Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910522HISTORIC PI~ES~RVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 22, 1991 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss, with Jake Vickery, Glenn Rappaport, Les Holst and Roger Moyer present. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minutes of Feb. 13, 1991; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minutes of April 8, 1991; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minutes of March 13, 1991; second by Bill. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minutes of March 21, 1991 as amended; second by Glenn. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Bill made the motion to table the April 10th minutes until Jake can review and clarify #3 of his motion on page six; second by Glenn. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Bill made the motion to approve the minutes of May 8, 1991; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. ~EADOWS (ACADEMIC & MUSIC) FINAL DEVELOPMENT Planner Roxanne Eflin presented the overview of the project as attached in records (see memo dated May 22, 1991). The Planning Office recommends approval subject to four conditions: 1) Pedestrian-level rendering submitted and approved detailing all design elements of entrance from the parking lot/bus drop off area, prior to issuance of applicable building permits. 2) Continue to restudy methods to reduce both berming around the tent and hard surfaces. Submit revised drawings accordingly. 3) Restudy the aluminum glass overhead doors. 4) Revised chalet drawings and revised model shall be approved by the sub-committee prior to the issuance of a building permit. Roxanne: The conditions will be incorporated into the memo to the ordinance for city Council to review. Bill: Lets deal with the four conditions. Harry Teague, architect: I am not sure what a rendering will do since it is mostly vegetation. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 22, 1991 Roxanne: When you are a pedestrian going to the tent, what route would you take. How does that work compatibly with the overall resource of the Meadows and tent area. If you don't find #1 an issue, eliminate it. Les: The drawing would be a safety measure that ensures that the vegetation stays. Bill: I have been contacted about the berm immediately around the tent. Are they going to remain around 6 feet high or could the height be reduced? Harry: The berm is at 6 feet high because of the grade. They are not all at six feet only one particular point. Two trees are being moved because they are in the pathway. Roxanne: If the HPC recommends a restudy on the lowering of the berm that needs to be stated. Bill: I do not feel a need to reduce them any further than 3 feet. That is a nice gentle berm and adds interest. Glenn: Possibly show a larger schematic section and its development around the berm so people can see how gradual they really are. Les: I am happy with no conditions on the building permit as long as they work with the sub-committee. Harry: Regarding the glass doors, everyone felt comfortable with them and we will specify those on the final drawings. We can also work with the sub-committee on this if need be. Roxanne: The Board needs to discuss whether asphalt is an appropriate material or not. Roger: The Nordic Committee has been discussing the asphalt paving all over Aspen particularly the paths. There are two major problems: It burns off and is unattractive in the winter and asphalt is polluting. It gives off gas every time it gets wet. Harry: The problem is that asphalt is historic in this case. The eight foot asphalt paths is what goes to the institute. Roger: Possibly remove the asphalt all together. I would not make this a condition of approval but we would like you to look into other materials. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 22, 1991 Harry: We need a hard surface and the cost factor has to be taken into consideration. Harry: There was concern about the design of the chalet buildings regarding the south facade, that a vertical feel was being created and the structure was not showing through the edge of the building and that the wind screens were over-kill. We have removed the wind screens due to the maintenance problem as well as they reduced the usable area on the decks. The comment was made that we should have an egg crate feel, we have accomplished that by making the party walls stand out and become more dominant. We have also extended the structure out from the face of the building. Discussion on the face of the building that it represented a flat plane, that the vertical feel becomes less dominant. Gideon: In the motion we would like to have a finding that we have in fact met all the conditions of conceptual. Les: No one has mentioned bicycles being allowed in the area, will there be racks? Harry Teague: We want to accommodate those who do not drive but we do not want bikes in the tent area due to performances etc. We do not want to install a rack around the tent. People walking along wheeling their bike, that is fine. Jake: On the plaza elevation, the entrance to the rehearsal facility, how does that relate to other grades? Harry: It slopes in a natural grade and the height was reduced. Bill: I would entertain a motion that the HPC grant final development approval for both the academic and music portions of the Aspen Meadows finding that they have met all the conditions of conceptual approval subject to the following conditions to be reviewed and approved by Staff and the meadows sub-committee: The applicant submit schematic sections of the berming around the tent and to consider alternatives to formalized hard surfaces also around the tent. To examine softer material alternatives at that time. That they would submit any revised drawings for review to the Staff and sub-committee prior to the issuance of the application for a building permit. Submit specification for the final on aluminum and glass overhead doors to the performance hall for design Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 22, 1991 compatibility adjacent to the tent for to the issuance of a building permit. approval prior e That the applicant submit a set of drawings for the chalet buildings that were represented here at the meeting for the sub-committee and staff to review prior to submitting for a building permit. Glenn so moved. Ail in favor, motion carries. FINAL DEVELOPMENT - HOLDEN-MAROLT RANCHING & MINING MUSEUM Roxanne Eflin: Conceptual was granted with the following conditions: Condition #1 was the preservation activity shall adhere to the Sec. of Interior Standards. We are finding that has been met with the exception of the proposal to completely eliminate the roof extension structural system which does not meet the partial demolition standards or the Sec. of Interior Standards. We are recommending that the HPC deny this portion of the proposal. Condition #2 was that a sub-committee shall meet onsite with the applicant to review all details of preservation. That has been accomplished. Condition #3 deals with the cupola and the condition specifically states that the cupola be designed as a reconstruction, based upon accurate historic research. They are doing that with the exception of the windows that they are adding. There are three issues that have to be taken into consideration in the decision of the cupola. Since it is a reconstruction this is not the original feature being preserved. Should windows be allowed at all and if they should be allowed should they replicate the historic windows in the main body of the building. If not then what window should be used. Should it be simple and deal with the needs of light and ventilation. We are not comfortable with the window solution in this restored architectural feature. We think the windows should be very simple and recommending awning windows and also recommending the reduction in the number of windows. Condition #4 dealt with the landscape features. There is a surface level wood deck, half round shape and a new element. The applicant feels this is the most appropriate design. Our concern is the use of wood, is it appropriate or could another surface be used. The highway impacts have been included in the memorandum. The highway cuts off part of the lease parcel. There is also concern of the bridge placement. The highway is going to come 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 22, 1991 much closer to the barn and we are recommending that it not cross the pathway. Possibly the lease portion of the boundary should be relocated. If the HPC feels it appropriate that the museum portion of the parcel have more land then a recommendation could be made to the city to renegotiate. Graeme Means, architect: We will address the conditions. We have contacted someone in the State Historical Society who is a specialist and we hope to work with him and the monitor to understand what the guidelines should be regarding the structural system. Roger suggested leaving the existing and adding a light metal bracket. This building is a post and beam and we have to work very close to the existing. The building itself was engineered very well and the trusses are excellent on the inside. The trusses or brackets on the outside are poorly designed. We want to maintain the dignity of the building and do not want to be forced into a solution without carefully looking into this. We want to build an interior space that is exciting. We have very little light and have to introduce natural light as well as ventilation to make the space attractive for a museum use. Roger: What material will differentiate the cupola from the old and new. Heidi Hoffman, architect: We were planning on using barn wood siding. We haven't determined the size of the siding yet. Roger: An idea would be to have a sign inside stating what happened to the cupola as part of the exhibit. I would put new barn wood siding on the cupola, make it in a different dimension than the original building so that it shows that it is a period addition. A history inside why it was done and what was though to exist, any window structure in particular the three windows on the side. Graeme: We could review that. Bill: This is a national historic structure and our charge is to represent the state and go by their guidelines also. Graeme: It was originally wood shingles and we will re-roof with wood shingles. Les: I think the changes should be subtle and if the changes are too radical they will detract from the main barn. The window use and changing the dimension of the old barn wood, trim detail might be enough to satisfy the national guidelines. Graeme: I like that approach. If we use new wood it would be Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 22, 1991 too glaringly different and may call attention to itself. Glenn: I was done. use and it feel a sign is appropriate inside also explaining what The windows should be allowed because this is a new is important to bring light into the space. Heidi: We would like to distinguish the deck area as a gathering point for the museum and it would be a wood deck. Glenn: Regarding the brackets being left distinguishes what is going on. inside, it Jake: What is the spacing of the brackets? Graeme: One every ten feet. Roger: I feel we need to make a statement to the State, City and Federal government that we do not authorize the government going through an historic district. You see the government doing things that no private entity can ever do. Graeme: We would be happy to have language in here about moving the highway. Roger: We would have two motions one concerning the approval and one concerning the state highway and three a letter to the city concerning the possibility of adding on more land to work with them as a recommendation that the city does that. MOTION: Roger made the motion to grant final development approval to the Holden Marolt Museum site subject to the following condition: Demolition of existing roof extension structural system is denied, finding that the demolition and new construction design do not meet the Partial Demolition Standards, the Secretary of the Interior Standards, or the Development Review Standards. The applicant shall revise plans accordingly and restudy this issue. Revisions shall be approved by Staff and the project monitor. We recommend that the applicant follow through with the existing program of contacting the state historical architect and work with and follow his recommendation. #2 The cupola shall be shown as an addition to an historic structure with windows approved as submitted and siding to be approved by Staff and monitor; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger made the motion Preservation Committee is opposed disrupting a national historic site. that the Aspen Historic to any government entity We wish this to be part of Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 22, 1991 the record at this time during the phase of the renovation and we instruct Staff to write a letter to all government entities expressing our displeasure with something that government can do and a private citizen could not; second by Les. All approved, motion carries. MOTION: Roger made the motion that the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee recognizes the historic nature of the area and would like to recommend that the City of Aspen attempt to work with the Aspen Historic Museum to allow for a larger acreage around the existing Marolt Barn site as part of the overall future plan in whatever way will work with the Aspen Historic Society and the City. We encourage expansion of the property for future exhibits. A reconfiguration of the boundary as it now is laid out; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. INDEPENDENCE BUILDING STOREFRONT Roxanne: The applicant previously came before you for three display cases and HPC denied that application. They have submitted for a revised application which is one smaller display case with the dimension of the original window opening. I do not think display cases are appropriate on this building in the commercial core district. Michael Erneman, architect: There is a lower level commercial space as part of this building which has had difficulty in renting because they had no assurances or identity for themselves. Merchants needs something to display what they are conveying. Throughout town there are numerous display cases. Because this is an historic building this precludes us from putting a hole in the wall and do a window like you see anywhere else. We have proposed making a small case and staying consistent with the proportions. We propose that the case have a mahogany frame that is stained and detailed similar to the doors. The case would be pinned to the building through mortar joints and face away from the building about an inch so to not affect the architectural and structural integrity of the building. There is nothing permanent. Originally there were two windows that historically were double hung windows and at some point were filled in with stained glass. Michael: The house of Lum was there in 1971 and they had a green and white sheet metal awning that projected out. There were two or three artificial gas lights that were electrified and came off the ends of the railing around the stairwell. There was signage against the wall. Les: Are you doing this in addition to signage? 7 Historic Preservation Conittee Minutes of May 22, 1991 Michael: Our allocation for that side of the building being 100 feet long is 33 1/3 square feet. We are currently using 15 square feet so we have about 18 square feet left for signage. Our believe is that this shouldn't be considered a sign. If we did that the sign would not be dimensionally consistent with any openings on the building. Bill: We need to determine if this is historically compatible on the building. Roxanne: The zoning officer considers this to be a sign. Bill: I have no problems with this since it is out from the building. Glenn: We are precluding certain types of signage that did exist. Paintings on the buildings and graphics that occurred over time. Roger: If it was approved I would recommend a metal frame. I am not in favor of adding an object to the building in this manner. I would be in favor of the old type of decorative signs. Georgeann: I have a problem with the display case being added to the building. The building does not need any more elements. I would rather see a sign. Michael Erneman: The sign code does refer to display cases as signs. Les: It is a special bldg. to put a discordant element on. Bill: If it is done correctly and does not detract from the historic nature of the building I would be in favor. We need to help the lower level spaces become viable to local businesses. Roxanne: The total accumulative square feet of the sign cannot exceed 18 sq. ft. Jake: I support the display case because to the extent that we can help people to offset cost by improving the leasibility of the lower floor spaces I feel we should do that. Roger: I am opposed to putting an attachment on a building as per what we are supposed to be doing as historic preservation. Glenn: This is not changing the integrity of the building. It can be undone. I see this as a toned down version of earlier Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 22, 1991 signs. What is important is that it is done in a tasteful manner. There is a different kind of marketing now a day. Buildings and facades change since the beginning of time and it will continue to change. Georgeann: If we go and cover this building with enough stuff no one will know if it is historic and we have let tremendous changes go it already. Michael: At this point everyone is tired and I would be in favor of tabling. All the arguments on both sides area very valid. I don't know how I would vote if I were on that side of the table. Somehow policy, attitude or direction should be developed so that there is a better understanding of what makes sense and what doesn't. The City has a serious enforcement problem. Georgeann: I think tabling is a good idea and I want a little more time to look around the City. Bill made an excellent point that we do want to encourage those businesses in the basement. MOTION: Roger made the motion to table until the next meeting; second by Georgeann. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to adjourn; second by Glenn. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 9