Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19950927ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 820 E. 423 N. 2ND - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ...... 3 COOPER - CONCEPTUAL, LANDMARK DESIGNATION 4 ISIS - WORKSESSION ......... 12 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Meeting was called to order by chairman Donnelley Erdman with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Linda Smisek, Susan Dodington, Melanie Roschko and Sven Alstrom present. Excused was Martha Madsen. COMMISSIONER kN-D STAFF COMMENTS Amy: Jeff has resigned because he does not feel he can make the time commitment and has been out of the country for three months and has been doing overtime at the office etc. He never had the feeling he had been assimilated into the committee to be a part of the group to work together. Being an alternate attributed to this effect. He feels that some of the committee has tunnel vision regarding development issues and he felt his values and goals were in conflict with that. He was asked what he thought about site related issues but he felt his opinions regarding architectural issues were not sought. Linda: When I first came onto the committee I had a hard time knowing what the program was until I sat through so many meetings that I finally started to understand it. I feel when we have new people we should have a short training session. I kept quiet for a long time as I did not want to say something that was inappropriate. Susan: I feel the same as Linda. Sven: He is leaving because of business reasons but I do feel we need training sessions. It is not clear that the alternate is the training position. Les: I have always said that every quarter we should get into a van and look at every project and see where we were right and where we were wrong. Amy: The rock was historically landmarked and there were fifteen people at the council meeting in favor. Amy: We have never set a value for the Langley barn. It will be moved wall by wall. It is a small structure. Donnelley: I feel around $10,000. is an appropriate amount. Amy: I feel we need to discuss bonds etc. at a worksession as they are burdensome for applicants. Roger: I feel we should contact Stapleton to see if they could work with the city on bonds. Amy: A site visit scheduled for Wednesday at NOON. Amy: The Iglehart issue is next and we need to do a site visit ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 regarding the house. Jake: This is a letter to the Aspen City Council from me but I would prefer that it come from the HPC. Please consider this letter as a formal request that the City of Aspen rescind the landmark designation of 610 W. Hallam pursuant to Section 7-707 of the Aspen Landuse Code. As obvious and is apparent on site this historic structure, one has totally been demolished and no longer exists and two has suffered a reversible loss of integrity and three has been replaced by all new construction. This property no longer qualifies under section 7-702 failing to meet any of the standards required for landmark designation items a through f in the section of the code. As a matter of observable fact the development of this property is now all new construction and most historical material has been moved from the structure and what little remains has been removed from its original context. There appears to be no choice than to declassify this property. One would hope that in connection with this decision would be a simultaneous withdrawal and the reversal of any benefits that this applicant may have received as a result of landmark designation. In all fairness to other applicants and participants in the historical preservation program especially those who have worked in sincere cooperation with the HPC is hereby requesting that every effort be made possible to hold this property owner accountable to what appears to be demolition and loss of public trust. The HPC has created and maintains a roll supportive of owners of historical properties and recognition of their enduring and irreplaceable contribution to the character, charm and authentic heritage of this community. The City provides incentives to offset development encumbrances inherent with these properties. These incentives should not be available to anyone who knowingly and intentionally abuses this process. Sven: I agree basically but feel the board needs a site visit. He literally kept the front gable end. Amy: It was red tagged and removed by the City Attorney. There was no reason to leave it in place and there was nothing to be gained by leaving the red tag in place. We have taken photographs and have established what he has done. Donnelley: The only thing to be gained is to say that the extra burden of having to move back'cases where we granted sideyard or rear yard variances. Amy: We will inform the owner that anymore work that he is going to do in the setback encroachments is at his own jeopardy. Sven: When we look at projects for compatibility like Jake's addition and preserving the original roof ridge lines and valleys 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 where you add onto the existing building is important. In this case it has been reduced to a gable end on a new building. Linda: Do we have a method of adopting Jake's letter. Amy: I feel that letter is the ultimate end and we need more discussion. Donnelley: That should be part of the site visit Wednesday. Les: Could he get a registered letter immediately that he is under his own liability on and any fhrther construction in any areas of this building. Amy: It is in draft form. Les: I feel we should get a news column to address particular issues and we all would have to participate. We should talk about that in a worksession. 423 N. 2ND - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Donnelley: We did a site visit today. .Amy: What was discussed was the desire to instead of having the mudroom addition completely fill in the existing corner by the garage that it should be pulled in on each wall surface by 18 to 24 inches. Contractor: So that you get some definition. Amy: It was also intended to preserve the pair of aspens. The materials should match the existing building and the windows should be reused. Donnelley: It was a clear cut issue and Amy stated our response to define this new enclosed area by stepping back both corners. This also means that the hip roof would be changed and it would be a slightly awkward situation and should be studied because the eaves around the entire house are horizontal and if you step back from the corner you would have a slightly higher eave elevation where you step back and it would slant back down over those 24 inches so it might be a little more complex roof than the simple hip that has been shown in terms of reframing that area. I would think it better to keep all of it horizontal. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC approve the approximate square foot addition of the existing mudroom as requested at 423 N. 2nd Streets lots G, H and I Block 41 with the following conditions: 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 1. That the new addition be set back on the north and east side 18 to 24 inches. 2. That the one tree be removed and possibly be replanted. 3. That a planter be retained and reviewed by Staff and monitor. 4. That the roof be studied for final approval by staff and monitor. Susan second the motion. Discussion Contractor: We can have smaller planters and one would be on one side of the tree and one on the other. Something like that. Donnelley: The placement of the planters could be at the discretion of the owner. VOTE: All in favor of motion. Motion carries. Amy: When Glenn comes back in town we can redraw the plan. 820 E. COOPER - CONCEPTUAL, LANDMARK DESIGNATION Amy: We did do a site visit'today. For standards of historic desiqnation it meets standard B, a gable end miners cottage and it appears to be in its original configuration with one early addition and one later additions. There is not much detailing on the house; however it seems to have original materials and windows. Standard D, there are relatively few remaining 19 century structures in this neighborhood and only two historic landmarks. It is important to preserve structures like this one. On standard E community character it is representative of the modest scale style and character of homes constructed in the late 19th century and it is also on highway 82 which is important to the perception of the character of the community as people enter the town. Under conceptual development the applicant is proposing to demolish two additions which are noncontributing and the existing shed which is noncontributing, to shift the kitchen addition to the east and to construct a new addition to the rear. In general the proposed development is an excellent solution to adding the required space to the historic building. A lot of the space has been allocated to the basement and the massing above ground is quite appropriate. Two elements of the proposal need further discussion. The shifting of the kitchen towards the east and I do have some concern with this but do understand the advantage to the applicant as it improves the livability and the site is right. They want to take advantage of the views toward Aspen Mountain and the fact that the adjacent building has little open space on that side. I believe 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 the building should be preserved as it is and this is something that we need to discuss. In the new addition there is glazing that carries through the gable end and this is not permitted now under Ordinance #30. A number of setback variances are being requested mostly on the east lot line and I have met with the property owner of that building which is also an historic resource and she seems in favor of the project and did not seem concerned with any of the variances. There is also an air lock vestibule to be added to the doorway and it looks like a porch but it is glazed. There was never a porch on the house and I feel this is adding detail that is confusing to the character of the building. There are also two lightwells shown there that may need discussion. Standard 2, 3, 4 are met. Partial demolition: The areas involved I do not see contributing. Onsite relocation: I feel there is an advantage of leaving the kitchen where it is. Lightwells are shown on both sides of the front door and this is not permitted under ordinance 030. You cannot have a lightwell in front of the facade. Therefore, I recommend they moee the lightwells to the side of the building or reconfigure the bedrooms so that lightwells can be in the courtyard area. Under volume we have a calculation that says you cannot have windows between nine and twelve feel above the finished floor; therefore, the glazing that carries through the gable end violates that and the applicant has several options. They can either remove the glazing and put clapboards there; go to the Board of Adjustment who are the only ones that can waive this standard as it {s an FAR calculation or they pay the FAR 2 to 1 for that space or they ask HPC for an increase in PAR. In general I am concerned of us waiving this standard because we are holding every residential project in town historic and not historic to this standard now. On the other hand in this particular design given the tightness of the lot it does something to make the new addition transparent and make them seem not over bearing to the historic house. The principle window standard is not met. This requires that the significant window or group of windows of a livingroom, diningroom or family room face the street and I do not think we would want the applicant to do this as it would be a change to the original house. I have recommended approval with a number of conditions. Greq Pickrell representing Jake Vickery, the owner of the house: I f6el a lot of architects will disagree that this provision of the glazing in ordinance 830 and it will destroy a lot of houses. Many houses have oriole windows in their gable ends and this doesn't allow that and it doesn't allow a lot of things that we are encouraging. Amy: We need to discuss this issue in a worksession. waive Ord. 30 but not one that deals with FAR. HPC can Greg Pickrell: I would like to address the recommendation. On 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 the legal unit we are either going to apply for an ADU or address the housing impact fees and that is in progress. The goal of looking at the kitchen area of the house as a whole is to create a usable exterior space, an outdoor space. The client wanted the space to be interior to the property not in the rear yard but a private space. That is a goal to get an exterior space that is interior on the property. We wanted to break up the continuous wall surface and create a variety of massing and provide windows and doors to the exterior spac~ or private courtyard. It is a very small area. Bringing up the kitchen offset we are retaining the kitchen volume as a one story space to maintain the historical value of what is existing there. We feel that the two foot offset on the side enhances the value of the historical property by making visible a change or a building vernacular. It also helps to create a shift so that we do not have the continuous wall surface that we see on both the east side and the west side. We have two building situations there that have straight linear walls from the front of the lot almost to the back of the lot. On the west the adjacent building has a long wall that is set 10 feet off their property and even though it is not our space it affords us more visual space and openness for the courtyard. It also provides views of Aspen Mountain. Material lists will be forthcoming at final. The lightwells are hidden and not obscuring the facade of the house. We will have a rail that will run the front of the house for safety purposes. We will also vegetate that area. We would like the lightwells where they are as they will receive whatever little solar gain there is and they are on the south. We also want to keep our side yard access open. The light wells are 3x5. We also looked at moving the stair circulation going downstairs to the basement but by removing those stairs would drastically alter our circulation pattern and violate some interior spaces that we have. We have also avoided building a second story massing over the historical portion and put that mass in the basement. Donnelley: The drawings are very clear. Greg Pickrell: The small triangular space provides light and we are talking about 547 sqft. space. We have kept the gable end light source light and airy. The design concept here is to combine original historical materials and forms with new materials and forms so this would be an array of small muttons and forms. We would like to request the 500 sqft. bonus. Including basement and garage we have 2315 sqft. and our allowable is 2400 sqft. If we want these windows and we are going to have to count our upstairs twice we will be over if we don't have the bonus. With the bonus we have 2862 and the allowable is 2400 plus the 500 sqft. bonus which would bring us to 2900 sqft. Greg Pickrell: The first variance would be the rear yard variance of five feet and if we don't have that it would require us to move ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COM}4ISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 the newer form closer to the historic building in which case we would loose our hyphenation separation and that is why we are requesting that for the rear yard. On the east and west side sides we are out of compliance the way the building sets. On the west we are six inches over the setback line and on the east yard we are two inches over. We would like to keep the building where it is and bring it up to conformity. We are requesting a three foot variance for the diningroom. There is only one original window existing there. We are asking for a four foot variance on the east side of the lightwell. We are asking for a two foot variance on this side. On the airlock we are asking for a variance in the front yard from ten feet to six so we are asking for a four foot variance so that we can establish the glass airlock. Thanks for listening. CLARIFICATIONS Melanie: Where is the existing kitchen right now. Grog Pickrell: Right now it is where the bath and wash room are. Melanie: You are taking the kitchen and making it into a diningroom and shifting the kitchen to the other side. Amy: Regarding parking they are required to have two spaces and they are providing two. Susan: The portion of the roof is higher over the diningroom than the bedroom portion. It looks like it blocks the bedroom portion. Greg Pickrell: We have a master bedroom suite which is the highest one and the back ridge is the bath. The highest is the gable over the master bedroom. Roger: In regarding the fenestration on the master window facing south what can we do? Amy: The applicant can change their design to meet the standard or they go to the Board of Adjustment or we give them a 500 sqft. bonus and there is one other option. Amy: We can waive design standards but we cannot waive something that deals with FAR. Roger: FAR. Because of the way Ord. 30 is written it charges them on Amy: As a further layer to this and I might not have been clear to Jake you double the FAR for the space every time you do one of those windows. Since you have them on the north and south it is ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 four times the FAR. In this case I would suggest that you go to the Board of Adjustment because we cannot come up with that much FAR. Melanie: How much would be needed to cut on this in order to comply with Ordinance ~307 Amy: They would have to pretty much fill in the gable. Donnelley: There is an extraordinary amount of glass in the back and even more in the bathroom than bedroom. And there is a lot on the north and south. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Kent Moore: I'm the neighbor to this house. I went before HPC on a cottage on E. Cooper also. I looked at the plans the other day and I had the same concerns with the glass. The glass takes away that historical look. Linda: Where are you in location to this house? Kent Moore: We are next door the green/gray house. Donnelley: Thank you for your comment as we all have a lot of different issues regarding glazing because of Ordinance #30. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. Roger: Regarding the glazing I would like to know if the board feels the glazinq is historically appropriate on the south side and two do you feel ~he glazing is not as significant on the north side of the alley? Donnelley; We should clarify that for additions, for new work it doesn't have to be historically appropriate it just has to be compatible. Roger: Compatible with the historic resource. Sven: I am in favor of conceptual approval basically for this but my point on the glass to compatibility the glazing as proposed is as compatible with the existing resource as is this degree of addition to the parcel. I don't feel that it is impacting anything anymore than the scale of the addition. Donnelley: I am not worried about the master bedroom but the bath is an extremely small space and long and narrow and has a tremendous amount of glazing on the north side. So the bath not only will be inhospitable as a place to be in the winter its got 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 more than enough light and it is a very tall space. It isn't architecturally appropriate to have the glass there especially on the north side. It will be difficult to work with. Ordinance #30 aside it will be a difficult solution. The bedroom glazing is not as much an issue as the bath both psychologically and physically. This approach can work well stylistically, with an historic resource like this its approach to dealing with gable ends and glazing them however I feel inappropriate for the solution of the bath. Most of the glazing in the bedroom is facing south so you get a lot of solar gain. We cannot address the issue of glazing and we cannot address it due to ordinance ~30. Susan: I am concerned about lightwells in the front and to me they are not historic at all and they ruin the character of the front of the building. To me having them on the front of the building takes away the character of that kind of house. You can stand on the sidewalk and look down in and it seems very modern to me. Also a glassed in porch seems out of characte~ to me. Grog Pickrell: Trying to generate an airlock in this historic structure is really difficult. Amy: I'd like to remind the committee that the client says they prefer to enter from the courtyard anyway. Donnelley: Architects like to dress up a dumb building and you are presented with that historically, a flat facade, door and two windows. We really have to address that as being the historic resource. Susan: That is what is nice about retaining a house that looks like that on that street where there are no others. Greg Pickrell: curtains. The other choice would be to go with plastic Les: You are going to lift the house up, leave it onsite put a basement in and set it back down again. This is the main thorofare and we have lost most of the block already. Visually from the front this should maintain it originality and I am against enclosed porches or any porch on the front. I am against the lightwells on the front. I can see moving them onto the side and covering them with grates. I am willing to give variances on the side and willing to move the kitchen as the solution is so good. Grog Pickrell: We have a snow problem if the lightwells are moved to the side. Les: I feel some modifications have to be made regarding the glazing. The rear setbacks are OK and the others are OK. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO~MISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Roger: I think the basic plan and footprint is excellent. I would disallow the lightwells and the entry on the south elevation. I would concur with all the requests for variances. I would like to see a good landscape plan for the front. I feel we should address the problem with ordinance #30 and the Board of Adjustment. I feel that the fenestration particular on the master allows a certain transparency and I agree with Donnelley on the master bath that maybe it needs restudied. In a proactive stance I would like to work with the applicants. Linda: How many feet back on the rear is the indent? Greg Pickrell: 20 feet. Linda: There were comments made by people living in the house presently and they love it. I am in concurrence with the comments made about the porch and lightwells. Melanie: Because there are no windows on the bedroom side of the house possibly there would be another solution in getting light in. Sven: If the two parking spaces are part of the requirement on the drawing it measures 16 feet and they need to be 18 feet. Greg Pickrell: We will have to move the wall back and we will make the stair narrower. Susan: I am curious why the one roof ridge is higher than the. others. Greg Prickrell: We like the value of the massing on the right side and it helps offset the facade of the historical. We also felt the vaulted ceilings in the bedroom would be more appropriate. Susan: It would be nice to see a model. Donnelley: I can sum this up and generally the commission appreciates the way the massing has been developed and the way the site has been worked with. The historic resource is prominent and it is the principle attraction when viewed from the street. The major problem other than the windows are the light wells. The light well on the east side back by the garage is going to fill with snow and is right next to the property line and it will be a problem. Putting the other lightwells on the south is going to be a problem because of the adjacency to the sidewalk. There has to be a creative solution into getting light into the basement but I do not feel this will work well. On the east they would receive all the snow from the roof and aesthetically when placed on the south of the resource it becomes to much of a conditioning factor 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COM~ISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 especially when you have such a plain facade. The massing and general plan should not be compromised by the problems. The addition of an airlock entry is not appropriate especially when the owners want to use the side entry as much as possible. The setback issues we can all deal with. The shifting of the kitchen to what is now the diningroom is an intelligent way in dealing with an historic resource. I agree that shifting the kitchen is the right thing to do and in order to save this resource and make it as effective as possible I agree with that shift even though it is an unconventional or perhaps somewhat questionable approach to historic preservation. Amy: That is exactly why I do not like it. Donnelley: It is unusual and perhaps not acceptable but in this case I would support it. The windows are a total separate issue. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant conceptual approval to 820 E. Cooper with the following conditions: 1. Provide information for preservation of existing materials for final review. 2. Provide a landscaping plan for final review. 3. Remove the lightwells and entry airlock from the south side in front of the building. 4. Restudy rear lightwell. second by HPC shall grant the following variances. 1. 5' rear yard setback 2. .5 on the west sideyard and .1 on the east for the existing structure 3. 3' on the east si~eyard for the kitchen addition 4. 3' on the east sideyard for the garage addition 5. 4' on the east sideyard for the lightwell even though I asked for it to be restudied as it may not be workable. 6. 2' on the west sideyard for the garage addition. 7. HPC shall waive ordinance #30 standard dealing with windows. 8. HPC would be willing to grant a 500 sqft. bonus in order to deal with the fenestration and ordinance #30. 9. .6 for the sideyard combined variances. Les. DISCUSSION Jake: The second unit that is in the basement we will probably 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 have to make it an ADU and as a conditional use P&Z will probably require one parking space for that which means we will be required to have three parking spaces and we can only get two in the garage so we would also request a parking space for the ADU. Amy: If they choose to resolve their volume issue with an FAR bonus then you should probably say now if HPC is willing to grant the 500 sqft. bonus. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to add a parking space variance for the possible placement of an ADU unit in the basement; second by Les. Les: I don't consider these little mining shacks boring or ugly and I personally love them. They are the essence of what the east end of Aspen used to be. They are re-landscaping next door and what has happened with this extensive landscaping we have lost a building. By requiring a landscape plan I am afraid the building will disappear. Roger: If you require it then you can control it. You can see what the plantings are. VOTE: All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. ISIS - WORKSESSION Donnelley: We did a site visit and observed all the story polls. Sunny Vann: We would like to make sure we are on the same track before going to P&Z and that is why we are back so soon. John Wheeler: We have extended the existing wall back. We have stayed away from the back units. The four points left from conceptual one was the restudy of the free market unit and we feel we have done that and hope we have met your concerns. Another was the aspects of the tower and we changed the soldier bands and another aspect was the demolition plan. The fourth mater was the material on the alley side and the material on the upper level, brick or stone and the existinq metal that is on the back. Regarding demolition the existing-wall will stay in place and the walkway in front of the street along the sidewalk will be at six to eight feet high. As the facade is renovated and restored we will put panels in there such as was done with the city hall building. John Wheeler: We also supplied a streetscape elevation from the Caribou alley side which demonstrates how low it is and it will be difficult to see the eave line. from across the street. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Roger: roof. Where will all the mechanical equipment be placed on the John Wheeler: We have discussed this briefly and it will be to the back and vented to the back alley. Roger: It will be through the roof side. Is there additional space restaurant which needs venting? and out the wall on the alley for future use such as a John Wheeler: We have not anticipated that degree of change. Linda: What is the vent that is there now going to be used for? John Wheeler: It is for the projection rooms which are currently located up front. Donnelley: I feel we are dealing with details rather than the overall conceptual and I am afraid I am going to drop a bomb. The applicant has attempted in every way possible to accommodate our desires and if I were a lay person coming upon this building for the first time my first impression would be that all that has been saved of the block are the perimeter walls. By dropping the roof top construction and the roof top construction built form is a new event that has been proposed for an historic building in Aspen which we should all be cognizant of. By dropping that the first impression is that you have a shell, The Weber Block and inside that eggshell you have new construction which is poking up above and behind the parapet walls. When you drop and drop you only see part of a facade, part of the volume poking up and by inference we assume that volume could drop all the way down to ground level and that is what I see when,I look at this building. There is an inferred continuation of these volumes that go right down through and we just have a thin paper wall. That is a horrible precedence. Jake: That is what is happening. Les: If you had to solve that what would you do? Donnelley: You would do something that we don't want and bring all of the development to the outside and have a break in materials. Once you pull it all back in which is what we asked for you have a definite change in expression. We do not want it part of the historic resource. You have the cubic volume rising out of the center of the shell. Jake: You will only read that from up above. Donnelley: You see it from several places. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Sven: I approved conceptual because of the importance of the Isis and the revitalization. This does not look like a renovation project to me. I approved conceptual largely because of the housing program and the theatre expansion. I feel the applicant is responding to HPC's fires and trying to put out single issues but a couple of meeting ago Donnelley pointed out that we were grasping for a coherent overall solution now just a problematic solution. We still do not have a successful character to the entire project. We have the Isis, the tower, and the housing and not a common thread that ties them all together into a successful solution. It is very important that we resolve the architectural solution before we go to final. Donnelley: The new construction could be more integrated to the wall. New fabric can be integrated. John Wheeler: That is fair input and we struggled with that. Donnelley: We are talking about the expression of new and old. Possibly the top of the tower could tie into the housing etc. by materials. Sven: If you did a clay model of the masses of additions you would see the three different animals you should only have two. I want to see one visual Isis with these additions. all of the and possibly image of the Sunny Vann: At the last meeting we were to make the roof top addition different and to explore contemporary and use color. We need consensus to the character of the addition. We can refine elements and play with materials. We may never get all of your unanimous approval on this. Donnelley: John has already recognized the certain schizophrenia that exists as to the way the new is differentiated from the old. John was opening up the issue so that it could be dealt with. John Wheeler: Exactly. Sven: I do not see the tower and the overall housing on the roof top in a combined theme. Donnelley: Lets go back to the basics you have face brick on the south wrapping around the corner then it is a softer nonfaced brick that is on the east side and some on the west and now another brick needs introduced that works on the new. Roger: Why couldn't the new be cortin or something else. Donnelley: That is the architects decision and we are talking 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMI~ISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 about brick A,B and material or brick C. Also the articulation. Can the commission agree that. a material should be chosen that unifies all of the new work between old and new and not several materials. John Wheeler: We would not have a problem with that and we are leaning toward masonry for function and longevity and keeping with the street facade. Melanie: No matter what you say it still looks like a shell. Susan: Regarding building structures on historic roofs I assume that hasn't been done except for Harley's place. Amy: There are a few like the Cantina that have a roof top addition but it is not this much construction and is dealt with in a different manner. Roger: In any other parts of the country are there projects similar to this that you know of that could be used as an example. John Wheeler: We feel that we have come up with an adaptive reuse of the Isis. Les: Conceptual we have agre6d that they can build something on the roof. Linda: When I look at this from my own gut feeling somehow the curve on the roof of the three elements and trying to be compatible with the tower are not compatible due to the shape of the roof. Charles Cunniffe: The idea is to have a contrast. It might be too modern. It could be dealt with by a radical change of material. Linda: No, I feel it needs to be the change of the roof line. Charles Cunniffe: One you will never see it. Susan: What if they were more curved. Charles: At one time we did think of connecting the curve between the elements and that would be be a successful solution. Sven: The tower has always been a problem as it stands alone. Donnelley: You could have surface filigree linking the front to the back to pull it all together for privacy. Les: Are you suggesting that the middle units have one roof line that goes from the front to the back or just on the side. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Donnelley: You need to pull all of the new built forms together. Sven: I do not see these elements integrated yet and at a clay model scale level you could work with the issue, a thing growing over the Isis and blending in and integrating. Charles Cunniffe: We are beyond the gestation period. We need to tie the treatments together programmatically. Jake: I am more concerned with the street view. pulled the tower forward. I am concerned about the of the new piece and old piece and how they join. clear dramatic articulation. What if you intersection They need a Roger: On the tower what if t~e entire plane were glass. Charles Cunniffee: We could draw that up if the Board desires us to go with something that modern. Donnelley: In your housing you have shown that you are pulling the glazing back from the surface of the masonry. There is another area that you want to tie together. Charles Cunniffe: We have a building that we have grown something softly over and in a way the new building is poking out of the softness and I think it would be nice if we can tie that together. Melanie: What kind of material would be softer? Donnelley: Have you looked at a panelized expression. Charles Cunniffe: You get a grid work of panelized manmade stone mix and it is a stone panel and that could contrast with the original brick. Donnelley: We need a consensus of what precise direction. Charles Cunniffe: We do need something architecturally. I do agree that work. the issues are and give left that we can design what we have talked about will Donnelley: The east and west elevation have the same expression but two different situations. The west is an historic elevation and you are bringing new construction up to it and the east elevation is new. There is no reason for them to be the same. Charles Cunniffe: feel to it. We thought the manufactured stone had a nice 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Roger: I feel it is too massive. You are applying a heavy material on top of an historic building. Linda: I agree it is too massive and you need something lighter. Roger: And with a different expression. Donnelley: Roger has something there that a masonry expression gives us the feeling that this form has to carry all the way down through because it has so much weight. A lighter expression material is needed. Sunny Vann: The character of the addition can be resolved. you comfortable with the setback on the free market. Are Donnelley: I am sure all of the commission would like to see a greater setback for the free market. Sunny Vann: The free market unit is carrying this project. Jake: The old building is pounding the south axis and the top stuff is just pounding it. There is no three dimensional character to it on the top. Charles Cunniffe: Are we OK with what we have for the free market units and the modification of materials for the stair tower. Donnelley: We are talking about dealing with the expression of the building. MOTION: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland Chief Deputy Clerk 17