Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20081112ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 1000 N. Third Street -Aspen Institute - Paepcke auditorium -Final ............................... 1 1000 N. Third Street -Aspen Institute -Greenwald Pavilion -Final ............................... 6 1006 E. Cooper -work session - no minutes ................................................................... 12 Red Onion project monitoring issues - no minutes .......................................................... 12 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 Co-chair Sarah Broughton called the meeting to order at 5.00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin, Brian McNellis and Nora Berko. Michael Hoffman was excused. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve Sept. 24th and Oct.8th minutes as amended, second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Sarah will recuse herself on the Paepcke Auditorium and the Red Onion project, monitoring. Jay Maytin chaired. 1000 N. Third Street -Aspen Institute -Paepcke auditorium -Final Amy said the proposal is for an expansion just over 600 square feet which is to add 50 to 60 new seats in the auditorium and then there are upgrades proposed for energy efficiency, mechanical equipment and ADA compliance. At final we review window and door replacements, details, geo thermal pond, light fixtures and handrails. Windows and doors: In general HPC would prefer to preserve the original windows with the Victorians specifically due to the craftsmanship and old wood. In this case the original manufacturer will be making the replacement windows for this project. Staff still suggests this be done carefully. Possibly there are windows that have a craftsmanship type of quality that should be preserved or can't be accurately replicated. Possibly the slot windows in the auditorium can be insulated from the interior and preserved. The applicant is proposing that the windows be operable. We need to be clear that when dimensions are replicated reflectivity etc. we need to make sure that the windows match the existing and that should be handled through staff and monitor. The original front doors and the skylight are being retained. There are doors affected by the building code. Staff and monitor can work with the Building Department to determine if there are any exceptions. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 On the new construction there has been refinement to the overhead doors. The geothermal pond -the site plan includes three options. One in the foreground of the seminar building, two is near the north property line which is no longer feasible due to utility lines. Option three it is tucked on the south side over an embankment which is the most unobtrusive. Staff is recommending final approval with all the suggestions and conditions. Jim Curtis, represented the Aspen Institute. Michael Schnoering, architect Jim Curtis did a power point on the proposal. The geothermal pond is proposed to be located southwest of the building. The Parks Department is supportive of this location. It is the least impacted. We would like to spread as much of the dirt material as possible instead of trucking it out. It would be between 18 inches on site and we would sod over it. It would be sloped down over the embankment. The entry concrete walk has been patched at least three or four times and it is also not ADA accessible. We would like to make the curb ADA accessible. To replace the entry concrete the stairs need replaces but we would not touch anything on the landing. It would give it a uniform new treatment. There are also several handrails on the property. We are willing to go back and replicate everything to the original handrail. Michael Schnoering said the overhead door has been altered slightly and it is more vertical and narrower to get better proportions throughout the auditorium. There was mention of the replacement of the north and south doors. They are currently double doors single pane. For proper egress we are proposing to make those single doors with side lights. Jim Curtis said possibly the Building Dept. will allow the width of the double doors to remain and we would replace them exactly as is. Michael said the foyer doors are being widened for egress. On the front elevation the main doors are remaining. Michael went over the window proposal. The windows are custom and built in place. Each pane of glass is set in place. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 Jim Curtis said we did look at making some of the slot windows operable but determined that it wasn't feasible. Railings: Jim Curtis said the original mesh was 4x4 squares. The idea would be to increase the square tubing to 1 1/2 inch by 11 /2 inch. Where the mesh is not required by the building code which is basically if you are less than 30 inches we propose to eliminate the mesh. Michael S. said the north and south side doors hidden behind the wing wall, the doors are double doors that would go to a single wood door. We would like to change the egress doors from wood to metal and paint them. Jim Curtis pointed out that on the entry under the concrete overhang there is two feet of gravel for drainage and none on the other sides. Drainage is going into the basement. We are proposing to come up eight inches from existing and put in a foot of gravel to get positive drainage. We will retain the existing skylight and maintain it and frame around it. Michael S. said there are two lighting components. Soffit lights and building mounted lighting by the doors. The roofing membrane will match the existing and will be painted to match the .existing color. Proof of posting -Exhibit I Lighting profile- Exhibit II Nora asked if the pond could be moved north of the Koch building. Jim said if it was moved north it would start to infringe on Anderson Park. Amy Guthrie said on the doors that need replaced for egress instead of having two skinny leaves we go with one door a little wider with a mullion. We tend to do that instead of adding side lights. If you have to have two skinny leaves they should be popped open at the same time. Amy Guthrie asked if the seats in the auditorium were old. Michael S. said they did not know but they are in bad condition. The intent is to replace all the chairs. Jay inquired about the graveling and if any trees would be removed. Michael said nothing will change. Jay also asked about the geo thermal 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 pond and if it required fencing? Michael S. said it probably will but we do not know the details with the Building Department. You would see it but the hope is to not have any fencing. There will beaten foot lip on the pond and then you go down. Nora asked about the demolition of the original wall and original Bayer materials. Jim C. said 641inear feet or 8.2% of the total building. Brian asked about the doors on the side of the stage that are going to be added. Michael S. said the doors are a building code requirement. We need additional exits from the stage level. Brian said essentially we are eliminating two doors and relocating them. Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Ann explained that there are a few things that don't work with the pond in the option 3 location. It is an undisturbed landscape and we only have a few areas of those left in town. We are also loosing the ditch system and it is an historic part of this campus. We already lost part of the ditch system on Main Street. If a fence ends up happening around the pond that is another visual intrusion into the landscape. Maybe there is another landscaping that has been disturbed that would work. Nora said she supports geo thermal for heating but it has to be placed in an area that works without infringing on natural landscapes. Jim Curtis said they share the same concern on the pond. This is a good location for the pond and does disturb some native grasses but they would be put back. The intent is not to attract people there. Ann said she objected to the location of the pond but if there was another way to integrate it architecturally that could be looked at. Brian said if you are going to construct new hand railing the mesh should be incorporated with it whether it is required by code or not. Ann disagreed with Brian because it would just add to the clutter. I would rather see the tubing and the clear lines. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 Nora pointed out that the mesh has been added; it is not original. Brian pointed out that the subtleness on the additions is important. The lighting is appropriate and simple and doesn't take away from the architecture. MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #29 for the Aspen Institute, Paepcke auditorium with the following amendments: 1. Take a look at the concrete sidewalks and find out what was there originally and restoring it appropriately and work with staff and monitor. Allow getting rid of the curb for a curb ramp. 2. On condition #4, option #3 is not supported. Nora second. Condition #S add where the mesh is not required therefore it doesn't have to be installed. Condition #4 direct them to restudy some other geothermal option. Nora second the amendment. Roll call, Brian, no; Jay, no; Ann, yes; Nora, yes. Motion dies 2-2. Jay said if we don't put the pond where it is, it is probably not feasible to have geothermal heating or cooling. Jim Curtis said he walked the property and this is the only area that works. Nora said she needs to understand the fencing and other options. MOTION: Brian moved to approve resolution #29 for the Aspen Institute, Paepcke Auditorium with the following additional amendments: #4. Keep condition and add if a fence is required by nature of the Building Department the location will be deemed not acceptable and the applicant will have to come back with further studies of alternate locations to the commtsston. Allow the curb ramp. #S add where mesh is not required therefore it doesn't have to be installed. Sidewalk replacement will be reviewed by staff and monitor. Motion second by Jay. Jay said he feels the trade offs are there for the future and hopefully the applicant will find a way to have a pond that is not visible. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Jay, yes; Ann, no; Nora, yes. Motion carried 3-1. 1000 N. Third Street -Aspen Institute -Greenwald Pavilion -Final Sarah was seated. Amy Guthrie said conceptual was granted in July. The institute looked at a tent that was more architectural for the site. There has been a tent on this site for four or five seasons. It is used for the Aspen Ideas Festival and other similar events. The tent is a seasonal tent. The applicant also has to go to the P&Z for an SPA amendment and part of that process was a DRC review. Recently that process has brought up requirements that the applicant was not anticipating. The Fire Dept. is requiring a paved access right up to the tent and a turnaround. There are also some significant utility lines crossing the area where the tent was proposed. Staff has determined that the project is not ready for final because there are additional things that need to be worked out with the other agencies. Jim Curtis, represented the Aspen Institute. Joede Schoeberlein, architect Jim Curtis said the tent is proposed to be up from June 30t" to August 20t", that is seven weeks and three days. Based on the drawings that are up the design is much nicer. It seems like we are in a procedural loop. We need to get to P&Z and City Council and keep the project moving. Amy Margerum, Vice-president of the Aspen Institute Amy pointed out that they submitted for a tent in 2007. They got caught up in ordinance #48 and we have gone along with everything. When HPC approved conceptual they asked us to look at alternative locations and we did and we have worked with various departments. We have put in the Fire Departments requirement of a turn around and it was no big deal. We then got a staff report today that indicates we need to go back to conceptual. From an HPC design this hasn't changed much. We feel you have all the information. The design hasn't changed and we would like to hear your input. We are trying to get this up for the Aspen Ideas Festival late in June. We need to order the tent in January in order to get it up. We are more than willing to invest in landscaping, address colors and screening. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 Jay said he is in agreement with staff. It is not just relocating the tent. There have been alternations from the beginning and it should go back to conceptual. Sarah asked Amy and the applicant to clarify what changes occurred from conceptual. Amy Guthrie clarified that she is not suggesting that they have to do conceptual again; I'm suggesting we are not ready for final because some of the issues are not ironed out yet. There is a new DRC scheduled for this. I am suggesting final be continued until the DRC issues are worked out. Amy Margerum said we are fine with that as long as we don't get delayed. We want HPC feedback on the design of the tent. Jim Curtis said the drawing indicates the tent that was presented at conceptual. The other change is that the tent has been shifted to be outside the water and sanitation easements and we have incorporated the fire lanes and turnaround. Amy Guthrie said at conceptual we discussed moving. the tent southward so there weren't so many conflicts with the little paths going behind the structure and in fact it is moving northward. There is also a more formalized terrace proposed. Jim Curtis said on the terrace we are proposing a crushed gravel. It would be the same kind of material that is in the Paepcke memorial garden. It is rather a gathering place or entry rather than a terrace. Having the entry makes the tent have a greater sense of entry where people can talk. This better defines the tent. Amy Guthrie also pointed out that DRC has requested three porta-potties be installed because it is too far to Koch seminar. Jim Curtis pointed out that the tent is treated as a structure by the Building Department even though it is only going to be up seven weeks. It is not the distance. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 Joede S. said the distance isn't the issue it is the issue of maximum people in the building. The porta potties would be need for a very large event. Amy Guthrie said at conceptual the pad was approved and there was discussion of the wires that come out from the tent. Brian said as he recalls the placement of the tent was a visual issue. It is helpful to listen to the public comments. Jay asked the applicant how we went from a small path to the tent to a 40 foot semicircle with two entrances. That is different from conceptual. Sarah pointed out that the entrance is a landscape issue that can be dealt with at final. Joede pointed out if the walls are closed we still need four entrances. Sarah asked if the height of the tent has remained at 23.2. Jim Curtis said the low points are ten inches higher than what were there and the peaks are higher. Amy Guthrie pointed out the requirements for conceptual. For the applicant to go back to conceptual HPC has to determine if the changes are substantial. Staff is recommending that we delay but not go back. Jay said the dipping down points are now at the previous ridge line and the points are six feet higher than they were. We are increasing the mass. Sarah said conceptual was approved July 23rd and it included the tent as we see it and the height have changed since that approval. Jay said he pointed out that the points of the tent where are the current height of the ridge line and he made the motion. Brian said it is three feet higher from conceptual. The top of the peaks are 23.2 and now we are talking 26 something. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 Sarah said we approved that tent in July and why do we not have that same tent today and can we get that same tent. Jim Curtis said he will go back and do some more research. He cannot give us an exact answer. Sarah said there is a mistake here and they need to come back with the tent that was approved at conceptual. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. Paul Taddune, Pitkin Reserve Paul said his recollection is that HPC approved something in the abstract. Exhibit I -comments Exhibit II -Photograph from Paul Taddune Exhibit III - e-mail from Elyse Elliott regarding the difficult parking situation. Paul said the main issue is that the tent is being moved to the north and preventing the possibility of having sufficient landscaping to minimize the impact of the tent from the northern side of town. The additional height will create more intrusion. The main problems are the easements and if they are going to relocate the tent and create a concrete platform over the utilities. Amy Margerum said it is going to be asphalt. Paul said that might be a good argument to moving it south and you would have more room for landscaping. There is a concern that the see through mesh would allow for more noise. The association also had a concern on the length. Mike Morgan, Pitkin Reserve: Mike said the tent when we bought was supposed to be temporary. The more you add to it, it seems to become permanent. The service cart is not a golf cart. With the cart going back and forth it is somewhat of an eye sore. The fire lane will also create more of an eye sore. The sidewalk they moved comes right up to the property line which means the service vehicle is more visible. The height difference is also an issue. Amy Margerum said we asked for a tent because we had so many different events going on. We are asking only for the pad to be permanent. It is 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 difficult because we are dealing with so many different boards and the neighbors. The tent is up in the summer for 7 weeks. We have taken out the food service and the noise for the neighbors. We have agreed to the color and the mesh that you can see through. We have looked at every other location and there are none. Mike said the tent has been moved and there is only a small area to landscape for the tent. Brian asked who owned the adjacent property. Jim said the City owns the property between the river and the tent. If that is the case there is a lot of opportunity to work with the City of Aspen to allow additional landscaping between there and the river if that is appropriate. Amy Margerum said the Institute will be willing to work with the neighbors on the landscaping plan and we will pay for the necessary cleaning. Patty Morgan, Pitkin Reserve Possibly the tent can move south again or it could stay in its original location. Fred Pierce reiterated two points. This has grown in size and on the west, North West corner of the building it has moved closer to the neighbors about 50 feet closer and three feet higher. The landscaping is an issue. The applicant has been very easy to work with and considerate to the neighbors. They recognize they have an impact on us. Jim Curtis said on a technical level Joede and I can work on some issues. Part of the reason the height changed at conceptual we showed you a typical tent that was 50 feet wide and it 200 feet long. When you increase the width to 60 feet to keep the same proportions requested of the original tent, the height or peaks changed. Sarah asked if the board's concerns have been addressed. Jim True said it is up to the board to determine if there have been substantial changes to the conceptual approval. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 Nora pointed out that tents have been a part of this property forever. Having a tent there is totally in context. This new tent has a much more new shape that fits in with what was there previously. Ann said she is inclined to accept this with some conditions. The proportions are basically the same and it really isn't a change. The location works better with the rest o the plan throughout the site. In terms of the landscaping with the neighbors, possibly we can work with the City to do some plantings on the other side of the path and come up with some large deciduous trees which would screen it during the summer. The fire lane is unfortunate and it will be required no matter where the tent is. The large terrace out front tends to add to the permanence and it somewhat becomes a scar on the landscape. It needs to be a smaller area. Sarah said the commission is divided and the applicant should come back with the height and mass of the proposed tent and work with the different agencies to find out if there are any other options or if we are committed to this one spot that would put some of the commissioners minds at ease in terms of approving this location. Brian also said we need clarification about the height difference and is it a necessary change due to the dimensions. Sarah said instead of being peaked maybe there is a softer ridge that lessens the height. Jay said he disagreed. The original tent should come back. One of the things I took into consideration when I made the motion was that the mass of the new tent design was less than the current tent that was used. With the new dimensions the mass has been increased. It is less sympathetic to the neighbors. We approved a tent 60 x 120 and the peaks were 23.2. Jim Curits said the tent that was there in 2005 and 2008 is 60 x 120 and had a support wing 20 x 40, that is 8,000 square feet. The proposed tent is 60 x 137-140 and the square footage 8,046. Sarah asked Jim to work with the tent company to bring the height down and get it back to the height that was approved at conceptual. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2008 MOTION.• Brian moved to continue 1000 N. Third Street, Aspen Institute, Greenwald Pavilion to January 14; second by Sarah. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Ann, yes; Sarah, yes; Jay, no; Brian, yes. Motion carried 4-1. 1006 E. Cooper -work session - no minutes. Red Onion project monitoring issues - no minutes. MOTION: Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. ............. ._. Meeting journed at 9:00 .m. ..._-~ Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 12