Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20050914ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 14, 2005 5:00 P.M. SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISIT: NOON - Please site visit the Aspen Meadows Health Center and the Red Brick Arts Center on your own. I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - August l0th and August 24th minutes III. Public Comments IV. Commissioner member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #35) VIII. IX. Xe OLD BUSINESS A. 332 W. Main Street - Major Development Review - Conceptual and Variances, Public Hearing continued from August l0th - 20 min. NEW BUSINESS A. 920/930 Matchless Drive, Major Development - Final, Public Hearing - 20 min. B. Red Brick Arts Center, Referral Comment - 25 min. C. Aspen Meadows Health Center, Major Development - Conceptual - Public Hearing - 40 min. WORKSESSION A. 308 E. Hopkins (La Cocina) - 30 min. XI. Adjourn 7:15 p.m. ~~ MEMORANDUM ~,..>-' TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Joyce Allg~puty Community Development Director THRU: FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 920/930 Matchless Drive- Major Development Review (Final)- Public Hearing. DATE: September 14, 2005 SUMMARY: The project before HPC involves a large lot that contains two miner's cottages. The cottages were moved to Matchless Drive along with another pair of Victorians (one of which has been since been demolished) in about the 1960's. The applicant plans to pursue a lot split through the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to divide the site approximately in half. The miner's cottage at 920 Matchless and a new unit built behind it will be free market. 930 Matchless will contain one free market unit in the Victorian house, and an ADU over a garage at the back of the lot. At this time, the applicant is only prepared for HPC review of the 930 Matchless side of the property. HPC granted Conceptual approval, Relocation (to install a basement), Demolition (of non- historic additions), and Variances (an FAR bonus and setback variances) for this project on August 10th Staff finds that the design guidelines are met. Major Development (Final) approval IS recommended with conditions. APPLICANT: Peter and Chris Dodaro, represented by Kim Raymond Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-074-22-001. ADDRESS: 920/930 Matchless Drive, Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 PUD. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the llesign 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 1 recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of ,-. Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project (note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time): . 1. Why is the property significant? 2. What are the key features of the property? 3. What is the character ofthe context? How sensitive is the context to changes? 4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? 5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the """ property? ......,) The properties are significant as part of a relatively small group of remaining miner's cottages in Aspen that have not been significantly expanded. They have been moved to an area that contains few Victorian buildings. These cabins still retain a small scale and have had a munber of alterations that may be reversed. Desien Guideline review Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those which staff finds warrant discussion are included in the memo. The architect has successfully designed an addition that has good separation from the historic house, and the fact that the garage and ADU are in a completely detached structure avoids overwhelming the historic cottage with new construction. Currently the cottage is covered with stucco, which is to be removed and replaced with wood siding as part of this project. Original window locations will be researched during the demolition phase of the project, and, working with staff and monitor, the window pattern will be accurately restored to the extent possible. New window units should match the historic unit on the porch (if it is in fact original) and must be wood. Other minor opportunities to repair or restore elements of the building should be undertaken as required for the 500 square foot FAR bonus that HPC has awarded. "" "",,,#, 2 All of the new construction is to be sided with Hardi-Panel siding and have clad windows and asphalt roofing. Departures from that palette are the steel and cable deck railing on the new addition, the corrugated metal "shed" on the west side of the addition and an area of Polygal roofing over the stairway on the west fayade of the garage/ADU. Staff finds that the proposed materials meet the design guidelines. The applicant has not prepared a landscape plan for review at this time, nor have exterior light fixtures been selected. These will be conditions of approval. The one element which should be clarified at this point is that alllightwells on the historic building and addition must have grates, instead of railings around them so that the basement addition has limited above ground impact and does not result in incompatible features being placed around tile base of the house. The following guidelines are relevant: 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. D Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. D Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. D It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character ofthe primary building is maintained. D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. The detached building includes a three car garage. One of the "Residential Design Standards" requires that double stall garage doors be designed to appear like single stall doors (through the use of applied trim, etc.) This modification has been listed as a condition of approval. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: . approve the application, . approve the application with conditions, . disapprove the application, or . continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. , .) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development (Final) with the following conditions: I. A 500 square foot FAR bonus was granted at Conceptual approval with the condition that staff and monitor work with the applicant to determine all reasonable exterior restoration opportunities, including placing siding on all elevations of the cabin, restoring the location and design of original windows and doors, and reversing minor alterations. The siding on the historic part of the building must be wood clapboard with a 4" exposure and the replacement windows must be wood. 2. A 4' front yard setback variance was granted at Conceptual approval to legalize the existing location of the front porch, and a west side yard setback variance of up to 5' is granted to accommodate the proximity of lightwell on the west side of 930 Matchless Drive to the proposed new lot line. 3. On-Site Relocation was granted at Conceptual approval. At that time, standard conditions of approval were omitted from the memo. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 must be submitted with the building permit application to insure the safe relocation of the structure. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 4. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what original materials appear to still exist on the structure, and what treatments will be used to retain them. 5. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 6. HPC staff and monitor must approve a landscape plan for the project prior to its installation. 7. Alllightwells around the historic house and addition must be covered with grates. 8. The double stall garage door must be modified to look like single stall doors. 9. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 10. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 11. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 12. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 13. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 14. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 4 ~ "'-'-"":- ~ ...... ~y" ~ "",,,,," Exhibits: A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. Application Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines Final Review 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. D This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. D Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. D Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. D The front yard should be maintained in a traditional marmer, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. D Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. D Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. D It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. D Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. D If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. D Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 2.10 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. D Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. D If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. o Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. 5 D Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. D Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. D Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that ofthe original window. D A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. D Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. D Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. D If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. D If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. D Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. D A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. D A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. D Simple paneled doors were typical. D Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. D Repair only those features that are deteriorated. D Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, usmg recognized preservation methods whenever possible. D Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. D Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. D Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. D If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. D Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. 6 ,-. ".-",," """'I ,-. "_.,,,,," '"., D If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. D A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. D The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. D Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. D Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. D Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property . D These include windows, doors and porches. D Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. D This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. D Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. D The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. D All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. D Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. D Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. D Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. D Do not wash an entire building facade in light. 7 DAvoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. D A void duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 8 ""'"' "..,",," ~ - RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE, LOT 5, ALPINE ACRES SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2005 PARCEL ID: 2737-074-22-001 WHEREAS, the applicants, Peter and Chris Dodaro, represented by Kim Raymond Architects, have requested Major Development (Final) for the property located at 920/930 Matchless Drive, Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, 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 Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 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 September 14, 2005, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 14, 2005, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of _ to _' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Major Development (Final) for the property located at 920/930 Matchless Drive, Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. A 500 square foot FAR bonus was granted at Conceptual approval with the condition that staff and monitor work with the applicant to determine all reasonable exterior restoration opportunities, including placing siding on all elevations of the cabin, restoring the location and design of original windows and doors, and reversing minor alterations. The siding on the historic part of the building must be wood clapboard with a 4" exposure and the replacement windows must be wood. 2. A 4' front yard setback variance was granted at Conceptual approval to legalize the existing location of the front porch, and a west sideyard setback variance of up to 5' is granted to accommodate the proximity of lightwell on the west side of 930 Matchless Drive to the proposed new lot line. 3. On-Site Relocation was granted at Conceptual approval. At that time, standard conditions of approval were omitted from the memo. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 must be submitted with the building permit application to insure the safe relocation of the structure. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 4. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what original materials appear to still exist on the structure, and what treatments will be used to retain them. 5. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 6. HPC stail and monitor must approve a landscape plan for the project prior to its installation. 7. Alllightwells around the historic house and addition must be covered with grates. 8. The double stall garage door must be modified to look like single stall doors. 9. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 10. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what . areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 11. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 12. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 13. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 14. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of September 2005. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney ......., ""......' ~ ~ Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk KIM RAYMQND ARCHITECTS . . """'I .............. August 29, 2005 Historic Preservation Commission 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 re: 920 matchless drive Dear Members of the Commission, This letter outlines what we will do in our Final Development Plan to be sure to include the stipulations put upon our project and the representations we have made during the Conceptual Review process. The restoration of the original cottage is the major concern of the HPC. Thus, in our demolrenovation stage we will be diligent in ascertaining the size of the original windows. If the new picture windows have completely removed any framing relating to the original windows, we will research the size of windows that were used in other cottages of the time to determine the size of our replacement windows. The trim will also be corrected. ~ As for the siding, we will remove the stucco that has been added to the east and west elevations, and replace it with lap siding to match the existing front fayade. The siding on the new part of the buildi'1g will be a different width and profile to be distinguished from the old. Again, thank you for your help in this project. We look forward to working with you as we move into the construction phase. Best regards, Kim Raymond Kim Raymond Architects - 4]2 north mill street. aspen, colorado 81611. tel/lax 970.925.2252. kraymond@aspeninfo.com ,. .... ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: it.;b 0'30 y)1AUJ..ll.--e.SS rpj2\vt.. (C;OO~ '12esIObr~J Applicant: ft}/I!.' " CHK.I:S f.;bOAte.O Location: qW. q'7,c) m "r1ZJ-I.'-os S 1) fZ/ vlZ. Zone District: R. - (I PUV Lot Size: -1.iL~7_<( .%> rl'. Lot Area: l~ri1r_?q. Fl". (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) ,/'+ Commercial net leasable: Existing:_llllf__Proposed:-- Number of residential units: Existing:~~~.froposed:~ Number of bedrooms: Existing: (f) Proposed: 7 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): 4070 (--r..lIS I';> -f""A!<:146 D~F AU- --rt-lE- AV\?I-rIO/-\ ':> -10 -rt+E.. oi2..\6/I--.\AL (.. o-f'-f""A<=rE.'5) Floor Area: Existing:'; 7 2f, ?lj111owable:7 4?B-.Proposed:J15~.. v.:./"&'Ylt..lS-t Existing: i7 !.O Allowable: ?l '7 ~ Proposed::) 3!.o .;0 ~ 1/1<.), 1~~ . I f->r--r..,.:>tU.YI ,..d7"',,":; Existing:.-ff Allowable:~t;1....6 _Proposed:-' qJf) fi;.)4v It- ('if IIZ-. Existing: 4 Required: c;; Proposed: C; % Site coverage: Existing: 17% Required: ?7f~roposed: A? -~O % Open Space: Existing: S 3 'Ih Required:~Proposed: ,.,.-- /7r.'-z.. '7 i -2~'_-:z.. Front Setback: Existing: '7V" ;./ Required: ,~ S -0 Proposed: .2'-d..../ I . I Rear Setback: Existing: (()(P:O Required: c; !...O Proposed: S.. 0 Combined FIR: Existing: <.f9:/,.()Required: ~. Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: C-) Required: S ~O Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: {j, -1-';1 Required: <? ~ 0 Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required: fl /ft Proposed: /1-, '.1'0 Distance Between Existing { '1- (.v Required:_ 5. "0 Proposed::; 1~ Buildings-\, .. Cj;;l6 J17A-rc...HLe:5S aq g(J 'f ;r ~ ~I~ q:?o m;J1U:1?E:.SS 4Lj- 1;! rt1. .. I EXlstmg non-conformities or encroachffientT ?~utl-r::. ".> I t"l'fD /Z- c-7 .. c.~ <:7~;,(BAc..k''::. i q-l.;o {l...i~/H or7!tDfif..~-ry L-il1tf- Variations requested: Ff!..on 11#0 .::,&--1""f.!>Adc- (j ~ 1" Li6t1twgL.L. 1/7..7... . S&1f!;/fc.)c., 'P/-l~kJ-jr7~ z::,p/lCf!-5 wA/\/6AZ.. iSrAce~ J ~< 1l!tS t ?1;J;2- 7(..'0 'SQ r""""( 8<:.>n1./5 F()J:, . , DIMENSIONS: "",, Principal bldg. height: Access. bldg. height: On-Site parking: s !.,.() {;7'....D ~ , iY ........ - I \0 I w 0 I 3: 1 ~ 1 --l ",I () ':1 I I I . ~I m VI 1 VI I Cl I 7::J H < ! m 21.2 I I i (Jl H Z (j) '\ . , H , -< I 0 c (Jl \D\D" WN:;O 000 " 3:3:0 ~~(Jl -J-Jm ()()Cl II, "0 mm (Jl(Jl-i (Jl(Jl() o \O-...jZ 0~""T1 ONH ./:>.(J1(j) Nt.....C {))\O:;o ~ ;:j o Z -i o -i ~ . (Jl f) c. ~ :;0 m ""T1 o o -i ~ (j) m ""T1 ~ -i I m :;0 H Z (j) . o -i ~ C1' ~ N. \0 ~ -...j 1 I I I I I I I 1 i I I ml I ~ I 108 "'I I~ 21 I~ "'11m 51 I~ -j I I~ :::il I. ml I~ I 1m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I i 1 I II ,,--- H__, 1 I ", ,': I I : ", ,," , : >: : I I , " " : II ...... ,:,," ',I I \1 , ,. I II ------ ;t~::===~~~-:J____~I I I II II II I I II II II Ii ------------------------~I II II II II tn '" ...., t1 ... '" :;; ... OJ '" ... OJ - ---'- _n'-. - __ ----!)~ -.__.....D-"- __ --------~------- -----, I I I ,~J =~-iI =~~ -,-~ =~-lIj . ->-" ~---------------~~ I...... .,," I it'" __ , I, , , , , L > -- ...... ~ \. . . 20 FT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT N 4BF'17" W 47.61 " o . . 48'-61/2" S 4BF'17" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I 1 93.55 l , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \0 N 0 3: ~ r! IV I '" . '" m VI (Jl Cl 7::J PORCH H < m ----- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -j"" o^' (")~ '" m :>0 "':> Z mo 0 '" .. H n - 0 .. Z '" '" ... OJ '" 0 w S'..{)" (Jl" H:;O ZO (j)" .0 (Jl '< " ~ 43'-11" j 1Y ~) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Joyce Allg~~puty Community Development Director THRU: FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 110 E. Hallam Street, Red Brick Arts Center- Referral Comment DATE: September 14,2005 SUMMARY: The City of Aspen purchased the Red Brick School in 1993, after it was abandoned by the School District. Since that time, the historic value of the building, which at its core is a 1940' s school building, has not been fully addressed. As minor exterior modifications have been made over the years, HPC has usually been able to participate in a courtesy review. The Red Brick Arts Center received approval in 2000 to make an addition on the western end of the building for a conference room. For the most part, this addition connected to non-historic materials. At this time the Center wishes to expand the western addition by creating a lounge area, and also by re-claiming a rather informal parking area for use as an outdoor plaza. HPC is asked to provide a referral comment on the design. The project will then be reviewed by Community Development for a Staff Exemption from a PUD amendment. Staff has attached the relevant guidelines for additions to historic buildings to this memo. We recommend that HPC evaluate the appropriateness of the addition under those criteria for the purpose of making advisory comments. In addition, we are seeking HPC's comment on whether or not a landmark application should be filed in order to properly address future alterations on this property. In staffs evaluation, the only guidelines that would be in question on this project relate to the proximity of the lounge area to the front fayade of the original school. There is a slight setback that continues to reveal the corner. It might be possible to reduce the size of the lounge somewhat to provide a better reading of the original end of the building. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. D A I-story connector is preferred. D The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. D The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 1 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character ~ to remain prominent. D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. D Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC comment on the setback of the lounge addition and the appropriateness of the City filing a landmark designation application. Exhibit- Relevant euidelines for additions to landmark buildines 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. D Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. D Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. D Do not cover grassy areas willi gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. D Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. D Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. D It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. D Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. 2 ~ "'""" ..,,,,,,t" COLORAOO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Initials Oetennined Eligible- NR Detennined Not ElIgible- NR Oetennined Eligible~ SR Detennined Not Eligible- SR Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District ,.... ,~. OAHP1403 Rev. 919S Architectural Inventory Form 1 of 4 I. Identification 1. Resource number: 5PT.965 2. Temporary resource number: 110.EHA 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: ASDen 5. Historic building name: Red Brick School 6. Current building name: Red Brick Communitv Arts and Recreation Center 7. Building address: 110 East Hallam Street ASDen. Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: Citv of ASDen 130 South Galena Street ASDen. CO 81611 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South SW t/4 of SW 1/4 of NW 10. UTM reference Zone ---L -L-; -L- -A- ~....1- 2- -LmE -A- -L- -L- -L- ~ -L -!LmN Range 84 West 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 7 11. USGS quad name: ASDen Quadranole Year: 1960. Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7,5'~15'_ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): A Throuah I and K Throuah S Block: 64 Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comorised of Lots A throuah I and K throuah S. Block 64 of the Citv and Townsite of ASDen. Assessors office Record Number: 2737-073-13-801 This descriotion was chosen as the most soecific and customarv descriotion of the site. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irreaular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length 16. Number of stories: One Storv 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Brick x Width 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Flat Roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Svnlhetic Roof Resource Number: Temporary Resource Number: 5PT.965 110.EHA Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 4) -- 20. Special features (enter all that apply): 21. General architectural description: Alana sinale story brick structure with a series of additions on both the east and west ends. The brick oortion of the structure has three main sections. the sections are marked bv entry doors in recessed ooeninas. The maioritv of the wall is marked bv a series of vertical oilasters with corbelled toos. The oilasters bracket larae multi-caned steel window units. with ooerable center oortions. This oattern continues across the brick fa~ade of the buildina. An addition to the west consists of a larae wood canoov over a loadina dock area. Additions to the east consist of a larae volume with full heiaht alass on the south side and a series of doors to interior soaces and a front aable avmnasium structure with brick sides and wood frame end walls. A courtyard sits in front of the class fronted structure with canooies wraooina the exterior walls and coverina the entries to the various sections of the buildina. A series of trellises define the courtyard. The rear of the structure has minimal ooenines in stvles similar to the stvles found on the front of the structure. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late 19'" and Earlv 20'" Century American Movements: Commercial Stvle 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Structures sit at the back of a larae lot with a series of sienificant soruce trees alona the street edoe and some cockets of Asoen trees scattered on the site. Otherwise the yard is lawn. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: """'I IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate 1940's Actual Source of information: Pitkin County Assessor 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Asoen School District Source of information: Pitkin County Assessor 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Additions to the east. north: 1950's. Gvmnasium: 1950's. Addition to the west and northeast: t970's. Demolition of 1950's classrooms. remodel of interior of 40's. 70's and avmnasium creation of 70's structure new exterior (south I wall. courtyard and canooies 1990's. Alterations to courtyard acoroved in 2000. """" ',..,..' 1I c) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ~A~ Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director THRU: FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 880 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Health Club- Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Demolition- Public Hearing DATE: September 14, 2005 SUMMARY: The Aspen Meadows Health Club was designed by Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict and was constructed in 1954. It is a designated Aspen Landmark. In 1991, the Meadows area completed an SPA (Specially Plarmed Area) review which established the rights to expand structures and activities on the campus. The Health Club building received approval to add 1,800 square feet, which was partially acted on through a 1993 addition for a maintenance area and massage room. Records documenting approval for this addition have not been located, however it appears that a building permit was issued. The Aspen Institute proposes to demolish the 1993 addition and to reconfigure the 1,800 square feet approved through the SPA, along with another 1,500 square feet that was once allocated to lodge units which are no longer desired for the property. Transferring this 1,500 square feet from lodge units to the Health Center was discussed during the review of the new Conference and Meeting Hall. The applicant proposes to move the maintenance area which is currently located on the side of the Health Club to the parking garage. Spaces that are displaced by this move can be accommodated in an area between the surface tennis courts and those on top of the parking garage. This is likely of limited interest to HPC other than to the extent that it is part of the character of the campus entry. Currently cars park informally in this dirt area and staff has no concerns with the work. The Health Club additions proposed in this application are located along the back of the original building. Staff is generally supportive of Conceptual approval, however some discussion about limiting Demolition of original building walls is appropriate. APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, represented by A4 Architects and Jim Curtis. PARCEL ID: 2735-121-29-008. 1 ADDRESS: 880 Meadows Road, The Aspen Meadows Health Center, within the Aspen Meadows SPA, City and Townsite of Aspen. _ ZONING: SPA. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan _ unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Recently, HPC. has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project (note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time): 1. Why is the property significant? 2. What are the key features of the property? 3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? 4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? 5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the property? The Aspen Institute for Humanistic was created in 1947 by Walter Paepke and formed the foundation for the Aspen Renaissance period after World War II. The Meadows campus is very significant as the center of activities related to Paepcke's "Aspen Idea." Paepcke brought Herbert Bayer to Aspen in 1946 to serve as the design consultant for the Institute, a role in which he served until 1976. Bayer, with assistance from Fritz Benedict, was offered the chance to design a plarmed environment, where the goal was total visual integration. The key features of the property are the campus plan and the relationship between the architecture and landscape. In addition, as the application for the Health Club project notes, "the ,-. .,..-7 2 ,..-' '","".- buildings are generally diminutive in scale with understated forms and materials such as simple roofs, cinder block, concrete and glass." A number of original Bayer buildings and landscape designs remain, and new structures have been designed in a marmer that is generally sympathetic to the Baul1aus aesthetic. It is very important that this careful stewardship of the property be maintained. The application provides a history of the modifications that have been made to the building. Currently, approximately 79% of the original exterior walls are exposed to view and unaltered. The proposal reduces that figure to 68%, which is of some concern to staff in terms of insuring that this important building continues to meet Aspen's landmark designation criteria related to architectural integrity. This project likely represents total build-out for the Health Center, unless Council were to approve a substantial SPA amendment in the future. Desien Guideline review Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual and Demolition Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those guidelines which staff finds warrant discussion are included in the memo. Staff finds that overall, this project meets the spirit of the design guidelines and the goal of allowing dynamic additions to happen when they can be accommodated without taking away from the character defining features of the resource that is being preserved. The addition will improve the usefulness of the building but will allow the iconic gym and HC mural to continue to dominate the character of the building. Staff finds that the Conceptual review criteria are met. DEMOLITION Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the . following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner' s efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The stmcture carmot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. 3 - Staff Response: The building as a whole does not meet the criteria stated above, however the applicant only proposes to demolish some portions of the original building walls, not the whole structure. Much of the new construction is concentrated in the northwest corner of the Health Club, which has already been altered in the past. Staff does have some concern with the amolmt of original wall surface that is removed for the new additions, and the concept of creating a new area expansion on the northeast corner of the building for the Jacuzzi room. As noted above, another 11 %, or 45 feet, of wall is obscured or demolished in this proposal. The 1991 concept for future additions to the Health Club (included in the application) involved more distinct and limited connections to the Bayer structure, which is an important goal in the HPC guidelines, as noted in the last bullet point of this guideline: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. ........ There are only 8 Herbert Bayer buildings left in the Aspen area, and each one should be treated very carefully to preserve as much of the original fabric as possible. Staff recommends restudy of the Jacuzzi addition and the connection of the yoga studio and massage area in terms of minimizing demolition of the original building. The applicant may wish to prepare a restudy to present to HPC in order to allow the possibility of approval on September 14th, assuming that the board shares staff s concern. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: . approve the application, . approve the application with conditions, . disapprove the application, or . continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. -. 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development (Conceptual) '~, . and Demolition for the Aspen Meadows Health Club with the following conditions: 1. Minimize the demolition of original building walls. 2. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (I) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 3. A landscape plan (if applicable), lighting, fenestration and detailing, selection of new materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials will all be addressed at Final Review. Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of2005 A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. Application .....- "Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for the Aspen Meadows Health Center, Conceptual and Demolition Review" 5 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. D Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. D A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a ditIerentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. D An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. D A I-story connector is preferred. D The cormector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. D The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. D Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. D Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. D Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. D Typically, gable. hip and shed roofs are appropriate. D Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. D For example, loss or alteration of architectural details. cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 6 """" "'" ,f """"