HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20080723ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2008
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin, and Brian McNellis
and Sarah Broughton. Nora Berko and Alison Agley where excused.
Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk _ . _.
Public, Caroline Stewart said she spent the winter here and rode Lift I in
1948. She was at Willoughby Park last week and it is a true gem. She hopes
that the HPC keeps the park if at all possible.
Paepcke Auditorium 1000 N. Third Street
Amy said at the last meeting HPC asked the applicant to come back before
they proceed to other commissions to resolve as much as possible.
Michael Shoring, architect for the Paepcke Auditorium.
Jim Curtis, representing the Aspen Institute.
August Hasz, Resource Engineering Group. Mechanical engineer working
on Geothermal for the Institute.
Amy Margerum, Executive Vice-president of the Aspen Institute.
Jim said we are working on an upgraded cooling system for the Paepcke
building. We do not want to locate it on the roof top as it is quite large. It is
six feet wide, 12 feet long and 8 to ten feet high. We have looked at
alternative places and the Institute wants to be a leader in the environmental
movement. The idea would be to do a geothermal that would provide
cooling and heating and size it so that we can tie into the existing Koch
building. The proposed pond location and configuration need restudied. We
also need to find out what kind of safety features are needed around the
pond. From a visual point of view fencing would not be appropriate around
the pond. Another area for the pond would be across the service road. If we
don't do the pond we can do a fluid cooler. The benefits for the pond are
that it eliminates the large piece of equipment and provides cooling in the
summer and also provides supplemental heating in the winter. The fluid
cooler only supplements the cooling system for the summer. The projected
savings for gas and electric in the Doer Hosier are 40%.
1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23.2008
Michael Shoring went over the power point presentation. The two additions
on either side of the auditorium have been revised and there has not been
any change in the administrative wing. The floor plan indicates where the
trees will be removed. On the entry areas we are still looking at removing
the projection booth from the lobby and pushing that into the auditorium.
The most significant thing that we are looking at are the use of the shifting
walls and slot windows. In the profile of the building it shows how the
original walls step down sharply to echo the mountains surrounding the
building.
There is a small revision to the patio on the south side. On the northern side
there is a stepped connection into the patio so that you can come out of the
exit doors and out the side doors to the patio. With the revised patio we are
able to have ADA access from the Paepcke and Koch buildings.
There are new walls and we want to take the existing slot windows and use
those in a new way, re-centering of the new opening to the north and south.
The large door and glazing above would echo the slot windows and the
mullions would align with the existing windows and joint lines as they do
now.
There was discussion about mechanical duct work. Through studies it
would be better to move the duct work outside and onto the roof. In doing
so it would allow us to replace the existing ceiling and get the duct work out
of the auditorium so we present ourselves with a better acoustical situation.
The mechanicals will be enclosed on the roof in the shape of the existing
roof and less visible from the ground. The building has very poor air quality
so we need to install new duct work. If the duct work where inside the
auditorium we would have to drop the ceiling 24 inches which would affect
our acoustics.
Michael Shoring went over additional changes for the auditorium and
answered clarifications.
Jim discussed the proposed doors, windows and materials.
Michael Shoring said they are preserving the existing masonry surfaces.
The roofing will be changed and the windows on the auditorium will be
changed. The slot windows will be custom built to look exactly like the
existing ones. The windows are a big problem. The front doors are not
going to be replaced.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23.2008
August Hasz said the existing windows have an R value of less than 1. If we
where to increase the windows to today's standards we would get a 20%
reduction in the heating and cooling energy load which translates to about a
20% reduction in the carbon footprint. The windows are a key item for
certification of the building. The auditorium is not insulated. In the
administrative wing there is fiberglass insulation. We can use spray foam to
get some portions of the roof up to code. With the auditorium we don't
intend to change the auditorium walls because the masonry on both sides is a
key part to the experience of the building. In the administrative wing the
glass system is the vast majority of the walls.
Amy asked if there was anything else that could be done with the windows
instead of replacing them to increase the R value.
August said the windows are not that leaky and the seals could be better but
that is about all you can do. The actual performance of the glass is single
pane glass and there is nothing that you can do to make that glass better.
Also the frames are a conducting nightmare and they would have to be
replaced. One of the great things about double glazing is that it is applied to
the interior surface of the glass. The low E coating and the air gap are the
two things that make insulation. August also said one of the issues is that
the windows are operable.
Amy pointed out that this is not a noticed public hearing.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan asked if anyone in the public wanted to
make comments on the project. There where no public comments.
Michael identified the issues:
1. Restudy the new walls (exterior) of the addition to be more sympathetic to
the existing portion of the building.
Ann said the plan presented is very successful in terms of the use of space.
The soft windows work very nicely as they repeat what is going on with the
rest of the building as does the overhead door.
Jay said he would like to see the garage door bigger. Ann said with the eight
foot door the end walls can match and if it was wider that couldn't occur.
The board concurred with Ann's comments.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2008
2. Work on a landscape plan that is congruent to Herbert Bayer's designs.
The plan has to be acceptable to the HPC.
Jim Curtis said the only landscape is that there will be several trees removed
around the building. Other than that we are not proposing to do anything
other than to re-grass any disturbed areas and make the connection into the
patio.
Sarah said the success is connecting the courtyard to the building. The path
that goes from the Institute and around the building seems disconnected and
opening up the building will tie the path together to the building.
Brian said the concept sketches address all the connections which are
necessary to tie to the patio.
Jim Curtis said their objective is to create ADA access from Paepcke to the
Koch building and from Paepcke to the patio.
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.
Michael said the board has already discussed trees and some elements of the
landscape plan.
Ann inquired about the pond. Jim Curtis said they need to accommodate
about 300,000 gallons of water between depth and surface in the pond. The
pond shown on the diagram is the appropriate scale. The existing pond
would be integrated into the crescent pond. Ann said having the large body
of water where currently there is a small pond would not be the right
approach. An option would be having grasses and then integrate the pond as
an art element.
Sarah inquired about geothermal and ground source. August said they are
the same thing. August said ground exchange is called geoexchange. Sarah
said you could do ground heat without a pond. August said the only way to
do the geo exchange without a pond or water element is to lay pipe in the
ground. The vertical bore holes that we would need would be 25,000 feet of
pipe. That would be five plus miles of pipe drilled vertically. You are
talking $400,000 to $500,000 dollars worth of drilling and we would have to
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2008
rip up the entire parking lot and re-asphalt it. To redo the pond would be
about $90,000.
Brian asked if the landscape around the pond is the original historic
landscape. Amy Margerum said no, only Anderson Park is historic.
Jim Curtis said the Institute has to look at the existing pond area and the
second alternative to determine which one they like and then come back to
the HPC.
Amy Margerum said the SPA includes a landscape submittal.
Brian said he would not out rule the expansion of the existing ponds if they
are not the original historic configuration.
Jay also agreed with Brian. Jay asked how the pond is kept from freezing in
the winter. August explained that the thickest you will ever get built up is 8
to 10 inches. Once that happens you won't have evaporative loss. The pond
will stay around 38 degree and the system can function with degrees as cold
as 25 degree.
Ann said she would encourage the Institute to keep exploring the geo
exchange as opposed to mechanical heating and cooling.
4. That the cooler is not put in the proposed location.
Michael said the applicant said the cooler is not going to be in the proposed
location but they haven't decided where it will go.
5. No wall to be built on the walkway.
Michael said the applicant has stated they will not install the walkway.
6. A model to be presented at final for us to really understand the
mechanical implications. Michael said the model has been provided.
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.
Michael said the applicant has succeeded in changing the architecture.
8. Restudy all existing materials and preserve them. Michael asked the
board how they felt about the existing materials being preserved.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2008
Brian said if gaining certification requires changing out the windows that is
something I can support as long as it is done within the character of the
building.
Sarah agreed. We are lucky that these windows can be replicated.
Jay said in order to support changing out the windows he would like
information on how the applicant came to that conclusion. Replacing
original materials goes against our guidelines. Replacing the windows with
abetter material could be supported if the applicant provides documentation
as to why they can't be saved.
August said a single pane window can never get the performance of a double
pane window. The existing frames are conductive nightmares. There are
three things that go into calculating performance; center glass U value, the U
value of the frame and the infiltration which is the air moving through the
glass. You can't ad another layer and the only thing that can be done is a
storm window.
Amy said with Victorian houses we require the windows to be preserved
because they are examples of craftsmanship. Storm windows on the exterior
have been used in the past.
Sarah said the HPC has a responsibility to make buildings no rely on
mechanized systems for heating and cooling. We have the opportunity to
replicate these windows so the building can be used for another 50 years.
9. Do not remove any other exterior walls over those indicated on the plan
tonight. Jim Curtis said no other walls have been removed.
Brian addressed the air duct system on the roof. As seen from the front and
back the systems fit in the symmetry of the building. The concern is seeing
it from the fapade on the side of the building.
Greenwald Pavilion
Amy said the HPC did a site visit and the Institute has researched tents. We
need to address the landscape and hear the neighbors concerns. The
applicant has found a company called Tent technology in which the tent has
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2008
a lot more peaked forms. The entry canopies proposed have been withdrawn
from the application. We had previous discussions about the sides of the
tent possibly being mesh which gives it a more open character. We also had
discussions on the color to see if there are any other options other than
white. Staff supports white for at least the roof because that is consistent
with the white roofs across the campus. Maybe the rear elevation which
faces the neighborhoods could be treated in another way. There has been
discussion of landscaping the rear but staff is concerned because we do not
want to create rows of trees that aren't typically used on the campus. The
institute rents their chairs but they would like to purchase chairs and store
them somewhere, possibly under the tent. What is proposed now is a
separate tent structure and staff would like to discuss storing them under the
tent. Staff is recommending approval with conditions.
Jim Curtis represents the Aspen Institute
Jim said the existing tent is 60 x 120 and is not very attractive. We
completely agree that the white canvas is too reflective and cold white. We
also agree that the plastic walls are ugly and reflective and we would like
those changed. We would like feedback on the general shape of the tent and
the color. We are proposing a mosquito netting for the sides. The back
sidewall could be a different color. The tent company out of British
Columbia, Canada does tents on an international basis. They have off the
shelf tents and can do custom tents. The discussion with the HPC should be
how can we get a nicer tent and what constitutes a nicer tent. We also need
to discuss how often the tent goes up and down and how long it stays up. In
summation the tent proposed with the peaks and metal structure can come in
any color. The tent is available in the same size as the existing tent.
Sarah said the height is 23.2 feet to the peak. How does that relate to the
existing tent? The existing height is 23 feet.
Jay asked if the slab would increase the height. Jim said no.
Michael asked if the applicant had alternative locations. Amy clarified that
possibly the tent could be oriented differently at the same location.
Jim said from a zoning point of view we could use the Marble garden or
Anderson Park but both are historic and would have substantial impacts.
There really aren't any other appropriate locations.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2008
Michael asked if the applicant considered other orientations. Amy
Margerum said there is the concern with the sage and we wanted to protect
it. We want to use the pad that we have already created.
Chairperson Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Nancy Bryant wanted to know how many people complained about the color
of the tent etc.
Amy Margerum said we have had 5 to 10 people who live across the river
that are concerned with the color.
Nancy said we love this institute and we need it and we benefit from it. I am
in complete favor of the tent.
Paul Taddune, attorney representing the homeowner association for Pitkin
Reserve. Exhibit I photograph of the tent. The tent presents a glaring sore
thumb from their view plane. If in fact the institute is attempting to be
responsive the tent is in people's back yard and hopefully something can be
done to mitigate. This is a big box with no architectural treatment right there
in the middle and the color is stark white and stands out. The Pitkin Reserve
residents look at this every day.
Michael said in the memo it was mentioned about taking the tent up and
down. Amy said it might be questioned in the SPA which would involve
Planning and Zoning and Council.
Jim said if we took the tent down the steel structure would be up and the
vinyl would come down. The institute at this point is not interested in taking
the tent up and down. We need more technical information with the new
design as to how complicated that would be. The tent will be in the range of
$250,000. It is a nicer design and that is an incentive to keep it up. Taking
it up and down has a lot more wear and tear on the tent.
Gretchen Greenwood suggested lowering the tent in the ground. Jim Curtis
said maybe we can look at lowering it a foot but the issue is as you bring it
down in height the drainage problem becomes an issue.
Fred Pierce, attorney representing one of the homeowners across the river,
Helen Stone. With regard to taking the tent up and down during the course
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2008
of the summer the neighbors have been in communication with the Institute
for the past three years. When the Institute came recently and discussed
going with a permanent permit for the tent they offered and said they only
need the tent for 3 to 6 events per year. They said they where willing to take
it down. That will be addressed by P&Z. The concern is that the staff
recommends a white roof. How does that white roof fit in with anything in
the context of what the neighbors are looking at? It looks like a circus tent.
If a less white color is used there will be less impact.
Paul Taddune said this is a collaborative effort and the more you work at it
you achieve a better result. There is a lot to be done and we can all work
together to do something that benefits everyone.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Michael said the board should limit the discussion to mass and scale. Color
and reflectivity will be addressed at final. The issues are the height and
shape of the roof line, location and the design of the tent.
Amy pointed out that the applicant is proposing a temporary storage tent and
staff is recommending putting the storage in some other area possibly under
the floor of the tent.
Jim Curtis said the Institute would like to hear the feedback on color of the
tent from the board.
Mass and scale of the roof line.
Jay pointed out that the points of the tent are the same height of the current
ridge line and then the points dip down so in essence you are decreasing the
mass.
Brian said one of the things that make this a stark contrast with the people
living across the river is that it is very much a rectilinear structure and has
very straight lines and appears hard and cold. It doesn't respond to the
background in anyway. The proposed tent has more of an organic element
and undulations.
Sarah said her concern is that the height is 23.2 to the apex. Maybe there is
away so that it doesn't have to be so peaked. As a suggestion maybe the
tent company can work on the peaks so that they are somewhat blunted.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2008
Ann also agreed that the peaked roof works well. Once the landscaping is
done it will help screen the back side of the tent.
Michael said the length and width of the new tent is approximately the same
as the existing tent. HPC members had no problems with the dimensions.
Brian said possibly the width could be widened. Jay pointed out that there is
a path behind the tent and that needs to be taken into consideration.
Amy Margerum said they can look at the site and see if it can be tweaked.
We are concerned about the impacts on the existing trees. Amy said they
would be glad to restudy the rectilinear dimensions.
Michael said the next suggestion was from Gretchen Greenwood about
sinking the structure.
Sarah said there are issues such as ramps and drainage. Presently this is a
temporary structure and all of a sudden it becomes permanent. Brian agreed
sinking the tent would require a lot of challenges. Ann said with the design
presented and the additional spruce trees it is very acceptable without
investigating lowering the structure. Jay said with the approval of the tent
the cement pad will be poured and it might be worth studying to see if it is
feasible for the Institute to sink it. Sarah said there are a lot of other issues
such a footers etc. that would be involved with sinking a structure and then
all of a sudden we have a permanent structure.
Amy Margerum said the Institute would not be interested in sinking the tent.
Ann said if you sink it and the tent goes down then you are dealing with
negative space throughout the year. You will also have to have some kind of
ramps installed.
Michael said the consensus is that the HPC will not require the applicant to
sink the structure.
Michael said the next question is whether or not we are going to require
them to include storage as part of the foundation. The board agreed that no
additional structure is allowed for storage.
t0
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2008
Michael said another issue is the landscape plan. Jim Curtis said in the
application booklet we propose 14 additional spruce trees.
Discussion on color and reflectivity.
Jay pointed out that the concern is how this structure impacts the historic
resource. That is probably the reason why staff suggested white because
there is so much white at the Aspen Institute. Jay said he is open to the color
and is sympathetic to the neighbors. Ann said her concern is the reflectivity.
A range of whites could be acceptable.
MOTION: Jay made the motion to approve the tent, Greenwald Pavilion
and restudy the length and width of the tent and placement on the existing
location. The flat concrete pad is approved. The storage tent is not being
approved due to lack of information; motion second by Brian.
Discussion
Amy said one suggestion was to restudy the north side that is visible from
the Pitkin Green area. The other issue is the wires that come out from the
tent as they might interfere with the trail.
Amy Margerum pointed out that the decorative aspects of the tent change
with each event.
All in favor, motion carried.
1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation
Nancy Bryant, owner
Gretchen Greenwood, architect
Amy said this is our first discussion under Ordinance #48. Any property
that is listed can have a 90 day discussion to see what benefits can be offered
regarding designation. The property owner brought in a remodel and staff
reviewed it. HPC is to review the project to determine its preservation. The
property is on Waters Avenue and built in 1964. The building is an example
of a modern chalet. The building has a shallow roof form and extending
eaves. If the property where designated the benefits would be a reduction in
the impact fees; setback variances; a potential FAR bonus and the possibility
of transfer development rights. This property is zoned R-15 and the
minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet and this lot is 9,000 square feet. It is
11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2008
legal non-conforming and established when the subdivision was created.
Because it is under the minimum lot size it is only allowed to have a single
family house on it. As a landmark the option for a duplex would be
available and that also increases the FAR about 400 more square feet and
with the potential FAR bonus you are talking 900 square feet more as an
option. There has been conflicting information about the status of the house.
Some of the drawings provided refer to the house as a duplex. We don't
know the exact situation but a duplex is not allowed. A single family is only
the allowed use. Our records indicate that there is nothing in the files that
indicate this is a legal duplex.
Michael asked if an integrity assessment was done on the property. Amy
said none was performed.
Gretchen Greenwood said the tax assessor listed the house as being built in
1964 but it was effectively rebuilt in 1979. That is less than 30 years old and
the house has had so many changes. Being built in 1979 it wouldn't even
qualify to be on the list. It has been added onto and the garage was put on.
The roof lines have also been changed and walls have been pushed out.
Since it has been rebuilt in 1979 we feel that should be taken into
consideration. The owners do not want this house maintained on the list.
This came up last year and Nancy hired me to do a bedroom addition on the
front part of the property. I was very aware of the setback standards and the
addition would be in the setbacks so I designed the addition by basically
taking it down to its foundation and built it right back up. We used recycled
materials and whatever we could get to keep the costs down. We are
proposing an addition Sept. 16`h to the Planning & Zoning commission and
we meet all of the current zoning of the two bedroom addition. We are not
going to our full FAR; it is not a development project. It is a family owned.
The three owners do not want to go through an elaborate Historic
Preservation Commission program negotiation approval process. They do
not want the property encumbered. They want to just put an addition on and
probably sell as is some time down the road. The grandchildren come and
they need more space. They have no interest in the additional FAR. The
fact that the house got caught on the list last year but my research states that
it was built in 1979. We are going for a design variance for the non-
orthogonal windows. We hope to go in front of the Planning & Zoning and
get a fair hearing.
Nancy Bryant, owner
12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23.2008
This house was built in three stages. The back part is the original. The front
part was a garage and the third part was built as a studio in 1986. What
happened was when the owner remarried he married a woman with more
children so they took the part that had been the garage and made it into
apartments and set it up for the older girls. We have three sections of the
house. You enter the house and go up the stairs and then go down stairs.
The house was built on the old Glory Hole dump. The last part of the house
that was built in 1986 is below grade. It is almost four feet below grade.
Gretchen said there is a FAR reduction on the site because of the slope. We
still with this addition are 500 square feet below what we could have with
the total development. It does have a kitchen in it and you could use it as a
duplex but it really one single family home. It doesn't matter whether it is a
duplex on not. There is one kitchen and that kitchen is coming out with the
addition of the bedroom.
Nancy Bryant said this house keeps being mentioned as a Skier Chalet. This
is hardly a skier chalet. It is a one story house, it is an A frame house. You
can buy the plans on the Internet. We are trying to keep the look of the
house with the addition. We need room for 12 people and this house is
already going to our grand children. We have bathrooms that are 3x5 and a
kitchen that isn't big enough to put a casserole out on. The existing roof is
collapsing and we have a lot of structural issues.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing.
Jack Wilkie said he is a property owner on the list and his house is a chalet.
There are around 40 houses on the Ord. #481ist. Of those there are only 7
that are chalets. If you look at those houses they are all different. It is hard
to discern a thread that runs through all of those houses. I am on the review
task force. One of the criteria of getting on the list is that these are clean
houses without modifications. This application has a lot of modifications.
This is a confusing issue and I hope HPC doesn't get too onerous with these
applicants.
Marsha Cook said we need to preserve examples of things that are of high
quality and really good. When it comes to the integrity scoring one of the
things we are faced with in the task force is, there is really not any criteria
for some of the houses that fall into these categories. How do you evaluate
something and say it is representative of something really good when you
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2008
don't have the criteria to evaluate it. I personally think if something is
designated it should be of high standards.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan closed the public hearing.
Michael said the integrity assessment is a large portion of the decision
process as to whether this house should be designated or not.
Jim True, city attorney said the application before you is not in the true
traditional sense. If you make the determination that this application needs
further discussion and negotiation then you would recommend to the council
that they continue negotiations and see if they can offer to the applicant such
that would allow the applicant to get where they want to get and allow the
designation.
Amy said Sarah's memo is successful in showing the board pictures of the
developing trend for modern chalets.
Jay pointed out as this whole era of modern chalets continues to evolve there
are things that need to be taken into consideration that might not be assessed.
The board should not just use the integrity assessment form. The evolution
of a home throughout the last 25 years is historic. Michael also agreed with
Jay that it is not must the integrity assessment. We need to define clearly
what modern chalet is.
Brian said he feels the building has been altered significantly from the
streetscape as it blocks the original structure.
Sarah suggested a site visit and continuation.
Michael said the integrity of this process must be maintained. Staff will
provide us with the additional information for the next meeting.
MOTION.• Sarah moved to continue 1005 Waters Ave. with the condition
that an integrity assessment is brought forward and the history of
development on the site are provided. A site visit is recommended. Motion
second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried.
14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2008
Jim True, attorney asked Nancy Bryant if the HPC could go onto her
property for a site visit. Gretchen said she would agree to the site visit as
long as the property owner was present.
MOTION.• Jay moved to adjourn; second by Brian. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meetin adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
./L~/l~%(~--tip
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
15