HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20110119 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JANUARY 19, 2011
4:30 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: Please meet at 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, The Boomerang
Lodge at NOON
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes — December 8th
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring:
VII. Staff comments — (15 min.)
VIII. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #1)
I. OLD BUSINESS
II. NEW BUSINESS
4:30 A. 500 W. Hopkins Ave. The Boomerang Lodge — Minor
Development, Landscape Design, PUBLIC HEARING
Joint Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning
Commission, Special Meeting
5:00 OLD BUSINESS
A. 100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute — Landmark
Designation, Subdivision and Ordinance #48 negotiation,
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM
JANUARY 4 th 2011
7:00 Adjourn
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.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 500 W. Hopkins Avenue- The Boomerang Lodge, Minor Development, Public
Hearing
DATE: January 19, 2011
SUMMARY: A portion of The Boomerang Lodge property was designated a historic landmark
in 2007. The undesignated area of the building and site improvements were demolished shortly
afterwards for lodge redevelopment, but construction went no further. The property owner is
now proposing to build the project in the form of affordable housing and wishes to remove the
existing swimming pool from the property because it is perceived to be a burden to the future
HOA. Initially, in November 2010, HPC was asked to drop the pool area from their purview,
which was not approved. Instead, the applicant has submitted a landscape plan in an effort to
resolve the design review issue in cooperation with the board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC support the application, with the
condition that the architect work with staff and monitor to maintain the existing sunken grade of the
pool area, retaining walls and steps. In addition, staff recommends that the footprint of the existing
pool be pavement, surrounded by grass, or vice versa as a stronger nod to the original plan
geometry, and to offer flexible uses for the residents of the Boomerang to enjoy.
APPLICANT: Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC, represented by Steve Stunda, Michael Hoffman of
Garfield and Hecht and Rich Pavcek of Charles Cunniffe Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2735- 124 -49 -002.
ADDRESS: 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Boomerang Lodge PUD.
ZONING: R -6, LP /PUD.
BACKGROUOND: The Boomerang Lodge was first identified as historically significant
through the City's comprehensive historic resources survey conducted in 1999 -2000, however
Council did not take action to designate it a landmark. The property was subsequently sold by
the original lodge owners /designer, Charlie and Fonda Paterson, and in 2006 a redevelopment
application was submitted. Through the review process, the City and applicant came to an
agreement for the preservation of approximately the eastern 1/3 of the existing building and site.
The rest was demolished. Although almost all historic landmark designations include the entire
parcel in HPC's authority, in the case of The Boomerang Lodge, a map depicting the limited
designated area was approved by Council. The boundaries that were agreed upon were, in staff's
1
opinion, a compromise aimed at preserving the most iconic and public view of the lodge,
including the historic entry and public areas of the building. This was thought to best represent
•
Charlie Paterson's Wrightian design training. HPC was not given purview over the western end
of the property, namely the new construction.
The lodge redevelopment project approved in 2006 has been undermined by the national
economic condition. The property owner has determined that, as an alternative, construction of a
100% affordable housing development is feasible because of the opportunities created by the
City's recently adopted affordable housing credits. Within this program, the property owner can
voluntarily construct affordable housing, then sell credits to used by other developers owing
mitigation for their own projects. Purchasers of the credits will pay market value, thereby
absorbing the affordable housing subsidy themselves.
The owner of The Boomerang Lodge is in the P &Z /Council review process with a proposal to
build the same addition that was approved for lodge use, but with the entire 4`' floor removed
from the addition to minimize neighborhood impact and maximum livability for the future
residents of the 46 affordable housing units. In preparation for review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council, the applicant sought the support and input of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). An outcome of the APCHA discussion was
the decision to eliminate the outdoor pool, because it involves liability and maintenance costs
that could be a burden to the affordable housing residents.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The
HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff finding: The recently authored paper, "Aspen's Twentieth - Century Architecture:
Modernism 1945- 1975," has this to say about Charlie Paterson and The Boomerang Lodge:
Charles Paterson
Charles Paterson represents another aspect of Aspen modern architecture. In 1949, Paterson
(b. 1929), born Karl Schnazer in Austria, arrived in Aspen after a dramatic escape from the
Nazis with his sister through Czechoslovakia, France, and Portugal. They were finally adopted
in Australia. He had finished high school and started engineering studies in New York City.
2
Disappointed with eastern skiing, he moved, first to Denver, then to Aspen, where he landed a
job as a bellhop at the Hotel Jerome and became, in his words, "a ski bum." Within a month of
his arrival, he purchased three lots on W. Hopkins Avenue, shortly followed by another three
that comprised a half block between Fifth and Sixth Streets. There, he built a one -room cabin
from left -over lumber.
Paterson followed a circuitous path from that initial construction project that eventually led to
Taliesin and his Wrightian lodge in downtown Aspen. He returned to New York for two years to
resume his studies at City College, then moved back to Aspen, became a ski instructor, and
began expanding his cabin. After a stint in the mid -1950s with the 10`" Mountain Division
(Camp Hale's "Second Generation "), he added more units to his cabin and, in 1956, opened the
Boomerang Lodge (recalling the Australian "boomerang," he hoped guests would return). Fritz
Benedict encouraged him to study architecture, and Paterson spent three summers, from 1958-
1960, at Taliesin East, the GI Bill paying his tuition. He started out gardening, like the other
apprentices, but discovered he was good at plastering and became the "official plasterer."
Surprised at the quality of the plasterwork, Wright thought the Fellowship had hired a
professional plasterer. Although Wright died on April 9, 1959, before Paterson returned for his
second summer, he went back that summer and the next. Through the years, he maintained
strong ties to his Taliesin colleagues. In addition to Aspen locals Benedict and Molny, he
encouraged other apprentices to stay at the Boomerang Lodge on their twice yearly trips
between the two Taliesins.
At Taliesin the fellows were encouraged to work on their own plans, after hours, in the evenings,
and during breaks, and Paterson drew the plans for the Boomerang Lodge as it exists today. It
continued to evolve organically. Twelve rooms, a lounge, and a pool were added in 1960. The
novel underwater window, featured in a 1960s Life magazine, allows guests in the lounge to look
into the pool. Other expansions took place in 1965 and 1970. Paterson described its Wrightian
features walls and fireplace of "concrete battered blocks, windows with 'corners of glass' .. .
sort of a Frank Lloyd Wright signature." Though Paterson designed other structures, he never
listed himself as an architect in the Aspen directory. The Boomerang Lodge is his life's work. Its
distinctive facade with windows organized into a horizontal band just under the extended eaves
provides a direct connection to Taliesin that inspired much Aspen design.
The 2006 landmark designation boundary for The Boomerang Lodge was drawn to purposefully
maintain the connection between the lodge and setting; the inside and the outside. This
relationship is inextricable in Wrightian design. The pool at the Boomerang was historically
important as the social hub of the small lodge and also as a historic landscape design.
While staff could argue that preservation of this features "as -is" is important and preferable, we
believe that it is possible to achieve some degree of preservation while still providing the
property with attractive, safe and usable grounds for the numerous people who will live here, in
keeping with the vitality that the outdoor space had during the heyday of the lodge.
The relevant guidelines from "The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are
limited, and listed on Exhibit A. The application contains a site plan that reflects the 2006
approval and the new proposal for the landscape. HPC will note that the pool area is currently
3
sunken approximately 3 feet below the first floor level of the lodge, and is surrounded by
retaining walls and steps. The proposed landscape revision includes not only filling in the pool,
but raising the grade to be flush with the first floor level of the building.
Staff finds the application in conflict with three guidelines:
1.7 Preserve original retaining walls.
❑ Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials
should match the original in color, texture, size and finish.
❑ Painting a historic masonry retaining wall, or covering it with stucco or other cementitious
coatings, is not allowed.
1.8 Maintain the historic height of a retaining wall.
❑ Increasing the height of a wall to create a privacy screen is inappropriate. If a fence is needed for
security, consider using wrought iron, similar to those seen historically, that is mounted on top
of the retaining wall.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
❑ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
Staff believes that the existing grade relationship is important and should be preserved. The
walls give the landscape area a sense of protection and enclosure and are very characteristic of
Wrightian design, as well as the materials and geometry of The Boomerang Lodge. The grade
change provided some degree of buffer between the guests (and now the residents to be) on the
ground floor units and those enjoying the outdoor space. A similar concept can be seen in town
at The Hearthstone House and numerous other Aspen small lodges, past and present.
The Boomerang Lodge project was to include a lift for accessibility to the pool. Staff suggests a
simple ramp be studied. The underground parking garage that will be constructed with this
project does not affect the pool area, so most of the existing construction could remain in place.
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 HPC grant Minor Development approval with
conditions outlined in the attached resolution.
Exhibits:
Resolution # , Series of 2011
A. Relevant HPC design guidelines
B. HPC Minutes, November 10, 2010
C. Application
4
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE,
BOOMERANG LODGE PUD, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION # SERIES OF 2011
PARCEL ID: 2735- 124 -49 -002
WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC, represented by Steve Stunda, Michael
Hoffman of Garfield and Hecht and Rich Pavcek of Charles Cunniffe Architects, has requested
Minor Development approval for landscape revisions at The Boomerang Lodge, 500 W. Hopkins
Avenue, Boomerang Lodge PUD, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property was
designated historic through Ordinance #26, Series of 2006; 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 January 19, 2011, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines would be met with project revisions; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 19, 2011, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the applicable
review standards and approved the application by a vote of _ to _, with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Minor Development for the property located at 500 West Hopkins
Avenue, Boomerang Lodge PUD, City and Townsite Of Aspen, Colorado with the following
condition:
1. Redesign the site plan, for approval by staff and monitor, maintaining the existing sunken
grade of the pool area, retaining walls and steps. The footprint of the existing pool may
be represented by pavement, surrounded by grass, or vice versa as a stronger nod to the
HPC Resolution No. _, Series of 2011
500 W. Hopkins Avenue
Page 1 of 2
original plan geometry, and to offer flexible uses for the residents of the Boomerang to
enjoy
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 19" day of January,
2011.
Sarah Broughton, HPC Chair
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Special Counsel
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
HPC Resolution No. , Series of 2011
500 W. Hopkins Avenue
Page 2 of 2
Exhibit A: Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 500 W. Hopkins, Minor
Development
1.7 Preserve original retaining walls.
❑ Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials
should match the original in color, texture, size and finish.
❑ Painting a historic masonry retaining wall, or covering it with stucco or other cementitious
coatings, is not allowed.
1.8 Maintain the historic height of a retaining wall.
❑ Increasing the height of a wall to create a privacy screen is inappropriate. If a fence is needed
for security, consider using wrought iron, similar to those seen historically, that is mounted
on top of the retaining wall.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard 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.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
❑ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
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 fullest extent possible, while also
preserving the integrity of the character- defining features of their buildings. Special
provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some alternatives in meeting the
ADA standards.
14.2 Generally, a solution that is independent from the historic building and does not alter
its historic characteristics is encouraged.
5
t B
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2010
Jamie suggested applicants do a site mockup which would be very helpful
for the monitors and staff.
Ann suggested the board start discussing interior reviews.
Jay said if the commission preserves only one building a year it is worth it.
Disclosure:
Jason disclosed that he has done work with Michael Hoffman in the past but
feels he has no conflict. Michael said he has no problem with Jason
reviewing the Boomerang.
500 W. Hopkins, Boomerang Lodge — Amendment to Historic
Landmark Designation, Public Hearing
Steve Stunda, owner and managing local partner
Michael Hoffman, attorney representing the applicant
Exhibit I — drawing of the pool
Exhibit II — proof of publication
Exhibit III — Public comments
Steve said he has been in Aspen since the 60's. He bought the project in
2005 and it took a year to go through the entitlement process. I voluntarily
offered to preserve the east wing of the building and dedicate it to the
historic preservation commission. There were no negotiations. I wanted it
to be kept because I thought it important that a piece of old Aspen be kept
and I still fill that way. At the time of designation we included the
swimming pool in the outlying area. When we were going to do a lodge it
was an integral part of the project and it added a great element.
Unfortunately because of the economy I have been trying to get a loan for 2
'h years to develop it as approved. I have a building permit that is good until
June of 2011. The least desirable for lenders is the condominium lodge.
The team and in conjunction with the City we proposed converting the
already approved building into an affordable housing project. We will retain
the integrity of the east wing and nothing will change. Since we are about to
make a change the old pool is no longer an attractive use within the context
of the new project. Housing said the pool is just too expensive to maintain
and too small to of a benefit. We are suggesting that the site plan be
3
•
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2010
amended that the building be under your purview but the pool be eliminated
and it becomes a picnic area for the people living in the building. Site plan -
Exhibit I.
It is our intent to preserve the structure that was approved in 2005. The
lower level of the existing building will be all storage. We can outline the
pool indicating what it used to be and the rest would be a grassy area.
Michael said staff requested we submit an HPC minor development
approval. This application is going to city council to request the change in
use from a condominium zed lodge to affordable housing. APCHA, which
is the housing authority, has said the pool and spa are detriments to the
project and they are too costly. They have asked us to have the area
removed from designation. In a minor development approval HPC makes a
decision and the only way we can bring that decision to City Council is to
appeal your decision no matter what the decision is. That was inappropriate
so what we did instead is ask you to make a recommendation as to whether
you agree that this particular area of the historically designated area should
be removed from your authority so that it can be converted to a picnic area.
Your recommendation will be taken to city council and decided with the rest
of our application.
Amy said APCHA has requested the area be removed due to potential
problems and burdens on the home owners. I don't believe APCHA
suggested it should be delisted from the inventory, they simply agreed that
the pool should not be part of the development. Staff feels HPC should be
discussing the site plan, such as the historic significance of the pool and how
can it be preserved in someway that works for everyone. There may be a
solution where just the concrete form work is preserved or perhaps the pool
turns into a reflecting pool that doesn't have the same safety concerns as the
existing pool. Charlie Patterson was educated in the Wrightian design and
the relationship of the inside to the outside was a fundamental thing. Even at
the pool level you could interact the outside to the inside. Staff recommends
HPC deny the proposal to change the boundaries of the historic designation.
Michael said in an appeal council can only decide if there was an abuse of
discretion or abuse of due process. It is the weighing of the affordable
housing concerns vs. the historic values of the designation.
Amy said she feels there is a solution and an appeal won't be necessary.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2010
Steve said when the building changes use from its original intent the pool
becomes nothing but a nuisance.
Comments and clarifications:
Jason said this will be a great affordable housing project and we can come
up with a cool solution. As a suggestion you could cover it and put a
platform over it to protect the pools. You could add a heat pump and heat
the pool or have a reflecting pond. You can reuse the pools as is and it
won't stop your project.
Steve Stunda said the pool is too small.
Jamie said it isn't the discussion of the pool it is the discussion of HPC
being able to review this area or not. We need to make that really clear.
Does HPC want to relinquish control of that area?
Ann said the question is whether or not this is an important part of the
building and landscaping of the site. We don't need to decide whether a
pool is appropriate for affordable housing or not. The question is, is this an
important part of the building and landscaping of the site.
Amy pointed out that this is an unusual circumstance in that only a portion
of the property (1/3) is under designation. This was a willingness on Steve
to designate the property. HPC will not review anything other than the
historic portion of the property.
Jay opened the public hearing.
Toni Kronberg asked about the pool and how deep it would be. Jay said
only ideas have been thrown out and we have no design. Toni said the use is
changing and I don't ever remembering a pool being preserved before. As a
member of the public it is hard to know what HPC has purview over.
Paul Taddune, representing the Christiania Lodge adjacent to the project.
Paul encouraged the HPC to retain jurisdiction so HPC can determine what
the final result is and probably something could be worked out. It is a
safeguard to get input from other adjacent property owners. It may be that
there would be no jurisdiction in the future based on the rest of the project
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2010
but we don't know that in the abstract. It is obvious you should retain
jurisdiction.
Jay closed the public hearing.
Ann reiterated that the board isn't talking about the use of the building or the
appropriateness of the pool; we are talking about whether to give us review
opportunity of this area. Something could be done. It is a beautiful
integrated site and we shouldn't give up designation.
Jamie said HPC should retain review of the area no matter what it turns out
to be and the landscaping of the area will reflect what is happening in the
historic area.
Jason said the pool area is a big percentage of the site and something can
happen that will work for everyone. The project will be dynamite when it is
done.
Michael said we have already submitted the application for the change in use
and that includes the change in the PUD as a whole. The representation is a
lawn area and a picnic area. There will be public involvement in the PUD.
Jay said he is siding with the other commissioner comments. The area is a
big percentage of the designated area. We don't have purview over any part
of the property anymore. This would ensure some kind of safeguard.
Steve said he doesn't mind having this conditioned upon council approval. I
voluntarily gave up this building.
Michael pointed out that the context of the pool is being destroyed by the
change in use from a lodge to affordable multi - family housing. The use of
the sub -grade space will be storage so the context of historic resource and
spa is destroyed.
Ann said if we give up this portion of review what happens if your project
goes away and it goes back to being a lodge.
Steve said it could be conditioned upon the use changed.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2010
Ann said we feel we can work with you and come up with something that
enhances the building. If your project doesn't go through then we haven't
lost the pool.
Jay said he would guess that employee housing residents would probably
enjoy a pool. We shouldn't rely on APCHA's letter unless there is a code
amendment that says no pools are allowed in employee housing units.
Amy said HPC's issue to address is; does this landscape have historic
significance to the building or not and if future alterations occur is this
something that this board has input on.
Ann said the assumption is that we will do a good job working with the
applicant. Arm said she would not vote to remove the pool designation
without knowing what the future of this project is. It would be better to deal
with the difficulties down the road.
MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #13 that HPC recommends to
deny an amendment to the historic landmark designation for the Boomerang
Lodge, 500 W. Hopkins Avenue; second by Jamie. All in favor, motion
carried. 4 -0.
Lift I, South Aspen Street — Final Major Development, Public Hearing
Stephen Holly, Poss Architects
Bob Daniel, applicant
Proof of public notice — Exhibit I
Power point — Exhibit II
Sara said Stephen and Bob will go over the background. There are four
properties in your purview. Two parks, Lift I and Willoughby Park. The
Chalet Steak house and the Chalet Lodge and pool house which will be
moved onto Willoughby Park which is a designated parcel. The applicant is
reverting back to their 2006 approvals when Ordinance #48 was not in place.
Bob Daniels said they are providing an overview for a plan that renews the
historic assets around the base of Lift I. The building exteriors are going to
be the same. Regarding the site they will be in their historical context as it
relates to coming to grade. We will be retaining assets and designating
assets. The goal is to remind you what was previously approved and clarify
7
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application
PROJECT: ' /
Name: '$w/peti/SI f s 0.bA9A.l; /4 7Mt '
Location: ' 145-r t h P K a # f As - L O T S K / L, 4, AI, 0, 1 4,72_ 1 ,44.4 fra« 3/ , kap fin ui%
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 019.5 /,/ 119002
APPLICANT:
Name: F9- /�$ LLL
Address: % n Sring* koR NMni 40 cr. , , Ge 8/6 /1
Phone #: '170 - 4Lr- 74o 4 Fax #: E -mail:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: ctdA<td 0474&/RI6l1- MhV'a - aitu cad #,k'r ttealaZti5
Address: Wo ft FEymAN /h'e /g+ (? e/o //
Phone #: q7> - g sS-S$ 9O Fax #: E -mail: #Icµp, o,w , cam
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑ Historic Designation ❑ Relocation (temporary, on
❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ or off -site)
❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Demolition (total
-Minor Historic Development demolition)
❑ -Major Historic Development ❑ Historic Landmark Lot Split
❑ - Conceptual Historic Development
❑ -Final Historic Development
- Substantial Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
OPOWAsi JP . 4/4 5 of 200G ThMi'l f 4 26,41,49 fommK1 /a' b,
5S4 of 144 — SPCAFIG '(b A ct OF k a SPfif i -
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
fia. oPt / ifiPlu- root_ roupt fIAU i wfl w t• esir - cl-01 9
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007
SIN
DA
•
CHARLES CUNNIFFE
ARCHITECTS
ASPEN TELLURIDE STEAMBOAT SPRINGS
December 20, 2010
City of Aspen Community Development
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
To Whom It May Concern:
I hereby authorize Charles Cunniffe Architects to act as my designated and authorized representative with
respect to any and all amendments and approvals for the property located at 500 West Hopkins Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado.
•
Sincerely,
ASPE ri FSP -ABR, LLC
a Del. are limited liability c • pany
St= en R. Stunda
•
•
610 East Hyman Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • tel: 970.925.5590 • fax: 970.925.5076 • www.cunniffe.com
Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA (Principal) Jenver C. Derri ngton, AIA (Principal) Jim Gutfey (Senior Project Architect) Geoffrey Lester, R.A. (Senior Project Architect)
General Information
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This
information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that
may be involved.
YES NO
g ❑ Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions,
demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
❑ Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling,
rehabilitation, or restoration?
❑ Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this
time?
❑ In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No
Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of
Historic Places property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits?
❑ ❑ If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in
conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed
on the National Register are eligible. Owner - occupied residential
properties are not.)
❑ ❑ If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for
Historical Preservation?
Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:
❑ Rehabilitation Loan Fund ❑ Conservation Easement Program ❑ Dimensional Variances ❑
Increased Density ❑ Historic Landmark Lot Split ❑ Waiver of Park Dedication Fees ❑
Conditional Uses ❑ Exemption from Growth Management Quota System ❑ Tax
Credits
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007
Exhibit C
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
PROPERTY REPORT
Our Order No. QPR62003618 Cost. Ref:
This report is based on a search made of documents affecting the record title to the property described hereinafter,
searched by legal description and by the names of the record owners. The information as to record owner is
taken from the most recent recorded Vesting Deed. No information is furnished relative to easements, covenants,
conditions and restrictions.
Liability of Land Title Guarantee Company under this Property Report is limited to the fee received.
Prepared For:
This Report is dated: September 13, 2010 at 5:00 P.M.
Address: 500 W HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 81611
Legal Description:
BOOMERANG LODGE SUBDIVISION /PUD, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED MARCH 21, 2007 IN
PLAT BOOK 83 AT PAGE 3.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
Record Owner:
ASPEN FSP -ABR, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
We find the following documents of record affecting subject property:
I. DEED OF TRUST DATED JUNE 28, 2005, FROM ASPEN FSP -ABR, LLC, A DELAWARE
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE
USE OF BANK MIDWEST TO SECURE THE SUM OF $9,000,000.00 RECORDED JUNE 29.
2005, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 511779.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS FURTHER SECURED BY ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS RECORDED JUNE
29, 2005, TINDER RECEPTION NO. 511779.
2. ASSIGNMENT OF ENTITLEMENT DOCUMENTS AND CONTRACTS RECORDED JUNE 29, 2005
•
•
PROPERTY REPORT
Our Order No. QPR62003618
Documents of Record:
AS RECEPTION NO. 511780.
3. FINANCING STATEMENT WI111, BANK MIDWEST THE SECURED PARTY, RECORDED JULY 12,
2005 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 512253.
MODIFICATION AGREEMENT LN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED
JULY 11, 2006, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 526300. SECOND MODIFICATION RECORDED
AUGUST 6, 2008 AS RECEPTION NO. 551722 AND THIRD MODIFICATION RECORDED
AUGUST 3, 2009 AS RECEPTION NO. 561598.
•
011
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Ei A
Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street CHARLES CUNNIFFE
ARCHITECTS
A spen, CO 81611 ASPEN OE TE NBOPi$pP1NG5
December 20, 2010
Re:500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Boomerang Affordable Housing
Amy,
This letter is to provide the additional information required for the Minor Historic Development
application for the Boomerang Affordable Housing Project located at 500 West Hopkins Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado. Included are a full legal description of the property and the written explanation
of the proposal.
1. The street address, legal description and parcel identification number of the property are as
follows: 500 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, and S, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
Parcel ID No. 2735 - 124 -49 -002
2. This application is to address the existing pool located on the southwest portion of the area
of the site currently designated as historic. As the structure is converted to affordable
housing the existing pool, although a nice amenity, will create an undesirable burden on the
residents. This will be due to continued maintenance and repairs that will be required if the
pool remains in its current state. This has been discussed with the Aspen /Pitkin County
Housing Authority and they are in agreement that this is a burden that will have a negative
effect on any potential affordable housing resident. This information has led to the request to
alter the existing pool as outlined below.
a. The pool is to be filled with dirt and graded to be a grass open space area for the
development.
b. The attached proposed site plan of the pool area shows the site elements to be
constructed in its place. These consist of the following and are intended as a
reflection of the pool location and its elements.
i. A brick paver border replicating the former location of the pool. This border is
similar to the tile edging of the former pool. The area where the border is
broken represents the location of the entry steps of the pool.
ii. A wood bench on this border located where the seating area of the pool was
formerly located.
iii. The high walls on the south will remain and be reused as borders for a new
planting area to give privacy to the new lawn area.
I hope this adequately explains the changes being proposed. Please contact me to discuss
any questions or concerns you may have.
Thank you for you consideration,
, Rich Pavcek
610 East Hyman Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • tel: 970.925.5590 • fax: 970.925.5076 • www.cunniffe.com
Charles L. Gun nlffe, AIA (Principal) Janver C. Derringtan, AIA (Principal) J1m Gulley (Senior Project Architect) Geoffrey Lester, R.A. (Senior Project Architect)
Exhibit D
�., F
• *�."`� , W .Gillespie St , ` _. 'ter '; ;
i t 'N. ' .-'a . 1 .!. e.,A . --,
i ` # ! , N r Ate - r F ll • ,,
f � 4 t
\ * . , , . 4- s
# A r R V - ' • p t :� "'
i i vs' „ �;` ' �+:, t r ? p s i
n
500 W Hopkins Ave A s p 4 e n ' � C 0 8161 1 - °-,, 1 ` �'�' '��
r ,„e-,,.
07l4+ 9 r '• • r As pen
LS ['" 1 ,,,, , f .
Subject Property ,+ t, � " T - " . - F *' w iht ,..4, 44c, ,
' ' t - 1-. ..... Z , ''...,, ''"". 0 '"4..' I 4 4.4 ' I . 4,s2.. t .00 E, Hopkin ° s-Ave,
pr
rk
N ova A
F\
e w e J sr
�J �2007 E j _roc gotog l #s� .r s l a +r t ` sr._ � , � 0e j
i 'Tw
4 9 2007 /Navteq Y y `. +
Image 200,7 aIGI'obe,r r J"rrt lL
p a '3
1
1 I I le ?xtt !�` .
7 <4; :. .. , R 4 `f .._.._.0 ..—..
1 r NI
4 I 1
. 1 1
p...0i..„.0 .
1 1 1
r•
t
1 1
..1.to �S:•:Y i
w :
1 i 1.
�\ �\� (� /i% •
s.... n u s`
•
i s
ti le' '''—t- - -,,i,.
1 1 1
..... . 1 1
4(,. i k t
1 014,9,
24...,.,10 4.1s, ,,. w .. 1
i , _ n .
S , 1
e.).
1 f
1.1fr,,/ \ i .
I ill
-„,
,,
itt); L i 1
- % :N I _
i
�< 1 1
�d I 1
I \_ 1 or
. i o , _ : b T1
• Y �, Ati` III / p 1,
1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1
G I U1 =I 6 ' I • I 1 • I • 1 • I
BOOMERANG LODGE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 0 0
wxw. cunnifle.com
cn
1
> .
500 W. HOPKINS AVE, 818 EAST NYMANAOE I ASPEN C0 81811 11E1 970825 5590 ■ FAX 970929155?
ASPEN, COLORADO aewcaortwo 11E11uWE, CO 81435 I m 970728 nee I FAX 970 TM 3E44
•
•
5 :0
r 715 a
•
d br-IllrfIlci 61.4. br u - i4
intl s....
. ,:: .,,, . '4.7. ""... ...,.. •••••• -.am,- -- ' • • I jrm
4 /
A s
i
' ,
\ ‘ ''' ,..::: ‘ : * f 't .., : . \ , \ ., . * .: . , - -
\ 1
\ . -______ .
I. 1.9 1.13 opeJolo3 'uedsy
anuany uew (H 3se3 019
•
S1O31IHOHV
3ddINNf1O S31HVHO
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 100 E. Francis Street Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision and
Ordinance #48 Negotiation, Public Hearing
DATE: January 19, 2011 (continued from January 4, 2011)
MEETING PURPOSE: The purpose of the meeting is to review a revised proposal for
redevelopment of The Given Institute. The property is located at 100 E. Francis Street, and is
owned by the University of Colorado and administered by its School of Medicine. A contract is
in place to sell the 2 1/4 acre site to a private developer who intends to create three residential lots
and to offer the City a lease /purchase option to buy a fourth parcel which would contain The
Given Institute main building.
The Given Institute is listed on Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, an ordinance that identified
potential historic resources of the post World War II/early ski history era. This ordinance
requires a discussion of preservation options before a significant property can be altered or
demolished. The City, CU, and the contract buyer hope to cooperatively identify a plan that will
maintain the Given as a community asset, while allowing development that will offset the costs
of this complicated undertaking.
Staff has scheduled a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic
Preservation Commission because of the need to solicit timely community feedback, and also
because of the benefit of the two boards sharing information and points of view on the proposal.
New information presented throughout this memo is in bold, colored text. At this time,
University of Colorado has only agreed to a negotiation process through February 15
Staff hopes to have a recommendation from HPC and P &Z as an outcome of tonight's
meeting, to deliver to Council's public hearings on January 24 and February 14
The Historic Preservation Commission has more familiarity with the negotiation process
established through Ordinance #48, which allows Council flexibility in offering a package of
preservation incentives deemed appropriate in order to achieve voluntary historic landmark
designations. HPC and P &Z are acting as recommending bodies in reviewing this application.
The development plans are not expected to return to either board, except for alterations to the
exterior of The Given Institute property, which will be reviewed by HPC should they be
proposed in the future.
Some aspects of the application are within HPC's and P &Z's typical purview or expertise and
some are not. HPC and P &Z are asked to provide Council with guidance on the development
1
P2
plan, and the value of the opportunity for preservation and a public purchase of The Given
Institute. The boards' comments will form the basis of staff's recommendation to Council.
BACKGROUND: Founding of the Institute grew out of a conference on Advances in Molecular
Biology sponsored by University of Colorado and held in the Aspen Middle School gymnasium
starting in 1964. Dr. Donald West King, Chairman of the Department of Pathology at the
University of Colorado Medical School, spearheaded the program. He envisioned the need for a
meeting place where leading scientists could exchange information, at times a significant
logistical challenge in the pre - internet age.
Aspen provided a location more central than similar contemporary conferences held on the East
and West coasts. In addition, the opportunity to combine research with the natural and cultural
amenities available in Aspen was appealing, as the community already had a well- established
reputation as a summer retreat and intellectually stimulating environment for academics.
The conference quickly outgrew the space available at the Middle School. Dr. King negotiated
with the Irene Heinz Given (daughter of food giant H. J. Heinz) and John LaPorte Given
Foundation to secure a $500,000 donation for construction of a new building, to be named in
their honor. Over its history, the New York based foundation donated tens of millions of dollars
to Harvard University and other prominent medical schools.
In 1970, Elizabeth Paepcke, local cultural matriarch � `•
. _ -r
1
and widow of Walter Paepcke, sold the University
of Colorado 2 Y4 acres of roe
p p rty, comprising a -
portion of her garden, at half its value to facilitate • . . ' • T
construction of The Given Institute. Two years "- _ ;�
before, she had donated twenty -two adjacent acres • t
behind her home for the development of the Aspen , • • P °
Center for Environmental Studies. Mi��'
L.'1
The Given Institute was dedicated on August 3, , : F • •
1972. Speakers included 6 Nobel Prize winners, the
head of the National Institute of Medicine and -
presidents of three health organizations. Since � _ .
1972, The Given Institute has operated as a "think
tank" for the exploration of advances in bio- medical Elizabeth Paepcke at the groundbreaking for
science relating to human health and well being, the Given Institute, watched by Mayor Eve
attracting thousands of participants to its important Homeyer and Dr. King.
presentations. The Given has involved the Aspen
community by offering public lectures, inviting cutting -edge experts on subjects ranging from
bio - terrorism to sports medicine and has also hosted youth summits on substance abuse, brown
bag lunches on health topics for local senior citizens, and free dental and optical screenings.
The University of Colorado made numerous upgrades to The Given Institute property over the
years, including converting the main building from a summer facility to year round usability.
Within the last decade, CU began fundraising to expand and improve the space. However, as
2
P3
state funding for the School of Medicine has been dramatically reduced, it was announced in
December 2009 that the property would be sold.
The Given Institute, like the surrounding West End, is zoned R -6, Medium Density Residential.
Unlike the donation of the ACES property and the Aspen Historical Society, Elizabeth Paepcke's
sale to the University of Colorado had no restrictions on future use, and a limited period of time
when she retained the right to review any proposed construction. This covenant expired in the
1990s.
CU asserts that it is exempt from local land use regulations. However, the University applied for
a demolition permit in June 2010 and began participating in a discussion of preservation
concerns with HPC and Council. During these discussions, the City nominated the property to
the National Register of Historic Places and the Historic Preservation Commission endorsed a
nomination to Colorado's Most Endangered Historic Places. In September 2010, Council
introduced First Reading of Emergency Ordinance to rezone property to Academic. The City
subsequently communicated with two potential buyers, one of whom has placed the property
under contract for $15 million dollars, expecting to close in approximately late February or
March.
A summary of a proposal to negotiate for preservation of The Given Institute in conjunction with
new development on the north and east boundaries of the site was presented at the November 8,
2010 City Council meeting. At the University of Colorado's request, the demolition permit for
The Given Institute has been issued with conditions, but cannot be used unless negotiation fails.
City Council has withdrawn the rezoning ordinance.
The proposal includes a one year time frame within which the City or a non - profit may purchase
a 21,764 square foot lot containing the main Given Institute building. If this purchase is not
completed, the building must be preserved, but will be converted to a single family home or
duplex.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to consider
preservation, rather than demolition of this important community building. This property has
tremendous historical and natural value and is a snapshot of Aspen's history from pre - settlement to
the mining era to the modem day.
We find the criteria are clearly met for Historic Landmark Designation. We are concerned that other
priorities for the property are not being achieved by the current plan, but could be if revisions are
possible. We recommend that HPC/P &Z support historic designation for at least the lot that
will contain The Given Institute structure.
At the last joint meeting, staff, HPC and P &Z recommended a restudy of the site plan to
achieve preservation of at least the most significant heritage trees on the site, and others as
feasible. Compliance with the Hallam Lake Bluff requirements was requested, as was
reduction in proposed house sizes. Staff recommended that the applicant look at the possibility
of using the currently unbuilt section of Garmisch Street to approach the new homes, rather
than building new roads around The Given. Meeting minutes are attached.
3
P4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (continued):
The revised application includes several changes that are clear improvements. The building
envelopes on Lots 3 and 4 have been redesigned to preserve heritage trees. The applicant is
proposing a greater setback from the top of the bank above ACES than is actually. required (7.5'
greater), will adhere to the ESA progressive height limit requirements and will agree to the
standard public hearing process.
The proposed FAR for each of the new homes has been reduced by at least 400 -450 square feet
each. Twenty of the twenty -one heritage trees identified by The City of Aspen Parks Department
have been proposed for preservation, and the applicant has stated an intention to preserve other
trees to the extent possible and to mitigate tree removal with new trees planted on site as much as
practical, after which all cash -in -lieu tree removal requirements would be waived. A hydrologic
study to avoid any negative impacts on the natural environment is offered, and the plan indicates
that ACES would continue . to have access to the gravel trail on the eastern edge of The Given
property.
Despite the positive changes, staff is unable to support the site plan that is submitted. While only
one heritage tree is to be removed, it is the spruce (on Lot 2) that Parks has indicated has perhaps
the greatest value in terms of size and age. Staff recommends that HPC/P &Z recommend Council
denial of this site plan.
We recommend HPC and P &Z support one or both of the following development options. Since
there is no site plan available to represent these alternatives, staff suggests that the boards focus
on expressing the principals they feel are most appropriate to Council. In outlining these possible
alternatives, staff is attempting to zero in on an agreement that still meets the applicant's needs.
Further refinement would obviously be necessary.
1. Continue to pursue a plat for three residential lots (Lots 2, 3 and 4), reconfigured to
preserve all the heritage trees. The house size on reconfigured Lot 2 would likely be more
limited than originally proposed due to site constraints. Unusable FAR could be
transferred to Lots 2 and 3. Staff suggests that the FAR on Lots 2 and 3 be limited to what
would be permitted for a duplex (even if the future development is single family), plus the
landing of up to 2 TDRs each, derived from Lot 2. Unused FAR from Lot 2 could also be
transferred to off -site locations. Since the house on Lot 2 will have a direct visual impact
on The Given Institute, staff recommends discussion of mandatory HPC design review for
at least this building.
•
2. Pursue a plat for three residential lots (Lots, 2, 3 and 4). Negotiate a price at which the
applicant would sell Lot 2 to the non - profit user of The Given, or to a buyer who would
create dedicated public open space. Allow the applicant to convert some or all of the
residential FAR that would have been constructed on Lot 2 into TDRs to land on Lots 3
and 4 or to sell. Allow the homes on Lots 3 and 4 to approach the 5,750 square foot mark
originally requested. Attempt to relocate the Victorian era miner's cabin on this property
onto an appropriate spot on Lot 2. It is a small, easily adapted historic structure in good
condition.
4
P5 ) 410
•
r
_.. -- _may ,t . . • .. , `+
11111 •
-4$.' 1 rs, cr . t o.
4 •
' D '
///
ter TL • i
i S `,, 4 T -
- _ V ", .. NCB ' •
- it . , . • -.
�aq i
� ., yt�tt .4, Atli 9 Irl
ice:- ....y � �Y- ._ a-.. - - wa . - '' II •
T 7 _ j 0 •
d i:. a } } St.
_ _ • r r� i.
-S i -
pp ,
1l d • •
_ .... a . � ? i � _ " ' Y a zr � "C..-- rt - : ' a' -� _..;. .'•• r r •
_... s+M1• ..,.x - t - Y , - .- " i � 'fir .;. .<.
0
,-'4•' v-- . + , '1 . i a - a s * .' ..„,+- --'d.� .�.r� _ � i
- - -? -
. - r-- .1. ii . -..,..__.
-3, Tarr - aw- ' "_,.
.
APPLICANT: The University of Colorado Board of Regents, owners of The Given Institute, have
authorized the contract purchaser, SC Acquisitions, LLC, to submit this application.
Representatives are J. Bart Johnson, Attorney; Haas Land Planning; Schmueser, Gordon and Meyer
Engineers /Surveyors; and Rowland and Broughton Architecture and Urban Design.
PARCEL ID: 2735- 124 -19 -851.
ADDRESS: 100 E. Francis Street.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A parcel of land known as the Given Parcel being described at Reception #499350
together with a parcel being described at Reception #405579 in the records of
the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, all being in the City of Aspen being
more particularly described as follows:
All of Block 63, part of Francis Street and part of Center Street as shown on
the City and Townsite of Aspen Map; a portion of the NW1 /4SW1 /4 of Section 7, -
T. 10 S., R. 84 W. and a portion of the NE1 /4SE1 /4 of Section 12, T.10 S., R.
85 W. all in the 6 P.M.;
Beginning at a point on the north line of said Francis Street and 24.00 feet
easterly of the west line of said Center Street also known as Garmisch Street,
from which the East 1/4 corner of said Section 7 bears N08 DEGREES 54' 19" E a
distance of 926.25 feet, with all bearings being relative to N14 DEGREES
50'49 "E along the centerline of Garmisch Street; thence N14 DEGREES 50'49 "E a
distance of 121.59 feet; thence N33 DEGREES 03' 19 "E a distance of 42.21 feet;
thence N07 DEGREES 19'05 "E a distance of 112.35 feet; thence S70 DEGREES
18'15"E a distance of 239.94 to the southwest corner of the vacated parcel
described at Reception #405579 (Ordinance #13., Series of 1997, City of Aspen);
thence along the boundary of said vacated parcel the following four (4) courses
NO2 DEGREES 00'00 "W a distance 18.56 feet; thence S72 DEGREES 18'08 "E a
distance of 44.16 feet; thence S79 DEGREES 11'00 "E a distance of 7.90 feet;
thence S15 DEGREES 15'22 "W a distance of 20.06 feet to the northeast corner of
that parcel of land described at said Reception #499350; thence S06 DEGREES -
18'51 "W a distance of 103.11 feet; thence S18 DEGREES 12'00 "W a distance of
108.73 feet; thence S09 DEGREES 25'21 "E a distance of 52.10 feet; thence S23
DEGREES 21'00 "E a distance of 83.49 feet to southerly line of Francis Street
extended easterly; Thence N75 DEGREES 09'11"W along the north line of Block 64,
City and Townsite of Aspen, a distance of 288.99 feet to the northwest corner
of said Block 64; thence N30 DEGREES 59'37 "W a distance of 107.34 feet to the
point of beginning.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
ZONING: R -6, Medium Density Residential.
6
P7
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
••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 20 century properties like The Given Institute is evaluated according to the
following criteria:
•
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 Finding: Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke " !:;. • + ''
came to Aspen in 1945. It was their vision and • ' y.
energy that transformed the town into an
international destination and retreat to nurture the ., , .•
"mind, body and spirit." Initiatives the - � - • '-• . , ,
Paepcke's spurred included the Aspen Institute, '�`; r z t r y
� r :7$
Aspen Skiing Company, Aspen Music Festival, :4 , . ; . • {b
and International Design Conference. � :`$•
Elizabeth Paepcke carried on this legacy after her -'— _' ;' ` } s'` —= -
husband's death in 1960, donating land and funds - •"
for the benefit of non -profit organizations _ �•..! _ -
including ACES (1968), the Aspen Historical r .
Society (1969) and The Given Institute (19'72). ;.
To` 0 111
Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke were also patrons t
of modern art and architecture. As a stipulation in ��, : ��' it
the gift - purchase of the land for the Given
Institute, Elizabeth Paepcke retained the right to , 4
select the architect. She chose Harry Weese, an " ; :. `� """ -�'•'
internationally known architect, part-time . - AP- i,.
resident of Aspen, and friend of the Paepcke's
from their hometown of Chicago.
Born in Evanston, Illinois in 1915, Harry Mahr
Weese died in 1998. In his formation as an Elizabeth Paepcke and Harry Weese
architect, he attended the Massachusetts Institute outside The Given Institute..
1 7
P8
of Technology (M.I.T.), studying under Alvar Aalto and creating friendships with fellow students
Eero Saarinen and L M. Pei. Weese also briefly attended Yale for a time. He ultimately graduated
from M.I.T. in 1938, then studied for a year with renowned architect Eliel Saarinen, Eero's
father, at the Cranbrook Academy in Michigan. The New York Times said: "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 contemporary American design." Eero Saarinen became 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 own career took off,
Saarinen regularly referred work to Weese.
Before and after serving in World War II, in 1940 and 1946 -7, Weese worked for the one of the
largest and well -known architectural .firms, Skidmore Owings and Merrill (SOM). SOM are
sometimes credited with having invented the "glass box" skyscraper.
Reputedly skeptic of the "less is more" edict of Mies van der Rohe that heavily influenced SOM
and the Chicago school in general, Weese opened his own firm, Harry Weese and Associates, in
1947. While classically trained in the tenets of modernism, Weese was philosophically
fundamentally unlike the Bauhaus masters. Architectural historian Claude Massu has attributed
this position to Weese's early travel study in Scandinavia in 1937 and his personal friendship
with the Saarinens. Self- described as eclectic, Weese's prolific work in broad - ranging typologies
including churches, educational facilities, single - family and multi -unit residences, and prisons,
reflects a humanistic approach incorporating natural materials, particularly wood. As directly
contrasted to Mies van der Rohe, Massu characterized Weese as an architect who sought unique
solutions to every design program explicitly based on site, precedent (whether historical or in
terms of context), and intended function.
Early in his career Weese was invited, at the suggestion of Eliel Saarinen, to design a building in
the town of Columbus, Indiana. After World War II, a manufacturing company in Columbus,
• Cummins Engine, recognizing the business value of creating livable communities, began to offer
to pay architectural fees for local property owners who would engage firms identified on a
specific list, which included the most significant modernists of the time. As a result, much of
downtown Columbus, Indiana is naw 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 First
Baptist Church (1965), which achieved the high honor of National Historic Landmark
Designation and is widely considered one of the most iconic buildings in town. The design of the
First Baptist Church is related to that of the Given Institute due to a similar use of wood elements
in the interiors.
Weese was a prolific architect, particularly revered in the Midwest. Harry Weese 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
8
P9
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 completing the Metro project and the 1970 Time -Life skyscraper in Chicago, Harry
Weese designed the Given Institute, built in 1972. A longtime visitor to Aspen, Weese first
came to town with his wife in 1947. He purchased a Victorian home, still owned by the Weese
family, at 118 N. First Street 1969. In the Aspen vicinity, Weese deigned at least three other
homes (outside of City limits).
In addition to his own design work, Weese was recognized for his dedication to historic
preservation in Chicago. Weese received a Presidential Award in 1967 for his personal donation
of time to restore the landmark Adler and Sullivan- designed 1889. Auditorium Building in
Chicago. In a July 23, 1973 Time article, Weese said: "Fine old buildings give our cities
character and continuity. They give us a sense of stability." He further ruminated: "It might
sound a bit chauvinistic — but maybe someone will save one of our buildings some day."
The full roster of those involved in construction of the Given Institute includes: Harry Weese &
Associates (architect); Bill Lipsey (supervising architect); William Bauhs, project manager;
Philip Prince, job captain; The Engineers Collaborative, structural engineers; James Burke &
Assoc., mechanical and electrical; HWA, interior designer; and H.E. Anderson, Inc., contractor.
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 and no
ornamentation. The neutral color scheme allows the form of the building to predominate, and it
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 created 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 University reportedly requested a simple design that would harmonize with other buildings
on the grounds and relate well to the site. 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.
9
_ . 'rt,tf.:. f.... - S9'e } k 1 hw ■.#. ) 64.? E— y:R •' VA
P10
Also on the property are two Victorian era structures, which may or may not be original to the
site, neither of which are proposed to be preserved by the applicant. Northeast of the main
building is a 475- square -foot circa -1890 residential structure with a gable roof, clapboard siding,
and double -hung windows. It was remodeled to be a caretaker's residence when The Given
Institute was constructed. In 1999 it became the office of the Aspen Global Change Institute. A
second clapboard- sided, shed - roofed circa - late - nineteenth - century building also exists on site just
north of the AGCI building. No information at all is available regarding this secondary
outbuilding, which did not appear on Weese's site plan for the complex.
In addition to existing structures, the landscape on The Given property has cultural and natural
resource value. Weese located the Given Institute building to take advantage of views and
preserve natural site features. Mature trees are abundant, and they provide significant
contributions to the community forest. Some of the trees are estimated to be as old as 130 years
of age, are part of the riparian forest adjacent to Hallam Lake and established themselves during
the earliest part of the town's history. Some are believed to have been planted by D.R.C.
Brown, Aspen pioneer and predecessor to the Paepcke ownership of the property. Some of the
trees were planted by Elizabeth Paepcke, who is reported to have continually tended the trees
during construction of The Given Institute.
The trees are a mix of some of the largest and most significant Colorado blue spruce trees in
Aspen, a single white fir which is believed may be the largest in the Roaring Fork Valley, aspen
trees, cottonwoods, and numerous shrubs and shade trees.
According to supervising architect Bill Lipsey, an employee of Weese who moved permanently
to Aspen after construction of this project, the trees surrounding the Given Institute building were
"not to be touched." On the north side of the building, Weese included a limited sheltered patio
area, leading out to open lawn area for functions and receptions.
No dedicated landscape architect was
engaged, but the architect, Harry Weese, 4. '��•
was himself particularly attuned to the ;'« Vy.
building's interaction with the landscape. A
;
March 1973 Architectural Forum article z
• • recounted: ry
,;; . ih• 4
V .
He [Weese] describes the site as y `
"almost a botanic garden." Little
wonder. There are firs and spruces, y �� ,;
some 50 to 60 feet high. Only one tree '*
was removed during construction of the
Institute, and a deep bow was made to
the cottonwood on the west (photo at .,•;IS 11 , ?
right). The building embraces this _ ''.iv��•'��
garden and looks north to a pond which
is part of an ecological preserve. On the _ - r
south and east, the building extends in
P11
to the landscape by way of fences (not yet complete). One wall will extend diagonally
from the southwest corner; the other from the northeast corner towards a creek. This will
make the building a gateway to the garden."
There are two observation decks on the site which overlook Hallam Lake. The decks are thought
to have originally been foundations for buildings that the Paepcke's intended to build. They do
not meet current requirements to setback all development at least 15 feet from the bluff above
ACES, but have been allowed to be maintained as pre- existing construction.
Staff finds that all three designation criteria are met by The Given Institute. Criterion 2.a is met
because of the property's relationship to "The Aspen Idea," which, through places like The Given
Institute, has had an impact far beyond this town. Criterion 2.b. is met through the property's
direct connection to Elizabeth Paepcke, a historically significant individual in Aspen's history.
Criterion 2.c. is met as The Given Institute is an outstanding and relatively unaltered example of
the work of Harry Weese. Harry Weese's work continues to inspire study, as evidenced by
recent coverage in ChicagoMagazine, Reconstructing Harry Weese, (Robert Sharoof) July 2010,
and a new book entitled The Architecture of Harry Weese (Robert Bruegmann and Kathleen
Murphy Skolnik) released in September 2010. Reports of the possible demolition of The Given
Institute have been authored this past fall by Architectural Record, The Huffington Post, The
National Trust for Historic Preservation, DOCOMOMO US (Documentation and Conservation
of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement), and other local, state and
national media outlets. A Facebook group interested in preservation of the property was formed
in June 2010.
In addition to determining whether the designation criteria are met, the review boards must assess
the physical integrity of the building to determine if alterations since construction have affected
significance. Staff's score sheet is attached as Exhibit A. Based on the architect scale model, .
building permit files, and contemporary publication of sections, elevations, and site plan, the
exterior of the Given Institute main building and the site landscape remain largely unaltered since
1972. The design, location, feeling, association, and setting of the complex remain intact and
reflect the original conception for the Given Institute complex.
Alterations to the interior are limited to updates to bathrooms, water fountains, and the entrance
to the seminar room through the addition of a ramp to meet accessibility standards and
conversion of a laboratory into a conference room. These minimal alterations all date to 1993. In
1996, some glazing was replaced in -kind using the same configuration and similar material and
type. Periodic changes have also been made to interior wall color, carpets, and select light
fixtures.
The noteworthy alteration to the landscape that has occurred since construction is a memorial
garden dedicated after Elizabeth Paepcke's death in 1994. Coinciding with the Given Institute's
25 anniversary in 1997, there was an installation of a garden of native plants and Mrs.
Paepcke's favorites as a way to honor her donation of the land and contribution to the Aspen
community. It is set along the west and north sides of the building.
11
P12
ORDINANCE #48 NEGOTATION
Review of the redevelopment proposal for this site falls within the negotiation process created by
Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. This ordinance empowered City Council to work with the
owners of potential historic resources from the postwar era to reach a mutually acceptable
agreement for voluntary landmark designation.
The applicant has summarized the requested development approvals as follows:
1. Lease and Purchase Option Agreement Provisions, including but not limited to
reimbursement of affordable housing and impact fees. If the proposed house on Lot 2 is
removed, significantly less affordable housing and impact fees would be due.
2. Subdivision into a total of four (4) lots;
3. Approval of Increased FAR for each lot (to be specified on the Final Subdivision Plat)
and approval for each of the three (3) new free - market lots as a TDR Receiver Site;
4. Platting of building envelopes that thereafter supersede and replace otherwise applicable
setback requirements, including those associated with Hallam Lake Bluff Review
(HLBR), for each of the three (3) new lots. Any subsequent development within these
building envelopes will not be subject to HLBR; In the revised application, the
building envelopes have been amended to better accommodate trees, and the
applicant is proposing more than the required setback on the north. The applicant
will also agree to adhere to the progressive height limit restrictions and ESA public
hearing requirements. A waiver of the Hallam Lake Bluff restrictions is requested
along the eastern bluff.
5. Growth Management approval for up to four (4) Free - Market Residential Allotments
from the 2010 GMQS Development Allotments, with exemptions from the date deadlines
and submittal requirements of Code Section 26.470.110, and from the scoring criteria of
Code Section 26.470.120;
6. Exemption from the Residential Design Review Standards of Chapter 26.410;
7. Exemption from the City's Tree Removal Mitigation Requirements. In the revised
application, less cash -in -lieu waiver is expected for tree removal. ;
8. Ten (10) years of vested property rights.
LEASE AND PURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT
The application does not include a specific proposed lease and purchase option agreement, but
this is expected to be submitted for Council review. The agreement will finalize the costs of
acquisition of the Given lot, along with any restrictions or covenants expected to affect the use of
the property. The application indicates a one year lease /purchase period at a price of $3.75
million for Lot 1. This figure may increase if the City wishes to recoup some of the fee waivers
that are included in the negotiation request. If the City or a non - profit do not complete the
purchase within a year, the Given Institute building must still be landmarked, but may be
converted to a single family home. It is substantially over the size typically allowed for a single
family home on Lot 1, or which would even be allowed on the existing 2 1 /4 acre site.
P &Z and HPC may offer any recommendations that the boards feel are pertinent to Council's
consideration of this agreement.
12
P13
FEE WAIVERS
The applicant is requesting fee waivers for the initial build out of the lots. The waivers include
fees related to affordable housing, school land, stormwater (aka engineering system development
fees), water tap, transportation demand management/air quality fees, parks development fees and
tree mitigation. The waivers will only apply if the City, or an assigned non - profit, purchases the
Given lot. If the Given building is converted to residential use, all fees except for tree mitigation
would be paid by the developer.
It may be unlikely that City Council will forgive all of the fees requested since there are actual
community impacts that need to be addressed. Council may choose to pass the fees on through
the sale price of The Given Institute, may deny waiver of some or all of the fees, or may pay
some or all of the fees through the general fund. The School Land fee is due to the School
District and must be paid in full by the City or the applicant.
The fee waivers are perhaps the most valuable and definable incentives being requested. They
total nearly $2 million to the extent that they can be estimated in advance of specific
development plans. The fee calculations estimated by staff are as follows.
Affordable housing: 5,750 square feet FAR per new home x 3 x $73.74 (standard mitigation
fee)= $1,272,015.
The application mentions the possibility of ADUs being constructed for one or more of the
homes in the future. Once the cash -in -lieu option is paid, there is no refund.
The revised application proposes three houses of approximately 5,300 square feet per new
home x $73.74 (standard mitigation fee)= $1,172,466; a reduction of $100,000. To the
extent that the allowable FAR is further reduced, or transferred off -site, this fee will
continue to drop.
School Land: This calculation requires a value for each square foot of the land be established.
The City has not received an appraisal, therefore we assume $15,000,000 (purchase price of
property) - $58,000 (assessed value of improvements)= $14,942,000/99,143 square feet (lot size)=
$150.71
The fee is calculated by multiplying 896 (standard square feet of land needed per student as
determined by the Aspen School District) x 0.452 (number of students generated, assuming at
least four bedrooms per house) x $150.71 (value of land) x 0.33 (the requirement is to mitigate
for 1/3 of impact)= $20,141.99 x 3 homes= $60,426
The revised application would not change this fee. The fee would decrease if no home was
built on Lot 2.
Stormwater system development fee: $2.88 per square foot x 16,748 (half of the requested
FAR, which is assumed to equal the footprint of the new houses+ 8,123 which is the existing
impervious area associated with The Given) = $48,234
13
P14
Even if the impact fee is waived, the applicant is expected to provide appropriate water quality
mitigation on site to avoid negative impacts on the environment.
This fee will decrease if there is one less house, or smaller houses.
Water tap: $3,585 per ECU (standard water tap for Given service area) x 4 (estimated ECUs
generated by a 5 -6,000 square foot free market home) x 3 homes= $43,020
This is the tap fee only and does not include the actual connection to the water main or parts and
labor.
This fee will decrease if there is one less house, or smaller houses.
TDM/Air quality: 4 bedrooms per house x 3 houses x $498 (standard fee) = $5,976
This fee will decrease if there is one less house, or smaller houses.
Park dedication: 4 bedrooms per house x 3 houses x $4,429 (standard fee)= $53,148
This fee will decrease if there is one less house, or smaller houses.
Tree mitigation: 51 trees proposed to be removed to facilitate roads and building envelopes=
$527,166
The revised plan significantly reduces this mitigation fee.
P &Z and HPC may offer any recommendations that the boards' feel are pertinent to Council's
consideration of the fee waivers. Environmental Health, Housing and the Parks Department, in
particular have object to the possibility of a waiver in their referral comments (attached.)
SUBDIVISION
The applicant proposes subdivision into four parcels. One will contain The Given Institute and
the other three will be for single family homes or duplexes.
The Given Institute sits on a 2 '/4 acre irregularly- shaped site that is a flat plateau before sloping
abruptly to the north towards the Hallam Lake Nature Preserve. The lot is abutted by private
property to the west, a bike trail and the Red Brick Arts Center to the south, and nature preserve
to the east and north. A substantial portion of the lot was once Francis Streets, Garmish Street
(formerly Center Street) and Puppy Smith Street (formerly Smuggler Avenue.) Francis and
Garmisch were deeded by the City. The portion of Puppy Smith included in The Given Institute
parcel was vacated by the City.
Vehicular access to the property is from a narrow curb cut at Garmisch Street, which opens up
into a gravel parking area that accommodates service and delivery uses.
14
: .,
P15
For reference, construction of a single family home or duplex on this parcel would be allowed by
right and would not necessarily require land use review. The application proposes three homes,
plus the Given Institute as either a non -profit facility or single family home. P &Z and HPC are
asked to make a recommendation to Council on the following review criteria.
Chapter 26.480, SUBDIVISION
Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision
must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements
I. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding: The AACP is a statement of a wide variety of community goals, some of which
would support the proposed project, while others would seem to be inadequately addressed.
Staff finds that the opportunity to prevent the demolition of the Given Institute and preserve its
value as a community facility is underscored by language found in the chapters related to
Economic Sustainability, Arts, Culture and Education, Transportation and Historic Preservation.
This is a centrally located, pedestrian friendly facility that has brought many visitors to town for
the past 38 years, and offered residents access to very high caliber programs. Demolition of the
building would do nothing to achieve an "Arts, Culture and Education" goal to "Make
educational, cultural and artistic experiences more accessible for all valley residents," for
instance. Once lost, a facility like the Given Institute would be extremely hard to replicate in
Aspen.
The project is arguably in conflict with "Parks, Open Space and the Environment" goals such as
"Protect and enhance the natural environment," particularly due to proposed tree removals. It
must be recognized that this is private property and not in fact a park. While a vote for public
purchase was considered, it has not been pursued.
The goal of this review is to balance the many legitimate goals of the property owner and the
public.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the area.
Staff Finding: The property is surrounded by a mix of private residences and other public /quasi-
public sites. The neighborhood is located near to enough to the core of town to have supported a
variety of arts organizations, childcare, recreation and non -profit facilities for many years. Staff
finds that the proposed land use is appropriate.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
15
. Y: aj a I
P16
Staff Finding: The proposed subdivision will not diminish the opportunity for adjacent
properties to be developed consistent with current zoning and should not create unanticipated
impacts since some degree of public and residential use of the site has occurred since 1972.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this
Title.
Staff Finding: The proposed subdivision does request some exceptions from typical
requirements, however this is allowed at Land Use Code section 26.415.025, Potential Historic
Resources.
B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision
1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition
that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed
subdivision.
Staff Finding: The parcel does include steep slopes and environmentally sensitive areas. The
subdivision plan, and the future development of individual homes on this site will be required to
be engineered to address all natural hazards.
2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial
patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities
and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the pedestrian and vehicular access to the property as proposed is
not appropriate. The roadways "strangle" The Given Institute, affecting its viability for a non-
profit and requiring the removal of important trees. The pedestrian access to the site is
potentially confusing and not inviting.
Staff requests the applicant examine use of the 24' wide strip of unimproved Garmisch Street
right -of -way that runs along the west boundary of the site for vehicular access to the residential
lots. Using Garmisch may minimize tree issues and provide outdoor programming space for an
end user of the Given. Staff is unsure if the Garmisch right -of -way is adequate considering
turning radii and required clearances for emergency service vehicles. Staff asks the applicant to
explore this potential with the City Engineer.
The revised application shows this alternate route. Further refinement, an review by the
Fire Department is necessary. Staff encourages continued discussion about using the
existing service road. This would have to be the route in if Lot 2 is not developed.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter
26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
16
P17
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and /or the goals of the
community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional
engineers as necessary.
Staff Finding: This criterion refers to the Engineering Department's standards for design of
utilities, roads, etc. The application is expected to meet these requirements without exception.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new
dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding: The application requests that the applicant not be required to pay affordable
housing fees. Council may or may not waive the cash -in -lieu requirement.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set
forth at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Finding: The School Land Dedication standards require payment of a fee to the School
District. Council is asked to pay the fee through a source other than collecting it from the
applicant.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management
approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management
approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney.
(Ord. No. 44- 2001, § 2)
Staff Finding: The applicant has asked to be granted the growth management allotments
through the Ordinance #48 negotiation process.
FAR BONUS
The proposal includes a request for an FAR bonus for each new residence, as well as The Given
Institute property, should it convert to residential use.
17
P18
Below is an estimate of the allowable floor area for each proposed lot, and the proposed bonus.
The applicant's goal is to achieve an FAR of 5,500 square feet for each new house, retaining the
right to land a 250 square foot TDR for each residence, which is an opportunity available to all
R -6 properties. The Given Institute building is very substantially over the size that would be
allowed for a single family house. The application requests a bonus for a garage if it converts to
residential use.
The revised application contains new FAR proposals. The applicant requests the duplex
FAR for each lot, plus three 250 square feet TDRs per lot, to be created and awarded at no
cost by City Council.
Lot 1
Lot size: 21,764.18
Effective lot area after slope reductions: 21,764
Allowable FAR: single family. 4,358; duplex 4,778
Proposed FAR: The existing FAR of approximately 12,000 square feet if the building remains
a non - profit. An FAR bonus of 750 square feet for a garage if it converts to residential use.
Bonus: None for non - profit use. 8,392 square feet for residential use
Lot 2
Lot size: 23,502.11
Effective lot area after slope reductions: 17,831
Allowable FAR: single family 4,162; duplex 4,582
Proposed FAR: 5,500 plus option for TDR, Revision: 4,582, plus 750 sq. ft. in TDRs =5,332
Bonus: 1,338 square feet, Revision: 1,170
Lot 3
Lot size: 31,804.53
Effective lot area after slope reductions: 18,106
Allowable FAR: single family 4,175; duplex 4,595
Proposed FAR: 5,500 plus option for TDR, Revision: 4,595, plus 750 sq. ft. in TDRs =5,345
Bonus: 1,325 square feet, Revision: 1,170
•
Lot 4
Lot size: 22,087.22
Effective lot area after slope reductions: 16,793
Allowable FAR: single family 4,109; duplex 4,530
Proposed FAR: 5,500 plus option for TDR, Revision: 4,530, plus 750 sq. ft. in TDRs =5,280
Bonus: 1,391 square feet, Revision: 1,171
The FAR bonuses for the new house total approximately 4,050 square feet. This has been
revised to 3,511 square feet. Staff cannot support the bonuses, which were not included in the
initial discussion with Council, unless reduced or combined with significant tree preservation,
additional protection for the Hallam Lake bluff, or similar measures. The plan does not ensure
18
r e^::., . lar'M. • crpf, a. u+Y!`.o+,Yq+a..ww.. ^n.- r -..ni. ...•...r.,.- .,_....+.w., r_,- ...y,t.
8 tia +i.rWtr >._ a.ti rF e
+.r + - . -e-. ... rK•. U zi.' - �_r y- �,r''"' ..
P19
that The Given Institute will be preserved for non - profit use and staff is sensitive to the
possibility of excessive bonuses for the project without enough community value.
Staff would be in favor of the possibility of Council creating TDRs that could be sold by the
owner to help them address the costs of this attempt to save The Given Institute building,
however it is our strong preference that motivation to develop on site be decreased through
a non - profit /public purchase of Lot 2, and approval for the applicant to land the
development rights that might have been associated with that lot on Lots 3, and 4, or to sell
them to be landed elsewhere in Aspen.
Please note that the FAR calculations above reference the lot sizes provided on the site plan,
rather than those stated in the application. The site plan was revised slightly after submission to
address Building Department concerns with preserving adequate space for egress around The
Given Institute.
BUILDING ENVELOPES AND ESA REVIEW
A specific plan for new construction on the site has not been prepared, however the applicant
wishes to establish building envelopes where all construction activity will be confined, as part of
the Ordinance #48 review. The proposed building envelopes meet the standard front and rear
yard setback requirements, but do not provide as much combined sideyard setback as required by
the zone district.
The area of each proposed building envelope is larger than what could be filled by the new
construction, even if it were all one story. Staff understands that an envelope is beneficial to the
applicant because it allows flexibility in the placement of the structure relative to existing trees
and top of slope concerns, however the application does not clearly indicate an intent to preserve
trees or fully meet the Hallam Lake Bluff requirements. In addition, the Parks Department has
identified very significant trees sit within the proposed envelopes on Lots 2 and 3. Parks will not
support removal of these trees, which are of such significant size and age that they refer to them
as heritage trees. Staff recommends that the building envelopes be redesigned using the heritage
trees that have been mapped as an underlying concern. Staff believes the applicant should
analyze the potential site planning issues and determine if reasonable development is possible
with this constraint. It is understood that the City may need to provide some leeway on removal
of other trees. Clear proposals must be made as to the location of any paving and landscaping
outside of the proposed envelopes. As stated above, staff recommends that other alternatives to
bring driveway access onto the site be studied. This will affect the design of building envelopes.
The applicant has improved Lots 3 and 4 relative to tree preservation, but still proposes
removal of the heritage tree on Lot 2. This is not supported by staff.
Staff has conveyed to the applicant that a non - profit might wish to purchase Lot 4 to retain some
open space in association with The Given Institute building. However, it appears that Lot 4 is
one of the most developable areas due to existing trees. Staff recommends Council and the
applicant discuss acquisition of the western area of Lot 2, which is nearly unbuildable, in order to
create some compensation for the land and to possibly preserve some public access to the bluff.
19
P20
Typically, development
in the Hallam Lake O
Environmentally
Sensitive Area (ESA)
requires that all
d
Il lb 4 \ 10
evelopment be held
back at least 15 feet from
the top of slope, and the - 1
3
development is subject to L
a progressive height limit
or layback so that the _
maximum height limit of \ ?PI s M'T" sT
25 feet cannot be
achieved until the point —-`�- Given Property which is 25 feet setback -�= �--
from the top of slope. _
The applicant is asking ill
to be exempt from the Q progressive height limit. 10: *r
They also wish to be cWO
exempt from the typical F 1.51 ‘VIIII
P &Z review to confirm Z W FRANCIS ST
that the ESA standards
are met. This discussion 1 Di GU would usually include LL EY
w y
review of landscape and 0 Q
lighting plans, screening i 0 E }1ALLAM ST
of construction with native vegetation, and W NALLAM ST % 4.4
:tecti;:fth::b01he e. z O
❑ a l 1 g ,,,,,
negotiation, staff could o �`'
0 support the ESA review
being administrative, but
not exempt from the requirements. Staff is most concerned that the visual impacts on Hallam
Lake be addressed on Lot #3. Development on this parcel has the potential to "loom" over
ACES. Staff recommends the setback from the top -of -bluff be increased for this parcel. The
eastern setback on this Lot and Lot #4 should also be increased. The proposed 15 setback from
the top -of -bluff on Lot #2 does not need to be changed. Development on all lots should be in
compliance with the height restrictions of the Hallam Lake review criteria, with no exception.
Staff believes that flexibility on non -bluff setbacks and tree removal mitigation policies should
be provided to offset this request.
The application has been amended to entirely comply with the ESA only the north. There
is ambiguity about the applicability of the ESA on the east. Staff suggests that the
20
.y., 77 ' J ` f ; a71 �a _;�;< t y �..:.'ay Yls 44 :.
P21
sensitivity of this area be acknowledged, but that relief from the standards be considered to
the degree that trees are preserved, and development of Lot 2 can be avoided.
While preparing this memo, Planning Staff met with representative of ACES. They have
indicated that they do not support the plan as proposed. Because protection of the nature
preserve at ACES was the reason that the Hallam Lake ESA was created, staff is summarizing
our understanding of their concerns, for the review boards' information.
ACES is concerned about respecting the process and criteria of the Hallam Lake Bluff review.
ACES feels the hearing process provides a foundation of healthy dialogue for development
within this sensitive area. They also believe the eastern portion of the bluff is subject to the
review standards and staff is researching this issue. ACES does not feel this property should be
exempted from the height limit restrictions along the top of slope.
There are important specimen trees on the site, as indentified by the Parks Department, that
ACES concurs should not be removed or harmed. In addition, the site holds a significant amount
of vegetation as well as other important landscape elements such as the Paepcke gardens along
the west side of the Given building. ACES feels these gardens are an important historic element
of the property and should not be removed as proposed.
There is a trail along the eastern edge of the property that is regularly used by the community to
access ACES. There is a public interest in seeing this connection maintained. Staff believes that
some offsetting value could be provided by City Council in exchange for easements for existing
trails through the property.
ACES representatives pointed out the opportunity to redesign the site plan to better achieve
mutual interests. There are a number of successful projects that have been designed around
conservation and preservation principles. This site may lend itself to such an approach where the
important aspects of the site inform and direct the appropriate areas for development.
GMQS
Any development in excess of one single family home or duplex on this site requires Growth
Management allotments to be awarded by City Council. Normally there are two opportunities
per year to submit an application to compete for the limited number of allotments allowed
annually. There are adequate allotments still available from 2010 and staff can support forgoing
the standard review process for this project as an incentive for preservation. No other requests
for the remaining 2010 residential units were received.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The application requests exemption from all of the Residential Design Standards. The fact that
the proposed new houses will be accessed from a private road means that several standards
would be considered not applicable in any event. The houses would be required to divide into a
primary and secondary mass, and to locate fences and garages in a specific manner.
21
+.��`�¢6.:•'{' e ,ur,i t r se,st- e44 #tzr��`m$-tY .:,`:•4W, .a. -•= e -.'4 fvA U+yoa "�Y..:
°'�? ..,
P22
Arguably the code has already acknowledged the limited necessity of design review for lots that
are located off the public way. Staff, P &Z and HPC have the ability to grant variances when
necessary.
In the interest of negotiating a preservation solution, staff does not believe that exempting the
houses entirely from Residential Design Standards would be detrimental when compared other
priorities stated in this memo.
VESTED RIGHTS
Once a land use approval is granted, it never expires, however it can become subject to new laws
after a certain period of time. "Vested Rights" is the time period when the approval is protected
from most changes that may be adopted (approvals are never protected from amendments to the
Building Code, and some other life /safety issues.) The City is required to provide a 3 year
vesting period. The applicant's request for 10 year vesting is a policy matter for Council. P &Z
and HPC may choose to comment.
REFERRAL SUMMARY
Referral comments from numerous departments or agencies are attached. Most contain . standard
requirements for information that must be reviewed and approved at, or in advance of a building
permit. A summary of the referrals follows.
• Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District requires that the development meet their standard
requirements in terms of location of sewer and other utility lines, fees, etc.
• Building Department requires a 10 foot clearance be preserved along the east side of the
Given to allow egress from the existing exits to a right of way, and to allow for openings
(doors and windows) in the east wall of The Given if desired.
• Engineering requires more information in the form of a drainage plan, which can't be
developed without specific buildings proposed. Regardless of requested fee waivers, an
acceptable drainage plan will be required. They will require landscape plan to be submitted
with building permit and will require a sidewalk, proper design of proposed roads, mitigation
for potential landslide and mud flows, and a Construction Management Plan.
• Canary suggests that the project address new daily trips that would be generated by homes
and The Given Institute.
• Environmental Health has similar comments to the Canary Initiative.
• Fire Department will require approved fire sprinkler systems in all residences regardless of
size. Emergency vehicle access shall be approved by the Fire Marshall's Office.
• Housing requires payment of mitigation or construction of ADUs. If ADUs are ever built on
the property, they would not object to using the deed restriction language typically for County
caretaker dwelling units, which is apparently a preference of the applicant.
• Parks Department recommends that the site plan be redesigned. They have identified the
most important heritage trees on the site that are top priorities for preservation. Parks
believes that mitigation fees should apply to trees that are removed, as an incentive to work
around them. They recommend that the Hallam Lake ESA process be honored and ask that a
hydrologic study be completed to ensure that new development doesn't negatively impact the
ACES site.
22
•i .rd Y4 YI l?'�!i FK +` 'l i ,fit 14 A R � { 3 �1
P23
The Planning and Zoning Commission and HPC may:
• Recommend approval of the application,
• Recommend approval of the application with conditions,
• Recommend denial of 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 P &Z and HPC discuss their priorities and joint
perspectives, to be relayed to Council. Staff believes there is no question that the property meets
the City's standards for historic designation but recommends restudy of the proposal as described
in this memo.
Staff does believe that a solution that addresses the applicant's goals and the community's is very
possible. This application was welcomed by City Council and the applicant's attempt to resolve
a somewhat urgent community problem should be met with appreciation and constructive
discussion. Demolition of The Given Institute and residential redevelopment of the site in a form
that offers less community input is a possible alternative.
We recommend HPC and P &Z support one or both of the following development options.
Since there is no site plan available to represent these alternatives, staff suggests that the
boards focus on expressing the principals they feel are most appropriate to Council. In
outlining these possible alternatives, staff is attempting to zero in on an agreement that still
meets the applicant's needs. Further refinement would obviously be necessary.
1. Continue to pursue a plat for three residential lots (Lots 2, 3 and 4), reconfigured to
preserve all the heritage trees. The house size on reconfigured Lot 2 would likely be
more limited than originally proposed due to site constraints. Unusable FAR could
be transferred to Lots 2 and 3. Staff suggests that the FAR on Lots 2 and 3 be
limited to what would be permitted for a duplex (even if the future development is
single family), plus the landing of up to 2 TDRs each, derived from Lot 2. Unused
FAR from Lot 2 could also be transferred to off -site locations. Since the house on
Lot 2 will have a direct visual impact on The Given Institute, staff recommends
discussion of mandatory HPC design review for at least this building.
2. Pursue a plat for three residential lots (Lots, 2, 3 and 4). Negotiate a price at which
the applicant would sell Lot 2 to the non - profit user of The Given, or to a buyer who
would create dedicated public open space. Allow the applicant to convert some or
all of the residential FAR that would have been constructed on Lot 2 into TDRs to
land on Lots 3 and 4 or to sell. Allow the homes on Lots 3 and 4 to approach the
5,750 square foot mark originally requested. Attempt to relocate the Victorian era
miner's cabin on this property onto an appropriate spot on Lot 2. It is a small,
easily adapted historic structure in good condition.
Exhibits:
A. Please refer to the memo and exhibits provided in the January 4, 2011 packet
B. Minutes of January 4, 2011
C. Revised letter and site plan provided by applicant
23
- •
:" 1 4r .y d 'y. . ` p 4. S. i+n. {+' eV -4 ti .,••,1 F b a + .t r'r+ •
P24 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes -
January 04, 2011
Comments 2
Minutes 2
Conflicts of Interest 2
100 E Francis Street — Given Institute (Ordinance 48 negotiation) 2
•
1
Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — P
January 04, 2011
Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting Tuesday January 04, 2011 to order. P &Z
members excused were Jim DeFrancia and Michael Wampler, Cliff Weiss was not
present. P &Z Commissioners in attendance were Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, LJ
Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. HPC member excused and recused was Sarah
Broughton. HPC members present were Ann Mullins, Nora Berko, Jason Lasser,
Jamie Brewester McLeod and Brian McNellis. Jay Maytin arrived at 5pm. Staff
in attendance John Worcester, City Attorney; Jim True, Special City Counsel; Amy
Guthrie, Historic Preservationist; Chris Bendon, Community Development
Director; Stephen Ellsperman and Jeff Woods, Parks Department; Jackie Lothian,
Deputy City Clerk.
Jim True stated that Sarah has a conflict, that was why she was not attending and
this has been noticed as a meeting of P &Z and HPC. True said because it was
P &Z's regular meeting night it was appropriate for the P &Z to take the lead and
Stan to chair but it is an HPC meeting also; if there are occasions that individual
motions need to be made then we will just deal with those as we go forward.
Comments:
Bert Myrin thanked whoever put the packet on the WEB and asked Community
Development staff if the applicants could submit the applications on PDFs to come
out a little clearer. Chris Bendon said they could look into that and that a lot of
people do submit digitally but they have a lot of folks that like the physical paper.
Stan Gibbs asked if HPC had any comments. None stated. Stan Gibbs asked the
planning staff if they had any comments. Chris Bendon said there were two things
the minutes from the Boomerang and there was an appeal to City Council so they
would like to use official minutes but we can use draft minutes. Chris Bendon
noted a joint meeting with City Council Wednesday night on the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Stan Gibbs asked if they could go forward with the minutes on the Boomerang
from December 14` Jasmine Tygre and Bert Myrin were not at that meeting so
Stan Gibbs stated that they would wait until the next meeting.
Declarations of Conflicts of Interest
Bert Myrin stated that he was one property away from one that was notified. Amy
Guthrie said that she and Chris Bendon and Jennifer Phelan attended the
University of Colorado.
PUBLIC HEARING:
2
P26 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes —
January 04, 2011
100 E Francis St. Given Institute (Ordinance 48 negotiation)
Stan Gibbs opened the joint public hearing and it was properly noticed. Amy
Guthrie introduced herself and the applicant's representatives Bart Johnson and
Mitch Haas. Amy Guthrie stated that she would give an overview of the staff
reports; the proposal was for a possible voluntary historic landmark designation of
this property, a subdivision and an Ordinance 48 negotiation. Amy Guthrie said
that in 2007 City Council adopted an Ordinance 48 named 52 properties that had
potential historical significance from the mid 20 century and this was one of the
properties; being listed does not ensure that a property will be preserved but opens
the door for discussion; a negotiation of possible incentives that would motivate a
property owner to voluntarily protect landmark and designate the site.
Amy Guthrie utilized power point for the site plan. Guthrie said that they are not
suggesting a decision be made tonight but trying to provide an introduction and an
opportunity to give feedback to the applicant. There was a second hearing
scheduled for January 12 and they are hoping to proceed to City Council with a
recommendation from this joint board on January 24 and February 14 if
additional time is needed. The applicant has been given some strict deadlines from
the University of Colorado and whether those can be extended or not isn't
something that staff is well informed about. The first thing on the agenda was to
discuss the historic landmark eligibility of this property; this is typically HPC's
purview but P &Z is asked to participate in the review. Guthrie provided the
history of the Given Institute and the surrounding properties previously owned by
the Paepcke's including the architect, Harry Weese, who designed the Given
Institute. The Given Institute building on the outside is fairly unaltered and even
the interior with the theatre in the round, the UN style; staff recommends the
property score 96 out of 100 points on the architectural integrity form and all three
of the designation criteria are met. The "Aspen Idea" that Aspen is a meeting
place for intellectuals to come together began before the interne or more ways to
share information about advances in science and having a central gathering place
was more important and very much in the spirit of Aspen Center for Physics,
Aspen Music Festival and all the other organizations that are so much part of the
community.
Guthrie said the applicant thought that residential development would be placed
behind the Given site and the purpose of the residential development would help
make it feasible for the City or a non - profit to acquire the lot that contains the
Given Institute Building; the idea that this could continue to be a non - profit
functioning facility is a top goal of the project. If that is not feasible the City has
3
Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — P27
January 04, 2011
one year to make that happen at a price of 3.75 million dollars. If there is no buyer
in a year there is a possibility that the building could become a single family
residence but it would still be landmarked and protected no matter what its future
use might be.
Guthrie said this is a property that the community has enjoyed access to for almost
40 years but it is owned by the University of Colorado and have expressed for over
a year and a half their intention to sell the property. There is a demolition permit
issued to the University of Colorado and there are some conditions before they
could act on it; they could probably fulfill those conditions. This is an alternative
to demolition and a preservation opportunity and the applicant is requesting a
number of City fees waived or paid by the City or otherwise paid by the potential
non - profit user; listed on page 12 of the memo all of the fees as best estimated are
listed since we don't have exact plans; it would be about 2 million dollars. A good
chunk of that is tied up in tree removal waivers and staff was hoping to avoid some
of those tree removals.
Guthrie said the proposal is to subdivide into 4 lots; the property is 2 '/a acres so
each lot is between 25,000 and 30,000 square feet and the property is affected by
steep slopes that drop off to ACES and there are some city streets that used to run
through the property. Staff has asked the applicant to re -study and bring back to
the Commissions; one is the access to the property, a gravel road and proposed is a
'separate road to service the residences. Staff had concern with the number of trees
that would have to be removed and there was not a lot of open space around the
Given Institute so staff suggested several possibilities. There were fire
requirements for getting a fire truck into the property. The Parks Department has
trees that are absolute priorities for preservation; the tree removal plans remove
almost every tree. Guthrie said that staff would like see the applicant revisit the
site plan starting with those trees and working around them; we think there is a
possibility of a home in this area (pointing to the power point) and the least
burdened lot for residential development would have the least amount.
Guthrie stated the property is subject to Hallam Lake Bluff Review because of its
location above ACES; there is a required setback of at least 15 feet from the top of
slope and even at that point you have to lay back the new construction so you
progressively reach the city's maximum height limit internal to the property.
Guthrie said the application requests exemption from the layback height
requirement and also exemption from having the Planning & Zoning Commission
4
P Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes —
January 04, 2011
review the specific design and we can revisit with the applicant team so the
impacts on ACES are mitigated.
Guthrie stated the application requests some floor area bonuses on page 16 of the
memo. The applicant is asking to go up to 5,500 square feet and the allowable is
about 4,200 square feet; staff is concerned about adding impacts on the property by
increasing the FAR and the staff recommendation if that is something that is
important to the negotiation that we make sure it is part of the tree preservation
plan and mitigation of impacts on ACES.
Guthrie said the applicant request waivers from the residential design standards,
which staff thinks is a possible area for agreement because these properties will not
be visible from the road and are off the grid.
Guthrie said the applicant was asking for a 10 years vested rights; every project
that receives approval has an automatic 3 year guarantee protected from any
changes in the city code.
LJ Erspamer asked what the residential design standards are that you are going to
waive. Guthrie responded the project was already exempt from some of them
because it isn't located directly facing a city street and the remaining ones the
applicant has asked to be exempted from have to do with primary and secondary
mass; standards of how garages are placed on the property and fences.
Bert Myrin said on the staff memo page 3 you mention the possibility of using the
un -built section on Garmisch Street; could you explain what you would like the
applicant to bring back next time with regard to opening that street. Guthrie
replied that un -built section of Garmisch Street is 24 feet wide and staff will need
to know if that it is adequate space for two lanes of traffic, fire access, the turning
onto the property, how many trees would be removed. Guthrie noted there was a
site visit today. Myrin said on page 38 the Parks memo talks about hydrology and
the negative effects on the trees and with basements; is it possible to approve a
subdivision without basements and we can recommend so we don't disturb the
hydrology. Guthrie replied there are staff members from Parks present. Stephen
Ellsperman, Parks, said it was important how the hydrology of a site would affect
important natural resources as it relates to an application and in this particular case
it is unknown so the concern here was to do an investigation. Ellsperman didn't
know what mechanism wouldn't allow basements but certainly if there was some
evidence that showed from a hydrologic report that an excavation in that area
5
Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — P 29
January 04, 2011
would hurt a natural resource and not just a tree but wetlands or other areas of
natural importance that Parks might recommend something to that effect. Chris
Bendon said that procedurally you can adopt a subdivision that has particular
construction techniques or prohibitions unique to that subdivision. Myrin asked if
we will know that information. Bendon replied that it doesn't sound like we know
that now and might not know that until they get closer to development. Myrin said
on page 8 of the staff memo to use the parking at the Red Brick for Given events;
do we have the authority to give away somebody else's parking. Guthrie
responded probably not, the Arts Council has not provided any feedback; in
general the Canary Initiative is very supportive of trying to encourage all kinds of
altemative transportation. Myrin said there seems to be a huge disparity of what
can be done by right between staff and the applicant; is it by right that an applicant
can subdivide the property into 6,000 square foot lots. Bendon replied not
necessarily there is practically nothing by right that can happen in Aspen; if
someone were to subdivide this property they could divide into more lots than
purposed and theoretically go through subdivision review and may not end up with
the number of lots that are theoretically possible here; there are a lot of constraints
to this site.
LJ Erspamer asked where is the theoretically source of the integrity sheet. Amy
Guthrie replied that is a city form used since 2002 for analyzing post war
properties to have an objective way to determine their condition and if it should be
land marked. Erspamer asked if this was a national form. Guthrie replied no that
was what the city developed.
Ann Mullins asked if the drawings included the TDRs. Amy Guthrie said that any
West End Lot was allowed to land a 250 square foot TDR; the proposal wanted
5,750 square feet per house including landing a 250 square foot TDR that they
would purchase from another historic property.
Jason Lasser said regarding the Engineering in DRC he was curious if the applicant
was asking for exemptions from some of the standards like the Hallam bluff; he
asked how do we do that and the same thing with the Parks Department comments
on the heritage trees. Lasser asked what does it mean the Parks Department will
allow low development. Guthrie replied the heritage trees map was being
displayed from the power point and the Parks Department highest priority; the ones
shown on the Given Lot may or may not be affected by proposed new roads.
Guthrie said to the extent that the city or non -profit would own them the city could
try their best to maintain these trees. Guthrie showed the 2 lots overlooking
6
P30 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes —
January 04, 2011
Hallam Lake, which were the trees with the highest resource value and there were
other trees that they would like to see preserved; they have recommendations on
other construction methods. The applicant is asking for the storm water fee to be
waived.
Jason Lasser asked about the standards citing numbers from the code; if they are
exempting a blanket review of Hallam Lake Bluff and Residential Design
Standards how do their comments tie in with this application. Chris Bendon stated
that those standards were part of the land use review and City Council can waive
those standards; staff was not recommending that be waived. Bendon said that
City Council will want to hear from P &Z and HPC as part of the recommendation.
Ann Mullins asked to hear more from the Parks Department on the heritage trees.
Stephen Ellsperman responded that the City of Aspen has a tree code that has been
designed to protect all trees within in the City in a way to be proactive and work
very carefully with developers who purpose to remove trees so they can understand
why and what the mitigation for removal would be. Ellsperman said the net gain
was to maintain our community forest and integrity of those trees that are
important to the community. Ellsperman said the word heritage tree was
subjective to describe those trees which this tree code was designed to protect
some of the most important trees within the community. Ellsperman said this
particular area of Hallam Lake and the associated Hallam Lake bluff happens to be
the location of some of the most important coniferous or evergreen trees and a
number of those trees are on this lot. Mullins asked for a little more explanation on
the hydrology and how that change could affect the trees. Ellsperman said there
were a couple more things going off the lot and just adjacent to the lot land just
down below were seeps and springs; one of the largest identified cottonwood in the
state of Colorado. Ellsperman said that they don't want the technical resources on
site affected by development.
Stan Gibbs said that he did not see anything from the fire department. Amy
Guthrie said they did send an email and it was incorporated into the staff memo;
they were requiring sprinklers for all of the new houses, no matter what their size
and the fire department will need to review and approve the access road.
Bart Johnson stated that he and Mitch Haas were representing SC Acquisitions
LLC, the applicant in this case. Johnson said they were here to develop input and
their client wanted to preserve the Given and spoke to CU about obtaining the
property; there was a tight calendar to close with CU in spring. Johnson said that
7
Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting,— Minutes — P31
January 04, 2011
Mitch had to put an application together within a week so this was very much a
work in progress. Johnson said there were various stakeholders within the City
and the community, the Parks Department was a good example. Johnson said they
didn't understand the heritage trees until yesterday afternoon. Johnson said they
submitted an application that has basic fundamentals that are important; the 3 free
market lot and figure out how that is going to work is a critical element to this
plan. Johnson said the design elements will be a work in progress and they have a
lot of studying to and tried to sort through the issues and get input from Planning &
Zoning, HPC and the community and go back a figure what they can make of it all.
Mitch Haas said the starting point is here and put together a preliminary plan for
the site and their intention is to gain feedback and not argue the points in the
application or in any way defend them; all of it is subject to change.
Jamie Brewster McLeod asked what the applicant's representatives saw as the
large issues. Haas said he didn't want to start discussing those points but would
like to hear about all of the issues from the members of both commissions and the
public. Johnson said there is some feedback that would be appreciated is the use of
Garmisch right -of -way and opening that up for a road that comes in from the west
side or using the existing entrance but there was probably a balance with which
approach concerns more trees. Johnson said that 2 of those trees takes out one lot.
Haas said they were trying to determine if a conservation approach is feasible here.
Johnson said that they were trying to minimize the controversy and make
something that works and not have a process that a project that has a lot of angst
because we don't have the time for that and our client does not want that.
Jason Lasser he read the application as they are asking for the universe and this
was not an opened ended discussion. Lasser asked their expectations and where do
they expect him to start. Haas replied you tell us what you want and we just told
you where we stand today.
Ann Mullins asked what was entailed in the Hallam Lake Bluff Review and the
applicant requested to be exempted from that. Chris Bendon said that P &Z deals
with these environmentally sensitive areas with project along the river (stream
Margin Review) and this was similar to that that there is a top of bank that is
mapped with a 14 foot setback and a progressive height limit from a 45 degree
angle so the review deals with both of those in compliance and not shining light
down the slope along with the height and top of slope.
8
P32 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes —
January 04, 2011
Nora Berko asked about the 16 conforming lots. Amy Guthrie replied it was the
R -6 Zone District with the minimum lot size was 6,000 square feet; based on the
lot area that they have the applicant has suggested that they could create 16 6,000
square foot lots and each could have one single family home. Guthrie said duplex
required at least 9,000 square feet. Berko asked about in the staff memo was there
a possibility of an ADU. Haas replied that the standard mitigation was either cash -
in -lieu or ADUs be provided for 3 of the units and he didn't know if the Given was
changed to a single family home if it would be required to have an ADU. Nora
Berko wanted to know what they meant by the building envelope being flexible.
Guthrie replied that the building envelopes were bigger than what was needed but
they drew them large enough but ultimately you will be provided with a
subdivision plan.
Jay Maytin agreed with Jason on the negotiation and was surprised for what the
applicant was asking for the exemption from residential design standards and
review or is it exemption for the trees, the vested rights and asked if it was
appropriate to negotiate. Maytin asked which of the 6 or 8 Ordinance 48
negotiations or requests were needed. Haas replied that he didn't know at this time
because it was hard to say but they were fine with the 15 foot setback from top of
slope, the progressive height limit and an administrative review of the Hallam Lake
Review was okay but where the houses would end up is hard to answer right now.
Johnson said the 3 lots and the FAR were the two biggest points and we recognize
because of the trees those lots are getting pressure. Chris Bendon stated the
applicant has to respond to what the commissions feel is most important, what are
your priorities and what they hear from the public.
Biran McNellis said that he assumed that the town would still have no control over
any interior changes in the building. Guthrie responded that if the city purchased
the Given it could place covenants on the building but she didn't think that the
building was well- suited to be a residence.
Amy Guthrie asked for the continuing of this hearing to January 19 Wednesday.
Public Comments:
1. Tom Cardamone, director of ACES, said there was some flux at play and the
bluff review was a 20 year old ordinance and as a community we need to
stand behind it and be very firm about it. Cardamone said the tree ordinance
as well was sacra scant; we know that Ruthie Brown's father watered some
of those trees and Elizabeth Paepcke did in her lifetime as well. The springs
9
Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting, — Minutes — P33
January 04, 2011
that feed Hallam Lake emerging all along the base of the bluff are a concern;
the parking garage built 2000 feet away from Hallam Lake changed the
flows by 50% in 1988 and reduced the rate of flow and we put a pipe in to
recapture some of that flow back into Hallam Lake. The aquifer was an
important part for the ducks to be able to land on the lake in the winter.
Cardamone said that as the proposal stands they would like to see it denied
but to move positively he thinks there may be a solution so that might be a
gathering of players who would make this work.
2. Anne Nitze stated that she lived near Hallam Lake and is married•to
Elizabeth Paepcke's nephew; she has been involved with the family and all
of the environs for many years. Nitze said that she was on the board of
ACES for at least 10 years. Nitze said Mrs. Paecpke requested that she go to
the University of Colorado to accept her honorary degree for her because
Mrs. Paepcke was not in good enough health to go. Nitze said that Mrs.
Paepcke would be extremely unhappy at the thought of development the
property.
3. Jonathan Lewis said that his property abuts both the Aspen Center for
Environmental Studies and the Given Institute. Lewis said that they (his
family) would like the public record to reflect that the location before you
tonight is not a Lewis application. Lewis said the concerned neighbors and
community members were all there and the secret applicant was not in
attendance and was represented by his attorney Bart Johnson and successful
land use planner Mitch Haas. Lewis said there was a misleading purchase
amount by the City or non -profit entity, the ESA exceptions, the boundaries
of the ESA, the height variances, the bonus FAR, the proposed access and
circulation and the increase in traffic where Mrs. Paepcke wanted no cars of
any kind on the property. We encourage the joint P &Z HPC to reject this
application as excessive and out of step with our community plan; this is no
gift it is an attempt by a developer for profit to permanently and irreversibly
harm the properties of the Given, Aces and all of us.
4. John Pappas said he was a licensed physician for 33 years in the State of
Colorado; said that he and his wife had a home in Brush Creek; he took a
course at the Given in 1976. Pappas said that this was the most beautiful
place and he was upset that the University of Colorado was selling this
property; he will write a letter to the regent.
5. Dave Smith, attorney representing the Lewis's, said that there is an
unfortunate situation here where the tail is wagging the dog. Smith said with
this application you are being requested to throw the standards out the
window. Smith asked if the commissioners were willing to give up the
10
P34 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes —
January 04, 2011
development standards requested. Smith cautioned the commissioners with
the baseline set forth in the code and that is where you should start not
finish.
6. Michael Fox stated that he was on the board of ACES but was speaking as a
private citizen. Fox said that when you think of the Given site you think of
the whole site with the trees that were planted and watered by D.R.C.
Brown, the garden that Elizabeth Paepcke planted and tended, the views
from the garden, the views from ACES up towards the mountain that
overlooks the site. Fox said that he wasn't sure why we were spending all of
this time on this process.
7. Zizka Childs stated that she was a long time local resident and a scenic
artist; with Jerry Long they photographed the Given Building extensively.
Childs said when you film this you see how integral the site is to the
building itself; it has an integrity with the site that the best of Frank Lloyd
Wright's buildings have. Childs said the heritage trees were specified but
not all the trees that were important to it architecturally; there is a huge
sensitivity to the trees within those circular windows and that is a theme that
you see reoccurring during the time of day when the sun shifts within it from
the different points of view.
8. Howie Mallory said his wife Nora Berko was on HPC but his comments
were his thoughts only. Mallory said that Ordinance 48 was a conundrum of
how to deal with this request. Mallory said the landscape was part of this
whole and to preserve the Hallam Lake Bluff Review; hopefully you can
make a decision so that in 20 years it can be said that you have done the best
for the town.
9. Bill Sterling said that he has favored the flow of information freely but at the
same time he didn't want to give the terrorists any more advantage that they
already have. Sterling said this has to meet certain community goals for
historic preservation for a historically post modern building and community
asset; does it still have value as a home. It could protect the urban forest
there and could protect the water and the balance and harmony with the
campus of the Given, ACES and the Red Brick. Sterling asked Amy if P &Z
was exempted from the process. Guthrie replied that HPC and P &Z are
asked to make recommendations to City Council on every part of the
application but it would come back to them in part. Sterling said that it
looks to him like 1/3 is slopes. Sterling asked who the person in the LLC
was. Sterling said the plan just had a "but" to it in making it better.
10. Pam Alexander said that she agreed with most everyone except why do we
have to consider this plan; it seems like this should be a catalyst to get all of
11
Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — P35
January 04, 2011
the infouuation out on the table for the Given as well as Aspen and all of
Colorado because all of the same people they are asking money from are the
big environmentalists. Alexander said hopefully we can get the people
together to make it a better project.
11. Gina Murdock said that she was a West End homeowner and on the board
of ACE; she agreed with Tom Cardamone and what most of the other people
said.
12. Joanie Lebach said that if you want to live in the city then live in the city
but many of people want to enjoy Aspen for the town that it is and all the
nature that we have here. LeBach said she didn't know how far that we have
gone to approach the University; maybe we should send letters to the
alumni.
13. Junee Kirk agreed with all of what has been said and felt the primary key
thing was the landscape and trees. Kirk said the requests this developer has
asked for is absurd and she thought that this should be denied in totality.
Kirk said to consider subdividing this beautiful site is a huge mistake and
should be denied.
14. Mary Janss said she had to say that her husband was Stan Gibbs. Janss said
it would be a travesty for anything to happen to this site and keep the
building the way it was.
15. Ala Azezzee said that he didn't think that the building was anything special;
where is the consideration to the University because they want to sell the lot
for education so the mission is to accommodate everybody. He said he
thought the site was wonderful.
16. Al Dietsch said that he now lives in Woody Creek and used to live at 210
Lake Avenue and the first person they saw was Elizabeth Paepcke with a
shovel over her shoulder patrolling to make sure that they we not going to
throw anything over the bluff down into Hallam Lake. Dietsch said that he
was on the ACES board and he worked with Tom to protect what Elizabeth
Paepcke had in mind by protecting ACES. Dietsch said that he had a vision
of Mrs. Paepcke screaming in horror about this proposal and this should not
happen.
17. Amy Guthrie summarized a letter from Sara Burrows, the director of the
Early Learning center, and she said the children often walk down to ACES
and how important it was for the children to have access to the property.
18. Amy Guthrie received an email from Sally Broughton who express the
important of the city to work with the community to come up with a possible
public /private relationship for the property.
12
P36 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes —
January 04, 2011
Chris Bendon acknowledged CU deciding to sell this property is not controlled by
the City; the City might have an opportunity to come up with a solution to that
sale. Bendon said that CU could sell the property to another buyer which may be
better or worse. Ann Mullins said that CU is trying to sell the property as is in tack
and perhaps CU will lower the price. Bendon said not to focus on the market value
or the seller's price for the property but what's important to you are what better
principals can this property be developed that are successful.
Jay Maytin asked if the City or Community Development is still considering
rezoning for this property. Bendon replied it always is as an action of the City and
Council initiated an Ordinance to rezone the property and decided to not continue
with that.
Bert Myrin asked staff for a checklist of all the tools in the land use code that
would allow the commissions to set the lowest possible resale value for this
property; whatever the tools were. Myrin agreed with the historic designation
criteria. Myrin said that the view should be protecting the lake area and the
historic grounds on the Given. Myrin said the ESA should be adhered to in the
strictest way for the Hallam Lake Bluff and cannot support any variances that
increase the property's development rights beyond what others can achieve; the
heights limits and the award of bonuses. Myrin said that he liked Stan's concern
about the fire department turn around to be addressed at the next meeting. Myrin
voiced concern about the possibility of ACES going away from their property and
it is unfortunate for the community. Myrin asked the applicant for the highest
standards for lighting to be proposed in covenants for your subdivision. Myrin
said that he would approve a remodel of the blue frame house that exists on the
property and let HPC be the review board for that. Myrin suggested smaller homes
and for the applicant to come forward with a plan that the voters would support at a
referendum so it wouldn't be a waste! of the commissions time to review this.
Nora Berko said the Paepcke vision of Aspen ideas is the pervading theme of the
application is the Aspen Idea; mind, body and spirit. Berko said the Paepcke's
vision of the campus was the Given, ACES, and the Red Brick really are a campus.
The Paepcke's chose to give this property to a educational institution; educational
institution presumes public access, which is the Aspen Idea, you have a conference
you look at Hallam Lake. Berko asked how far this property would be privatized
that the public good of it is lost; ACES has a tremendous number of visitors,
school children and is a huge part of our cultural landscape and we risk
compromising both of them. Berko said that she would need to know exactly what
13
Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — P
January 04, 2011
it is going to look like from that deck on Hallam Lake; she could support less
building, smaller footprint but the entire landscape is what that is important. Berko
said one of the important aspects of Aspen has been the cultural landscape and the
Given is one of them and has a public element to it. Berko asked about the idea of
a conservation development and asked how possible that was.
Jason Lasser said that we have heard overwhelming comments against the proposal
and addressed the code for subdivision not being met. Lasser said it wasn't just the
building being designated historic it was the property also. Lasser said this wasn't
a sensitive application where the driveway takes down trees so he wanted to see in
addition to what Bert has requested. Lasser asked for a site plan that keeps all the
trees and make it a small footprint; looking down at Hallam Lake is a huge priority
for him and was non - negotiable. Lasser said he was not in favor of any of the
exemptions requested; he said this is the worst application that he has ever seen.
Lasser said that he wants to make this work. Lasser said Aspen Global Climate
Change is on the property now and we are not even discussing them; that building
should be there and that is where we should start and that scale of building is what
we should be talking about.
Jasmine Tygre said it was very disturbing to be involved in a situation which is so
cynical and speculative. Tygre said that Mitch asked what we would like to see
and she said on this kind of parcel she would like to see full review; the idea that
you want to exempt this project from every kind of review ESA, FAR any of these
reviews that would take place make her uncomfortable. Tygre said that she
worked on the standards to protect Hallam Lake and the ACES and the
environment; she would like to see the applicant go through the normal review
processes willingly.
Jay Maytin felt what Nora had said about the mind, body and spirit idea and it
came through from the community tonight and he thanked everyone. Maytin
agreed with Jason that this application was an insult; this is a "throw it at the wall
and see what sticks" application. Maytin said for the applicant to hide behind an
LLC and come up with every exemption that you can find is unacceptable and
doesn't fit into our community. Maytin said he is in favor of saving the building
but it is more than the building it is the whole area. Maytin said that he wanted the
applicant to sit in front of the commissions and the fact is that person won't do
that; is that person part of our community at this point; not at all. Maytin said he
didn't even know if this person lives here. Maytin said will they be able to protect
the park and the bluff and the applicant has to come back with more specifics and
14
i I' li III I
P38 Joint Citv Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes —
January 04, 2011
at this point he is in favor in asking Council to rezone the property so that nothing
can be built there and then the community wins. He doesn't see the application as
a negotiation and he will not support this application as it is presented right now.
LJ Erspamer asked Mitch if they have looked at the Aspen Valley Land Trust or
selling this to a private person or a conservation easement. Erspamer asked if they
represent CU or the developer. Mitch Haas replied they work for the purchaser.
Erspamer said this property was really like a sanctuary on one side. Erspamer
supports the regular view; the city buying the property was a good idea. Erspamer
asked about that house on the property; are there any thoughts of historic
designation for that blue house. Guthrie responded that it was a Victorian era
building and it wasn't designated because CU wasn't subject to the City's rules; it
has historic significance. Erspamer said the road and driveway is challenging at
best; how wide does that road need to be. Haas replied 16 feet. Erspamer said it
looks like you could drive through there without impacting the trees; the road
should be described with taking out the least amount of trees. Erspamer said that
he was not in favor of 10 year vested rights; the bluff setbacks would be mandated.
Erspamer said if this building was demolished and the zoning was R -6 what could
they put on that site with an easy application. Bendon replied with a PUD you can
proposed practically anything; zoning by right. Guthrie stated a single family
house or duplex or 2 detached might not require any land use reviews or public
input. Bendon said by right is a house of 6200 square feet or so. Erspamer said he
wasn't concerned about who the owner is because ever person should be treated
the same but he would go back to the city buying this.
Ann Mullins strongly supported the historic designation but not just as a building
but as a cultural landscape; Parks Department has done a great job explaining the
potential risks of the extensive building that is being proposed so this plan is not
worth the Given if you are going to give up ACES and potential effects to the eco-
system there. Mullins said they were in a difficult position for the city and
philanthropy for the city and what kind of example is this. Mullins said she did not
agree with this plan proposed specifically the building envelopes were way too
Large and should not support being exempt from all of the various regulatory tools
that we have; circulation is poorly figured out; the one year option is a risky thing
to accept. Mullins thought something could be done on this site without taking out
so many trees, there are areas that aren't as wooded. Mullins said that nothing was
acceptable that was presented here tonight.
15
_
Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — P39
January 04, 2011
MOTION: LJErspamer moved to extend to 7.30pm; seconded by Bert Myrin.
All in favor, APPROVED.
Jamie McLeod said that she was torn on this; she agrees with saving the Given but
the Given was given to CU without the requirement of it staying with CU and
without the requirements of Paepcke saying it can't be tom down so it wasn't
given to the city but actually to CU. McLeod said whatever the purchase price is
whatever somebody thinks its value is; it is not up to this board to deem what it is
worth. McLeod cautioned the board on making some harsh stance because this
owner is a private entity. McLeod agrees with preserving the trees, smaller
building envelopes, smaller FAR, preserving the bluff that were key things that the
applicant needs to consider. McLeod said they can come up with a better plan for
the site and she didn't really care who the owner is but would like them to be a
little more sensitive to the site. McLeod said that City Council should look at the
fee waivers and not these commissions.
Brian McNellis agreed that this needed to proceed with caution; he agreed with
everyone that spoke. McNellis wanted to see everything preserved to the greatest
extent that it can. McNellis said his main concern was what could happen to
ACES and the appropriate amount of trees; the setback from the top so that we are
protecting the natural amenities of ACES.
Jay Maytin said that Jamie wanted to see a more sensitive approach to this
application; he said by the applicant not sitting in front of us it helps that person
not be sensitive. Maytin said the lack of sensitivity towards our rules might stem
from anonymity.
Stan Gibbs agreed with everyone that has spoken tonight that this is an important
building in the history of Aspen and has a lot of value to the community and there
is a certain point that you can't sacrifice your principals and values for a bunch or
bricks. Gibbs said if the applicant can come up with a much more sensitive plan
but it would have to be pretty sensitive; reading this application and by the time he
got to the end of it he said that he was almost livid. Gibbs said the applicant is
using this building as a battering ram to our values, principals, land use code, the
AACP; everything that we have embodied in our documents and values in our
community. Gibbs said that he could never recommend to go forward to City
Council with this proposal.
Myrin said that he would support the possibility of using Garmisch.
16
II
P40 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes —
January 04, 2011
Bendon said there were comments from the public and the board about the position
that CU has put this community in; there are folks in this room that can provide the
leverage to CU to provide a little more time and flexibility. Bendon said there are
often times that partnership or consortium that comes together that is outside the
land use process and he encouraged folks to help move this along.
MOTION: LJErspamer moved to continue the joint hearing on behalf of P&Z to
Wednesday January 19` seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor, APPROVED.
MOTION: Jason Lasser moved to continue the joint hearing on behalf of HPC to
Wednesday, January 19` seconded by Jay Maytin. All in favor APPROVED.
P &Z did not want to elect the chair and Vice -chair with only 4 members present.
Adjourned at 7:35 pm
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
17
IIaI I 111
P41
HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC
201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 - ASPEN, CO 81 61 1 - (970) 925-7819 - MHAAS @SOPRIS.NET
To: City of Aspen Thru: Amy Guthrie Date: January 12, 2011
Subject: The Given Institute Landmark Designation, Subdivision,
and Ordinance 48 Negotiation
Introduction:
This memo provides a summary of revisions to the proposed Given Landmark Designation,
Subdivision and Ordinance 48 Negotiation application. A great deal of feedback has been received
and heard from the various City Departments, the HPC, the P &Z, and many concerned citizens. The
applicant has revised the proposal in many significant ways to address the concerns that have been
voiced in as comprehensive a manner as possible. The applicant's proposal attempts to not only
preserve the Given building and maintain its use as a non - profit facility, but also to preserve the
grounds of the property to the greatest extent practicable while protecting the resource and other
values of the adjacent ACES property. (A new /revised proposed Site Plan is attached.)
The applicant has made every effort to address staff and community concerns, preserve a
cultural and historic asset, and maintain the unique character of Aspen and the West End,
while creating a feasible development plan.
The significance of these goals cannot be overstated as the current owner of the property (CU) could
go ahead with legally demolishing the building and doing as it pleases with the grounds of the
property. The City has made several attempts to avert CU's demolition of the structure, and this
application represents the best available option to ensure an acceptable and achievable balancing of
community goals and values. After all, unlike her donations of the ACES and Aspen Historical
Society properties, Elizabeth Paepcke's sale of the Given property to the University of Colorado had
no restrictions on future use, and a limited period of time when she retained the right to review any
proposed construction; the covenant allowing her right to review such proposals expired in the
1990s.
Ordinance 48 envisions a "mutually acceptable agreement" and "other benefits" when a property
owner is pursuing Landmark status for its listed property. In exchange for the voluntary historic
preservation of the Given Institute, a summary of the benefits sought by the applicant includes the
following:
1. Lease and Purchase Option Agreement Provisions, including but not limited to reimbursement of
affordable housing and impact fees;
2. Subdivision into a total of four (4) lots;
1
t" r J1Pir0 ,il
P42
3. Approval of a base allowable FAR for each lot (to be specified on the Final Subdivision Plat)
and issuance of three Transferable Development Rights (TDR; 3 per lot = 9 total) that can be
used on and /or sold by the owner(s) of each of the three new free - market residential lots;
4. Platting of building envelopes that provide a minimum setback of 221/2 feet from the top of the
bluff overlooking Hallam Lake, with an associated requirement subjecting the portions of
proposed Lots 2 and 3 located within the City's mapped ESA boundary to the provisions and
requirements of Hallam Lake Bluff Review (HLBR) as enumerated in Code Section 26.435.060
(including but not limited to those associated with public hearing requirements, a progressive
height limit and exterior lighting). The easterly boundaries of the proposed Lot 3 and 4 building
envelopes will be exempt from HLBR where located outside of the City's mapped ESA. The
building envelopes will replace and supersede the otherwise applicable setback requirements of
the R -6 zone district;
5. Growth Management approval for up to four (4) Free- Market Residential Allotments from the
2010 GMQS Development Allotments, with exemptions from the date deadlines and submittal
requirements of Code Section 26.470.110, and from the scoring criteria of Code Section
26.470.120;
6. Exemption from the limited yet otherwise applicable portions of the Residential Design Review
Standards of Chapter 26.410;
7. Compliance with and variations from the City's Tree Removal Mitigation Requirements;
8. Ten (10) years of vested property rights.
Each of the requested incentives, as revised, is described below.
Ordinance 48 Negotiation:
1. Lease & Purchase Option Agreement Provisions, including but not limited to
reimbursement of affordable housing and impact fees
The terms of the lease and purchase option offered to the City have not changed since the original
submittal. As stated in that submittal, if either the City or an assignee exercises the purchase option,
the Given Building will be restricted by covenant to non - profit uses that would not unreasonably
disturb or interfere with the use and enjoyment of the surrounding free - market residences. A
draft /proposed lease and covenant will be provided after the applicant is confident that the proposed
plan will move forward to City Council.
2. Subdivision
The subdivision proposal remains unchanged, although the Site Plan and proposed building
envelopes have been altered significantly. An updated conceptual plan of the proposed subdivision
is attached hereto. The applicant will coordinate compliance with all applicable fire code and related
access /turn- around requirements with the Fire Marshal prior to submitting a building permit
application for the construction of the access driveway. However, contrary to Engineering
Department recommendations, the applicant is not willing to either reconstruct the entire Garmisch
2
P43
Street/East Francis Street intersection, or install sidewalks in the right -of -way along the property
frontage at this intersection. The former is beyond the scope of impacts that can be attributed to the
proposed development, and the latter is inconsistent with sidewalk policies for the West End
neighborhood and would provide a sidewalk that simply ends and leads to nowhere.
3. Approval of base allowable FAR for each lot and Issuance of three Transferable
Development Rights (TDR; 3 per lot = 9 total) that can be used on and /or sold by the
owner(s) of each of Lots 2 -4
As explained in the staff memorandum to the HPC and P &Z (dated January 4, 2011), the original
proposal involved approvals to allow a base FAR of 5,500 square feet on each of Lots 2 -4 with the
right to land a 250 square foot TDR for each residence, thereby allowing up to 5,750 square feet of
floor area on each of these lots.
The same staff memorandum explained that, per the R -6 zoning, the allowable base duplex FAR on
each of the proposed Lots 2 -4 after accounting for slope reductions is 4,582sf, 4,595sf and 4,530sf,
respectively. Consequently, it was presented that the applicant was seeking FAR bonuses of 918sf,
905sf and 970sf on Lots 2, 3 and 4, respectively, plus the ability to land an additional 250sf of FAR
on each lot through the use of TDR (one TDR = 250sf of FAR). In the end, these figures would
enable the potential development to exceed the allowable duplex FAR of the R -6 zoning by 1,168sf
on Lot 2, 1, 155sf on Lot 3, and 1,220sf on Lot 4.
Instead, the applicant is now revising the proposal to allow the R -6 duplex FAR on each of Lots 2 -4
as the base allowable FAR: 4,582sf on Lot 2, 4,595sf on Lot 3 and 4,530sf on Lot 4. In addition, for
preservation of the Given structure and the overall efforts being made by the applicant, City Council
is asked to issue three TDRs to each of Lots 2 -4; these TDR would be the property of the lot
owner(s) and may or may not be used for on -site development (any TDR that are not used can be
sold on the open market).
4. Establishment of Building Envelopes
The applicant is seeking to have building envelopes established for each of the three (3) new Tots.
The revised /currently proposed building envelopes provide a minimum setback of 221/2 feet from the
top of the bluff overlooking Hallam Lake, with an associated requirement subjecting the portions of
proposed Lots 2 and 3 located within the City's mapped ESA boundary to the provisions and
requirements of Hallam Lake Bluff Review (HLBR) as enumerated in Code Section 26.435.060.
The easterly boundaries of the proposed Lot 3 and 4 building envelopes will not be subject to HLBR
where located outside of the City's mapped Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). The building
envelopes will replace and supersede the otherwise applicable setback requirements of the R -6 zone
district to the extent that differences may exist. Also, the flexibility provided by the building
envelopes approach, as opposed to prescribed setbacks, will allow greater creativity in design to
better enable sensitivity to the historic resource.
3
P44
The top of slope line shown on the proposed site plan was field located by the surveyor and
accepted /approved by the City Engineer, as required under Section 26.104.090 of the Code. The
City Code allows development located fifteen (15) feet from the Hallam Lake Bluff top of slope,
subject to a progressive height limit and other requirements. Further, the Code exempts all
development located thirty (30) or more feet from the top of slope from the requirements or
processes otherwise associated with HLBR.
The applicant has "split the difference" by providing a minimum setback, via building envelope
restrictions, of 22'% feet from the top of the bluff (halfway between 15' and 30') overlooking Hallam
Lake, while consenting to the typical Code requirements for the portions of proposed Lots 2 and 3
located within the City's mapped ESA boundary. In other words, along with the increased minimum
setback from the top of slope, development within the portions of the envelopes on Lots 2 and 3
located within the mapped ESA will be subject to the provisions and requirements of HLBR as
enumerated in Code Section 26.435.060 (including but not limited to those associated with public
hearing requirements, a progressive height limit and exterior lighting). The 22''/ foot minimum
setback guarantees a setback that is at least 7'/z feet greater than that required by the Code on any
other property subject to HLBR.
The easterly boundaries of the proposed Lot 3 and 4 building envelopes will not be subject to HLBR
where located outside of the City's mapped ESA. There has been some discussion that the City's
mapping of the ESA may be in error and that the ESA should actually extend down the entire eastern
side of the subject property as well. This has not yet been verified by anyone and the description
provided in the Code of the area to which the HLBR is applicable is "clear as mud," so to speak.
Specifically, the Code provides that,
All development in that bluff area running approximately on a north -south axis
bordering and/or overlooking the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies nature
preserve and bounded on the east by the 7,850 foot mean sea level elevation line and
extending one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, up slope and there
terminating, and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of Lot 7A of the Aspen
Company Subdivision, and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street, shall
be subject to the review standards as set forth in this Section.
The cited description is not easily deciphered. As such, the applicant relied on the expertise of the
City's GIS Department in its mapping of the ESA, as, such is indicated on the City of Aspen's
Official Zone District Map. The notion that all land area north of the West Francis Street centerline
is subject to HLBR is contrary to the clear fact that the Code exempts all development located thirty
(30) or more feet from the top of slope from any and all requirements otherwise associated with
HLBR. Moreover, the slope on the easterly side of the subject property is not the bluff of Hallam
Lake, nor does it overlook Hallam Lake. In light of the foregoing and the existence of so many other
competing development constraints present on the Given property, to the extent that it might be
verified that HLBR is applicable to the entire east side of the subject property as well as its north
4
P45
side, the applicant respectfully requests as part of the Ordinance 48 negotiation that all areas outside
of the City- mapped ESA be fully exempt from HLBR.
In a further effort to address concerns that have been raised relative to the Hallam Lake Bluff area
and ACES, the applicant is agreeing to additional restrictions and requirements not specifically
enumerated in the Code. For instance, the revised Site Plan provides that all area below the field -
located and approved top of slope line, plus that 22'/z foot wide area between the top of slope line
and the northerly boundaries of the Lot 2 and 3 building envelopes, will be officially designated on
the Subdivision Plat as a "No Development/No Disturbance Zone" with only two minor and
necessary exceptions: 1) removal of the existing building that encroaches into this area and site
reclamation afterwards; and 2) normal trail maintenance on the existing gravel path to ACES. Along
with this restriction, the applicant is also volunteering a condition of approval requiring provision of
a hydrologic study to the City prior to issuance of any building permits to ensure that new
development does not negatively impact the hydrology of the ACES site /property.
5. Growth Management Approval Free - Market Residential Allotments from the 2010
GMQS Development Allotments, with Exemptions
The portion of the proposal made relative to the Growth Management regulations remains
unchanged.
6. Exemption from Residential Design Standards and Review
The portion of the proposal made relative to an exemption from the Residential Design Standards
remains unchanged. As explained in the original submittal, and as verified in the January 4, 2011,
staff memorandum to the HPC and P &Z, since the proposed lots will not have street frontage,
pursuant to Code Section 26.410.010(B)(4), the lots are already exempt from Subsection
26.410.040(A)(1), Building Orientation, and Subsection 26.410.040(D), Building Elements, in their
entirety. Subsection 26.410.040(A)(2) would also be inapplicable as each lot is more than 15,000
square feet in size.
The only design standards that would be applicable to the proposed lots relate to fences, building
form and parking, garages and carports. Given the very limited potential applicability of the design
standards and the fact that any future development on these lots will not be visible from the street,
staff agreed in the January 4 memorandum that the requested exemption would not be detrimental to
the Code - stated purpose of the standards.
7. Exemption from the Tree Removal Mitigation Requirements
In the January 4 staff memorandum to the HPC and P &Z, staff points out in fairness that, "11 must be
recognized that this is private property and not in fact a park. While a vote for public purchase was
considered, it has not been pursued.... The goal of this review is to balance the many legitimate
goals of the property owner and the public." It is in this spirit of balancing goals that staff
5
P46
recommended the building envelopes and access drive be redesigned using the heritage trees that
have been mapped by the Parks Department as an underlying concern. Along these lines, staff
specifically requested that the applicant "examine use of the 24' wide strip of unimproved Garmisch
Street right -of -way that runs along the west boundary of the site for vehicular access to the
residential lots. Using Garmisch may minimize tree issues and provide outdoor programming space
for an end user of the Given." The applicant's revised Site Plan attached hereto does exactly what
staff has suggested and, to reiterate a salient point made in the original submittal and which remains
valid today, the applicant intends to preserve as many trees as practicable. After careful analysis of
all means of vehicular access, we concur with staff in that utilizing the Garmisch right -of -way is the
least destructive and disruptive means of access.
The recently completed survey of the subject property included mapping of all trees that would be
subject to the City's tree removal mitigation requirements, if proposed for removal. The survey
provided caliper measurements for each such tree as well as a measurement of each tree's drip line
diameter. The City Parks' Department mapping of the heritage trees does not seem to have been
completed to an accurate scale and appears to overstate the diameter of many drip lines by as much
as 40 -50 %. The applicant used the surveyed diameters in preparation of the revised Site Plan.
The resulting Site Plan provides the suggested balancing of the many legitimate goals of the
property owner and the public by saving/preserving as many as twenty (20) of the twenty -one
(21) heritage trees mapped /designated by the Parks Department. The one heritage tree located
right in the center of the proposed Lot 2 building envelope will be the unfortunate victim of
compromise in the spirit of balancing goals. Good faith efforts, in coordination with the
recommendations of the Parks Department, will be employed in attempting to preserve and, as
necessary, prune the two heritage trees flanking the location where the access drive will leave the
Garmisch right -of -way and enter the subject property; should these trees be lost despite these efforts,
they will be mitigated in the manner and to the extent described below.
Removal of the heritage tree on Lot 2 (and, if necessary, either or both of those flanking the access
drive) will be mitigated to the extent possible and subject to a plan that will be reviewed and
approved by the Parks Department with new tree plantings to be located within the designated
building envelopes, the landscape envelopes and /or the adjacent rights -of -way; however, any
shortfall on such mitigation plantings resulting from a lack of adequate space will simply go unmet
(and will not be made up through payment of cash -in- lieu). Other regulated but non - heritage trees
on the site will be protected and preserved to the extent practicable but, if removed, mitigation will
be in the same manner as described for the proposed removal of the single heritage tree within the
Lot 2 building envelope. In no event will new plantings be made within the "No Development/No
Disturbance Zone" as site preparations, irrigation and associated requirements for such plantings
could negatively affect slope stability and the natural condition of that area.
Finally, while considered by the applicant, use of the existing access drive alignment does not
provide a feasible alternative. First, that drive would need to be widened and improved to meet
Code requirements and this might result in the damage or loss of several heritage trees not only
6
P47
where it enters the site but also along the southerly boundary of proposed Lot 1 (adjacent to the
existing pedestrian/bike path). Further, to provide adequate turning radii for emergency service
vehicles, a wide turn around the southeast corner of the Given building would be required; this
would result in the definite loss of the two heritage trees now being preserved on proposed Lot 4 as
well as the loss of one or two of the Lot 1 heritage trees (closest to the Lot 1 /Lot 4 property line). In
addition, with the continuation of such an access driveway to the north to serve proposed Lots 2 and
3, not only would additional heritage trees likely be compromised but the resulting building
envelope on Lot 4 would become too narrow. The currently proposed access plan is more efficient
and more sensitive to the site than would be use of the existing access drive after being improved
and extended in the manner that would be necessary.
S. Vested Property Rights
The applicant continues to request a 10 year period of vested property rights associated with the site
specific development plan approved pursuant to this application so as to ensure an adequate degree
of reliability on such approvals into the future.
Summary:
It is the applicant's desire to see the Given Building preserved as a historic landmark and the
integrity of the surrounding grounds maintained to the greatest extent practicable. As incentives and
in exchange for this preservation effort, the applicant seeks benefits that are enumerated in the Code
as appropriate for designated landmarks. As stated in Code Section 26.420.010(A),
Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by owners of historic properties is
[sic] an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a
valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the
creation fan innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country.
Ordinance 48 was adopted to address, through negotiation of incentives for designation, the negative
impacts that the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and
general well being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspen's unique
architectural character, livability, and attractiveness as a destination.
We believe that the requested incentives, as revised herein and by the accompanying Site Plan, are
fully appropriate and warranted in exchange for providing a substantial community benefit and
valuable community asset by landmark designating a building whose integrity assessment achieves a
near perfect score of 96, is significant in the field of education, and embodies the aesthetic
achievements of Harry Weese, an internationally known architect who contributed to Modern Era
Aspen architecture. The City has already demonstrated its strong desire to see this building granted
landmark status. As such, it is earnestly hoped that the requested incentives will be agreed to and the
subject property (Lot 1) will be added to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures.
7
1 1 111 1
om
�g 3 4 �- 0 m 0m ` 1 1.11
' ° 'e a ° U y$ Pp
. i Ili i
^! k ° Et N tO LJJ Z 4 b 1, t Y .Q ° oS Q U m � J N ��
! l P 1 li : a w W e E O W W � il I .S > o ill, 1 . f ¢
U 2 'g
_ $ 1 s As ° 7.
9 a' g 0
LL b > t u r f m a W pF ' dam o 5 �" 3 ivi '
O F NO O ) F ° d " .s° , U• U' K
vv11 o V C¢ p ¢O V OF. r15 ¢ O
W 4. P Wit. 2.. .R 4 ZN n 2 g W
co
n , \, , I : , Y •
1 :: ]: / •. r u
co ° I : :: is • •• ° ° ° F w
w �y I s :s:: ?: :•• o 0 o N m
F- Nr I I ::;:: 1
p � O Z I :: 1 ...� •
z „, 0
Z oz W I: 1 : • j � x': V
W w g Z J W -0' ' ° F'
U' - Yn I +
TYP.
q I ) ry o
N ri tE N YY. rc3 C °�M(J�
N y� N Z WLL w
¢ ¢ W $
y j J�a• Z pF
u o 0 ° a ,0 2 ',1
¢ w a. m uS
\\ a ImAt 50
aij J
-'.i. � ,� ,. /iii a g _ '0`
:.: ,,� • . ,. .� ;N pISTUR Q
/ gq I CE / ND_
V .. ti 1/4 it / g _ ! W r te\\ ,
,i / r [ tg /' ,..1 ; 0 g
s- if
• a • 1 sd c --� #1:
!
If .
i ; I , ” I A li / / J �`���:::;;4•21;‘,.*:•:,:.•■••• 1.' N V -:
4 ; 1 � $ l , 0, ''', r' / � d % % % J N f� \ \ W . it 4 4 - -. .P.Oe - $$ _ ��. �'T 1 .,.�)�..�����3do134N3 / �� < - i' W I I 3 � • .1. ' t1 ' (' � 1 . ! ) F 1 11 � n
� � / a c! a
/ /
7 3A N3 V 0'.� t,, , , •
1' ..1A...
�,fi I ►� 'e •
3 NI OI/ n /' �m ♦ { *� � � - / rn
///) !' a / 1a3eno.. r I 1 � s •�'♦ i1 , r 1 p • .• �� Ir� • � /
. 1 ‘ .1 ‘ . 4 11: : I . I i l i ipi 0
� u fj .�� l ►1► J
ii. 4,f::: 1 ddili
/ r ' ' / 6 O a / �— I xDj3 N3' /ai r n ai 1 /Mali L L j W fr l 1 S `z� • / e/ 1 1 . U) p I'a o
j X11 co 0rn I.N :
. / . "4o t \ l ie 1 fn l b , 1 1 1 f . l ° 0
7 / ti i ( ;� ) b�t l
l p - 1 1 ' ;� 1 J gp ; y y7 �sr 1
f' -' I I N p. I J N
111, , I P o 14 I
I/
/ \, ` � N (
,b 1 .4, — , i lkillik
2 1 1 4 ' / , fli:!' -------
g 5 .100 ...ri,
i ' 474 - . -., ., ,.. • ! 1 a N ¢
4 • I 1*--
• . I '” ..41 4O1 /••I 1 ` was. • I as / ^' • ..
I
i I
I I a sr mlra� _ ° �� h a lts
1 ° 3 ' \v:. : . : . / f Hug
' I LLw�
/ y
q
1 d
1
I
1
c
o -EM iijii
o W 11111
N E N y 5 N gg 4 Q U m W 9
"�' g 2 2 d O b N �_ d
_m 8 Ey 8 S Z z W � w a � • a dd!
3 r 21 a � � W w w kfl'
y acn
O 2 O
4
3 yy > 5 1 S U Z O
j---- ° O W D °— 1T ; w Z W� g
f �i I r y a� a w 2 X Z~ za mo o\ /y� •tl u U W (� - I - > O O ~ 2 `1 I W Z >Z w E gg t 6 °w °g °o w w � d $
I 1 /JJZ o
p Z j %! . 0 n i a < p -:-- I
° O IO a° Z I LI, O - o r 3
IL
II ___.
;! ; a r� i2.4). 2� 11D
le.oi, / sto
li {'I�
p � ww N Z
6 > Oin poll
a < a y <
R
t3 E o
0 rc o wgT F `/'w
110 a
1206 66°.4
1d
=W
h w
/ b
).:, ,• — --- -- / •
4 -- / [-:7
/ > STURB 1:1-11,
E1-OP iii I/ e � � A CE / N O � -- _ .
' ' i�
' ��F d (� o _' tug' ,�ao13N ONminel �`
•
_ 5m� -w.•. . `° a /� • - /
,, p / / ._ / O t / M / i - ; • : : \ $ N z `' -'�
m I o N
/ A : 41 ( I , q
. i 1 O s' I t ai ( � � � t ' '(� � .
I
/ / ' • ..., 47 / i'%41 ,-
alr c541 IR: 1 / 3'1°1 ar' < r i, 4 I ;
fl LL
co w ie / B !
^V 4, 1 > 1
I � w ��
/ / . r PS! - _ f H / 4-4i pC
, R ( 0 * /' I Oei_' kI I
ODUh , / ---
., #
1 g0
1 1 I g 1 / N _ /.. -• 1 i A AIN . i • k - -----)
/ N/01 ' ■ -__ _______
''' - ''' . r r ' I -N1‘2?
.40 40 0 4 Nz
' :44:\11 \ ,,
-,1 , o , 8 P 8 4 •k- to i t 2 ` ` tZ ___________
i
i `; -�� < ego * ��►, � � ; -----1 -'!-!- 1 2. : ,,„/ � -_ ■
M WyyJ
1 x O W
1 W<p M s 1
0.
/ j - wEi" p° a rx
h l , ��� W
; U _
EXHIBIT
GoIcI Leaf Gardons
RECEIVED
January 10, 2011 JAN 1 4 2011
ATTENTION: Amy Guthrie CITY OF ASPEN
RE: Given Institute COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To The City of Aspen, HPC and P &Z Commission,
I am writing to express my objection to the current housing development proposal at the
Given Institute Property. The level of density that includes three, possibly four oversized
single family homes is extremely inappropriate at this location as it will destroy one of
Aspen's treasured sites with historic gardens and magnificent city designated heritage
trees. Additionally, such development will negatively impact the wild bluff preserve
overlooking Hallam Lake and the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES).
Furthermore, it would be in direct conflict of continuing with Aspen's historic tradition -
"The Aspen Idea" of creating a space that feeds the Mind, Body and Spirit.
Please consider the dire consequences of this SC Acquisitions development proposal for
this extraordinary and sensitive site.
I will echo the sentiments of P&Z chairman, Stan Gibbs and so many of the residents and
review board members in attendance at the January 4 meeting, that the destruction of this
exceptionally beautiful site including 51 specimen conifers should NOT be the cost of
saving the Given Institute building.
Sincerel
a a 5
Shugars
Owner, Gold Leaf Gardens
Gardener - Given Institute 1984 — 2005
Garden Director - Jonathan Lewis property 2006 — present
Member Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
"In wilderness is the preservation of the world" Henry David Thoreau
P.Q. box 2283 • basalt, Co. 81 621 • Phone /Fax 970- 927-4563
GREENBERG VAN DOREN IGALLERY
EXt
January 6, 2011
JAN 1 d 2011
Coy 0
The City of Aspen CO F A pE
City Hall E0o4„.
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
To Whom It May Concern:
As a resident of Aspen living near The Given Institute, the idea of giving the new
developer the power to cut down fifty trees along with other exemption requests,
should not be passed. The developer should have to deal with their situation as any
other individual would.
Sincerely,
7 pta }A_ k.
Ronald K. Greenberg
cc: Tom Cardamone
3540 WASHINGTON AVENUE 1 ST. LOIIIS, MO 163103
p 3 1 4 . 3 6 1. 7 6 0 0 1 f 3 1 4. 3 6 1. 7 7 4 3