Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940323Historic Preservation committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 130 S. GALENA - CITY HALL BASEMENT MINOR DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION #2 1994 - BILL POSS APPRECIATION RESO. 201 W. FRANCIS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT 706 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING 1 3 4 10 22 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of March 23, 1994 Meeting was called to order by chairman Joe Krabacher with Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer Martha Madsen, Linda Smisek, Bill Poss and Tom Williams present. Excused were Donnelley Erdman, Karen Day and Scott Samborski. COMMITTEE AND STi%FF COMMENTS Jake: Has anything happened with the Main Street study? Amy: It is scheduled for the April 27th meeting. Jake: Will you keep us informed of the Williams Ranch submission? Amy: Yes, one of the conditions of approval is that they comply with the character guidelines. Les: Last year we saw a film on infill that really worked and possibly we could get that film for the awards ceremony this year. All infills in France are made of steel and they fit in quite well. They work because the scale works and there is a lot of open space. Bill Poss: During preservation week have the architects in town get together with Nore Winter and show how contemporary can fit in with historic. Tom: At the last two meetings people with models were in and out of here and I was wondering if there are requirements for models in the guidelines. Amy: No it is not stated but most of the major projects do models but the smaller ones don't. Jake: From the minutes of the worksession regarding Main Street I intend ~o outline them and work with them so that we as a Board can get a philosophy. The Main Street historical district is critical and I see problems down the road and we need to know where we are headed as a Board in fairness to owners of the property. Amy: The Board needs to site visit No Problem Joe's house as the buildings are deteriorating and I have scheduled a site visit with the prospective buyer for next week. MOTION= Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of February 9, 1994; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. 130 S. GALENA - CITY H~LL BASEMENT MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: We have seen this application twice and the applicant has responded to HPC's concerns about the size of the staircase and they have given us more specific information about materials and Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 have show the elevation and the staircase section. I am recommending approval of the application with a few conditions. I feel the railing should be varied a little, possibly the pattern of the rails. We will also need to see all of the materials, windows, doors. Also that no further projects be approved to City hall until the city undertakes restoration of the historic structure. Cris Caruso, Engineer: There are two variations and one is the flagstone sidewalk that~leads to the steps. I would like to have the option of going to brick on that. The Parks Dept. put brick in under the table and we might want to go with brick to match. I also found a retaining wall system called keystone that is interlocking blocks that form a retaining wall. One it is aesthetically pleasing and it may help us out with our budget. The color of the concrete will be decided with the monitor. We would review the final details on the rail with the monitor. MOTION= Roger made the motion to grant approval of the application submitted with the following conditions to be approved by Staff and monitor. 1) The applicant should vary the design of the railing in order to visually break up its length. 2) HPC must review exact descriptions or samples of the concrete, windows, doors, railing and grate before issuance of a building permit. 3) No further projects involving city Hall will receive HPC approval until the city resource the historic windows, replaces the roof and repairs the masonry; second by Les. Question called: Passes 6 to 1. Motion carries. Les opposed. DISCUSSION Amy: We need to discuss the concrete block and whether it is appropriate. Cris: I can get bids and discuss it with Amy. I also wanted to let you know that all meeting rooms will be downstairs. Where the information center is now there will be a stairway down and it will go downstairs and the information center will be moved back a bit. Les: Is this the only block system they have as I would prefer something with tighter joints that looks like the old foundations? 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 Cris: Amy looked at this and she has the same concern and I will call the company. Bill Poss: Outside the Ritz at the auto lobby they have a concrete block that is brick that is hammered or pitched and it looks more like the old sandstone but is still contemporary. You might be able to do a wall and face it with the concrete brick. Cris: I can come back after the choice is made and also after the windows are chosen. Tom Williams is monitor. RESOLUTION %2 1994 - BILL POSS ~PPRECIATION RESO. Chairman Joe Krabacher read the resolution into the minutes. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, IN APPRECIATION OF BILL POSS' EIGHT YEARS OF VOLUNTEER SERVICE TO THIS COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, Bill Poss first served as a member of HPC on February 11, 1986; and WHEREAS, Bill Poss was chairman of HPC from NOvember 19, 1987 to February 23, 1994; and WHEREAS, Bill Poss has resigned from the Committee and plans to build a new house which will be in character with the Red Mountain Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the past and current members of HPC wish Bill Poss well and thank him for his outstanding leadership; and WHEREAS, Bill Poss knew how to make an applicant feel at ease and wielded his gavel with a little levity; and WHEREAS, Bill Poss' was always polite and waited for all of the other members to speak before he made a single comment on a project; and WHEREAS, Bill Poss' final recommendation to HPC was that the Committee keep its sense of humor. Though HPC's job can be difficult, the Board should have some fun and should always try to help our applicants out as much as possible. Historic Preservation committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE THAT BILL POSS WILL BE REMEMBERED AS AN EXCELLENT LEADER, WHOSE DEDICATION LED TO THE PRESERVATION OF MANY HISTORIC STRUCTURES, SITES AND OBJECTS THROUGHOUT ASPEN. Approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation committee at its regular meeting of March 23, 1994. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve Resolution 2, 1994; second by Joe. All in favor, motion carries. 201 W. FRANCIS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Amy: At the last meeting the Committee advised the applicant to revise his proposal and minimumize the size of the addition and the impact to the historic structure. Now we have before us an application to remove one window on the west facade and build a one story high 3 by 7 addition. French door on the west and windows on the north and south side. I have recommended approval with the conditions that the windows, brick and materials that are going to be removed be kept by the owner. The mortar mix be approved by me and that the applicant should submit before and after photos for the project. I should state that I do still have reservations about changes to an historic structure but I felt this was a reasonable compromise. George Vicenzi: I would like to re-examine my original application. From the north L it blends in with the background. My daughter was very upset when I told her she wasn't getting the balcony. The committee has a tough job in restoring historic structures and it is a balance to restore a structure and take care of the rights of the individuals who own houses. To bring to a personal level when you deny something you are really affecting the way someone lives in that house. I feel this is a basic right to enjoy the house. What I am requesting is a reasonable request. Considering that side of the house is barely visible from the street and only in the winter. The side needs repaired. What I am proposing is close to what other victorians have. It is compatible. The person you see sitting before you is an endangered species. I am one of the few people left that has a victorian and would like to do my own renovations. I have done the carriage house and we worked together on that and came to a reasonable compromise. When this committee keeps on chipping away at my environment at how I can live in my house it has an effect on me. I get offers every month on this house and if it continues I am going to sell and that type of person buying is going to hire an 4 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 architect to do a large renovation. I am willing to do a small addition to let light in and have the upstairs room have a french door that looks onto the side yard which is a private yard. These buildings have changed over time and at one time the garage in 1918 became a dairy. That was to allow the people to make a living there and enjoy the property. Time has changed and light is required into houses. Jake: Are we reviewing the revised scheme? Joe: George would like us to review the original. Amy: I did not support the original application and my opinion has not changed. Jake: How wide are the windows on top? George: Five feet and they are original double hung. Jake: How wide is the elevation? George: 21 feet approximately. George: Last week the committee recommended a restudy of a hip roof on top of a bay with french doors coming out and tabled. Jake: What is the rail? George: It is wood that matches the porch on the left side. Bill Poss: Are you proposing that a bay that comes out and the roof with the balcony and doors above. George: The north elevation would come out and the reason I brought it out was to put windows on the south side to let light come into the diningroom . The balcony with the french doors would be flush with the wall. Bill Poss: How wide is the existing opening? George: Three feet. Bill Poss: If you do this are you keeping the existing opening? George: No, I would open up the dining room to let light in. Bill Poss: You could add that on and if you were sympathetic as 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 23t 1994 to how you attach to the brick you could still retain the original structure and it could be removed at some time. Removing the brick is what the Board is concerned about. Joe: On that wall opening the window on the second floor and putting in new doors was discussed. Bill Poss: It is too bad the original opening isn't larger. Roger: The upstairs windows are five feet and the new proposal is what width? George: Six feet as I had to widen it to put in the door jams. Roger: If you are allowed to take out the two existing windows without removing any bricks could you not put in two french doors to fit that opening? And if so wouldn't that allow more light into that area. George: That is a possibility and the french doors upstairs would have to be a little smaller. Roger: If you do that you wouldn't be removing any brick. Roger: Downstairs you have a single window and if it were to be removed and you were allowed to move the bricks underneath the window no wider than the window to the floor and then you put on a bay, would that allow more light to the diningroom? George: It would be minimal light. What is important is to get this projected out so that the southern light into the double hung on the south side. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Roger: You could in fact remove the existing windows without removing any brick and create a set of doors opening into the room and that would give you light. Les: Many years ago we lost every historic building because no one was paying attention to what we had and the rights of the community to live in an historic community. What has happened people now feel community comes first and that is why we have the community area plan. To preserve community is historic trust. If you are saying the rights of the individual are being violated we can't address that we have to address the community plan and it is a 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 conflict for all of us. This is a national register building and I have never seen a national registered building with french doors from this era up on the second floor. I do not know how this can be done and our national guidelines state that this cannot be done. Tom: I am also sympathetic with the idea of the balcony and the french doors on the top and the bay window to achieve light in the dining room below; however, I would be opposed to this design. I have visited this site several time and I am opposed to this as along as it still looks as though it has been stuck on. The balconies on the east and south and the bay window look stuck on to me. There is a way to achieve all of the desire by a better design and making it look as if the original builder built it that way. A possible idea would be an angled bay window and carefully take out the brick to make the bay window with the same brick to look like the front. I also do not like the wood painted to look like brick. I would rather see a totally different material. Jake: I concur with Tom to a point. I support the ideas of getting more light, more openness in the exterior space and this is a challenging thing to do given an historical landmark. I do not feel it is impossible because I have seen it done before. You need to do more research. I feel the existing openings should be left alone and if a new window goes in do it rather than changing an existing opening. Linda: I can understand your daughter wanting light and windows is not going to make her happy but this is a national landmark and it definitely insults the integrity of this home to be tacking on numerous additions like this. That is not the way people lived and it is not compatible with the home. I understand the desire to want this but whether this house is the house for that is a question. We had talked about this last week and when people buy historic homes it is something that everybody in the community is looking at and appreciating and not wanting to see change in. Les is right in that the community has a say so in this and that is why we are here. Roger: In Italy no matter where you live and you have an historic building you cannot add onto or remove or change anything to the exterior. You can do anything you want to the interior. If the building is built around a courtyard you can change the openings that open into the courtyard but if they open to a public area you cannot do anything. We need to determine what our overall view is concerning landmarks. Last week the board determined that the opening could occur. I voted for that but if it were above grade I would have not voted for anything added onto this building. 7 Historlo Preservation Committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 Martha: This should he an opportunity for your daughter to appreciate that she really lives in a special building. It sounds to me that there are more ideas out there that need to be incorporated in order to get the light you want without altering the building~ George: If you get too restrictive with rules you will drive away the community. I have also worked with the committee to renovate the carriage house. It is a balance that we have to come up with. What we are asking to me is within reason. This is on the side of the building that is not seen. It is stuck on but we will work with materials that are compatible. The problem with matching the brick is that the brick was painted and this isn't the original color. It is important to me to have access to the side yard. That is an amenity to the building. I don't live in France because I like the freedom here. I bought this house before there was historical review. It doesn't seem like the committee is entertaining the balcony idea. Joe: That is correct. Jake: I would consider a balcony but not this one. Roger: like a have a Why couldn't you have two double hung windows that operate door on hinges. They would open into the room and you could rail across the opening. Joe: I would like to preserve the opening to a minimum on the second floor. I feel it is a compromise to allow you to do the first floor because you are enlarging that original window. I am more in favor of plan B. I would be willing to look at something on the ~econd floor if we can leave the opening the way it is. Roger: One of the considerations on the lower level is to have access to the side yard. It is not uncommon in historic buildings to have an opening that was a window and changed to a door. You don't change the opening you just change it to a door. George: That doesn't accomplish my light situation. Roger: No but it does give you access to the side yard. George: I wouldn't do the project. George: B is a good compromise and then at a future date if I decide to do something with the windows I could come up with 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 something that works. Bill: If we work along with Roger's concept that only retains all the existing openings to work with the secretary of interior standards then maybe an outdoor dining porch that would be raise up might work. Then the door would open out to a porch. It would let more light in and offer an outdoor dining area. The structure would not loose its integrity because the openings are retained. Linda: That would be the conservatory type area. George: There is only a narrow opening and the house is too dark. Amy: I have heard different recommendations from the entire committee and we need to sum out our ideas. What plan is George proposing? George: I would go with plan B and leave the upstairs window go. Amy: I feel plan B. is a compromise and A is too much of an impact to the historic building. Roger: I would vote to table and restudy plan B. Jake: I do not feel we have enough detailed information. MOTION: Les made the motion to table 201 W. Francis, minor development to a date certain to allow the applicant further time to restudy; second by Tom. DISCUSSION Amy: We are talking about restudying design B with more clarification of materials and details. Les: I would rather table it and have a worksession. Joe: If anyone on the Board feels plan B would not work don't vote for this motion. Roger: I feel we should have a worksession also. Jake: He needs additional light into the space and this is not a primary facade it is a secondary and third he is willing to live with the top part then maybe there could be a compromise. George: You have the guidelines and you also have to look at the Historic Preservation Comm%ttee Minutes of March 23, 1994 needs of the individual. The public should be invited to this worksession. When is there a need. I feel it would be difficult to call it all or nothing situation. I feel the fair way to do it would be to vote for B and I will come up with details. LES WITHDREW HIS MOTION AND TOM WITHDREW THE SECOND, MOTION DIES. MOTION: Martha made the motion to approve plan B as proposed with the condition that the applicant come back with details of materials. Motion dies for lack of second. MOTION: Joe made the motion to table the application with the understanding that HPC approves the concept regardless of the results of the worksession and that the applicant come back with a restudy of more details on materials etc.; second by Jake. Question called: Failed three to four. In favor, Martha, Jake and Joe. Opposed Tom, Linda, Les and Roger. MOTION: Joe made the motion to deny plan B as submitted and the HPC could have a worksession to see what their policy is and based on the policy the applicant decide whether he wants to submit another application or not; second by Linda. Les: I do not want to loose the communication between the Board and the applicant. JOE WITHDREW HIS MOTION AND LINDA WITHDREW HER SECOND. MOTION: Joe made the motion to table the application to a date after the HPC has had their worksession; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. 706 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING Joe stepped down. Bill Poss chaired the meeting. Bill: I need to pass on the book of Roberts rules of order that was passed on by Mona Frost to Georgeann Waggaman and then passed on to me. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Amy: The application is requesting approval for conceptual development, partial .demolition and onsite relocation of the historic structure. The structure will be exempt from GMQS processes because it is an historic landmark. The applicant has 10 Historic Preservation Con~nittee Minutes of March 23, 1994 the option of going to the P&Z requesting an increase of FAR which would give them an addition 1250 sq. ft. or they can apply to HPC for a 500 sq. ft. bonus and that appears to be their preference. I have given you an amendment that has to do with the size of their employee housing unit. It is below grade. On the demolition issue the code doesn't specifically indicate how to calculate the amount to be demolished. If we use demolition of existing walls they get to 45% and if it is FAR it is 75%. We need to make a decision about that. I have recommended tabling to allow a restudy a few features including cornice, columns and the treatment of the connection between the new and old buildings. I thought there should be an element that makes the house feel like a residential structure and there was at one time a porch on the building. Possibly keep that or the picket fence that was once there to give it a pedestrian feel. Joe: At the worksession members stated they were not opposed to a flat roof so we went with that. Jake mentioned his concern about maxing out the FAR. We were proposing 5,000 feet and on this proposal we cut off 750 sq. ft. We did that in two different way: First we moved the new addition back six feet and removed 250 feet of FAR to do that. Regarding the special review you can add an additional 1250 sq. ft. to the property to take it up to one to one. 60% of that has to be employee housing. Alternatively we can request the 500 ft. FAR bonus from the HPC. What we have done in this plan is ask for 452 feet of which 200 feet will be employee housing and the rest will be part of the new addition. The idea is to not max out the site. What we have ended up with as far as FAR goes is a building that is slightly over the FAR of the Stapleton building but is on a lot that is 1000 feet larger. David Panico, architect: The committee had three ideas at the last meeting, make it go away; make it look similar to the cottage or not make it similar to the cottage. We decided to go with making it as unlike as the little cottage as possible and making it a distinct architectural statement and thereby separating it from the very small structure in the foreground and trying to make it read independently. The suggestion of moving the new structure back six to eight feet, we did. It resulted in 250 less feet in FAR. We attempted to break it into three distinct elements, front cottage, entry, and office block in rear. We also felt giving its own personality that the details of the structure should have some relationship to the existing structure. We plan on the siding to be stark in nature. The office block would be clapboard the same as the historic structure and the front element possibly MDO. In the memo from Amy there is concern of the cornice and it is rather important as it accentuates the fact that the blocks are stepping 11 Historic Preservation Committee Hinutes of M&roh 23, 1994 back and there is a progression of size to the rear of the parcel and that cornice helps to define that. CLARIFICATIONS Jake: What is the allowable height in that office zone? David Panico: 25 feet to the mid point with a flat facade and that is where we are at. Amy: The rear yard setback is 15 feet. Dave: We will provide a three bedroom unit and the rear unit will be a one bedroom. Roger: What is underneath the siding of the original structure? Joe: We put a door in where there was a window and when we cut through we found aluminum siding which is the existing siding on the outside and below that is asphalt siding and below that is clapboard siding. We feel it is clapboard all the way around but we have only found that on the west side. Roger: What condition do you feel the old siding is in. Joe: We didn't take a test section off the side but it looks as if some can be saved. Roger: The shutters are not historic but you are keeping them and you are adding the porch. The intent is to do the addition as different as possible; Joe: On the porch issue if we end up moving the existing building back due to the porch we might have to ask for a variance because everything then moves back further. Roger: If HPC requested a porch because it was historic it should not be a problem giving a variance. Amy: We can give a variance. Roger: What is the response about the columns being so similar to the building next door. Dave: I feel it should be restudied. Roger: Where the two buildings attach do you think there is any Historic Preservation Committee ~inutes of ~arch 23, ~994 way of making that attachment off the south east viewplane coming down Main Street more soft? Joe: You really don't read that the building has moved back because of the balcony on the second floor which has such a thick element that it looks like it is part of the building. My thought was if you could make that invisible so that it doesn't look like a thick element then you will really read that the front of the addition is really back further than what it looks like in the perspective. Dave: Above the two columns I had a continued solid wall up to the required 36 inch height to that deck and if that was turned into a very simple two by two baluster that it would read much lighter. I thought that was a good suggestion. Roger: Staff had mentioned that the new building has no kin to the historic building and you have stated you wanted it as different as possible. What about the wide fascia and banding? What about softening that and making a kinship to the building? Dave: We had the worksession and half the board wanted it different and the other half wanted it similar to the historic building. We chose it to be different. The first design attempts were to make the details, roof slope and shapes have a relationship to the historic structure. What tended to happen due to the plainness of the little cottage it looked like it diminished the historic structure. Roger: If the fence were to be put up front should it be wood or iron? Dave: I would suggest wood as it relates to the older building. Roger: Do you feel the new building gives a residential feel or a business feel? Dave: Some of the guidelines stated that a residential was preferable and Joe did a survey of what the context of Main Street is. There is every style available. There are a lot of flat roof structures that were .not designed to any sensitivity that we are addressing here tonight. We also did a lot of research in the archives at the historical society and there was precedence for residential structures that were flat roofs. Joe: If you do a residential roof with a square part it gets up too high. 13 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 Dave: Not by form but by detailing we feel the building is residential in nature. Dick Fallin, architect: With the three step addition we are creating a lot of air space at the pedestrian level. Where the restaurant is there is potential for another large building. Dave: I am very proud of this design and the detailing which makes an architectural statement..That sets it apart from the lodges and other buildings. I have not thought of what else can happen on Main Street. At the last meeting there was a split as to what should occur and I came out of that meeting thinking this is the direction that the Board wanted. Roger: We would like to see a connection to an historic structure rather than an addition which this is. We would like to see a building that plays with or blends with although we are not opposed to something that is separate if it can be sold to us. We are also not opposed to something that is copied. As far as our guidelines people interpret them to not copy but the individuals that wrote that comment have different views at this point and did not want it interpreted that way. Dave: Are you saying the guidelines say that you should not copy the victorians. I have always thought that true. Bill Poss: On a commercial building or office do the windows have to be protected within ten feet from the property line? Dave: That was a concern if we wanted to move the building back we could encroach the sideyard. Within five feet from the property line you can't have any openings and ten feet is wire around the glass. On the east next to the Stapleton building you granted a a variance on their west setback to 6.8 ft. At present there would be an 11.8 foot separation between the two buildings. If we were to ask you to allow us to encroach we might take advantage of that. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Bill: John Olson is the owner of the property on the corner of Main Street and seventh street. He has written a letter that will be entered into the records. He has reviewed the project and is in full support of it. He believe it is well thought out and will have a minimal impact on the historical character of the miners cottage located at 706 W. Main. He finds it consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and he encourages the HPC to approve the 14 Historic Preservation Comm%ttee Minutes of March 23, 1994 project. Les: I voted against the building on the corner so my problem is conceptually we are starting with something that I don't like to begin with. We are taking it right on down the road. What I am getting here is great confusion. I like where this project is going to go and I like where the little house is staying. I like the idea of the adjacent building being a state of its own. There is something wrong but I do not know what it is. The transition is not right or possibly the facing. It is going in the right direction and I wish we did not let the Stapleton project through. Amy: I don't think we discussed the possibility of sheathing the second floor in some sort of roofing material which Don Erdman had brought up at the last meeting, pretending that the second floor was the roof. Dave: I have that comment but I am not sure I agree with it. Martha: I like the way this projects sits on the property. I feel the reality is that we will have more of this on Main Street. I do not know how much of residential flavor on Main Street we can salvage forever. I think this is a nice example of what could be done. Linda: I am having trouble with the connection between the two buildings. There seems a great deal of incongruity between the new structure and the little miners cottage even though you said kind of making it similar diminishes it. To me the little cabin got stuck out front and this bigger structure behind and there is no tie between the two. The pillar are out of context and the detailing above the windows is confusing. It doesn't seem to be compatible. I like the back of the building better than the front of the building. Jake: From an historical and creative perspective there is a lot working for this project. This area of town is very important to me and I researched the 0 zone. Those areas that are adjacent to commercial uses and that are on major thorofares like HWY82. The intent was to try and do something that acknowledges that locational situation but then also it says maintains its residential character and neighborhood quality. That is hard to do when you are sitting in the middle of a four lane highway. That becomes challenging because the 0 zone allows you to even increase your FAR's and get other bonuses. With a conditional use you can do a lot with this area. I like breaking it down into important components. Then I look up to the cornice which relates to 15 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 commercial. Is there a way to create a cornice that relates to residential! The flat roof will be coming up more and more because the sloped roof is programmatical. When you have narrow property lines how do you dump the snow and what do you do with it. Why are you putting an artificial cornice up when the cornice is above the roof? I guess I justify that by the stepping down effect. Maybe the cornice should step up to the back. In theory it makes sense to go small, little bigger and bigger yet. The rear of the building needs to be considered. My position is that we will have to look at every piece of property on Main Street of this type. Roger: I would concur with staff and allow the moving of the historic structure and the demolition as requested. I would then table this as I would like to see a full landscaping plan with the picket fence and the porch added. I would encourage HPC to approve the setbacks so the porch would be allowed. I would remove the shutters because there is nothing historic about them. Possible they could save the siding or reuse it if possible. Moving onto the new structure in a way I am not quite sure but it has nothing to do with your architectural talents. The impact of the new structure over the other I do not get the feel that it is swallowing it up or overpowering it in any particular way. I would like to see a more residential feel. On the entry to the new building and the connection I would remove the columns. The joining of the two and the little notch in if it is possible that will go away. The connector will then work and one reason it works is the nice patio on the west. The whole east alleyscale is not a problem. The banding and the cornice I am not sure about. In regards to the rear the trash and compactor/dumsters need to be addressed. The other issue is the west side and I am not sure it is residential in character or not but if everyone feels it is appropriate it is probably OK. I am not sure about the false front. You mentioned MBO boards and I would caution the use of it as I do not feel it will hold up in this climate. MBO board is really used for signage and all it is is plyboard with a plastic glue and banding. A high tech look goes with the new building being diametrically opposed to the historic and I am not sure about that. I need to see it in the context of the future and what will happen to the town. That is your job to sell me. Tom: It seems to me that this building has been designed by issued that were brought up by HPC. It is hard for me to figure out the object of the design. There are proportional problems that bother me. The relationship of the historic building to the new building is weak. I was wondering if it was ever considered of turning the program upside down where the basement would be more appropriate for offices and the second floor for offices and the residential 16 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 on the third floor. Roger: If the front of the addition is to be related to residential the fenestration needs to be softened. Tom: If it is to be residential the plates could be much lower and much more in scale with the "walk along Main Street". The feel of that end of Main Street is peaked roofs. Bill: It is important that we are tying to keep this as a quiet back drop and I think it comes down to Rogers comments of being totally dissimilar and the cornice bothers me also. It bothers everybody as it is relating to a style that is somewhat foreign to Main Street other than the Mesa Store. I fought the Mesa Store as it has a south western style of a front. I agree that a fence along the front will help keep it residential. We are trying to keep the residential aspect of Main Street and keep it quiet. I feel the flat roof structure keeps it quiet. I feel everyone is in support of the project and we want to keep this moving. Dave: The issue of the porch is still up in the air. Dick Fallin: When you look at the new building the first thing you see is the porch balusters and the heavy columns. If they are removed and we lighten the overhang that might take away the horizontal mass and give a little more vertical entry. The second floor balcony could be a little smaller perhaps. We can also do landscaping on the east side to screen the massing even more. The issue of the cornice when you are seeing it from the street level that building almost went entirely away when Bill was holding up the model. We almost don't see what is behind the cottage. Bill: We are trying to do an architectural statement in the back and we are making a statement as to how Main Street can develop. Color is successful at 17 Queen Street also and they varied the textures and scale of the siding. It is the cornice that relates to something historic and it needs to be your own architectural statement back there. This can be a successful project. Jake: The inverted plan concept is interesting and it would strengthen the idea of a residential area in the office zone. I disagree with a porch on the old house and I am not in favor of it. Possibly sever the connection between the old house and new. I like the entrance focused. Roger: I agree with Jake that if you don't connect that corner you create its own entity rather than an addition to. The porch is not Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 a concern to me. Tom: One of the issues is a massive volume at eye level. Joe: This is a 5,000 sq. ft. lot and there is not a lot of room on it to some of the things you are suggesting. First of all there is no way the residential will go on the top floor and put office in the basement. It is not part of the program for this building. I do not have any direction here, I am hearing all kinds of different things. At the last worksession nobody said they had an objection to a flat roof so we proceeded doing a flat roof to bring the height down so we wouldn't have to have something nonopposing behind the existing building. We tried to bring this building out and create a patio which would separate the existing building from the addition. The other plans were over powering the existing historic building and with a 5,000 sq. ft. site you don't have a lot of room to work with. We have knocked 750 sq. ft. off the plan which to you guys is just numbers but when you are an owner the square footage means something. Knocking 750 off is knocking off $150,000. dollars. That is not your concern but it is a factor for us in proceeding with the project. I would like to see direction. Bill: Lets try and give direction. Last week we were 50 50 whether it should be a peaked roof or flat. Joe: The comments I got last week were nobody said anything about the flat roof and nobody objected and now I am getting that comment after spending $15,000. in planning and architectural fees. Bill: I believe we gave direction last week to go with a flat roof to lower the scale and that is successful in lowering the scale. Jake: I personally do not feel we should act on this project until we get Main Street done because we do not have a firm footing and that may be reflected in the variety of comments we are getting and I am in favor of tabling. Bill: I am confused by your statement as you are asking the client to wait. Jake: Joe needs something specific and I do not feel that will come out until we work on Main Street. Martha: I am having trouble sitting here tonight. I do not like the way we dealt with George Vicenzi and I do not like the way we are reacting and we are reacting. We asked him to come in with a project and we are reacting negatively after we have said certain 18 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 things before and this is the third time this has happened. At this point it is an ethical issue. We cannot have applicants come in and we say wait a minute we have to study Main Street. That is our job to do before these people have to come in. They are doing their job the best they can. We can't say hold it and put them on hold. Roger: I agree with Martha to a point but we have been evolving and we have learned a great deal and we have come a far greater distance than any past HPC. It is more fair for us to know what we want before we say yes or no. I feel we were honest and upfront with George. We are clear with the relocation and demolition but we are not clear with the other stuff. Les: I am not opposed to the flat roof but why is there a crown on it. That is where it doesn't fit. Dave: I feel good about a lot of the comments made but when it comes to the detailing specifically the cornice and the trellis element over the window if you remove those what you basically got is three cubes of varying height. What then you have is a small structure with very little detailing on it in the foreground of this historic with an innocuous building behind it. Is that what you want architecture to be. It has no statement and no character and no interest. The majority of what you said is that you like the massing, the way it is on the land and the functions. Get rid of the detailing. If we do that we end up with three cubes. Les: This may not be the best detailing, change it. Dave: The last time I came in we had a pediment and we got rid of that and that is an improvement. It seems like anything with character is objectionable. It is unaminous that no one likes the cornice. I tend to like the cornice and maybe the detailing that is shown in this model needs changed. Amy: My problem with the detailing is that it is commercial and the cornice should feel residential. Someone said it looks like the core. Linda: The detailing has no historic context. Dave: It is beginning to make us think that you want three blocks and that is not what we want. Roger: In reference to the last meeting Donnelley stated that the problem with the two story structure with a hat on it be it a 19 Historic Preservation commSttee Minutes of March 23, 1994 cornice or roof is not appropriate. One could make a two story but make it varied in the roof. Incorporate windows or dormers in the roof form so that you are making a cottage expression in the rear that does not compete with the historic house. No one is opposed to the flat roof concept. Dick Fallin: One of the problems historically with HPC is whoever comprises the Board has generally expressed consensus for that Board. Through the years the opinions have had a wide range and it gets down that everyone approaches it in a subjective manner. That is the only way to approach it. We take the program from the client, the guidelines from the zoning and the planning office and we create a project. Everyone on the Board takes a shot at it and the thing that upsets me about this Board or any Board is that you get focused on one thing and forget the big picture. We have created a backdrop for an historic cottage on Main Street and the building goes away. When you hold that model up you see one cornice. We have been very sensitive to Main Street. We stated at the beginning of the meeting that we are making this building dissimilar to the historic building. At the last meeting you said the flat roofs were OK. So we go on and on through the process trying to come up with something. In a sense in Aspen we are being short changed by creativity. The things that we have great value to nobody said anything about except the builder. We are diluting the creative process. You go around town and look at the results of some of these committees and it is real disappointing. There are some very outstanding projects in this town and most of them are old from the original town. I get upset when they say what are they doing to Main Street and why did they let that happen. You need to think of the big picture and leave the detailing to the artistic people of the community as that is important. The lodges on Main Street were approached with no detailing. Everything on down from this block except the old buildings is poorly done in my opinion. You mentioned the Katie Reid building on the corner a little gem with something so massive in the back ground. If we continue to do that with these little structures around town it will be really funny looking. There has to be a fabric that you weave the new and old together. We are seeing the little cottage and we are emphasizing what is important to this community in my opinion. We have done it very well. We will give you some more shots at the cornice detail. Reacting to get the thing through is not the way to go. Les: We all believe that the flat building will work that it is the detailing that needs modified. We agreed to the basic concept. Jake: I read the minutes of the worksession and the comments made 20 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of March 23, 1994 today are consistent with the worksession. difference. There is very little MOTION~ Jake made the motion to approve the conceptual design of 700 W. Main and that we ask for a restudy of the cornice. I would also move to approve the demolition and relocation as requested; second by Les. Amy: I totally agree with you that the porch is not in line with preservation principles. You don't add elements that are gone but at the same time I meant forms and a post. Roger: My comment is that the porch is on the south side so there might not be a snow and ice problem. Joe: In reference to the porch we can do that if a variance is given but we do not want to push back the building. Joe: I read the motion to state that we have to restudy the cornice, trellis, eliminating the columns, look at the connection and make it more transparent or more of a hyphen. Bill: With regards to the motion we are approving the general concept but I would recommend that you come back with your design sketches before going to final working drawings. Joe: We could come back with sketches of changes. Dave: What Jake is saying is that the function, form and massing should be approved. AMENDED MOTION: Jake amended his motion to include approval of a flat roof, general massing, scale as presented; Les amended his second. Question was called: Passes 5-1. Opposed Tom. Dave: Jake made a suggestion that the connection be made out of glass. I have seen that done and it can be very wonderful. Roger: It appeals to me. MOTION: Les made the motion to adjourn; second by Bill. favor, motion carries. Ail in Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 21