getting the views from the
original plans. In the spirit of compromise that the City and
HPC has made with alleviating the additional roofline that has
been added you are not addressing our concerns and I think all
three of these are just like moving the checker board around and
you aren't giving us the true alternative.
Gideon Kaufman: One of the things that we addressed in the
presentation was that particular issue. There are three archit-
ects on this Committee and I have been involved in GMP applica-
tions as well as HPC applications in the past. I am not aware
that swamp coolers and these kinds of mechanical things are put
on any of those approval processes when they go up. You don't
even design the swamp coolers, duct work etc. until a later time.
It wasn't an issue of trying to hide something. Every building
in this town has ducts and swamp coolers on it. Other buildings
have stacks that protrude into the viewplane and we aren't
protruding into the viewplane. If the HPC feels swamp coolers
etc. are the kind of things that should be pointed out and
reviewed and done before the buildings are approved that is fine
but you will have to make that part of the requirements. We have
done everything that we feel we could do within the spirit of
understanding where we are in the process and where the approvals
had been before and I don't think it is fair to expect people to
go back to scratch and start after a building is complete.
John: Mill Street Plaza has the exact kind of units as this
project we are proposing and the mechanical equipment was never
an issue. Since that HPC has reviewed mechanical and going on
the precedent that we have followed in our office with this Board
and the City it has never been raised. We are trying to address
your concerns at this point. The drawings have been in the
Building Department since May.
Bill: Are you saying that these three options are predicated on
that the building is already occupied, that there are other
solutions that could be taken into account if the building was
not occupied.
9
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
Bill Kimbell: If the building was not designed. If this would
have come up back during the original HPC review then we could
have dealt with it and resolved it and architecturally John could
have changed some things. To come back at this point to alter
the system is real tough.
Nick: What do I say in good faith to the people on the street
when they say "look at all that stuff on top of Elli's that isn't
what you said it was going to be". Am I going to have to say we
don't put those on the drawings. You have to give us some-
thing that we can work with.
John: If option 93 was accepted there is nothing new on the old
part of Elli's. If you take a line of Elli's wall straight off
of Main Street they are not there. From the Cantina and Mill
Street they won't be visible. From Central Bank of Aspen when
you can see the whole roof of the building they would be visible.
Georgeann: We haven't reviewed mechanical before but unfortun-
ately mechanical has never been so obvious and critical as it is
on Elli's. The problem is we have mechanical equipment where it
is too visible. This certainly makes us more aware for the
future and we have to solve the problem. Putting a screen up
just makes more architecture that appears to be on the old
building regardless of what is there. When I look at alternate
93 B and C look like they are in good spots. Perhaps it would be
good to put a screen around C to protect the people that look
from the upper floor of the Cantina Bldg. At that point maybe a
low screen would help the Cantina people and not be seen from the
street either. It looks like the problem is A cooler. Having it
silhouetted up there is difficult. You talked about codes not
allowing you to have head room; could we (HPC) get a variance in
that code to allow you to nestle the one cooler in there because
it is historic.
Bill Kimbell: Those are fire code exit requirements.
Georgeann: Is there anyway HPC could be of help because this is
an Historic building. Is there somewhere where you have 24
inches and you need 26 inches and we might be able to get that
kind of variance?
John: Because of clearances there is only room for one cooler.
Charles: Is the building air intake duct or what?
Bill Kimbell: That is the combustion air intake and goes down
into the basement to the broiler room. That is not relocatable
without relocating exit stairwells.
18
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
Charles:
over.
That seems to be keeping the swamp coolers from moving
Bill Kimbell: The other thing is the roof access and somehow
relocate that.
Charles: I would think that would be flexible.
Bill Kimbell: It is in a back stairwell now and I would hate to
see it moved to the outside of the building.
Charles: If it didn't have to be from the stairwell the swamp
coolers could be moved over to where the roof access is and the
restaurant equipment would simply have to be designed when the
restaurant equipment is put in so that the exhaust isn't inter-
fearing with the swamp coolers.
Bill Kimbell: What happens is all that gets moved north toward
Main Street which is what we are trying to avoid.
John: There is more room for more equipment near the roof hatch
or where B is located and it pushes the restaurant equipment
toward Main Street.
Charles: Is it a 10 foot distance it has to be at because this
is 1/8 scale and that is not bad having the swamp coolers and the
restaurant equipment. The restaurant equipment is a number of
different kinds of equipment and the exhaust equipment could be
located or duct to a location as far away as necessary if the
swamp coolers were near by. It doesn't seem like it is imposs-
ible to move it!
John: More toward Main Street and more toward the viewplane.
Georgeann: Could some of that restaurant equipment be put on
the side?
Bill Kimbell: By code you must take it through the roof.
Charles: Not all that restaurant equipment is exhaust it is
also supplies that are compatible with the swamp coolers.
Bill Kimbell: That is true but if the restaurant equipment is
in that space you have to have 10 foot between the supply and
exhaust.
Charles: There is about ten feet there.
Charlie: Is this future restaurant equipment?
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
John: Sushi Masa.
Gideon: There is a lease for a tenant and you have to have the
ability to put the kind of equipment he needs to operate a
restaurant.
Bill: My question was are we going to see future equipment on
top.
Heidi: Yes you will Sushi Masa's equipment.
Bill: We don't know what that will look like either.
Steve: Is there an area on a north/south axis aligned up with C
duct on alternative #3 where you might put A, can you put it out
further north from C?
John: You get into the viewplane.
Charles: Everything is visible from the Jerome at some point.
John: The Jerome viewplane is determined by five feet high
standing at the Jerome steps so it is under the viewplane.
Steve: I had the impression you could come somewhat forward
without actually being visible from the Jerome.
Bill Kimbell: If you put one out north of C then that moves the
restaurant equipment further out and then you are in trouble.
Georgeann: Maybe your roof access could push a little bit
further into the southwest corner and maybe your swamp cooler
could fit in there. Possibly the big restaurant pieces could be
put further toward the south and a few smaller pieces might have
to encroach a little but further toward Main Street.
John: I know that we can fit it in there but the restaurant
equipment will be more visible as it is being pushed forward.
Georgeann: But how much are we pushing it forward? Are we
pushing it forward two feet, six feet what?
John: Three to four feet because you have to get a duct in
around there.
Charles: It is very hard to know without being specific about
the restaurant equipment. That is an area that delineated
equipment can go in and it is not going to fill that whole area.
12
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
Bill Kimbell: No but within that area there is going to be a
make up area that will look similar to an evaporative cooler but
also have gas to it so it can heat air put into the kitchen and
there will be an exhaust off of the cooking appliances and
probably an exhaust of the dish washing equipment. Those
supplies have to have a ten foot space between them.
Charles: They are not as high as a swamp cooler.
Bill Kimbell: The make up area units will be as high and that
was bringing those over also to the skylight closer to unit B
with the kitchen hood equipment being on the north side.
Georgeann: Could that stuff then be screened on the new build-
ing?
Bill Kimbell: It is on the old building.
Bill: I may have a solution. We have all learned from this
situation. The applicant has learned that they have to keep us
informed and make us aware of things and the Committee has
learned that we have to read drawings a little better. The
situation that we are in would not be any different than them
coming to us in a year or two and saying our tenants are not
happy and would like to add some air conditioning. Then Commit-
tee would then have to review the situation. We also don't know
what the future restaurant equipment is going to look like and I
can see two solutions that could occur here. John as an archi-
tect would have to address them and we as a Committee may be able
to help him out. The easiest solution would be to raise the
parapet that is existing to hide all the equipment. That would
require us to help them get a variance from the viewplane and I
don't know what that would do to the building. I don't know how
much that would hurt the viewplane from a zoning standpoint.
There are ducts in A B and C now on the swamp coolers that were
not there before on the drawings. In alternate #3 why can't the
ducts go straight in from B and C again.
John: The
there are 5
between the
ducts are 30 inches tall and the existing units up
1/2 feet tall. So there is a considerable difference
swamp coolers and the duct.
Bill: I think the first solution that they prepared is the
better one.
Charlie: One of the reasons they got into such a hornets nest
over the sizing of the building as it is, it was their determina-
tion to need basement space underneath this project and you
decided to tear down Elli's and then you have all this cabinet
space underneath your building that is not part of the square
13
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
footage that you are renting in terms of its commercial use other
than storage or whatever. It seems to me that we haven't gotten
Elli's back and now we are going to loose it more. There ought
to be some way to adequately vent in the basement and use a
portion of that for mechanical equipment. Push the air around
through the basement and put your ducts down there. You have a
vast quantity of space and that is an alternative that should be
addressed. You have access to most of the building down there
and the ceilings are nine feet. I haven't seen that addressed at
all to mitigate the impact of all the equipment that is up there.
No one has come up with any alternatives to perhaps cool the
first floors through the basement and duct down there.
Bill Kimbell: To do that you have to take outside air in from
some place and where do we get it through the sidewalk, open
space or what.
Charlie: You have a lot of wall on the back of the building.
How much space do you realistically need. Obviously if we had
seen Elli's standing and remodeled from the inside out and not
taken apart and reset up on a foundation we would have been aware
of this and we would have been able to approach the alternatives
differently at that point. Because of the nature of the remodel
on this and the restoration of this when I saw the roof line I
anticipated when the side walls went back up that all that was
original to the building. Part of the confusion is that the
drawings didn't indicate that. I anticipated that all would have
been hidden by the side walls. As one of the alternatives this
late in the game is to use some of that in a mechanical area that
would accommodate the equipment and still be centrally located
enough to have the ducting close enough to get ventilation and
yet duct into the system and perhaps get half or more of the
equipment down in the basement.
Bill Kimbell: That would have been one of the alternatives that
we would have looked at initially but to put that equipment down
there now would take an outside air intake and we would have to
come over to the center of the building and work through an area
that is now a stairwell to get back to the duct work because you
are coming from the outside of the building somewhere across and
up to the first, second and third floor.
Charlie: What about a recessed area, if the roof were lowered
to accommodate a shelf to put the equipment. You could take some
of your square footage into the basement if you lost some of your
commercial use.
John: That restaurant is scheduled to open in about thirty
days.
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
Augie: Ail the screen is going to do is screen from the street
and that is not all we are concerned with. Raising the parapet
will not screen those units or any other units from the upper
floors of the Jerome. You still will see that stuff. As I said
in the last meeting these things are a necessary evil and I'm
convinced that you can place them on the building to minimally
impact the visual access from the street and to create as neat a
landscaping as possible. A swamp cooler is a swamp cooler and it
should be sitting up on a building and we shouldn't be trying to
hide it. You are close on 93. I'd be satisfied if we placed the
units in key spots and minimize the exposed duct work.
John: We could use two smaller units on the upper roof 40
inches tall by 40 inches square rather than 60 inches square.
There would be a 18 to 20 inch difference.
Steve: Are you saying the height would then be rather than 5
1/2 feet high it would be 3 foot four.
John: On the lower roof it would increase the visual mass. On
the upper roof because they are less tall we could move them
around and minimize the duct work.
Bill: I rescind my idea and agree with Augie to reduce the
amount of ducts.
Georgeann: Could possibly the vents go along the wall and a
screen be set back further away from the street to coral the
future restaurant equipment; that might help and would appear
only on the new building. My other concern is the roof access,
are there any hallways or anything where it could go.
Bill Kimbell: If the vents go along the wall you would have the
problem with roofing and future leaks.
Steve: What are we getting into with restaurant equipment.
John: We do not know at this point.
Charles: One thing we have to be careful about is not adding
more to the building that looks like it supposed to be architec-
ture instead of equipment. If we could minimize the equipment as
much as possible and paint it out that would be acceptable.
I'm convinced you can do a better job in moving the equipment to
the west. I'd ask that you try and do that.
Steve: It I understand what Charles just said it sounds like it
is going very close to John's suggestion to look at locating two
smaller pieces of equipment on the north wall. Maybe there would
15
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
be a range of alternatives that would be acceptable in how to
treat #A cooler in alternative #3.
MO?ION: Augie made the motion to approve alternate #3 as
presented by Hagman Yaw noting that they should take a look at
possibly coming up with two smaller units for unit A cooler.
Nick: I don't like the "possibility" for a smaller unit I think
they should make it a smaller unit.
Commission agreed.
Augie: I amend the motion to say unit A shall be two smaller
units up on the upper level part of the roof and I would also
like to include that the units are painted to mesh in.
Nick second the motion.
Charles: I am wondering if we need to have as much duct from A
as A needs to be so far in the corner especially for the smaller
unit. Lets cut down the length of the duct run.
John: The smaller units will allow us to do that.
Bill: Is there a possibility that A could be put back and all
three just be shifted back to the west.
Georgeann: I would almost like to ask John to come back since
we have given him some direction.
John: We could put all of them on the lower roof by making the
one unit closest to Mill Street go away. The restaurant equip-
ment will need to go further toward Main Street.
On alternate #3 one unit could go over by the roof access, one
could go where current B is shown and one could go where unit C
is shown and future restaurant equipment would have to move
toward Main Street.
Charlie: I feel we have had some good input by the Board etc.
but I feel we don't have enough concise input to make this work.
I think they should take what we have given them and come back
with a few more alternatives for us rather than for us here to go
back and try to redesign something for the applicant. I think it
needs to be drawn for us to see exactly what we are getting. I
think the applicant has the opportunity to look at moving the
roof access and how important the restaurant equipment is; how
big it is going to be; what it will do to the viewplane and all
those alternatives and suggestions from the Board be taken and
come back with several alternate choices for us.
16
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
John: We have an infinite number of possibilities and I don't
know how to draw enough options to cover every one of those.
Steve: It is only A that is in contention, cooler ~A.
Charlie: If you read the minutes you will get the concise idea
of what the Board wants.
John: We can either do it with unit A on the upper roof or unit
B on the lower roof. Unit B on the lower roof moves the roof top
equipment towards Main Street.
Georgeann: I go along with what Charlie says but would like to
give John a little more direction. I would suggest that we let
the motion die and suggest then that we make a motion to direct
John to look at alternate #3 showing us what would happen if two
smaller units were placed on the upper roof and B and C were kept
in the same place.
The second alternative would be keeping B and C where they are on
the low roof, moving A down in towards the roof access and with
that in mind, seeing in more detail what we have to deal with for
restaurant equipments or what we could do about moving the roof
access so A could snug down in closer.
Augie: I would like my motion to stand unless it dies. I'm
convinced that alternate #3 even as shown visually would not be
an impact from the street. From adjacent buildings you are going
to see equipment out there. There is no way ever that you are
going to hide it. I think these options will not be visible from
either Main Street or Mill Street and probably not even the alley
because of the angle that the person will be in the alley looking
up I don't think they will be able to see that upper roof.
Nick: I second that motion for the same reason.
Steve: The motion was to approve alternative ~3 using two
smaller units on the upper roof in replacement of unit A and
paint it and use smaller duct work.
John drew where the two coolers would be located.
Charles: If you took alternate #2 option B where you have A and
B and you take where you have B located from alternate #3, you
then have all three on the lower roof and the minimum amount of
duct work of all schemes.
If it is in the options that A, B or C can work in either of
these locations let which ever ones have to work there work there
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
and if B can work here as proposed let it do that sand you have
all three ducts in the least impact of all schemes.
John: I believe the reason why we didn't propose that is
because it doesn't work inside.
Bill: We have a motion on the floor and lets vote on it.
Georgeann:
motion if
able.
Lets make a motion on this one
they can make the other one work
and then make another
that would be accept-
Gideon Kaufman: How about voting on this one and make a second
motion asking us to look into Charles suggestion and we would be
happy to do that.
Charles: The reason why I think this is a good suggestion it is
being honest about it being equipment but it limits the amount of
equipment that you have as opposed to having little pieces all
over. It is organized.
Bill: Ail in favor of the motion presented by Augie Reno: Nick
yes, Augie yes, Georgeann yes, Charles yes, Bill no, Charlie no.
Motion carries.
John: Could I ask the Committee if there is any other outstand-
ing things on Elli's.
Bill: Your future restaurant equipment is definitely in
jeopardy here or should be reviewed.
Steve: What John is referring to are the awnings and light
fixtures and the figurines.
Bill: If we don't know what you are doing on the building it is
hard for us, we need to see it.
Gideon Kaufman: We are trying to get CO's and the problem with
the figurines is we never intended to put them back on the
building and one of the tenants would like them put back on the
building and three of them don't want it. I don't think the
figurines should be an issue that is between a landlord and a
tenant.
Bill: I don't think they were on the original drawings that
they were putting them back on and if they do want them on then
they have to come back to HPC. Anything new like lighting if it
does go up you have to tell us or your CO will not be issued.
18
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
John: The awnings are the exact same shape, retractable. We
are proposing to put awnings on the new addition part and there
are lights on the addition part so I need some direction.
Bill: Charles would like to make another motion to give them an
option for this third option so they have two options.
MO?ION: Charles made the motion to also approve as alternate 94
for them their proposed alternate #2 with the change that their
unit B from alternate #3 be added to alternate #2 and their
option B unit B be changed to C and option B unit A remain as A.
Bill second the motion. Nick yes, Augie yes, Charles yes, Bill,
yes, Georgeann no. Motion carries.
John: There are some lights which are on the building (new part)
that are on the building upside down and they will be painted
charcoal gray and uprighted. They will light the fascia.
Secondly we would like to put awnings on the new addition and
they would be charcoal gray.
Steve: No awnings on Main Street.
John: Not right now except one on the old Elli's as was the
existing.
Georgeann: Are we to be making these two buildings look alike
or look different. Do we want awnings the same color on both
buildings. I thought the whole purpose of this and the purpose
of the two different colors was to make those buildings look
separate so Elli's would stand alone so I would be inclined to
say whatever color of awnings we are talking about one color on
Elli's and a complimentary color on the addition.
Bill: I don't necessarily agree with that because there are a
lot of green awnings around town and they don't all look the
same. I think the buildings are different enough and it should
be up to the applicant what they prefer.
John: The awnings would tie everything together.
Steve: The Committee should make a motion and if you approve
this I would ask that they represent what the awnings would look
like in detail.
MOTION: Augie made the motion to approve the light fixtures that
are installed at Elli's at the present time and to approve the
new awnings on the east and northside of the old building
contingent upon the applicant satisfying the Planning Department
with detailed drawings.
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
Nick: Second the motion. Ail favored. Motion carries.
DEMOLITION REVIEW- 2 SHEDS IN REAR OF 3~9 AND 311 E. MAIN ST.
Bill: We have a post demolition review of two sheds in the rear
of 309 and 311 E. Main Street presented by Carl Bergman.
Bill Drueding: Six weeks ago the sheds were being torn down
without a building permit which is required by the City building
code. One shed was completely demolished when I got there and
the other one was half down. I asked Carl Bergman to meet with
the City Attorney to see what course of action we wanted to take.
These buildings were in the historic overlay. The City Attorney
felt that Carl had recently made an honest mistake by tearing the
sheds down but we still felt that He needed a building applica-
tion to move the sheds which would require HPC approval.
Carl Bergman presented pictures.
Bill: Part of this is to clean up the paper work.
Steve: This also is to make everyone aware that you cannot
demolish sheds etc. without a permit.
Bill Drueding: This is for the press here also that demolition
of historic areas require permits and HPC approval. They are
historic overlays.
MOTION: Nick made the motion that we approve the demolition
request as presented by Carl Bergman for the sheds on 309 and 311
E. Main Street.
Georgeann second the motion. Ail approved. Motion carries.
Georgeann: Just because a person goes and demolishes a building
and then comes and says "Oh, wasn't I supposed to", then we have
to then allow them to do it. That is not the solution.
Bill Drueding: Carl was sincere but we will prosecute when
people do this without permission.
Nick: He would have two building permits one for each building.
Bill Drueding: That is correct.
20
HPC Minutes Dec. 22, 1987
SPECIAL PROJECTS
Georgeann: On printing up the guidelines the photographs have
to be done in half tones or else you won't be able to read them.
You have to print on a good enough quality paper because type is
on one side and photos are on the other. We have one choice that
is sort of even if we have a type set it would be smaller and use
up less paper, we would have to edit it and get less pictures in
it. This is good because it uses up less paper. It is bad
because we get less photographs and it is bad because it takes
more staff time to redesign it. I felt that the look that City
Council wanted was less formal and it wouldn't make sense to type
set it and redesign it even though we would save on paper cost.
So with those things in mind I have two bids: Duplicators $2500
and possibly could be as low as $2200. Aspen Printing which
would be a more high quality printing $3500. I can do a little
more checking but realistically we are looking at around $2500.
At $2500 possibly we could sell them at $10-12 a piece and a lot
will have to be given away. For the next City Council Steve and
I will have sample of papers etc.
Steve: City Council has to appropriate that money.
Nick: How many of those books will we get for that money?
Steve: 200 to 300 books.
Augie: I would suggest that if it goes forward for being
printed whoever is printing it do all their plates and run a
sample before they run the entire batch so if there are problems
we can correct that.
Georgeann: So we get a blue line. We will also have hard copy
camera ready art. I would suggest the way to do what you are
talking about Augie is we can ask them about a blue line or we
can simply get everything done to camera ready and zerox it and
look at it.
Steve: Because we are taking the Historical Society's photos we
want to be careful with them.
Georgeann: We also have to hire somebody to do the camera ready
art on the photograph pages. That cost is about $250 to $300.
That can be done cheaper if it is done in-house by the printing
firm because they can make short cuts.
5:00 Adjourn
Kathleen J. Strickland, Deputy City Clerk