HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080528ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 28, 2008
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NOON -Special Meeting
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes -May 14, minutes.
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #11)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 204 N. Monarch Street -Major Development -Conceptual
(cont'd public hearing) 1 hr.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. Paepcke Auditorium at the Aspen Institute -Major
Development -Conceptual (45 min.)
B. Greenwald Tent at the Aspen Institute (45 min.)
X. WORK SESSIONS
A. None
IX. ADJOURN 8:00 p.m.
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
PROJECT MONITORING
Jeffrey Halferty 314 E. Hyman, Motherlode
930 Matchless
134 W. Hopkins
920 W. Hallam
114 Neale Ave.
LaCo
Mike Hoffman 308/310 Park
640 N. Third
Jewish Community Center
202 N. Monarch
320 W. Hallam Ave.
426 E. Main (Main and Galena)
507 Gillespie
Sarah Broughton 110 E. Bleeker
530, 532, 534 E. Hopkins (Connor Cabins)
100 East Bleeker
Doerr Hosier Center @ Meadows
406 E. Hopkins (Isis)
304 E. Hopkins (Elevation Restaurant)
Main Street sidewallc
Brian McNellis 629 Smuggler
Hotel Jerome
Jewish Community Center
Doerr Hosier Center @ Meadows
233 W. Main (Innsbruck)
212 W. Hopkins
980 Gibson Avenue
Alison Agley 529 W. Francis
214 East Bleeker Street (historic house)
205 S. Mill Street (Bruno's Deck)
710 N. Third
Boomerang
501 W. Main Street (Christiana)
214 East Bleeker (new house)
520 E. Durant (Ajax Bldg)
Red Onion
28 Smuggler Grove Road
Lift I task force
Ann Mullins 135 West Main Street
980 Gibson Avenue
300 W. Main
Jay Maytin Red Onion
Firestation
28 Smuggler Grove Road
Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove Road
CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS THAT HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL REVIEW:
508 E. Cooper (Cooper St. Pier Redevelopment)- (July 12, 2006) extended 6 months
Lift 1/ Willoughby Park- (August 8, 2006)- 2 years approved before final submittal
604 West Main Street- December 12, 2007
'~a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 204 N. Monazch Street, Unit B of the Blue Vic Condominiums- Major
Development (Conceptual), Variances- Public Hearing
DATE: May 28, 2008
SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval to construct a new single family residence located
on the 9,000 square foot lot (Lot 1) that contains the lazge two story Victorian known as "Blue
Vic." The property borders East Bleeker Street and North Monazch Street, the outer portion of
Aspen's West End Neighborhood, and is zoned R-6 (Medium Density Residential). To the north
of the property is an unused alley; the subject lot is accessed via a curb cut off of Bleeker Street.
HPC is asked to grant Major Development Conceptual approval and vaziances for setbacks.
On Mazch 26, 2008, HPC continued the public hearing for a restudy of the project and it's
relationship to the historic context. Minutes are attached as Exhibit B.
Staff finds that the project is moving in a positive direction, but the massing and proportions aze
still unresolved. Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for restudy.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS: In 2006, HPC granted development approvals for relocation,
rehabilitation and a new addition to the existing Victorian. The 500 square foot FAR Bonus was
awazded for the project and allocated to a future detached residential dwelling on the property.
The subject lot (Lot 1) was condominiumized into Unit A and Unit B. Unit A contains the Blue
Vic and Unit B is the subject of this application. The total FAR of the 9,000 squaze foot properly
is 4,580 squaze feet of FAR (including the FAR Bonus): 2,053 squaze feet of FAR is available to
Unit B, the new house, and 2,527 squaze feet of FAR is allocated to the existing Victorian and
the approved addition.
APPLICANT: Semrau Family, LLC, 68 Trainor's Landing Road, Aspen CO 81611, represented
by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., 412 North Mill Street, Aspen.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-17-033
ADDRESS: 204 N. Monazch Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 78 aka Lot 1, Unit B, 202 N.
Monazch Street Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
P1
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
P2
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUALI
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
jor the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review for this project focuses on the height, scale, massing and
proportions of the proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is
attached as "Exhibit A."
The applicant has worked hazd to incorporate HPC's comments from Mazch 26, 2008 into the new
design; however, Staff remains concerned about the relationship of the proposed residence to the
historic context of the neighborhood. Staff suggests that the proposed new home reflect more
toward the proportions of the Blue Vic, since they shaze a lot. The gable end of the Blue Vic is
relatively skinnier than the proposed gable end on the new home, and the Blue Vic's roof pitch is
much more steep. The proposed home seems to have a better relationship with the resource to the
north rather than the Blue Vic, which may not be the most successful approach.
The applicant proposes two story elements (the gable and the shed roof dormer) that extend the full
two stories without a strong horizontal element. The only horizontal element proposed is the front
porch roof, which emphasizes the width of the proposed gable end and the recessed open gable
element. The Blue Vic, for example, demonstrates only one two story element (the gable end) with
a strong front porch roof that breaks up the verticality. And, the roof of the Blue Vic extends down
to the first story, completely covering the second story and further emphasizing a horizontal
interruption. The historic resource to the north has a band of fish scale shingles that horizontally
interrupt the front facade and the vertical gable end. Both of the historic resources have two story
elements with horizontal interruptions. Staff finds that the proposed porch roof does not
successfully break up the two story gable end to create a one story element, and the two story shed
roof dormer does not have any horizontal interruption.
Staff is concerned about the proposed recessed planes in the street facing gable end. The historic
buildings have vertical two story gable elements that aze closed; however, the applicant proposes to
2
P3
subtract mass with a half open gable which staff finds to be unchazacteristic of the adjacent historic
resources. It is a creative spin on a gable end, but staff finds that it is not subordinate to the historic
context and does not meet Guideline 11.5 and 11.9.
The design is definitely a product of its own time and meets Guideline 11.10. The applicant has
moved the mass towazd the front of the home, which is successful in creating a more prominent
street presence. The streetscape elevation provided by the applicant is very helpful in assessing the
project. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to study the relationship of the new house to
the surrounding context.
The relevant Design Guideslines aze below:
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel
^ Subdivide lazger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
^ The primazy plane of the front should not appeaz taller than the historic structure.
^ The front should include aone-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
^ These include windows, doors and porches.
^ Overall, details should be modest in chazacter.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are
especially discouraged on historic sites..
Site plannine: The applicant has moved the proposed home forwazd on the lot and proposes a ten
feet five and a half inches (10' S ''/z") front yard setback, where ten (10) feet is required. Staff finds
rhar thin is annronriate for the context of the lot.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
^ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of
the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a
front porch.
^ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
^ Anew porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
^ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the
entry should still be cleazly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street.
P4
SETBACK VARIANCES
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code are
as follows:
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: The applicant requests the following setbacks: a north side yard setback
variance where ten (10) feet aze required and three (3) feet aze proposed, and a reaz yard setback
vaziance where five (5) feet are required and three (3) feet ate proposed.
North Side Yazd Setback: Staff finds that criterion b is met and supports the north side yazd
setback variance requested in this application. The proposed residence is pushed north, away
from the Blue Vic, towazd an unused alleyway. This mitigates an adverse impact on the
architectural character of the landmazk and creates more visibility than required by Code (ten feet
is the minimum distance between buildings required and the proposal is for thirteen feet). The
applicant has moved the gazage and the residence off of the north side setback by one (1) foot,
providing three (3) feet, where ten (10) feet aze required. Questions were raised during the HPC
meeting on Mazch 26e' regarding historic alley patterns throughout town. Staff will provide an
historic map at the HPC hearing to illustrate these patterns.
East Rear Yazd Setback: A rear yazd setback is requested for the garage. The applicant shifted
the home forwazd on the lot towazds Monazch Street creating more space at the reaz for the reaz
yazd setback. In this memo, Staff recommends that the applicant restudy the mass and proportion
of the proposal to comply with the noted Design Guidelines, which may again change the rear
yazd setback request. Staff looks to HPC for guidance regazding the reaz yazd setback variance.
4
P5
DECISION MAHING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for a restudy.
Exhibits:
A. Design Guidelines
B. Mazch 26, 2008 HPC Minutes
C. Application
Exhibit A: Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 202 North Monarch, Major
Development Conceptual Review
Building Orientation
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
^ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of
the site.
11.2 In a residential content, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a
front porch.
^ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
^ Anew porch should be similaz in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
^ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the
entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street.
Mass and Scale
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel.
^ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on
the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
^ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
^ The front should include aone-story element, such as a porch.
Building & Roof Forms
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in azeas where it is appropriate to the context.
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context.
P6
^ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally.
^ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
Materials
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
^ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged.
^ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
Architectural Details
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property.
^ These include windows, doors and porches.
^ Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are
especially discouraged on historic sites.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008
Krevoy said this entire project for the past 12 yeazs has b to work
ing out. I am feeling from the comments that we mi have a shoe
box or 114thing. I am very confused.
Alison said a personally feels there are ways top and pull on that
facade and no ' st push. You can pull on certai sand still have 500
square feet. I'm t saying it has to be small just need to keep the
symmetry of that o ' ' al addition over the s as somewhat sacred.
Jay said does the legal
Brad said HPC does a great
pushed it out to the street fr
about the fire department
forward and not have a,
When the fire
Michael said
and the
is up you
contract over ride?
P7
s
~~
iat if we did it exactly in alignment and
re it is now because we are thinking
is happening there. Take the addition
t would be another way to address this.
't see anything on the view plane.
has nothing to
we can't act as lawyers. '
of the commission would
motion: All in favor, motion carried.
the Historic Preservation
;cond part is design issues
~ see other ideas.
202 N. Monarch Street -Major Development -Conceptual, Variances
and Residential Design Standards (cont'd from 3/12)
Colored Photographs -Exhibit I
E-mails and letters -Exhibit II
Gena Berko letter -Exhibit III
Noticing -Exhibit IV
Sara explained that the lot was condominiumized into two lots, Unit A and
Unit B. Unit A has the Blue Vic on it. The application is for Unit B, a new
single family home. The property is accessed offBleeker Street and there is
an unused alley to the north. HPC granted a 500 square foot FAR bonus to
the entire property for the addition of the Blue Vic. This subject unit has
2,053 of FAR available. The applicant requests conceptual approve and
some variances. The applicant provided two design iterations.
10
P8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008
Sara said the site is very challenging and surrounded by historic landmarks.
Staff feels the design is moving in the correct direction in terms of
referencing proportions that are found in the surrounding buildings but the
massing is not yet resolved. There are three main points of concern.
Context: This new building needs to have some street presence. There are
two Victorians on either side of this building. It needs to fit into the context
with street presence. The proposal maximumizes the FAR and the majority
of the mass is toward the rear. We aze not sure that is the best solution.
Staff isrecommending re-configuration of the mass; maybe not spread it out
so much and condensing it a little more on the site, guideline 11.3 and 11.4.
(Construct a new building to appeaz similar in scale with the historic
buildings on the parcel and also design a front elevation to be similar in
scale to the historic building).
Proposed proportions: There are two concerns; the street facing gable that is
a tall skinny element and the roof that extends down and covers the entire
second level. The skinny proportion of the gable seems awkward in
comparison to the Blue Vic. Guideline 11.9 talks about using building
components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property. We are not saying it needs to replicate a mini Blue Vic. In pulling
the references from the other historic structures it could be done in a better
way. We encourage the applicant to restudy the references. Staff supports
the site plan because they have moved the building forwazd on the lot and it
is closer in alignment with the Blue Vic and the historic residence at 212. N.
Monarch. Staff also finds that the distance between the Blue Vic and the
new construction is appropriate. They are proposing three feet more than
what is required which is ten feet. It is appropriate to get some of the new
construction away from the Blue Vic.
Residential Design Standards: The standards require that the front door face
the street and it does.
Setback variances: Sara explained that there are two setback variances being
requested. The first is for the north side yard setback. This is the side yard
that abuts the alley that is unused. They are proposing two feet when ten
feet is required. Staff finds that this is appropriate although we are
recommending restudy of the mass which might change the request. On the
east rear yard they are proposing three feet when five feet is required.
Overall staff is recommending continuation for restudy.
11
P9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008
Stan Clausen, Clausen & Associates: Ordinance 2, 2006 created the division
of a larger parcel. The front property was zoned R-6 and the rear portion
zoned mixed use or office at the time. At the time the alley was platted but
un-opened. At the time the applicant looked at Ordinance 2 and proposed
that the alley be open for access to the development and to serve the
neighbors as well. That received favorable review from staff; however, it
was opposed by the neighbor to the north. )n the final ordinance it was
determined that a portion of the alley would not be open but the alley as it
was accessed from Mill Street would be open to eventually serve
development. The fire department weighed in that there be a fire access lane
so that this building could be serviced with a fire engine if need be. That
largely dictated the location of the driveway. It was also determined that a
curb cut will be installed. The neighbor to the north has paved a portion of
the alley throat and used it as a private parking area. It was determined by
Council that the parking area be eliminated as part of the settlement. They
determined the appropriate access for the blue Victorian in its relocation and
HPC approved the Blue Victorian reso 30, 2006 then final reso 7, 2007.
When you approved that the alley was already in place. It determined the
ability to access parking. I point that out because the three foot setback for
the driveway itself really dictated the two foot setback to access a garage.
There is very little swing room to come into a garage.
Stan said there is a 13 foot separation between the two structures, the blue
Victorian and the proposed house. From the street the 13 feet provides an
enhanced separation and showcasing of the blue Vic. For both units it
allows for a little bit more screened landscaping to be introduced to the site.
There is a 20 foot swath for open space to the alley. In effect there becomes
22 feet open between the edge of the building and the neighbor's lot line,
and another 11 feet from that property line to neighbor's house. We are 33
feet between the two buildings. After it was determined that the alley would
not be open we prepared a draft vacation ordinance for the alley having in
mind that it would always be an unopened area and that under the terms of
vacation ten feet of the right-a-way would accrue to the property on the
north and ten feet would accrue to Mr. Semrau. With a vacation there is
veto power and the owner to the north refused to do that. Stan said the
applicant is proposing a two foot setback from the alley right-of--way the
owner to the north who is objecting to the two foot setback has a two foot
encroachment into the alley. That is a shed that is encroaching into the
alley. Stan said they came in with an application with the barrel vault roofs
12
P10
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008
and some other issues and based on that we provided a revision. We
provided a design for anon-vaulted roof although we would like the HPC to
review the barrel roof for approval. As was requested we provided a more
dramatic front gable.
Jeff Halferty, consulting designer:
Jeff said he helped Tim initially with the conceptual of the kot split for the
Blue Vic. Jefl'said he worked on the simple addition for the Blue Vic. This
is Tim's and Heidi's home and they are trying to make a design that works
for everyone. I thought the design met the guidelines of new construction as
far as mimicking mass and scale. The FAR is challenging because of the
turning radius and parking. The gable feels more of a genuflection of the
historic resource. Moving the house forward and greeting Monarch Street is
a commendable effort by the planners. The fire and egress and life safety
aspects of the mixed use lot because of the no alley access has dictated the
site planning of the historic resource. We have tried to preserve the
landscaping and the historic lilacs. The two foot setback off the alley as
Sara indicated does comply because of its separation from the historic
resource. Jeffrey commended the commission and staff for a great job.
Tim Semrau said it has taken him three yeazs to get here. The variance on
the east is specifically dictated by council's decision where to put the fire
access. The two feet is really functional. Our neighbor directly to the east
doesn't object to it. The first design was two feet lower and the dormer was
set back to create a less presence on the Hodgson's to give them more
exposure. Ironically staff was not in favor of that so we raised the roof and
brought the house forward to address staff's concern. What Heidi and I feel
needs to be here is a modest classy home that genuflects to the historic
resource.
Tim said there are three issues that HPC needs to give guidance to:
Barrel vault roof vs. the gabled roof in back.
Tim said there are several historic homes aoound town that have barrel roofs.
Tim showed photographs of historic homes around town. This is a stand
alone new home and a barrel vault roof is not inappropriate.
Movement of the second story mass to the front of the house.
Tim said staff said the other historic houses have secondary story mass. Tim
pointed out the similarity of the Blue Vic and his house. It doesn't have a
second story mass; it basically has a gable area that is quite similar to the
proposed new house. Tim said he feels it is still appropriate to have the
13
_ P11
ASPEN ffiSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH- 26.2008
second story mass in the back because it is their goal to make their house
complimentary.
Bigger dormer presence in the front.
Tim said we have done that by extending the dormer out. We have looked at
many iterations. We like the simplicity of the small dormer and it does
relate to the historic structures and it does have its own integrity.
Recessed skylights in the roof.
Tim said the skylights aze recessed and they are for functional reasons.
Heidi said when she was on HPC and working on the rules the two words
that they always used was complimentary but subsidiary. We felt that the
Blue Vic had verticality and feel the new building needs verticality also in
its own way. Our desire is to have people walk up and down the street
looking at the two landmarks.
Stan said the proposed house is 2,050 square feet and modest in size. The
Blue Vic is 2,527 square feet. If possible we would like suggestions from
conceptual to final.
Michael commended Jeffrey Halferty for his past presence on the HPC
board. The board is trying to achieve a high standard in terms of courtesy
and respect to our applicants.
Sarah said we have an historical pattern of growth when we have an alley.
We typically have lots that have the back of the lot on the alley. Now all of
a sudden we are splitting the lot a different way. Where in the West End
have we had conditions like this and have there been variances. Where has
this happened before historically and what are the set backs? It is a different
situation because we have rotated our lot.
Sara said this is a unique situation and it is a comer lot. In the West End
access is typically off the alley. Saza said she can't think of any projects that
either ask for a setback or need a variance. Sarah said we are talking about
historic patterns.
Stan said the grid breaks down and there are very few examples deep into
the West End. They tend to occur where the land form just did not allow for
the expression of the grid. Had we been allowed to open the alley then it
would require that the garage access off the alley. Sarah said since we have
14
P12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008
been asked to look at setbacks we need to know how it affects the adjacent
property to the East.
Brian asked if the turn table in the back was required to access the garage.
Tim said the turn table is the only way to turn around or you could back into
Bleeker Street which he doesn't want to do. Michael explained that it is the
same turn table that was approved with the Blue Vic application.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Phi Hodgson said the brick parking space was recommended by Michael
Gassman and council said do not pave the space due to the utilities that are
under it. It has been there since 1990 and was approved by Raymond Elder.
As far as the shed is concerned it was there when I purchased the property in
1972. Every house had a barn and it was torn down and I believe the siding
was used to build that shed at one point. As far as the vacation of the alley
Tim and I discussed it and I discussed it with my attorney Tom Smith at the
time who said have Tim's attorney send a proposal to him and he would
look it over. Tim's response was to have the Bleeker Street access for his
driveway and that was the last I had heard.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Sarah said she has concerns about the massing as it relates to our guidelines.
Moving the front door to address the street is appropriate. The mass and
scale as it is detracts from the historic buildings on both sides. I am
particularly distracted by the two-story gable element and that it is on thin
elements that traditionally you would not see. Both historic buildings have
more of a solid mass coming out to fill that gable volume.
Michael asked what the HPC though about the gable that was recommended
by staff. Sara said we where trying to convey the issue of street presence
and we didn't mean literally to bring the gable out. Staff tries not to design a
project but to give macro interpretations of the guidelines.
Sarah said if this design where to come back with a mass and scale that tried
less to replicate what is happening with the historic resource and instead to
take the subordinate role as a secondary house on this lot it would help the
overall project.
IS
--u P 13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26 2008
Ann said you are saying a smaller house with lesser street presence? Sarah
said she is not talking squaze footage and her comment is from the
guidelines not staff's.
Michel asked if the original application better met our guidelines than what
is presented today. Sarah said no. We aze dealing with a two story thin
element coming out that is light at the top with a deck and I do not see that at
all historically on historic forms. Guideline 11.5 talks about forms not
overwhelming the historic resowce.
Jay said guideline 11.3 is contradictory to guidelines 11.5. Alison agreed.
Sarah said the proportions on this house are nowhere the proportions of the
historic resource.
Ann said one of the failures is that you have two significant houses that are
dominating and part of the reason they are so dominant is their verticality.
They aren't skinny houses and very vertical as you are coming down the
street. Abetter solution rather than the gable that goes down two stories and
the dominant skylight and the two story porch becomes a horizontal design
between the two vertical designs. It would work better if you had some of
the vertical elements of the other two homes and sizes. It should be similar
in mass and scale and then add the vertical element.
Brian talked about roof lines. Guideline 11.10 confuses the issues. Brian
said Tim talked about elements that make this building a modem building
and that is OK but then on the other hand how do you use roof lines that are
similar in tradition to the neighborhood and make it a product of its own era.
Alison and Sarah also agreed that some of the guidelines are going against
each other.
Ann said these are not standards they are guidelines to help us get through
issues and sometimes they are contradictory because every situation is
unique.
Brian said we need to determine which guidelines are predominant.
16
P14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26.2008
Michael said in his opinion the design doesn't work between the two historic
structures. We need something that looks a little more like what is already
on the street in terms of mass and scale.
Sarah said if you go azound the block there are miner's cabins that are
proportioned and that speak to the Victorian structures and there is a
dialogue. This house has missed the fundamental queue.
Ann said remember these houses where on large lots. Because of the lot
split you have this problem. If you go to San Francisco you see these scale
of houses are close together and what makes it work it is the same scale as
you go down the street.
Jay asked the board if they thought the house was too small.
Brian and Sarah said from a verticality standpoint it is. Jay said that is
where staff s comment came from to bring the mass to the front of the
house. Jay also pointed out that they can't add square footage to it.
Michael said some of the thoughts tossed out during the discussion where
context and street presence. The issues that Tim asked in terms of massing
where the gable roof vs. the barrel vault and the second story mass whether
it should be moved forward. 'The second question about the second story
mass moving forwazd, the answer is yes.
Michael asked the board if they had an opinion about the barrel vault roof.
Sarah said if you look at our guidelines for the use of roof forms 11.6 would
lead us in the direction of not allowing the barrel. In the context of an
historic neighborhood they are foreign looking. Ann also agreed with Sarah
that the barrel roof form detracts. Ann pointed out that she has not seen a
successful barrel roof. Brian said there is the argument that this is a modern
structure.
Michael said the mass and scale of the front dormer doesn't work.
Michael asked the board about the recessed skylights. Ann said they seem
to detract from the fapade and she would rather see some other way to get
light. Possibly a skylight could go on the back. Alison said if you brought
the second floor mass forward you might not need the sky light.
Brian and Alison said their issue is differentiating in the design.
17
P15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008
Michael addressed the setback variances.
Stan said the variance with respect to the garage on the eastern side is really
dictated by the driveway placement. On the north side it is probably not
likely that the building is going to get a whole lot thinner. The question on
the variance is would that enhance the separation between the Victorian to
the south and the new residence bearing in mind that there are 33 feet in the
current design between the proposed residence and the Hodgson's house.
Michael said he recognizes that this is an important issue to the applicant
and to the neighbor. With the recommendation of a re-design we don't
know what the final application will be and especially when there is an
opportunity to perhaps not come to the HPC seeking the north side variance.
East side variance.
Ann said we need to look at the larger picture. In the guidelines there is
discussion about preserving the historic grid of town. We have seen places
in town where the grid has been changed and it changes the character of the
neighborhood dramatically. For instance, in the alley secondary structures
are up to the edge of the alley. The alley isn't used currently but it is an
open space corridor. If you stand at one end or the other you can see all the
way down, uninterrupted except for small structures. What happens now is
that you will have a fairly large structure at the end of it. In terms of
setbacks the Residential Design Standards dictate what the setbacks should
be and I am not convinced here, except maybe the garage argument, why we
need a variance. Once we start making variances on the first property all of
a sudden you will completely loose the pattern as other buildings are built.
Unless I can see that there is no other solution I think we need to adhere to
the standards. The setback should be ten feet.
Tim said if the alley continuum was open the setback would be five feet.
Ann pointed out that the five feet would be for the garage not the building.
You are asking for a variance of two feet for the building.
Jay said because this is such a strange lot is it better to make Tim move the
house closer to the Blue Victorian. If HPC doesn't give him the variance on
the one side he will just move the house over which he is allowed to do.
With respect to the historical resource is granting a variance providing more
integrity for that resource? Ann said she is looking at the resources adjacent
to the building also.
18
P16
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NIINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008
Michael pointed out that the grid doesn't really holdup in this section of
town. Brian said the natural landscape dictates where the houses are located.
Brian said we need to situate this proposed house in rhythm with the two
very significant Victorian resources on either side. Brian and Sarah said
they are in support of the variances.
Sarah said if we did an inventory in the West end we would find more
people not complying with setbacks in terms of the alley and how close they
are. There is already push and pull going on and in this case it is appropriate
to have push and pull.
Alison said the only way it may have worked to keep the setbacks the same
would be if they had'the alley go through, which they didn't. If Aspen
wanted to preserve the grid they would have put the alley through.
Stan said in general there is support for the variances. We have heard a
number of ideas on the actual physical design of the house and will try to
pull through those as best we can.
MOTION.• Jay moved to continue the public hearing, conceptual
development for 202 N. Monarch Street until May 28, 2008; second by
Sarah. All in favor, motion carried.
MOTION.• Michael moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor,
motion carried.
Meetingadjoumed at 8:10 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
19
~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 1000 N. Third Street, Paepcke Auditorium- Major Development (Conceptual)-
Public Hearing
DATE: May 28, 2008
SUMMARY: Paepcke Auditorium was constructed in 1961; designed by Herbert Bayer, with
the participation of Fritz Benedict. It is virtually unaltered, inside and out. The Aspen Institute
proposes a remodel of the building to achieve the goals of improving mechanical systems, energy
efficiency and functionality, in addition to providing accessibility and expanding seating capacity
in the auditorium. HPC held a worksession and site visit on this topic in February.
In 1991, the Meadows area completed an SPA (Specially Planned Area) review which
established the rights to expand structures and activities on the campus. Paepcke Auditorium
was not given specific approval to expand within that plan, but the Institute will be asking to
allocate other unused azea from eazlier projects towards this 540 squaze foot expansion of the
Paepcke building. Following HPC review of the proposed project, it proceeds to the Planning
and Zoning Commission, and then City Council for an amendment to the SPA approval. The
application includes a request for HPC to take on the SPA review, however HPC is usually only
given the authority to consolidate other land use processes into their purview when there aze
potential overlapping design review criteria. Staff does not find that the SPA issues, such as
traffic and employee generation, aze fundamentally tied to the design questions. HPC's role will
be to review the proposal according to the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines."
The SPA document cleazly acknowledges the need for HPC involvement in development at this
campus, stating that the boazd's review and approval is required and that there is to be "minimal
disturbance of significant examples of Herbert Bayer/Fritz Benedict azchitecture."
Staff is concerned with the demolition proposed to expand the auditorium. We believe that the
alterations diminish the integrity of Bayer's design. Other alternatives within the existing shell
of the building should be explored to accommodate any extra seating. The application should
be continued for restudy.
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, represented by Jim Curtis, Planner and Fazewell, Mills
Gatsch, Architects.
P17
1
P18
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-29-809.
ADDRESS: 1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute, Aspen Meadows, Lot 1B, City and Townsite
Aspen.
ZONING: SPA, Specially Planned Area.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff ana[ysrs report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies was created in 1947 by Walter Paepcke and formed
the foundation for the Aspen Renaissance period after World Waz II. The Meadows campus is
very significant as the center of activities related to Paepcke's "Aspen Idea." Paepcke brought
Herbert Bayer to Aspen in 1946 to serve as the design consultant for the Institute, a role in which
he served until 1976. Bayer, with assistance from Fritz Benedict, was offered the chance to
design a planned environment, where the goal was total visual integration.
The key features of the property aze the campus plan and the relationship between the
azchitecture and landscape. A number of original Bayer features remain (some with alterations),
but others including the Music Tent and original lodge units have been demolished. New
structures have been designed in a manner that is sympathetic to the Bauhaus aesthetic It is very
important that cazeful stewazdship of the property be maintained.
Herbert Bayer's work is heavily documented and staff has attached two excerpts about his life,
and pazticulazly his contributions in Aspen. Both articles emphasize his ground breaking
2
P19
influence in the worlds of graphics, typeface, sculpture, environmental design, and more. The
book "from bauhaus to aspen; herbert bayer and modernist design in america" notes the fact that
his involvement in azchitectural design began in Aspen, out of necessity and opportunity. The
book explains how the structures at the Institute aze integrated with the natural environment,
diminutive in scale, and built of understated materials. "The Paepcke Memorial Building echoes
the sculptural configuration of the Seminaz Building, with a faceted exterior of planar geometric
elements." Part of the beauty of Bayer's work at the Institute is the way in which he used
common cinderblock to create such unique building forms, with wall surfaces full of texture and
movement.
Staff s objection to the proposed work at Paepcke Auditorium is the removal of sections of the
faceted walls of the auditorium. We find this to be out of compliance with the following
guideline, and destructive to the integrity of this important structure:
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
^ Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
^ Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced.
^ Masonry features that define the overall historic chazacter, such as walls, cornices, pediments,
steps and foundations, should be preserved.
^ Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may
result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
^ Repair only those features that aze deteriorated.
^ Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized
preservation methods whenever possible.
^ Isolated azeas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may
be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used.
^ Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided.
This structure has high visibility from all sides. HPC's policy is typically to limit demolition of
historic fabric by minimizing the connection point between new and old construction. The
application notes that approximately 671ineaz feet, or 9% of the permiter of the existing structure
is affected, however in terms of the faceted walls, approximately 45% of their length will be
demolished. Arguably, there is no ideal location to make a new attachment to this building,
which is so carefully and symmetrically designed as a freestanding "object." Our
recommendation is that any modifications take place within the existing building shell, bearing in
mind the value of the intact interior as well.
3
P20
The application includes information about the auditorium as it's design was studied in the late
1950's. What Bayer might have wished to build is interesting in terms of vision he had for the
campus, however staff does not find that should justify alterations to what actually was built.
The fact that the budget may have been limited when the Auditorium was built is part of the story
of the development of the Institute. Walter Paepcke died in 1960, presumably leaving some
questions about the future of the organization, yet construction went on in 1961, in his honor.
(The position of Chairman of the Institute was unfilled after Paepcke's death for 3 years.)
At the site visit, HPC members expressed concerns with the construction of a wall to barricade a
new HVAC unit behind the auditorium. More information about the visibility of the unit from
all sides is needed.
Some of the details of this project aze best left to final review, including the possible replacement
of existing windows and the specific details of repair work that is needed on the roof and walls.
Staff has concerns with the proposal to replace the existing skylight, which is a historic feature of
the structure.
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the application be continued to a date certain, for
restudy of alternative means to accommodate the new seating.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Application
C. Westword excerpt
D. "from bauhaus to aspen; herbert bayer and modernist design in america" excerpt
4
P21
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for Paepcke Auditorium, Conceptual"
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
^ Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
^ Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced.
^ Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments,
steps and foundations, should be preserved.
^ Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction
may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
^ Repair only those features that aze deteriorated.
^ Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using
recognized preservation methods whenever possible.
^ Isolated azeas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins
may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used.
^ Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appeazance inconsistent with the historic chazacter of the
primary building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an eazlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate vaziation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining
visually compatible with these earlier features.
^ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or
a differentiation between historic, and more current styles aze all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
^ An addition that is lower than or similaz to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
^ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
P22
^ Additional floor azea may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
^ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
chazacter to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
^ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs aze appropriate.
^ Flat roofs aze generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of azchitectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
^ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
6
P23
Excerpt from Denver's Westword, Arts and Entertainment newspaper,
Herbert Bayer Collection
The Denver Art Museum finally finds a permanent home for Herbert Bayer's works.
By Michael Paglia
Published: July 5, 2007
"Bayer was born in 1900 in Austria and showed an early propensity for art; however, his plans
to attend the Academy in Vienna were short-circuited by his father's premature death and his
conscription into the Austrian army near the end of World War I. After the war, Bayer got a
job as an architect's apprentice - first in Linz, and then in Darmstadt, Germany, in 1920. It
was at this time that he first became aware of modernism, and a year after moving to
Darmstadt, he headed to Weimar to enroll in the Bauhaus, Germany's preeminent design
school
At the Bauhaus, Bayer quickly moved from student to teacher, and in 1925, he was asked to
head up the school's graphics department, which by this time was located in Dessau. Bayer's
graphic design - in particular, his cover for the Bauhaus magazine -led to international
recognition. The cover combines the doctrinaire constructivism of the Bauhaus style with the
then-cutting-edge surrealist sensibility. The dialogue between rationality and irrationality is a
key dialectic of modernism, and its effects are evident throughout the rest of Bayers oeuvre.
It was also during his time at the Bauhaus that Bayer designed his "universal type," a simple
sans serif with no capital letters.
From early on, the Bauhaus struggled against reactionary forces that wanted to shut it down,
meaning that financial support from the government was not forthcoming. As a result, the
school sought out private clients, and Bayer's graphics department was very successful in that
effort.
In 1928, no doubt encouraged by his success with commercial art, Bayer left academia and
moved to Berlin to pursue a career in advertising. As could be expected, he became highly
successful at it; more important, his graphic designs revolutionized the field and were
internationally recognized for their daring innovations -especially his early use of
photomontage. Because of the latter, he can be compared to the likes of Man Ray and
Alexandr Rodchenko as one of the greatest photographers of the period.
As students of art history know, Germany was a great place to be a vanguard artist in the
1920s, but by the mid-1930s, it was one of worst. The Nazis embarked on an official campaign
7
P24
to snuff out modern art, and several Bayers were confiscated from museums and later
included in the Nazis' notorious Entartete Kunst exhibition of so-called degenerate art.
With the handwriting on the wall, Bayer came to the United States in 1937, but he was asked
to go back and retrieve Bauhaus-related artifacts for a show at the Museum of Modern Art.
Literally risking his life to do so, Bayer returned to Germany to carry out the task; he
returned to New York in 1938 with $20 in his pocket and the history of the Bauhaus in his
luggage. But poverty was a passing issue, and he soon skyrocketed to the top ranks of Madison
Avenue's advertising world.
In 1945, Bayer met industrialist Walter Paepcke, and the rest, as they say, is history. Paepcke
invited Bayer to spend time at his winter home in Aspen and then convinced him to move to
the former mining town. Bayer had free rein while living there, working as a planner and
designer, overseeing the restoration of Victorian buildings such as the Wheeler Opera House
and designing new buildings like the complexes he did for the Aspen Institute and Aspen
Meadows.
At the same time, Bayer acted as an art consultant for Paepcke's Container Corporation of
America and, later, Atlantic Richfield. He produced sculptures, tapestries, murals and
environmental installations for these companies, including some of the earliest modernist
earthworks ever done, a huge influence on later artists. And, as if all of that weren't enough
for one person to accomplish, Bayer also produced a large volume of paintings and prints and
continued his work in the field of photomontage. Wow.
Bayer stayed in Aspen until the 1970s, when health issues forced him to leave the high
altitude. He retired to California."
8
d 0 S~ a ~ D< o o, J O O O m c `' n C O N T Q ~~ N~ ?~ ~' ~
T~ o m~ T `- i o ~ Q W O_ ~ ~ ~. "y0 Q~ n~ ~ ~, ~~ ~~ 3 ~ O'-' O J T cNO 3 µ O 0 0 d
~° ° 3 ° ~ ~. ~ ~ m' N O S ~ ~ ~N (D ? O '~ ~ ~ N ~ o O ~n ~ o ~ ~ ~ T=~ ~ N O ~ ~ <
< n c~ .o ^ D w T c n c 6-O -0 4 m ~ ~ t0 O- n -O J O m K ~ ~
~' ~ - ~ m m t° m - Oj O O ~ J = N ~ s '.^ n n O. ~ ~ '^ cD ~ ~ i^ H O N °' O'_ ~. H ID D 3
2 m v, 3 o m ~ = m ~ m ~ D `O n O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Oj ~ ~ In ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ Q O p O ~ d J 3
0 0 ~ a ~ o ~? F ~ x ° ° m cAi, ~ m m o ~ o 0 0 ' f ? m y ~ m ~ o' ~ °-- ~. ~ ~ -o o ° °- ~
^~ oaa?~ N~o~Tgo DOS«~'o~O~°_3-a.o c'oN ?tom°nco O
- ~ 'm
2 0 ~~ ~~~ £ 0 0 3 N~ O N n N Ov N- N J O_ D 3 T j B O O J T ?- H O N J O
c m 2tp o 0 0' _' u ? ~ J ~ J ~ n N N D-~ N ~ ~O ~ ~ ~ 3 O < ~ ~ ~
!~ "° o~ o~~ ~O o W m s T~ D O T O_ J N ~ p_ n O O n_ Y c < N
o f° m' a s o' o D~ P D D T o ~ d V N~~ ~ ~ O O n n~ N N ~~ ~ N Q O
°F~Fm °noo O~J~~(JDN F,O ~O ~O ~OOn O~~^_~~D 40~~~~_,~
~ ~° o~ 3 ~ x O- < T >-~ O J J O ~G (O fO. p O J Q p` s J p J p J T
~ ~ m s °c o O a m (D ~ ~ T (~ Q ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ m ? D O- , » O_ x ~ < >- O Q T O p ~ ~ c
`°'~°a ~ °=o o'er. m~O °m Q To ~ c ~ <~ D~^ ?o ~ ^ s~'~ m ~ n m 3~° m ^
a o s m ~~ T m ~ ~ 0 0~ N (D ~ (p '> O_ ~ p~< N S y N O ~~ O W 4 p ~ dtn T~.
~- F ,~" a o. p s. o_ ~ ~ Q O ~' O S O O~ S~ O= D_ D- O s n~ N '< O-' ~ ~ O ry O N 0 0
3 3~ m o^ o 0 o O~ ~' ~ Q m o< N~ m O_ N ~,'< ~. ~~ O (D O ry ~~ O v Y N c
3' ~ " ~ °s o f ~ ° ~ o v' ° ~ ~ o ? _o '< m c o ^ ~ °- m N, ~ 0 3 5 ~ m °- m s o, o
o p t o~ T n < ~ J N O D O~~ N~ ~ '^ ~~ O O ~ tQ ~~ ~ O O m 0 2 T =.
o^ O o. 3~° 0 c s H '^~ U v~ ~ J^ tU "~ O 2 N O~ ~ N 3 3 ~ O~ p (D -O 2
gas='am °< D~ am ,^rm o o~ ° 3 3 an ~ 5. ~ m o o ~ J o o_~ m Q ° m
o a o- ~ m x m a N m -o c ~^ N o n~~ o o x m
~ 3 o a ° N o' c. O O n S~ fCi S D D_'< Y J m J J ~ Q m 'O S D n -O N D_ ~
a ~ a~ g~ o o J~ m~ T° m o o° 0 0 3° 3 m ~" m g o =' ~ m m°< °c
m Z ~' ~ m 3 c n' a ~ ~ O ~ O Q ~ 'm (~~U O°- ~ ~- O Ip Q. ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ x d ~ ~ ~ ~ c
. I
# 1
- x ~`~
O£ S N T S B S O~ 0 0 0 Q
OY y n o m m o m 0 0 p $. a~ D O O S m N N N~ N~ O_ N, ~' ~ O O d V ° o
~ s~ m< 3 n c o~ T T g~ •"' 'm o ~° ~ m Q f °- '" m ~_ m. o~ m m~>
~~ n m 2 o m. ~ J n s o s N j ~ p ~_ ~ O tni S< D N~ Z~ ~<_ :c ~~ a-
~ ~ ~ H_? ~- N ~ '~ m D ° ~ ~ "' o_ a. ~ < ^ ~ -ADO s o ' ~ ~ ~ ~ m < o "o ~ _. o
' o ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ O_ ~ a m m m Co D- ^ ~ v ~ 3 U 0 S N (D J ^ ~ ~ ~ n
~ ~ m' ~ ~ O ~ ~ 3 ~ J 3 ~ m ^ m ~ ~ ~ O_ 3 D_ o O ~ ~ ~ J a ^T 'm o
O N m£ a ~ o °~ T~ c o Q G N N N O~~ ~' ~~ ~'O S O S O ~ ° N~ m'
' (E c o_ 3 N ~ + O O N X 0 0 0 N '" 3 0 3
~ Ll 0 ~ 2 S 0 O~ vµi N ~~ } j l h OJ C ~' D Q (D S O C O- S A N ^ O O< O
< j J
O -~ H a m ° s3 O_ 22~ °~So 0 0, (D ,~ Tv D ~< p o .~ o
~ (~ o m ~~ J N N~ 3 3 m~ O m` c ~ J ry~ m~ T J n 'm < 3
N ~ ._° ~ ~ o ~ ~ sm° ° ~°<~ g o °_sc0-O ~ -° m ~-o DAD 3 O s<'-`a
~ m o d o_ ° N N.'< ~ ^ ~ N m n 3 d o - O Q'-o ~~~ v m°~ o
O' ~- , s 5 ~ m~ O s m ~ v o o s c< ~' ~ O c n T 0 ^ ~' O N cn T °- c
~ Q N 'm 9° a u d O ~- m m° 2 O"~ O J c~ N T N B O O ~ ~, s o
~~ s£T~^m SN'~'p -,moo d~D~°~ ~NNO~~~m aT~3
~ -6 2 0~ 'p N J m~ m' < ~ O 3 0 6 D_ N -_. O n D 0 0 £ 'm m
^ c ~ 'o ° 3 o m y 5 o N~o -o_ S ^ ~ ~ 3 ~' C7 0 ~ ° ~ m O m -OO ~~ m ~ ~ '<_
n~ o- o" m a p O s 4. ~ m H D cD O c0 O K~~~ O- ~~~ ~o T o ~
O Z ° v o 7< m J c °- ~ ~ c-OU O J O J N 'p N Q 0 2 ~' N_ o o~ a ~
3 m 0 .~ m m O- (D O ~ ~ N u ~ J T~ J ~ lo„l ~ T n p ~~ T S ¢. N
3 0 & c '~ o o ~ 3 m 2 N o~ ~ o~ E°~ o O S c 3 - n o c
j S ~ 2. o _. 'm O O O o OJ m C' OS J O_ ^ ~~ ~ ~ o :° ~ co n
1 m ~ a c v o ~ 3 O ~- v (~ O_ ~. J~ m 2 a o o m
J' s _ O
QJ N N~ N N .o O N N o~' T O~ < O--O S^ O n (D '> N w P T o o_ W
~~ a F m m m ~ 3^ ~ a m ~ ~~ m O 5 O ~. p° m~ y ry" J a m~ m j
~ N a m % o o T d o ° o- c J ~p vOi 0 ~~ f1 N=~ pn ~ 0 ~° f. m
fD = ° £ 3. m o' O -6 ~ £ ° m N N, O ~ J (D ~ Q ~ v n " D o_ ~ s a
~° o °~ 3 c' r m° T t o m ~ N O N O~ ~ N ~ o ~ ~ ~_ ~ m~ m m (n
~? m~a3: ~ m ~ o?a o-° J o_? n. o'o_? ?in 3TJ ~<3~_ cn
P27
'o ~ s o' m f D o o 'm ~ -O ~' o ~ m H ~ o' ° 3 ~ ~ ' o ' ~ o 'Z o ~ o ~ ~ c ~ a
a a- ^ o_-o m 'o _~ A F T ° 0 3 Y o n ~° ^ ^- ^~~ o J 3 c m 3 a~ m y_ m ~°
µ N O N N N J J fyD W J O D w O N D_ ~^ fl_ O t~ d T D_ N p
fl ~ < ~ ° J N, J F S ^ N r S ~ (^ i. ~ (D C J T S ~ S ~ < ~ °i -O D ~ F O
O N O N ~ ° ^ p ~- O O N ^ ~ ~. O ° 7 O N ~ ^ °_ N OY ? S ~ O ~ j. ~ J` ~ O (D ^ ° S O
OJ O N (~ N ~ ~ ~ O O O N ~ x, ~ N O (D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ m ~ 0_ ~~ ^ W ~. D_ ~ S~ ~
O_ ~, K ~. °_ '^ N ~ F c' O_ ° 3 S . ~. ° ~ ? n O m' O_ ~ m O. ~ ~ ~ v ° O ^ ~ N ~ ~
d 3 m 0 ~' o v~ ~. ~ ~' c ry 2 T m D P c ~ T^ O D n T~ ~~ ~-~ `n. O
tnD O d Q ~ ~ O o O N (^ °-~ ~ O ~ O Q ^x ~ ~ T m ~, ^ .O ^ ~. ~ y. O 00 ~ O O- ~ ~~ n WO
o m m 3 m ^_ T ~ ~ ~ a m n. o m ° ~ m ~ ~~ o o ~ o ~ 0 3 ° ~ o ~ °' ~ ~ ~ °- o p.
^3fl-OO~o° ~~-o~oo.O~ooJ~~cNn ^_°n'~TOS ~ro~JJOO c.
^ m ~ m ~- n c^ m 3 °- o -° O y ^ ' ~ _o ° F m ? ~ m m o ~ ~. T J ~ ~ co ~ ~_ 3 ~
~ d° <° ~' O N N vOi c N 3 ~n N T Y O ~'~ ', s n c o 3, ~~^ ^ v+; o°~ -. J (G
m ~ ~^ -O 3 f° m ~n " 3 ~, T^ o~~ '. 3 a y^ c p' F~ ^_ c r y ~p C J o_ ~ T
~ o ~ °--O ? ~ m o ~' m o T ~ o o ~ Y D ~ m ~ °-' ': ~ n ~ °- c ~ °' ~o o_ T ~
0
o m~' °- g o o ° o m~ J o m °- ° m~~ o ~-°~ Q 'x° m o o -^o o cn °_. ~ W o s m
m~ ~` m~ m o_ o ° J -o O m m '- c o_ n. m' H m J ~, ~ o o- m c° m N m o"
T m O~ t^ T= N T- N C B° T O S O S (D p (D Q ~~ O N ry 2 g
~~ roi ~ d^ ~ o 0 0~ s o. 3 o N J w ° o~^~ ^_-°~ ~ ° gin ~~ m m< °- o
•~ O- n ~~ ~ 7 ~ n ~ ~° d~ ~ ^ ~ O N O ~ tO..cn ~ 3 T ~ ~ O' O °j ° ~ T~° S ~, K
m m~~~OJ-c D~Op. ~_~~~y OO ~~~~T~n'x OT°O..~Q ~~GO
n~ T c V -p ~ N N N O~~~ J ° c F n O n g tp ~ -G m T T
? vii O ~ T =' ^ O (D N N ~ j Q ~ S ~ v 0 (D 3 ~ N O_ N < ~ Q_ S O_ v+ ~ N N
'm
m
P
'n=m
s ~
o ~ m
sue=
m mo
m~ ~
o ~
m (~ D
0 0 -p
m
o ~'
~ F
>~Q
o am
A -~
?. ~
~ A
P
O
m
m
D
m
c
3
~(
'T
T c c o' -i s ~ N ~ c ^ m ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ c m °-~ ~ D m- o ~' ~ ~ ~ N ~ Q ~. o-
^ ~ ° ?. ii O O ^ ~ O in N c N ~
° ~,< ° a~ o o ~ j o o_s~~ o~-^'~ Q o ~^..~° ~ °-N' ~~ m_° s° a n ~ o ~
? ~ ccn < ~ ° ~ ~ N rn ~ 3 n ~ c'n F m ;; v -' ~ 9- H ~ m ~ ~~ ° ° o `° o s ~ ~ ~ o ~ o.
oo°~<o-~o°~~~~~~.~mT°o~~m o-~-'cT~co Q~c~s'7 c--. ?,.° ~
o`° ~ o m~ ~ m o ° m °O-o ~ 3 m ~.c ~Ff v'~ ° o _.~ ~ m?y °-~ m T° ~ aD Q
~, o o Q 3 m 3 n'~ °~ m n~? o o~ 3 °~ o~° o~~ o m° o~° o~ ~~ ~ o~ O
~ c r a m 3 D o° m o ~ 3 '^
s-.~p ~vc~.'~~ cOn'o~m ~. ~~<, '3".in `;°3o m~_,m ~>>^~>>' cp
-°o ~ m ~ m o m ° m ~ ~ ° ~ m ~ ^-n s~~ o ° Tn.=~D ~ ° sY ° ~'~ ^ ~ ~ am
(D ~- ° °~ ~ ° ° O ~ ~ N ? ~ O D ~ N uQi T ~ ~ 3 O ~ '^ ry 5. ~' rp _ S Q- --': O_ ±, Try Q
0 0~ ~ ~ ~ ° ° ~ ~ ° ° ~ ~ B ~ ~ o- °- ~^ °- ~~ o o ~ ^ x o 3 ~ 0 3 ° o ~.. ca m ~ o s
= _ ~ ~ H, w o ~ ~ ~ ~'O ~ ° -~' ~ °' T N m p p' N m ~. ~<~ ~ TOY ~ =. ~ s S n ~ v'
3 0 ~, 3 N ~. c~° ~~ 3,•~ D m ~co ~ D m m f° c° ~ a ~~ n°~ m 3 0 3 T o ° ~ o~
s m '^ m ~ ' ~ ° ^- o_ m s ~ ~ n ~ D m ~ s ~.<° ° m m ° n `° O -o o_ 2..
m a. o-.< ~. g t° ' m ~ 3 0- a °< ~ ° s ~ -o 'O° ~°-~ o <. m ~ s ~ °- n g. , o ~ n o 0
rn
o N N ~. n N ~. 0~ ~ d~ N T t~ ~ d~ c S 3 ~ 3 Q°~ S~ c O D N °- ~ °.. ~ °
° 3~ ° 3 0~~ ^- ...., o~° s o~ a m~° ~ N '~ m~° m~ ~ n w w O co s m
^ o o ~ m 3 ^~ ~ ~ ao 3 ~ o,~ ° o aD 3 ~ o D~ 3 0 ° °-m ~ ~ o ^ 3. °
-o ~~°~ -o v o H D =. d '~ 3~ 3 3 3~~ ° ~^ o~ n~ T s~ F ~ 0 0 o m ~
3. ~ ~ < o a m o ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ -OO o o ~~ ~ T ~ = o ° ~ ~ -o o m ° ~ ° ~ s Q ~.
a~.m cn'^m ~~<4~^~c'o a3mFim~ ~~mm~ ~°'O~o`~m o_
::.
~~ - - - --
Figure 67. Herbert Bayer, Anderson Park, Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, 1973
(Photograph by Ferenc Berko)
P29
D ° °-
^ ? (n O' O -O ~ N ~ p 0 N T 3 ~' s~ µ 3~ V C -p 2 Q O
o a°~ m ~. o~~ ~ D o o~~? o ~~ 3 `° o~ m_ ~ m m m ° a o ~~ ;; m o o
^ o~ T H ~ m 3 9 O N~~ S(~ ~ -3p ° N~ fn ^ m c~ o~ - m a, c N ry '-r ~
ry ~<.. a o „' ~ ~ O Q c p ~' c0 ~ Q O_ N. ,~ n~ j O_ ^ 00 m .. s tD m o o° ~ p S~ ~
3 0 ~ 3 -° <^ p m ,Z N s^~ m° > o ~° x o i a ~~ m ^.. _N °~ o, m '^ ^^^ 3
O 'ry' tp N ry T p ~T Q ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ s (~ ' ?. Oy ~ p_ n o m T ~ ~ ~ ~ p °~ ~
O s o T
m m x m m o' a~ m o m^ o w~ o rn .~ ~ F~ ~~ N m a, ° ° ° m s _. ^' m O
p 3 ^ ~, m f m o_ ~ a p 3 to x ~ ~_ s c o m ~ ,' ~ o' -ma o o' = ~. n_ m '~^
,.S~3pm~~w_~a.mmmd ~3 n;mop°D °os~ omao T~.~ ~
~^ U -' ~ O' N p K N O 7 N 3^ p N' v. m N^° ~ m' f m c ^~ s
m ~~ O ~-~' d~ S O t0 O N N~ O~~~ ~ 0 a m d ~ s o N z 3 5. <o O N ~
z 0 NO O m O ~~- N NS o 3 c m 7~^ ^- T j ~ s m „ T N > > c ~ n- W
o " p v D ~. T to, ^ ^ ~ 3 v ~ c ~. ~ ^ o_ o- ~ D ~ o ~ 0 ~ ~ m ~_ o m O ~
~ Tim a> >"°_ ~QO ^-~ ~ c ~oa~ ° o-m ? ~~ ~ m m n.m °- 5. ~ m
f -. 0-
O x~ °~ O H O n 3 0 N p„~ m p S pN n n c o m ma o o ~ o c ~ y ~
n-f° ~."p~ y 7 °~ ^. T O N T N. in O= ff ~^ N.° ~° Y m m 6 1~ p O
°' ~ ° m N + ~
°- o p< ^_ a g o ^_ m^^ v ~' o_ ~ o m= n f o m o x 3 v-o T
f ^m ov m 9mmoT_ moo g-~°~ -om
0 3 m ~. n ° n v o~ v ~° D 7 m ° O m m 3. °~; ~° m o =' a
m °~ o a ~ o a. m ~' m m ~ °- » ~ ~ ~. ~' cc^ o v c ~ : ~ o'_ ~ ~ s ° ~ o
3^ F?. !^ m° o o ~_ ~-~oc^ T3 o m o ~s a _m -off o
X., l°1 T n' N D n 0 S (D D S O d N ~ S~ 3 p O N C~~ m m ~= o c ~ Q N ,
~~_~~OON66°~c~~^ 3~^0~~.HQ'.. ~3~ _.. ~'3~3 OOH
n ~ n m N~ p S~ o- n n o m O ~. N -0 ^_ w n _. m° 3 ~° m 5' ' gy m
m ~~m~~m'm~'O ~°mmpm~ ~~~o~m~3 Nmm a»~^~,6 ~3
' {
• _~ ~~' i~3e'fx" .`ham `fir 3 ~w,~~--'-
~ ~ ~ ~'
_ ., ~._..,.a...,.:€~aa'-= t''s"''~ III °..i
T T o o T o o° o N 3 ~ o ~ T< m o_ ~ m
oo~p 3T3No0oc-o ^ omHm~_~~3ot°mms om°m ~~
m m~ 3 p <v~~ o m o, ~°. a~ s 3 'o o m ~ ~^ o, o^ m 3 s~ 3 0 ~ '~ m a o_ m
on N<~;c ~ 3~9 00~3~0__0~-oo^SOO~v ~3. s
0 7 T, S S ~~ T X 7 0 7C s in N T m T ~ N ry 3 n ~ ~ D O n m c o o ~ O
0 3^^ ~ p N^ p~ p O O 3~ N c O v O_ V S N ry 'v. 3
N D O in ^ O_ D- N C ~^ c c f^ O O T (~ O~ O N W'O i^ N m` ~
m-a-• ns~3g~ .~oo,m'So~o~o^~Qf'o3 f°'~c.,^r oa; 00
x O j ~• ~ .~ ~ O n j C o = 3~., j ~ j~^ C 7 c t^ µT ' ~ 3 0 _
~~ ~ mo_ ~n ire o-sf° ~ 3 ~'~ <° N n-am To ~
o- ° a ° ~^ -< 3 ° o n- 9' ~ ~- ° ~ in m o- ~ m ' ~ P ^ s o- ~ c^ ~° m f o o ~ ~
_ m
o- 0 N~ o~ 0~~ p S p~ 7 m ~;N O o H N m d O n T ~ 3 Dc c S.
O co ^ 2 ^'O~ Tp -O. ~~ v? 'in" s0 n ^ cn s^ ~ o c x cn
~ O N n n p~~ (D p j ~' 0, to ~ p O_ ~ O T N ~~ T 2 m s ~. Co - a O O
_ O
~' ~ S ^_ °~ N O T ~ W~ ~' A° N O 2 (D N 3 T~ ~= p~ ^ p N O_ m' ~ m O ?r
in O c j ry^~~ N O_ O ~. O O~ o O N m^ <. 2 ~- O p A C N N (D N ~°~ ~~
O~ S ~ LA S S O ~ In 3 0 rt N T 0 ~] O N N 7^ p^ ~' v x S ~ m N ~ S
c m cn o m ~ ~' o m rn co p j o o^? o ~, m~ o~ s o W o f_. ~, o m '~ 8 `D rn
m o~~ -o S a o ~ m m o~~ $ m ~ °- 3 c N~ ~' m ~° T-~ T H o 3' ~ g m o v
~ S 3 N O~ c m c~ ~ m O ? '0 7, ^ 3 c?^ p O.0 N a F °- ~~
^ B m m^ o Q o n ' m m m o f= ~
j ~ ^- N °O ry~~ S~ N~ ~ ~. "- n~~ O T W T~ S O ~ ~ ~~ Q~ ° s~ ~ N
^-~<° ~ o y3 °-. ~.~ T^ ~~ o ~ ~ ~o o ° m ° ~~ O_ o ~c^ c o ' 3
`~ o s ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ m o' S ~ ;~ S n w' N. ^ ~ ~ ,n o o ° m 'o_ n m ~'
o ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ m o s ~ o ? c m 'm ° ^ '' ~ ^ o ~ 3, ~ '" m ~ 0 3 n a N _ `. ~
d N 2 N. ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ O ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ tp Oc ~ ~~ S n- j n: tp m -~°' ~ ~ -O
(~ D- ~ n T c_ Q~ ~ N 3'x0 O~ 0 O ~ <. C n S N >> m~ ~ N C 3 o j~ cp
,p d Q n 3 N (O ~' O c Q~ p Q O x O ~ S ~ n~ j~ S Q ~ n N ~. ~ o n ~~
~ o ^ O ~ U ^ N ~' n ~ T ~~ T O. O ~ ~' 0 ~ D ~ j. ~ ~ ~ ~ y O o `~ m ~ O
p ~ O < (~ LJ n ~ N ~n
- N
Figure 66. Herbert Bayer, Seminar Building, Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, 1953
(Photograph by Jonathan Bayer)
Figure 89. Herbert Bayer, 5graffito Muro, Seminar Buiding, Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, 1953
Sgraffito, 10' x 26'
P31
0
B
n
:~
0
x
3
a
0
n.
N
d
N
U
U
f ~z
C
N
3 D =
o $ ~
o ~ ~_
m ~ m
o
x ~ m
0
3 0
1~
o ~
~B
~g
~f
a=
~ o
'~ o
A~
m
x
32
~~ -..
Figure 92. Herbert Bayer, Model for Music TeN, Aspen Institute for
Humanistic Studies, 1964
Figure 93. Herbert Boyer, Music Tent, Aspen Institute for Humanistic Sudies, 1964
(Photograph by Ferenc Berko)
(no longer extant)
P33
°- o~ T~ ~ o m~ 3 m=~ ° ° o m a~ o m o -°< ~°° a N 3 `° o `° ~ n~ Y T T c°
~ m ~ o s~ n 3 v -° m m'. ~~~ ~ !^ F °- c~^ c° ~ ~~ o m' ,o m a o m' m Q
~~ d Oµ _° Q S? 3 N O o~ ~ ~~ Q 7 a O ~° R N~~? O ry m S~ ~~ ~~ V c N~ m_
~ ~ j' O O' D• f N 1.-O ~• ~ D ~ N N ~ N Q ~ ~ ~ v c ° n ° ~ ° ~ '~ w ~ W N p ~ d D y. ~
o_ ;~n N, ~ ~ o ~ ~. o p~ m N T a n~ ~~ 'm ~ o.. ~c o ~- o m '~ a.'-' 3° a n o n m
c C ~, '^ ~ N 3 N 4+ ~ ti,
n n °~ °' N S~ p ~~ S `O ~ p° N O ~ f01 ~ 1v0. ° 7 (O Z N o N 7~~ ~ ~ in T~ ° j O
m ~ o ~ T ~ ~ ° m o o sco =; m ~ o ~ ~ ~' a ~ m ~ o ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ °_ f 3 ~ ~ 3 ~ m o co
=°~ m ~~ a c o ~ F Two ~m ^ o ° ^ m 3 m sm o ~~ °'_~_'°.3 ~o m W~
T ~ a < n- m ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ o_ cn a v -o a. m ~° ° -o m ° ~_ ~_ c 3 'O T m ~ m 2 v, o m' m '. ~ 'm
N ~ C C R O T 7 n° O N~ y~ o O S N in N Z "O ^ -p ° d 0 (h in, m~ 0~ ~ n> j 0-
O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ 0 3 m ° T D. D ~ °- ° ~' m ~ 'r 0 m m ~ ~ ~ T ~ ° ~ c ~ P ~ o
w -o µ : °- < Q' ~ o. a 3 ^ 5. ° = n < 3 s o ° f (~ x m' ~o , 5 ~^ m' 3 c 3 o A ~, s
m D m o m ~; m m o° 3 m' m y °~ c- m T_~ n. a c s a° ° m~ o m
~ 0 0~~ O N O o m° ~° o ~~ p T~ ° 'O f^ m s r~ -.' ~ O n~~~ ~ o~ N°
~~ c o ca ~ y '' 3 ~° rn o v m '" m o ~ 3 I m o w a_ c a° o m a v i m
~~ °~ -oooooo O~~_o =. mon 3 0~ 3~ coo ^
v m ~T~ o ~ xa~ ~ o °-o c ~ o ° m °-° m s~ m ~~ o ~'m ` ~' H ` °.° m sg
o ~o ° ~ 3 ~ ~ ° o ° m o ~ ~ a~ ^ am ~ °-ao.3 ~o 'mom o_Q n ~'m m m ~ ~"m ~
° ~+ (D vnOi N S '^ v~ ~ ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ ° (° O Q_ n ~ c ° n c N o v~ T w p ~ ~ v _ ~ O Q' O
°-" m 3 d ~ ~_ ° n 3 ~ ~° v ' m a o ~ ~ o ~ o ~" o v ~ =~ m o ° ° ~ ° 2 ~: ~ o
(° 0- ~ O O c =(p m O O c fl ~~ m O_ ^ O Q ~O vOi (D N ~. Q a. ~~ 'O^ D y N ~~ T c O N
T° o ~~ o Do-4-° ~ ° m ° ° ° o Tm~ dQ~o ^ ^-2 0 ^ ~ Q ~ fl ~ Am °
m°O'^ '~~^mws-gym p~3 na-~o F,~~ n3-d.o o_
~Tflxo~oo°~°m~~3~. o_~~xpo°c~s3mT °s=, ~m~O'~'ooo
`•° m~~ o_ m~ a o x° n 3 ° m~ m o o' o s m co o' o n° 3 c~ a~ 3 `O a ~. N 'n
3 N N~ (D ~ 3 (D Q S d N n~~ o N (D ~ Q' ~° ~ ~ N p N~ j ry ~~~ ~~~ ~ vii
(D 2 T 7 N
'm
A
~~2=
o N3 ~'
p x o$
~~u.=
T °~ n O
X Nry
~ W c .
`c ° 2 3
o ,u o
o ~_
~~
o N~
~ ~Q
o a
m
n
m
m
0
D = I
3 0
3 =. m
° ~~
~ ~ m
U 2x
o m' °
m
'~a
~ Oo
~ n
x vm
m
N
D
m
0
m-°^~.mop°-~o _~'~°oJOm°oNo~~ mommy°'.30_
On D t p s i 3 °- ° (~D s cp 'o ~~ o o- ~ 3 `O w~ J Ip' °_ c_ p ~ 0 3~ vOi U O p- n
~ 3 ~D m ~ i7 U ~ ~ ~ o m ° ~ o O' ° Cn N O ~. ~ O' O ° J O_ ~ N N ~ ~ T O c.
c N T s° O ~' O~ a to ~=. 3 ~G P (^ N O ~ c0 m -I O~ J ~ u f° @ (° ~
a~ so ~~O m ~m ;r ,o ~'o °o o:= ~ ~ ~o o ~ c°'~m o ~ o ~ F ~ `- t2' ~ T~~
~. ? t° ~ O d T O H O p W ~ 0 3 ~ °c v N c ~ry ~~ Q Q 'O s ~ °~ 3~~ O O 2 m 3 ~~ ~
J ~ ° (~ ~ ~ m ~ N ~ ~ a 2 1D. o' 2 3 a s ~ ~ ° ~ ° J'U 4_ N N O ~ Q ~ U vOi O' < c' N ~
~ O ~ p ~ c ~ ~. ~, n d Q m ~ ° 3 a ~ 3 0 p "' n N 7- ~ ~ =. m ~ P n ~ ~ ~ c~D ° _n ~~ ~
m o ~ s n ~ -< ~ m '~ @ .^' ~ ~ 'n_-. 3 a ~' it ~ o o ~ s-o o ° ° o ~ p ~ s ~ o m.
~ ° '_ o s ~ m m c'o ~ o T ~ x T ° ' £ c ? d °- ' n ° ° °o- 3 a o o ~ m m' ~ m m' T 'm
Z= ~- ° m S O N S N N O N O N
7 it < D ~ °- °j N ~ ° Vic- ~ x m, o m ~ _ ~ T (~ O_ ~, 'O _' 'D. ~ ~ O a 3 S N N W ~ p
3' o:. -o J N rn° J -o m ~ o o F m T m °_ N o r m ~ ~ -o_ v~ J ° s,
O F° 7 3 < J~ D_ O N 3 0 _. o m m ry' N N S N _ N O ry N 0~~ N O~ °_ i~ ~i
o° ~o-c=nm3?s"m ~~`'F.o£o ~o~° m~~~oa,d~,~ ma°` y~
-° c ~ =. ~ ~ ~ ° g y < o ~ T ~ °. ~ ~ Q ~ 4 0 ° -o m D ~ ~ f o m °- m m ~ ~ ~ m m
N p~ ~ i~- o< co m co o a o `~ ~ 3, ° o°yy m ~ ~p c ~ N 'r n T~ o ~n° p_ °- m `", o
D N -°. 2 S tn` S O N y N ~p ~~ c m a O~ N ry O ~ p p~ vOi N ~~~ N O~ QJ 'D ~- ~ N
D ~ 3 '" ~ ~- 3 2 0 ~ ° ? °. ~ m '<_. m ? H ~^ J m .D ° ° o o ~ o_ ° -. ~. °- m ~ s J o
~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ° n ic- S v o s ~ ~ f o o ~ 3 % c' -p N S T ~ =_ ~ °- p H ~ -1 < S Q 3
J W " °_ ~, `G ~ N S O N to m ~ s i ~ '^ ° 'D (D O -p -O ~ tD `G (° ° J O J ~ -O °_ ry
s m m ~' 3^ D° " T `"_ 5~5 £~~ m o O c° o s~ ~'~^ <° 3° 2 m °- c° 3 ~, ~' ~ Q
In _- O c ~ ~ N ~ N 3 s ° a c° O_ v O_ < ~ ~ ~ 1 n ~ ~. (~ ~ ~ N p ~ ° c N _ ~
ic- ~ ~ F~ !^ ~ ~- ? Q- s m o N m ~ T' ~ O S T ~°_. Q t0 ~< np 0 ~ O J j O~ N m
3 3 rn T~. m N =m so a' _' '< ~ ° o sJ m J ° ° o cQST ax <-° ~ ~ 6 c°'
° N J v; ~~~ c-~ Q ~ a~ U~ N~~ v. ° K O 2° N N m a p O N .'<
m F o ~, O o 2 m o- ~ o <° 'm~ o rn' m J o ° f. o° -a ~~ m~ o
O_ ° ~ ~ ~ o F ° 4 N ~ ~ n O ° T D_ J O_ ~ (D ~ °i N N ~ S N (P ^ ^ ~ ,-J. ° O 7 N ~
Figwe 96. Herbert Bayer, grass mound, Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, 1955 P 3 5
40' diameter
(Photograph byJames O. Milmoe(
~~
o <rn~m~C3 5 3 N.p ~^'~ 3 D o o ^,~ a c s o 0 0 o Do ~~ pco p ~~ m
i ~-o. _~ ^ < o ~~a o ~ s~~ o ~ ~^_o_c ~m' sD~ o m ~ m o'=~ ° m m m o 0
m ,< c~ ° N T~ ~ a 0. N N O 0 0~ .< C N N „~ 3 _. ~ m 0 c. O N. 7
~ N ~ P ~~ ~ ^- ~ n (D (D rn 7 ^ ~^ O Oo c~ o N ~ N N 0 c -O cT ° j f0 O N
-o f °-~~ x o ~n rn $ ~ '" m ~ o-~'o ~ s~ f D~ ° o_cTO ~' o ° ~ m m `° 3 a~ so ^
_. ~_ ^ m c T~ c 3 c~^ m c ~O o~ m o m°~ co F' m p m ^O D^ o c
P X O C ~ N O^ N~ O °~ N N~~~ ~ S N p j j (D O° Y O °~ rp N N~^ O j~^
W `j ^ (~ N A Y T° ?~ N ^~ N < O u N O N (v O ~^ O N 7
_ O ^ E N S x c O tp n S"O O~ X c ~ ~' N a m dt O S T (D ry
'- O~^ S A G C> m N (~ 7 ~ t0 >> O 0- c ~ ~ p ry o] O T 2 ~ ~~ O 0 <. < O O O -. ~
(D J (n ."' C ,. ` O 3 n S~ ~. ? (G N 6~~ °- ~ <' N ~<~ O N~ N T O X N `-,. o T
c n°~iVC~»N ~m 3 a3 0^~ o o^ Do'm ~<~ n. '~~~-o a`3 z c m o rD 3 3 n~ ~~'^o,
^ --o v J n- O o m~ ~ a~ 3 o m~~ °- 3 ~ m n o ~ m ` s ue min ~ a' -~'. < =: n m `°
9
O' c ° ~ Uri ~ O ~ f° d ° j ~ N (=i ~ ~ < Q 7 N N N `-^. ~ ° s ' ~ (D ri ~' ^ vOi N T d ~
~ 'o ~ a' v, o g. ~ ° o ~' o ^ m ~ ~ '^ 'o o ^ ~ m' -°~ o -o D m m ° 3 -t ~ ° m ~ o- ~ D t°co
~~ 0 3~ ~ O ~. T Q T O o~ n 3 v fl °- n '^ ~' p m n o~~ m^^ N psi c a N
2° m ° O c _'r° Tm Tm n~.m ~N' ~ n so 3 o sn ? ~ m N'^~ m °f° a m<f o
~ ~ T~ ~ ~_• vOi O D--O ~~ O N ~ N c N N N fj °-~.~, c m n v --... < 7 T S~
_ ^
~^ o ^_ " o~ T o D _c m o~ o y o_ -O n ' m ~_ a x° ~ ~. Q 3 c o°~~
~ D A =. O~ N T -O m .0 -O N ~ "' ry c cN O L 3 0 '^ 'O S 7 O ~ N N '< N O N (D ~
p O_ n T S'O N O< N< ~- _r^ T N -O O W n O' O v+' n o c_ ~ m O D- 3 O_
^ 0~ N ^ N O G> ^ N ~ N ^ N ~G ~ c t0 0 3< N c m O~ p' ~~ N
O W N N ~S 0/-~ ~ ~y Q N S ('D d N p B° vJi ~ °j ~^~ S O J C~ C ~. N Ca d S (D
O ~ O ^ N \ ~ ` / ~ G N 0 ~ N Q Q ~ ^ ^ Q (U ~ (~ ^ N C D ~ ~ ~ _J n ~ IQ/1 Q_ ^ (~
~.=00-° ° o ^ T~ ~ ~ aTa?~, o_~~ a o o_^ m <- 3 3 0'~.~-3 m mr^ = o °
o~ D F c ^ T N ^ h O T ~~ ° d^ 0 0 ~~ O. c^ N N F^ O t^ ~ F ^_ ^ J~ O N
m n _. 'z C7 cn ~ ^ o ~ ° T ^ 3 ~ ~ 3 2 3 N ^ D ~ o' o o ' °-
D o O T^ a n N_ ~~ ^ 3 O_ u]
? O O O ~ O ry ~ .O ~ 'O ° O m ~ ^ O ^ _ ° 3 O O ~ O O °~ S N ^ N ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~
-°o o° ~ o~ ~' Z~ s o `° ° ^. 3~ m o o f ~. m' ~ o~ °c F T ~. m m o 3 co ~:
s c o_ ~ °. N o^~ m ° m m' m m m T° ,~ ^ m 4 n 3° o^ <^ g ~ m~ ^ f° 3 3
o m o 3 ° ~ a. a o m o_ ' o_ rZ ' ~ N o_ - ~c N m m o o` ~.
O
0
w
P36
R.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 1000 N. Third Street, Greenwald Tent- Major Development (Conceptual)- Public
Hearing
DATE: May 28, 2008
SUMMARY: For the last 3 summers, The Aspen Institute has made use of a seasonal tent,
adjacent to the Koch Seminar building. HPC provided comments on the structure that has been
in place since 2005. The staff memo and meeting minutes aze attached. The tent provides
additional space for the many events that aze scheduled at the campus and The Institute has stated
their hope to retain this facility on a permanent basis. It will be in place again for 2008.
In 1991, the Meadows area completed an SPA (Specially Planned Area) review which
established the rights to expand structures and activities on the campus. Staff has not found any
discussion of a new tent structure in that document. Following HPC review of the proposed
project, it proceeds to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and then City Council for an
amendment to the SPA approval. HPC's role will be to review for compliance with the "City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines."
The SPA document cleazly acknowledges the need for HPC involvement in development at this
campus, stating that the board's review and approval is required and that there is to be "minimal
disturbance of significant examples of Herbert Bayer/Fritz Benedict azchitectute."
The Greenwald facility is approximately 1,200 squaze feet lazger than the structure used previously
and includes canopies along the pathways into the entry. Staff finds that the boazd should evaluate
fundamental issues, such as the size, location, and "generic" design of the pavilion fast, providing
direction to the applicant for potential restudy.
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, represented by Jim Curtis, Planner.
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-29-809.
ADDRESS: 1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute, Aspen Meadows, Lot 1B, City and Townsite
Aspen.
P37
ZONING: SPA, Specially Planned Area.
P38
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Ilse Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
jor the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) andlor addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies was created in 1947 by Walter Paepcke and formed
the foundation for the Aspen Renaissance period after World Waz II. The Meadows campus is
very significant as the center of activities related to Paepcke's "Aspen Idea." Paepcke brought
Herbert Bayer to Aspen in 1946 to serve as the design consultant for the Institute, a role in which
he served until 1976. Bayer, with assistance from Fritz Benedict, was offered the chance to
design a planned environment, where the goal was total visual integration.
The key features of the property aze the campus plan and the relationship between the
azchitecture and landscape. A number of original Bayer buildings remain (most with alterations),
but others including the Music Tent and original lodge units have been demolished. New
structures have been designed in a manner that is sympathetic to the Bauhaus aesthetic. It is very
important that careful stewardship of the property be maintained.
The application discusses the fact that tents have historically been used on this campus, for
instance of course, the Music Tent. Other small structures have commonly popped up in the
vazious meadow azeas. The Greenwald Pavilion, however, is fairly lazge and will be in place for
the whole summer season, and, even if the roof and sidewalls aze temporarily taken down, the
steel skeleton will remain in place.
Staff has concerns that the lazger the facility becomes, the more awkward the fact that it has no
architectural character. The three music tents that have been part of the campus were designed
by renowned architects (Eero Saarinen, Herbert Bayer, and Harry Teague) and created inspiring
2
spaces, both inside and out. This building, particulazly when the sides aze down, has none of the
typical chazacteristics of the other structures at the Institute. The entry canopy may be intended
to provide that design element, however in form, materials, and color, we aze concerned that it is
also out of context. The following design guidelines are in question:
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on
the parcel.
^ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that aze similaz in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs aze appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in azeas where it is appropriate to the context.
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similaz to those seen traditionally in the
context.
^ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
^ These include windows, doors and porches.
^ Overall, details should be modest in chazacter.
We find that the boazd must
provide direction on threshold
issues related to the size,
location, and design of the tent.
At final review, other concerns,
such as landscaping must be
discussed. Although screening
is a common request from
neighboring properties, the
original buildings at the campus
were generally fully open to
view, or have aspen trees
filtering views around them, as
illustrated in this Berko photo
that shows the general vicinity
of the project in the eazly
1960's.
P39
3
P40
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the application be continued to a date certain.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Application
C. Previous staff memo and minutes.
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for Greenwald Pavilion Tent, "Conceptual"
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
^ Subdivide lazger masses into smaller "modules" that are similaz in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs aze appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in azeas where it is appropriate to the context.
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similaz to those seen traditionally in the
context.
^ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street aze
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
^ These include windows, doors and porches.
^ Overall, details should be modest in chazacter.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history aze
especially discouraged on historic sites.
4
P41
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
TARU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE; Aspen Temporary Use Permit- Referral comment to City Council
DATE: March 23, 2005
SUMMAR~ a spen stitute, Music Associates, and Aspen Center for Physics received
approval in 1991 to make certain improvements to the Meadows Campus through its designation
as a Specially Planned Area. The Historic Preservation Commission participated in the review of
the original SPA, and in 1995 parts of the campus were designated historic. These include the
Trustee Townhomes, Meadows Restaurant, Health Club, and Bayer gazdens. Only these
immediate azeas were designated, and not the entire campus.
Over the yeazs, HPC has been allowed to function as a referral body when significant improvements
have been proposed at the Meadows, for instance the new Conference Center and Meeting Hall. .
The Aspen Institute is currently requesting a temporary use permit to place two tents on the
property during the summer months of 2005 and 2006. The main tent will be a pole-type design
measuring 60' x 90' with an adjacent 30' x 40' catering tent and a 20' x 20' entrance canopy. The
tents will be in place for approximately three consecutive months during the next two summer
seasons. Permanent installation of the tents or similar structures may be requested in the future if
the Institute finds that these facilities benefit their operation.
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, represented by Amy Margerum, Vice-President.
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-29-008.
ADDRESS: 845 Meadows Road, the Aspen Meadows SPA, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: SPA.
REFERRAL COMMENT
The Aspen Institute for Humanistic was created in 1947 by Walter Paepke and formed the
foundation for Aspen's renaissance after World Waz II. The Meadows campus is very significant
as the center of activities related to Paepcke's "Aspen Idea." Paepcke brought Herbert Bayer to
Aspen in 1946 to serve as the design consultant for the Institute, a role in which he served until
1976. Bayer, with assistance from Fritz Benedict, was offered the chance to create a planned
environment, where the goal was total visual integration.
1
P42
The New York based Kent Gallery has this to say about Herbert Bayer's legacy:
No institution affected the course of 20th century design so profoundly as the Bauhaus,
and no artist in the United States practiced its principles more enthusiastically than
austrian-born Herber Bayer (1900-1985). Bayer was active for over 60 yeazs creating
pioneering works in painting, sculpture, environmental works, industrial design,
typography, architecture, photography and applied design. Herbert was one of the few
"total artists" of the Twentieth Century producing works which expressed the needs of an
industrial age as well as mirroring the advanced tendencies of the avant-gazde. The
abilities of Bayer as well as his contemporazies (Kurt Schwitters, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy,
El Lissitzky, and Alexander Rodshenko) to move between private autonomous
investigations as well as public projects and products made them unique in their creative
depth and scope.
A number of original Bayer buildings and works of landscape azchitecture remain at the Aspen
Meadows, and new structures, such as the Physics Building, the Music Tent, and Han•is Hall,
have been designed in a manner that is sympathetic to the Bauhaus aesthetic. It is very important
that this careful stewazdship of the property be maintained. Staff has provided a number of
historic photographs at the end of the memo to give HPC a sense of the campus form from its
beginnings, since analysis of the current proposal should begin with a study of the overall
development pattern. Preserving the key features of the historic landscape and its design intent
should be major objectives.
There is a long tradition of temporary summer structures at the Aspen Meadows. According to
the Aspen Historical Society,
Concerts and lectures for the Goethe Bicentennial Convocation and Festival of 1949 were
held in the original music tent designed by Finnish azchitect Eero Saarinen. Walter
Paepcke, originator of the event, soon realized that the partially restored Wheeler Opera
House would not be able to seat enough listeners to pay the bills. Finding himself without
the backing to build a 2,000 seat concert hall, he settled on a tent.
During previous summers, the applicant has erected small tents in vazious locales throughout the
campus, including within the designated Bayer landscapes. No City approvals were sought for
these installations since they were usually brief and did not involve any earth moving. The
location that is now proposed to be the temporary, and perhaps permanent site for two special
event tents is behind the Koch Seminaz Building, along the north property line. The landscape at
this location is undisturbed native vegetation. The project will require removal of brush, and
blade grading to facilitate the installation of a floor deck. The tents aze proposed to remain in
place for a more extended period each summer than those erected in past yeazs.
Planning staff has referred this application to the Pazks Department. Their feedback is attached
to this memorandum. Ultimately, City Council will apply the Temporary Use standazds to make
a judgment as to the possible environmental impacts of the proposal. Staffs intention in asking
HPC for a referral comment is to inform Council as to how the application does, or does not,
negatively effect the historic integrity of the Aspen Meadows campus. A list of the relevant
2
P43
design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." The applicant is amenable to receiving HPC input
before deciding on exactly which tent design to select and has provided cut sheets from a
potential vendor.
One of the key features of the Aspen Meadows property is the site plan, including the
relationship between the azchitecture and landscape. The new tents aze proposed to be located
adjacent to Anderson Pazk (1973-1974), which was one of Bayer's last works on the campus.
Bayer was a pioneer in modem landscape azchitecture. Commenting on a series of drawings that
Bayer created prior to the earthworks designs at the Aspen Institute, the Kent Gallery states:
Reducing the landscape to sculptural surface motion, the pictures demonstrated the artist's
awazeness of the dynamism of the earth's surface as created by activity deep within the
underlying core. As stated by Bayer, "my aim with environmental designs is to carry art
and design from the privacy of the museum to the public realm".
The Institute points out in their application that they currently erect tents from time to time
right in Anderson Pazk. The existing Historic Preservation Guidelines do not address the
issues related to the installation of temporary tents to any great degree, but staff cites the
following as the most important issues for HPC to resolve:
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
^ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Pazks Department.
^ If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a
large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
^ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact
of mature growth.
^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small azeas for accent.
^ Do not cover grassy azeas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
Placing a structure in the designated Bayer gardens is not consistent with the artist's design
intent, visually interferes with Bayer's work, and cou]d in fact cause permanent damage as a
result of tent stakes or trampling areas of the park. Given the significance of Bayer's work, staff
does not support the Institute continuing with these installations.
Unless there is another already "manicured" azea of the campus that can accommodate the tent
effectively, it seems that there will have to be some disturbance of the native landscape that
makes up so much of the character of the property. This is somewhat unfortunate because the
photographs at the end of the memo show a history of buildings set in the wild landscape, with
Bayer's gardens creating an interesting contrast. Although we acknowledge the concerns of the
3
P44
Pazks Department, staff does recommend in favor of the proposed location of a new tent on a
temporary or permanent basis with conditions as outlined below.
Staff has no concerns with the design of the tent since it will be erected only in the summer
season and is a historic building type for this site.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forwazd a referral comment to Council in support of
the Temporary Use request with the following conditions:
1. The size of the tents should be minimized as much as possible in order to allow the
structure to be surrounded by native landscape, in keeping with the historic development
pattern of the Meadows.
2. The applicant should not install tents in the designated Bayer landscapes in the future.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant guidelines
B. Application
4
P45
EXHIBIT A
Relevant Design Guidelines for the Aspen Institute Temporary Use Application
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
^ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
^ If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a
large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
^ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact
of mature growth.
^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
^ Do not cover grassy azeas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
^ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than
the mature canopy size.
^ Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant azchitectural features or
block views to the building.
^ It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
^ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
^ The primary plane of the front should not appeaz taller than the historic structure.
^ The front should include aone-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use buildiug forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally.
^ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
^ Materials that appeaz similaz in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are
encouraged.
^ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
^ These include windows, doors and porches.
^ Overall, details should be modest in character.
P46
The original
(1949, Saazinen)
Music Tent
The original tent,
Seminaz building
(1952), and Race
Track
HISTORIC PHOTOS OF THE MEADOWS
Proposed location
of new tents
6
P47
The (1964, Bayer)
music tent, Walter
Paepcke Memorial
Auditorium (1962),
and Koch Seminaz
building
Proposed location
of new tents
~~
Koch Seminaz
building
7
P48
Walking through the field
to Koch Seminaz building
Outdoor conference
gathering
8
P49
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 23. 2005
Valerie said as retailers change it is very important not to loose the historic
opening in the event that we would not be able to ever retrieve it.
Applicant asked if there was anyway they could have a window at this point
and agree to renovate it after their lease is over.
Michael said unfortunately you take these historic structures as they are and
subject to historic preservation regulations and unfortunately it cannot be
altered.
The applicant said the building has gone through many changes and it is not
like the building has been intact. There were doors added and windows
added.
Jeffrey pointed out that there have been changes but the historic openings
and egresses to that comer have remained for over 130 years.
Amy said the store front that Harley Baldwin put in was probably done
before the review was required by the commission.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened and closed the public hearing.
Jeffrey said there can be a way to make it work out on the inside but the
HPC is not interested in changing the historic opening. We are looking at
the pattern that existed not the door used historically.
The applicant said the dummy doors will block what is happening behind it
and she wonders if that is complimentary to the building. Is there any way
that we can keep the door and change the window style in the middle.
Amy pointed out that on the Elli's building they requested a bigger door and
she has recently denied that.
MOTION.• Michael moved to approve the minor development for the
application of 201 S. Galena; second by Sarah. Motion denied 6-0.
No vote. Jason, Derek, Sarah, Michael, Valerie, Jeffrey
ASPEN INSTITUTE -REFERRAL COMMENTS
P50
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 23. 2005
Amy said the proposal is for a tent for this summer and next. The Parks
Dept. is concerned about the loss of native sage that will be torn up by this
project. Staff certainly respects that the native vegetation is a concern but
we aze also worried about where else to put facilities like this. The
manicured areas are mostly designated historic Herbert Bayer gardens. Staff
suggests that HPC support the proposal and that the foot print and size of the
tent should be minimized and not installed in the Bayer landscape areas.
Amy Mazgerum said they originally wanted to put up a permanent pad but
they decided to wait until the new building is built and see how it is used.
They desire a tent similar to the one the Music Festival uses. They use theirs
almost all summer long. We tried to find a really cool tent but there aren't
any. The tent would be a place for individuals to have dinner or a reception.
It would also be further away from the music tent as we had conflicts with
noise last yeaz and activities. With respect to never putting tents on the
manicured lawn there is a history of doing that throughout the institute. Last
year we put up a tent covering the marble gazden. We are very concerned
about the lawn and we have an art committee who are cautious and cazeful
about the gardens. Amy said the size of the tent is 60 x 90 and we would
cater with our golf carts.
Valerie said there are topographical changes on the site that appear to be flat.
Amy Mazgerum said they definitely need to some grading at the site. She
would support Pazk's restoration plan. Some of the sage bushes aze over
100 years old. It is easier to restore grass.
Amy said we will work with the City and the tent company on the actual
placement because right now there is a lot of snow on the ground.
Sarah said the concern is after the two year use we now have a scazed
landscape. Is the cun•ent lawn where the marble gazden is too small? Amy
said no but they do not want to destroy the grass there. The sage meadow is
not beautiful and it has been tampered with. We want to have an azea where
we can put the tent and not have to take it up and down. It costs us close to
$20,000 to put up and take down a tent.
Valerie said she feels strongly about the grading plan. She doesn't feel there
is enough information with the site under snow and the grade change. She
also doesn't know what the contours are. The pad is going to be more
]0
P51
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2005
obtrusive than the tent and with some additional information she might be
able to approve this.
Jeffery said this is a referral issue and he feels the boazd can support the tent
but a representative should be involved with the placement and grading
issues.
Valerie said the circulation is also an issue. Valerie is the monitor.
701 W. MAIN STREET -MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
(CONCEPTUAL) LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCES
Dirk Danker, architect
Affidavit of posting to be submitted to the City Clerk's office.
Amy said Mazsall Olson purchased the property and his brother-in-law Dirk
Danker is the architect. At the last meeting Marshall asked whether the
boazd would approve an adjustment to the lot split. The lot split had created
a 30 foot wide interior lot and a 27 and some feet corner lot. He requested
that the interior lot be 32 feet wide and the exterior lot 25 feet wide. With a
wider interior lot it would be a more workable for the residence that might
be there someday. The board did not have a concem with that. The change
takes a little square footage off the lot with the historic cabin and puts it on
the adjacent residence which is a good thing. This property is non-
conforming and so there were variances necessary in order to do the lot split
at all and HPC did grant those in a previous hearing and you need to approve
them again tonight. The finding was that a lot split is an appropriate thing to
do on this property as it opens up the door for a development scenario that
would be more sympathetic to the cabin and separates the development
azound into multiple buildings. For those reasons staff supports granting the
variance. We also need to talk about the new residential building that is
proposed to be constructed behind the cabin. The cabin will be some kind of
art studio, commercial use and the applicant is proposing a detached
condominium building on the alley. The footprint is very constrictive
because the lot is narrow and we want to get some distance from the cabin.
They are asking for side and rear yard setback variances. They have about
1200 square feet to do this structure; however, it is manifesting into a
structure that is three stories. There is some concem about the scale
relationship to the cabin. They are at the height limit. The staff memo
focused on how we can make a transition. Possibly the upper floor deck
could be located somewhere else or entire eliminated. The location of the
entry on the side street was discussed. The residential design standards talk
11
P52