HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080611ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
June 11, 2008
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NOON -
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes -May 14, minutes.
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. .Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #12)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
~~,53 A. Red Butte Cemetery - 808 Cemetery Lane -Major
Development Conceptual - (cont'd public hearing)1 hour
IX. NEW BUSINESS
I A. 300 S. Spring Street -Minor Development, substantial
amendment (45 min.)
B. Isis Notch - cont'd public hearing (30 min.) Open and
continue to a date certain.
Q ~ ~ C. Red Onion interior features (45 min.)
X. WORK SESSIONS -none
Dan Corson, Intergovernmental Services Director, State Office
of Archaeology and Historic Preservation -discussion on
certified local government (CLG) status (15 min.)
IX. ADJOURN 8:15 P.M.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: 300 South Spring Street, Minor Development Review -Public Hearing
DATE: June 11, 2008
SUMMARY: 300 South Spring Street, aka the Hannah Dustin Building, built in 1969,
represents the International Style of architecture, which emphasizes a concern with volume as
opposed to mass and solidity, balance as opposed to preconceived syulmetry and the exclusion of
actual and applied decoration. The building was designed by the local firm of George Heneghan
and Dan Gale, who had previous experience as architects within Benedict's office. The firm
completed a number of residences in Aspen and Snowmass. One of their other noteworthy
designs is the Aspen Chapel.
The Hannah Dustin Building received Council approval on June 26, 2006 to construct an
addition that includes new net leasable space, two free market units, and three affordable housing
units. It is not a designated landmark, but was adopted as part of Exhibit A to Ordinance #48
Series of 2007 as a potential historic resource. Therefore, amendments are subject to review by
the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Pwsuant to Ordinance #48, the applicant elected
to apply to HPC for Minor Development Review to enclose and reconfigure an existing stairway.
The other option for the applicant is to enter a negotiation with City Council regarding voluntary
landmark designation.
On February 13, 2008, HPC adopted Resolution number 4, which granted an amendment to their
previous Cornmercial Design Review along with HPC Minor Development for changes to the
addition. There were no changes to the existing building in the approved plans at that time.
The applicant requests HPC approval for a Minor Development application to reconfigure the
existing stairway on the primary west elevation by rotating it 90 degrees and reconstructing a
new enclosed stairway.
Staff finds that the proposal adversely compromises and obscures the existing composition of the
primary facade of this potential landmark. The proposal does not meet the Design Guidelines;
therefore, Staff recommends that HPC deny the request for Minor Development approval.
APPLICANT: Snowmass Corporation, 24398 Highway 82, P. O. Box 620, Basalt, CO 81621,
represented by Bruce McKinnon, 24398 Highway 82, P. O. Box 620, Basalt, CO 81621.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-27-001.
ADDRESS: 300 South Spring Street, Lots A and B, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
1
P2
ZONING: MU, Mixed Use zone district.
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
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 set forth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response:
The applicant proposes to rotate the stairway
corridor on the west elevation ninety degrees,
shift it toward the south and construct a new
stairway. The current configuration requires a
pedestrian to walk into the exterior courtyard
area and around the staircase to access the
stairs, which compels the pedestrian to interact
with the building and experience the spatial
relationships created between the azchitecture
and the environment, and interior and exterior
spaces. The existing stairway is open with
cantilevered landings between the steps (image
to left). The representation of these elements as
volume rather than mass is integral to the
significance of this architecture, as is the
integration of indoor and outdoor spaces. The
platforms of each stair landing alternate with the
outdoor walkways to create balance on the
primary fapade (see bottom right image).
Repetition of the simple vertical balusters and
horizontal cantilevered landings and walkways
are significant features on this building (see
images on next page). These repeated patterns
are found in the interior courtyard and aze then
carried outside which blurs the line between
interior and exterior space (see images on next
page).
2
P3
P4
The proposal to construct an enclosed stairway and shift it to the south shortens the perceived
length of the exterior walkways and eliminates the volumetric spaces created by the cantilevered
stair landings. The balance of the walkways and the stair platforms will be destroyed. These are
character defining features indicative of the original design that will be obscured or removed.
Staff finds that Design Guidelines 1.9, 2.1, and 6.1 aze not met.
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
^ This includes a sequence of experiences, begrnning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding
along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the
"private" spaces beyond.
^ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering
walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
^ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
^ Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
^ Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced.
^ Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices,
pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved.
^ Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction
may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
^ Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate.
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
^ Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
^ Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using
recognized preservation methods whenever possible.
^ Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins
may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be
used.
^ Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate.
The proposed stair enclosure is compatible with the approved addition to the north because it
replicates the simple boxy style and materiality of the addition; however staff is concerned that
the proposed stair combined with the approved addition begins to overwhelm and obscure the
existing architecture with contemporazy mass. Staff finds that introducing more mass, as
opposed to a design that relates interior and exterior spaces and is consistent with the original
building, is inappropriate. Guideline 10.3 and 10.4 aze met in the contemporary proposal, but
Guideline 10.10 is not met. The proposed stair enclosure will obscure significant architectural
features. The applicant explains that the purpose of the enclosure is to protect the stairway from
inclement conditions and to provide visible access of the stairway from the street. It appears that
the commercial spaces on the second and third floors can be accessed from the protected interior
courtyard during inclement weather. Furthermore, moving the entrance to the stairway and
enclosing it eliminates the interaction of the pedestrian and the architecture beneath the
suspended walkways and the experience of blurred interior and exterior spaces. Staff
4
P s-
recommends that HPC deny the request to enclose and reconfigure the stairs because they aze an
original chazacter defining feature integral to the azchitecture, and the Design Guidelines aze not
met.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appeazance inconsistent with the historic chazacter of the
primary building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
^ 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.
^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
^ 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.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
DECISION MAHING 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 disapprove the application for Minor
Development to enclose and reconfigure the existing stairway at 300 South Spring Street.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. West Elevation with approved north addition.
C. Application
Exhibit A- Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 300 South Spring Street
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
P6
^ This includes a sequence of experiences, begmning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding
along a "semi-public" wallcway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the
"private" spaces beyond.
^ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering
walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
^ Use paving materials that aze similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
2.1 Preserve original building materials. '
^ Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
^ Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced.
^ Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices,
pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved.
^ Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction
may result ir, a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
6.1 Preserve significantazchitecturalfeatures.
^ Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
^ Patch, piece-i.-t, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using
recognized preservation methods whenever possible.
^ Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins
may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be
used.
^ Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic chazacter of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary- building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
^ 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.
^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
^ 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.
^ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
^ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
6
P7
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMbIISSION (HPC) DENYING
AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300
SOUTH SPRING STREET, LOTS A AND B, BLOCK 105, CITY AND TOWNSTTE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. ~ SERIES OF 2008
PARCEL ID:2737-182-27-001.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Snowmass Corporation, represented by Bruce McKinnon, 24398 Highway 82,
P. O. Box 620, Basalt, CO 81621, has requested Minor Development, Demolition, and Variance for the
property located at 300 South Spring Street, Lots A and B, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, 300 South Spring Street, Lots A through D, Block 105, was adopted as part of Exhibit A to
Aspen City Council Ordinance 48, Series of 2007 as a potential historic resource; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025 of the Municipal Code states that "an owner may volunteer to have any
proposed work be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to the procedures and
limitations of Chapter 26.415 of the Municipal Code, and if the work is found by HPC to be in
conformance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," an application for
building permit shall be issued;" and
WHEREAS, 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 reviews the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with
conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2006, the Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance 16, Series of 2006, granting
subdivision approval for the property located at 300 South Spring Street; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2008, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission adopted Resolution 4,
Series of 2008, granting Minor Development approval for changes to the approved addition and an
amendment to the Commercial Design Standards; and,
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated June 11th, 2008, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, and found that the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines have not been met in the proposal; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on June 11, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, at which time the Historic Preservation Commission found the application for
Minor Development did not meet the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and
denied the application by a vote of
P8
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that HPC hereby denies the application for Minor
Development for the property located at 300 South Spring Street, Lots A and B, Block 105, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of June 2008.
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Special Counsel
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ititichael Hoffman, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P9
O
~y
~m
r
G
-~1
O
2
~ ~~~ I
i ~ ® ' i ' m
,~,.
ii ~ ' ~--- -~' ~ C
~~
I
~, ',j ! i~
~1
~~ ~'
- ~ ~. p << -
~ ~~ - =
2 rya _
N
~ 1'~...
C
O_
- 1
~~~ '
~ 1
~I
1 ~
~~~ !
P11
C.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 420 East Cooper Avenue- Preservation of The Red Onion interior
DATE: June 11, 2008
BACKGROUND HISTORY: The Red Onion, originally known as the "New Brick" or
"The Brick" and owned by T. Latta, was built in 1892. The name Latta is reflected in
blue the on the floor as one enters the building (see photograph enclosed). Latta is
reported to have furnished the saloon with elegant fixtures, the most prominent feature
being the wood baz and back baz azea, and the interior of "The Brick" was described by
the Aspen Times as "the handsomest in the west:' Early patrons were men interested
primarily in sports- hanging on the bar room walls aze photographs of sports figures from
this time that aze claimed to be acquaintances of Latta and subsequent owner Tim
Kelleher. Kelleher owned the building from the 1920s to the 1940s during prohibition,
operating it as a restaurant. In 1946 the restaurant was purchased and renamed the Red
Onion by John Litchfield who returned it to a baz/restaurant, and sold it in 1951. Since
Litchfield there have been several owners: John Seiler, Sr., Werner Kuster and partner
Arnold Senn and later partner James Perry. Today the building is owned by Red Onion
Investors, LLC, represented by Gazfield and Hecht.
ADDRESS: 420 East Cooper Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core
SUMMARY: In December of 2006, Aspen City Council placed a moratorium on
obtaining a building permit for interior work within the Commercial Core (Ordinance 51,
Series of 2006). City Council adopted an amendment to Ordinance 51 the following
month to exem t historic interiors from the moratorium under the condition that they
preserve historic elements within the interior, as identified by HPC Staff. The HPC has
an advisory role in the review process, and shall make a recommendation to the
Community Development Director regazding the preservation of the interior elements
identified below. Please note that there shall be no restriction on interior demolition or
improvements to the inside of the Red Onion except related to the elements noted below.
The space must remain arestaurant/bar in order to be exempt from the current
moratorium. A tenant, Junk, is signed on as the new occupant of the space and will
operate a baz/restaurant.
~ Exhibit A- Red Onion Building Agreement listing the historic elements identified for preservation.
P12
The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines do not address interior preservation, mainly
because the Aspen Municipal Code does not currently authorize local interior
designations. The preservation philosophy for interiors is similar, if not identical, to that
for exterior landmarks.
Staff researched standazds that other municipalities apply reagazding alterations to
interior landmazks, the majority of which refer to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
regazding interior preservation. The Secretary Standazds break interior landmark spaces
into two categories: primary and secondary spaces. The primary spaces are the most
important character defining spaces:
"Often they- are the places in the building that the public uses and sees; sometimes
they are the most architecturally detailed spaces in the building, carefully
proportioned and ftnished with costly materials. They may be functionally and
azchitecturally related to the building's external appeazance. In a simpler
building, a primary space may be distinguishable only by its location, size,
proportions, or use. Primary spaces aze always important to the chazacter of the
building and should be preserved." 2
Staff finds that the primary space in the Red Onion is the original bar area, which extend
as far back as where the wall was that originally divided the space (see the image on the
following page). This is the main area to focus a more strict view of preservation.
Before the remodel, there were no historic features beyond the original wall, unless they
were relocated there over time (i.e. the stained glass window). Secondary spaces aze
generally less important to the character of the building; therefore, it is appropriate to
concentrate alterations in these areas that have less of an impact on historic integrity of
the space.
New York City applies standards to interior landmark alterations for specific spaces that
necessitate a certain amount of updating to competitively function. This includes
alterations to designated Broadway theatre interiors and alterations to designated bank
interiors. Unfonunately, Staff was unable to find specific standards for interior restaurant
spaces, but the preservation philosophy for theatres and banks is similar in that restaurant
spaces need to reasonably function in modern times. The basic tenet is that the alteration
will not affect significant azchitectural features and, if necessary, any changes to the
interior spaces are reversible and "adequate steps are taken to assure that affected features
can be replaced in the future." 3
Following are the specific historic elements listed in the building agreement between
the City and Red Onion Investors, LLC. HPC is asked to make a recommendation
'' Jandl, H. Ward. Preservation Brief ]8: Rehabilitatinglnteriors in Historic Buildin,;s. National Park
Service, U.S. Department ofthe Interior. Washington, D. C., 1988.
' Chapter 4: Desigttated Broadway Theatres and Chapter 9: Alterations to Designated Bank Interiors, The
New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission Rules, Title 63 of Rules of the Ciry ofNew York.
July 2003.
P13
to the Community Development Director regarding the location and treatment of
these specific elements and to determine whether or not are the proposed
preservation is consistent with historic preservation policies
Bar: The property owners have undertaken a meticulous and commendable restoration
effort of the bar and back bar. The proposal before HPC is to shift the original bar to the
front and add a new "return" with ADA seating, which changes the shape of the baz.
Originally, the ends of the baz and back baz aligned and there were openings aze either
end. Staff finds that the alignment of the bar and back baz at the south end of the primary
space should remain in its historic alignment to preserve the experience of entering the
bar and understanding the relationship and dimension of these two prominent features.
Staff recommends that the ADA seating be relocated to the north end of the baz. One
suggestion is to preserve the original length of the baz and extend the length (similar to
the length prior to the remodel) and drop the height of the extended section to meet ADA
requirements. This would delineate the historic portion of the space from the addition
and not change the original shape of the bar. And, another bar is proposed at the reaz of
the restaurant. The image below depicts the original length of the bar and expresses the
relationship and aligmment between the back baz and the bar.
Back Bar: The applicant proposes to move the back bar one foot (1') from the wall to
accommodate refrigeration units in the existing lower storage space. A wood panel
extension is proposed to fill the one foot void. Staff is extremely concerned about
changing the perceived depth of the back bar by one foot. The narrow dimension of the
back bar element authentically represents the 19~' century. Changing this dimension,
while it may be reversible to a certain degree, compromises the integrity and authenticity
of the primary bar area. Staff recommends that the applicant pursue other options for
P14
refrigeration- possibly a smaller unit or a different location for the unit. The baz has been
operating successfully since 1892, surely there are other options.
Staff is also concerned about the height and spacing of the shelves in front of the large
mirror depicted in the renderings. The proposed shelving obscures the original mirror
and detracts from the grandiose style of the back baz. Staff recommends that the tenant
condense the shelves and liquor bottles in a configuration similar to the photo above.
Vestibule: The applicant proposes to relocate the existing double stained glass doors
from the entrance into the bar to the side of the vestibule. It is unknown if the doors will
be functional in the new location. There will be an ADA button on the exterior of the
building that will simultaneously activate both the front door and the interior door to the
bar. The proposal is to create a new door to replace the location of the double stained
glass doors. As long as the double stained glass doors comply with accessibility
requirements, Staff recommends that they remain in their original locations. It is
inappropriate to introduce a new opening in the vestibule and remove historic fabric. If
the existing doors do not meet Building Code requirements, then Staff suggests that the
applicant return to HPC with another solution.
North Booth-End Wall: The north booth end wall with the mirror was originally
located at the top of the stairs to the basement (see images below). The applicant
proposed to detach the mirror from the bottom piece and separate the elements. The
mirror is proposed to be attached to the ADA lift and the bottom wall piece is proposed to
be located toward the front of the bar area by the entrance. Staff does not support
detaching the historic element into two separate pieces and recommends a more sensitive
approach to its preservation. Staff recommends that the historic element remain in its
original location illustrated below and the ADA lift be relocated or redesigned to obscure
the element as little as possible. If the lift
cannot be relocated, then one , ,
recommendation is to place the wall towazd '
the south of the bar area at the front of the
proposed boothes, which allows the public
to experience the
-.r,
azchitectural
element in a
perspective
similar to its
original location.
P15
Doors on East Wall: The doors on the east wall are proposed to remain in the same
general location at the top of the basement stairs. Staff finds that this is appropriate.
Stained Glass Mirror: The stained glass mirror that was located at the rear of the
restaurant prior to the remodel (see image below) is proposed to be located adjacent to
the women's restroom in the basement. Staff finds that the proposed location in the
basement is insensitive to this historic element and recommends that it is incorporated in
the primazy bar area.
Athletic Photographs: The property owners have retained ownership of the framed
athletic photographs. The applicant proposes to locate the photos in the stairwell that
leads to the basement. While the location is not under the purview of the HPC and City,
as per the building agreement, Staff recommends that a more visible and sensitive
location in the primary baz area be pursued. These photographs are extremely important
to the history of the Red Onion. They depict sports figures from the 19`n century that are
claimed to be acquaintances of Latta and subsequent owner Tim Kelleher. The Red
Onion was originally a sports bar, and these photographs are a significant part of
understanding that history.
Interior Wall Treatment: The applicant proposes to have exposed brick walls within
the bar/restaurant space. Historically, the walls would have been covered with plaster
and wallpaper. It was not sophisticated to have exposed brick on the interior of a
building in the 19a' century. Staff recommends that the applicant cover the walls with
plaster to obscure the brick; however, the interior wall treatment was not included in the
building agreement. The plaster has already been removed from the walls, so any new
plaster would not be original. Staff finds that leaving the exposed brick is a somewhat
reversible alteration at this point, since plaster can be added in the future to recreate the
interior wall surface; but on the other hand, it is unauthentic.
Exterior
There are exterior changes proposed to doors and windows. Staff intends to handle this
work as a "Certificate of No Negative Effect," urging the owner to reverse previous
alterations/undertake restoration, to the greatest extent possible. This will include re-
installing atransom over the front door, and discussing the possibility of re-creating a
P16
secondary entry door that once existed to the right of the main entry (even if this
secondary door is not operable ~. Numerous historic photos are available to guide this
restoration.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
• The HPC is asked to make recommendations to the Community
Development Department on the interior preservation areas described above.
• The HPC may continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional
information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny.
Staff recommends that HPC continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional
information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny.
Exhibits:
A.) Red Onion Building Agreement
B.) National Pazk Service Preservation Brief 18 "Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic
Buildings."
C.) Chapter 4 "Designated Broadway Theatres" and Chapter 9 "Alterations to
Designated Bank Interiors" of the New York City Landmarks Preservation
Commission Rules.
D.) National Pazk Service Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: Interior Spaces.
E.) Application.
P53
0.~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE; 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery- Major Development (Conceptual) and
On-Site Relocation, Continued Public Hearing
DATE: June 11, 2008
SUMMARY: Red Butte Cemetery is one of three cemeteries established in the 19`s century and
located within the City of Aspen. Both Red Butte and Aspen Grove aze in active use and
privately owned and maintained. Ute Cemetery, Aspen's first, is owned by the City and has not
had burials since approximately the 1930's.
HPC is asked to consider the Red Butte Cemetery Association's proposal to constructor s,et
maintenance shop, cazetaker's unit and other improvements for grounds-keeping pure
rehab an existing historic cabin for visitor information,.and to relocate and repair a historic
outhouse structure.
HPC was given an introduction to the project last summer and held a ~ub~ic oo$ but cancelltled
9, 2008. A second meeting and site visit were planned for February
since the site was inundated with snow.
Lengthy discussion took place in January, ending with the majority of the boazd concluding that
the proposed maintenance structure and cazetaker unit should be physically sepazated. (Minutes
attached.) Staff was asked to provide additional information about the historic designation of the
property, and outside resources that might be helpful to HPC.
All of the information presented to HPC to date is included in the packet, to refresh everyone's
memory. Two site plan alternatives aze provided; the original plan for a combined maintenance
and cazetaker facility, and a study of the possibility of incorporating the residential use in the
historic southeast end of the site. The Association appazently has provided the latter study
simply for informational purposes and will inform HPC, both at the June 11`s site visit and
meeting, why they would be unwilling to build that project even if approved.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At the previous meeting, there was debate about the process for
reviewing this project. To some degree, discussion of an on-site housing unit is a "chicken and
egg" issue. The current zoning, "Pazk," allows for accessory buildings such as a maintenance
facility. It does not, however allow for residential (and in fact cemetery is not listed as a
permitted use either.) The applicant wishes to have a caretaker living on the property. They may
pursue a code amendment to the "Pazk" zone district, or they may choose to request rezoning to
"Conservation" or some other designation that is considered appropriate. The Association has to
1
~~
\~. ~ c
~> ~
~_, ,
~;
. ~~ ~
a
,/ ~ o ,~
~,,
_~ ~ ~,~ ,
j~ ~ ~ ~
~I
J `, .e J
,' ' _ _.
_-
~. ~~Ua~'
/ O
~~~ ~~~ ~ ~
d~ \\^ i/
1 ~z
~r I~- ~ _ . ___ _ _ _
i~
i
~/ i
i
i
i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
' ~ ~ ,_~~~
I\ Imo,
~` OO
O
a~
~J
~~ ~~
S"ax 3613 ~4a~uc. celaaada 81612
February 13, 2008
_ _ _ _..
_..
~~2ti~ Sezuice~ P63
~~/~~ ls~olszo-llzs ~~~•~
Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS FOR RED BUTTE CEMETERY CONCEPTUAL
SUBMISSION
Dear Amy,
During the initial HPC public hearing to consider the Conceptual Submission for the Red
Butte Cemetery held on January 9, 2008, HPC members requested some additional
information from the applicant. We have prepared responses to these requests and are
hereby transmitting the following drawings to you:
1. Site plan illustrating the applicant's preferred configuration of the proposed
development within the entire property.
2. Site plan illustrating an alternative location for the caretaker's residence adjacent to
the existing historic cabin.
The first site plan of the entire property shows the applicant's original (and still preferred)
development plan for the property. It is being submitted in response to the HPC
comments that members needed to be able to better see the configuration of the
proposed development plan in the context of the entire property. It shows that the
location for the new building is approximately one thousand feet (1,000') back from the
front entrance to the cemetery. This location is also approximately 250' back from where
the developed portion of the cemetery currently ends. Finally, it is approximately 200'
from the rear property line and 300' from the west side property line, providing a
substantial setback from neighboring properties to the north and west.
We believe this drawing confirms the statements we made during the initial hearing,
indicating that this is the appropriate location for the new building, a conclusion we believe
will be validated during the site visit with HPC scheduled for February 27. This location is
quite remote from the main entrance and creates a considerable separation from the
historic portion of the cemetery. It also creates an appropriate buffer from neighbors who
have built houses around the perimeter of the cemetery over the last 30 to 40 years.
P64
Ms. Amy Guthrie
February 13, 2008
Page Two
We have not provided a site plan that responds to the comment in the staff report that the
building might be less visually intrusive if placed towards the northwest end of the site.
Doing so would place it closer to the surrounding residences. In the meetings we have
held with neighbors we have represented that we would create more of a buffer between
their homes and the proposed new building. We continue to believe that buffer is
needed, particularly to provide some distance between the homes and the proposed
maintenance functions. We would hope to be able to end consideration of any option
tha: ~nrou;d move the building closer to these homes.
Instead, we have provided two drawings (an overall drawing of the property and an up
close view) showing an alternative for HPC to consider that would break the proposed
development into two separate buildings. The maintenance building would remain where
it was originally proposed, in the northern portion of the cemetery. However, in this
alternative, the caretaker's residence would be a separate building that would instead be
located in the southeastern corner of the property, near the historic cabin.
The applicant considered converting the cabin into a caretaker's residence by making an
addition to it. However, even the most preliminary analyses by the applicant's architect
have shown us that such. an addition would overwhelm the historic structure and be
inappropriate. Furthermore, we have concluded that placing the maintenance building in
this area would be even more overwhelming and is simply not feasible at all. Therefore,
this alternative site plan shows the cabin being used for the office. It also shows a small
(600 sq. ft.) detached caretaker's residence that would be located 10' to 15' to the west of
±he cabin. One parking space would be located in front of the residence.
The applicant does NOT prefer this alternative for a number of reasons, as follows
1. To make the caretaker's unit fit in this area, it has been reduced in size from a two
bedroom unit of approximately 1,425 sq. ft. to a studio unit of approximately 600
sq. ft. in size. While such a unit would be able to house a single person, it will not
accommodate anyone with a family, which will significantly limit the ability of the
Cemetery Association to successfully recruit a long term employee.
2. Although the caretaker's unit has been kept relatively small, we feel its size will still
overwhelm the very modest historic cabin and outhouse structures. Moreover,
placing the unit in this location will negatively affect the most historic, serene
portion of the cemetery. It will also be located only 3' from the southern property
line, which could be a significant concern for neighboring property owners.
3. The caretaker's unit would be located approximately 6' from sold burial plots, which
will have a significant negative impact on the serenity of those plots.
P65
Ms. Amy Guthrie
February 13, 2008
Page Three
4. Locating the caretaker's unit in this corner of the property will eliminate 28 unsold
burial plots within the highly desirable historic portion of the cemetery
5. Separating the maintenance building from the residential unit and office will require
the caretaker to travel back and forth between these two areas throughout the day,
which is inefficient and will create unnecessary vehicle trips.
6. Having two building sites will double the need for utility extensions, resulting in
greater costs and greater construction impacts on the cemetery.
We would ask the HPC to consider these arguments and to conclude that the original site
plan proposed by the applicant is the preferred solution for the property.
In closing, we would like to make the following points in response to the comments made
to date at the public hearing:
1. Although this property is zoned "P: Park" on the City's zoning map, it is not a
publicly owned City park. It is a privately owned piece of land that has been used
as a cemetery for over 100 years. The undeveloped portion of the cemetery will,
over time, be developed as cemetery plots and used for cemetery purposes. It will
not remain as undeveloped "open space" under any future scenario.
2. Several members of the public have suggested that the equipment needed to
operate the cemetery should be stored at the nearby City streets or parks
maintenance facilities. City staff has contacted these two departments and we
have been told unequivocally that there is no room for any of the cemetery's
equipment in these buildings. This option is, therefore, totally infeasible.
3. Members of the public have also suggested that the Association obtain a housing
unit for its caretaker through the Housing Authority. The applicant met with Tom
McCabe, the Director of the Housing Authority, and was told that the Association
would not have any priority in the lottery system and would not be successful in
competing for a unit. This option is, therefore, also infeasible.
4. Regardless of whether there is ever another burial plot used within the cemetery,
there will continue to be a significant need for this property to be maintained.
Maintenance will be essential for the urban forest on the property to thrive into the
future, for the irrigation system to function, and for the many existing plots to be
properly cared for. Having a maintenance building is not an option for this
property; it is a necessity. And having an on-site caretaker is the only way that the
Association believes it can maintain a long term employee who will give the
properly the quality of service and maintenance it deserves.
P66
Ms. Amy Guthrie
February 13, 2008
Page Four
We look forward to continuing this discussion with you and the HPC on February 27.
Please feel free to contact me if there is anything else you require.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
~- ~
Alan Richman, AICP