HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20100714ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JULY 14 2010
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS:
I. Roll call
I. Approval of minutes — June 23, 2010
II. Public Comments
III. Commission member comments
IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
V. Project Monitoring:
VI. Staff comments — (15 min.)
VII. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #7)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. NONE
IX. NEW BUSINESS — PUBLIC HEARING
A. The Given Institute, 100 E. Francis Street, Ord. 48
negotiation for Preservation of Potential Historic Resources
- Public Hearing (90 min.)
B. Ute City Restaurant, 308 E. Hopkins Ave. Minor certificate
of Appropriateness — Public Hearing (45 min.)
X. WORK SESSIONS/ DISCUSSION
A. NONE
XI. 7:30 p.m. Adjourn
UL
tu 1313 c 8 11T.r „11 - UTI
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute, Ordinance #48 negotiation
DATE: July 14, 2010
PROCESS: In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance,
Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. That ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations, land
use applications, or building permits affecting all non - landmarked buildings constructed
at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was
negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant
architectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modern structures as well.
Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous
meetings to discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In
particular, Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down
dramatically from all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff
and found to potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance
#48, Series of 2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance 430.
Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have
historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance.
Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited
while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program via the
Historic Preservation Task Force. The Task Force is completed and code amendments
are expected to be presented to Council in the coming months.
100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute, is identified on the List of Potential Historic
Resources as part of Ordinance #48. Owners of a property listed on Ordinance #48 can
still move forward with proposed projects if they:
A. Submit the plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay
under Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or
B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from
Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC
review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or
C. Submit plans with the intention of triggering a 90 day delay period, during which
time City Staff and Council will negotiate for appropriate preservation of the
property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to landmark designate
the property, the building permits will be processed as requested.
The Regents of the University of Colorado, the property owner of The Given Institute,
have submitted a letter (Exhibit A) indicating their intention to demolish all of the
existing buildings on the site, which includes the primary building and two Victorian era
structures. Typically, a letter of intent, as opposed to an actual permit or land use
application, is not adequate to trigger Ordinance #48 review, however The Regents assert
that "as a state entity, the University is not legally bound by City of Aspen ordinances,
zoning, etc" The City Attorney's Office has requested evidence that this authority exists,
but no further information has been provided by The University of Colorado.
HPC has had several discussions about this issue, held a worksession on June 23, 2010,
and attended the City Council meeting on June 28, 2010, successfully lobbying City
Council to pass a resolution committing to take action to try to preserve the property and
buildings (Exhibit B).
To date, representatives of The University of Colorado have very clearly indicated that no
incentives, negotiation, or other development options are of interest given the offer they
have for a more simple disposal of the property at a price that they feel is beneficial to
their institution. The property is zoned R -6, which allows for residential development,
including subdivision. A single family home on the site would be allowed to be
approximately 6,200 square feet of FAR.
Within the negotiation, it is staff s belief that focus on traditional historic preservation
incentives is not productive. The most effective action may be to identify an alternative,
preservation minded owner who could purchase the property and continue to make it
available as a community facility.
The Ordinance #48 review before HPC is not a public hearing, and the acceptance of
comments from the public or property owners are at the discretion of the Commission.
HPC is aware that there are numerous people concerned about the proposed demolition.
The Commission is asked to make a recommendation regarding the potential historic
significance of the property and any benefits that might be offered to the owner to
preserve the property.
APPLICANT: Regents of the University of Colorado, owner
PARCEL ID: 2735- 124 -19 -851.
ADDRESS: 100E. Francis Street.
ZONING: R -6.
2
DISCUSSION: HPC is asked to weigh in on whether this property's significance
warrants preservation negotiations with the property owner. The City cannot designate
properties listed on Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 without the owner's consent. The
criteria for designation are listed below and staff s analysis follows.
26.415.030.B. Criteria To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark 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 properties will be evaluated according to the following
criteria. When designating an historic district, the majority of the contributing resources
in the district must meet the criteria described below:
1. A property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it is:
a. In whole or in part more than one hundred (100) years old, and
b. It possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design,
materials, workmanship and association, given its age; or
2. A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th
Century history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years
prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made, possesses
sufficient integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and
association and is related to one (1) 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 contribution to local, state, regional or national history is
deemed important and the specific contribution is identified and documented, or
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 FINDINGS: Staff finds that all three designation criteria, and the integrity
considerations, are met.
Criterion 2.a
Aspen has a long standing tradition as a location for thinkers, leaders, artists, and
musicians from all over the world to join together in a setting that feeds the "Mind, Body,
and Spirit." Organizations like the Aspen Music Festival (1949), Aspen Institute (1950),
Aspen Center for Physics (1962) and The Given Institute (1972) are strongly tied to the
town's identity.
The founding of the Institute grew out of a conference on Advances in Molecular Biology
that was sponsored by CU and held in the Aspen Middle School gymnasium starting in
1964. Dr. Donald West King, then Chairman of the Department of Pathology at the
University of Colorado Medical School, spearheaded the program, envisioning the need
for a central meeting place where leading scientists could exchange information, at times
a significant logistical challenge in the pre - intemet age. The purpose of the creation of a
conference center was to enable residents, fellows and faculty to remain current with the
revolution in biology, genetics, and medicine taking place in American research. The
3
National Institute of Health, National Research Council, and National Academy of
Scientists all sponsored programs.
Aspen provided a location more central in the country than similar conferences held at
the time on the East and West coasts. In addition, the opportunity to combine research
with the natural and cultural amenities available in Aspen was appealing, and the
community already had a well established tradition as a summer retreat and intellectually
stimulating environment for academics.
The conference grew to four sessions per summer. Articles in the Aspen Times reported
that registration was denied to several thousand would -be participants due to limited
meeting space. In 1967 negotiations began with the Aspen Institute to develop a more
suitable permanent conference facility and laboratory. Ultimately Elizabeth Paepcke,
who with her late husband Walter had worked to create many foundations of Aspen's
post World War II renaissance, sold the University of Colorado two acres of land at
approximately half its market value for. construction of the facility. Dr. King, since
appointed Chairman of Columbia University's College of Physicians and surgeons,
negotiated with the Irene Heinz Given (daughter of food giant H.J. Heinz) and John
LaPorte Given Foundation of New York, to secure a $500,000 donation for the building's
construction, which was then named in their honor. The Given Foundation was also the
source of tens of millions of dollars of donations to Harvard University and other schools..
Initially, the cost of maintaining the facility and providing the programs was provided by
the National Institutes of Health and donations, at no cost to CU. In the late 1980s, the
financial support from NIH ended and The Given Institute became concerned with their
isolation from the Aspen community in terms of offering public access to its programs.
An Aspen Times profile noted that: "while most Aspenites remain oblivious to the
brilliance in their midst, some of the most renowned names in medical research,
including Nobel laureates, come together at a spot overlooking Hallam Lake to share
their discoveries and advancements in highly specialized fields"
Significant investment was made by CU to upgrade the property from a summer building
to a year -round facility, and in 1991 a local advisory board spearheaded the establishment
of a public lecture series, or "Mini College" that continues today. The Given Institute
now hosts some ten free public lectures a year, bringing cutting edge experts on
everything from bio- terrorism to sports medicine. In addition there have been youth
summits on substance abuse, brown bag lunches on health topics for local senior citizens,
and free dental and optical screenings for the community.
Staff finds that Criterion 2.a is met through the property's strong connection to the legacy
of "The Aspen Idea."
Criterion 2.b.
The Given Institute is directly connected to the Paepcke family, credited as the founders
of Modern Aspen.
C!
As noted above, in 1970, Elizabeth Paepcke, town matriarch, provided the property (a
portion of her garden at the time) for the construction of the Institute. The year before,
she had donated 22 adjacent acres behind her home for the development of an
environmental center and preserve known as ACES (Aspen Center for Environmental
Studies.)
Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke were patrons of twentieth century Modern art and
architecture. As a stipulation in the gift- purchase of the land for The Given Institute,
Elizabeth Paepcke retained the right to select the architect. She chose Harry Weese of
Chicago, an internationally known Modern architect and part-time resident of Aspen.
Staff finds that Criterion 2.b. is met through the property's direct connection to Elizabeth
Paepcke and the institutions and design influence brought to Aspen by her family.
Criterion 2.c.
Harry Weese practiced primarily in Chicago and the Midwest, but also lived part-time in
Aspen. His commission to design the Given was in no way happenstance and fits in to a
broader context of a "who's who" of modern architecture that began here in 1945, when
Walter Paepcke brought Walter Gropius to attend an Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. Work by Herbert Bayer, Eero Saarinen, Marcel Breuer, and
Buckminster Fuller followed. Numerous Taliesen fellows practiced in Aspen. Into the
1970's and beyond Harry Weese designed in the Aspen area, as did Elliot Noyes, John
Lautner, Charles Moore, Robert A.M. Stern, and more.
Aspen's modernist buildings can be generally organized into two periods, 1945 -1960,
when Aspen entered the ski and tourist industries, and 1960 -1975, when its growth and
development accelerated. The Given Institute, was constructed in 1972 and embodies the
tenets of the International Style, International Style architecture systematically rejected
the past —its technologies, architecture, ornament, societal structures to embrace
modernity, industrialization, urbanization, and the machine made. The premise was that
modern design could transform society by applying industrial methods to housing and
creating a "total art," including buildings, fumishings, interiors, clothing, and signage.
Differentiated by the radical absence of references to past historic styles, the International
Style is defined by industrial materials such as steel, reinforced concrete, and glass to
give a sleek, mechanical, look to the buildings. Modernism was appropriate to the
optimism and progressive thinking of midcentury America. The forms and materials
worked well in a time when booming national growth required the construction of many
new buildings.
Harry Weese, (June 30, 1915 - October 29, 1998), attended both MIT (studying under
Alvar Aalto, and creating a friendship with fellow students Eero Saarinen and I.M.Pei)
and Yale, graduating from MIT in 1938. After graduation, he studied with famed
architect and father of Fero, Elie] Saarinen at Cranbrook Academy in Michigan. The
New York Times proclaimed that "the effect of Cranbrook and its graduates and faculty
on the physical environment of this country has been profound (...) Cranbrook, surely
more than any other institution, has a right to think of itself as synonymous with
5
contemporary American design." Eero Saarinen would become one of the most
recognized architects of the twentieth century, designing the St. Louis Arch (1947),
Aspen's first music tent (1949), and the TWA terminal in New York (1962). As his
career took off, he regularly referred work to Weese. Charles Eames, an architect and
furniture designer responsible for many iconic designs of the twentieth century was also
an associate when Weese attended Cranbrook.
Before and after serving in World War II, Harry Weese worked for the one of the largest
and well known architectural firms in the world, Skidmore Owings and Merrill, who are
credited with having invented the "glass box" skyscraper and who designed many
landmarks, including the Lever House in New York City (1951), constructed shortly after
Weese's tenure with the firm.
Weese, said to be a sceptic of the "Less is More" edict of Mies van der Rohe that was
heavily influential at SOM and in Chicago in general opened his own firm, Harry Weese
and Associates, in 1947. While he was classically trained in the ideals of modernism,
Weese was more strongly affiliated with the Finnish architects Aalto and Saarinen than
the Bauhaus masters. His work reflects their humanistic approach by incorporating
natural materials, particularly wood, reflecting his own experience as a sailor, and
undulating lines.
Early in his career Weese was invited, at the encouragement of Eliel Saarinen, to design a
building in the town of Columbus, Indiana. There, a manufacturing company,
recognizing the business value of creating livable communities, began to offer to pay
architectural fees for local properties owners who would engage firms identified on a
specific list, which included the most significant modernists of the time. Much of
downtown Columbus, Indiana is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places,
in recognition of its incredible collection of over sixty modern buildings designed by
Eliel and Eero Saarinen, I.M. Pei, Robert Venturi, Richard Meier, and others. While
most architects were invited to design just one building, Harry Weese designed at least
eighteen, including the National Historic Landmark First Baptist Church (1965)
considered one of the most iconic buildings in the town. The building achieved National
Historic Landmark Status in 2000, when it was thirty five years old.
Weese was a prolific architect, particularly revered in the Midwest. Harry Weese also
designed the U.S. Embasy in Accra, Ghana in 1958 and became one of an elite group of
architects selected to work for the U.S. State Department. He was inducted, at a
relatively young age, into the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects
in 1961. Weese's most recognized project is the system -wide network of station designs
for the 100- mile long Metro subway in Washington, D.C., heralded by the New York
Times as: "among the greatest public works of this century."
Shortly after the famed D.C. Metro project, Harry Weese created the design for The
Given Institute, built in 1972. A longtime visitor to Aspen, having first visited town with
his wife in 1947, Weese's family purchased a Victorian home at 118 N. First Street in
1969, and it is still owned by them today. Weese was likely well known to the
2
Paepcke's, as both families resided in Aspen and Chicago. Herbert Bayer reportedly
insisted Weese be selected as the architect, and supervising local architect William
Lipsey recalls the presentation of Weese's design to Bayer in Aspen.
The Given Institute sits on an approximately 2.25 acre site characterized by a flat bench
area and a slope that drops quickly to the north, towards the Hallam Lake Nature
Preserve. The lot is abutted by private property on the west, a bike trail and the Red
Brick Arts Center to the south, and nature preserve on the east and north.
The Given Institute is a 12,000 sq. ft. building comprised of a series of geometric
volumes constructed out of concrete masonry units with raked joints, painted white, with
a flat roof. The building fits within a perfect square, 90' x 90,' with circles, squares and
triangles that are deliberately interweaved, cut out of and pushed beyond the boundary of
the square. Harry Weese carefully located rectangular (horizontally oriented) and
circular windows that frame the outdoors as viewed from the interior.
The interior is three levels: a basement/garden level, ground level and second level. The
geometric volumes that Weese overlaps and weaves are clearly evident and repeated with
subtle details, for example a curved railing on the second floor runs parallel to the
cylindrical seminar room to reiterate the shape. The geometry of the design appears to
have been of equal importance to the overall program. Some of the interior rooms are
triangular, for instance, an intentional result of the plan form. The centerpiece of the
building is the United Nations- style amphitheater, which seats 175 people.
The University requested a simple design that would harmonize with other buildings on
the grounds and relate well to the site, a bluff overlooking Hallam Lake. Program
components included a laboratory, a library, and several smaller conference areas, along
with office facilities, a printing/reproduction area, storage space, restrooms, and a
kitchen. Other specifications were a seminar space configured to promote free
interchange between speakers and audience and interior spaces that were warm, relaxed,
and comfortable and conducive to informal, spontaneous discussion. Weese had
extensive experience in the design of theaters. The seminar space is organized as a
"theater in the round," and could be used for demonstrations and experiments core to the
sharing of knowledge at this research facility.
Weese's work in the late 1960s was characterized by geometric motifs. As noted by one
architectural historian, "Triangles often pop up in Weese's buildings that allude to the
sails of boats Weese knew so well." The Given Institute has been described as: "one of
Aspen's finest modernist works [which] gives a playful rigor to a simple circle with
angular extensions."
The landscape on The Given Institute property also has cultural and natural resource
value. Mature trees are abundant on the site, and they provide significant contributions to
the community forest. Some of the trees are estimated to be as old as 80 years or more
and many are believed to have been planted by Elizabeth Paepcke, who is reported to
have continually tended the trees during construction of The Given Institute. The trees
7
are a mix of Colorado blue spruce, aspens, cottonwoods, a single white fir (which is
believed may be the largest in the Roaring Fork Valley), and numerous shrubs and shade
trees. The Blue Spruce trees have a direct connection to the Hallam Lake property
below. They provide a seamless flow between the wetland plantings below, transitioning
to the gardens and common upland plantings on The Given Institute grounds.
According to supervising architect Bill Lipsey, the trees surrounding the building were
"not to be touched." No landscape architect was engaged in the project. On the north
side of the building, Weese included a limited sheltered patio area, leading out to open
lawn area for functions and receptions. Two observation decks overlooking Hallam Lake
may have been constructed by the Paepcke's, who had built similar overlook areas
nearby, adjacent to their residence.
The only noteworthy alteration to the landscape that has occurred since construction is a
memorial garden dedicated after Elizabeth Paepcke's death in 1994.
Harry Weese's wok continues to inspire study, with recent coverage in Chicago
publications such as ChicagoMagazine, Reconstructing Harry Weese, (Robert Sharoof)
July 2010, and a new book entitled The Architecture of Harry Weese (Robert Bruegmann
and Kathleen Murphy Skolnik) being released in September 2010.
Harry Weese received many honors throughout his half - century career. In 1966,
Architectural Forum named him one of the country's 14 leading architects. Throughout
his work, Weese actively promoted historic preservation and received a Presidential
Award for his efforts to restore landmarks such as Louis Sullivan's Auditorium Building
in Chicago, where Weese donated his time on the project as a gift to the city.
Notably, the design for The Given Institute retained and adaptively re -used two small
nineteenth century buildings, which appears to have been moved to the site before The
Given Institute project began. Weese stated to Time Magazine, "Fine old buildings give
our cities character and continuity. They give us a sense of stability. Coexistence is key,
the old with the new." And he noted in 1973- "maybe someone will save one of our
buildings some day."
Staff finds that Criterion 2.c. is met as The Given Institute is an outstanding and
relatively unaltered example of the work of Harry Weese.
Inte ri :
Based on Weese's original floor plans of the building, original model, and building
permit files, the exterior of the primary building on the property and the site itself are
largely unaltered from their original design, with the exception of the deck located in the
northern portion of the property overlooking Hallam Lake that was rebuilt in 2002, and
minor landscaping. The form, plan, scale and proportions of the building are entirely
intact and it remains in its original location. The materials and workmanship are true to
the Modernists tenets: monochromatic white color scheme, concrete masonry units and
glazing, detailing is reduced to composition of elements instead of decorative effects, the
3
materials are manufactured and standardized and the "hand" is removed from the visual
outcome of construction. Some glazing was replaced in 1996 to increase "u" value;
however the original window composition remains. Most of the interior is original. The
original built in desks and microphones in the seminar room are intact. There have been
minimal alterations that include updating the interior bathrooms, and entrance into the
seminar room (by adding a ramp) to meet accessibility standards in 1993 and converting
a laboratory into a conference room in 1993. Some paint finishes and light fixtures have
been altered as well. Overall, the integrity of the building is very high.
Typically, as part of the designation assessment, staff completes an "Integrity Assessment
Form," for the property. Our assessment is attached. Staff finds that the building
warrants 96 points out of 100.
We believe demolishing this building would be a very significant loss to Aspen's small
collection of potential historic resources remaining from the post -war period.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC is asked to make recommendations to the Aspen City Council
regarding the significance of the Potential Historic Resource and the value of
pursuing negotiations for preservation.
Exhibits:
Resolution # , Series of 2010
A. Letter from The University of Colorado
B. City Council Resolution #47, Series of 2010
C. Process: Architecture No. 11, Harry Weese; Humanism and Tradition
D. Integrity Assessment
A RECOMMENDATION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION (HPC) REGARDING ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007
NEGOTIATIONS FOR PRESERVATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
GIVEN INSTITUTE, LOCATED AT 100 E. FRANCIS STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2010
PARCEL ID: 2735- 124 -19 -851
WHEREAS, The Regents of the University of Colorado have communicated their intention to
demolish the buildings located at 100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute, which property is
legally described as:
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING ALL OF BLOCK 63, PART OF FRANCIS STREET, PART OF
CENTER STREET, AS DEPICTED AND DESCRIBED ON THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE
MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AND PART OF THE NW
'/4 OF THE SW '/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST, AND PART
OF THE NE' /4 OF THE SE 1 A OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST
OF THE 6 PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, SAID PARCEL IS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF FRANCIS STREET
AND 24.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WEST LINE OF CENTER (AKA GARMISCH)
STREET;
THENCE N. 14 DEGREES 50'49" EAST 121.59 FEET;
THENCE N. 33 DEGREES 03' 19" EAST 42.21 FEET;
THENCE N. 7 DEGREES 19' 05" EAST 112.35 FEET;
THENCE S. 70 DEGREES 18' 15" EAST 286.57 FEET;
THENCE S. 6 DEGREES 18'51" WEST 103.11 FEET;
THENCE S. 18 DEGREES 12'00" WEST 108.73 FEET;
THENCE S. 9 DEGREES 25'21" EAST 52.10 FEET;
THENCE S. 23 DEGREES 21'00" EAST 83.49 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF
FRANCIS STREET EXTENDED EASTERLY;
THENCE N. 75 DEGREES 09' 11" WEST 288.99 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF BLOCK 64;
THENCE N. 31 DEGREES 00' 50" WEST 107.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 2.2556 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, INCLUDING THAT PORTION OF NORTH
ASPEN STREET LYING NORTH OF HALLAM STREET VACATED BY CITY OF ASPEN
ORDINANCE NUMBER 3, SERIES 1953, BY PITKIN COUNTH BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION RECORDED NNE 24, 1955 IN BOOK 80 AT PAGE 356,
AND AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 256 AT PAGE 877, AND
THAT PORTION OF PUPPY SMITH STREET (FORMERLY SMUGGLER STREET)
VACATED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 13, SERIES OF 1997, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, LAKEVIEW
ADDITION (TO THE CITY OF ASPEN), ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF
100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute
Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 Negotiation
Page 1 of 3
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2 AT PAGE 13, WHENCE THE QUARTER CORNER
COMMON TO SECTIONS 7 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGES 84 AND 85,
RESPECTIVELY, WEST OF THE SIXTH PRICIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, BEARS NORTH 14 DEGREES 39' 51" WEST 772.54 FEET; THENCE NORTH
70 DEGREES 18' 15" WEST 46.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2 DEGREES 00' 00" WEST
18.555 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 72 DEGREES 18'08" EAST 44.16 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
79 DEGREES 11' 00" EAST 7.90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 15 DEGREES 15' 22" WEST
20.06 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 903 SQUARE FEET, MORE
OR LESS, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; and
WHEREAS, The University of Colorado asserts that as a state entity, it is not legally bound by
City of Aspen ordinances; and
WHEREAS, The University of Colorado has indicated that it is voluntarily participating in a
ninety day negotiation process established by Ordinance 448, Series of 2007, relative to potential
historic resources identified in the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025 (e) of the Municipal Code, which codifies Ordinance #48,
states that "the Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation
Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of
the Potential Historic Resource. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting
with the Historic Preservation Commission;" and
WHEREAS, the property owner was notified of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting
and representatives of The University of Colorado attended the meeting; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie in her staff report dated July 14, 2010, performed an analysis of the
property at 100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute, found that the City's criteria for historic
designation to be met, and recommended preservation; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 14, 2010, the Historic Preservation Commission
approved a motion to recommend Council pursue negotiations to preserve the Given Institute by
a vote of _ to _
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC finds that The Given Institute buildings and property have considerable historic significance
to The City of Aspen and are worthy of historic preservation. HPC recommends Council pursue
negotiation.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of July, 2010.
Sarah Broughton, Vice Chair
100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute
Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 Negotiation
Page 2 of 3
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Special Counsel
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute
Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 Negotiation
Page 3 of 3
University of Colorado Denver office of unkwttl, Course,
Campus Box 183
P.O. Box 173364
DenvK CO 80217.3364
Office: 303.315 -6617
Fax: 3033154446
May 25, 2010
Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Given Institute and Property
Dear Ms. Adams:
By way of introduction, I am a lawyer in the Office of University Counsel for the University of
Colorado. Pursuant to state statute 23 -20 -101 et seq, UC Denver is one of the campuses of the
University of Colorado and is under the control of the University of Colorado Board of Regents.
CRS 23 -20 -102 provides that the members of the Board of Regents are elected by the voters of
the State of Colorado. The election of the members of the Board of Regents for the University of
Colorado is also outlined in Article DX Section 12, of the Colorado Constitution, CRS 23 -20-
111 outlines the supervisory powers of the Board of Regents over all of the campuses of the
University of Colorado, including UC Denver. In summary, the University of Colorado is a state
entity under the supervision and control of the elected members of the Board of Regents.
As I believe you are aware, the Board of Regents has been the property owner of the Given
Institute since the early 1970s. Since that rime, the Board of Regents has maintained and
operated the Given Institute as a conference center. For a variety of reasons, the University is
going to sell the Given Institute. This decision was not made lightly. In anticipation of the sale,
the University will be moving forward with the demolition of the structures on the property. As
a state entity, the University is not legally bound by City of Aspen ordinances, zoning, etc.
However, without granting jurisdiction to the City of Aspen over the Board of Regents or its
property, and without waiving the sovereign authority of the Board of Regents, with respect to
the demolition, the University plans to follow various City of Aspen processes and procedures.
We value our relationship with the City of Aspen and its citizens and want to be good neighbors.
The University will be submitting an application to the City s Building Department in the near
future to demolish both Given Institute buildings and the Blue House that is also located on the
property as well as (heir associated foundations. It is my understanding that the Given hnstitute
property has been listed as a "Potential Historic Resource" pursuant to Aspen City Council
Ordinance 48, Series of 2007. It is also my understanding that the 90-day negotiation period
provided for in Ordinance 48 cannot begin until a complete demolition permit and associated
Ire YUItK
LIGI'1T
i BKtItC
Downtown Campus Anschutz Medical Campus
Denv% Colorado Aurora, Co orado
v
RESOLUTION N0.
(SERIES OF 2010)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE GIVEN INSTITUTE
WHEREAS, The City of Aspen has been informed that The Given Institute, located in
Aspen and owned by the Regents of the University of Colorado, is proposed to be
demolished in October 2010, and sold for residential development; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and other citizens have urged
City Council to take action towards preventing the loss of the facility as a community
asset; and
WHEREAS, City Council recognizes that Aspen has an over 60 year long standing
tradition, initiated by Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke, as a location for thinkers, leaders,
artists, and musicians from all over the world to join together in a setting that feeds the
"Mind, Body, and Spirit." Organizations like the Aspen Music Festival (1949), Aspen
Institute (1950), Aspen Center for Physics (1962) and The Given Institute (1972) are
strongly tied to the town's identity; and
WHEREAS, The Given Institute building was designed by Harry Weese, a prominent
modernist American architect. Weese practiced primarily in Chicago and the Midwest,
but also lived part-time in Aspen. His commission to design The Given Institute fits in to
a broader context of a "who's who" of modem architecture that began in Aspen in 1945;
and
WHEREAS, integration of non - profit and community facilities throughout the West End
neighborhood adds enormous vitality to Aspen. The value of the property as a publically
owned asset, with important cultural and natural significance, including the only
remaining public overlook adjacent to the Hallam Lake Nature preserve, cannot be
replaced.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council commits to take
immediate action to establish an on -going dialogue with the University of Colorado with
the intention to support them in achieving their goals for sale of the property, without
damage to the community's history and interests.
APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on June 28, 2010.
Kathryn S. Koch, ty er Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
APPROV. AS TO FORM:
John ce &, City Attorney
GIVEN INSTITUTE OF PATHOBIOLOGY
;pen, Colorado, 1972
�r/i. -f:/ CTR'3'=
3E35 99'177 -�i
o r
. Luc
view + H
o r
. Luc
l;&t LTli, JY7 .f �d'2�, J7 ��J J3 JS
12, OOO 7 •f — F T. l9*O))A4AItTffl l•. 90 x 90
7- (— FT£i3, tad' —�fi p33(i'C, �h9„
#iH•x)7dt3�7.
���Ti7h#t 3. �f. #i1.�1�32kiFT ✓e'�SR'r
�s`tcfd l."cT 1. VLXoT, dSl�i�'$�13fRJ3�11
1fff�"ffib�l: AtT�xa: �OJ}��1V3. �v7 Ffi'�"
The project program included a main seminar
room to seat 50 people, a laboratory, a library,
one special conference room for 12 -16 people;
and three multi- purpose conference/rear screen
projection areas. Related facilities required
were two offices, reproduction area, storage
areas, toilets, and kitchen. Total space provided
is approximately 12,000 square feet. The build-
ing measures 90'x 90' in plan. The main semi-
nar room is in -the -round with a center working
area and dais.
The building is used for seminars of various
sizes dealing with medical topics. At these
seminars actual demonstrations can be per-
formed in the laboratory, and a complete sys-
tem of audio - visual and television equipment
will afford the best possible communication of
information to all participants. The building is
linked with the University of Colorado campuses
at Boulder and Denver by means of closed cir.
cuit TV. Through the use of such electronic
equipment, the building serves as a national
center for the gathering and distribution of the
latest research and development in pathobio.
logy and related fields.
A major design requirement was that the
building relate well to its site, a beautiful garden
overlooking Hallam Lake.
The load - bearing and non - bearing walls are
concrete block masonry, exterior and interior.
Roof and columns are heavy timber. Floors are
wood frame and concrete slab on- grade. All
block is painted and all floors (except for lab and
service spaces) are carpeted. Heat is furnished
by perimeter hot water radiation. There is
natural ventilation in all areas except the main
seminar room, which has forced air heating and
cooling from a roof - mounted package unit.
fL���T VC't'7fd >1'ttTt•`3. �OJX Sfd$�S.
s<
n— ✓d�ErR.i� 1! O)T$ 3�L�`��A'ti3
Til`T %Icm*d.h.t T6o1�.
T.
� �'Y— �13il.�OJ.t r'r —i • �- =-r F V� k b�,"-v,
� � •r°r,�,�i'+7.i�ha. 1LeO�'6i?V3 @���,izTA'C
�b B.
77
� fl
TA 0
.�. f j - .^,fin' ,r •�. .
e { Alc
}
f
"- ': _ {�? •fix' 1 � � �� ,. £ �a�
�., .. _. - Yom:- d.r'�.£+s ✓_ _ . .a �'- - .._h..,,� - , 3 ti.�:a 4v rd... •.a±.. .�., -:.... _ < �, _ ..
r y
re,� ,g,� i �� -�• A z fi1`v��i ,'fit .: ,,�, �Q� �'r a"Y � } �'r �y,a.
-.
_i
�.. t
.� ���=.
.�.
��
„«
!in�I
-
cF .; -
i �
„, ,
_
`i
-.
_ ��
jt-
��
�,,
i i� _� v
e. v
+r,�a
F�
�.
i.,r
i
I
e plan
elevation
w
o0
717 �
re
elevation
E
4
E
1st floor plan
1— Seminar room
2— Conference room
3— Kitchen
4 —Foyer
5 —Hall
6 —Lobby
7— Closet
8— Demonstration laboratory
9— Mechanical
9
4
2nd floor plan
1— Seminar room
2— Library
3— Carrels
4— Conference /projection room
5 —Lobby
6— Bridge
7— Office
8—Supply room
9— Reproduction room
v�
1-
North -South section
East -West section
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- MODERNIST
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 dissimilar to its original
site.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) — 5 points. The structure is in its original
location.
• 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 - The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design
guidelines.
0 - Alterations and/or additions to the building are such that the original form
of the structure is obscured.
Response: 10 — The original plan form is unchanged based on original Weese sketches
and f oor plans.
ROOFFORM
10 -The original roof form is unaltered.
6 - Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the
current design guidelines.
0 - Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form.
Response: 10 — The original fat roof is unaltered.
SCALE
5 - The original scale and proportions of the building are 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.
Response: 5 — The original scale and proportions are intact.
SOLIDNOID 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.
Response: 10 — the original pattern of glazing and materials is intact.
CHARACTER - DEFINING FEATURES
10 — The horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that
relate the building to its environment are intact.
6 - There are minor alterations to the horizontal or geometric form,
minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its
environment.
0 - There have been major alterations to the horizontal or geometric form,
minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its
environment.
Response: 10 — the character - defining features, including cottonwood trees that dictated
the location of building and influenced Weese's design remain.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 45) = 45 points.
SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
5- The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was
originally constructed.
3 -There are 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.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5 points. The physical environment is
largely unchanged from the date of construction.
• MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or
deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or
configuration 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.
Response: 15 points — the original combination of concrete masonry units and glazing is
intact.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10- All or most of the original door and window units are 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.
Response: 8 — Some of the glazing was replaced in 1993, but the window composites
remain.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 25) = 23 points.
• 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
Modernism is intact. Detailing is reduced to composition of elements
instead of decorative effects. No decorative elements are used. Design is
focused on rationality, reduction, and composition. It is meant to separate
itself from style and sentimentality. Materials are generally manufactured
and standardized. The "hand" is removed from the visual outcome of
construction. Surfaces are smooth with minimal or no detail at window
jambs, grade, and at the roof edge.
10 -There have been some alterations to the structural composition that
would meet the design guidelines
0 - There have been some alterations to the structural composition that
would not meet the design guidelines
Response: The building is void of decoration and is clearly follows Modernist tenets. All
exterior surfaces are CMU blocks or glazing.
FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME
5 - The neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the
stylistic category of Modernism is intact.
3 - There have been minor alterations to the neutral or monochromatic color
scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism.
0- There have been significant alterations to the neutral or monochromatic
color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism.
Response: 3 — The color scheme has been altered: instead of pure white the building is
painted off -white and the window trim is green instead of the original black
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20) = 20 points.
Grand Total = 96 points
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS
Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances
that might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose
another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific
property.
I
Given Institute Designation
26.415.030. Designation of historic properties.
Properties are a value to the community and in the public interest to protect.
B. Criteria.
The significance of properties shall be evaluated according to the following criteria.
2. A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th century
history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the year in
which the application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient integrity of
location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association and is related to one (1)
or more of the following:
• Constructed in whole 30 + years ago
• Has integrity of location — has not been moved from original location, setting has
been modified only slightly since original construction, design, materials and
workmanship is intact and unchanged since the building was built in 1971
• Association has remained the same, i.e. a venue for medical education, discussion
and interaction.
a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state,
regional or national history, or
• Pattern of medical events promoting interaction among participants and
stimulating intellectual advances in the biomedical field beginning with the first
conference held at the Aspen Physics Center before the Given was built. That
conference was the impetus for the Elizabeth Paepcke to donate the land for the
Institute and the Given Foundation to donate the design and construction of the
building, Paepcke and the Given Foundation partnered to create an intellectual
center to foster interaction between biomedical scientists from the US and abroad
b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is
deemed important and the specific contribution is identified and documented, or
• Land donated by Elizabeth Paepcke who with her husband founded the Aspen
Institute and Music Festival, donated the land for ACES (Aspen Center for
Environmental Studies) and championed with her husband the 'Aspen Idea' which
positioned Aspen as an intellectual center as well as sports center
• Design of the building and construction donated by the Given Foundation, which
was started by Irene Given, the daughter of Henry J. Heinz, founder of
H.J.Heinze Co to provide support to medical institutions and universities.
• Designed by Harry Weese, well know 20` century modernist architect, important
role in modernism and historic preservation, helping to shape the Chicago
Skyline of the 20` Century. Studied under Alvar Alto at MIT, studied city
planning and worked with Charles Moore and Eero Saarinen while at Cranbrook
Academy of Art. Modern works include: Washington Metro Station; Time -Life
Building, Chicago; Us Embassy, Ghana; Mercantile Bank, Kansas City; 17`
Church of Christ Scientists, Chicago; I Baptist Church, Columbus, IN; Us
Courthouse Complex (Metropolitan Correctional Center), Chicago. His
preservation work includes: Fulton House; Field Museum; Auditorium Theater;
Orchestra Hall, all Chicago; and Union Station, Washington D. C.
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 Given Institute was designed in the Mid - Century Modern architectural style.
A combination of the Modernist movement of the first half of the 20' century, with
influences from the International style from the Bauhaus and incorporation of
organic modernism which emerged after WWI. The form is strictly geometric
with little ornamentation, yet the spaces flow together and overlap /interact with
each other, the materials are simple and the color neutral to allow the formof the
building to predominate. The function of the building determines the design and
the building is well - integrated with the site, by locating the building to take
advantage of views and preserving natural site features and providing
fenestration which allows expansive and numerous views out of the building.
5. The Historic Preservation Commission shall adopt, maintain and make available to the
public guidelines, score sheets and other devices used by the Commission to apply the
criteria set forth in this Chapter to properties potentially eligible for inclusion on the
inventory.
• We need to check with Amy: does she have score sheets or other devices to rate
the integrity and importance of the site.
�Tb.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Canopy sides- Minor HPC Review
DATE: July 14, 2010
SUMMARY: 308 E. Hopkins, which was a redevelopment of the former La Cocina property,
was approved by HPC in 2007 and opened for business in early 2010. The building is located in
the Commercial Core Historic District.
From the start of the HPC review, the project included a seasonal canopy over the outdoor
dining, which is located within the required "Public Amenity" space. The canopy has been
installed (note that the color was not approved by the HPC monitor and is required to be
corrected by the end of the season), and the applicant is requesting approval to add roll down
sides for use during inclement weather. The sides require HPC Minor Development review as
well as Temporary Use review by City Council since canopies over "Public Amenity" are not
allowed to have walls unless granted special approval.
APPLICANT: Ute City Restaurant, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects and Vann
Associates.
ADDRESS: 308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite of
Aspen.
PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -29 -007.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with. the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The
HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Cert fcate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: This project was approved under the Code that was in place in 2006, however
new proposals are subject to current criteria.
There are few specific guidelines that directly address this proposal. However, the "City of
Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines" discuss the
goals for outdoor public spaces, stating for instance that is it important to contribute to a positive
experience in the street scene (page 94.) Staff has attached relevant pages.
There are also design guidelines related to architectural materials. Guideline 6.60 states:
6.60 Building materials should have these features:
• Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically
• Reduce the scale and enhance visual interest
• Convey human scale
• Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate
A removable canvas canopy was approved for the outdoor dining area because it is in keeping
with fabric awnings that were used historically in the downtown. Staff does not believe there is
any historic precedent for fabric walls, enclosures, or airlocks, which is why temporary fabric
airlocks, for instance, have become prohibited in the downtown. The fabric walls are inferior to
the surrounding building materials and are out of character with the historic district
In addition, Staff finds that the proposed roll down sides enclose the outdoor dining space in a
manner that is not supported by the design guidelines or the applicant's previous representations
about the project.
At the June 14, 2006 HPC meeting for Conceptual review of the building, project representative
Charles Cunniffee stated that "one of the goals is to make the facade as transparent as possible so
it looks like it is engaging the sidewalk. The open air patio would have dining tables with a
retractable awning and engage with the street."
There is language in the guidelines (Guideline 6.6, page 100) that states that street facing "Public
Amenity" space must be open to the sky. The only exception is temporary and seasonal
coverings, such as umbrellas and retractable canopies (Section 26.575.030.F) Staff believes the
intention of this exception is to provide adequate protection from weather in a permanently
unenclosed space.
This project was required to design 25% of the property as an on -site "Public Amenity" space.
Other options, such as a comparable improvement made in the downtown area, or a cash in lieu
payment, were possible. The applicant chose to provide 11.5% of the total property area as
"Public Amenity" and requested that HPC waive the rest of the requirement entirely, finding that
the proposal created an adequate mix of uses to enliven the streetscape. HPC granted this
approval.
Staff has not found any records to suggest that roll down sides were discussed during the HPC
review. They have not been approved, but have been installed facing East Hopkins Avenue.
Additional sides are planned to stretch from the middle column of the canopy to the rear wall of
the dining area. A corridor leading to the entry for the upper floor units is proposed to remain
open to the air along the east property line.
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 the roll down sides be denied, finding that the
Commercial Core Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines are not met.
Exhibits:
Resolution #_, Series of 2010
A. Relevant pages from the "City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District
Design Objectives and Guidelines"
B. Application
3
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
(HPC) DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 308 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M AND N,
BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2010
PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -29 -007
WHEREAS, the applicant, Ute City Restaurant, represented by Charles Curu iffe Architects and
Vann Associates, requested approval for roll down canopy sides to surround the outdoor dining area
located at 308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado in inclement weather. The property is located within the Commercial Core Historic
District; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, 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 Minor 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 26.415.070.0 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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 14, 2010, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines" were not met, and
recommended denial; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 14, 2010, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was not consistent with the
applicable review standards and denied the application by a vote of _ to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby denies the proposed Minor Development for the property located at 308 E.
Hopkins Avenue, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14 day of July, 2010.
Michael Hoffman, HPC Chair
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Special Counsel
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Commercial Core Historic District
Encompassing the Commercial Core Zone District
Design Objectives and Guidelines
Policy:
Improvements in the Commercial Core Historic District should maintain the integrity of historic resources
in the area. At the same time, compatible and creative design solutions should be encouraged.
This chapter presents guidelines for new
construction and alterations to existing non -
historic structures in the Commercial Core
Historic District. Key design characteristics of
this district are summarized and then specific
guidelines are presented.
Location
The Commercial Core of the city is defined by
Monarch Street to the west, Durant Avenue to the
south, Hunter Street to the east, and roughly the
alley to the north of Main Street to the north. (See
the Character Area map in the appendix.)
Existing Character
The heart of Aspen centers around the Commercial
Core Historic District. It is the first area that
developed in the early mining days of the town
and its character reflects this rich mining heritage,
which is the image that many carry with them
of this historic Colorado mountain town. Each
historic building contributes to the integrity of the
district and preservation of all of these resources
is, therefore, crucial. This is especially important
as new development continues.
The Commercial Core Zone District is located at the core of Downimn Aspen.
Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen
Street Pattern
As the historic core of the city, its current urban
form reflects these origins. It is a grid of streets
aligned to the north. Rectangular street blocks of
270 ft. by 220 ft. with long axes and rear alleyways
are oriented east -west, and subdivided into 30 by
100 ft. lots. Buildings generally occupy the full lot
width within the core area and span the full depth
from street frontage to rear alley.
This arrangement still anchors the historical urban
form of the city, despite some recent departures
from the traditional hard street edge. The variety
of building forms & scales is influenced in areas
by previous site -based open space requirements.
The traditional lot widths continue to define the
majority of the buildings in this area, either in total
width or, where lots have been amalgamated, in
their architectural composition, articulation and
fenestration pattern. This ensures that the city
center is still appreciated for its essential human
scale, concentration of historic buildings and
visual and cultural experience.
Building Character
The commercial buildings of the mining era
establish the context for new construction, even
though individual landmarks of later periods may
also be found in the area. Buildings range in scale
from early residential including miners' cottages
to larger 'iconic' landmark Victorian commercial
and community buildings. The latter tend to
occupy comer sites and range in scale from one
to three stories in height.
This area includes the varied range of buildings
dating from the city's early history and representing
all periods of development in the evolution of
Aspen. The character is predominantly urban,
while the building pattern in many areas
continues to exhibit the original traditional
lot width arrangement. The street facades are
strongly defined in many areas by a combination
of larger Victorian and smaller scale buildings.
This is particularly the case on street corners.
The street pattern frames spectacular scenic views.
Storefront context
Most buildings have features associated with
traditional commercial designs. Ground level
floors of the buildings are oriented to pedestrian
views, with large display windows highlighting
the goods and services offered for sale inside.
Recessed entries are also typical. A horizontal
band of molding usually separates the ground
floor from upper portions of the fagade and the
parapet is capped with a decorative cornice.
These elements combined to establish a horizontal
emphasis along the street.
Fenestration on upper floors is predominantly
solid and void'hole in the wall' form and vertical
in proportion, reflecting classical architectural
proportions. There are, however, departures from
this pattern which contribute to the rich diversity
of the street.
Outdoor Spaces
There are also instances of small scale spaces
created by the set back of building fagades.
They are, however, the exception to the historic
alignment of building fronts. where these are used
for outdoor dining they provide attractive public
gathering spaces and street vitality. The intent is
to maintain the strong definition of the street wall
in this area, and therefore creating further breaks
in the street wall should be minimized.
The resulting character is both intimate and
stimulating, and in keeping with the variety
and harmony unique to Aspen. There have been
departures from the hard street edge, where
more recent development has stepped back
to create semi - basement space and detached
or internal retail frontage often on more than
one level. In many cases these have detracted
from the immediate relationship between shop
frontage and public sidewalk and the sense of
street fagade definition, with adverse effects on
street vitality and the urban character within
downtown Aspen.
Commercial Core Historic District
A hard street wall as seen along the wapcing mall downtown is a
characteristic throughout Character Area 1.
Victorian storefronts anchor the Commercial Core and define
the key characteristics of building height, mass, articulation and
materials.
Commercial Core Historic District
City of Aspen
Design Objectives
These are key design objectives for the Commercial
Core. The City must find that any new work will
help to meet them:
1. Maintain a retail orientation.
Traditionally the hub of Aspen and the center of
commercial and cultural activity, the Commercial
Core should remain so. Designs for new
construction should reinforce the retail- oriented
function of the street and enhance its pedestrian
character.
2. Promote creative, contemporary design that
respects the historic context.
While new construction should be compatible
with the historic character of the district, designs
should not copy early styles but instead should
seek creative new solutions that convey the
community's continuing interest in exploring
innovations. At the same time, the fundamental
principles of traditional design must be respected.
This means that each project should strike a
balance in the design variables that are presented
in the following pages.
3. Maintain the traditional scale of building.
The Commercial core of the city is likely to
experience continuing market pressure for hotel,
commercial and residential development and
the parallel needs of affordable commercial and
residential accommodation. It is important that
future growth acknowledges, complements and
enhances the existing scale and character of this
area.
4. Reflect the variety in building heights seen
historically.
New development should stay within the range
of building heights, and be designed to reflect the
variation in height across traditional lot widths.
The scale and form of a new building should be
designed to safeguard the setting of a historic
building, whether single story or the large'iconic'
three plus stories.
5. Accommodate outdoor public spaces where
they respect the historic context.
The street vitality associated with the center
of the city should be retained and enhanced
through a combination of the form and design of
the walkable street network and the associated
areas of public gathering space at street level and
above. The design of any public space within
the core should be a central consideration in
the design and configuration of the building, to
ensure that it contributes to a positive experience
in the streetscene, whether or not used for street
dining.
6. Promote variety in the street level
experience.
Architectural form should recognize existing scale
and diversity and build upon established design
traditions, creativity and innovation in a manner
which strengthens the architectural richness
and identity of the city core. The contextual
contribution of building and storefront design
will depend on detailed consideration of the street
facade and associated landscaping and paving.
7. Preserve the integrity of historic resources
within the district.
The original form, character, materials and details
of historic resources should be maintained. This
applies to individual structures of landmark
quality as well as more modest "contributing"
structures.
Commercial Core Historic District
City of Aspen
Public Amenity Space
On -site and communal open space has been a
long - standing priority and characteristic of the
city. Where it is required the form, orientation,
quality and use of such open space is of the utmost
importance. Well defined public space should be
integrated with traditional streetscape character.
The Planning and Zoning Commission and /or
the Historic Preservation Commission will decide
whether, where and in what form Public Amenity
Space will be required.
In the past, open spaces occurred as accents along
the street, usually where a house existed in the
historic context or where a lot stood temporarily
vacant. In more recent years, outdoor spaces were
built that sometimes eroded the character of the
street edge. These conditions are not precedents
for future development. While some open space
may occur, it should be subordinate to the
traditional character of the street.
Public amenity space along the primary street
frontage should be an accent within, and
exception to, an otherwise well defined street
fagade. There will be locations within the city
core where the character and setting of the site
or a historic building will also influence the form,
location or appropriateness of such a space.
In every case Public Amenity Space should be
well defined and carefully designed. The design
of public gathering space, its enclosure, layout
and content, will be an integral consideration
in the proposed form of the space. Although a
matter for full review and approval at the Final
Stage, its design should be envisioned at the time
of conceptual review.
Design Objectives
Where considered to be compatible within the
Commercial Core Historic District, public amenity
space should be designed and placed to achieve
the following objectives:
•
Create anactive and interesting street vitality
through the promotion of public gathering
space.
• Maintain a well- defined street edge and
street corner to ensure that such public space
creates an accent within the streetfagade.
• Create an additional commercial frontage
and /or space to the side or rear of the site
or building
• Create a well defined, localized public space
at the street edge, where e.g. additional
space for street dining might be beneficial.
• Design a space that maximizes access to
sunlight throughout the year.
• Create a second level space designed to
ensure that it is permanently open to the
public and provides interest in the form of a
scenic or otherinterpretive marker for the life
of its service as a public amenity space.
• Achieve second floor patio space that
provides access to affordable commercial
uses.
The Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan
should serve as an additional reference.
Whereopen spacewithin apamel isappropriate, dmelopan amenity
that can be experienced by the general public.
Commeecead Care Fhsarrac Di k t COY of Aspen
r
i
i
Zed fader memity spareskutd abut tke public sidavflk be
tead n*k Me sideLlik apse to Me sky, diredty acrssft to tke
Fob cadbepira dvotkeuiseIndsmeat.
Street Facing Amenity Space
A street facing amenity space, usually located
towards the middle of ablock, maybe considered.
However, within the he art of the district, where
the greatest concentration of historic store fronts
align, creating new gaps in the street wall is
discouraged. Providing space on sites that are
located in the outer edge softhe district; especially
along the southern edge is more appropriate.
6b A street facing amenity space shall meet
all of the following requiremerds:
+ Abut the public sidewalk
• Be level with the sidewalk
• Be open to the sky
+ Be directly accessible to the public
• Be paved or otherwise landscaped
6.7 Astreet- facing public amenity space shall
remain subordinate to the lire of building
fronts in the Commercial Core.
•
Anypublic amenityspace positionedatthe
stre et edge shall re spect the character of the
stree tscape and ensure thatstreetcorners are
well defined, with buildings placed at the
sidewalk edge.
+ Sunken spaces, which are associated with
some past developmernts, adversely affect
the street character. Where feasible, these
should be replaced with sidewalk level
improvements.
6,8 Street facing amenity space shall contain
features to promote and enhance its use.These
may include one or more of the following:
• Street furniture
• Public art
• Historicalyinbarpretive marker
The detailed design of Public Amenity Space,
with regard to guidelines 6.8, will be a matter for
approval at the Final Pe view Stage, although it
maybe discussed atthe Conceptual Stage.
Strad faaugmwexity spare skould =tWx public art ad Muir
Maeba topnmectei's ass
Commercial Core Historic District
Architectural Materials
The Commercial Core of Aspen is comprised
of a rich variety of building materials, some of
local origin. Predominant within this palette is
the range of generally high quality brick and
natural stone used for prominent commercial
and civic buildings. In contrast, wood is the
material for the construction of early residential
buildings. The combination, quality and variation
traditionally found in these materials within the
Commercial Core area creates and maintains a
sense of history, durability and permanence. This
should be preserved.
A range of facade materials should be used to
reduce the apparent scale of a larger building.
The immediate setting of a historic building
will require particular care in the choice of
materials.
A new building should respect the range and
quality of these existing materials. The palette of
materials adopted for all fagades of the building
should reflect, complement and enhance the
evolving form and character of the center of the
city.
6.59 High quality, durable materials should be
employed.
• The palette of materials proposed for all
development should be specified and
approved as part of the general and detailed
development approvals process, including
samples of materials as required.
6.60 Building materials should have these
features:
• Convey the quality and range of materials
seen historically
• Reduce the scale and enhance visual
interest
• Convey human scale
• Have proven durability and weathering
characteristics within this climate
Stone is high quality material that has been used traditionally in
.Aspen. Its use should be continued where feasible:
Commercial Core Historic District
Ciry of Aspen
6.61 The palette of materials used for new
buildings within the core should reflect the
predominantly masonry (brickwork and
natural stonework) palette of this area.
6.62 A building or additions to a building
should reflect the quality and the variation
traditionally found in these materials within
the central commercial core.
6.63 Where contemporary materials are used
they shall be;
• High quality in durability and finish
• Detailed to convey a human scale
• Compatible with a traditional masonry
palette
6.64 Materials used for third floor
accommodation set back from the street
fagade(s) should be more subdued than the
primary fagades.
vv COnUMet�C�35- .," ^$•it�'Ad�{ibtdrf/+C.t, /tfi�tfllC't
�
Reflect the quality and detail found traditionally.
Reflect the materials found traditionally.
CANOPY WITH CURTAINS ROLLED DOWN
CANOPY WITH CURTAINS ROLLED UP