HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20081008ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 8, 2008
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: Noon - 601 E. Hallam Street -Meet at the site.
L Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - September lOt°, August 13~' ,August
27, 2008.
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VL Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #23)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Lift I -Conceptual review - PH (45 min.)
B. 204 N. Monarch Street -Final Review, continued from 9/10
(45 min.)
C. Popcorn Wagon, open and continue to 10/22
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 720. E. Hyman Ave., Aspen Athletic Club -Minor
Development and Landmark Designation Hearing (lhr.)
X. Other
A. 233 Gilbert Street, Ordinance #48 negotiation
XI Adjourn 7:30 p.m.
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP (Conceptual)- Public Hearing
continued from August 27, 2008; September 10, 2008 and September 24, 2008
DATE: October 8, 2008
PROCESS: City Council initiated the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP review
through the adbption of Resolution No. 13, Series of 2008. A 27-member Lift One Master Plan
Task Force was established. This group has met every Thursday since April 10"' and is expected
to make a final recommendation by the end of September. The Task Force established and
unanimously adopted seven goals, two of which relate to historic preservation: Respect Aspen's
history: integrate the balance of architecture and design through the relationships, mass and
scale of historic and proposed structures; and Showcase and promote Aspen's ski history and
traditions.
The project before HPC involves several adjacent properties in the Lift 1 neighborhood, the
original base azea for Aspen Mountain.
^ Two of the affected properties, Willoughby Pazk and Lift I Pazk, aze owned by the
City. Both aze landmazk designated.
^ The Boat Tow and Lift 1 tower, which aze located on Willoughby Park, aze listed
on the National Register of Historic Places.
• Skier's Chalet Steakhouse is privately owned. It is a designated landmazk.
^ Two outbuildings and a ticket office (partially collapsed) aze located on
Willoughby Pazk and the Deep Powder cabins aze temporarily stored there.
The Skier's Chalet Lodge is subject to Ordinance #48 review.
HPC has purview over the development of these resources. Although the entire azea
encompassed in the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan is not designated, HPC is asked to
comment on the site plan as one whole entity and how the proposed development affects the
historic structures, objects and sense of place.
This is the fourth public hearing scheduled for Lift One. During the September 24, 2008
meeting, HPC discussed the addition of a POMA lift to the site plan and the relocation of the
Skier's Chalet Steakhouse. HPC seemed supportive of the site plan and requested more
information including elevations and contextual renderings to make a fmding for Conceptual
Review. The applicant supplied visual studies of the designated. Lift One appazatus, Skier's
Chalet Steakhouse and the Skier's Chalet Lodge (proposed Museum).
P1
1
P2
PREVIOUS APPROVALS: HPC granted Major Development Conceptual approval for the
subject property on August 9, 2006 by a three to zero vote that included the following:
• relocating and designating the Skier's Chalet Lodge (233 Gilbert Street, currently listed
on Ordinance #48)
^ restoring the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse, ticket booth/office and deteriorated outbuilding
located neaz the eastern property line
^ constructing an addition and elevator to the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse
^ adaptive use of the Deep Powder cabins by permanently incorporating them into
Willoughby Pazk.
During the meetings in 2006, HPC focused largely on the proposed location of the Skier's Chalet
Lodge in relationship to Deane Street, maintaining the open, passive and public nature of
Willoughby Pazk, and the relationship of historic Lift 1 to the ski lull. HPC was concerned with
overcrowding the park with buildings that resembled a "petting zoo" of historic artifacts.
APPLICANT: The master plan includes lands owned or managed by four entities -the City of
Aspen, Aspen Land Fund II (Centurion Partners), Roazing Fork Mountain Lodge -Aspen, and
the Aspen Skiing Company.
ADDRESS/Parcel ID: Willoughby Park (PID# 2735-131-16-851) is located at the comer of
Dean and South Aspen Streets and is described as Lots 1-14, Block 7 and Lots 1-3, Block 8, Eames
Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Skier's Chalet Steakhouse (PID# 2735-
131-21-001) is located at 710 S. Aspen Street and is described as Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 8,
Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Lift 1 Pazk (PID# 2735-131-19-
851) is bounded by Gilbert Street and Hill Street and is described as Lots 3, 4 (partial), 11 (partial)
and 12 of Block 9, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
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 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.
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
2
P3
HISTORIC RESOURCES:
Staff elaborated on comments from the September 24, 2008 staff memo based on the
additional information provided. New comments are in bold.
Historic Lift 1: In all of the iterations that have been presented to HPC, one of the new lodge
buildings is proposed to wrap azound the historic Lift 1. Placing new buildings.neaz the Lift,
blocking its direct connection to the ski hill and adding paving in close proximity relegates the
historic resource to an irrelevant artifact that at one time drew skiers to Aspen as the longest
chairlift in the world.. Because it is no longer functional, the preservation of Lift 1 relies on
maintaining its integrity and authenticity through its duect connection to the ski hill and its
surrounding passive and relaxed environment. On August 27th, HPC members indicated that the
visual connection, and the ability to ski back to the base of Lift l .aze high priorities for them in
this project. There were several comments made about the importance of being able to stand at
the chair and look up the historic lift line. In response to HPC, the applicant proposes a POMA
lift to run parallel to the historic Lift 1. Staff finds that this idea would reconnect the historic lift
to the mountain and allow a more interactive and animated experience of the historic lift. The
POMA would go over, a one story land bridge that ]inks the east and west sections of the Lift One
Lodge. The physical and visual impact of the POMA on the historic Lift 1 needs to be studied
and addressed by the Commission before it is approved. This is an exciting concept, but the
placement of the POMA and towers should not detract from the historic Lift 1. Sheets A and E
illustrate both an`elevation and a proposed site plan for the platter lift. Staff finds that the
locations of the platter towers do not detract from the historic Lift 1 apparatus and
recommends approval. Sheet B-1 depicts a rendering of the Lift I apparatus in context
with the other buildings. Staff finds that the historic lift remains a focal point from the
proposed drop off area for skiers.
Natural greenery, grading and an overall casual infom~ality are traditional and authentic
chazacteristics of the Lift 1 azea and the general attitude of the town during this era. Relaxed
green space rather than paving and formal landscaping aze important, historic features of this azea
that help convey the overall philosophy and sentiment of the burgeoning ski industry back in the
late 1940s and SOs. The "sense of place" philosophy does not discourage development of a site,
rather it defines sentiment azound a space and encourages the preservation of that sentiment in
conjunction with new development. Staff is concerned about the erosion of green space created
by a turnazound in the northwest comer of Willoughby Pazk that serves as a drop off point.
Along the west side of the property, meandering paths, steps, etc. add design elements that could
interfere with an authentic interpretation of the site. Streamlined pathways and a simplified
landscape are positive additions to the drop off area. Staff understands the necessity for a
turn around in this location and fords that the proposed improvements are appropriate:
During HPC's last two meetings, there was some support for "thinning" and removing existing
vegetation that was not in place during the heyday of skiing in this neighborhood. Commission
member Mullins recommended an assessment with the goal of retaining particulazly healthy,
noteworthy trees. Members commented that landscaping established over the last yeazs should
not be a driver of the project if it doesn't have some inherent value of its own. There was no
discussion that encouraged adding new trees on the site. At this stage in the process, Staff
fords that concerns about thinning the landscape are recognized by the applicant and
3
P4
recommends that HPC reserve comments on the specific landscaping and tree placement
for Final Review.
Skier's Chalet Steakhouse: The applicant proposes to relocate the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse
down hill. This change is a result of the redesign of the lodge footprint to allow the POMA pass
through. The new plan shows part of the new lodge and all of Skier's Chalet Steakhouse in the
Aspen Street, right of way. Staff understands that the lodge owners aze concerned with
maintaining the same amount of program. The criteria for granting relocation aze listed below:
RELOCATION
The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of
the Municipal Code:
C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties -
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it
meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered anon-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation
will not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic
district or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move
will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was
originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of
adjacent designated propert-es; and
Additionally for approval to relocate all of the followine criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair
and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the
necessary financial security.
Staff Response: The site context of the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse has been, and is proposed to
be, significantly altered with the demolition of the Holland House, potential construction of Lift
One Lodge and the alteration of South Aspen Street. Nevertheless, Staff finds that the
relationship of the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse to the original Lift/ ticket booth and its relationship
to the mountain/ South Aspen Street aze key components in retaining a piece of authenticity in
the Lift 1 azea. Moving the historic Steakhouse down the mountain may create a closer physical
relationship between the Skier's Chalet Lodge, Lift and Ticket Office and it may facilitate a
reduction in the height of the Lift One Lodge by allowing a lazger footprint; however the
relocation will further erode the integrity and authenticity of the site, particularly by placing
structures outside of traditional property lines. The Steakhouse is a prominent free-standing
building as viewed from the bottom of South Aspen Street looking up towazd the mountain.
Staff finds that relocation is not an acceptable preservation method and recommends denial of
relocation of the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse. HPC requested elevations, sections and
4
P5
renderings of the Steakhouse, in both its existing and proposed locations, in context with
the proposed Lift One Lodge. In the last meeting, HPC was struggling with the trade-offs
of relocating the historic Steakhouse building and the effect of the relocation on the mass
and height of the proposed Lift One Lodge. The. applicant indicates that the Lift One
Lodge would increase 30 feet if the Steakhouse was not approved for relocation. Sheet H
shows a section comparison of the Steakhouse and the proposed Lift One Lodge. Not only
would the building hover over the Steakhouse, but a large comer of the new Lodge
building would be visible behind the Steakhouse. Relocation allows the Steakhouse to
remain a somewhat prominent location on South Aspen Street, similar to its current
original location. The impact of the Lift One Lodge on the Steakhouse and the entire Lift
One area is balanced by the relocation of the Steakhouse down the mountain and toward
the newly configured South Aspen Street. The applicant intends to illustrate'the impact of
the 60 foot tall Lift One Lodge behind the Steakhouse as viewed from the bottom of South
Aspen Street, but based on the sections provided on Sheet H, Staff fords that relocating the
Steakhouse is not the preferred option; however, it is an acceptable preservation method
considering the size and mass of the Lift One Lodge and the erosion of context around the
Steakhouse building.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
^ Tn general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmazk structures than those in a
historic district.
^ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
^ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
^ A relocated building must be cazefully rehabilitated to retain original azchitectural details and
materials.
^ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new
foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
^ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new
construction.
^ In general moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
Addition to the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse: The applicant proposes to demolish the non-
historic one story addition to the Steakhouse and add an egress corridor along the east
elevation. The addition is similar to that approved by HPC in 2006. Staff finds that the
height and massing of the corridor are appropriate and proportionate to the historic
Chalet. Staff is unclear about elevator access for the second floor of the Steakhouse
building and whether an elevator would raise the height of the proposed circulation tower.
Staff recommends clarification of this issue by the applicant. Relevant Design Guidelines
are listed below.
5
P6
10.2 Amore recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
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 eazlier 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 eazlier 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 aze all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
Skier's Chalet Lode: The applicant proposes to relocate the Skier's Chalet Lodge down the lull
toward Deane Street and convert it to a museum. The proposed location is similaz to that
approved by HPC in 2006, except it is shifted over towazd the east property line. A generous
front yazd setback of about 30' is proposed in front of the museum. Staff prefers to have the
Skier's Chalet Lodge remain in its original location; however, we understand the necessity for
relocating the Lodge in conjunction with the rest of the Lift One project. Staff recommends that
HPC discuss the proposed front yazd setback and its impact on the intended experience and
program of the Park. The applicant incorporated the chalet "pool house" in its current
configuration behind the proposed museum. Staff fords that the proposed front yard
setback is appropriate for the proposed museum. It provides a positive, public open space
in front of the building and the lift apparatuses. Moving the building toward Deane Street
may create a more privatized space behind the museum that may not be as welcoming to
the public as the front yard setback. Staff is in support of this proposal.
Staff is concerned about the potential for an addition to the proposed museum in the future
and its impact on the historic resource in the proposed location.
The applicant intends to designate the Skier's Chalet Lodge after it is relocated. The 90 day
negotiation period has begun for Ordinance #48 review of this structure. Staff fords that there aze
no major conflicts with the proposal and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and is
extremely pleased that the applicant is interested in pursuing landmazk designation. Staff finds
that the proposed gable style elevator penetration in the roof is the minimum height and
does not adversely affect the integrity and character of the potentially historic building.
6
P7
Ski Club Building:
A few months ago, Staff and HPC discussed the dangerous condition of the Ski Club building
after the roof collapsed and the possibility of demolition. The southeast comer of the Ski Club
building has been identified as the original ticket office. Staff and the City need direction from
HPC as to the importance of the entire Ski Club building versus the original ticket office. The
Master Plan incorporates the original ticket office into the schemes; however there was
discussion with HPC that they may consider the entire building to be significant. With winter
quickly approaching, the City needs to remedy the unsafe condition of this building, which may
include demolition of the non-contributing sections. During one of the HPC hearings,
Commission member Nora Berko felt that it was expanded from the original ticket booth size
within the 1950's, a recollection that is supported by the 1955 photograph provided on the
following page.
Based on existing walls and materials, Staff recommends that the width of the building illustrated
in the 1955 photograph should be preserved. There appeazs to be a more recent addition to the
north (rear) of the building that staff recommends is removed. Upon closer inspection, what
appeazs to be the 1955 rear wall is intact within the existing building. The roof collapsed and
needs to be replaced and windows are broken, but the exterior walls appear intact and a large
majority, if not all, of the window openings remain. The image below is courtesy of the Aspen
Historical Society.
The applicant proposes to rehabilitate the ticket office to the 1950s size illustrated above.
Staff requests clarification regarding the roof orientation of the ticket booth on Sheet B-1
of the application. The roof pitch appears to either be reversed in the rendering or the
applicant is proposing a 180 degree turn of the ticket office building. Staff does not
support reorientation of the ticket office building.
7
P8
Deep Powder:
The Deep Powder cabins, circa 1957, are proposed to be reused on the mountain as part of the
Aspen Ski Company's program. These building are temporarily stored on Willoughby Park until
a permanent location is approved. Staff is in favor of incorporating them on the mountain as a
ticket office or warming but for example, and we want to confirm that they will be designated as
landmazks or protected after they are permanently located. Staff is concerned about the fate of
the Deep Powder cabins. The applicant has entered into a dialogue with SkiCo regarding
the potential location of the cabins on the ski hill as a lift operator booth and a warming
but further up the mountain. The level of protection of the Deep Powder Cabins is still
unclear. SkiCo indicated a willingness to offer the City a right of first refusal if the cabins
are proposed for demolition/a detrimental addition. Depending on the location of the
cabins on the ski hill, they may be located outside the City boundaries and jurisdiction.
Hopefully Staff will have a statement from SkiCo regarding this issue to present during the
October Bch meeting.
Outbuildings: Two outbuildings exist on the site (on the east property line and adjacent to the
Lift tower) that are extremely deteriorated. The applicant proposes to retain the outbuildings on
the site as part of the story of the site. The applicant proposes to stabilize the outbuildings.
Boat Tow: Staff is concerned about the condition of the Boat Tow and its current location that
exposes it to the elements. Part of the discussion in 2006 focused on incorporating the Boat
Tow into the museum building to decrease the rate of decay and deterioration. Staff recommends
clarification regarding this issue. Staff is still unclear regarding the future of the Boat Tow
and whether it is proposed to be incorporated into the Historical Society inventory.
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE
OVERALL PROJECT:
SENSE OF PLACE: At the August 27th meeting,
HPC viewed several project schemes that
included a reconfiguration of South Aspen Street
and its relationship to the ski hill and the original
townsite grid. When the Aspen townsite was laid,
it followed traditional Roman city building
philosophy by placing a grid overtop the natural
topography. The steep, straight ascent of South
Aspen Street is an essential part of the original
townsite in the western section of town. Devoting
entire streets to "green" pedestrian areas is not
true to the history of the neighborhood, and the
treatment of Aspen, Gilbert, Juan, and Deane
Streets should be carefully considered. HPC has not supported a meandering vehicular route up
Aspen Street. The possible exception to these continents is at least the west portion of Gilbert
Street, which was part of the ski hill. Among other things, this picture reinforces the lack of
vegetation in the area, and manner in which town and the ski hill blended together. The location
of the original lift certainly did spare skiers of having to walk up Aspen Street. Staff
8
P9
recommends that the project maintain the
existing straight configuration of Aspen
Street and its connection to the grid. We
do not feel that redesigning the street is
necessary to make this neighborhood
special.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Conceptual approval, Relocation
and Demolition for the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan, with the following conditions:
1. The addition of a platter lifr adjacent to the historic Lift One is approved in the location
presented.
2. The Skier's Chalet Steakhouse is approved for relocation as presented.
3. The non-historic one story addition to the Steakhouse is approved for demolition.
4. A circulation corridor addition to the Steakhouse is conceptually approved.
5. The Skier's Chalet Lodge and ancillary building are approved for relocation as presented.
6. A modest roof penetration for an elevator is approved for the Skier's Chalet Lodge
building as presented.
7. The ticket office non historic rear addition is approved for demolition.
8. The ticket office shall be restored to its 1950 configuration, as illustrated in the
photograph provided in this memo.
9. The relocation of the Deep Powder cabins to be incorporated into the Aspen Skiing
Company program is approved with the condition that future historic preservation
protection for the cabins is in place and agreed to by the City before they are relocated.
10. The outhouses shall remain in their current locations and shall be stabilized and
rehabilitated.
*****A draft resolution shall be urovided at the HPC meetin¢.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines-
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
9
P10
^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact
of mature growth.
^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
^ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features.
^ This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in
the public right-of--way.
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.
^ When treating a historic secondary building, respect its chazacter-defining features. These
include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details.
^ If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional.
8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged.
^ An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases.
^ The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary
structure, while accommodating new uses.
8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location.
^ A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic
integrity.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
^ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmazk structures than those in a
historic district.
^ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
^ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
^ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and
materials.
^ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new
foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
^ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new
construction.
^ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
^ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots.
Both lots shall remain landmazked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
^ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
^ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
^ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lining it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
^ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances
the resource.
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.
^ Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials,
finishes and design.
10
P11
10.2 Amore recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
pximary 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 eazlier 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 eazlier 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 aze 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.
10.7 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.
^ A 1-story connector is preferred.
^ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
^ 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.
^ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
^ Additional floor azea may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
^ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
chazacter to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similaz to those of the historic building.
^ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs aze appropriate.
^ Flat roofs. are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs:
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important azchitectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of azchitectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that aze compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
^ The new materials should be either similaz or subordinate to the original materials.
I1
P12
14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws.
^ All new construction should comply completely with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Owners of historic properties should comply to the fiillest extent possible, while also
preserving the integrity of the chazacter-defining features of their buildings. Special
provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some alternatives in meeting the
ADA standazds.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
^ Plan pazking azeas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts
aze not permitted.
^ If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.22 Driveways leading. to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a
primary structure.
^ Locating. drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the
structure has along a block.
14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.
^ Large pazking azeas should be screened from view from the street.
^ Divide large parking lots with planting azeas. (Lazge pazking azeas aze those with more than
five cazs.)
^ Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature.
^ Automobile headlight illumination from pazking azeas should be screened from adjacent lots
and the street. _.
14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multifamily uses, should
not be visually obtrusive.
^ Locate pazking azeas to the reaz of the property, when physical conditions permit.
^ An alley should serve as the primary access to pazking, when physical conditions permit.
^ Pazking should not be located in the front yazd, except in the driveway, if it exists.
12
~~ P13
b.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 204 N. Monazch Street, Unit B of the Blue Vic Condominium- .Major
Development (Final) -Public Hearing
DATE: October 8, 2008
SL)MMARY: The applicant requests Final approval to construct a new single family residence
located on the 9,000 squaze foot lot (I,ot 1) that contains the lazge two story Victorian known as
"Blue Vic." The property borders East Bleeker Street and North Monarch Street, the outer
portion of Aspen's West End Neighborhood, and is zoned R-6 (Medium Density Residential).
To the north of the property is an unused alley; the subject lot is accessed via a curb cut off of
Bleeker Street.
HPC granted Major Development Conceptual approval and setback variances with three
conditions of approval:
1. The applicant will restudy the front porch.
2. The applicant will push the development back from the west lot line to be in line with.
the adjacent Blue Vic.
3. The applicant will study the depth of the eaves on the entire house to be more
proportionate with the historic context.
The applicant satisfied conditions two and three; however, the front porch proposed during
Conceptual review is essentially unchanged.
Staff is concerned about the front porch proportions and the combination of proposed materials.
Due to the backlog of the HPC schedule (booked unfil Feb) and the pending sale of this property,
Staff looks to HPC regazding a continuation or approval with conditions for Final Review.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS: In 2006, HPC granted development approvals for relocation,
rehabilitation and a new addition to the existing Victorian. The 500 squaze foot FAR Bonus was
awazded for the project and allocated to a future detached residential dwelling on the property.
The subject lot (Lot 1) was condominiumized into Unit A and Unit B. Unit A contains the Blue
Vic and Unit B is the subject of this application. The total FAR of the 9,000 squaze foot property
is 4,580 squaze feet of FAR (including the FAR Bonus): 2,053 square feet of FAR is available to
Unit B, the new house,'and 2,527 squaze feet of FAR is allocated to the existing Victorian and
the approved addition.
APPLICANT: Semrau Family, LLC, 68 Trainor's Landing Road, Aspen CO 81611, represented
by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., 412 North Mill Street, Aspen.
P1.4
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-17-033
ADDRESS: 204 N. Monazch Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 78 aka Lot 1, Unit B, of the Blue
Vic Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential:
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final 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 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.
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:
Landscape: The applicant proposes a few trees for the property to divide the new house from the
historic Blue Vic. The front yazd is proposed to be primarily sod with a few aspen trees. All
trees proposed in the City owned right of way require approval from the Pazks Department. Staff
fords that the proposed line of trees do not reflect traditional landscape chazacter of this type of
property. Staff recommends that plants more chazacteris5c of the Victorian era, for example
lilacs or rose bushes, aze planted between the two residences. Staff fords that planting trees in the
alley is inappropriate and recommends that the alley remain open as it historically would have
been.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact
of mature growth.
^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
^ Do not cover grassy azeas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
2
P15
Architectural Elements: HPC granted Conceptual approval with the condition that the applicant
restudy the front porch. The applicant added short red sandstone bases to the metal porch
columns and kept the roof form essentially the same with a thick horizontal eave line. Staff finds
these front porch elements are disproportionate with the adjacent historic front porches and do
not meet guideline 11.9 below. Staff recommends that the applicant restudy the proportions of
the front porch elements to better relate to historic Victorian era proportions.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
^ These include windows, doors and porches.
^ Overall, details should be modest in character.
Staff is concerned about the slanted chimney cap and finds that this element is distracting and
inappropriate for the historic context of the site. The proposed light fixtures appeaz too
contemporary for the historic context. Staff recommends a simplification of the fixtures as
indicated in Guideline 14.6.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in chazacter and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
^ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
^ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
Fenestration: The proposed fenestration is appropriate and meets the Design Guidelines.
P16
Materials: The color cut sheets included in the application illustrate the palette of materials. The
applicant proposes red sandstone foundation and horizontal mahogany siding with a metal
standing seam porch roof. Zinc columns and a horizontal zinc railing aze proposed for the front
elevation. A cedar shake roof is proposed as the primary roof material. Staff is concerned that
the combination of materials do not relate to the historic resource. Unfinished wood as the
primary exterior material combined with metal is not typical of Victorian Era buildings. We do
not want the new home to imitate a Victorian; however there needs to be a successful
combination of materials that relate to the historic context of this block and distinguish the
residence as a product of its own time. Adding some decorative elements, like the trim around
the windows in the photograph below, sometimes help relate new and old construction.
Anodized metal windows are proposed. Staff recommends wooden windows or similaz clad
windows to continue the relationship between the historic context and the new home.
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
^ Materials that appear similaz in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged.
^ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
4
P17
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.
RECONIMT;NDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the applicafion for Final review
for the property located at 204 N. Monarch Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 78 aka Lot 1, Unit B,
Blue Vic Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions,
1. The front porch style, proportions and materials shall be restudied for approval by staff
and monitor.
2. The applicant shall propose new materials for: the home that better relate to the historic
context for review and approval by Staff and monitor.
3. Wooden windows aze approved for the new home.
4. The chimney cap is not approved.
5. There shall be no landscaping in the alleyway.
6. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
7. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full boazd.
8. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
5
P18
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 204 North Monarch
Street.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals aze not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Exhibits:
A. Design Guidelines
B. Application
6
P19
Exhi6itA: Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 202 North Monarch, Major
Development Final Review
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
^ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning 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 ,,,,,,,i„g perpendiculaz from the street to the front entry. Meandering
wallcways aze discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
^ Use paving materials that aze similaz to those used historically for the :building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone maybe appropriate for certain building styles.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yazd to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
^ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and
sod, and not covered with paving, for example.
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmazk trees and
shrubs. i
^ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Pazks Department.
^ If a tree must be removed as pazt of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a
lazge enough scale to have a visual impact in the eazly yeazs of the project.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
^ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact
of mature growth.
^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small azeas for accent.
^ Do not cover grassy azeas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures aze
inappropriate.
^ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer
than the mature canopy size.
^ Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant azchitectural features
or block views to the building.
^ It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yazd.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
^ The building should be arranged pazallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of
the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a
front porch.
^ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
^ Anew porch should be similaz in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
^ Tn some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendiculaz to the street; nonetheless, the
entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street.
7
P20
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel.
^ Subdivide ]azger masses into smaller "modules" that are similaz in size to the historic buildings on
the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
^ The primary plane of the front should not appeaz taller than the historic structure.
^ The front should include aone-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in azeas where it is appropriate to the context.
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context.
^ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street aze
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally.
^ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective fmish.
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
^ Materials that appeaz similar in sca]e and fmish to those used historically on the site aze encouraged.
^ .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.
^ These include windows, doors and porches.
^ Overall, details should be modest in chaacter.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history aze
especially discouraged on historic sites.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similaz in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
^ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the I3PC.
^ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and azchitectural lighting.
^ Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which duect light upwazd will not be
permitted.
^ Shield lighting associated with service azeas, pazlcing lots and parking structures.
^ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights aze in use late at night.
^ Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
^ Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls
of buildings.
^ Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same azea.
8
P21
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) AND
VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 204 NORTH MONARCH STEET,
LOTS K, L AND M, BLOCK 24, AKA LOT I, UNIT B OF THEBLUE VIC
CONDOMINIUM, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2008
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-17-033.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Semrau Family, LLC, 68 Trainor's Landing Road, Aspen CO 81611,
represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.„ 412 North Mill Street; Aspen for the property
located at 204 N. Monarch Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 78 aka Lot 1, Unit B, Blue Vic
Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the .Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.of
the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. 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, Saza Adams, in her staff report dated October 8, 2008, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standazds, found, that the review standazds and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at their regulaz meeting on October 8, 2008,
the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the, application was
consistent with the review standazds and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines" by a vote of _ to _
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Final) for the property located
at 204 N. Monarch Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 78 aka Lot 1, Unit B, Blue Vic Condominium,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions;
1. The front porch style, proportions and materials shall be restudied for approval by staff
and monitor.
1
P22
2. The applicant shall propose new materials for the home that better relate to the historic
context for review and approval by Staff and monitor.
3. Wooden windows are approved for the new home.
4. The chimney cap is not approved.
5. There shall be no landscaping in the alleyway.
6. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided. for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
7. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full boazd.
8. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) yeazs from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the .general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) yeazs,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 204 North Monarch
Street, Unit B.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals aze not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
[signatures on the following page]
2
P23
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of October
2008.
Michael Hoffman, Chair
Attest:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Special Counsel
P24
Q.
.~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Asperi Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer~~/
FROM: Jason Lasser, Special Projects Planner ~ L
RE: 720 East Hyman Avenue, Minor Review, Historic Landmazk Designation- Public
Hearing
DATE: October 2, 2008
HEARING DATE: October 8, 2008
SUMMARY: The property is among those listed as "Potential Historic Resources" provided
with a level of protection under Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. The building, located on the
corner of East Hyman Avenue and South Original Street, is a three story (above grade) mixed use
building built in the mid 70's (drawings dated 1976). The project was designed by Robin Molny,
who was trained under Frank Lloyd Wright at Taliesin and later worked with Fritz Benedict. In
addition to the recently designated Hearthstone House, he designed other significant buildings
and projects in Aspen including the Hyman and Cooper Avenue pedestrian malls.
The application requests (voluntary) designation as a Historic Landmazk. Designation and review
by the HPC allows the project to proceed through Ordinance 48, Series of 2007 and provides the
owner with GMQS exemptions that are relevant to their project. In addition, the applicant is
requesting a Minor Development review for the modification to the exterior to replace existing
plywood hoppers with windows, replace existing single pane glazing with double pane glass,
replacing an existing gazage door with an insulated unit, replacing an existing exit door and
stairs, and adding solaz sun-shades to the exterior to allow for winter sun or block summer heat.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request to be designated as a Historic
Landmazk. Staff finds that the proposed modifications to the exterior do not significantly change
the design - as there are no requests to move, enlarge or create new openings -and combined
with the proposed solaz shades, will improve the energy performance of the building. Staff
recommends that the `applicant keep the existing ground-level planters, sliding doors, and remove
the. beige paint on the exterior, restoring the materials to allow for functionality and efficiency.
APPLICANT: CM, LLC c/o Roger Mazolt, represented by Lenny Oates, Oates, Kenezevich,
Gazdenswartz, and Kelly, P.C.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-11010 (through 11031) & 2737-182-11800 (and 11801)
P25
ADDRESS: 720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Athletic Club Condominium & Duvike
Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
P26
ZONING: MU.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
26.415.030B. Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures,
an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or
objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance.
The significance of the property located at 720 East Hyman Avenue will be evaluated according
to the following criteria:
1. The property was constructed at least forty (40) years prior to the year in which
the application for designation is being made and the property possesses sufficient integrity
of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is related to`one
or more of the following:
a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution
to local, state, regional or national history,
b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or
national history is deemed important and can be identif-ed and
documented,
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical
or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or
design philosophy that is deemed important.
Staff Response• Staff finds that all of the above criteria are met:
a. An event, pattern, or'trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state,
regional or national history:
Staff does not argue that Aspen Athletic Club Building exemplifies textbook Wrightian
azchitecture in town. Restricting the analysis of a design profession like azchitecture to a uniform
set of criteria that qualify a building as contributing to a specific style fails to recognize the
artistic freedom azchitects like Molny exercised- as Wright expressed to Molny, "If you
understand the principles of my azchitecture, then your buildings need not look like mine."
Applying this idea to preservation of 720 East Hyman; while it does not replicate the exact
teachings of a master architect, it is defined in part by Aspen's creative environment where
azchitects, and other creative professionals, could experiment with modern philosophies and the
built environment in this specific context. It is exactly this creative adventure that produced
interesting azchitecture in Aspen-azchitectute that communicates both a sense of place (the high
country and extreme environment) and a higher level of design. Spatial connections, relationship
to the site and connection with nature, and utilizing the materials for both aesthetic and structural
functions aze all examples of Wrightian philosophy.
Molny used Wrightian design philosophy- for example: organic architecture (composing
buildings with space rather than mass and scale; and creating a harmony of azchitecture and
environment) - to create an open floor plan and aninterior/exterior courtyazd. Aspen was lucky
P27
to be home to many intellectuals, including modernist architects, who were starting out in the
field. Molny used his foundation at Taliesen to draw upon the physical and intellectual
environment of Aspen, and create a building that is not a replica of Wright, but indicative of his
own background, design, experiences, and' client. Molny was not the only azchitect in Aspen
whose training under Frank Lloyd Wright .influenced the towns azclntectural chazacter. Please
refer to Community Developments paper;, Aspens 20s' Century Architecture, Modernism for
more information about this trend.
StafJf nds that criteria a. is met
b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or national history is deemed
important and can be identified and documented,
Aspen was fortunate to attract a variety of highly trained azchitects who IeR a modern impression
throughout the town. Among the rhchitectural crowd was Robin Molny who trained at Taliesen
under Frank Lloyd Wright for five years and in the 1950s was selected by Wright to supervise the
Greenberg Residence in Dousman, Wisconsin.. Wright is quoted as describing Molny as a "poet"
saying "he'll be a good azchiteot one day." Subsequently, Molny moved to Aspen, worked for
Fritz Benedict, and opened his own architecture firm. The Hearthstone House (134 East Hyman,
1961), the Mason and Morse Building (514 East Hyman, heavily altered, 1971), and the
downtown pedestrian malls (1970s) were all designed by Molny. The HPC awarded Molny two
Welton Anderson Preservation Honor Awards in 1995.for the pedestrian malls and again in 1997
for significant rhchitectural contributions to Aspen: Dick Carney, Chairman of the Frank Lloyd
Wright Foundation Boazd, wrote a letter honoring Molny when he was presented with the Welton
Anderson Preservation Honor Award in 1997.
Robin Molny's rhchitectural contributions aze locally significant in their representation and
communication .of Aspen life in the 1960s and 1970s. As indicated through the cazeful
orientation of the main atrium, Molny was sensitive to spatial relationships: he designed the
atrium to serve as a flexible, light-filled, transition. between the exterior and interior, taking
advantage of the views to the mountain, and creating interest for those inside the building.
Stafffznds that criteria b. is met.
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or
method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a
recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important.
The elegant use of structural members to create the form, fenestration, and architectural interest,
attention to small details like bolt patterns display the craftsmanship and philosophy of a quality
designer. Robin Molny represented his appreciation and knowledge of materials and architectural
history in the construction of the Aspen Athletic Building with the use of the current technology
and construction techniques. The first patents for glu-lam beams were issued in Switzerland and
Germany, and the first U.S. manufacturing standazd for glu-lam was published in 1963, Staff
believes that Molny allowed the materials of the day to drive the design process, resulting in a
building that explores the technical possibilities of the day. Staff finds that the design and history
of the Aspen Athletic Club Building to be indicative of an important design philosophy.
P28
Staff finds that criteria c is met.
Recommendation: Staff finds that criteria for the Historic Designation aze fulfilled. Staff
recommends approval of the request to be designated as a Historic Landmark.
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 Cily 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 Certiftcate 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.
1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features.
^ This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in
the public right-of--way.
Staff~Response:
The applicant proposes to remove the existing planters. The planters are original (shown in
historic photographs and on architectural drawings) and part of the relationship of the building
to the street, as they are incorporated into and help transition the pavers in a slight slope up to
the elevation of the main space, which is slightly above grade. If the planters are replaced, the
Engineering Department will not issue an encroachment license for new planters in the exact
same location as the existing and requested that the application be amended to show all
improvements to be located within the property lines. The applicant has submitted a revised
application showing the new planters within the property line, which has been reviewed and
determined to be in compliance by the Engineering Department.
The Parks Department comments that "the applicant would need apply for and comply with all
landscaping in the ROW permit standards, for example: irrigation, appropriate species and
spacing of trees, new sod, a planting bed of no less than 3 ft of structural soil, and arty other
requirements of the Engineering Department". In addition, "the plantings within the new
planters should be carefully considered based on the size of the trees mature growth and space
needed for proper and healthy root growth. Parks will not accept any Type of coniferous
planting within these new planters ". Again, Staff recommends the existing planters be retained.
The conifers are not original and could be replaced.
P29
2.9 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.
^ Regardless of their chazacter, new materials obscure the original, historically significant
material. For example, vinyl siding, aluminum siding and new stucco are inappropriate on
historic buildings. Other imitation materials that aze designed to look like wood or masonry
siding, but that aze fabricated from other materials, aze also inappropriate.
^ If a property already has anon-historic building material covering the original, it is not
appropriate to add another layer of new material, which would further obscure the original.
^ Any material that covers historic materials will also trap moisture between the two layers.
This may cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which will go unnoticed.
StaffResoonse:
There are a few panels that have been painted beige, two on the east fapade, two on the south
fapade, and on the parapet wall on the west fapade. Staff recommends that the applicant
remove the paint to expose the original siding, as seen in the historic photographs.
3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade.
^ Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a chazacter-defining facade will negatively
affect the integrity of a structure.
Staff Response:
The atrium is a significant element of the original design. Although the pattern of glazing,
details, and materials will remain intact on the exterior, the original glazing and solid/void
relationships will be altered visually with the addition of a floor that wiIi span through the
primary vertical glass sheets in the current main space. Although the proposed floor is on the
interior, the new framing will be visible from the exterior through the existing glazing. Staff has
concerns about the aesthetic modification, but acknowledges that if the primary structural
elements are not disturbed, then the addition is reversible, and not a permanent alteration to the
existing resource.
3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original.
^ Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades.
However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window
components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish.
3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the
original window.
^ A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, the sash steps
back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which
individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They
distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall.
Staff Response:
The existing plywood hoppers will be replaced with operable windows. The opening size and
existing pattern of solid/void will not be modified. Although the exterior elevation, specifically
the ratio of wood to reflective surfaces will be significantly changed, the proportions, structure
for the openings, sizes, and trim will not be affected. Staff finds the proposal to be respectful of
the design, reversible, and not detrimental to the proposed historic landmark
P30
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
^ Maintain features important to the chazacter of a historic doorway. These may include the
door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hazdwaze, detailing, transoms
and flanking sidelights.
^ Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
^ If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any-.work that is done must be reversible so that
the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic
position.
^ If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must
remain operable.
Staff Response:
The application requests replacement for ground-level sliding glass doors with fixed glass, in
effect, eliminating the convertible quality of the original design. The existing sliding doors
retract onto one frame width, both in the three door and four door conftgurations, essentially
opening an exterior glazing wall to the interior. Staff has concerns about modifying the
operation and functionality of the existing door. Staff recommends that the applicant restore the
existing aluminum doors to maintain the historic function and convertible quality.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
^ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
^ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
^ Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upwazd will not be
permitted.
^ Shield lighting associated with service azeas, pazking lots and pazking structures.
^ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessazy sources of light by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights aze in use late at night.
^ Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
^ Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of
buildings.
^ Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area.
Staff Response:
The lighting of the project, if the proposal includes additions or modifications to the existing will
require compliance with the Historic Guidelines.
NOTE:
Additional reviews will be required for this project. The application will be required to meet the
requirements of the Growth Management Quota System chapter of the Land Use Code for the
creation offree-market residential units. The proposal will be required to mitigate for affordable
housing, employee generation, and all applicable chapters of the City of Aspen Land Use Code.
P31
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 request for Historic
Designation and approve the application for Minor Review,
at 720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Athletic Club Condo
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Integrity Assessment -Existing Building
C. Photos of Existing Building
with conditions for the properly located
ninium & Duvike Condominium, City
D. Application
P32
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND FOR .
HISTORIC DESIGNATION REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 720 EAST
HYMAN AVE (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB
BUILDING), ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB CONDOMINIUM & DUVIKE
CONDOMINIUM, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO._, SERIES OF 2008
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-11010 (through 11031) & 2737-182-11800 (and 11801)
WHEREAS, the applicant, CM LLC c/o Roger Mazolt, represented by Lenny Oates, Oates
Kenezevich, Gazdenswaztz, and Kelly, P.C., has requested Minor Development for the property
located at 720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Athletic Club Condominium & Duvike
Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordarice with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, the procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the
submittal materials and prepazes 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, Section 26.415.050. of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for
Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmazk Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from
HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the pioperly meets the criteria; and
WHEREAS, Jason Lasser, in his staff report dated October 2, 2008 performed an analysis of the
application based on the standazds, found the review standazds and the "City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines and Commercial Design Standards have been met; and
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on October 8, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application for Minor Development and Historic Landmazk
Review met the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and the Aspen
Municipal Code Historic Landmazk Standazds review criteria, and approved the application by a
vote of _ to _
P33
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: ~
That HPC approves the application for Landmark Designation of the property at 720 East Hyman
Avenue, Aspen Athletic Club Condominium & Duvike Condominium, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado, and approves the application for Minor Development with the' following
conditions;
1. The applicant shall restore, if necessary, the existing ground floor exterior sliding doors,
and maintain the existing configuration and operation.
2. Retain the existing planters, removing the Coniferous trees in conjunction with Pazks and
Engineering.
3. Remove the beige paint to expose the natural wood siding on the east and south facades,
and on the pazapet wall on the west elevation.
4. The applicant would need apply for and comply with all landscaping in the ROW permit
standazds, for example: irrigation, appropriate species and spacing of trees, new sod, a
planting bed of no less than 3 ft of structural soil, and any other requirements of the
Engineering Department
5. The applicant can choose the tree species using one of the trees identified within the City
of Aspen Arbor Guide
6. The.plantings within the new planters should be cazefully considered based on the size of
the trees mature growth and space needed for.proper and healthy root growth. Pazks will
not accept any type of coniferous planting within these new planters
7. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) yeazs. from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to -this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) yeazs,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 720 East Hyman Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado.
P34
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals aze not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of October
2008.
Approved as to Form:
Michael Hoffman, Chairman
Jim True, Special Counsel
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P35
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A- Relevant Desien Guidelines
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
^ This includes. a sequence of experiences, beginning 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.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
^ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact
of mature growth.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
^ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than
the mature canopy size.
1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting.
^ Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glaze onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on
walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes.
1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features.
^ This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in
the public right-of--way.
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
^ Do riot remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
^ Masonry features that define the overall historic chazacter, such as walls, cornices, pediments,
steps and foundations, should be preserved.
2.2 . Protect wood features from deterioration.
2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating
or otherwise reinforcing the material.
^ Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
2.6 Maintain masonry walls in good condition.
2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials
on primary surfaces.
2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials.
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building
wall.
3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade
3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original.
^ Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on chazacter-defining facades.
However, a substitute material may be considered if the appeazance of the window
components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish.
3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
P36
3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the
original window.
3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic
window.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door.
4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original
door or a door associated with the style of the house.
^ A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, consider using a storm door instead
of replacing a historic entry door.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
^ Flat skylights that aze flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location
on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solaz pane] on a front roof plane is not
allowed.
^ A skylight or solaz panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be
positioned below the ridgeline.
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
^ Materials that appear similaz in scale and fmish to those used historically on the site aze
encouraged. i
^ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
14.9 Use the gentlest means possible to clean the surface of materials and features.
14.10 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in,
consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material.
^ Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
14.11 Plan repainting carefully.
14.12 Provide aweather-protective finish to wood surfaces.
14.13 Leave natural masonry colors unpainted where feasible.
14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street.
14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way.
^ Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or
alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller
satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yazds, significant
building facades or highly visib]e roof planes.
14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not
damage historic facade materials.
14.26 Sign materials should be similar to those used historically.
14.29 Illuminate a sign such that it complements the overall composition of the site.
P37
EXISTING BUILDING - EXIHBIT B
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- WRIGHTIAN
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the
place where the historic event occurred.
5 -The structure is in its original location.
3 -The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the
original alignment and proximity to the street.
0 -The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilaz to its original
site.'
StaffResponse:
The structure is in the original location. Stafffinds the location score to be a S.
TOTAL LOCATION POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5
DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,
structure, and style of a property.
BUILDING FORM
10- The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still intact.
6 - Theplan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design
guidelines.
0 -Alterations and/or additions to the building aze such that the original form
of the structure is obscured.
StaffResponse:
The original plan, building form, footprint, structural elements, spatial relationships, and style
are still intact. The glu-lam beams are the primary structural and aesthetic elements, and have
not been altered. Staff finds the building form score to be a 10.
ROOF FORM
10 -The original roof form is unaltered.
6 - Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the
current design guidelines. The overall horizontal emphasis and wide overhangs
have been maintained.
0 -Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its. original form or that detract
from its horizontal emphasis.
StaffResponse.•
The roof form is a flat roof, with no overhang, and a parapet wall on the west eave. Staff
believes that the original design has not been altered. The uppermost glu-lam beam defines the
roofline, and has not been modified: Stafffinds the finds form score to be a 10.
P38
SCALE
5 -The original scale and proportions of the building aze intact.
3 -The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is
intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines.
0 - The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or
alterations.
Staff Response:
The original scale and proportions are still intact, there have been no expansions, additions, or
alterations. Staff finds the scale score to be a 5.
SOLIDfVOH) PATTERN
10 -The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is intact.
6 -The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials has been altered
but in a manner that would meet the design guidelines.
0- The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is altered.
Staff Response:
The pattern of glazing, details, and exterior materials are intact. The original glazing and
solid/void relationships have not been modified. Staff finds the solid/void score to be a 10.
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES
10-The horizontal form, relationship to the environment through battered foundation
walls, cantilevered floors and/or porches, cleaz azeas of glazing which create
visual connections to the outside and the inside, and the effect of the roof plane
hovering over the ground aze intact.
6 -There are minor alterations to the horizontal form, relationship to the environment
through battered foundation walls, cantilevered floors and/or porches, cleaz azeas
of glazing which create visual connections to the outside and the inside, and the
effect of the roof plane hovering over the ground.
0 -There have been major alterations to the horizontal form and design features that
relate the building to its environment.
Sta~Response:
The glu-lam beams that are used for both the structure and to establish the horizontal banding
and voids for glazing or open space are the primary character defining features of the building.
Below the largest horizontal beam is the main space vertical butt joined glazing which creates a
light filled space which creates nearly transparent visual and physical connections from the
exterior and interior. The existing sliding glass doors on the ground floor allow the space to be
converted into what feels like a covered patio, which is strengthened by the use of pavers which
are the same, both indoor and outdoor, Staff finds the character defining features score to be a
10.
TOTAL DESIGN POINTS (maximum of 4~ = 45
• SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
P39
5- The physical surroundings aze similaz to that found when the structure was
originally constructed.
3- There aze minor modifications to the physical surroundings but the changes
conform to the design guidelines.
0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the building.
StaffResponse:
The exterior physical surroundings, which consists of several brick planters and walls, trees,
bushes, berms, and a herringbone brick sidewalk paving(that matches the interior main space of
the building) are believed to be constructed at the same time as the structure. Staff finds the
setting score to be a 5.
TOTAL SETTING POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5
• MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited
during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or confguration to form a
historic property.
EXTERIOR SURFACES
15-The original combination of exterior wall materials and glazing are intact.
10.-There have been minor alterations to the original exterior wall materials and
glazing made in a manner that conform to the design guidelines.
5-There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior wall
materials and glazing.
0- All exterior wall materials and glazing has been replaced.
Sta{fResoonse:
The exterior surfaces, combination of exterior wall materials and glazing are intact. The
surfaces on the NE and SW corners and the parapet wall on the west fapade have been painted
beige, which is the only painted surface on the building, as the beams, hoppers, and
miscellaneous trim pieces are stained. Staff questions the authenticity of the. beige paint, but
understands that it is minor in nature, and is reversible. Stafffnds the exterior surfaces score to
be a 14.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10-All or most of the original door and window units aze intact.
5 -Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units
would meet the design guidelines.
0 -Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units that
would not meet design guidelines.
Staff Response:
The existing doors, specifically the sliding doors on the ground floor that retract to expose the
pedestrian level to the outside, are an integral component of the facade and design. The
operation and stacking characteristics are intact. The windows, essentially sheets of insulated,
tempered, and mirrored or tinted glass are elegantly connected to each other and the structure to
P40
minimize obstruction to the natural view, or reflecting it from the exterior. The original window,
configuration, and operation are intact, Stafffinds the doors and windows score to be a 10.
TOTAL MATERIALS POINTS (maximum of 25) = 24
WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular
culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory..
COMPOSITION
15 - The structural composition that distinguishes the stylistic category of
Wrightian is intact. Materials aze usually natural and hand worked; such as
rough sawn wood timbers and brick. Brick is generally used as a base material,
wall infill or in an anchoring fireplace element. Wood structural systems tend
more towazd heavy timber or post and beam than typical stud framing.
Structural members and construction methods aze usually expressed in the
building. For example; load-bearing columns may be expressed inside and out,
the wall plane is then created by an infill of glass or brick.
10- There have been some alterations to the structural composition, but the changes
would meet the design guidelines.
0 - There have been some alterations to the structural composition, and the changes
would not meet the design guidelines.
Staff Response:
The wood structural system is expressed both on the interior and exterior, and the wall plane is
created by an infill of glass and plywood. While the style is not easily identifiable as a Wrightian
design, the characteristics of the composition criterion precisely match the existing building.
Stafffnds the composition score to be a IS.
FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME
5 -The natural color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of
Wrightian is intact.
3 -There have been minor alterations to the natural color scheme and fmishes that
define the sTylistic category of Wrightian.
0- There have been significant alterations to the natural color scheme and finishes
that define the stylistic category of Wrightian.
Staff Response:
The color (dark wood) and finishes (stain) which compliment the desire the expression of the
natural materials are believed to be intact. Staff questions the authenticity of the beige paint, but
understands that it is minor in nature, and is reversible Staff f nds the finishes and color scheme
score to be a 4.
TOTAL WORKMANSHIP POINTS (maximum of 20) = 19
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 100) = 98
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS=100