Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20070808 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 8, 2007 5:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO site visit - none I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. Roll call Minutes Public Comments Commission members comments Disclosure of conflicts of interest (actual and apparent) Project Monitoring Staff Comments: Certificate of no negative effect issued (Next Resolution #3iJ (/N7 1/J (/v'-1 (lUIIi io J c0 ?-;)(\ 9~1 VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 110 E. Bleeker, Potamkin- Variance Continued Public Hearing (Application Withdrawn) B. 408 E. Cooper A venue, Aspen Sports - Minor Development to September lib C. Holden Marolt - Minor Development, Continued Public Hearing (25 minutes) IX. NEW BUSINESS - none X. WORK SESSIONS A. Main Street Sidewalk- Update (20 minutes) B. Red Butte Cemetery (30 minutes) old -jlj() h~-, IX. ADJOURN . \!Ill. " '.-.-" ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner RE: Holden Marolt Museum, Minor Development, Continued Public Hearing DATE: August 8, 2007 HPC conducted Minor review hearings March 14,2007 and June 13,2007, and visited the site on June 13,2007 (minutes are attached). At the June meeting, HPC gave the applicant direction to propose changes to the open air shed structure located directly in front of the Salt Shed. The Aspen Historical Society has submitted a letter concluding that compliance is unfeasible. Exhibits: A. Staff Memo dated March 14,2007 B. HPC Meeting minutes: March 14, 2007 and June 13,2007 C. Letter to Aspen Historic Preservation Commission from the Aspen Historical Society I ......--_..~--,..,."".~~'"".__. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Holden Marolt Museum, Minor Development- PUBLIC HEARING DATE: March 14,2007 SUMMARY: The Holden Marolt Ranching and Mining Museum is owned by the City and leased to the Aspen Historical Society (AHS) for the long-term. The site is a local landmark and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Historical Society has invested a good deal of time in discussing their mission related to the several properties they oversee. It is staffs understanding that Holden Marolt is envisioned to be a "living history" site, with hands on opportunities. To this end AHS has acquired equipment that they wish to display and make operable. Two items in particular are the topic of this meeting; a sawmill and a steam engine. They have been installed outdoors because running them inside the existing structures would present numerous issues related to building code, venting, etc., however AHS built open air sheds to provide some protection to the artifacts, and neglected to seek HPC approval in advance. Drawings and photographs depicting the work are attached. HPC's role in this discussion is not related to how the Historical Society chooses to interpret the property, but rather the positioning and design of permanent improvements that are made to the site. Staff can support approval of the shed covering the saw mill, but finds that the structure over the steam engine is too close to the historic salt shed building. APPLICANT: Aspen Historical Society. PARCEL ID: 2735-123-63-853. ADDRESS: 40180 Highway 82, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. ZONING: Public. MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation 1 Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures setforth in Chapter 26.316. Staff Response: The design guidelines offer limited direction for a project of this nature. The sheds are new buildings on a landmarked property, however the chapter of the design guidelines that deals with that issue is really directed at residential infill projects. Staff has included the relevant guidelines as "Exhibit A." Within the text of Chapter 14, it is expressed repeatedly that new buildings must be compatible with adjacent historic structures so that their historical integrity is maintained. A new building in close proximity to a landmark structure should not impede one's ability to interpret the character of the historic property. These policy statements are part of HPC's review criteria. The Holden Marolt property contains remnants of a very large 19th century ore processing complex. It used a unique process called lixiviation. All but a few of the original buildings are gone, although there are substantial archaeological remains downhill from the museum site. This photo depicts the property as it remained in circa 1940. 2 Staff finds that the sheds are clearly distinguishable as new and meet the design guidelines in terms of their form and materials. The shelter for the saw mill is sufficiently distanced from the other structures on the site, however the steam engine shelter is too close to the Salt Shed. It blocks the view of the west fayade of the building and diverts snow and water directly at the building. We cannot support this location. 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 approve the saw mill shelter, but not the steam engine shelter. Alternatives should be discussed with the applicant Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of 2007 A. Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. D Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those ofthe historic property. D They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. D Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. D Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. D Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. D These include windows, doors and porches. D Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. IJ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. D Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 3 , . ~t Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Amy Guthrie, Senior Planner City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 To our esteemed colleagues: In the process of trying to determine how to satisfy the HPC request to redesign a shelter at Holden/Marolt, we have determined that there are more potholes than smooth solutions - and ultimately we came to the conclusion that there is a fundamental flaw in the effort that consequently makes 'compliance' untenable for us. While absolutely no disrespect is intended, the dilemma is that criteria used by the City simply don't fit the intent or the uses of our museum site(s). We do not believe it is in the community interest to hold these living history museum sites to the same criteria as historic preservation projects. An historic overlay for our sites must be tweaked to accommodate special uses in partnership. We believe that there is benefit from a mutual dialogue and that we have shared goals. At the same time, the overarching goals of the Historic Preservation Commission, while similar in intent, do not address issues and goals specific to a living history interactive museum scheme. Historic preservation as defined suggests the strict preservation and restoration of those sites, buildings, structures and landscapes which are significant in American (and local) history. It speaks to the process of protection in an effort to hold secure our precious past. Words such as re-enactment and re-creation associated with living history museums evoke a process of action, change and evolution. It is a physical re- creation and story telling of the past that then preserves its future. The Society needs to encompass a broader spectrum of lessons and stories beyond a specific historic building which has been restored. We strongly support the value of precise restoration, yet the value of touching and seeing carries more weight from a teaching perspective. We feel that the HPC criteria in place can be in direct conflict with Historical Living History " Museum criteria because its unforgiving purist position can prevent the flexibility required to teach. We believe that the end goal (preserving history) is shared but that the definition of "preserving" is different. As a point of reference, the National Association of Interpretation describes "a mission-based communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and the meanings inherent in the resource". Their mission is to inspire leadership and excellence to advance heritage interpretation as a profession. In this field, they are as knowledgeable and purist as the National Trust is about preserving inanimate spaces. Our position goes much further than a shed misplaced. It goes to the very stewardship of the property (and any other properties in the City designated as museum sites). It is safe to say that no one expects us to trample our history - in fact our mission and our entire existence are dedicated to the same overarching goal as yours. The community needs both the enforcers to protect our inventory and the teachers to engage new generations in the process. We do not pretend nor do we want to present historic site(s) that are precisely restored to a "don't touch" stage. We support elements of the existing code and of course deem our historically designated buildings as sacrosanct. We insist upon authentic learning situations and they often include some flexibility with the "preciseness" of the experience - both to incorporate all types of learning styles and to present a visual that engages the audience. We incorporate a dialogue about what is restored and what has been adapted and explain why the original has been tampered with or moved when necessary (we don't cheat). We also don't have hard and fast rules about tampering or moving because we believe our job is to engage and to teach - it is not a "don't touch" museum world any more. We have policies to protect the basic integrity of the story and the site rather than a romance with individual pieces and parts. (For example, our model of the lixiviation site clearly shows the saw mill across the river and we point out its original location while offering an up close and personal inspection at Holden/Marolt.) The end result is an accurate, authentic presentation which meets the national standards of interpretive (National Association for Interpretation) and museum (American Association of Museums and American Association of State and Local History) criteria. We think that ought to be good enough for Aspen too. 2 The American Association of Museums has spent over a decade examining and revising their description of appropriate museum procedures and policies. The end result was to implement a multi-year drive to get their members to bring the community to the table and to try to reverse the image of imposing 'ivory towers' that are a bastion of intellect but unrelentingly foreboding for a kid or a 'regular' visitor. It was an interesting experience for me because I arrived on the museum scene without any 'intellectual' credentials but with a lifelong investment in building community. My initial fears of incompetence among peers were quickly replaced by a gratifying sense of confidence and ability to contribute - lifelong museum planners were looking to me for advice about how to engage the community. (It seems so obvious, doesn't it? But it presented a major challenge for cloistered stereotypical curatorial 'old world' staff.) I was able to dig in and help with the renaissance instead of being required to learn the exact distance necessary to rope off an artifact from the public. Of course there is a need for both areas of expertise but the emphasis is shifting to follow shorter attention spans and expanded expectations in order to effectively educate. Artifacts are not endangered in the process but rather elevated to a new level of "awe". Younger professionals in the museum studies field are leading the charge to change interpretation to include many points of view as opposed to just the benefactor's point of view of yesteryear. In an amazingly short amount of time (five years) the museum community has embraced and begun implementing new criteria both for accreditation and for presentation standards. For example, museums must demonstrate partnerships with other community entities to qualify for accreditation. In the "old days" being able to find a random artifact on your collection shelves was timed by a stop watch. Pass or fail. While many single view museums (affectionately called "dead white man" museums by many museum professionals) continue to be revered and we all nostalgically visit them - still today attendance has dropped or the museums have shifted to 'revolutionary' new methods of interpretation. The days of white gloves and stern stares and velvet ropes separating the viewer from the artifacts may not be gone but they are increasingly forsaken in favor of engagement and, yes (shudder), for an element of entertainment. We have no choice if we wish to remain relevant and compelling to today's audience. We walk a tightrope 3 between engaging the visitor and maintaining the integrity of the stories and we take the challenge very seriously. Contemporary museums are fOllowing a path of immersion - immersion into the lifestyle of an era with less focus on exact details and more on interactive opportunities that lend tactile experience to the learning equation. Any third grader watching a saw mill slice a log will long carry memories of tremendous impact than they ever would from standing outside a room of 'do not touch' items of furniture or contemplating a building wall. Museum professionals around the world are creating fabulous exhibits that immerse the visitor in the subject - using many new fabrics and materials to replicate scenes that allow the visitor to partake. We are never going back to faces pressed against glass cases. We have been most fortunate to have had a world leader in this new field of immersion design an interpretive plan to tell the history of our community in a comprehensive and meaningful way. Jean Jacques Andre (a brief bio is attached) gave us a theme structure that has been the basis of our continued planning efforts. The integrity of our process is demonstrated by the investment placed in researching and producing this theme structure over several years and representing a major dollar investment as well. Holden/Marolt is as much about community as it is about history. Both the property and the creation of a museum site present a rich opportunity for storytelling unparalleled elsewhere. The buildings are important but not the totality of the message. Everywhere you look there is evidence of loving contribution - whether it is Thrift Shop grants to buy materials or Robin Ferguson's TLC with the shelters or Tom Marshall's "aspen leaf" on a chimney or Norbert and Stoney's retrieval of the stamping mill or the stupendous model built by the Glenwood Railroad club members or a myriad of other tales of community support. Carl Bergman and his "band of merry men" have lovingly put together a story that is compelling for all ages. The dedication and activity is as important to the property as the actual artifacts - indeed, that IS living history. 4 So here's the rub - we feel that the energy focused on making a truly insignificant change in order to meet the intent a code that is in practice fundamentally unsuitable for living history sites is going in the wrong direction. We propose, instead, to put an equal amount of energy plus more into partnering with the City staff and you to develop a "Museum Site" overlay or whatever you want to call it - basically a new set of criteria that will incorporate all of the principles and standards of the professional museum community. We hope to have this new criteria serve as the guidelines for all of our museum sites, not just Holden/Marolt. We want to reap the benefits of your input and combine it with specific museum needs to produce a better mousetrap. We realize that this concept may be tough for the commission to accept, especially in light of the sort of forced entrenchment you experience by having to defend absolutes in the face of adversity so often. Still, this is a win-win in our opinion. Our intent is to shift the focus from a strict interpretation of one building to a greater interpretation of the site and the story. It is also to design criteria that shift the responsibility for the museum site planning to include interpretive professionals from the museum field. We understand that this concept strays from the strict interpretation that HPC places on buildings and we submit that it should be different for all the reasons stated. We hope to work with you to find a 'compromise' - it isn't really a compromise because there isn't any real conflict, just a missing piece. A solution that will allow us to be captain's of our separate but equal ship as we go forward. We are after all in the same 'business'. We will do the leg-work. We will gather examples from around the country and provide staff with interpretive criteria from living history and other museum resources. We will write draft criteria to bring to the table for discussion. We will respectfully embrace the concerns and ideas of the Commission. We will expect to end up with a solution that meets everyone's needs and allows our museum sites to be realized for their full potential. In the meantime, we propose to stain the shelters darker because we think they should blend as much as possible with the existing structures. (A classic example of differing criteria - blending rather that contrasting as the existing criteria would support - don't you think?) We expect to be able to continue and to complete the outdoor exhibit with a reminder to 5 you that not one single member of the public has found them to be offensive or inappropriate and that the public hearing input was all supportive. We ask that you grant our application request or table it while agreeing to tackle the larger opportunity for partnership. This is a task that anticipates a growing need as we look to yet another site and museum at Lift One as well as potential growing pains at Wheeler/Stallard. Copy: Chris Bendon, Director of Community Development 6