Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19870310HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO[~IITTBE March 10, 1987 Meeting was called to order by chairman Georgeann Waggaman with Nick Pasquarella, Patricia O'Bryan, Zoe Compton, Charles Cunniffe, Bill Poss, Marge Riley, Mary Martin and Charles Knight present. Georgeann made the motion to approve the minutes of February 17, 1987. Nick second the motion. All approved. COIOIUNxT~' CHURCH WESTERN ENTRY AND CANOPY Graeme Means, architect, stated that the only changes aside from the proportion is a change from a window and a door to a double door similar to the entry way. The general geometry is the same. Drawings of concern are the side elevation and the front eleva- tion. The materials on the side walls are fishtail wood shingles. The trim color would be the same red color as the dormer. The colors for the whole outside of the church, at some point, might possibly be repainted. The shingles on the dormer roof and on the shed roof would be cedar wood shingles dipped in a graphite material which turns them black. On bell towers, this is how they used to do it. This makes the shingles slippery and it water proofs the singles somewhat. Mary Martin stated that on her house they used wood shingles dipped in graphite and the graphite flaked off. Graeme Means stated he heard about this technique but he hasn't learned enough about it and will discuss the technique with Mary after the meeting. Mary Martin stated that the graphite does seal the wood but when it dries out it flakes off and the shingles are no longer sealed. Graeme Means stated that the lighting would be a forged iron light with crosses. The light will illuminate down to illuminate the walk and the steps. It also will illuminate upward in order for the stained glass window to project illumination to the street. Graeme brought the stone sample and displayed it to HPC. The intention of the stone is to match the original of the church and the sample stone is as close as can be. Georgeann Waggaman asked if Graeme has taken the stone over to the site for comparison. Graeme Means stated that four shades are available of the Colorado rose stone. He will fine tune the color with the representative of Colorado Stone Co. Georgeann Waggaman enough and she has design. stated the color of the sandstone is close no problem with the other materials or the Marge Riley stated that she has gone to the church for many years and the color is very close. Steve Burstein asked Graeme to explain the doorway further e.g., dimensions and materials. Graeme Means stated the existing door is small, we will be removing all the stone and leaving a pillar. The door would be a double door made out of wood and painted a red color on the outside. Steve Burstein asked if the door is off-set with a lot of symmetry. Graeme Means stated the door is off-set, the reason being as you come down the steps the door will be able to open and miss hitting the first step. Mary Martin asked Graeme if he asked for an extended awning on the south entrance that can be drawn back. Graeme Means stated that Mary's suggestion is a good idea. Steve Burstein asked Graeme if he had all of his approvals. Graeme Means stated he had an encroachment license and a var- iance. Nick Pasquarella made motion to approve the final review of the Community Church. Mary Martin second the motion. All approved. SHAFT BUILDING Bill Poss stepped down and Larry McKenzie, architect, resumed the discussion pertaining to the Shaft. Larry McKenzie stated at the last presentation it was generally felt that the conceptual design was not sensitive enough to the overall historic district. It was not sensitive specifically to the buildings across the street and generally too contemporary of a design with the smooth finish of sandstone, the window treat- ment, and the way the atrium glazing was presented. After re- evaluation we had to agree with a lot of the comments at the last presentation that it is too contemporary. We now have a design that is compatible with the historic district. One that responds more directly to the adjacent buildings and to the HPC guide- lines. There were a few problems from the last meeting, some- times presentations at this scale are hard to understand the details that need to be going on. We also had some problems with the model in that it wasn't detailed enough. You see the whole thing all at once and it is real hard to visualize what it may look like if you were standing at street level looking at this building. This building sets in the midst of a number of other buildings, some of which are very massive. This building does have to relate to other buildings. We are asking for a concept- ual approval of the design not a lot of specifics. There is as 42 foot high structure around the building that sits across the building on the opposite corner. The intent was to design a building in materials, massing, proportions, and detailing with the historic buildings and some of the victorian characters that are present in Aspen. We did not desire to duplicate some of the existing buildings. We wanted to react to the character and technology of modern architecture. In certain instances we have taken historic elements and given them modern applications. We have then detailed these elements with a historic flavor that is compatible and responsive to historic architecture. We feel we have a design that relates to the historic nature of the town and some modern elements that we wish to inject. In materials we previously showed a sandstone building and after reevaluation we have gone to a brick facade with a lot of sandstone banding, and sandstone detailing. Bulkheads are in front and on the Hunter St. side. The building will have stone window seals, which are prevalent in the building directly across Cooper Street. We have gone to smaller panes of glass in the atrium. Atriums were an historic element in a lot of old railroad stations and public buildings, and we have tried to take that element and use it to our advantage. Older atriums had almost eye beam sections, the bolts and rivets were exposed. We can almost reproduce that detail in this atrium. Marge Riley asked Larry McKenzie, architect, to explain the atrium and if there is something in town that looks like the model. Kim Wiel, architect, stated there is nothing like it in town. Kim brought pictures to show the fine detailing. This atrium will be more organic looking, you will see the eye beams and all its fasteners. Larry McKenzie stated the atrium has a clipped corner that is an historic element. The atrium provides a vertical element with the angled finish which is reflected across the street. It is not the same materials but you get the same massing and the same general feel. We have tried to relate to the buildings across the street. The windows have changed a little. Larry feels that the design is very complex and it responds to a lot of constra- 3 ints. It gives to a very historic flavor. Larry feels the design is headed in the direction the architect and the HPC should feel comfortable with. Kim Wiel, architect, brought a scale model of the building for HPC to review. Pat O'Bryan stated that she would feel better with a more rounded effect. It is the church like point that bothers her. Nick Pasquarella stated that he likes the model. Zoe Compton stated that from the last presentation it is 180 degrees more wonderful. She feels it relates to what is across the street. Her only question was architecturally, what if it didn't have a pitch, and what if it were rounded to soften it? Kim Wiel, architect, stated when you round it you loose the vertical element. Marge Riley stated she likes the design but doesn't quite understand the atrium. Klm Wiel, architect, stated that the atrium is open and in about 14 feet there is a stairway that goes up to a mezzanine that looks into the atrium. Mary Martin wanted to know why they changed from the sandstone. Kim Wiel, architect, stated when you start adding banding and other things the building starts looking heavy. Larry McKenzie stated the brick brings out the details of the cornice and makes the building more responsive to the victorian buildings across the street. Steve Burstein, Planning Department, stated that some of the elements that were changed are for the better. He is not bothered by changing from sandstone to brick. The atrium reaches a 38 feet peak to the top, it is not an atrium feature, it is a monumental feature that is appropriate in a public building or a railroad station. Steve doesn't see it fitting in very well into the historic district although he appreciates the pitch in that it is similar to the buildings across the street. Atriums in Aspen such as the Jerome are hidden structures, they are not massive exposed glass. Zoe Compton asked what would happen if the atrium had fewer windows? Kim Wiel stated the reason the atrium is in this configuration is because they haven't found a use for the deck yet. It does take light down, it is not going to be sunny but you aren't going to be in a shadow either. That is why they want to keep it open. You will be able to look right out through the building. Steve stated that the second floor windows are creating a strong horizontal band and he wondered if any thoughts have been given to a more vertical element. Kim Wiel stated those are not second floor windows, we have no floor back there. We put the awnings in to give a horizontal clear store window effect. They felt creating a horizontal band wasn't that bad, as banding is a historic element. Zoe Compton stated that her concern is the glass mass of the atrium. On the floor level you have glass doors and the awing is glass, possibly you could soften the glass with a cloth awning or wooden doors. Something should be done to the front panel to coordinate with the building. Mary Martin stated in reference to the atrium the architect has license to build and design in a contemporary fashion and be allowed a great freedom in building a 1987 building. Mary feels no more comments should be placed in front of the architects as they have spent hours going through this and she feels the design is appropriate for the space and the atrium blends. Steve Burstein stated that if you look at the atrium from Hunter Street there is a fair amount of exposure. Georgeann stated that the architect has the right to sink or swim as he will and design the building the way he desires. What concern is the mass of glass also but possibly that will be addressed in the way the building is detailed. Georgeann Waggaman stated that a motion was on the floor to give preliminary approval of the Shaft. All favored. Motion carries. Tabled public hearing to final approval meeting March 24, 1987. Public Hearing March 31, 1987 at 2:30 p.m. for final review on the Ute building. Special session. LITTLE CLIFF'S Jesse Graber, contractor, stated that the original concept was to take off the stucco from the old building and restore the brick finish somewhat similar to the Jerome. This will be impossible to do. The stucco is coming off and it is also taking the face of the brick. The owners desire to fix the stucco and add some trim. If the stucco is removed it will damage the building's structure. The Little's want a good looking building. Marge Riley stated that the building has no historic value, and 5 she suggests flower boxes out in front to enhance the building. Steve Burstein stated on October 28, 1987 the Committee did give final approval to Little Cliff's and was approved in hopes that the stucco could be removed, but it was understood that it might not be possible. Steve stated there are three appropriate materials available for the addition even though it is not visible from Main St. One option would be the use of stucco material, the second would be to use clapboard siding and the third would be to use brick. Steve is not sure if brick is still an option that the Little's are still interested in pursuing. Mary Martin stated that she felt stucco, or whatever is the least expensive for the owner because they have had a hard time getting open and she believes that their expenses are a heartship for them. Mary also agreed with the hearts and flowers that Marge Riley suggested is a good idea also and could be done at a low cost. The building is an 1880's building. Henry Weber had the brick building built and twenty years later stucco was added. Pat O'Bryan stated that the refurbishing should get going. Jesse Graber stated the most visible area will be broken up by a patio which was approved. The building will be painted and have nice window treatment. Georgeann stated that the Committee needs some kind of a design drawing. She stated that hearts and flowers or as Tyrolean motif is not necessarily appropriate because that was one short element of time in Aspen history. Zoe Compton stated that architecturally that building, built during that time, was a working store and the stucco was a preservative to preserve the mortar. Zoe stated that the hearts and flowers would spoil the simplicity of the building. Jesse Graber stated they were leaving the windows as is and thermal-paneing them from the interior. Charles Cunniffe stated the building should be treated as a present day building and not try to imitate any period. It is a contemporary day building and doesn't need over stated. Nick Pasquarella stated that the building is only one brick thick. When they attempted to remove the stucco the brick started coming loose. Nick suggested patching the stucco and coming up with good colors. Georgeann stated that we don't want a color that will bring attention to the building, no victorian colors. Mary Riley stated she was out voted but she still is leaning 6 toward the Tyrolean look. Bill Poss stated that you have to preserve the integrity of the historic building that is there now and not duplicate what it is not, but it is up to the applicant. Jesse Graber will bring drawings at the next meeting April 14, 1987. The front elevation will be patched and painted. Bill Poss stated that he felt Jesse didn't need to come back to HPC because there are no structural changes in the building. The building will be repaired and painted. Committee suggested Jesse work with Bill Poss on the stucco and keep HPC informed. Work session scheduled to go over the code amendment March 12, 1987, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. kjs