HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20020109ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~
January 9~ 2002
434 E. MAIN ST. - CONCEPTUAL AND EXEMpTiON ]FROM THE PARTIAL DEMoLITIoN
REVIEW STANDARDS - PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................................................ 1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January 9~ 2002
Chairperson, Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Gilbert Sanchez, Jeffrey Halferty, Rally Dupps,
Neill Hirst, Teresa Melville, Melanie Roschko, Michael Hoffman and Paul
D'Amato.
Staff present: Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie
Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland
Assistant City Attorney, David Heofer
Commissioner comments:
Michael relayed to the board that he wanted to discuss with the board the
criteria for putting a property on the historic inventor. Suzannah relayed
that she felt it should be discussed and added to the end of the agenda.
434 E. Main St. - Conceptual and Exemption from the Partial
Demolition Review Standards - Public Hearing
The Chief Deputy Clerk swore in Keith Howie, Greg Hills and Richard
Seedorf.
Amy relayed that the building is a non-historic building that is in the very
comer of the commercial core historic district and does not have any street
frontage. The proposal is to keep some of the existing walls and the
footprint of the building but to reconfigure the apartments and give the
building more character. There are numerous constraints on this property as
to what they can and cannot do due to regulations that we have on
demolition and affordable housing. The project is unusual in that it does not
have a mixed use in the building and does not front a street. The only area
staff had concerns were the alley side of the building. This building is
adjacent to the Pitkin County Court house which is one of our most
important 19 Century buildings. Staff recommends at final that the
applicants look at the alley facade.
Keith said the building is on a zero lot line in the alley and would need an
encroachment easement from the city. It is unknown if the city would be
receptive about an encroachment/easement and how much they could go
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January 9, 2002
over. The proposal is to use the base floor for mechanicals and keep the
existing concrete block wall and possibly sand blast it, paint it and infill the
building within the walls so there is differentiation of material between the
existing base and what the new construction would be. The roof shape is
Very minimal.
Clarifications:
Melanie inquired about the snow shedding. Keith relayed that snow guards
will be incorporated in the back and heat tape and will melt into gutters and
come off in a controlled manner. There would not be a huge slide into the
alley potentially hurting someone..
Rally asked what the existing height of the building is and what is the
proposed height? Keith said the existing is 22 feet and the plans indicate 38
feet.
Melanie asked if the applicant had plans showing the new building in
relationship to the existing building in front?
Keith said they had none but for final they would provide a street elevation.
Suzannah said a street elevation of the courthouse and building in front
would be beneficial.
Teresa inquired about the demolition. Keith said the entire inside of the
building and the existing concrete walls on three sides will stay.
Keith said after the brick is sand basted they might incorporate a patina
metal panel above it that differentiates the new from the old.
Greg Hill said he prefers not to see the filled in look of the windows.
Jeffrey said possibly a belt course might be acceptable from a structural
point.
Keith inquired about the procedure for the variance or encroachment?
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
January 9, 2002
Jeffrey indicated that the City Engineering gives encroachments and HPC
could send a letter of support.
Gilbert asked if the applicants investigated how the concrete walls were
built. Keith said they intend to masonry sounding once demolition starts.
They might have to slurry the entire wall and rebar the wall during
construction.
Gilbert said the palate rendering is very appealing with its relationship to
the courthouse. Keith said they are looking and a standing seam metal roof
and a clad anodized window and steel deCks and railings and a cable system
for the railings so it is very transparent on the outside.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing.
Comments:
Jeffrey said the facade embellishment is good. The building is modern and
its success is not trying to represent the courthouse. Screening in the rough
openings and structurally the proposed plan will be successful. Jeffrey also
said he could support a recommendation for a six inch variance toward the
alley side.
Gilbert said overall this is a good proposal. Final will revolve around the
details and selection of materials. There is a little concern about the
treatment of the emu. Gilbert indicated he would support an encroachment.
The roof form is so contemporary that it is a strong contrast to the
courthouse and as a result a color relationship is important. Gilbert also
supports staff's concern regarding the alley elevation.
Rally said the architecture is intriguing and a good Proposal. The open
space and roundabout is an important pedestrian experience and the palate
of materials is very successful. Rally also said he would support an
encroachment in order to have a more cohesive scheme.
Teresa said she is in favor of the Colorado sandstone color and blends in
nicely with the courthouse. Teresa also said she would support the
encroachment recommendation.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES, OF,
January 9, 2002
Neill said this is a dwelling and he is interested in the people who live there
rather than the people who walk by. His concern is the courtyard in front
and the project met his expectations for that element. Neill said he prefers
the photograph of the east window elevation rather than what is being
proposed.
Mike said he supports the application and agrees with staff that the building
is not historic and the proposal does not negatively effect any historic
building.
Paul said the biggest problem will be infilling where the windows are and
trying to match that up so it doesn't really stand out. The proposal will be a
great change to what is there now,
Melanie said she supports the project and it is a nice improvement. She also
said She liked the palate that was depicted in the rendering.
Suzannah agreed with everything that has been said and would encourage
the applicant to use a cladding material for the wall. The flatness of the wall
is what is appealing in the rendering. She would not want to see that
elevation overly decorated.
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve Resolution #1, 2002 granting
conceptual approval for 434 £. Main Street with the following condition:
1. For final review, study ways to create more visual interest on the
alley fagade; second by Rally. Motion carried 7-0.
Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Neill, Michael, Melanie, Suzannah
Work sessions - no minutes
513 W. Smuggler Street
HPC policies and practices
Development of Post World War II Historic context papers
Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Rally. All in favor, motion
carried. Meeting adjourned at 6.'35
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
4