Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19960710 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10, 1996 Meeting was called to order by chairman Jake Vickery with Suzannah Reid, Sven Alstrom, Susan Dodington, and Mark Onorofski present. Roger Moyer and Melanie Roschko were seated at 5:15 p.m. MOTION: Susan moved to approve the minutes of dune 5th; second by Roger. ,411 in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Susan moved to nominate Sven as second vice-chairman; second by dake. All in favor, motion carried. 303 E. MAIN - VESTED RIGHTS - PUBLIC HEARING Jake Vickery stepped down. First vice-chairman Roger Moyer opened the continued public hearing. Amy stated that the project was approved June 14, 1995 and at this point the applicant is requesting vested rights for three years. Vested rights would start from the June 14th date. There have been some alterations to the site plan in order to accommodate ADA and an elevator. Staff recommended approval with a landscape plan. No comments from the public. Roger closed the public hearing. MOTION: Melanie moved that HPC approve Resolution ~2, granting vested rights' to 303 E. Main for three years starting from dune 14, 1995 with the stipulation that a lan&cape plan be submitted for approval by staff and monitor; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. 706 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING Jake Vickery was seated. Chairman dake Fickery opened the continued public hearing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10, 1996 MOTION: Roger moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual approval for 706 W. Main until a date certain, duly 24, 1996; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried ISIS - 406 E. HOPKINS - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONCEPTUAL Amy stated that the issues are the east and west walls of the building and under the approval they were required to be retained. The west wall is mostly hidden by the Fox Photo Bldg. and will not be exposed to the public. On the east well that is currently facing an empty lot the mortar is squeezing out and they are considering whether that wall should be reconstructed to be a more pleasing surface. John Wheeler, architect for Cunniffe and Assoc. met with a mason on what best serves the building. If the Board maintains that you allow us to not have to maintain the west wall, approximately ten feet does project past the back of the fox to the alley. We are asking to have the ability to dismantle that small portion that does project and boat wrap it and build it back to its original intent. On the east side it is clear that it is not faced brick and we are unclear as to what should happen to that brick. Thirty feet on the west wall will be kept in place and worked on. It is in good shape. On the east exists utilitarian brick and a rough face and it is in bad shape. Reconstruction with hand chosen bricks could make for a better product. Roger asked what the applicant wanted to do on the west wall. John Wheeler stated remove what is behind the Fox photo bldg. On the east they want to dismantle it and reconstruct it in keeping with what the rest of the brick looks like. He also stated that it is more expensive to leave the brick on the east wall. The Fox photo bldg. would have to be underpinned. Melanie asked if the east wall could be built with face brick to match. John Wheeler stated that there would be a sufficient amount left and they could select the best pieces of brick. He also stated that you can see through the east wall and it would be very costly to rebuild and tuck pointing it in place would be difficult. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10~ 1996 Amy stated that this is an aesthetic issue. Suzannah asked if they would keep the keying in of the street facade to the side in the brick. John Wheeler stated that they would not have to get into the keying portion of the brick and they fully intend to maintain the main facade. The brick on the front facade is in the best shape of all the brick. There are stress cracks but that can be brought back in. Jake asked how they would support the front facade when all of this work is done. John Wheeler stated that steel beams are sandwiched together and incorporated somehow to the street. The walls are then underpinned. The significant portion of the project is the foundation and excavation work. Sven stated that soil tests should be conducted. John Wheeler stated that three soil tests have been conducted. Susan stated that the west wall brick is of a different color and the front facade brick is all the same color. She stated that the west wall brick looks older. John stated that some of the bricks have been water stained and some are more exposed than others. He also stated that the quality of the brick causes color changes. John also stated that the face brick on the front facade was intentionally to be different. It was not unusual to have a more expensive front. Susan asked about the brick pattern on the edge which is the key. John stated that they will retain that key pattern. Amy stated that the awning was placed on the building by the Fox photo and the Commission would like to see it removed permanently. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10~ 1996 John stated that the awning would have to be removed during construction. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Susan stated that when buildings are taken down and put back they never look old, they look new when put back even with different mortar. She feels the walls are going to be the only thing left beside the cornice. The walls are the oldest looking part of the building. She feels it is important to save the walls. She also feels the east wall is critical. She also stated that the community would rather see the wall stay old to remind them of how old the building really is. Charles Cunniffe, architect stated that the brick would have to be washed and repointed. Roger stated that he would allow the walls to be removed. He also stated at some point a building will be against the east wall and that wall will not show. Suzannah stated that she also had no problem with disassembling and reconstructing it. It is not feasible leaving it stand while excavating as you risk the chance of caving in problems. She would rather have the materials be saved. Sven stated what they are proposing is better for the long term life of the structure and more of an urban solution. In response to Susan's concern one issue is compatibility. Melanie asked if the east wall would look like the west? John stated that the east would look like the west but they could photograph it and make it look like what the east used to look like. Amy stated when the wall is removed we will loose the (ghost of Aspen). John stated that the wall has to be cleaned. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10~ 1996 Mark stated that he would be in favor of rebuilding the wall with the condition that a mock up is done and utilizing the same bricks. John stated that the wall can be put up to match the west or it could be different. Roger stated that the east side is being added onto and it is stepped back 18 to 20 feet. The only part of the east wall that will be visible is the 18 feet or so. Why not leave the 18 feet there. John Wheeler stated that the area is very tight and it would be hard to get around. Roger stated that the applicant should be allowed to take the brick down and clean it up. MOTION: Sven moved to approve the reconstruction of the walls' using selected and designated brick from the existing building, second by Roger. DISCUSSION Jake stated that the applicant represented that the east wall would be rebuilt to look like the west wall and a mockup will be provided. John Wheeler stated that they can work with a monitor to determine which wall is best suited to match when reconstructing the east and west walls. Mark stated that there will be different colors of the brick and the mortar should be addressed. John Wheeler stated that a sample panel will be provided. Amy stated that a photograph of existing building should be displayed in the building. Roger stated that the bricks will come down, cleaned and put back up. The mortar color can be addressed by the monitor and staff. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10~ 1996 Amended motion: Sven amended the motion to state that the coursing of the east wall when it is reconstructed should reflect the current coursing that is existing on the east wall. The mason on the project should have demonstrated historic experience. Texture and color of mortar to be determined by Staff and monitor; second by Roger. Motion carried 6-1. Susan opposed. Melanie asked about the back part of the west wall. The west wall will be reconstructed, the front part in place. The rear part they want to take down and reconstruct and will it be reconstructed as the west wall or as a new part of the building. John stated as the west wall. 517 E. HOPKINS - MINOR Amy stated that this is a minor review to construct a new facade basically. There is no increase in FAR. New veneer will be on the bldg. All the windows and doors will be replaced. A section of the roof will change. There are no other historic buildings on that entire half block. Staff recommends approval with conditions that information on doors, windows, and light fixtures be submitted. Charles Cunniffe stated that they are trying to clean up the building and attract business. Roger asked if the windows and doors will be clad. Charles stated yes. Sven stated that they want to contrast the stucco and slate mass against the existing brick. Charles stated that they want to emphasize the area in front. Sven stated that when you are breaking the mass of the existing building the Z-brick mass should be re-clad and re-expressed with contrasting materials or that the windows in the Z-brick are changed to match the new windows. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10~ 1996 Charles stated that slate will be used and the doors are metal clad wood doors. Jake asked about the bands. Charles stated that they are slate detail bands. Sven stated that the new arrangements of doors and transom windows sets up a nice vertical hierarchy of retail store front which the old building doesn't have. The massing is broken down but he is uncertain about it looking like two buildings. Susan and Mark stated that they had no problems with the design. Roger stated that he concurred with Staff. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minor development application for 517 E. Hopkins with the condition that the information on doors, windows and light fixtures as well as samples of all the materials' be submitted for approval by Staff and Monitor and a monitor be named; second by Melanie. Motion passes 6-1. Sven opposed. Mark is the monitor. PAEPCKE WORKSESSION Amy stated that she handed out an architectural character form for each member to fill out to get a sense of what the physical characteristics of the building were. A model has been provided also. Amy stated that HPC should be concerned about the public experience of the building. She stated that she focused on the west elevation of the building. Melanie stated that she didn't get a feel for the property when she site visited it. She stated that standing out on the street did nothing for her even though she studied the windows and material of the house. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10~ 1996 Michael Ememan, architect for the project stated that he had no feeling either. The exercise was defining visual aspects of historic buildings and are intended as aids in preserving the character and other distinguishing qualities. He also stated that it was not intended as a means of understanding the significance of historic properties or districts nor of the events or people associated with them. Michael stated that the presence of the building was very significant and it is a very large element. The large mass creates a sense of privacy to the gardens. Michael stated that dormers exist on the carriage house. Michael stated that he changed the pitch of the building to match the 45 % of the old building. In the D.R.C. Brown era it was a hipped roof on both ends but the mass of the house was bigger. COMMENTS REGARDING THE FORM Roger stated that the original foundation, first floor and carriage house define the historic shape. Suzannah make comment on the monolithic wall and the carriage house has some aspects of the two scales that is important. Jake stated that house is a two story with gable ends and there is a primary mass and a secondary mass with a connector element to it. There are numerous projections. The shape is distinctive to the neighboring buildings, blockish with gable ends as opposed to being long. Sven stated that the question here was what is it about the current form or shape that gives it identity and is it consistent with its neighbors. I said it is a large simple form and compatibility with the Shaw house is required in the ultimate configuration. Melanie stated that the form is different than its neighbors, a more simple in that it does not have the detail that the other houses have on Triangle square. It is distinctive because it is large and sits close to the street you can definitely feel it. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10~ 1996 Mark stated that the wall with the entry way was significant and the simple shape of the gable end of the building. He does not feel that is consistent with its neighbors. It was consistent at an earlier date. He stated that he feels the building is out of proportion and out of date and does not fit in the neighborhood from a scale point of view. The character is largely the wall. He stated from the street you wouldn't know what is beyond the initial facade of the gable end. The wall and trellis should remain to give the site its present character. Michael Erneman said large mass and scale, two story wall to the street and no dialogue with the street but enormous privacy. The wall is different than most of the houses that surround Triangle park. That difference is what gives it presence. It is a dominant large mass close to the street. Sven stated that he wouldn't want to see a long roof similar to the Institute. Jake stated that the roof is lower than usual. There are multiple chimneys. Sven stated that it had a strong simple roof shape. It has turned its side to the street and that is a good observation. Amy stated that the chimney masses are a definite part of the roof and also the reflective roofing. Michael Ernamen stated that he also had reflective roofing and that it was Bermuda shingles. From the 1950 sales brochures the roof was cedar shingle with metal edges and the entire roof was guttered with down spouts. The metal roof is reflective and has a lot of presence but it would not be appropriate today. Jake suggested that everyone read their comments and dialogue not occur. Openings, projections to be commented on. Roger stated that the openings are not historic but to retain the north porch entry and keep projections on the north porch and possibly the connector from the carriage house to the main house. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10~ 1996 Michael stated that each time the house has been changed it us due to function. Windows were changed for views. The Brown family had 11 bedrooms. Jake stated that the summary could be that there is no character defining the openings. In terms of projections the overhangs are standard. Michael stated that the projections on the east side are flat roofed. Melanie stated that there is not an area outside to enjoy the gardens from, i.e. porch. Roger stated that there is a porch on the east that is utilized. Jake stated that materials, craftsmanship and trim should be addressed next. Jake stated that stucco exists and it is pre-paepcke. Michael stated that the trim is a small dimension. Amy stated that the first floor is clapboard and then bold colored stucco and then switches back to fish scale shingles in the gable. The colors have a lot to do with the character of this house. Jake asked about the exposed raft trim. Roger stated that they exist and are painted. Jake stated that the setting is next. Roger said that the most significant part is the entry gate and wall including the ditch and the trees. Michael said the house has its side turned to the street. Melanie stated that the house on the comer that was built later has an enormous impact on this house and the way it relates to its face. She would like to see the house separated more, possibly planting on the carriage house. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10~ 1996 Michael stated that the gallery is the essence of this house. He also stated that there was a street that came through and that is why the entrance was on the north side. Sven stated that he probably would not have approved the alternations that occurred to the house. He has more regard to the historical house than the paepcke version. The guidelines of compatibility, materials, window type etc. should be kept. Too much of the original house has been dismantled. Roger echoed Sven's statement and to keep the historic footprint, carriage house (can change roof pitch) and that the landscaping does not change at all. Melanie stated that the wall should be stabilized. Sven stated that he preferred plank sub-flooring as opposed to modem sub- flooring. Sven also stated that the regard for Herbert Bayer stuff should be placed on the Bayer house down the street not on minor alterations to this house. Michael stated at the next meeting if we say the issue is preservation of the presence of the house or its impact is as the community sees it. Roger stated that can happen if you keep the basic landscape and wall. Amy stated that HPC just went through character defining features whether we really appreciate them as aesthetic she does not feel we should disregard them. This house is not an historic landmark and non of the HPC members know the house. It is a reconstruction of a building that has long been gone. It is conjecture and she is not sure that is what HPC is all about. Sven stated that he did not want to be trapped into an image when there might be a better solution out there. Sven stated that a site plan with the old lines on it would be appropriate for the next meeting. Suzannah stated that this is a unique roof. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10~ 1996 Michael stated that the HPC has to come to a consensus and should we save a continuation of an evolution of the house is it the presence of the house that people are familiar with. Susan stated that the west facade is the most important because that is what people see. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Sven. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10~ 1996 303 E. MAIN - VESTED RIGHTS - PUBLIC HEARING .................................................... 1 706 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING ....................................................... 1 ISIS - 406 E. HOPKINS .............................................................................................. 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONCEPTUAL 517 E. HOPKINS - MINOR .......................................................................................... 6 PAEPCKE WORKSESSION ........................................................................................ 7 13