HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20090114ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 14, 2009
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
_ COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: on your own
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes -December 10, 2008 minutes.
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict' of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Election of Chair and Vice-chair
VII. Project Monitoring:
A. 214 E. Bleeker Street -roof material and walkway
(20 min.)
VIII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #1)
IX. OLD BUSINESS
A. Greenwald Pavilion -Final Review, continued public
hearing (30 min.)
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. 426 E. Main Street (Galena and Main) Substantial
Amendment, public hearing (30 min.)
XI. WORK SESSION
A. Main Street pedestrian improvements - (30 min.)
B. 316 E. Hopkins Ave. (30 min.)
XI. Adjourn 7:25 p.m.
.~ a~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Saza Adams, Preservation Planner
RE: 214 East Sleeker Street, roof material
DATE: January 14, 2008
At their regular meeting on April
11, 2007, the HPC passed a
resolution approving the
development of a one story rear
addition at 214 East Sleeker Street
(adjacent to the Community
Church), a designated landmark.
A rear yard setback variance was
approved to allow 7 feet (where 10
feet is required), and a combined
side yard setback vaziance was
approved to allow 10 feet (where
15 is required). A dilapidated
shed, located on the alley, was
approved for demolition.
This project is before the HPC to discuss the roof material on the rear garage
portion of the addition and the side shed roof.
HPC approved a corrugated metal roof for the garage addition and the side shed existing
addition. The rest of the project was approved to have either wood shingles or a flat roof.
A standing seam copper roof has been installed in lieu of the approved corrugated metal
roof without any approval. Staff is concerned that the copper roof material is a pretty far
departure from a more utilitarian corrugated metal roof that would be typically found on a
Victorian era residence rather than copper. Staff was supportive of corrugated metal on
the rear gable mainly because it was reminiscent of a typical alley stmcture from the 19s'
century that would have any available cheap materials installed as the roof. The cooper
material will develop a dull brown patina over time, but Staff is concerned about the
compatibility of copper to the time period of this property. Relevant design guidelines
are below:
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.
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 appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site
are encouraged.
^ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
DECISION MAHING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
^ Require the project to revert back to the original approved material.
• Approve an alternate material to replace the copper roof material.
^ Approve the copper roof material.
Exhibits:
A. Roof plan and side elevations with material changes indicated.
B. HPC Resolution No. 13 Series of 2007 granting Final approval for the project.
C. HPC Minutes dated April 11, 2007 granting Final approval for the project.
a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 1000 N. Third Street, Greenwald Tent- Major Development (Final)- Public
Hearing
DATE: January 14, 2009 (continued from November 12, 2008)
SUMMARY: For the last 3 summers, The Aspen Institute has made use of a seasonal tent,
adjacent to the Koch Seminaz building. HPC provided comments prior to installation of this
structure. The tent provides additional space for the many events that are scheduled at the
campus and The Institute has stated their hope to retain this facility on a permanent, summertime
only, basis.
In 1991, the Meadows azea completed an SPA (Specially Planned
Area) review which established the rights to expand buildings and
activities on the campus. It does not appear that the tent currently
under consideration was envisioned at
that time. The Institute applied for formal
HPC review of "Greenwald Pavilion"
under the requirements of Ordinance #48,
which lists the campus as a potential
historic resource. Following HPC's
Conceptual approval in July 2008, the
applicant .continued to flush out the
design and met with--~ to seek Final
approval on November 12c'. The board
will recall that meeting focused on the
discovery of a significant utilty easement
in the vicinity of the tent There were also
questions about the height of the
structure, which had increased since
Conceptual. (Minutes aze attached.)
The Institute has worked at length to move the tent off of the easement and to provide Fire
Department access, bathroom facilities, accessibility, etc. In addition, efforts have been made to
screen the tent from neighboring properties with new landscaping. HPC is asked to determine
Final compliance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines."
Staff supports the project as proposed, with the condition that staff and monitor work with the
applicant and Pazks Department to ensure the new landscaping is in context with the Meadows
azea.
1
jS..'
fe
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 (FINALI
The procedure for a Major Deve%pment Review, at the Final 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 analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine .the`'project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. ~'he 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 ojtheir review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant
Staff Response: Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting,
fenestration and selection of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached
as "Exhibit A." Only those guidelines where discussion is needed aze included in the memo.
The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies was created in 1947 by Walter Paepcke and formed
the foundation for the Aspen Renaissance period after World War II. The Meadows campus is
very significant as the center of activities related,tm,l'aepcke's "Aspen Idea." Paepcke brought
Herbert Bayer to Aspen in 1946 to serve as the desiiconsultant for the Institute, a role in which
he served until 1976. Bayer, with .assistance froif Fritz Benedict, was offered the chance to
design a planned environment, where the goal was total visual integration.
The key features of the property are the campus plan and the relationship between the
architecture 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
2
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.
i, .:
Tents have historically been used on this campus, fdi~instance of course, the Music Tent. Other
small structures have commonly popped up in xl~ various meadow areas. The Greenwald
Pavilion, however, is fairly large. It is proposed to be in place for summertime only, hosting
approximately 8 events each season.
The general design of the tent was approved at Conceptual. Since then, a slight modification in
the footprint of the structure caused the height of the peaks to increase by 2'4". Both staff and
HPC have been supportive of this tent having architectural character that honors, at least on some
level, the precedent established by the Eero Saarinen, Herbert Bayer, and Hany Teague music
tents. Staff supports the form of this structure as proposed.
The tent fabric will be white, which is also consistent with the color palette at the Meadows. The
sides will be a mesh fabric, except on the north. No lights aze expected, other than possibly some
path lighting.
With regazd to landscaping,
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. We
recommend staff and a project
monitor work with the Institute
and Pazks Department to
finalize a plan that provides
some camouflage to the north
wall in a manner that reflects
the natural clumping of aspen
trees and natural grade in the
area as much as possible.
For HPC's reference, the memo and resolution from P&Z's January 6a' approval aze attached.
These documents provide background information tt~2~''may be of interest to the board.
i ~
~-• ;;~t
„ i .t~
3
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 HPC gt Final approval for the Greenwald
Pavilion as proposed, with the condition that staff andrmonitor work with the Institute and Pazks
Department on an appropriate landscape plan for the rear of the structure.
Exhibits:
Resolution # ,Series of 2009
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Application
C. Conceptual approval
D. Minutes
E. January 6, 2009 P&Z memo and resolution
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for Greenwald Pavilion Tent, "Final"
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
^ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
i ; .,
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approvs d by the Pazks Department.
^ If a tree must be removed as part o£:tihe addltil>F or alteration, replace it with species of a
lazge enough scale to have a visual impact i'ti the`eazly 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.
1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting.
^ Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on
walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes.
i ;~
i..
rc , 4' ,.S'id'
~; ,.
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE
GREENWALD PAVILION LOCATED AT 1000'N. THIRD ST., ASPEN INSTITUTE,
ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1B, CITY~AND TOWNSITE ASPEN.
.«,.
RESOLUTION 1V0. 1, SERIES OF 2009
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-29-809
WHEREAS, the applicant, The Aspen Institute, represented by Jim Curtis, Planner, has
requested Major Development (Final) for the construction of a tent, called the Greenwald
Pavilion, located at 1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute, Aspen Meadows, Lot 1B, City and
Townsite Aspen; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Desi~%wGuidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. 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; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated January 14, 2009, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standazds, found that the review standazds and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines had been met and recommended approval with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on January 14, 2009 (after the hearing was noticed, opened,
and continued from November 12, 2008), the Historic Preservation Commission considered the
application, found the application was consistent with the review standazds and "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote
of to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC hereby grants Major Development (Final)
approval for the construction of a tent (manufactured by Tentnology, represented in drawings
provided to HPC), called the Greenwald Pavilion, located at 1000 N. Third St,, Aspen Institute,
Aspen Meadows, Lot 1B, City and Townste Aspen~nvith the following condition:
1. Staff and monitor shall work with the'histitute and Pazks Department on an appropriate
landscape plan for the reaz of the structure
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14`n day of January,
2009.
Approved as to Form:
~ ,:.
Jim True, Assistant City Attorney ~'"'
~~
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Michael Hoffman, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
~,,,
L ~..
e. ~..,
S ~p
ti i, ,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Plarmer
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 426 East Main Street- Substantial Amendment to an Approved Development
Order- Public Hearing
DATE: January 14, 2009
SUMMARY: 426 East Main Street (aka Millennium Plaza) is located on the comer of Main and
Galena Streets at the very northern edge of the Commercial Core Historic District. It is across
the street from the Pitkin County Courthouse, a designated landmark. A development order was
issued in 2005 for the construction of a three story mixed use building, which is currently
underway. The applicant requests approval to alter the approved material of the comer piece.
Staff finds that the guidelines aze met and recommends HPC grant a substantial amendment to
the approved development order with conditions.
APPLICANT: Millenium Plaza LLC, P.D. $ox 1247, Aspen CO, represented by David Ritchie
of Poss Architecture and Planning, 605 East Main Street, Aspen Colorado.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-22-015.
ADDRESS: 426 East Main Street, Unit 1 A, Galena Plaza Condomiums, City of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core Historic District.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT- SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
The HPC will review the application, the staff ttrthl'ysis report and the evidence presented at
the hearing to determine the project's conforhiance 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. (Ord. No. 1-2002 § 7 (part), 2002).
The applicant proposes a material and slight style change to the approved comer piece. Exhibit
B illustrates the approved material palette. Due to the current economic situation, the applicant
proposes to replace the azchitectural metal screen with stucco that will have seams imprinted to
create the impression of panels. The applicant proposes two [ones of stucco, a darker color for
the recessed balcony area and a lighter stucco color for the primary exterior plane. Stucco is
already approved for the rear of the building, so this will not introduce a new type of material to
the building. The applicant will bring samples of the stucco color and the other approved
materials to the meeting for HPC's review. .Changing from the architectural screen to stucco
alters the planaz angle of the corner piece; the stucco ~i'~ directly attached to the building and does
not slant at an angle as the metal did. '' `' ~~
Overall, staff finds that the corner piece remains successful in breaking up the mass of the
building and creating an interesting azchitectural corner element. Staff finds that the design
guidelines below are met and recommends approval with conditions.
6.65 Special features that highlight buildings on corner lots may be considered. 'i
^ Develop both street elevations to provide visual interest to pedestrians.
^ Corner entrances, bay windows and towers are examples of elements that may be'
considered to emphasize comer locations.
^ Storefront windows, display cases and other elements that provide visual interest to
facades along side streets are also appropriate.
6.59 High quality, durable materials should be employed.
• The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and approved
as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of
materials as required.
6.60 Building materials should have these features,:
^ Convey the quality and range of materials ~'h historically.
^ Reduce the scale and enhance visual interest.
^ Convey human scale.
^ Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate.
6.61 The palette of materials used for new buildings within the core should reflect the
predominantly masonry (brickwork and natural stonework} palette of this area.
6.62 A building or additions to a building should reflect the quality and the variation
traditionally found in the materials within the central commercial core.
DECISION MAHING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or ~ i''~"-'
• continue the application to a date certain"-""obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the Substantial Amendment to
HPC Resolution 19 Series of 2005 approving a new building located at 426 East Main Street
with the following conditions:
1. HPC will review and approve the color (s) of the stucco before purchase and installation.
2. All approvals and conditions granted during Conceptual (Resolution 4, Series of 2004)
and Final (Resolution 19 Series of 2005) Review aze valid, with the exception of the
approvals specified herein.
3. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full boazd.
Resolution # _, Series of 2009. -
Exhibits:
A. Design Guidelines
B. Approved material palette : n'
C. Approval granted by HPC (Resolution Nos. 4 of 2004 and 19 of 2005)
D. Application
3
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC}
APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT FOR THE CURRENT PROJECT AT
426 EAST MAIN STREET, UNIT lA OF THE GALENA PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS,
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2009
PARCEL ID: 273707322015.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Millenium Plaza LLC, P.O. Box 1247, Aspen, CO represented by
David Ritchie of Poss Architecture and Planning requested a Substantial Amendment to HPC
Resolution #4, Series of 2004 and HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2005, for Major Development
for 426 East Main Street, Unit lA of the Galena Plaza Condominiums, City of Aspen, Colorado;
and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 14, 2004 the HPC considered the application,
found the application was consistent with the review standazds and the City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines, and approved Resolution #4 of 2004 granting Conceptual
Approval for Major Development, Relocation, Demolition and Variances by a vote of 4 to 0; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 25;+'2005 the HPC considered the application,
found the application was consistent with the review standards and the City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines, and approved Resolution #19 of 2005 granting Fina] Approval
for Major Development by a vote of 5 to 0; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070.E.2 of the Municipal Code states that "all changes to approved
plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appeazance
of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial
amendment; and
WHEREAS, 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. (Ord. No. ] -2002 § 7 (part), 2002); and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated January 14, 2009, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standards, found that the review standazds and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were met, and recommended approval; and
~~;~
,'.
:~~
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on January 14, 2009, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the
application by a vote of_ to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC grants approval for a Substantial Amendment to Resolution #4, Series of 2004 and
Resolution #19, Series of 2005 for the major development at 426 East Main Street with the
following conditions:
1. HPC will review and approve the color (s) of the stucco before purchase and installation.
2. All approvals and conditions granted during ,Conceptual (Resolution 4, Series of 2004)
and Final (Resolution 19 Series of 2005) Review aze valid, with the exception of the
approvals specified herein.
3. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14`" day of January,
2009.
Michael Hoffman, Chairman
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, City Attorney
;i~,
a:
~ [? r.
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
,~
ExhibitA: Commercial Core Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines
Policy: Improvements in the Commercial Core Historic District should maintain the integrity
of historic resources in the area. At the same time, compatible and creative design solutions
should be encouraged.
Design Objectives:
2. Promote creative, contemporary design that respects the historic context.
While new construction should be compatible with the historic chazacter of the district,
designs should not copy early styles but instead should seek creative new solutions that
convey the community's continuing interest in exploring innovations. At the same time,
the fundamental principles of traditional design must be respected. This means that each
project should strike a balance in the design variables that are presented in the following
pages,
6. Promote variety in the street level experience.
Architectural form should recognize existing scale and diversity and build upon
established design traditions, creativity and innovation in a manner which strengthens the
architectural richness and identity of the city core. The contextual contribution of
building and storefront design will depend on detailed consideration of the street facade
and associated landscaping and paving.
Fagade Articulation (pages 114, 123-124)
6.37 Divide a larger building into "modules" that are similar in width to buildings seen
historically.
^ Where a building is planner to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to
suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in fapade material, window design,
facade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that should be used.
These vaziations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure, including its
roof, such that the composition appeazs to be a collection of smaller buildings.
6.65 Special features that highlight buildings on corner lots may be considered.
^ Develop both street elevations to provide visual interest to pedestrians.
• Corner entrances, bay windows' and towe`r's are examples of elements that may be
considered to emphasize comer Locations.
• Storefront windows, display cases and' other elements that provide visual interest to
facades along side streets are also appropriate.
6.59 High quality, durable materials should be employed.
^ The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and approved
as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of
materials as required.
6.60 Building materials should have these features:
^ Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically.
• Reduce the scale and enhance visual interest.
^ Convey human scale.
^ Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate.
6.61 The palette of materials used for new buildings within the core should reflect the
predominantly masonry (brickwork and natural stonework) palette of this area.
6.62 A building or additions to a building should reflect the quality and the variation
traditionally found in the materials withiathe central commercial core.
6.63 Where contemporary materials are'used theyshould be:
^ High quality in durability and finish
^ Detailed to convey a human scale
^ Compatible with a traditional masonry palette
aL.
:.i,.
a+tc,
5
~~~~~r ~
pass
Stone Veneer Panels
Windows
Cladding, Kick Plates & Infill Panels
Spandrel Glass
Stucco
Type A
Type B
Roof
Standing Seam
Bush Hammered -Mesa Pink $andstone
Anodized Bronze
Lava Bronze
Firestone - Finetex Finish w/ 1183 Seminole Brown
Finestone - Finetex Finish w/ 2112.20 Brown Sugar
Dark Bronze
Brick Veneer (New) Robinson Brick Co. -Old Larirner
Stone Veneer Rockface Rockface -Mesa Red Sandstone