HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20040526ASPEN .HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 26, 2004
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE -VISITS: Please visit 403 W. Hallam St. and Aspen Meadows K r t--es~auran-
Own.
on
your
'I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Roll call
Approval of minutes, - April 14, 2004 - April 28, 2004 minutes
Public Comments
Commission member comments
Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
Project Monitoring
A. .NONE
VII. Staff comments: Certificates of No Negative Effect issued
(NeXt resolution will be #15)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. NONE
IX.
NEW BUSINESS -
A. 1000 N. Third Street- Aspen Meadows Restaurant - Major
Development (Co.nceptual),~,/~/¢~/~,~/~ ¢~',~,'(7 ~:.
B. 403 W. Hallam Street'- Janss/Gibbs - Major Development
(Conceptual) and Variances
WORK SESSION
A. Holden Marolt- Discussion, new trail and buildings
XI. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU:
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
1000 N. Third Street, Aspen Meadows Restaurant- Major Development Review
(Conceptual)- Public Hearing
DATE:
May 26, 2004
SUMMARY: The Aspen Meadows Restaurant building was designed by Herbert Bayer and
Fritz Benedict and was constructed in 1958. It is a designated Aspen Landmark.
In 1991, the Meadows area completed an SPA (Specially Planned Area) review which
established the rights to expand structures and activities on the campus. The restaurant building
received approval to add 2,000 square feet, and HPC was given the authority to review and
accept the design, which was ultimately never constructed. The "vested rights" for ":he project,
which guaranteed the approval protection from any changes to City Land Use regulations for a
period of three years, have expired and a new HPC review is necessary.
Staff finds that the project is significantly better than the 1991 version in terms of being
distinguishable as a product of its own time and recommends Conceptual approval.
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, represented by Harry Teague Architects and Jim Curtis.
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-29-008.
ADDRESS: 1000 N. Third Street, The Prince Bandar bin Sultan Center/Aspen Meadows
Restaurant and Reception Center, within the Aspen Meadows SPA, City and Townsite, of Aspen.
ZONING: SPA.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis reportland the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
I
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the
appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be
the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project
(note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time):
1. Why is the property significant?
2. What are the key features of the property?
3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes?
4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score?
5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the
property?
The Aspen Institute for Humanistic was created in 1947 by Walter Paepke and formed the
foundation for the Aspen Renaissance period after World War II. The Meadows campus is very
significant as the center of activities related to Paepcke's "Aspen Idea." Paepcke brought Herbert
Bayer to Aspen in 1946 to serve as the design consultant for the Institute, a role in which he
served until 1976. Bayer, with assistance from Fritz Benedict, was offered the chance to design a
planned environment, where the goal was total visual integration.
The key features of the property are the campus plan and the relationship between the
architecture and landscape. A number of original Bayer buildings remain, and new structures
have been designed in a manner that is generally sympathetic to the Bauhaus aesthetic. It is very
important that this careful stewardship of the property be maintained.
As noted in the application, the Restaurant building is the gateway into the Meadows area. The
building exterior is relative unchanged from the original design, with the exception of
replacements of certain features such as railings, and minor additions for mechanical areas. This
project will use 1200 square feet of the 2000 square feet that was allotted through the SPA.
Desil?:n Guideline review
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B." Only those
guidelines which staff finds warrant discussion are included in the memo.
2
Staff finds that this project completely meets the spirit of the design guidelines and the goal of
allowing dynamic additions to happen when they can be accommodated without taking away
from the character defining features of the resource that is being preserved. The addition at the
back of the restaurant will improve the usefulness of the building but will allow the simple, flat
roofed character of the restaurant to still be the predominant perception from Meadows Road.
With regard to any guidelines that might be challenged by the design, staff finds that this solution
addresses their intent. For instance, the guidelines say:
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
D A I-story connector is preferred.
D The COlmector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
D The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
and
10.9 Roofforms should be similar to those of the historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
There is no opportunity to distance the addition from the original building due to the topography
of the site and the desire to have the interior function well as a meeting space. As for the curved
roof on the addition, this is appropriate because it respects the boxy form of the restaurant but is
clearly distinguishable as something new.
The proposed porte cochere is an unusual element to allow in front of a landmark structure in the
sense that it may interfere with the ability to view the front elevation. The covering is totally free
standing and is light construction. To the extent that this might be akin to a carport, it is certainly
not out of character with Bayer's work. HPC must be comfortable making a finding that the
following design guideline is not being violated. Because the porte cochere does not directly
affect the building, Staff can support approval for it.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
3
D Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development "(Conceptual)
for the Aspen Meadows Restaurant with the following conditions:
1. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(I) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
2. A landscape plan (if applicable), lighting, fenestration and detailing, selection of new
materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials will all
be addressed at Final Review.
Exhibits:
Resolution #_, Series of 2004
A. Staff memo dated May 26, 2004
B. Relevant Design Guidelines
C. Application
4
"Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for the Aspen Meadows Restaurant, Conceptual
Review"
New Additions
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
D A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may
be considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
D An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
D A I-story connector is preferred.
D The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
D The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
D Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
D Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
5
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
D For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that
of a historic building.
D An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on
the side.
D Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic
ones on similar historic structures.
D Dormers should be located below tile primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one
foot.
10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building.
D This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen
from the street.
D 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic
building.
D If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
D Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. .
6