Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20061108 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 212 W. Hopkins - Conceptual, Demolition - Continued Public Hearing from Oct. 25th, 2006.....................................................................................................................................1 312 W. Hyman - Landmark Designation, Public Hearing .................................................3 134 E. Hyman Ave. - The Hearthstone House - Landmark Designation Public Hearing 13 23 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Jason Lasser, Sarah Broughton, Brian McNellis and Michael Hoffman. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Sept 21h and amended Oct. 11th minutes; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Les Holst stated that HPC is the most important commission in this town. Anytime you can designate anything, take it. Carmel designated 300 homes left in town and they are battling them one by one in the courts because they realize they are the survival of their community. The last time I was hear I heard personal property values mentioned which I have never heard before in terms of historic preservation. Property values are defined by land use codes etc. Historic properties have nothing to do with personal property values. Historic preservation is about historic preservation. There has been bad architecture out of here and the Boomerang is a good example. If you can't get a good project maybe I could lobby council to bring someone in to help you redefine good architecture. It's about historic preservation not money. 212 W. Hopkins - Conceptual, Demolition - Continued Public Hearing from Oct. 251\ 2006 Exhibit I - new drawing. Sara Adams, planner stated that the project was continued to restudy the connector piece and simplify the overall proposal. Staff finds that the alterations comply with the design guidelines and we recommend approval with the condition that the height of the one story connector piece be reduced. The house is on a 6,000 square foot lot and has an 1888 designated miner's cabin on the lot. There is a large 1974 and 1988 addition on the rear of the building. The applicant is proposing to reopen the enclosed porch and restore it to its historic appearance. They are also going to demolish and replace the existing connector element. By rebuilding the connector piece they will restore the south east comer of the miner's cabin. Regarding the 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 two story addition they are proposing to raise the height about four feet but you will not see that from the street. HPC and staff at the last meeting had no problem with the additional height. On the restudy version for tonight they are reducing the width of the connector piece and that will create more of a definition for the south east comer of the cabin. Staff recommends that the height of the connector piece be dropped. As it stands right now the height is cutting into the gable end of the historic resource. Staff understands that there are problematic difficulties with that section of the connector because the stairs are in that area but we feel the height should be dropped so you can read the architecture of the miner's cabin. Guideline 10.10 talks about designing additions that would not obscure or destroy historic features. The overall proposal complies with guideline 10.4 with states that additions should be a product of their own time. The proposed cube structures break up the mass in the back which is a good thing. Staff also pointed out that the bay window on the kitchen side will be demolished and replaced with a double hung window. Staff recommends approval with conditions. John Galumbos, architect said in the floor plan we deleted the bump out and pulled back the connector to make the historic comer read better. We desire to keep the ceiling height plate at 9' 10 112" in order to get some transom glass in the back spot. With the removal of the 11 x 11 room we are less FAR than what we are currently today. We have addressed all HPC concerns. If we bring the height down to 9 feet the glass piece has to pop 0 further to accommodate the height under the existing stairs. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner comments: Alison said opening the porch and exposing the south east comer of the historic cabin are commendable. As far as the height of the connector dropping it to 9 feet is more appropriate and less interference with the gable end. The demolition of the old connector complies with our guidelines. Sarah also agreed that a 9 foot ceiling is a more sympathetic link to the historic resource. Bringing it down so it does not hit the historic gable is preferable. Sarah also stated that it is commendable that the front porch is being opened up and that we are getting rid of the bay window by the 2 '" "'~"'"',--_..,~._~,-""",,,., ~'..- '.'-, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 kitchen. The design changes are more in line with our guidelines and the project could move forward with the 9 foot ceiling on the connector. Jason agreed with staff that the tall connector piece conflicts with guideline 10.10. Even if the glass pops out over the stairs it is better than having it higher and interfering with the historic gable. Michael agreed with the commission that the 9 foot connector is more consistent with guideline 10.10. Brian agreed that the 9 foot ceiling is a better solution in keeping the connector lower. Jeffrey said the 9 foot connecting reads like a secondary link. The transparency of the connector helps break down the scale of the existing addition. MOTION: Jason moved to approve resolution #31 granting conceptual development for 212 W Hopkins with the following amendment. The connector piece is lowered to 9 feet. Motion second by Michael. Motion carried 6-0. Roll call: Brian, yes; Jason, yes; Alison, yes, Michael, yes, Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 312 W. Hyman - Landmark Designation, Public Hearing Affidavit of notice - Exhibit I Articles presented by staff - Exhibit II Peter Thomas letter - Exhibit III Letter from Michael Behrendt asking about the process - Exhibit IV Amy said HPC received written information from staff and the owner of the property to review. The ground work for recognizing Post War era or recent past or properties developed sometime after the ski resort was developed is something that has been in the works for a long time in Aspen. We have had a Historic Preservation program since the early 70's. One of the first properties designated in town was Lift 1. In 1986 the AACP discussed the need to designate and identify modem buildings as a priority. The existing HPC guidelines written in 2000 identified a number of modem styles including Chalet as significant to Aspen. We already have approximately 20 properties from this period of time from varying styles that have been designated as Aspen historic landmarks. It has already been recognized that 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 the Victorian era is not the only important period of time in Aspen that tells the history of our town and is important to preserve. In terms of general background information the City used to have a process that every five years we were required by the land use code to revisit the entire inventory, the entire list of historically designated properties and determine if any of them had been altered in a way so that they shouldn't be retained, what should be added and what should be maintained etc. The last time we did that was in 2000. As part of that planned update the Community Development staff identified approximately 40 Post War era buildings that we though should be evaluated as potential additions to the inventory and we did bring those forward as part of the public hearing process. At HPC the board did determine that some were not worthy of further discussion at that time but shortly afterwards the whole process was stopped. At that time to completely carry out the process HPC would make a recommendation, P&Z would make a recommendation and Council would make the final decision. In 2000 all that happened was that HPC came to conclusions and the whole process was stopped. There really was no finalization at that point. We rewrote our whole historic preservation ordinance and went on to develop some additional resources such as the context papers, historic research papers that talk about specific styles, two of which have been provided in the packet tonight. We also developed a scoring system to find a way to provide adaitional clarification to historic significance and integrity. Because we have those tools staff believes that is one good reason why it is appropriate to re-look at this property because it was addressed in 2000 and we have developed quite a bit more research as to what might help us identify which properties are worthy of preservation. In addition, about Y4 ofthe properties that were originally brought forward in 2000 have since been demolished. This property is about local designation not potential eligibility for the Colorado or National Register of historic places which was brought up in some of the letters HPC received. The code that was developed in 2002 has criteria laid out for review of this kind of application and it requires two things to happen before something can be designated. One, it needs to be associated with one criterion that is identified in the memo. There are three possibilities, association with important people, places and architectural styles and designers and the second one is the property must have sufficient integrity which is assessed through a numerical scoring system. Criteria: Staff finds that the property meets two of the designation criterion A and C. It is only required to meet one. In terms of criterion A, construction of Chalet style buildings is part of a documented trend in 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 Aspen. It is indicative of an aesthetic preference in town at that period of time and also an image that was perceived to some to be important to the marketing and the establishment of Aspen as a successful ski resort. The context paper uses resources from the time to document this. Staff finds that these actions and attitudes are every bit as important in Aspen's history as those that occurred in the long ago mining period and we feel they are worthy of discussion. There were at least a few dozen buildings in the Chalet style constructed in Aspen during the period of significance according to staff research. Not many of those still remain today. Again, discussing how this was a trend in Aspen, skiing did bring the Borlaug family, who constructed this building to town. It is discussed in the paper and we have a narrative by the original owner what attracted her to come here. She was an avid skier and was living in Europe and saw an article in Time Magazine about Aspen in 1947. The article is in the packet. From staffs research it came out a week after Aspen's first chairlift opened in January 1947. She came here and led in the construction of the Chalet style building with the assistance of her father who was Swiss. Staff finds that criterion A is met. Criterion C deals with the stylistic features of the house. Staff finds that the building meets all of the classic features of a Chalet style building. Briefly we want to comment on the materials provided about whether the building is a Ranch house. Amy passed out Exhibit II. The material is standard reference materials. It is noted that Ranch style homes are one story buildings and are horizontally oriented in their form. Staff does not find that to be the case here. The term raised ranch came up which staff feels means when you walk in at the front door you would climb steps to the primary living space. This house is a stacked form where there is an apartment on the ground floor and another unit above. That may be the reason for the use of that term. Staff does not find that that is the proper stylistic description of the building. It was built in a Chalet character and it is not a ranch building. Also, in terms of addressing the Chalet style, we are not arguing that it is an exact replication. Obviously it was adapted to the local setting. While this building may not appear to be identical to the Swiss Chalet built in the 1400 in Switzerland it is still indicative of the style. There is some discussion in the submittal that no Chalet found in Europe would have had a garage on the ground floor, but in fact most of them were built so that they had a barn or some utilitarian space on the ground floor level where wagon or horses or whatever their form of transportation was located. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 One of the other things staff addressed was whether this house was pre- fabricated, which appears on the building permit. *Slide presentation provided as to how the house was built. Slides were provided by the Birlauffamily. Cinder block foundation; upper floor being framed. The wood was taken from a building that was salvaged in town. Houses were for sale to be taken down so the owner bought one and salvaged the materials. The boards were cut and modified on the site to build their building by hand as a custom structure. Trim decorative pieces were added. Staff also clarified that the inventory form that was created in the year 2000 to document the building is a form that we are required to use by the Colorado Historical Society when cities do architectural inventory and often we receive funding from them. They require us to use their format so that they can have some consistency among the different towns and assessors in order for them to make comparisons across the state. They have a lot of rules as to what terminology can be used. Only certain words are allowed to be used to describe the style of a building. It is pointed out in some of the documents that the building was classified as modem movements, novelty style and that seems to be inconsistent with calling it a Chalet style building. For clarification the terminology was required by them and Chalet was not one of the options. A phone call was made to the Colorado Historical Society and confirmed with them that they feel it was an appropriate way to simply classify the building. The second assessment is integrity. The scoring forms were created in 2002. This is the first formal assessment that is being provided on this property. Staff assessed a score of 89 out of a possible 100 points. Buildings in the era of 40 years or more have to achieve 75 points out of 100. Victorian era buildings only have to receive 50 points out of 100. The bar has been intentionally set higher; it is meant that these are to be buildings of quality and significance. In our assessment we had acknowledge that there already had been some alterations to the building, it's over 50 years and in the course changes in repairs occur by various owners. The property owner has provided his own scoring and he is a long term owner and does have knowledge of the history of the building as well. In re-visiting the information he has provided there are some things we agree with and some we do not. We do not agree that there should be an additional diminishment of points for the form, for instance the addition of an at grade deck. Minimal expansion to other decks we don't feel detracts from the intact character of 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 the form itself. There are no new volumes or additions made to the foot print of the building. We also don't agree that things like roof repairs, additions of gutters, fascia boards, change the roof form. However, we do agree based on some of the information provided that possibly there was some more widening of a window or door jam than we had originally understood, so we proposed an additional one point reduction on that category. There have been replacements of some more window units than we may have previously acknowledged so we suggest a 5 point reduction in that category. There has also been replacement of more deck materials than we realized so we recommend a 4 point reduction. That takes 10 points off our score which still remains 79. Staff finds that this building is worthy of landmark designation and inclusion of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. HPC's role is to make a recommendation to City Council who has the final decision. Michael mentioned that there was representation made by Mr. Gerberg that this application was permanently removed for consideration in 2000. Amy said there are some properties that went through the process in the adoption of an ordinance and they have been formally removed from the historic inventory. This property was proposed to be added and even that process was not fully carried out. It only got as far as HPC and HPC did have an opinion but we did not go on further through the process. There was no finalization of that discussion. Michael asked what the board felt at that time. Amy said the board at that time felt that the property was not eligible. Peter Thomas, attorney for the applicant Peter said he was making an unusual request of the HPC. In so doing it will require some unusual presentation. Before we get into the technical aspects of this property I ask you to indulge me for a few minutes. A gentleman named Mr. Gerberg moved to Aspen about 26 years ago and saved up his money and finally saved up enough to buy a house. The house he found for himself was built by a man named Herman Birlauf. Ever heard of him? Of course not, no one has because he did not leave a legacy of known significance at all. In 1912 at the age of 22 he was living in Switzerland and got caught up in the Balkan wars and fled Europe and immigrated to America. For 42 years thereafter he floated around Chicago, Indiana, etc. doing trades as a waiter, cool, carpenter and not until age 64 did he finally 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 visit Aspen for the first time when his daughter who was born in Indiana had moved here and gotten ajob as a waitress. She found a vacant lot and called her Dad up and asked him to help her build a house. It is now 1954 and the two come to Aspen together and get a building permit (Exhibit IV) in the package that Mr. Gerberg provided. The building permit was signed by the City and owner and says that the residence to be constructed was going to be pre-fabricated structure. Pre-fabricated structure with a cinder block foundation and concrete footings. We saw pictures of the foundation and footings. The house was partially a pre-fabricated building. The house is built and the daughter lived in it a mere 18 months before moving away from Aspen. That was her contribution to the City. In 1986 she sold the property to Jordan Gerberg. The appraisal report that Jordie got, that was represented as Exhibit 33 describes the residence as an otherwise non descript 30 year old, 1,600 square foot residence in the style of a raised Ranch home. It was a modest residence in those days but gave Jordie a place to live with his wife. They have been members of our community ever since. On Sept. 13, 2000 the HPC recommended over 50 properties be designated as historic. Not Mr. Gerberg's. His was one of the few that did not qualify. It was a 5-2 against. Your opinion in 2000 was that the residence did not meet local historical criteria and in the Colo. historical society report it states that the above referenced property is not a candidate for listing in the state or national at this time. The City issued a demolition permit and Jordie couldn't afford to tear it down so he remodeled it. August 30 we went under contract to sell this house. Two weeks later Jordie received a letter from the City effectively saying that the City has changed their mind and feels the house is one of the best remaining examples of Aspen Chalet history. Then staff advised him in a recorded message that they received a phone call from someone that demolition was going to happen and they have the obligation to let HPC and council know that. That was Sept. 9th of this year. That is why we are here because staff received a phone call from our buyer and staff is concerned that our buy might want to re-develop the property so they initiated another review on an expedited basis without giving us the statutory 2 year advanced notice that is required in the code or the six month notice prior to submission of the application that is also mandated by the code. The buyer informed us that he has to terminate next week Nov. 15th if the process continues. Alie Briden discussed why the property doesn't meet either of the two code criteria. Alie said her purpose is to research the Gerberg property within its local historic context. The Criterion is A & C. To be considered for listing 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 under A the property needs to be associated with one or more events important in a defined historic context. Criterion A recognizes properties associated with a single event such as founding of a town. Houses should not be held onto if they are considered significant examples; they have to be the best and most extraordinary examples. Preservation is to separate the common from the extraordinary and that needs to be remembered. Standards are high for a reason. In my opinion on Criterion A staff has demonstrated only a mere association. According to. the records Genevieve Birlauf Leininger didn't live here. In 1954 the building permit was pulled and the top level of the house wasn't completed until 1956. The parents lived in the bottom floor until the top level was completed. In 1956 the same year the house was completed Genevieve moved to Massachusetts never to return. In order to have value under Criterion A the people who lived there needed in some shape or form to have done something historic or connected with something historic. She wasn't here. The history of the house started without her. Yes she owned it but she lived in Massachusetts. I think J ordie is generous in saying that she lived here for 18 months because I cannot find proof of that. We do not now if Mr. Birlauf ever skied. He did different jobs throughout his life. Ski heritage is what we need to keep in mind here. He moved to this house when he was 65 so I am assuming he didn't ski and is not part of the ski heritage. He helped his daughter build the house and stayed a certain amount of time. I do not find enough creditability for Criterion A. The period of significance in American for the Swiss Chalet was 1835 to 1890. It is my belief that this house is truly a ranch style not a chalet style which was common from 1950 to 1965. Integrity Assessment Peter Thomas said they disagree on the scoring due to the many alterations that occurred on this property. Trim work and facades were covered up. New doors and windows have been put on. All window units have been altered. The west side of the house had no windows and no doors and now has windows and French doors. The east side also has a new door in it. There were also alternations to the inside that occurred over the 26 years. Jordie did changes to the house to suite himself. A new fa<;ade was added to look like a California Ranch house where he was from. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 Sarah asked the attorney about the notification procedure. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney said it is his understanding that it is a recommendation not a requirement. Amy said in the code there is a section that notes failure to provide notice is not a pre-requisite for going forward. In the memo we indicated that there was a opportunity that there was a need to discuss this now. Peter Thomas said the minutes are not clear what happened but it appears that certain properties that HPC had recommended not be carried forward. 4 of the 17 properties that HPC said not to go forward staff said no we think they should go forward and three days later three HPC members resigned in protest. My client hired an attorney and went to City Council and council put the breaks on the whole thing. The precipitated the new code revisions. The code says staff shall tell us six months before it submits an application. David Hoefer said he was involved with that process and basically everything came to a halt and we redid the code. At this point you are operating under a different code than what was used at that time. Peter Thomas said with the economics of our area City Council decided they needed to have the flexibility to designate properties against peoples wishes but you need to notify people that their property might be designated sometime in the future. Give them sufficient opportunities to figure out what to do. Michael addressed 26.415.030 D regarding the good faith effort to notify owners at least 2 years before an application for designation is filed without the consent of the owner. Good faith effort shall include personal contact or telephone communication or a certified letter to the address ofthe property that appears in the County Assessor's office. Owners of properties 40 years or older shall be notified at least 6 months before an application for designation is filed with out consent of owner. Failure to comply with the notification provision of this Subsection shall not be deemed a prerequisite for designation of a building, site, structure or object or collection thereof to the Aspen Inventory. Michael asked David what a judge would do with that section. From the City's perspective we would argue that it is almost an emergency provision. A judge will construe the language. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 Michael said in terms of our decision tonight should we ignore section D I? David said you should not ignore the section but from the City's perspective HPC is proceeding in effect in accordance with the code. Staff had the right to go forward this and HPC has the right to hear it. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Charles Cunniffe said his concern is the message you are sending out to the community. I have had people ask me what is HPC intention and what should I do with my property. There is a fear that if HPC says they have the right to go back and change their minds then you get people more adversarial then they already are. There are rumblings that people are feeling they should demolish their property before they are trapped. The biggest issue is this property already received final clearance. It had a demolition permit. Because you didn't act on it he is not facing a double jeopardy situation. Margo Gubser said a letter came out to realtors pointing out the code section D 1. and advising us that we might want to mah sure are clients are aware of it. There are a number of real estate brokers that are raising the same concerns as Charles Cunniffe. Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Michael said he is going to rely on David's comment to move forward. In terms of the criteria we have the ability to designate this. There was not a very good record made in terms of the integrity scoring. The code allows the HPC to evaluate a property for designation and the owner is allowed to present his case. At t his point the property owner has made a compelling case that the interest of the property owner exceed those of the City. The City, in my view has not made a compelling argument that this is historic or should be preserved. Sarah said we are here to preserve our town and our inventory. Sarah said this property does not meet the criteria and at this point would not vote for historic designation. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 Jason said the integrity assessment from the property owner and staffis conflicting. I am trying to get a better handle on what is happening with this building. We are talking about buildings case by case and I need a closer investigation of the building in order to make a decision. We are analyzing this building under a different code. If we designate this house it would probably be moved on the site to face the grid and I am not sure it would take the move. Alison said what is important here is our job to look at and review the different historic properties within Aspen. Why we called this particular building is that we wanted to have this discussion not that we for certainty would vote one way or another. We are careful and considerate. There are discrepancies in the review between staff and the property owner. I do see that the building meets A or C criterion but doing the assessment I would need more time to look at that. There is a history between the Victorians and now and in general it needs preserved. Brian agreed with staff that this resource meets A or C. Brian said he walks by this house everyday on his way to work and it is a resource that defines a distinctive character in time here in Aspen. It does define a Swiss chalet style regardless of whether they took off the detailing. Brian said he did the assessment scoring and it fell short of meeting the threshold. A lot of people did orient their houses toward Ajax Mtn. which is very distinctive of Post World War II. Jeffrey said this is a challenging process. The site orientation makes these projects popular and interesting in that time period. The orientation to Ajax and looking at the views and sun was part of that period which was brought up by our landscape architect on the board. Some of the detailing is gone but the Swiss Chalet body still remains. Regarding the conflicting integrity assessment there is always some varying interpretation. As far as the development of the town individuals did numerous jobs to provide a living. The Post World War II buildings were built by hand and rarely with permits. At this time I would recommend this as falling within criteria A or C. Peter Thomas said he and his applicant would prefer to move forward. MOTION: Jeffrey made the motion to approve Resolution #32 that HPC recommend to City Council that a landmark designation for 312 W Hyman lots P&Q Block 46 go forward; second by Michael. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 Jason said he needs more information and does not want to vote either way. David Hoefer said because of the unusual nature Jason can abstain from voting. Roll call vote: Brian, no; Alison, yes; Michael, no; Sarah, no; Jeffrey, yes. Motionfails 3-2. 134 E. Hyman Ave. - The Hearthstone House - Landmark Designation Public Hearing Michael was excused. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Robin Molny and the Taliesin Fellowship paper -Exhibit II Sara Adams said the application before HPC is to recommend designation. The building was built in 1961 by Robin Molny with an addition in 1963. Staff has submitted many letters of support in your packet. Staff met with Irma Prodinger, original owner and concludes that Hearthstone fulfills the criteria for designation and should be added to the historic inventory. The criteria are based on architectural, cultural and historic significance and not commercial viability and economics of the lodge. Staff finds that all three criteria are fulfilled and only one needs to be fulfilled. Criteria B - People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and can be identified and documented. Staff feels that Robin Molny made a specific contribution to local history and is deemed important which can be identified and documented. Robin trained at Taliesin for five years under the supervision of Frank Lloyd Wright. He supervised the building of Wright's Greenberg residence in Wisconsin and he worked for Fritz Benedict for a year. He opened his own architecture firm in Aspen. His architectural contributions include the Hearthstone house which was 1961 with the addition in 1963. The Mason & Morse building which is heavily altered and the downtown pedestrian malls. He designed the Aspen Athletic Club, 720 E. Hyman and did residential homes also. He won two Welton Anderson awards by HPC for the pedestrian malls and architectural achievements in Aspen. Staff received a letter of support that was written by the Frank Lloyd Wright board. Staff feels criteria B is fulfilled that Molny did a specific contribution to Aspen. Sara did a power point presentation of the Hearthstone. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 Criteria 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. Criteria C is the strongest met by the Hearthstone house. The Wrightian style swept through the nation during the early and mid-twentieth century. Staff does not deny that the Hearthstone is textbook Wrightian but it does exemplify design philosophies that Wright taught which is part of the criteria. One of the most important aspects of Wright's teachings is that apprentices do not replicate his work. In the Bruce Berger paper Frank Lloyd Wright is quoted as saying "if you understand the principles of my architecture then your buildings need not look like mine". This is a common Wrightian philosophy. Architecture masters wanted people to explore and be creative with their design philosophy which is part of having a school. Wrightian philosophy includes organic architecture which is composing buildings with space rather than mass and creating a harmony of architecture and environment. It is also learning the distinction between interior and exterior spaces, by constructing covered open spaces using bands of glazing. On the Hearthstone house there are continuous horizontal lines. There is also a sunken courtyard. The Hearthstone is oriented to the south to gain the best lighting exposure and has the best views of the mountain. Molny was sensitive to the environment and guests intentions when they came to visit the Hearthstone; skiing and enjoying the outside and landscape. An important thing to point out when we are saying it is not textbook Wrightian it is obviously the roofform. The roof does not cantilever but Molny decided to bring the roof form to the ground and connect architecture and earth. The architecture is sunken down into the hill. The roof form conveys Wrightian philosophies but not exactly replicate them. Staff feels that Molny was playing with solids and voids. When you take a philosophy you take shapes from someone you learned from and you try to make them your own. It is evident here with the environment, a covered open space where you can pass through. Materials were very important to Frank Lloyd Wright. Molny decided to stay true to the Wrightian philosophy by using rough sawn redwood and lots of glazing. The brick used was from the old hospital. The materials are undeniably consistent with what Wright taught. Staff did an integrity score and the Hearthstone scored a 91 out of 100. There was a new retaining wall and a pool put in and stairs leading down into the courtyard were brought up to code in the 1990's. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 Criteria A - An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history. We are talking about local history here. Hopefully HPC will understand that the Hearthstone conveys Molny's Wrightian training. Staff finds that the Hearthstone contributes to the Post War local history by representing Wrightian influenced style. There are very few Wrightian styles left in Aspen, especially any in this pristine condition. Two examples are 120 E. Main, the Design Workshop and 500 W. Hopkins, The Boomerang Lodge. Staff pointed out how imperative it is to Aspen's livability and desirability as a destination that we maintain this uniqueness, including the contrast between mining cabins and the small surviving collection of these note worthy Post War buildings. In conclusion staff finds that all the criteria are met and recommend that HPC recommend designation to City Council. Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson & Associates represented the owners of the Hearthstone house. Tom Smith, attorney Lisa Purdy, historic preservation consultant David Brown, architect Stan said nothing in what we are about to present is intended to show any disrespect toward Robin Molny or Irma Prodinger. This is about the particular assessment and the substance of that assessment. Stan pointed out that Irma and I were on a round table that ultimately resulted in the lodge preservation ordinance. The lodge preservation ordinance emerged which allowed for the redistribution oflodging credits. I point that out because some of the lodges have out lived their usefulness in many respects. In many ways this seems to be an historic preservation activity that is looking for a rationale. It is not generated by staff initiated activity that identified key lodges or Robin Molny's work; rather it was generated by our having come to the Community Development office in a pre-application conference. Ifwe had not come and spoken to James Lindt and James brought in Amy, it emerged entirely out of our interest in a redevelopment project of the property. Stan also pointed out that there are a number of comments from letter writers and I think if you ready them you will see it that chose exactly the same text and suggests that these letter writers were in fact coached. Coached to say certain things about Frank Lloyd Wright trained Robin Molny. It is unfortunate that staff supports its own proposals by coaching letter writers to come in and prepare letters in support of designation. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 David Hoefer said you aren't suggesting that staff encouraged people to write certain types of information. Stan said he did not know. David said before we go forward I want to allow staff the opportunity to speak because this is critical. Sara Adams said this is entirely not true and it did not happen. Anyone who called I said you are more than welcome to write a letter or e-mail me which is standard policy for any public hearing. The letters are included in the packet except for those that were received after the deadline. Stan said he will let his comments stand on their merit and look for key words that are repeated through the various letters. There are certain non- conformities to this building with respect to parking. Parking is achieved on city property with head in parking. The roof which attempts to merge architecture and earth actually comes down in the front fa<;ade in a way that would simply not be permitted under the commercial design standards that we currently would evaluate any new building. Across is Harry Teagues, Lenado Hotel which forms a presence on the street and deals with its parking quite different and really addresses the street and is part of the streetscape. This property does not do that. It is very important to separate the general affection for a property or scale of the property from really meriting historic preservation designation. One of the other things that are important to look at is also the nature of the integrity assessment. This is the first time I dealt with a Wrightian assessment but if you look on the first page under design 20 points are awarded to building form and roof form being generally intact. Immediately whether or not the building is actually a good example of Wrightian influence, of Wrightian design, 20 points are awarded simply because it is intact. This creates an erroneous skewed scoring because the building could be intact and we would argue over whether or not it actually represents Wrightian form. Tom Smith said HPC is bound by the procedural requirements of the city code. The two year and six month notice provisions of 26.415.030 d (1) apply to this application. Those requirements were not satisfied. In addition in subsection @ preceding that there is a requirement that if the application is filed by the Community Development Director which I believe is the case here since it is being filed by staff. It states that it shall include a statement verifying compliance with subsection that I just read and if notification has not been provided an explanation by the Community Development director 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 of efforts made to comply. None ofthat happened. We did not have substantive compliance with the provisions and the application did not include the mandatory statement that is required under the code. These rules are you compact with your citizens. It is not supposed to be a system that operates with the kind of mandatory you must do, we set the rules, we do it our way, take it or leave it process. It is not supposed to be that way. That is why you have these rules and they have not been complied with. You should take that into account when making a decision. If you agree with me you shouldn't approve this application. David Hoefer said it is appropriate for me to respond here. Tom indicated that I would advise you the same as in the last case and that is true. I think at this point he has made a record that he can raise on an appeal ifhe wants too if it gets to that stage. Lisa Purdy discussed the actual assessment. With all do respect to staff and the commission I have to disagree with the conclusion that staff came to regarding the alterations of the building. I am curious this building didn't even show up on the inventory and that includes the 2000 inventory all the way up to 2005. I would question why stafffeels at this point that it does qualify. This is a difficult issue when you are dealing with the recent past. There have been seminars etc. giving arguments about this. What is difficult with Post War properties is that when buildings are as young as this it is hard to get the proper perspective. In the National Register which uses the same standar?s they have recognized that if a building is younger than 50 years to really needs to be of exceptional importance to qualify. The reason that is important is that designation is quite onerous to a property owner. Once a building is designated as you know there are a lot of restrictions and sometimes the incentives can off-set those restrictions and in this case they don't. It is important to take it in a meaningful way when you look at the criteria. It is not purely being associated with something. It needs to be singularly associated. It needs to be exceptional and distinctive not just of an era. I think that is where people are struggling all over the country. Even in Denver we have been struggling with this. This building is not distinct enough to justify designation. I'm a little bit off the mark here because I was going to argue with the issue of it being European but I won't go into that. The memo justifies designation and in my opinion it clearly did not meet designation. I have never seen a style that is Wright/European style. It doesn't appear anywhere. The. building is a nice building but not Wrightian enough to qualify as Wrightian under the criteria that you have. It is not 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 enough to just pick off elements that are Wrightian in nature. You need to sit back and say what are the most important elements that make a building Wrightian. Everything that is written by Wright there is nothing more important than the roof. The roof needs to be a cantilever roof. He even used the effect ofa tree branch as an example of how this work. A roof needs to be cantilevered and not have supporting posts to hold it up and it needs to have very deep eaves and represent the strong horizontal feel. There are a lot of letters in your packet from guests who are very loyal to Irma Prodinger. People love Irma and I can see why. That doesn't make a building historic. The guests are loyal due to her warm hospitality and the way she treated guests and the atmosphere she set up. All of those letters do not mount to reasons for designating this building historic in my mind. It is up to you as a body to look at the criteria and interpret the criteria. If you look at Molny's buildings, I do not believe this is his best presentation. I view it as him kind of bringing in some of the Wrightian elements from his training and then trying to do some of his own interpretation and I don't think it works. The building doesn't meet the street and it is carved into the hill. If the back of the building were built into the hill that would be different. I think Molny was experimenting and trying different styles. If you compare the most prominent aspect ofWrightian being the cantilevered roof and you compare that to the Hearthstone house and how it comes down at an angle instead of soaring it doesn't make it distinctive. We all admit that a lot of buildings aren't pure but you still need to prioritize what is important and the roof style is very important. The second story doesn't have a continuous glazing of windows that again add to the impact of the roof floating above. There are posts supporting the roof that detract from the concept of a cantilever. My opinion about Robin Molny is that he really came into his own after this building when he had more confidence in himself. Charles Cunniffe made a comment that there are members of this community that are terrified of this commission and the reason being that anything that has an association of a 35 year history is being considered for designation. It is up to this commission to say yes it is within that period but it's the best example of or it's the only example off. I comment Irma on the loyalty that she has created on the guests of the Hearthstone house but I don't think there is any reason that a new building on that site couldn't have that same loyalty on that site. I think the building is a confusing mix of styles. David Brown said there are a number of functions in the building that have failed. The building was not built for a long life and the foundations are 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 moving and the walls are failing. There is extremely poor insulation and a lot of single pane glass. If someone walks on the floor above it squeaks and you can hear through the walls. One of the biggest weaknesses for this building to continue service is, it is not accessible. In fact it is ADA resistant. The most dominant element is the parking. It obscures the building from the street. The view from the courtyard is through the cars and it creates dangerous pedestrian conflicts. The goal of our client is to rebuild and improve the guest experience. Doing a "light remodel" will not achieve the goals that we need to do. We need to replace the building and do a design that works in the market place. To me this building with a flat roof and mansard shed does echo some of the things that were gong on in the 50's and 60's. This is a nice building but not exceptional. Robin Molny's most well known house is the Shueman house on Red Mountain and the pedestrian malls. Stan pointed out that on the 14th of June the integrity assessment was modernist and that changed on the 26th of July to Wrightian and on the 8th of November it continues to be Wrightian. Jason asked how many rooms were in the Hearthstone. David said there are 18 units in the range of200 to 250 square feet each. One or two are being used as employee housing. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Don Fleisher stated that he is very impressed by the amount of information that you process through all these professionals. They are so skilled that they could argue for taking down the Hotel Jerome and replacing it. I am married to Robin Molny's widow and she has a great deal of information of his entire life. My biggest concern is there anything that you want to preserve whatsoever since 1900. Was there anything during the whole 20th century that is worth preserving? This whole team could argue against all of them. They could tell you any building in Aspen that came after the Elks Lodge which would be City Hall, the Brand Bldg. they are not remarkable for that era. If you want to go back to this wonderful period of the early years of Aspen as a ski resort what do you have that you want to preserve, nothing, because these people could definitely argue that there isn't one single property from that period that is worth preserving. I am impressed with the diligence that HPC pursues with the historic preservation of Aspen. I think this house deserves better treatment than what I have heard tonight. 19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 Charles Patterson said he was at Taliesin a couple years after Robin Molny. As you know I designed the Boomerang Long and built that. The question that seems to be quite important here is whether this is a Wrightian building or not. Different comments have been made that it isn't an important building because it has certain features that perhaps it should be recognized as an important building that we should preserve. However, from my experience whether this is a Wrightian building or not or whether the roof goes a certain way or not is not really the question. You can't compare a building to say well it's not Prairie architecture. We were taught when I was an apprentice that a building should be designed not to imitate Frank Lloyd Wright but to emulate. Emulate means learning the principles of Frank Lloyd Wright architecture and apply it in your own way. I tried to do that at the Boomerang. It is applying the principles of the right architecture to'your own thinking. I feel very strongly that Robin did that. Whether it has a cantilever or not is of no importance whatsoever. The space relationships of a building to the site are tremendously important and Robin achieved that in that building. It has certain features that we all recognize. Like Don, I'm very impressed with all the studies and work everyone has put into this and the pros and cons and all the letters but I think the thing that you have to really recognize is whether this is a product which is of value that has Wrightian principles applied to it. I think this is what we are looking at. Irma Prodinger said she doesn't really know where to start. I thought we were successful with the Hearthstone and people came back and they felt at home there. I thought it was because of me but the business is still going on and people are flooding in there. It is the house, it was not me alone. The first thing the owners did was advertised up the ceiling as a Frank Lloyd Wright building. Irma showed the public the advertising brochure indicating Frank Lloyd Wright and photos of buildings in Chicago that he built. I didn't brag about Frank Lloyd Wright, I knew it was Robin and he was a Frank Lloyd Wright student. The Hearthstone was built for our customers. Irma handed out photographs of roofs that Frank Lloyd Wright did. Frank Lloyd Wright was big into roofs. You question that it is not set in the landscape. Robin put it in the landscaping. We have 17 rooms on 9,000 square feet. You are accnsing us of things that are really not so. If you have questions please ask me and I will give you all the details. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. 20 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 Commissioner comments: Alison said in relationship to Tom's comment about six months and two years I would need some clarification about the question. The six month does come into question but as we decided on the last project our attorney directed us to proceed. I have to use our criteria and do believe there are aspects of all three A,B,C criteria that are important. In order to not complicate things I lean closest to B. I did go through the assessment of the property and for me this building has its place and time in Aspen with its Wrightian influences. Everyone would be nuts in 1964 or 1965 to do a 12 foot cantilever roof with the snow loads that we have here. It was adapted for its environment and for the site. I think that it does that well. I would recommend that it go forward to City Council. Sarah said we think very hard about designation and given the evidence from everyone in this room tonight I feel that Criteria A has been met. I do feel that this is a very significant contribution to the City of Aspen for a multiple of reasons. For me Criteria A are the strongest and the reason why we should move forward with historic designation. Jason said he grew up in a couple of house that was designed by Taliesin educators and architects. While one of them was a Prairie style cantilevered roof design and one was very similar to this building. While we can't really judge per specific Frank Lloyd Wright details it is going to be an overall view. This building is special because of this site; a sunken courtyard. Maintaining the open space is very important to the site. I feel it meets Criteria A. It is tough and this isn't the greatest contribution in town, the pedestrian mall is and we decided to modify them and that was a mistake. Identifying sensitivity of a large building in a smaller scale town during that time is worth preserving. What we are looking at here is preserving and saving a piece of Aspen. Fritz Benedict's library and the Boomerang are valuable buildings and the Hearthstone is fitting along those lines. It would be difficult to ignore interior/exterior spacial relationships. It is very successful. Inside is successful as far as characterizing Frank Lloyd Wright's spacial connections. You get the experience of the outside as well as the inside. There are a lot of positives that could be learned from this building and I would hesitate to tear it down. Brian said this building is interesting to him and when he has guests coming to town he recommends the Hearthstone. It is a very beautiful building. This building has somewhat of an awkward position to the street especially 21 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 2006 given the roof and the way it is structured. I would agree with Lisa "of the hill" meant something different than how this house was actually constructed on the site. In some ways it is rather "dearing" with the sunken courtyard. Whether this building actually achieves Wrightian styles this was a man who studied under Frank Lloyd Wright and if you were to design a building specific to this you would do adaptive architecture. I do not see this as something that we need to maintain as Wrightian. The more important issue is the need to maintain these small type lodges in the City of Aspen. The Hearthstone is an asset to Aspen. In terms of personal scoring it did in fact break the threshold. Jeffrey stated that staff and applicants did an excellent presentation. The Hearthstone is a very challenging proposal and has a lot of interesting history. First I want to talk about Robin Molny. I had the opportunity to meet and know him when I first moved to town. He was well spoken and of very few words. That is how I would describe this building. Criterion A - An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, region or national history. Criterion 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. Frank Lloyd Wright quote: "Find the most beautiful part of a site and don't build on it". I see the courtyard as the most beautiful part of the site. I had the opportunity to connect Charles Patterns to a colleague that he met at the Taliesin in 1956 by a rare coincidence. We met at the Main Street Bakery. One of the most impressive issues that the two talked about after 52 years of not seeing each other was how they constantly referred to Wright as Mr. Wright. Truly apprenticing under someone has value and is worth preserving. I whole heartedly support staffs recommendation of designation. I feel that A, B, and C could be met. MOTION: Sarah moved to go forward with an approval for designation to City Council from HPC for the Hearthstone House, Resolution #33; second by Jason. Motion carried 5-0. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Jason, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 Kathleen 1. Strickland, Chief Deoutv Clerk 22