Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19960214ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB. 14~ 1996 Chairman Jake Vickery called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. with Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Melanie Roschko, Linda L.E. Smisek, Susan Dodington and Sven Alstrom present. Les Holst and Donnelley Erdman were excused. MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the minutes of January 24, 1996 as amended; second by Dodington. Motion carried 5 - 1. Smisek opposed. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Smisek stated that she visited 939 E. Cooper regarding the lack of siding to complete the project. Amidon stated that she talked to the contractor and they will use all the old siding as best possible. Madsen seated at 6:30 p.m. ISIS - REVIEW MATERIALS Roschko stated that she would like to see a material that isn't solid in color rather than another new solid material. The Isis is one color except for the side. She also stated that she opposed the color and would rather see a brick shape instead of a 8 x 8. She is not opposed to a ceramic finish on the brick. From the front of the building another solid material color would not be appropriate. Dodington stated that she would like to see more color and material options. Alstrom stated that the 8 x 8 tile is not compatible in color or shape. The dark iron spot in the brick material is OK and the use of copper is OK but he would like to see a sample of zinc at the next meeting. The mortar color should match whatever the masonry is. Roschko also stated that the mortar color should match the masonry. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB. 14~ 1996 Smisek stated the iron spot brick is significantly compatible with the tones of the old brick and that the gray tile worked well. The acid down copper is compatible and would blend in with the tones of that block and the block across the street. Moyer stated that the applicant responded mainly to Donnelley's concerns and he felt a consensus should be attained by the Board. Does the Board what the attachment to be totally modem or a continuation and blending to the building. The architects thought we wanted it more different; however, my feeling is that we need a worksession to look at more materials. He also stated that the copper material presented is not particularly historically beneficial to a landmark building. The patina of the copper is appropriate and I would like to see other materials along with the copper. The smooth 8 x 8 is not appropriate in this building unless the philosophy of the HPC is to do something real modem. Various lineal brick should be presented. The darker brick is good for a solid foundation. Vickery stated that it is difficult for him to offer information on color and material because he voted against the project. He also stated that the Board needed to give consensus to the applicant. · Do we want to see something radically modem. · More detail use of 8x8 as opposed to a linear brick. · Use of cooper vs options. Vickery stated at the next meeting that the applicant should come back with a drawing indicating where the materials will be used, particularly viewed from the street. Roschko stated that the new building should look like it is part of the old building but new. Dodington stated that she was opposed to totally modem but possibly the use of a different size of brick and color would differentiate between old and new. It should flow either by the size of the brick or color choice. Alstrom stated that he wanted the project to look new but he was opposed to the use of the 8 x 8. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB. 14~ 1996 Straw Poll No 8 x 8 tile Color of 8 x 8 - no 50 - 50 thought the use of the iron spot brick could be incorporated. patina of the copper is appropriate See more materials match materials with drawings. Alstrom stated that he liked Donnelley' s theory but not the use of 8 x 8. 918 E. COOPER AVE. - LOTS M & N Amidon stated that the issues from the last meeting were to lower the plate heights on the second floor and that has been reduced to eight feet and the ridge line is now 25 1/2 feet which is lower than most of the surrounding buildings. There was discussion about articulating the duplex as two separate units and a recessed wall has been placed between the two units. There are two windows on the alley facade that violate the volume standard and that can be resolved easily. The mass and scale is complete for Lots M &N. Dodington stated that she was concerned about the stone. John Davis, contractor stated that he was looking at a random stone in gray. The stone will be either rectangular or square. Field stone will not be used and they intend to stay uniform with the depth of the stone. Roschko stated her only concern is the material. She is concerned that it will look massive. Davis stated that the plate heights were reduced from ten to eight feet. Moyer asked if the railing that is drawn in stone could be changed to an iron railing which would soften the area. Davis stated that he liked that suggestion. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB. 14~ 1996 Dodington stated that she would prefer to see more wood incorporated into the project. Moyer stated that the comments from the commission are that it is massive and possibly materials could be changed on one of the buildings. Davis stated that he could look at stone on the bottom and wood on top on both buildings but really doesn't want to use wood. He does not feel stucco to wood is softening. Davis stated that he wanted this building to be a different type look. Alstrom stated that some of the commissioners are concerned about the stone on the second floor because they do not want it to look like one big chunk of stone. It could be solved by reducing the stone on the second floor or by the choice of the stone itself. Davis stated that he would bring a sample of the stone for the commissioners to approve. Moyer stated that stacked stone reduces the sense of the mass. Davis stated that strip stone is on the building 15 feet away and he wants to stay away from that. Moyer suggested that the linear stone be on the bottom and to soften it a thinner stone on the second floor. Alstrom stated that the applicant has continuous chimneys and that concept might not work. Madsen stated that the building would be lighter and simpler if the front were similar to the back of the building. Dodington stated that there are four old houses left on that side of the street and she would like to see something preserved of the small scale and historic look of that street. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB. 14, 1996 Davis stated that the two historic buildings that were approved by the HPC already address that concern and he does not want all the buildings to look historic. MOTION: Mayer moved that the HPC finds the condition that was placed on the development of 918 E. Cooper Ave. on January 24, 1996 requiring mass and scale review of the development on lots M & N Block 35 has been met; second by Alstrom. Smisek asked that the change regarding the railing be added to the motion. AMENDED MOTION: Mayer amended the motion to add that the railing drawn in stone be changed to an iron railing; second by Alstrom. All in favor of motion and amended motion. Motion carries 5 - 1; Dodington opposed. Vickery abstained from voting. RECONSIDER MOTION LOTS O & P MOTION: Mayer moved to reconsider the January 24th motion to clarify the text; second by Roschko; All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Mayer moved to add additional conditions recommended by staff to the January 24th motion. That the applicant shall submit structural plans for lot P unit for review by staff and monitor. A clear representation shall be made as to how the existing framing will be retained and how any new members necessary shall be added. HPC expects the original framing to be retained with new members "sistered" in as needed. Any variation necessary from the plan as approved by staff and monitor shall be immediately brought to the attention of staff and shall be approved by staff and monitor prior to the change taking place. A monitor will be appointed; second by Smiselc All in favor, motion carried. Vickery abstained from voting. Passes 6 - 0. Amidon stated that she wants it clearly represented on a plan what the architect intends to do and if changes need to be made she needs to know about them. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB. 14~ 1996 Roschko and Alstrom are the project monitors. 820 E. COOPER - PH - AMENDMENT TO CONCEPTUAL MOTION: Moyer moved to table 820 E. Cooper until Feb. 28, 1996; second by Smisek. All in favor, motion carried. 61 6 W. MAIN - MD - ORD/430 COMPLIANCE - PH ON-SITE RELOCATION Vickery stepped down. Amidon stated this is a 3,000 sqft. lot and there is an historic house in the front with no changes proposed. The proposed changes at this time are to the barn. Both the barn and house were moved to the site from across the street in 1958. Landmark Designation is proposed and Staff recommends HPC approve that finding that Standard B, architectural importance has been met. It basically has been unaltered except for the addition in the back. The barn is in the original condition and the gable end has unusual trim work. Standard E, community character has been met. Amidon stated that the minor review would be the barn which is being converted into an accessory dwelling, a voluntary unit. The applicant proposes to lift the structure, excavate a basement and build the unit. the barn is to be raised four feet above it current height and Staff feels that is too much of an increase and too much of a change in character of the building. I am recommending something more in the realm of 24 inches. If the two foot raise is done the loft will not be feasible unless they sink the basement level. Amidon stated that the south L has a proposed slider window with a projected bay window. The feeling is that the bay window is too residential and ornate and a flat window is recommended. Amidon stated on the east L there are two doors existing and Staff is recommending that one be retained. On the North L there are large type barn swinging doors that should be left in place if possible. On the west there is an historic window but it needs to be removed because you cannot have a window by building code so close to the property line. There are a number of 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB. 14~ 1996 variances requested all of which are existing. In addition they are asking for a height variance which is allowed under the cottage infill program. More information is needed about the foundation, materials and a structural plan is needed. Amidon stated the site plan relocation is OK but there is concern about how high it will be lifted. Ord #30 has several items that need to be waived. CLARIFICATIONS Moyer chaired 616 W. Main. Moyer opened the public hearing. Jeffrey Aaronson, owner stated if the barn was raised only two feet then the loft could not be incorporated and the space would be restricted without the loft. The existing ceiling height is 14 feet and would be lowered to nine feet. Moyer stated from an historic preservation standpoint we need to know why we should let the proposed changes happen, other than the fact that you need a loft. Aaronson stated that someone looked at the doors and said they could not be rebuilt but he would look for an old door that would be appropriate for that period if the existing door is not salvageable. Alstrom stated the drawings do not clearly show the effect of raising the building. He also stated that raising the building is not more compatible with the resource and exploring other dormer configurations could be done to get usable head height in the space. Moyer asked if there was a foundation and the owner stated that the barn was just sitting on the ground and the floor joists are rotting. The house was moved and put on a foundation. Moyer asked what the material would be from the current ground height to the height that it would be raised. Aaronson stated that he wanted to put rock around but he did not know structurally what would be behind the rock. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB. 14~ 1996 Moyer asked if the applicant could go less than then four feet raising. Aaronson stated that he would have to walk the site to determine if the amount could be reduced. Roschko stated that she needed more information before making a decision. Alstrom stated that she supports all of Staff' s recommended conditions. He also stated that he would like to see the ridge of the dormer lowered. Other dormer solutions would give the applicant the height he needed rather than raising the barn four feet. Aaronson asked if it is more compatible to have dormers than raising the building. Alstrom stated that it would depend on the dormers but the fact remains that the building is an out-building and that makes a difference. Amidon stated that the Commission has a discomfort level with how high the barn is being raised. Alstrom stated that the Commission wants more ADU's and this could be a successful project. Dodington agreed with Amy's comments and stated that she felt the barn should look like a barn. Moyer stated that he basically is in favor of having barns raised but since this particular barn was close to the house he has reservations about raising it four feet. Madsen stated that she felt the four foot raise would not overwhelm the building. She would rather have the barn left intact without the dormers. MOTION: Smisek moved to table 616 W. Main until the next meeting February 28, 1996; second by Dodington. All in favor, motion carries. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB. 14~ 1996 MOTION: Dodington moved to adjourn; second by Moyer. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEB. 14~ 1996 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 1 ISIS - REVIEW MATERIALS 1 918 E. COOPER AVE. - LOTS M & N 3 RECONSIDER MOTION LOTS O & P 5 820 E. COOPER - PH - AMENDMENT TO CONCEPTUAL 6 61 6 W. MAIN - MD - ORD #30 COMPLIANCE - PH 6 ON-SITE RELOCATION 6 10