HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080910ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
September 10, 2008
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: Please meet at 1005 Waters Ave. at NOON. We will
then proceed to visit the Lift 1 neighborhood
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes -August 11, 2008, August 13, 2008
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission 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 #21)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Lift I -Conceptual Major Development Review (lhr.)
B. 233 Gilbert Ave. -Ordinance #48 negotiation
C. 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation (45 min.)
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 204 N. Monarch -Final (continue to October Stn)
X. WORK SESSIONS
A.
XI Adjourn 7:00 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP (Conceptual)- Public Hearing
continued from August 27, 2008
DATE: September 10, 2008
PROCESS: City Council initiated the. Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP review
through the adoption of Resolution No. 13, Series of 2008. A 27-member Lift One Master Plan
Task Force was established. This group has met every Thursday since April 10~' and is expected
to make a final recommendation by the end of September. The Task Force established and
unanimously adopted seven goals, two of which relate to historic preservation: Respect Aspen's
history.• integrate the balance of architecture and design through the relationships, mass and
scale of historic and proposed structures; and Showcase and promote Aspen's ski history and
traditions.
The project before HPC involves several adjacent properties in the Lift 1 neighborhood, the
original base area for Aspen Mountain.
Two of the affected properties, Willoughby Park and Lift 1 Pazk, aze owned by the
City. Both are landmazk designated.
• The Boat Tow and Lift 1 tower, which aze located on Willoughby Pazk, aze listed
on the National Register of Historic Places.
^ Two outbuildings and a ticket office (partially collapsed) aze located on
Willoughby Pazk and the Deep Powder cabins aze temporarily stored there.
• The Skier's Chalet Lodge is subject to Ordinance #48 review.
HPC has purview over the development of these resources. Although the entire Lift One
Neighborhood Master Plan is not designated, HPC is asked to comment on the entire site plan as
one whole entity and how the proposed development affects the historic structures, objects and
sense of place.
Following is a repetition of the memo provided to HPC at the last meeting, with some new
information (HPC feedback from that night and new comments by staff) inserted in bold. Since
August 27`h, the Task Force was given HPC's comments and has continued to meet and progress
towazds endorsing a scheme for the site that is attached to the memo as "Exhibit B." The plan is
still a work in progress, but it gives HPC more concrete information to respond to.
In order for the Historic Preservation Commission to make its recommendation on the master
plan, several meetings have been scheduled for public heazings. The proposed schedule is as
follows:
• August 27`h -Project background, updates and general site plan discussion
• September 10~' -Additional background as needed, project updates, discussion
• September 24`h -Project updates, discussion, recommendation
For the board's information, minutes from August 27, 2008 are not yet completed.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS: HPC granted Major Development Conceptual approval for the
subject property on August 9, 2006 by a three to zero vote that included the following:
^ relocating and designating the Skier's Chalet Lodge (233 Gilbert Street, currently listed
on Ordinance #48)
^ restoring the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse, ticket booth/office and deteriorated outbuilding
located neaz the eastern property line
constructing an addition and elevator to the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse
^ adaptive use of the Deep Powder cabins by permanently incorporating them into
Willoughby Pazk.
During the meetings in 2006, HPC focused largely on the proposed location of the Skier's Chalet
Lodge in relationship to Deane Street, maintaining the open, passive and public nature of
Willoughby Pazk, and the relationship of historic Lift 1 to the ski hill. HPC was concerned with
overcrowding the park with buildings that resembled a "petting zoo" of historic artifacts.
APPLICANT: The master plan includes lands owned or managed by four entities -the City of
Aspen, Aspen Land Fund II (Centurion Partners), Roazing Fork Mountain Lodge -Aspen, and
the Aspen Skiing Company.
ADDRESS/Parcel ID: Willoughby Park (PID# 2735-131-16-851) is located at the comer of
Dean and South Aspen Streets and is described as Lots 1-14, Block 7 and Lots 1-3, Block 8, Eames
Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Skier's Chalet Steakhouse (PID# 2735-
131-21-001) is located at 710 S. Aspen Street and is described as Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 8,
Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Lift 1 Pazk (PID# 2735-131-19-
851) is bounded by Gilbert Street and Hill Street and is described as Lots 3, 4 (partial), 11 (partial)
and 12 of Block 9, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure jor 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
HISTORY OF THE SITE:
This azea is significant as Aspen's original ski base and the core of any skier's experience in the
eazly days of the resort. A center of activity, this was the origination point of the ski lifts, the
location of most of the lodging available in Aspen, and the site of national and international ski
races that made Aspen world famous starting with the U.S. World Alpine Championship in 1941.
The Boat Tow, modeled after those used at Kitzbuhl, Austria, was constructed on Aspen
Mountain in 1937. It was replaced in 1947 with Lift ], at the time the longest chairlift in the
world. The Boat Tow was a pair of wooden toboggans that were hauled up Aspen Mountain
with steel cables, connected to a Model A Ford engine (see page 5 for images.) The only
remaining pieces of this lift aze the two toboggans, one which sits in Willoughby Pazk (and has
been recently evaluated for preservation needs by a wood scientist) and one which is in the
possession of the Aspen Historical Society.
Lift 1 operated until it was replaced in 1972 by Lift lA, located further uphill. Most of the
towers and equipment associated with Lift 1 were removed. In 1974 Willoughby Pazk and the
remnants of the Boat Tow and Lift 1 became the fifth property to be designated a landmazk in
Aspen, demonstrating the community's recognition of their significant historic value. The Boat
Tow was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1990.
Although a lift had existed in the Little Nell area since 1956, the perceived base of Aspen
Mountain was shifted from Aspen Street to the Little Nell azea after the construction of the
gondola in 1986.
The apparent motivation for constructing Chalet Style buildings in Aspen after World Waz II,
exemplified in the azchitectwe of the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse and the Skiers Chalet Lodge, is
discussed in a white paper written by the Community Development Department. Quoting from
that paper:
"Compazisons to Ewopean ski resorts were (evident in the town's azchitectwe and) also
evident in advertising. Sun Valley's brochwes boasted of Austrian ski instructors and
appealed to elite visitors who traveled both by train and plane. The Aspen Chamber of
Commerce's advertising throughout the 1950's and 1960's had this chazacter as well. In
a brochwe promoting lodging and accommodations, the Norway Lodge notes `the
intimacy and charm of an old world inn, at Aspen's No. 1 chairlift.' In the same brochwe
the Skier's Chalet and Steak House and Edelweiss also emphasize their `chalet'
accommodations. In a multi-page pamphlet, entitled `Aspen, Wonderful Ski Town,'
created by the Chamber, there aze several passages that emphasize Aspen as an
international resort with a Ewopean flavor. `In fact,' the brochwe states on the opening
page, `Aspen knows few rivals. No European resort today can advertise a larger, more
elaborate, more luxurious ski village right at the foot of the slopes."'
The Skiers Chalet brochure states that the lodge was "stazted by Howazd and Jean Awrey who
came to Aspen in 1947 to ski. Howard and Jean operated the Sundeck Restaurant on top of
Aspen Mountain from 1949-1952. The Awreys also owned and operated a small restaurant at the
base of the old #1 chairlift. This restaurant burned to the ground on Washington's Birthday in
1952. It was rebuilt into a restaurant and lodging facility: The Skiers Chalet (Steakhouse.)
Because #1 chairlift was on the property, the Skiers Chalet has historic designation as the
beginnings of the North American ski industry. It's twin, The Skiers Chalet Lodge, was built in
1965 and has been at the center of many activities connected with the world-class ski events held
on Aspen Mountain.
Like some other lodge buildings of the period, such as the Mountain Chalet, Skiers Chalet
Steakhouse acquired the Chalet character that is appreciated today over a period of a few years,
as the owner was able to expand the structure and the style became more and more important. By
1965, the owner built the main lodge described above at 233 Gilbert Street (Skiers Chalet
Lodge.) This second building was designed with a pure understanding of the style, and because
of this is azguably one of the most significant examples of the Chalet architecture in Aspen.
The properties affected by this application maintain a great deal of historic character because
their setting is very intact. Some erosion of context has occurred in Willoughby Park with the
demolition of the Holland House and Norway Lodge. The Lift 1 Pazk and Skier's Chalet
building remain lazgely unaltered in their original locations.
Willoughby Park has been the intended location of a ski museum for at least 15 yeazs. The
specifics of the use and the dimensional limits for development will be determined through a the
COWOP review.
SUGGESTED DISCUSSION POINTS:
SENSE OF PLACE: At the August 27`h meeting,.
HPC viewed several project schemes that
included a reconfiguration of South Aspen Street
and its relationship to the ski hill and the original
townsite grid. When the Aspen townsite was laid,
it followed traditional Roman city building
philosophy by placing a grid overtop the natural
topography. The steep, straight ascent of South
Aspen Street is an essential part of the original
townsite in the western section of town. Staff has
concerns with the proposed reconfiguration of this
axis and its impact on the historic resources
within the study area.
HPC's analysis to date is that the members agreed the grid character and continued use of
the streets for cars is important to the character of the area. Devoting entire streets to
"green" pedestrian areas is not true to the history of the neighborhood, and the treatment
of Aspen, Gilbert, Juan, and Deane Streets should be carefully considered. HPC did not
support a meandering vehicular route up Aspen Street. The possible exception to these
comments is at least the west portion of Gilbert Street, which was part of the ski hill, not an
open street as seen in this 1955 photograph. This photograph was provided to staff some
time ago by the DePagter family (who built the Holland House.) Staff has contacted the
family to seek additional photos if possible. Among other things, this picture reinforces the
lack of vegetation in the area, and manner in which town and the ski hill blended together.
The location of the original lift certainly did spare skiers of having to walk up Aspen
Street.
Original Ticket Office (by
this time expanded in size)
Path of Gilbert Street
Original Holland House
(a Victorian era building)
Natural greenery, grading and an overall
casual informality aze traditional and
authentic chazacteristics of the Lift 1 azea
and the general attitude of the town
during this era. Relaxed green space
rather than paving and formal
landscaping are important, historic
features of this area that help convey the
overall philosophy and sentiment of the
burgeoning ski industry back in the late
1940s and SOs. The "sense of place"
philosophy does not discourage
development of a site, rather it defines
sentiment azound a space and encourages
the preservation of that sentiment in
conjunction with new development. The currently proposed site plan, which has a much
greater level of detail, raises some new concerns for Staff. A turnaround nicks the
southwest corner of Willoughby park. Along the west side of the property, meandering
paths and heavy vegetation, steps, plazas, fountains, etc. add design elements that could
interfere with an authentic interpretation of the site.
During HPC's last meeting, there was some support for "thinning" and removing existing
vegetation that was not in place during the heyday of 'skiing in this neighborhood.
Commission member Mullins recommended an assessment with the goal of retaining
particularly healthy, noteworthy trees. Members commented that landscaping established
over the last years should not be a driver of the project if it doesn't have some inherent
value of its own. There was no discussion that encouraged adding new trees on the site.
CONTEXTUAL RELATIONSHIPS: In all of the iterations, one of the lodge buildings is
proposed to wrap azound the historic Lift 1. Placing new buildings near the Lift, blocking its
direct connection to the ski hill and adding paving in close proximity relegates the historic
resource to an irrelevant artifact that at one time drew skiers to Aspen as the longest chairlift in
the world. Because it is no longer functional, the preservation of Lift I relies on maintaining its
integrity and authenticity through its direct connection to the ski hill and its surrounding passive
and relaxed environment. On August 27~h, HPC members indicated that the visual
connection, and the ability to ski back to the base of Lift 1 are high priorities for them in
this project. There were several comments made about the importance of being able to
stand at the chair and look up the historic lift line. The idea of shifting massing of the
uphill hotel to achieve this was discussed. No analysis of views or site lines is prepared at
this point.
STRUCTURES: At this point, the proposal for the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse does not involve
relocation and is generally consistent with the approvals granted in 2006. Discussions aze still on
the table related to the use of the Steakhouse building. It is centrally located within the Master
Plan site. Possible uses include a restaurant or affordable housing. Use is not within the
Commission's purview; however any feedback or suggestions related to the use of this resource
that would highlight the chalet style and historic preservation in Aspen would be helpful. HPC
suggested that a mix of uses which would be active day and night, serving the year round
community could be a real contribution to the vitality of the area.
The proposal to relocate the Skier's Chalet Lodge down the hill towazd Deane Street and convert
it to a museum remains a component of the plan. Details of the conversion and an exact location
will be pazt of future discussions. The applicant intends to designate the Skier's Chalet Lodge
after it is relocated. The 90 day negotiation period has begun for Ordinance #48 review of this
structure. Staff finds that there are no major conflicts with the proposal and the Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines, and is extremely pleased that the applicant is interested in
pursuing landmazk designation. Both Staff and HPC members expressed a preference for
leaving the structure in its historic location, although all recognize the "upside" of the
proposed reuse.
The Deep Powder cabins, circa 1957, were not incorporated into the different iterations
that HPC reviewed on August 27~", but are shown in use on the current site plan, accessory
to the ski museum. These building are temporarily stored on Willoughby Pazk until a
permanent location is approved. After they aze permanently relocated, the City plans to designate
the cabins as local landmarks. Staff favors the Lift 1 azea as a receiving site. The Deep Powder
cabins were originally located a few blocks down Aspen Street on the Limelight pazcel. Moving
the cabins up the hill maintained some degree of context and connection of the cabins to the
original ski base in Aspen. We aze still struggling to find receiving sites for three cabins at 435
West Main Street and are concerned about the deficiency of locations within the city for all of
these resources. At the last meeting board members seemed somewhat split about the
incorporation of these buildings, seemingly agreeing to keep them so long as they are not a
detriment to functionality of the site. Staff believes that they should not be dismissed from
this project unless there is a legitimate and appropriate location identified for them.
Otherwise we expect they will ultimately be demolished.
Two outbuildings exist on the site (on the east properly line and adjacent to the Lift tower) that
are extremely deteriorated. Staff is uncleaz as to whether the outbuildings aze incorporated into
the schemes, and finds that these small structures aze important to the interpretation of the site
and recommends restoration and adaptive use. HPC members indicated some ambivalence
on this topic, however it was pointed out that the small structures are part of the story and
represent very little constraint on the site. They were described as funky elements that
don't add to the concerns about "junking up" the site.
A few months ago, Staff and HPC discussed the dangerous condition of the Ski Club building
after the roof collapsed and the possibility of demolition. The southeast corner of the Ski Club
building has been identified as the original ticket office. Staff and the City need direction from
HPC as to the importance of the entire Ski Club building versus the original ticket office. The
Master Plan incorporates the original ticket office into the schemes; however there was
discussion with HPC that they may consider the entire building to be significant. With winter
quickly approaching, the City needs to remedy thG unsafe condition of this building, which may
include demolition of the non-contributing sections. At the last meeting, the group discussed
the need to do further research on the history of the building. Commission member Nora
Berko felt that it was expanded from the original ticket booth size within the 1950's, a
recollection that is supported by the 1955 photograph provided above. Further discussion
on this issue is needed. At this point, staff is inclined to retain as much of the building as
can be documented to have existed during the entire "period of significance," or timeperiod
when Lift 1 was in operation.
Staff is concerned about the condition of the Boat Tow and its current location that exposes it to
the elements. Part of the discussion in 2006 focused on incorporating the Boat Tow into the
museum building to decrease the rate of decay and deterioration. Staff recommends clazification
regazding this issue.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for Conceptual
approval to September 24, 2008. Staff recommends that HPC continue to provide cleaz guidance
on the following issues:
^ Reconfiguration of South Aspen Street
^ Preservation of a sense of place through landscaping, grade change, etc.
• Treatment of the historic resources in conjunction with propose development (i.e.
connection of Lifr 1 to the hill)
Deep Powder and Skiers Chalet Lodge relocation
Preservation of the outbuildings
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines-
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact
of mature growth.
^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small azeas for accent.
^ Do not cover grassy azeas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features.
^ This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in
the public right-of--way.
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.
^ When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These
include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details.
^ If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional.
8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged.
^ An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases.
^ The replacement should be compatible with the overall chazacter of the historic primary
structure, while accommodating new uses.
8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location.
^ A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic
integrity.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
^ In genera], relocation has less of an impact on individual landmazk structures than those in a
historic district.
^ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
^ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
^ A relocated building must be cazefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and
materials.
^ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new
foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
^ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new
construction.
^ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
o If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots.
Both lots shall remain ]andmazked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
^ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similaz setback.
^ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
^ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
^ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances
the resource.
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.
^ Such an addition is usually similar in chazacter to the original building in terms of materials,
finishes and design.
10.2 Amore recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws.
^ All new construction should comply completely with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Owners of historic properties should comply to the fullest extent possible, while also
preserving the integrity of-the chazacter-defining features of their buildings. Special
provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some alternatives in meeting the
ADA standadds.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
^ Plan parking azeas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts
are not permitted.
^ If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a
primary structure.
^ Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the
structure has along a block.
14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.
^ Lazge pazking areas should be screened from view from the street.
^ Divide large parking lots with planting areas. (Lazge pazking areas are those with more than
five cars.)
^ Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature.
^ Automobile headlight illumination from pazking azeas should be screened from adjacent lots
and the street.
14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multifamily uses, should
not be visually obtrusive.
^ Locate pazking areas to the reaz of the property, when physical conditions permit.
^ An alley should serve as the primary access to parking, when physical conditions permit.
^ Pazking should not be located in the front yazd, except in the driveway, if it exists.
~:; - ,.
~~
"~
4
,•
+:
.
t,'
.~ ~
Y
"G ~
y.~ ~
_'
g
.f~'
.,,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation process
DATE: September 10, 2008
PROCESS: In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance,
Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. That ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations, land
use applications, or building permits affecting all non-landmarked buildings constructed
at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was
negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant
architectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modern structures as well.
Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous
meetings to discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular,
Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from
all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to
potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of
2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance #30.
Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have
historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance.
Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited
while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program via the HP
Task Force.
1005 Waters Avenue is identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources as part of
Ordinance #48. Owners of property listed on Ordinance #48 can still move forward with
proposed projects if they:
A. Submit the plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay
under Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or
B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from
Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC
review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or
C. Refuse the option for HPC review and submit plans with the intention of
triggering a 90 day delay period, during which time City Staff and Council will
negotiate for appropriate preservation of the property. If the negotiation does not
result in an agreement to landmark designate the property, the building permits
will be processed as requested.
1
The owners of 1005 Waters Avenue have prepared plans to remodel their home. The
plans as proposed require Residential Design Standard variances. The owners are not
willing to work with Staff and HPC towazds a design that preserves character defining
features of the building, and therefore Option C, the negotiation process must be
undertaken. (The Residential Design Standards variances aze scheduled for review by the
Planning and Zoning Commission next month.)
During the 90 day negotiation period, meetings are scheduled with the Historic
Preservation Commission and the City Council. HPC review is not a public hearing and
the acceptance of comments from the public or property owners are at the discretion of
the Commission. The Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council
as to the value of preserving the property without inappropriate alterations.
HPC discussed this issue on July 23`d, 2008 and determined that more information was
needed, as well as a group site visit. It is important to try to achieve a recommendation
tonight, to give Council enough time to weigh in before the negotiation period ends on
October 14th. At this point Council review is scheduled for September 22"a and October
14`h They can choose to extend the negotiation for an additional 30 days. Staff will
provide Council with information about the proposed Land Use application, the nature of
the Potential Historic Resource, and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's
assessment of the Resource and the effects of the proposed changes upon the Resource.
Council will use that information to determine what benefits they are willing to offer the
property owner in exchange for landmazk designation.
APPLICANT: Nancy Bryant, 1005 Waters Avenue, represented by Gretchen
Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut Street, Aspen, CO
81611. Additional owners Chris Leverich and Andrew Dolan have consented to the
application.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-82-001.
ADDRESS: 1005 Waters Avenue, Lots A - C, Block 41, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R-15, Moderate Density Residential
DICUSSION: 1005 Waters Avenue was built starting in 1958, according to the
azchitect, Ellen Hazland. (Staff interviewed Ms. Harland by telephone.) It is located on
Waters Avenue. Refer to the map, above. This house combines Chalet architecture with
the modernist approach employed by trained architects practicing in Aspen during the
1950's and 1960's. Similar to other Chalet buildings, this residence is sited towazd the
mountain on an angle. The low pitched roof, deep overhangs, and simple form are
chazacteristic of this era as is more glazing on the primazy fagade, typically carrying all
the way up to the roof.
1005 Waters Avenue
The simple low pitched roof form is evident in both chalet architecture and "Modern
Chalet" architecture that combines modern technology and chalet style elements.
Chalet Lisl, 100 East
Hyman, built in 1948.
949 Smuggler Street, built in 1946.
3
Similar low pitched roof forms:
~~. ,
}a
~:;
=L~ -_
4~'
~~a
¢~gS
.,.
Prospector Lodge, built in 1947.
Demolished.
Extending the glazing into the gable end refers to advancing construction technology and
a modern aesthetic. 1005 Waters Avenue was built when Aspen was establishing itself as
a vacation destination, and also during a time of exciting philosophical changes in
architectural design. The structures illustrated below illustrate the character of buildings
commonly being constructed in Aspen during the decades immediately after World War
IL
626 West Francis Street, built
in 1961/2.
118 East Bleeker Street, built in 1965.
Similar glazing into the gable roof:
809 South Aspen Street,
Shadow Mountain
Condomiums, built in 1965.
615 Gillespie Street, built in
1957 by Fritz Benedict.
Demolished in 2005.
219 South Third Street, built
in 1965.
As noted above, staff has been able to assemble more information about this history of
the house at 1005 Waters Avenue since the HPC's last discussion. The house was the
residence of Ellen Harland and her family from approximately 1958-1968.
Ms. Harland graduated from MIT's School of Architecture in 1956, at a time when the
school was very influential in Modem design. She moved to Denver seeking a new
environment, then visited and fell in love with Aspen. Ms. Hazland was hired by Fritz
Benedict in 1958, and she and Robin Molny served as his draftsmen. She worked for
Fritz Benedict for 20 years and took an active design role in many projects, including the
Pitkin County Library. In addition she designed a number of homes such as the one
pictured below.
1411 Crystal Lake Road, by Ellen Ms. Harland stated that the house on Waters
Harland, 1976 Avenue was originally the 900 square foot
structure that is in the center of the lot. In 1964,
she built the front piece (which faces Waters Avenue.) She said that it was like a separate
unit in form only and was used primarily for her children.
In approximately 1968, the house was sold to Ki and John
Davis. Several locals contacted about this property strongly
associated the home with that family. Ki Davis was an artist
and poet. She designed the sculpture that is in the fountain at
the east end of the Hyman Avenue Mall. Local author Bruce
Berger wrote of Ki in his book "Notes of a Half-Aspenite,"
excerpt attached.
Staff has attached records from the Assessor's Office to this
memo. The Assessor's office lists the "actual date of
construction" for this house as 1964. During the last meeting,
the property owner raised the topic of "actual date of
construction" vs. "effective date of construction." The
Assessor's Office puts the "effective date of construction" for
1005 Waters Avenue at 1979. Staff has confirmed that the
latter term represents the condition of the property (meaning
its current condition is similar to a property built in 1979.)
6
"Interplay," by Ki Davis, 1979.
This does not infer that eazlier portions of the building were demolished.
The last page of the Assessor's records provided in HPC's packet contains a plan view of
the house, labeling the year each piece was built. This record does use the date 1960 for
the reaz piece. The element that faces Waters Avenue is identified as 1964, and there is
an expansion towazds the east in 1974. The building permit file for this property contains
no permits from earlier than the 1990's, so documentation is difficult.
HPC asked staff to complete an "Integrity Assessment Form," for the property. We are
unable to do so because the Modern Chalet style is one that has become recognized as
potentially significant during the course of the Ordinance #30 and #48 discussions. At
this point no context papers or scoring forms have been adopted for use. The house has
been built in phases, in 1960, 1964 and 1974. We aze not aware of any other significant
work that has taken place on the exterior of the structure. Ms. Hazland viewed the home
in 2004 and did not indicate that it looked significantly different.
In terms of the proposed work that initiated the negotiation, the applicant would like to
add a second floor to the residence and completely alter the street-facing (north) facade,
which Staff views as destructive to the integrity of the architecture and design. The two
images below illustrate the existing street elevation (top) and the proposed street
elevation with the added second story (bottom). It is Staff's opinion that the proposed
alteration will destroy any important characteristics of the potential historic resource.
The one story low gable roof and glazing style and placement convey a 1960s era Aspen
home. These features are permanently destroyed with the proposed changes and render
this building ineligible for landmark designation.
'~i ~
~ ~ ~ it ~~~~ ~ ~! I'~II ~~
III IiIIil i ' III ~'~i~l
.EXISTING STREET VIEWMORTH ELEVATION
w• • r.m•
suu111 nvc eeuunnu~n avn :gin smnv moen
__ _.. - __ -_._ 'I
_r. , aoetu nnr, tx~mac ro xev,uu
~ no im~tii:e
i
PRCt'CS_D NC~TN E_EyuT CN
rt~a~v.oss~.~,-.•
POTENTIAL BENEFITS: City Council will discuss whether they should negotiate
with the property owners regarding the proposed changes through existing benefits
available to historic landmarks and/or other means. Following aze some of the benefits
available to this property if it is designated:
Imnact Fee Exemption: The proposed changes include adding 3 bedrooms to the
residence (for a total of 6 bedrooms), which require Impact Fees (TDM and Parks).
Parks Dedication Fee: approximately $13,287 (3 * $4,429)
TDM/AirQuality Fee: approximately $1,494 (3 * $498)
A total of $14,781 in impact fees would be waived if the property was designated a
historic landmark.
Variances: The site currently has existing non-conforming setbacks to the north, east and
west. HPC is authorized to grant setback vaziances for historic properties in an effort to
preserve the historic resource. If the property is not designated, a hazdship must be
proven to be granted a setback vaziance.
Dimensional Requirements: 1005 Waters Avenue is located in the R-15 zone district,
which has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The subject lot is about 9,000
square feet. It is anon-conforming lot of record and the only allowed use is a single
family home. A designated landmazk property in R-15 has a minimum lot size of 3,000
square feet and a minimum of 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit. This means that 1005
Waters Avenue, if it is designated historic, could be converted into a duplex and would
be allowed approximately 400 more square feet of additional floor azea than as a single
family use. (3,755.9 sq. ft. of floor area for a single family residence and 4,152.8 sq. ft. of
floor area for a duplex residence). The plans submitted to remodel this house indicate
that it is already in use as a duplex, which appears to be an illegal situation that must be
remedied if designation does not occur. The Assessor's Office records note that an
"apartment" was created in 1983, but that is not a verification that the work was done
with proper permits.
FAR Bonus: Designated landmark properties are eligible fora 500 square foot floor azea
bonus.
Transferrable Development Rights (TDR): Designated landmark properties are eligible
to establish and sell TDR certificates in increments of 250 square feet of unbuilt floor
area from the designated property. These certificates are sold on the free mazket to non-
historic sites within the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: HPC is asked to provide Council with an assessment
of the historic value of the property and the benefit of negotiating to achieve preservation.
Staff finds that 1005 Waters Avenue is a good example of the Modern Chalet style,
although it lacks some of the features important to others in the category, such as
8
balconies, open cazports, etc. We do feel that Ellen Harland can be illustrated as a
notable, trained modernist azchitect with a significant body of work in Aspen.
Exhibits: A,) Existing and Proposed Drawings