Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20080528ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin, Brian McNellis, and Sarah Broughton. Nora Berko was excused. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Commissioner comments: Sarah commented on the Bidwell building. A lot of the final comments made from council are critical. It was stated by our Mayor that Planning and Zoning and not HPC should be the ones in charge of scale and mass in reviewing projects and HPC should be in charge of determining if something is historic or not. There is still not a good understanding of what HPC does. We need to discuss how we can bring the commissions together. Amy pointed out that a couple of buildings over the winter collapsed. The open air shed at the Holden Marolt Ranch and the building at the Lift I site. The Ski Club was in the building and part of that building was the original historic ticket office. The building was discussed being preserved in the museum plan. 204 N. Monarch Street -Major Development -Conceptual Jeffrey Halferty, Halferty Design Stan Clauson, Clauson & Associates Exhibit I and II -elevations Sara stated at the last meeting the project was continued for restudy of the relationship of the proposed home to the historic context, some proportions and mass and scale. Staff is still concerned about the relationship of the residence to the neighborhood. Staff suggested that the new home have a better relationship to the Blue Vic and possibly the new design could reflect some of the proportions. Other issues are the two story element proposed, the gable and the little shed dormer. The new plan does not have a strong horizontal element as does the Blue Vic. Staff is also concerned about the recessed planes. The design is a product of its time and we appreciate all the work that has gone into this project. The street elevation is great. They are ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008 requesting a' 10.5 front yard setback and two variances. The north side-yard setback variance and the rear yard setback variance. Staff is recommending continuation to better relate the proposed home to the historic context. Stan Clauson said this project developed with the relocation of the historic residence. The location of the garage is dictated by requirements imposed on by site planning and that resulted in a 3 foot rear yard setback to the east. On the alley we are requiring a 2.6 variance to allow for a window area. In general the mass is being kept three feet from the property line. There is a 13 foot separation between the Blue Vic residence and the proposed residence and a 33 foot separation between the proposed residence and the adjacent historic residence on the other side. Jeffrey Halferty, architect said they have responded to the issues from the last meeting and pulled the mass forward to give it more of a street presence. One of our suggestions was to create a gable form that comes out and have a recess in part of the gable that allows for a small porch. We feel we have achieved pulling the mass and scale to the street presence. We tried to address the guidelines and have the gable respect the two Victorians. We also tried not to create or use foreign materials. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There where no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Alison said the question is having the front gable split in half and does that meet our guideline 11.4; design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. Possibly more or a horizontal element could be added. Sara said for unit B, this house, the allowable FAR is 2053 square feet. Michael said bringing the mass forward toward the street works well and addressed the streetscape that was brought up at the last meeting. Michael said staff suggested that the proposed new home reflect more toward the proportions of the Blue Vic since they share a lot. Sarah said her concern is addressing guideline 11.4 and 11.3. In particular the two story seemingly open deck and the eclectic conglomeration of masses going on to the north. Sarah said she had no concerns with the side yard setback. The material selection, red bam wood is a detriment to the historic resource. It seems that these materials are coarse and less refined ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008 than what is seen on the adjacent historic resource. The height of the gable is higher than the gable of the historic resource. Stan Clauson clarified that the gable is not any higher than the historic resource. Michael said he supports staff's position. The proposed design is not sympathetic enough to the Blue Vic or the building to the north. Guidelines 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.9 are not met. Jay pointed out that the project has much improved. From the mass and scale it is equal in mass and scale of the Blue Vic and they compliment each other. On the gable it would be interesting to see how it would be re-worked without mimicking what is next door. Jay said he can support the design if the horizontal element was incorporated. Brian also agreed that the designs are an improvement. It has a much better street presence. Brian said he still has the same conflict, how do you make it a product of its own time and be sensitive to the other two historic houses. The concern is the void element under the gable and possibly it should be filled in. Brian said he has no concern about the horizontality. Sarah said the front wall of A, Blue Vic is back from the front wall of unit B. Tim Semrau said the Blue Vic is 15.9 feet from the front and the new house is 14.4 feet. Michael said it is less than a foot to Monarch Street. Sara said in the guidelines it talks about maintaining the visual continuity. Amy said on the 635 W. Bleeker house, the green Victorian is back from the historic house. Tim said if the big stumbling block is the overhang and it is more important to have the roof and the section to be in one plane I can do that. Brian said filling in the gable end over the deck is preferable. Alison and Sarah agreed. Exhibit III gable replication elevation Exhibit IV elevation of the three houses. Sarah said Exhibit III seems well centered and the symmetry is correct. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008 Brian, said the rhythmic standpoint Exhibit III makes more sense. Alison and Sarah agreed. MOTION: Brian made the motion to continue the public hearing and conceptual development of 204 N. Monarch until June 25`ti; second by Sarah. Motion carried 4-1. Michael said the commission is in favor of seeing an application that reflects the design of Exhibit III. Sarah said she would like to see a model. Tim said for clarification the board would like to see the mimicking of the Blue Vic gable flushed out and the recess gable filled in. Alison asked if the board wanted the gable higher than the Blue Vic. Jeffery said they can lower it and flush the roofs. Sarah said there are a lot of merits to scheme II. VOTE.• Jay, no; Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. Paepcke Auditorium Ann was seated. Amy said the main purpose of the project is to provide some mechanical upgrades to the building for presentations and also to potentially expand some of the seating by approximately 50 seats which is about a 540 foot expansion. Paepcke Auditorium was built in 1961. Staff's memo refers to the SPA plan that was adopted in 1990 and 1991 which talks about future expansion. We did not find anything about expansion of the auditorium in the document. HPC's purpose is to discuss design review issues and the historic preservation guidelines. Herbert Bayer was a respective artist in many fields and this is where his architecture career began. He was brought to the Aspen Institute to develop the campus. He used such simple materials such as concrete block. This building built by Herbert Bayer is significant and we need to be sensitive to any changes. A lot of the work will be on the interior. In terms of the auditorium itself staff has a strong objection to the notion of demolishing a portion of the auditorium walls. Staff estimates that 45% of the wall planes would be demolished in order to create new wings to ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008 create the extra 50 seats. The restaurant and health club have been expanded which was easier to do because they are up against embankments and are not visible from all four sides. This building is free standing and observed from all four sides. Staff objects to demolishing 45% of the walls of the auditorium in order to make the expansion. We recommend if there is additional seating that it needs to be accommodated some how within the interior space. There are some other issues which include replacing the windows and an original skylight that can be handled at final. The fundamental issue is whether the demolition and expansion can take place. Jim Curtis, represented the Aspen Institute Michael Scoring, F&G Architects Jim said F&G has a track record in Theatre architecture and post 1950 preservation work. Michael Scoring said Bayer had a desire to integrate the inside and outside and as an environmental designer he brought real connections to the outside. From a materials conservation standpoint we are looking at this building as a rehabilitation and a complete overhaul. We are dealing with preservation issues, material conservation, additions, accessibility, systems, finishes and adaptive reuse so it runs the gamete of all the things that you can possibly do to any particular building. Michael did a power point presentation. The lobby is undersized by today's code standards. There are a series of paths that connect in and out of the building. Based on staff's recommendation we are not removing the skylight. We do show a skylight in the back lobby area that is more of a roof monitor to bring light into one of the walls. We have new seating areas and are making the stage accessible which are two low sloped ramps so that everyone can get to the stage at any given time. Jim Curtis said where the cooler is proposed for the auditorium there is a stand of aspen trees and behind the trees there is an opening. From the Parks Department point of view there is no problem putting the cooler behind the trees which makes it less visible. We have options as to where the fluid cooler could go and how the heating and cooling for the building is handled. Jim pointed out that the heating system is forced air set in concrete. We have redesigned the projection room in order to create more space in the foyer which is undersized. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008 Michael Schoring said with the side walls they are trying to be respectful to the Bayer geometry. There will be patios on either side with TV monitors so that you can see inside from the outside. We are attempting to keep the Bayer ceiling as close to the original as possible. Originally we had duct work within the space and that made the ceiling drop so after further discussion it was determined that the duct work should be out over the roof. We are creating an enclosure to supply air to the auditorium. Jim Curtis said there are two important questions: Why is the Institute proposing this renovation and second why is the seating being increased. The comprehensive renovation could be in excess often million dollars. The intent is to make the building current and viable for the next 50 years. For the last 50 years we have raised money and put band aids on. The energy and enthusiasm at the institute under Water Isaacson and Amy Margerum gives them the opportunity to go out and raise money. Everyone is excited at the institute about the renovation. It would be difficult to raise money and loose seating due to ADA requirements so that is why we are proposing to increase the seating. The local Aspen and Roaring Fork Valley citizens benefit from the increased seating in the summer. The institute does not need the increased seating for their winter programs. With the TV monitors outside you can accommodate another 50 people. Clearly the threshold issue is any demolition of this building good, bad or permitted. If the sense of the board is no demolition we need to know that tonight. Amy Margerum, vice-president of the Aspen Institute. Amy said we have been told by the Community Development department that we have to do certain things even if we do not do any demolition. We want to preserve this building and preserve the Paepcke and Bayer dream. We spent a year with a community committee and there was 100% unanimous approval of doing something like this to the building. Amy also pointed out that there are many other Bayer buildings that have been added onto, demolished and changed over the years. We have heard over and over that the building should be opened up to more people. We are doing this to open the building up to the community. Jim Curtis said if we keep the existing footprint we will loose between 15 to 25 seats. Amy Margerum also pointed out that in the staff memo it stated that 45% of the wall would be demolished. All the walls of this building are important ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MA•Y 28, 2008 and it is 9% of the entire building that will be demolished. It is only 500 square feet and a very simple and modest plan. Sarah asked about the materials of the pushed out walls and the insulation. Michael Shoring said they are proposing to use concrete block. Michael said there is a four inch veneer and a 1 1/2 inch of insulation and an 8 inch block inside. Ann asked about the glazing. Michael Shoring said all the glazing will be changed. We have not identified the system. The system that is there is a thin aluminum. The windows for the theatre in the slots will get replaced and we are also looking at having those window operable. Michael Shoring said there are very few center isles anymore. The presenter looks out to the audience not the isles. Amy pointed out that in the elevation the doors to the stage are not shown. Michael Shoring said with the new seating pattern we found it necessary to add the doors and it is a code requirement. Michael inquired about the demolition. Michael Shoring said all the seats will go away; we will build over the stage to extend it out to accommodate the accessibility. We are also changing the entry sequence. Alison asked when the entire roof is replaced will there be any problems keeping the existing structure around the outside since it is concrete block. Michael Shoring said it is a straight roofing replacement. The hard work is in the auditorium. We have looked at the walls with an engineer and we see no problems. The laminated beams will be left in place and we will add structure. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Lisa Markalunas said she has had a life time experience with this building. The landscape is equally important on this site. There are some of the largest stands of aspen trees on this property. The concern is how the landscape relates to the building. Jim Markalunas said he has some practical issues, the two exit doors. On the north side of the building since it is shady there is a lot of ice buildup and ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008 the exit walkway should be heated. Proper position of benches on the south wall are recommended to provide a seating area as you walk through the institute. The natural vegetation should not be disturbed. The natural pasque lilies only exist on the north bank, the Ute Cemetery and Aspen Grove Cemetery. Steve Falender said his house is right across from the exit of the music tent parking lot. I am completely in favor of renovating the auditorium. The seating should be expanded so that it is a function auditorium for a long period of time. As the entities become more successful they generate an incredible amount of traffic. We need to have the institute get involved with having some kind of control of the parking. The open space doesn't need to be used for parking but right now there is no control over the parking. Amy Margerum offered to help resolve some of the parking issues. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Michael said the first issue is any demolition going to be permitted by the HPC. Jay pointed out that we need to guide the applicant in the best way that we can. Jay said in looking at the guidelines it is clear in 2.1, 6.1 and 10.10 that if we allow some demolition to this building we are basically not complying with the guidelines. If we allow demolition we need to come up with strong reasons to do so. Jay said when we deal with residential historic structures we preserve the historic part of that structure. This plan does not follow that. Do we preserve something that was not the original plan by the architect? Comparing the original building to what was actually built is night and day. Is it our job to preserve what he actually built because of his significance within the architectural community or do we allow the renovation of his original design. Michael pointed out that the property is not landmarked but part of the SPA. Jim Curtis went over the procedures. HPC & P&Z will do a resolution and then both go to city council. If we choose to enact under Ordinance #48 we have a 90 day negotiation period with City council that will not be an appeal hearing. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008 Jim True, city attorney said if HPC applies the criteria and approves the resolution then it moves forward to P&Z and City Council. If HPC denies it they have the right to go into the Ordinance #48, 90 day period. Ann said our mission is to preserve historic resources and the integrity of them. To preserve them we are not just talking about brick and mortar. There are different dimensions. This is a performing arts center and it needs to adapt to different circumstances and requirements. It absolutely has to have ADA compliance. In order to preserve the historic resource in this case you need to preserve the function and the only way to make that successfully is to make the modifications. I do see an important need to upgrade it. In terms of the design the original design is very elegant and exact. All the lines are parallel and the angles are perfect. What we have now are new angles and the outdoor relationships have been destroyed. The landscape is as important as the building. The new design has fragmented the design. You need to work hard to maintain the elegance and very carefully thought relationship of the building to the landscape and to the other buildings on the site. You need a site plan showing the existing trees etc. so that we can see what trees we are going to loose and what trees need to be protected. Sarah said the act of preserving this building is enabling it to live on as its current function. Jay said preservation is not just preserving buildings but preserving open space and land use. That could be the swaying factor to allow the structure to be changed. We need to be in agreement with why we are allowing some demolition to historic resources. Brian also agreed with everything that has been said. This campus needs to be brought up to functionality. Incremental changes over time could be more detrimental than a well thought out plan. There are some small things that could be tweaked to make it better. I am in favor of bringing this structure up to par in order to allow it to function the way it was intended to. I am struggling with the guidelines. Alison said ten years from if we don't make changes this structure will look horrible. This is part of the question of Post War mid-century preservation. It is very different than the tum of the century preservation. These buildings where built differently and a lot of time experimentally. It is important that this building evolve and this building is a community asset. Having the 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008 indoor outdoor relationship is necessary. Alison asked staff if we had guidelines for commercial structures. Amy said we have the guidelines that relate to the commercial districts. The general guidelines as to how to add onto an historic building apply. There are still issues with limiting demolition. Jay said someone mentioned the windows and that they where going to be replaced. Jay pointed out that it was HPC decision to retain the doors on the Red Onion and why wouldn't we retain things on this building to help reach the goals of the remodel. Michael asked Amy to do some research on how other communities handle these situations. Sarah said she looked at the guidelines and found three that support the project. Guidelines are an interpretation and everyone will interpret differently. In this case the addition is sensitive. The landscape plan needs a lot of help. It is up to us to interpret and we have to struggle to work through what we have. The landscape is very significant on this campus. 2.1 We are preserving original materials. This building is intact and the majority of original materials are remaining and being repaired. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. This building is not being altered very much in its shape and form. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Those are the three guidelines that stand out in support of this project. Alison said in essence they could have come forward and said they where going to raise the entire building and build a new auditorium under today's standards. Michael said he is not comfortable moving forward tonight. He would like to know what other communities do in similar situations. Amy Margerum said HPC is just one step. We have to go through P&Z and we are worried about process. Amy pointed out that they need a decision tonight. Amy also agrees with the board on the landscaping and will supply that at final. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008 Michael pointed out that HPC can either approve, disapprove or continue the public hearing. MOTION.• Sarah moved to approve Paepcke Auditorium at the Aspen Institute based on the guidelines stated earlier; second by Alison. Ann said she cannot approve this because the angles are discordant as to what is going on. Jay also agreed that conditions should be placed on the approval. Sarah and Alison both agreed that we are going to be seeing this project again and there is a lot of process to go through. AMENDED MOTION.• Sarah amended the motion and Alison second the amendment. 1. Restudy the new walls (exterior) of the addition to be more sympathetic to the existing portion of the building. 2. Work on a landscape plan that is congruent to Herbert Bayer's designs. The plan has to be acceptable to the HPC. 3. Existing trees to be retained as much as possible and if some need to be removed that we are informed and are part of that process. Trees to be removed should be indicated on a site plan. 4. That the cooler is not put in the proposed location. S. No wall to be built on the walkway. 6. A model be presented at final for us to really understand the mechanical implications of the roof and the new bump (humpback) that is going to be on top of this building. We need to understand everything in three dimensions. Brian requested that the following condition be added to the motion and amended motion. 7. The new overhead door to the deck be looked at more closely and do a design that is more sensitive to the existing architecture. Jay recommended that the windows be restudied and preserved. Jay said the board needs to be careful because we are being asked to move away from our guidelines. We need to be in agreement why we are allowing this to move forward. 8. Restudy all existing materials and preserve them. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008 9. Do not remove any other exterior walls over those indicated on the plan tonight. Jim Curtis stated for the record that they will come back to the HPC on a voluntary basis before going to City Council. Michael said the question is are we going to allow the back third of this building to be demolished so that the project can meet future needs in a better way. Sarah said you need to look at this building as a whole and what is being retained. The majority of this building is being retained. We are talking two walls. Ann pointed out that there are different ways to retain the original glazing and preserve it and meet the energy requirements. Brian said the question is whether we allow this portion that has been brought to us to be demolished. The details that Sarah brought forth should be outlined. Sarah said in no way is this setting a precedent. This is a unique situation. Sarah amended the amended motion to add the recommendations by Jay and Brian, conditions 7,8,9. Alison second all the amendments and recommendations. Sarah made another amendment to include all the changes discussed in the points 1 -9 to include that the applicant will come back to HPC for a workshop that addresses these points before going to city council. Alison second the amendment. Michael said the meeting is for the purpose of HPC providing comments to city council for their first review. Sara pointed out that there is time on the agendas to adopt the proposal in a timely fashion. Jay said in light of what Sara said continuing this hearing and voting down the current motion would not slow the applicant down by any means. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28.2008 Sarah pointed out that HPC is reviewing things that Planning & Zoning is not reviewing. The applicant cannot physically sign up for P&Z unless they have conceptual approval from HPC. MOTION carried 4-2. Vote: Jay, no; Brian, no; Alison, yes; Ann, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes. Isis -Minor Development MOTION.• Sarah moved to continue the public hearing on the Isis until June 11, 2008; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Greenwald Tent at the Aspen Institute Jim Curtis said the Aspen Institute is willing to table the agenda. Public Comments: Paul Taddune: Paul said he represents the Pitkin Reserve homeowners association. Their concern is that this is going to be a temporary solution for one or two years and the concern is the color and landscaping. Maybe the color of the tent could be muted so that it doesn't stand out and harmonizes. Amy Margerum talked about their search for a tent that will fit into the landscaping. They are still searching. Lisa Markalunas said in respect to the native landscaping the river bluff is very important. In the application there where no references to trash facilities. There is a real bear problem along the river bank. As part of their permanent facility there should be permanent bear proof trash dumpsters that are a sufficient size and that they fit into the landscape. Pitkin Preserve planted trees in order to shield the impact from the white tent. The tent is only going to be up a couple of months of the year which is preferable than all year round. Also on the north side of the root path catering trucks etc. should not have full access to park along the sage meadow. Lisa's letter was entered into the record. MOTION.• Sarah moved to continue the public hearing on the Greenwald Tent until July 23'd; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn, second by Alison. All in favor, mot' n tarn d. Mee g adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13