Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20200122 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Sheri Sanzone Absent were: Bob Blaich, Nora Berko Staff present: Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes from December 11, 2019. Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes from January 8th, 2020. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None CONFLICTS: None. PROJECT MONITORING: 105 E Hallam Ms. Simon stated that this is a recently approved project that had a condition at Final that the full board was to review the material palate for the addition. Materials were represented at Final, but the board wanted time to digest and have the applicant come back and just focus on that. They are in the building permit review, and staff are trying to make sure this condition has been taken care of. Seth Hmielowski introduced himself and Melanie Noonan as being from ZGroup Architects. He stated that they are going to be going over the exterior cladding of 105 E Hallam. They have an updated landscape plan that they are also going to discuss. Their landscape architect Amy Barrow is also present at the meeting and can speak to that. Ms. Noonan stated that the approved landscape plan was what was in the memo. Since that time, they have brought on board a landscape architect who has given them a more detailed landscape plan as well as a fence plan and fence design, which they did not touch on at their final submission. The main thing that they wanted to touch on are the exterior materials. They have stayed with the horizontal and vertical siding. They have made some slight modification to that mainly in the color of the siding. At the initial presentation, the horizontal wood siding was a darker natural wood. They are looking to find something that compliments and works with the brick better. She brought physical samples of the original proposal and the current. They feel that the lighter brown that they are now proposing is a better compliment to the brick. She showed photos on the slide that illustrated the difference between the two. They are looking for that horizontal wood siding to have a relationship. They are looking at the two brick coursing to match up with the siding. Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Simon who the project monitor is for this. Ms. Simon stated that she is not certain that they assigned someone. The condition was to come back to the whole board. 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Mr. Moyer asked the applicants what kind of wood they will ultimately use on the siding. Ms. Noonan stated that the sample is an infused bamboo, which is what they’re proposing to use. Mr. Moyer stated that the Commission does not tell applicants what color they can use. That’s their discretion. He asked which of the two options depicted in the memo they are proposing regarding the fencing. Ms. Noonan identified the fencing proposed in their packet. Mr. Moyer asked if the fencing will start from the face of the house and go around and if the front of the house will be the existing metal fence. Ms. Noonan stated that the metal fence just runs along the front of the property. It doesn’t actually turn in. Ms. Simon stated that it’s not an original Victorian fence. Ms. Thompson asked the applicants to speak to the landscape lighting that they’re proposing. She is not seeing that identified in the plans. Ms. Noonan stated that that was in their previous plans, it’s not currently shown in the landscape plans in front of the Commission. Mr. Kendrick asked if the pattern shown with the vertical white siding is what they’re planning to use. Ms. Noonan stated that it is. The front of the house, the open gable and the porch have a lot of wood detailing. It creates a nice texture. They wanted to do something that speaks to that. Ms. Sanzone asked what they grey hatch around the perimeter of the building is proposed to be. Ms. Barrow stated that it is a gravel border. Ms. Sanzone asked if the iron fence at the front is proposed to be removed. Ms. Barrow stated that that stays. Mr. Moyer stated that over the years they’ve discussed that the fencing should not hide the resource. He is okay with the fence as shown starting from the face of the house back. He would like to see the metal face return to the house so that the front of the house is totally visible from the street. Ms. Greenwood stated that she agrees with the privacy fence coving the resource. It doesn’t belong. She asked if this is something that was approved or it’s a whole new concept. Ms. Simon stated that she doesn’t think they saw a fence design at final, so this is new. Until you reach the façade of the house, the fence has to be an open picket, so there is an issue with this that needs to be resolved. Ms. Greenwood asked about the size of the house. Ms. Simon stated that, once you get past the front façade, you’re allowed to have a more privacy, 6-foot tall fence. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Greenwood asked if the guidelines allow that. Ms. Simon stated that they do. Ms. Greenwood stated that she thinks that a “miss.” You don’t get to see the beauty of three facades of the historic resource. Ms. Barrow stated that they do have the fence lower at the front façade so that you can see over it for the first bit. The more privacy aspect of the fence is about halfway back on the building and then it goes to the shed on the rear. That happens on both sides. Mr. Kendrick stated that the drawing shows the privacy fence ending at the front of the building. He asked what goes from the front of the building up to the front of the property. Ms. Barrow stated currently nothing. Mr. Kendrick asked if they’re not proposing a fence for that section. Ms. Barrow stated that that is correct. Ms. Sanzone asked if the topography on the site goes downhill towards the alley. Ms. Barrow stated that it’s pretty flat. Ms. Noonan stated that the alley is about a foot higher than the front of the house. It’s a gentle slope. Ms. Sanzone asked if they imagine other splits in the fence other than what they’ve shown. Ms. Barrow stated that that is correct. Ms. Sanzone stated that there are plantings proposed next to the outdoor patio that are hedge-like. She asked if they’ve received any comments from Zoning about those. Ms. Barrow stated that they have not. Ms. Simon stated that those are not in the area where a hedge would be a concern, but it will have to go through the permit process. Ms. Barrow asked how tall the proposed hedges get. Ms. Barrow stated that they get two to three feet tall. Ms. Simon stated that Ms. Yoon did pull up the project monitor list and Mr. Halferty is the monitor. To the extent that the board wants to leave anything to further review, it would be to him. Ms. Greenwood asked if they want them to make a decision as a board as to the siding materials and the fence. Ms. Simon stated that at least the siding materials. It’s stated in the resolution that it should be a board decision. The landscape plan is traditionally the monitor. The fence would fall to the monitor unless the Commission wants to weigh in or give Mr. Halferty direction. Ms. Sanzone stated that she would prefer if the board weighed in on the landscape plan and the fence design rather than just providing direction to Mr. Halferty. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Greenwood asked if everyone is okay with the siding materials. She thinks it’s a better choice from a color standpoint. Ms. Thompson stated that she is happy with the materials. They look appropriate. Mr. Halferty stated that he is also happy with the materials. Mr. Moyer stated that he’s happy with the bamboo. Ms. Sanzone stated that she finds that the landscape plan and the fence are compliant with the HPC guidelines. She would support the design. Ms. Greenwood stated that it is compliant with the guidelines. She wishes that most of the fence would be 42-inches for the length of the historic resource. Since that’s not in their guidelines, she can’t really ask the applicants to do it. She thinks it’s important. Little details like that make a difference in a community when everyone wants to see the historic resource. Mr. Halferty stated that he agrees with the landscape plan. What’s proposed is compliant with the HPC guidelines. He echoed the same comment as Ms. Greenwood regarding being able to see the historic resource. Ms. Greenwood stated that applicants don’t always have to go with the guidelines. They should be sensitive to all the effort that’s gone into restoring the historic resource. The right thing to do would be to keep the fence low until it reaches the new addition. It’s not like it’s creating a whole lot of space. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that there are a lot of people attending the meeting. She encouraged the commissioners to speak closely into their microphones. She reminded everyone to state their name when they speak for the benefit of the clerk producing minutes remotely from the recording. Ms. Simon stated that staff and several commissioners are going to be at the Colorado Preservation Inc. conference next week from Wednesday to Friday. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: None. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 920 E Hyman Avenue – Minor Development, Relocation, Setback Variations, and TDR Ms. Yoon introduced the project. 920 E Hyman is a 3,000 square foot lot, historically designated, has a one-story miner’s cabin to the front of the property and it’s connected with an above-grade addition that was approved by HPC back in 1999, so it doesn’t have the traditional connecting element that we see today. Looking at the Sanborn Maps from 1904, it appears to be roughly in the same location. It currently has a setback, which is approximately 22-feet from the property line in a district where 10-feet is required. The site also has a number of large trees that are located towards the front of the property. It is located in the RMF zone district. With this application, the applicant wishes to convert an existing crawl-space into a full basement, add new lightwells, make some exterior material changes and fenestration changes. The fenestration changes are concentrated on the above-grade addition, not the historic resource. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Yoon stated that the request for the relocation is needed because any work that requires underpinning of the structure is considered relocation according to the design guidelines. No new above-grade or structures are proposed. Nothing is essentially being moved. The applicant plans to make modifications to the front walkway with this proposal. There is a step towards the front of the property that is large, so they are going to make that modification there. In relation to stormwater mitigation, they are proposing to use pervious walkway pavers. The applicant does need to work more with the Engineering and Parks Departments to hone in on the requirements for drainage and stormwater, but those are underway. The material that the applicant was providing this week related to the pervious pavers is going to be a brick paver. In the process, staff recommends that the applicant try to meet the Design Guideline 1.6. Currently, the existing walkway is not perpendicular. More investigation into why that is is needed. It is staff’s recommendation to try and meet Guideline 1.6 as this walkway is being restudied. Ms. Yoon stated that it was represented in the drawings provided by the architects that footers are already existing. Two new lightwells are abutting the historic resource towards the rear to provide egress for the rooms on the sub-grade level. They are slightly larger than what is required by minimum building code. The modifications to the size of the two existing lightwells are also proposed. Ms. Yoon stated that fenestration changes are proposed on the north east west elevations of the non- historic addition. No fenestration changes are proposed on the historic resource. The applicant also included the addition of new downspouts along the east and west elevation. Staff did provide a recommendation for additional re-study of where the downspouts are to be located. Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant does plan to change the roofing material of the existing addition and the historic resource. It was represented in the application that the historic resource would be restored to cedar wood shingles. The addition would be changed to a standing seam metal roof. Staff does find that both of these materials, and in combination with what is existing, meet the criteria and design guidelines. Since the proposal does trigger relocation, new setback variations will be necessary to memorialize the location of the existing historic resource, which is currently encroaching into the east and west setbacks. Additionally, the lightwells are proposed in the setbacks and the applicant is asking for setback variations for these features. Staff does find that the criteria for granting setback variations are met with this request. In addition, the applicant is also requesting the establishment of one TDR. Staff supports the establishment of the TDR that will reduce developable floor area on the site. It does meet the criteria, as shown in the packet. It is important to note that the establishment of TDRs can only be done by City Council. HPC is a recommending body for the TDRs. All floor area calculations must be verified prior to the creating of the TDR certificates. Those all need to be considered. Ms. Yoon stated that staff does recommend approval of the project. They ask that the applicant restudy the walkway to be perpendicular if possible, utilizing the pavers and material that’s historically appropriate. They should work with staff and monitor to find that balance. This is to be done before the submission of building permit. Also the restudy of the downspouts, which are on the non-historic addition. That final configuration to also be reviewed by staff and monitor. In the responses that the applicant sent on Tuesday, they did provide a roof plan. It does show the dimensions and locations of 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 new flues and vents. They also provided additional information about snow clips, so Condition Three has been met and can be taken off. Staff ask that the lightwell curb heights be six inches or less to make sure that it’s not too high. There was a request in the application related to the stained glass window. Additional research and investigation of the materials themselves will be necessary. Staff encourages the applicant to explore the stained glass that’s there to see if it is historic. It’s unclear at this moment. Staff do not have enough documentation to support its removal. Working with all relevant City departments regarding storm water mitigation and urban runoff management plans, the referral agencies, the Engineering and Parks Departments did provide some comments indicating more conversation needed related to the drainage and the stormwater mitigation. Those final plans are to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor prior to building permit submission. The setback variations are to be granted to memorialize the location of the historic resource. It also encompasses the proposed lightwells. The setback variation applies to above and below grade. Staff is in support of the establishment of one TDR with the finalized floor areas to be verified by the appropriate City departments before its establishment. Nine is the financial assurance required for relocation. Ms. Thompson asked if the rear yard setback needs to be reestablished or if that’s set from the old ordinance. Ms. Yoon stated that the rear yard setback is set from the old ordinance. There is no work being done in that area. That one will remain as well as what was approved previously. Ms. Sanzone asked if the application was submitted after the board required concepts about site drainage. Ms. Yoon stated that their guidelines ask for preliminary concepts. She believes that the applicant did reach out to Engineering and had a preliminary discussion. Since then, staff referred it to the Engineering Department. There’s been more discussion related to that. Ms. Sanzone stated that she thought HPC clarified that it was a plan or some sort of drawing that would be a part of the application that the Commission could review. Ms. Simon stated that the applicant did provide that and their intention was to tear up the existing sidewalk and use pervious pavers. Engineering had a change of opinion about the extent of mitigation, which is why they are now less certain. Ms. Greenwood asked if they need a rear-yard setback for excavation below-grade. Ms. Yoon stated that they’re not doing any excavation on the rear. It’s all concentrated to the front where the historic resource is. Ms. Thompson stated that they are changing the size of the lightwells. She would anticipate the grading around them changing. She thinks that that is important to look at, too. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 APPLICANT PRESETNATION: Mark Janion of B2 Builders introduced himself. He introduced Colleen Loughin and Bill Pollock of Zone 4 Architects. He stated that the applicants are meeting with the necessary departments at the City next week to hash out drainage and parks issues that Ms. Simon mentioned. Regarding the excavation, there’s already an existing basement under the entire addition and about half the historic asset. The applicants are going to hand-dig out the remaining half, take the dirt out. It’s already a full-height crawlspace. They are only taking out a small portion. The design from the engineer goes straight down on the existing foundation, which is why they need the setback variation. The original house was in the setback and they are just going straight down. They are not going outside of the original perimeter. Mr. Halferty asked if Jack discussed the underpinning and foundation extensions, regarding the excavation. Mr. Janion stated that it would be four-foot sections. Mr. Halferty asked if it will all be dug from inside the structure. Mr. Janion stated that it will be. Mr. Kendrick asked about the excavation on the window wells. It appears that, on the east side, it goes past the footprint of the house. On that side of the house, it’s very tight with the adjoining property. Mr. Janion stated that they would hand-dig that as well and try to work with the engineer to see if they can come up with a detail to not go over the property. Everything that they do will be on their property. Mr. Kendrick asked if the window well goes past their property line. Mr. Janion stated that it does not. Ms. Sanzone asked if the soil will be wheelbarrowed to the back of the property. Mr. Janion replied that it will be. Ms. Sanzone asked how the applicants propose to remove the soil and get it through the area with the existing tree. Mr. Janion stated that they can cover the window well and take it over to the driveway in the back. Ms. Sanzone asked how they plan to do that with the tree in between. Mr. Janion stated that they will do it with buckets and carry it around. Ms. Sanzone asked if they have talked with the Parks Department about how they might accomplish work in that area. 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Mr. Janion stated that they have not. Ms. Sanzone stated that she would like them to include that as a part of their conversation. Ms. Greenwood asked if the applicants are in agreement with what the City is asking them for. Mr. Janion replied that they are. Mr. Moyer asked if the applicants foresee any problems with various pipes protruding through the roof, as related to staff Condition Three. Mr. Janion stated that it’s not an issue. Mr. Moyer asked if they know whether the stained glass window is historic or not. Mr. Janion stated that he does not know. The oldest photos they could find have the window. Ms. Thompson asked why the lightwells behind the historic bump out past the existing wall instead of just continuing straight back. Mr. Pollock stated that it’s related to constructability. They also do need some room. They could bring it in a bit, but for code reasons they need to be minimum 3x3. Mr. Janion stated that they will bring it in as small as they can. Mr. Pollock stated that it was recommended that way by the structural engineer. Ms. Sanzone asked if the large spruce tree that was added back in the site plan is to remain. Mr. Janion stated that it is to remain. Ms. Sanzone asked how the front path will be both snow melted and pervious. Mr. Janion stated that it will be accomplished with sand and drilled insulation to let the water through the insulation and then the insulation protects from heating the ground. Ms. Sanzone asked if the reason that’s proposed to be pervious is to accomplish the additional drainage requirements or if that’s only related to the walkway. She asked if that includes any impacts with the other sitework including the two new window wells. Mr. Janion stated that the roof currently just sheds. There’s a dry well that’s in the right of way that Engineering doesn’t want them to keep. So they are proposing taking their drainage through that walkway. 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Sanzone asked if it’s a new pipe connection under the walkway. She asked if the drywall would be in the right of way or in the street. Mr. Janion stated that it would just be the rock bed below the pervious pavers. Ms. Sanzone asked what they think the excavation depth is going to be. Mr. Janion stated that he thinks it was seven by three feet. Ms. Sanzone asked if protections for trees that might come up in their discussions with Parks would alter the design. Mr. Janion stated that trying to get the walkway straight is impacted by the trees, so they are going to work with Parks, Engineering, and Ms. Simon to figure out what the final alignment looks like. Ms. Sanzone asked if they are married to the width of the walk that they’re showing in the plans. Mr. Janion stated that they are not. Ms. Sanzone stated that she would suggest narrowing that to help reduce the impact on the trees. It may be that they can do deeper versus wider to accomplish the drainage requirements. Mr. Janion stated that they would be fine with that. Ms. Sanzone asked if they are confident that they will be able to protect the trees on the neighbors’ property during their work. Mr. Janion stated that they are. Ms. Sanzone asked if that will be discussed with the Parks Department. Mr. Janion stated that that is. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Yoon stated that staff did receive public comment on the project that was sent out to the commissioners. COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION: Ms. Greenwood stated that there are conditions in the application for this project to move forward. Mr. Moyer stated that he is in concurrence with staff’s recommendation. 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Mr. Halferty stated that he concurs with the recommendations of staff and the guidelines are met. They’ve thought about the constructability and conservation of the trees. He could support this application as is. Mr. Kendrick stated that he concurs with staff recommendations. The applicant has done a good job addressing the concerns. Ms. Thompson stated that she agrees. Ms. Sanzone asked if they are coming back for a Final. Ms. Greenwood stated that this is a minor development, so this is their only hearing. Ms. Sanzone asked if the irrigation control box is in a yard box. Mr. Janion stated that it is. Ms. Sanzone asked what will happen with the path lights if they straighten the path. Mr. Janion stated that they will do whatever staff, the board, and the guidelines recommend. Ms. Sanzone stated that, in general, the guidelines wouldn’t support this marching of lights to the front door. She suggested eliminating those. Ms. Greenwood stated that they have a lot to work out with the stormwater and landscaping. It might be a simple situation where a monitor could work with staff on it. They are more landscaping issues than they are building issues. Ms. Sanzone stated that, with that, she would support the application and staff’s recommendation. Ms. Greenwood stated that she does not see any problem with this application. Mr. Kendrick motioned to approve Resolution Three as written. Mr. Moyer seconded. Role Call Vote: Ms. Greenwood, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone. Ms. Sanzone volunteered to be the monitor for this project. 620 Gillespie Avenue and 845 Meadows Rd, Aspen Institute – Historic Designation and Benefits, Conceptual Major Development and Commercial Design, Growth Management, Planned Development, Special Review, Transportation Impact and Trash Storage 11 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jim Curtis introduced himself as the Aspen Institute Owner’s representative. He invited the commissioners and the public to look at the model he brought. Mr. Curtis introduced the project team. He introduced Dr. Dan Porterfield, the CEO of the Aspen Institute. Richard Stadler, the Vice President for the Aspen Institute campus. Becky Ward, who has been working with Mr. Curtis on the day-to-day. Jeff Berkus and Norman Tai were the design architects for the Bayer Building. Sarah Broughton and Craig Lawrence have been the architects for the Bettcher renovation. Dr. Porterfield thanked the Historic Preservation Commission for this project. He stated that he works out of their headquarters at the DC office. He is in Aspen typically over the summers and tries to come two or three times in the off season. He wanted to be at the meeting in person to present the Institute’s vision for the Bettcher Seminar Building and for the proposed Center of Herbert Bayer Studies. He also wanted to convey the Institute’s strong desire for this whole reimagined corner of the Aspen Meadows campus to be a new bridge connecting the Institute and the community. Since he joined the Institute in 2018, he has become increasingly aware of and inspired by the role of Herbert Bayer and his contemporaries such as Fritz Benedict in the development of Aspen as well as the Aspen Institute. The founders of the Institute, Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke, commissioned Herbert Bayer to design the Aspen Meadows campus in the early 1950’s, which including the buildings, the earth works, landscapes, the sculptures, paintings, tapestries. It’s a work of art. Since then, largely as a result of this remarkable history and Bayer’s transformational role in Aspen, the Institute has become an important repository of Bayer’s work, mostly with the acquisition in 2018 of the anaconda marble sculpture from the Denver Art Museum and a gift last year of more than 13 Bayer artworks from the Bayer family to the Institute. Because of this legacy, the Institute feels a very profound responsibility to preserve and celebrate Bayer’s work in a facility that’s befitting of his artistic genius. The new building that’s proposed will allow the Institute to preserve and honor the art, to showcase, exhibit, and grow their collections. It will allow them to borrow from other major cultural institutions and to create new exhibitions that will educate the public about Bayer’s living legacy in Aspen. Mr. Curtis stated that, similarly, they see the renovation of the adjacent Bettcher Seminar Building and the surrounding landscaping as an integrated component of the vision of the Bayer Center. Designed by Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict, the Bettcher Building has not been updated since its completion in 1975 and is showing its age. Because of the historical significance of that building, the Institute has volunteered to designate it as part of the Aspen modern inventory. They see this a tremendous opportunity to renovate and preserve a key part of Aspen’s historic heritage. The two buildings will deepen the Institute’s contribution to the community of Aspen. Bayer’s work is relevant to contemporary thinking and the processes of problem-solving that are central to what the Aspen Institute is today. The campus visitors and members of the Aspen community will be able to visit the Bayer Center to learn about the principals of design and creativity and see how they live on today in Aspen and at the Institute. Then they can go next door into the renovated Bettcher Building to apply those principals to their own work, which might be an art, entrepreneurship, social improvement. They plan to develop educational programs for small groups of local students and give residents a place if they want to inform themselves about design thinking in order to address local problems. The Aspen Meadows campus has always been a gathering place for the Aspen community, thought leaders, 12 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 speakers from around the world and the Institute is very proud of it. As a nonprofit people and community-serving organization, they take joy in the heritage, their mission of service, and their relationship with Aspen. The Bayer Center and the renovation of Bettcher will reinforce all three of those core elements: their aesthetic heritage, their mission of service, and their relationship with the Aspen community. Mr. Curtis stated that Mr. Berkus is going to give an overview of the project. Mr. Berkus stated that this project represents where Bayer came from at the Bauhaus about that total work of art. When the team first looked at the site, they looked at all of the surrounding elements, Gillespie Street, the Aspen Music Festival, and the Physics Center. They were very sensitive about Amy’s Meadow to the north and how to center the Bettcher building in this site as the primary piece of art and surround it with a sculpture garden. How would the community interface in a better way than it’s currently doing now. Come in from the corner where the bus lane drops off and where the community pedestrians interface. They are suggesting improving the bus lane and a pedestrian walkway since so many people use that way to get to the campus for the Music Festival in the summer. Mr. Berkus stated that, stretching the project around Bettcher, they took the line of the existing lawn around the Physics Center. They are not going to go any farther into the sage than is already done along that side. Within that line, they started the landscape design using mounds to create the kind of space that Bayer would do around his buildings where he would define edges with landscape and buildings and in gathering spaces with a lawn in between. In his earlier works, there wasn’t the budget or use for the lawns and there was more sage. As the Institute has grown into this iteration, there is a culture of gathering in the outdoor spaces directly adjacent to the buildings. The applicants feel that is an appropriate way of addressing the building from the north and south and to have the natural swaths of the sage still around the entire site. Now, with the Bayer retention ponds, that is starting to have the rain gardens come into effect, so they’ve made that part of the landscape of this building. The beauty is that you can see a side of Bettcher that hasn’t really been shown to the community. It’s been the backside where cars have parked for years. There’s a walkway that comes around the back and is slightly raised so the community has a great place to look towards Ajax in the background and towards a nice side of the building. In the composition of the building, when they took Bayer as a centerpiece, they talked about where do they locate the Bettcher building. The most deferential place was to pull it back to the corner and open up the forecourt for the community to continue to see the resource of the building to establish a line from the side of the entry. It’s a 54 by 54 foot square, which is fairly small for a building that’s going to have this much art, but it was more important for the applicants to do the right thing on the site. They have 3100 square feet upstairs and 4200 square feet downstairs. The downstairs gallery continues out underneath the forecourt for the building. The idea of, when you approach on the angle, you are looking straight at the historic resource and at the entry of the resource. It’s a nice view of the building. The applicants are suggesting to move the spruce further away from the building, opening up the façade to the street from where it is now. They’ve had great success in transplanting trees of that size. Mr. Berkus stated that, regarding the architecture, Bayer is a very simple building based on the geometries of Bayer with the squares, circles, golden sections, all the principal geometries that he’s 13 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 always worked with. It’s very axial and symmetrical on the inside. The plate heights are deferential. They would have loved to have a 10-foot plate, but they’ve chosen the nine-foot six with a thinner assembly to be lower than the plate-height of the Bettcher building beside it. All the proportions of the building are lower than on Bettcher. As far as the materials, Bayer always kept materials to a simple palate and they are doing the same. They are very excited to be able to use steel windows in this project for the first time on campus. That is what was used on those buildings back in the day. Simple palate of grey and white and choosing not to use the exact grey of the Bettcher building. STAFF PRESENTATION: Ms. Simon stated that she is going to give an overview of the process, then focus on the proposed resolution and conditions of approval. Staff is very excited about this project. From a historic preservation point-of-view, they’re seeing the designation of one of the few remaining properties on the campus that are not protected, the Bettcher building, so that is a great thing to have come forward. Also, the idea of having a facility that is focused entirely on Herbert Bayer and will be a place where the existing collection will be displayed. New items may be brought to the community. It’s extremely exciting, right on the heels of the Bauhaus 100 celebration. Staff are grateful for this project. Ms. Simon stated that this is a multi-step review. The Commission’s role is to make a recommendation on historic designation and benefits, because this is a voluntary designation of the Bettcher building. They are also asked to conduct their typical design review role. They are asked to make a recommendation to City Council about employee generation, planned development review, and transportation and parking management, trash and recycling, infrastructure improvements that aren’t always the sort of thing that are in front of this board. Because this project involves a voluntary historic designation, it is on a big of a fast track. It was part of the agreements that were made when the Aspen Modern aspect of the program was created that, if someone volunteered for designation, they would go to the front of the line and the City would try to review their project and make a decision within 90 days. So if the applicant was not happy with the outcome, they hadn’t lost an extraordinary amount of time. With that in mind, the conceptual review is occurring tonight. Council first reading is next Tuesday, the 28th. Second reading for City Council is February 11th. HPC final review is February 26th. If there is something that needs additional time, it will either need to be a condition of approval or the applicant would have to agree to any delay. Time is very important to them in this project, the idea being that there will be some site work conducted in the spring as soon as weather allows, no activity during the summer, and this project would be built from fall 2020 to summer 2021, roughly. This is a lot to accomplish in a short period of time. Ms. Simon stated that, with the historic designation, staff have provided an analysis in the memo finding that the proposal to designation the Bettcher building meets four of the five designation criteria. The association with Bayer and Bennedict, the total integrity of the building. Staff have a scoring system that they use where they analyze whether they have been any changes to the building, alternations over time. This scored 18 out of 20 points. The only place it got dinged is perhaps some window replacement and things like that over time. This is a really important building and it is the one closest to West End proper. Ms. Simon stated that the institute property that was recognized very early on in the Aspen inventory process as significant and needing designation, but it’s evolved over the years. Unlike most sites, where 14 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 the City designates the boundaries of the property, this is a 40-acre site that includes two lots. An agreement was made starting in ’95 that only specific aspects of the campus would be designated: Anderson Park, the health club, the reception building are all designated with a very tight boundary around them. HPC has reviewed those properties as project have come in over the years. The Koch Seminar building, the Paepcke Auditorium, and this building are the only ones that are from the original era of the institute and are not protected. Staff hope down the road that they can advance the discussion about Koch Seminar and Paepcke, but this is a really great thing to come in front of the board now. One thing that staff have as a condition of approval in the ordinance is the application suggests that just Bettcher and maybe an inch around it would be designated. Staff would like to see that revised to include the whole area. They feel that the Center for Bayer Studies needs to clearly be under HPC’s purview so that any change in the future would come to this board, any change to the landscape would also have the board’s review. She believes that the applicant is alright with that, they just need to work together to create a map that shows the area. Ms. Simon stated that, as far as HPC’s design review role tonight, the property needs conceptual major development and conceptual major design review. The guidelines are all provided in the memo. Most of the guidelines are addressing development that would happen more in a downtown type of context. They’re not entirely prepared for this campus-type setting. To the extent the guidelines apply, staff finds that they are all met. They agree with the applicant’s analysis. Staff finds the siding of the Bayer building to be appropriate, the height, the scale, the footprint, all to be very sympathetic to the structure. This is an appropriate part of the campus to place the building. Staff like the idea of it being here with easy access for the public and engaging the Bettcher building, which previously has not been as active as other parts of the campus. That’s another reason why this project is very positive and staff have supported the project as proposed. Obviously, there will be a final review. The landscape needs to be discussed in some detail. Staff want to make sure that the meadow and lawn character of the property is balanced. Ms. Simon stated that she met with the applicant today and they came up with some changes for the commission to consider as part of their review. One of the things to discuss is relocation of a tree on the site. Right now, there’s a large spruce tree that’s very close to the Bettcher Building. The applicant has proposed to remove that and the Parks Department has agreed. Initially, they were concerned because it’s a healthy tree. Staff suggested that it’s really impacting the integrity of the building. It is going to be removed. The spruce tree on the model is located in the area of the proposed museum. It is to be relocated, which will be a challenge. Staff do have a condition that the specific place where it will land does need HPC review at final. They want to make sure they are not just recreating the condition they have now. They want to make sure that the mature size of this tree is not going to cause impacts 30 years from now. That’s one of the conditions in the staff memo. In condition number four, the applicant had initially planned to talk to the Parks Department about removing some cottonwoods that are more on the perimeter of the property. The applicant has decided now to not ask anymore. They’re just going to trim and maintain those trees. Condition number six in the memo has to do with some historic preservation benefits. The applicant is asking to be relieved of some fees that might be charged at time of building permit. This is something for Council to approve but it is included in the memo. Historic properties are always exempted, this is a little murkier because not the whole site is designated. Staff have suggested that Council should waive those fees. Number seven touches on a couple of topics. 15 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 The applicant is planning on this project not to have any onsite parking. The Commission may want to go into more discussion about this. There’s going to be some new traffic coming to the site. The applicant has had to do a transportation analysis and talk with Engineering about how they’ll mitigate impacts. Their plan for parking is to share parking in the adjacent MAA lot, which is a separate property. There are a number of things that come up with that discussion. It was mentioned that that parking lot, which is currently now all dirt, a portion of it will be paved where the busses come around, to cut down on dust. A better pedestrian path and access from Gillespie toward the tent will be created. The applicant needs to continue to work on that. Staff needs to make sure that all the mitigation and stormwater treatment is properly addressed. Condition seven touches on that. Staff is suggesting that there be a limit on any kind of private events that happen on this property. The museum itself may become an attractive site for weddings of events that have nothing to do with the Institute. Staff want to make sure that that is addressed so that they’re not generating additional traffic, trash, employee generation. Number seven talks about how to deal with that and come up with some language that the applicant can live with that doesn’t limit them from the sort of appropriate activities, like school groups coming to see the museum, versus someone having a party that’s not part of their normal activities. Staff are suggesting a limit on the number of events, that there be no kitchen added to these buildings that doesn’t already exist. One of the things that wasn’t mentioned as a side part of this project is, on Meadows Road itself, some years ago some of the tennis courts that exist there were converted to a storage yard. The tennis fence is still around it. The applicant wants to build a storage shed on that lot just to contain all of that and winter-proof it. Condition number eight in the memo talks about that building. Staff don’t find that it has any kind of visual impact. They want to make sure that it isn’t provided with heat and plumbing and suddenly becomes a workspace or something else like that. Ms. Simon stated that, regarding affordable housing, this property is considered an essential public facility. Unlike most commercial development that has a very specific calculation for how many employees staff think are generated per square foot of the project and what has to be mitigated, this applicant has the ability to make a proposal to the City regarding the number of employees they think are going to be generated by this space and how they’d like to mitigate. In 1991, an approval was granted for the Institute, the Music Associates, and Physics that tried to envision all of their future development and provide approvals so that they could move forward easily. All of that development was really approved with no affordable housing mitigation. All of that has been used up. This new project requires a discussion under today’s tolerances for affordable housing. The applicant has suggested the Bayer Museum generates one-and-a-half employees: a full time curator and an additional half-time staff person. Typically, whatever number of employees are generated must be mitigated at 65%. It comes down to a calculation. The applicant would like to provide a cash-in-lieu payment to the City that the City would use to build housing. At this point, staff is agreeable to that. They would like to see some future auditing to make sure that three more people aren’t added the day after the building opens. That’s standard practice. The housing authority has agreed and is supporting this cash-in-lieu payment rather than sending the applicant off to find affordable housing credits. There is a spirit of compromise and agreement happening on that topic. Ms. Simon stated that, on the topic of affordable housing mitigation and the audit, the applicant is a little uncomfortable with the scope of that. The resolution suggests that staff want a total employee calculation for the total Institute program. They want to narrow that in to make sure it’s just related to 16 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 this project alone. The resolution suggests that a draft construction management plan needs to be provided to HPC at Final Review. They’re not ready yet. That is typically a building permit process. They have asked that the Commission strike that wording and have it dealt with at permit. The resolution goes on after that to incorporate, pretty much verbatim, referral comments staff received from the Engineering, Parks, Environmental Health, Zoning Departments. The applicant’s original proposal did not include any trash area for this part of the campus. They wanted to use the central location that’s over by the reception center. Environmental Health was not comfortable with that. There’s going to be a little service yard alongside Bettcher that is going to hold some mechanical equipment rather than put it on the roof. Now it will hold some dumpsters and things that are specific to this part of the campus. The resolution mentions the idea that there needs to be an updated fugitive dust mitigation plan developed for the Music Associates parking lot. The applicant is uncomfortable with the wording of that, so it’s been revised. The applicant is trying to share parking with the MAA. They have done it on other occasions throughout the years cooperatively. It is an agreement that needs to be renewed every five years or so, but it is bringing good things in that there will be some paving and better control of dust on the site. The applicant is concerned with the wording as it was originally shown in the resolution, putting too much burden on them for the remaining dust concerns on that property. Staff want them to continue to work with Environmental Health on something reasonable. Mr. Curtis stated that Ms. Simon has been great to work with. The applicants met with her this morning and went through the resolution. They are fine with all of the proposed amendments and the resolution as it stands. He and Ms. Ward met with the neighbors early on in the process to get their feedback. Consistently, they heard the neighbors say they were very concerned about dust coming from the Music Association bus lane and parking lot to the east. Given that concern, the applicants are proposing significant improvements to the east boundary, working with the Music Association to partially address that concern, but also to make a better entry for the total community coming into the tent. One of the issues that the Music Association has made the applicants aware of is that people walk in the bus lane as they’re going to and leaving the performances. To address that, the applicants have created a well- defined pedestrian walkway that will go from 5th Street all the way to the tent. They want it to be between eight and ten feet. It will have boundaries on both sides. It will be lit at night with low bollard lights. In addition to a wonderful safety improvement, it will also clean up that side of the property visually and help people get to the tent. Concurrently, the applicants will do a five-foot sidewalk along Gillespie Avenue. He has been in conversation with the Parks Department on how to do that sidewalk and work it within the trees. There will be new curb and gutter, new sidewalk on Gillespie Avenue, a major improvement. They are proposing to asphalt pave the bus lane from the entrance at 5th Street to the east side of the bus shelter. When he was speaking with the neighbors, he was hesitant about what he could say. At that point in time, he had not been able to meet with the City Engineering Department and the Environmental Health air quality people. Subsequently, he has been able to meet with Engineering. The issue there is: how do you drain these improvements and meet the City requirements? He had a very good meeting with the Engineering Department. He feels comfortable that they have a conceptual drainage plan that works. The engineers are drawing the technical components of that plan up. He hopes to have the technical drawings and the signoff on that plan by City Council second reading on February 11th. At this point, he is not seeing a technical reason that would preclude them from making those improvements. He personally thinks the major improvements will clean up that boundary for everyone in the community. 17 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Greenwood stated that the commissioners will do questions for staff and applicants together. She asked Mr. Curtis if they are going to do different materials for the bus lane versus the walkway. Mr. Curtis stated that, at this point, they are proposing asphalt for both just because it seems to be in character with the past. The difference is that there will be a low-boundary railing separating the pedestrian way from the bus lane. Mr. Moyer stated that he does not want more parking lots. It seems that there are different ways of making a surface that a person can walk on or car can drive on that’s not asphalt, can drain properly, and does not have dust. He has Mr. Curtis if he has done any research into alternatives to asphalt. Mr. Curtis stated that the applicants have not explored that in detail. In the initial conversations with Jeannette Witcomb from the Environmental Health Department, she stated that the primary dust issue is coming from the bus lane just because the bus traffics heavier vehicles. Two summers ago, the Music Association put down recycled asphalt with a dust controllant on top. People have said that that works quite well. The issue is long-term maintenance. They are open to looking at dust controllants, but at this point, in terms of a permanent solution that’s known and doable, they are focusing on the asphalt. Mr. Halferty asked if there will be any spaces lost for the Music Associates. Mr. Curtis stated that there will be no reduction of spaces in the parking lot. Only sharing of spaces. Mr. Halferty stated that, part of the atmosphere of getting to the tent is the gravel paving and patios. There are concrete patios near Harris Hall and the Music Tent. He asked if the applicants have considered other paving that’s more historically representative of the meadows. Is there a way that they could incorporate what is there predominantly, which is the gravel patios that go through the meadow? Mr. Curtis stated that they would be happy to consider crusher fines. At this point, the Building Department has said that will not be ADA compliant. The existing central spine in the music association parking lot today has trees on the other side. That is chip and seal, which they could consider. They were looking for a well-defined walkway, cleaning up the boundary, making it safe, reducing dust, and giving it proper drainage. Mr. Halferty stated that the Bayer detailing with his typical roofs are pretty geometric and simple. The roof that’s suggested for that top portion has a sharp angle. He asked if they have considered any other potential solutions. Mr. Berkus stated that this is pretty heavy and the roof meets the sky in a much lighter way. At the pedestrian level, they are presented with the c channel all the way around. When they studied the building in 3D, it was decided to do a much lighter roof. They found that to be really successful. It has a very thin edge and it just goes away. They are not trying to call attention to any of the height of this building. In their minds, this was a much softer way. 18 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Thompson asked the applicants to talk about what they’re proposing on the Bettcher building regarding moving the utilities, enclosing the courtyard, and adding the utility yard. She asked if that is all of the improvements. Mr. Berkus stated that that is correct, with the addition of adding a vestibule between the two pods and enclosing that with glass. Ms. Thompson asked what they are proposing to do with the exterior walls that will be becoming interior walls in the courtyard. Mr. Berkus stated that, for building function, four of them will become furred so that they can run power and not have the conduit exposed. They are still maintaining the CMU on the other four because it’s octagonal-shaped. Ms. Thompson asked if they are removing part of the CMU. Mr. Berkus stated that they are just furring out. Ms. Sanzone asked the applicants to show aerial or survey that shows existing conditions. She asked Mr. Curtis to point to the site and landscape features that they determined were historic or contributed to Bayer’s work. Mr. Berkus stated that this building didn’t have defined edges other than the concrete walkway of the front and the paths. There was one sculpture out in front along the east side. That was really the only sculptural element. They didn’t take the lawn out as far as the irrigated lawn of the Physics Center. Ms. Sanzone stated that there are a couple of ditches that run through the project site. She asked if those were determined to not be historic or contributing to the site design at all. Mr. Berkus replied yes. Ms. Sanzone stated that the one is re-routed and seems to disappear. What happens to that? Mr. Berkus stated that it goes back to the other one. Ms. Sanzone stated that there are also some mounds that are on that side of the property. Were those constructed at the same time as the buildings? Mr. Berkus stated that those were not considered to be part of the resource. The idea of adding the mounds to the back to really give it the defined character was where the applicants took off from the Anderson Park. Ms. Sanzone asked if they know when the spruce trees were installed. 19 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Mr. Curtis stated that the applicants have a photograph from 1991 and neither of the spruce trees show up in that. At that time, it did show a grass situation in front. They do have permission from the Parks Department to remove the tree that’s infringing on the building. They would like to try to transplant the tree that’s in the center, but the Parks Department has said go ahead and transplant it. If it dies, the applicants will mitigate for that upfront. Mr. Berkus stated that there was some concern about the neighbors parking on the street and more people coming off of Gillespie. There will be a 42-inch high fence along that street that directs people down to the corner. That’s a fence Herbert Bayer designed for the West End. They are taking that fence. It will discourage parking from the neighbors across the street. Mr. Curtis stated that, when the applicants spoke with the neighbors, they had rows of Aspen trees on Gillespie Avenue and the proposed pedestrian walkway on the MAA parking lot. The feedback they got from the neighbors was that didn’t want to see Aspen trees. They wanted to be able to look up above the building and see Red Mountain. What they’ve done is eliminated the proposed Aspen trees and they’re proposing a low hedge, one or two feet above the fence, so pedestrians on Gillespie Avenue and the new pedestrian walkway can look into the complex and continue to see Red Mountain as the backdrop to the two buildings. Ms. Sanzone stated that there are a lot of trees and large shrubs that are along the perimeter of the site. They show up in the Engineering drawings. It looks like there are a lot of utilities being routed through them. Is the intent that, if they’re shown on the existing and proposed, they’re going to stay? Mr. Curtis stated that, to clarify, the trees on the south east corner of the Bayer building are existing and they’re proposing not to touch any of those. At the corner of Gillespie and 5th, there’s a cluster of three cottonwoods and one spruce. To get the five-foot sidewalk in, one of those trees may have to come out with permission from the Parks Department. On the proposed pedestrian walkway to the east, there are some smaller Aspen trees that would come out and a new hedge would go in. The Parks Department has said that they’re fine with the smaller Aspen trees coming out, given that they are quadrupling the mitigation by planting 80-some Aspen trees on the backside of the building. Ms. Sanzone asked if the trees and shrubs that run parallel to the new bus lane would be removed. Mr. Curtis stated that that is correct. The comment they received from the neighbors was that the property doesn’t look “cleaned up.” They are proposing to take out the existing shrubbery, replace it with a more semi-formal hedge to better allow views into the two buildings. Ms. Sanzone asked where the need for the sidewalk along Gillespie came from. Mr. Curtis stated the Engineering Department. Mr. Berkus stated that it’s because of the people walking in the bus lane. 20 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Mr. Curtis stated that, currently, there’s maybe a two-and-a-half to three-foot crusher fine path that winds through there. The applicants would be happy to upgrade that crusher fine path with an edger and clean it up. He presented that proposal to the Engineering Department at design review comment. They said that it doesn’t comply with City code. Ms. Sanzone asked how the trash and recycling will be removed from the new service area. Will it be by a small cart? Mr. Curtis stated that it will. The meadows behind the Isaacson center has a center has a central service yard with a compactor, dumpsters, a recycling bin all in one location. It works well for them. There’s one dumpster on the property and they don’t even use them because it’s so much easier to manage the central facility. That was unacceptable to the Environmental Health Department. So what the applicants are proposing is to have this enclosure be a holding zone. They’re not looking at big dumpsters. They’re looking at 96-gallong containers. Any food product that’s generated will be gone in one day. It’s a holding zone, it’s not a traditional dumpster. The paving into the mechanical room where the condensers are will be set up so that golf carts can back in there, pick up the 96-gallon containers, and take them to the central service yard. That’s acceptable to Environmental Health and works better for the Meadows operations. Ms. Sanzone asked if the sculpture at the corner is not a Bayer’s sculpture. Mr. Berkus stated that it is a Bayer sculpture. It is an interpretation of his chromatic gates from Santa Barbara that is currently being looked at as a commission elsewhere. Mr. Curtis stated that there is an existing sculpture on the east side of Bettcher. That sculpture is a Rita Blitt. They are looking at donating that sculpture to another nonprofit in the valley with the consent of the artist. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Susanna Reid introduced herself. She stated that she is representing the owner of 775 Meadows Road. She asked the applicant for more detail on the maintenance shed. Maybe a section and a plan showing its relationship to the street. Also how the lighting is going to be handled in that area. Beyond that, as a member of the community, she thinks it is a very exciting plan. Lisa Markalunas introduced herself as a life-long Aspen resident. She walks the Aspen Institute property every day. She thinks the applicants have to be careful about representing the neighborhood as two neighbors who had input with Mr. Curtis. There is a broader spectrum of neighbors, many of whom feel like there’s no point even putting up a comment. This will happen and they will have no say. Even people directly across the street have expressed that to her. She is concerned about the encroachment on the rear meadow. The encroachment onto the sage is much more significant than what’s represented here. Matching the end of the Physics irrigated lawn, if you go out there, it’s a much greater impact on that sage meadow. That sage meadow is a significant meadow. It’s been conserved as part of Amy’s Meadow with a conservation easement there and down on the historic racetrack and meadow. Encroaching into that with the degree to which they are to create an entertaining space is a concern. A rather large water feature. The neighborhood is concerned. They are heavily impacted by 21 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 traffic, by the increase in venue use at the Institute and Music Festival. With more events year-round in shoulder seasons is more traffic, more parking issues. The Bettcher building has no parking of its own. Their staff utilizes the Music Festival parking lot, which is shared. They often utilize the Physics parking lot but are restricted when the Physics is in session. Any access to that parking, there needs to be a certain amount of transparency for access for daily use to the building. She applauds the improvements to the bus lane and thinks they have to go with some kind of asphalt. They have to have access to that parking that people are going to use on a daily basis. She questions pushing all of the pedestrian access out to Gillespie Street. The transit picks up in the rear of the Music Festival lot. That’s where all of the bus service stops, not on Gillespie. It’s been an ongoing problem. Thirty years ago, Mary Martin said she does not want the Music Festival lot paved ever. At that time, they had gravel. For the last 25 years, it’s been re-hashed, reproduction of a mess for their entire parking service. On a rainy day, that tracks all the way two blocks up 5th Street. Anytime a RFTA bus pulls out for the MAA students to go to the Bucksbaum campus, the dust just flies. While she applauds an alternative surface, it’s long overdue that the entire parking area and the bus lanes are asphalted. In the winter, more ploughing than ever has occurred on the site. It creates a lot of impacts that Steve Fallender and Jan Collins feel being most directly across from the entrance. They need to have access to parking because pushing everybody on to Gillespie street is problematic, especially at concert hour. Regarding the sidewalk on Gillespie, she doesn’t think she’s ever seen anyone use that raised sidewalk that’s there. She hesitates to encourage the applicants to take out existing landscape and foliage to provide a sidewalk to nowhere. It’s a one- block side walk that doesn’t go from anywhere to anywhere. Most of the people who access the property come through the Physics ground, down Gillespie, down 5th street, they walk in the street. They park in the neighborhood. Even at concert hour. Allowing that to push the landscape and take out those existing cottonwood trees, the existing mature Aspen trees that border the Physics lot are important to retain. She doesn’t have any objection to taking out the honeysuckle bushes, but things they have to consider the landscape that is mature landscape and the sage meadow and the encroachment into the sage meadow. She applauds the fact that they are relocating one of the most beautiful trees on the whole campus, the spruce tree. She hopes it can be relocated, it’s worth a try. She applauds the elimination of the conduit. Whenever that was added 20 or 25 years ago to the Bettcher building, it’s an eyesore to the building, it’s not in keeping with Herbert Bayer’s design. It really needs to be cleaned up and rectified because it’s a mess. The Aspen Institute, with its many events, has huge impacts to the neighborhood as does the traffic that the West End is subject to. There were representations made by the Aspen Institute when they developed the lots on the racetrack meadow, when they re-did the town homes that were torn down, when they re-did all of the buildings, that all of their access would go out 7th Street. That access doesn’t go out 7th Street, those shuttles run through the neighborhood down North Street, just like all the commuter traffic does. They have to remember the representations they make to the neighbors and public and hold them accountable to using that. The Meadows van goes down North Street dozens of times a day, down Gillespie dozens of times a day. All of that was not represented to the neighborhood. It’s important that there’s some mechanism where representations that are made about venues, usage, receptions, private receptions, some of that is memorialized, not just forgotten about. She hopes they’ll maintain the simplicity and beauty of Herbert Bayer’s landscape. The beauty that he developed and not over-do the amount of sculpture and water feature and not complicate the site. Cramming that building between the Bettcher and Gillespie is a lot for that site to hold. 22 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Jan Collins introduced herself as the closest neighbor to this property. She has been at this property for 55 years. She was there when they built the Bettcher and has been there through all the requirements for what the Bettcher was supposed to be and what it’s turned out to be, which has been an asset to the Aspen community and she has loved it. She doesn’t have a lot of criticisms, but she does have a few. She does not like the multi-colored entrance to the property. It’s not Herbert’s design. He did not ever put on the exterior multi-colors, he painted multi-colors. He did not put multi-colors on the exteriors of his buildings, as you can see in his designs. It just doesn’t go, and she is going to have to look at it and know that he wouldn’t like it. Regarding the bus lane, the neighborhood does suffer a lot from dust and she hopes that they can mitigate it. The dust comes from the busses coming and stopping and then spinning their wheels. It’s not a healthy thing. Along the proposed walkway, there are now mature honeysuckles. They were deliberately put there. Unlike the applicants saying they want to see the building, when Bettcher went in, they didn’t want to see the parking lot. That was their goal when they were designing. In 1975 when it was built, her husband was on P&Z and she was the business director of the Music Festival at that time. They were working together to mitigate anybody looking at the parking. The building was to be kept quiet, and behind that put in the honeysuckles. She would hate to see them go. She walks there everyday and it gives it a natural feeling as you walk along and you can’t see the busses, cars, and parking lot. It’s a wonderful property. For all its neglect, it’s grown up to be a pleasant place. The neighbors enjoy it as a park. She questions the garden party business in the sage meadow. She is not sure they need more entertainment in that building. It’s been a quiet, subtle, subdued place. It’s worked hard for the Ideas conference. It’s a great asset to the community. She worries about any changes in the water features because the water is so tenuous there. She thinks you have to exit that parking lot where it is right now, where the exit goes directly to the Bettcher. She wants to see an overlay of some kind that shows where things are now versus where they are proposed to be. Mr. Berkus pulled up a rendering on the slide. Ms. Collins stated that, one of the things that she can recall from 1965 is that it was important that the Bettcher be 100 feet from Gillespie. At the time, everyone thought that it was a good idea to keep it out of the existing neighborhood. She wants to see them put the building in and still make it a neighborhood feature, as it is today. The entrance should be where it is now and not at the corner. It can be more defined than it is now. If it were there, it would be a bigger utility because of bus access. The corner is high traffic. It should be moved away from there. She would like to be more involved and informed as this project comes down the line. She would like to share her knowledge from being there. She worries about the sage because it’s an endangered species. The building itself looks very compatible. She loves the colors and the way they’re doing it. It’s going to be nice. Steve Fallender introduced himself. He stated that he lives about as directly across the street as Jan Collins. He does not have anywhere near the history that she has. They have been there 15 years. He complimented Mr. Curtis and his efforts to contact the neighbors and keep them informed of the plans. He never really thought of where the entrance would be, but after Ms. Collins’s comments he does have a little bit of concern that the entrance off the corner is going to discourage people who use the Bayer building from parking in the parking lot and rather parking on the street since that’s where the entrance is going to be. They’re not going to want to drive into the parking lot, go in towards the Bettcher 23 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 building and make a circle. He appreciates their efforts to clean up the right-of-way along Gillespie Street. The Music Festival and the Institute have beautiful ground that the neighbors enjoy walking through. Unfortunately, they have left Gillespie Street abandoned, and it’s just not very attractive. It’s not maintained well and it’s really not a part of anything. That’s inconsistent with the lawns and yards throughout the West End. It’s encouraging that they’re trying to do that. He does not know if they received a video from Jeannette Whitcomb of the dust that comes off of the parking lot. He recommended it. He has been talking to her for three years about the dust. His family understands that the Institute and the Music Festival are going to generate a lot of traffic during the times of their events. No matter how that parking lot is, they’re going to get cars going through and parking in their neighborhood. They accept traffic. But the dust that comes off of the drive and the parking lot shouldn’t be. The Music Festival has received notices from the City of violation of the City codes. It is critical that the bus lane be paved. It’s not only a bus lane. It serves people who are dropped off by the vans, it serves the trucks that service the Festival and the Institute with tents and all the other stuff that comes during their events. Anything other than paving really won’t work. It’s a commercial vehicle path, it just needs to be paved. The same thing with the exit onto Gillespie Street. It needs to be paved back because now there’s the gravel off of the chip and seal that comes off of the streets, dust from the parking lot. It’s unrealistic to expect that the parking lot is going to be paved. But it could be paved far enough in that there’s no dust. If anybody questions that they should look at the video that Jeannette did. It is a dust storm. It’s a big deal to the neighbors that that be resolved. Ms. Greenwood stated that they should form a neighborhood group and go to the entities separately and try to get that accomplished working with the City. It’s really not the topic tonight. Ms. Simon stated that it is part of what HPC is looking at as far as passing the project on to City Council for further review. Staff are recommending approval of that bus vehicle lane and there is a condition in the resolution that this fugitive dust issue be discussed in more detail. The Institute’s concern is they don’t want to be responsible for the entire problem when they’re just using a portion of the lot. This does need to be revisited. It has come up as a violation recently. She is not sure if HPC needs to resolve anything other than that they have a condition in approval. Ms. Greenwood stated that they can make a recommendation to City Council. With the increased traffic and things like that, because of this development, it’s a situation that needs to be dealt with by someone. That would be something that they could discuss. Mr. Fallender stated that he would just like to make sure that it gets resolved as Mr. Curtis has suggested. If it does, that’s great. Ms. Simon stated that the HPC resolution would include that drawing that shows the bus lane and the pedestrian path paved all the way out to Gillespie and the continued discussion about the fugitive dust issue. And a paved apron out to Gillespie. Mr. Fallender stated that there are multiple houses in the neighborhood that are designated historic. He finds it a little strange that the dust from the parking lot doesn’t affect the historic character of the neighborhood. It definitely effects the whole neighborhood. 24 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Greenwood stated that nobody is saying that. There are just a lot of topics to consider. Mr. Fallender stated that it just keeps getting pushed off. Ms. Greenwood stated that she suggests Mr. Fallender go to the City Council meetings regarding this project. The Commission will discuss whether they want to pass on a recommendation that the City should start to think about paving that. Ms. Simon stated that she has two letters to enter into the record in addition to the ones that are in the packet. She forwarded these to the Commissioners by email. Ms. Markalunas sent a letter yesterday after the packet was issued, which covers many of the points she spoke to in public comment tonight. Matt Brown, who also lives on Gillespie in an historic home sent an email today. He’s excited about the project. He is, like other, mostly focused on how pedestrians access the site and the traffic issues. He feels that some improvements need to be made to the Institute or Meadows side of the Gillespie Street, more than has been shown in the plans so far. He is concerned about where people walk and that there is little maintenance of that area. APPLICANT REBUTTAL: Mr. Curtis showed the location of the original preservation zoning line and the Amy’s Meadows conservation line on a rendering on the slide. There was a comment that the public thought they were encroaching on those two boundaries. They are not. Mr. Berkus stated that they are very excited about working with Rowland Broughton. There is a secondary access. That is something that would be used that is closer to the bus dropoff, probably be a primary access for anybody using the parking lot of the public transportation. They did look at keeping the existing path and it just cuts the space in half. They felt it was a much more elegant solution to the two buildings instead of a path that isn’t really focused on anything. The path from the corner came after a lot of consideration. The secondary access to maintain exactly what was brought up. Ms. Simon stated that there is a lot of discussion about the landscape tonight. Any comments about the site plan should be kept high-level. Landscape design is usually a final review discussion. They haven’t really addressed the gate or fence, any of that sort of thing at this point. They would talk about it at final. COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION: Ms. Greenwood stated that, in their packets, they have the conditions for approval. Ms. Simon has laid out exactly what kind of recommendations the Commission needs to make to City Council and they’re included in that packet. Mr. Halferty stated that he agrees with staff’s memo as far as compliance with HPC guidelines, echoing a lot of the comments from the neighbors. The landscape part seems too formal and too specified. It’s not as loose and artistically interesting as what Bayer initially did. The architecture and improvements to the Bettcher building are warranted. The new architecture for the Resnick Hall is compliant, though he did have some questions, but the architects have clearly described those. He feels it is compliant to HPC guidelines. He appreciates the volunteer designation. All of the architectural improvements as far 25 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 as removing all of the scabbed on conduit and things like that onto the Bettcher building. Listening to the parking and the surface and dust mitigation stuff definitely needs to be addressed but not necessarily by this board. He feels like he could support this for conceptual approval. Ms. Greenwood stated that he thinks it’s wonderful that the Bettcher is going to be designated historic. That’s significant. This is conceptual and the project is really baked. It’s difficult to give feedback given the schedule that’s imposed upon this project. There are some definite problems. The landscaping is neither formal or informal. It doesn’t have a strong concept with the rows of plants going along the pedestrian walkway. The corner entry to the property with non-Bayer sculpture going beneath it is really a miss. That’s a very crowded intersection between the busses and the people, everyone coming in the narrow funnel to get to the rest of the campus. This is a glorious site with glorious buildings on it and there are very minimal entrances to these properties. You still feel like you’re on the street when you’re going past the new development. She doesn’t think the solution is there yet. She especially dislikes the arches by another artist. That is a laughable idea for Aspen. There should be a Herbert Bayer sculpture incorporated into the entry of this parcel. It feels so wrong. There is a lot of circular movement and a lot of straight paths going places. Getting off the bus and taking the entry to where the trash is going to be, that doesn’t really address how you use the buildings from a public standpoint. The curves on the site are really nice. They do emulate the Bayer building more so than they do the new building. The new building is very square and doesn’t have the movement of the Bettcher building. Yet the landscape is circular. It doesn’t feel like it’s ready for that design yet. It would have been good to be able to have more input and public input into the design of the space given that the neighbors have lived next to it for a long time and it feels like it’s been cooked within a small group of people. The results aren’t there yet for her. She could move it on to City Council because that’s where they are in the process, regardless of the fact that it has some design issues that should be resolved. That’s the entry, landscaping, the relationship of the buildings with the landscaping. It seems very different. She supports staff’s recommendation to move it forward. On a conceptual level, the Commission would typically want to look at some of the issues that were brought up and brought back to them. She doesn’t know how the rest of the board feels, but she thinks that there are some issues that need to get resolved and aren’t. She thinks they should, for the neighbors’ sake, make a strong recommendation to City Council that, given the traffic that’s going to be generated by this, which is hard to predict. She doesn’t see how the City can dictate whether or not they can have private events, they’re going to happen. Given that, the City should do whatever it takes to pave that parking lot. As a board, they could make strong recommendations. Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees with staff’s recommendations for moving this forward. He sees a few issues with the landscaping. Instead of a water feature, he would rather see more of a natural transition between the historic property and the open space. He asked how they would try to direct people to the secondary entrance to the parking lot. How do you get people to use that instead of just walking down the bus lane again and around to the corner? He’s not sure how they address that. He would rather see a Herbert Bayer entrance than a tribute to Herbert Bayer, but that’s not something that could happen. He thinks the Commission should move this forward, but there are some things he would like to see in terms of the landscaping. 26 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Thompson stated that she echoes a lot of Ms. Greenwood’s comments. She is really excited about the designation of the Bettcher building and thinks that the placement of the Bayer Center on the site is appropriate. She thinks additional study for pedestrian access at final with the landscape plan would be extremely helpful. A little bit more consideration to the neighbors’ concerns. She does agree that the sage garden and the formality of the lawn should be considered to be more appropriate to what was originally seen there. Ms. Sanzone stated that she is excited that this building will be designated. She thinks the building is beautiful and it really complies with the guidelines and what they would hope to see adjacent to an historic building. She agrees with all the comments the board members have made so far about the site and landscape. It doesn’t feel like it’s appropriate here. There’s a lot of opportunity in really highlighting some of the unique features that are on the property. Some that the neighbors have brought up, how people have used the property. It’s a great, simple space. Dialing back what’s proposed would go a long way to make this fit in the neighborhood. She would support not putting a formal sidewalk, not putting curbing cutter on Gillespie. They continually fight other departments to keep the West End historic and keep it as it is. She would support dialing back those features. Even though the plantings and vegetation that’s onsite has come long incrementally over time, she thinks that there’s a story to tell of how that’s happened. The Commission has heard some from the neighbors about why the honeysuckle hedgerow is there. She would like to see a greater effort to try to incorporate the existing plant material into the design, especially at the corner. There are some significant trees that could create that gateway. They don’t need to have the new sculpture to do that. There’s an amazing opportunity there. Some of the details will get worked out but there are opportunities to relocate the transformer to make that experience stronger. The sage meadow, the value that those represent historically in the community, there aren’t a lot of those left. Even though it’s outside the preserved area, it would be really awesome if there was a way to incorporate that more deeply into the landscape design. Mr. Moyer asked Lissa what her thoughts are on the entry sculpture. Lissa stated that it is actually a Bayer sculpture. It’s from a maquette that was never actually created into a larger sculpture. The way that Bayer designed his sculptures is that he had a lot of ideas as maquettes and he wasn’t able to realize most of them. This is one that was never realized in human scale. Mr. Moyer asked if the water portion of the landscaping is a practical or aesthetic concept. Mr. Berkus stated that it’s a mix, but it’s more aesthetic. They could narrow it up to be the waterway that it was. But the landscape architect had a very strong feeling about the reflection of the sculpture floating in the water feature. There was a lot of thought on that but they knew it would be up for discussion. Mr. Moyer stated that the more public comments they have, the better projects they have. Staff’s recommendations are fine and the Commission should approve that. He stated that it’s really obvious 27 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 that this whole landscaping plan is not ready. He asked Ms. Simon if that is going to interfere with having a better landscaping plan if they approve the resolution. Ms. Simon stated that it won’t. The memo notes that landscaping is a final review issue. The resolution is silent about it. If the Commission needs to add something to be more clear, they can. Her point of view is that none of it is approved at this level, that that is a final review issue. The only thing that concerns her is the gate element because it is over the height limit for any kind of fence or gate. It may be something that Council needs to bless. It sounds like the Commissioners have some concerns about it. It may need some resolution here. Mr. Moyer stated that it’s a great idea when the designer can walk around and say: “if I put this here, people are going to walk there” and feel what people are going to do when they move around and they enter a place or leave a place. In part of the reflection on the landscaping, it’s important to reflect back to when they read Pattern Language and reflect upon that. He’s ready to approve it conceptually. Ms. Greenwood stated that she thinks they should add something about the landscaping, the entry, and the gate. It doesn’t feel like the rest of the property. It feels very kitschy. Bayer’s sculptures don’t produce that. Ms. Sanzone asked if they can broaden the comment to be that they have general concerns about the site and landscape rather than be specific about one element. As they look at it, they may come up with a different design solution that’s more appropriate. Ms. Greenwood stated that she thinks the whole general needs to be thought with the position that they’ve placed the buildings and the traffic in the neighborhood. It’s an odd location. There’s symmetry to the buildings and yet there is an entry that doesn’t embrace that. If she wants to come up with a part of a condition for the general landscaping, she should go ahead. Ms. Simon stated that someone needs to motion to extend the meeting for a little longer. Mr. Moyer motioned to extend the meeting for another fifteen minutes. Mr. Kendrick seconded. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon if setback requirements apply to this. Ms. Simon stated that this is a planned development, so there are no rules. Their approval will represent what’s allowed. There is no limit to square footage or setbacks or height or anything. It’s just what the Commission finds meets the guidelines and is acceptable. MOTION: Ms. Sanzone motioned to approve the resolution as staff has presented it with one additional condition that, based on the extensive comment by the board and even though the landscape and site plan wasn’t formally presented to them, they would recommend significant restudy to address the comments that were made by the board and members of the public. 28 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Ms. Thompson seconded. Ms. Simon asked if they want their condition to read: “restudy of the landscape and site design” or just the “landscape plan.” Ms. Sanzone stated that she would like it to say: “site plan and landscape design.” Mr. Berkus asked how he might direct the landscape architect. This is a lot of pressure on him to come back at final and try to get it right. He is hearing that, if they were to pull back from the sage a little bit, everybody would be happy with that. He is hearing that the corner might want to be restudied. He’s hearing that they should have another solution for the gate. He asked if they all like coming off of the parking lot side better. Ms. Greenwood stated that there’s an awkward relationship between the parking lot, the bus lane, the walking path, and the entry to that building. The curvature getting around to the buildings. It doesn’t flow. For her, she thinks it would be interesting to see different concepts. Mr. Berkus stated that it was all about flow. The idea was to be able to walk around the buildings, because you typically can’t do that. It gives a very nice distance from the building. But he can see how it’s possible to come in through the sage easily. He asked if the curb on the northside is bothering them as well, or if it’s just the way that they approach the buildings. Ms. Greenwood stated that it’s the approach. Mr. Kendrick stated that it’s the flow from the parking lot to the site. Ms. Greenwood stated that also from the street. The buildings are symmetrical and you don’t relate to the buildings. Mr. Berkus stated that you come in on the center line of the two buildings. This is the way that both buildings are seen at once and you see Bettcher in its entirety. Mr. Curtis stated that Mr. Berkus has to listen to the comments. Ms. Sanzone stated that no one here is questioning the placement of the new building. That’s good. For her it’s more fundamental that there are elements of the existing landscape that rise to the top and start to form the structure of the landscape. It involves flow, structure, arrival. There is a lot of comment on this one area, but she doesn’t want him to go away and say that’s the only area they need to take a look at. Ms. Thompson stated that it’s presented in a way that shows that the applicants have considered how the pedestrian flow would occur. She’s not saying she wants to see an access path in a specific location but she wants to see how they’ve come to that solution and how they anticipate it functioning. 29 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 Mr. Berkus asked if they need that for City Council or if that’s for final review with HPC. Ms. Simon stated that, the comments be entered as verbatim as possible into the minutes and that the minutes will be produced quickly so that they can get going. Mr. Moyer stated that this is really important. Thinking of when he had lunch with Herbert at Nora Berko’s parents place, sitting in the garden. What Herbert was like and what he did and so on. He asked if this is important enough that they should have another meeting, just about this design and landscape process. Many people knew Herbert Bayer. There’s something about the whole landscaping thing that just isn’t working. Maybe we should have another meeting before final. Mr. Halferty stated that they should let them rethink it and simplify it. Ms. Greenwood stated that they are always available. Ms. Sanzone asked if Mr. Moyer is suggesting an informal meeting or another HPC board meeting. Ms. Simon stated that, to be realistic, the applicant is already coming back on February 26th for final. She needs the packet at least a week before that. They already only have two and a half or three weeks to turn around. She does not want to try to cram another discussion in. It’s clear what the Commission has concerns with. They have a talented team. They’ll respond. Ms. Thompson asked if the landscape needs to go through Council. Ms. Simon stated that she doesn’t think so. She thinks that she simply has to convey to Council that this was such an important issue to HPC and they want to maintain purview over it, in terms of the final design. Mr. Curtis stated that they have no problem. Ms. Greenwood stated that the applicant is definitely looking for direction. She asked if they would describe their recommendation to be towards a more natural landscape setting. A better flow for pedestrians. A better entry. Mr. Sanzone stated that she thinks it’s everything he’s heard tonight. She doesn’t know if they can summarize it. Mr. Berkus stated that they have the direction. Roll call vote: Ms. Greenwood: yes; Ms. Thompson: yes; Mr. Kendrick: yes; Mr. Halferty: yes; Mr. Moyer: yes; Mr. Sanzone: yes OTHER BUSINESS: None. 30 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020 MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 PM. Ms. Greenwood seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ______________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager