HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20100113ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JANUARY 13, 2010
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: None
I. Roll call
I. Approval of minutes -November 11th, 2009
II. Public Comments
III. Commission member comments
IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
V. Project Monitoring:
VI. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #1)
VII. OLD BUSINESS
A. NONE
VIII. NEW BUSINESS -PUBLIC HEARING
A. 525 E. Cooper Avenue - Minor HPC review, Commercial
Design Standards review and View Plane review. Public
Hearing (30 min.)
IX. WORK SESSIONS
A. 320 Lake Avenue (30 min.)
B. Recommendation to City Council on whether or not to
include Pan Abodes, Wrightian and Modern chalet
structures to historic context papers (30 min.)
X. OTHER
A. Selection of annual HPC. awards (30 min.)
B. Election of Chair and Vice-chair (10 min.)
XI. 7:30 p.m. Adjourn
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 525 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor HPC Review, Commercial Design Review and
View Plane Review
DATE: January 13, 2010
SUMMARY: The Aspen Grove building is located in the Commercial Core Historic District,
but is not considered a contributing building.
The property owner wishes to add 200 squaze feet of new retail space along Cooper Avenue. The
new retail area replaces an equivalent amount that will be lost at the back of the site where a trash
storage azea is being carved out.
Minor HPC review, Commercial Design Review, and View Plane review aze required.
Staff recommends that HPC approve the project, with the condition that the new commercial
space have a street facing entry.
APPLICANT: Aspen Grove Associates, LLP, represented by Dana Eppstein.
ADDRESS: 525 E. Cooper Avenue, the east 22 %:' of Lot C, all of Lots D, E, and F, and the
west 25' of Lot G, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, Parcel Identification
Number: 273 7-182-22-002.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as jol[ows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The
HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
1
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: The proposed expansion infills an azea of the courtyazd, creating a new
storefront that is pazallel to the street. This is more consistent with the historic district than the
existing stepped fagade, and it is consistent with the guidelines which promote storefronts
abutting the sidewalk.
The finishes replicate the chazacteristics of the existing building. The only area where Staff finds
that the project is not appropriate is the lack of astreet-facing entry into the new retail space, as
discussed in the guideline below. Other shops in the Aspen Grove building do have entries
oriented towazds Cooper Avenue. Staff recommends this be a condition of approval for the
proposed project.
13.3 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
^ Buildings should have a cleazly defined primary entrance. For most commercial
buildings, this should be a recessed entry way.
^ Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court.
^ Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger
buildings.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standazds or any deviation from the Standazds provides amore-appealing pattern
of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
purpose of the particulaz standazd. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from
the Standazds. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not
required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standazds.
2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standazds, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the facade of the
building may be required to comply with this section.
3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a
Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan
approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This
criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Staff Response: The Commercial Design Standazds aze in many ways similaz to HPC's own
guidelines. Because of the minor nature of this project, only the Final Review Design guidelines
apply. They aze attached as "Exhibit B."
Staff finds that the project meets the Commercial Design Standazds, except for those related to
the retail entry. Similaz to the HPC guidelines, there is language that promotes street-facing
doorways. Both sets of guidelines recommend that the entry is recessed slightly from the display
windows (the HPC guideline is 13.19).
6.41 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a
block.
• Set the door back from the front facade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate
amount to establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians.
• Where entries aze recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be
maintained by the upper floor(s).
• Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront.
Building code may require that the door into this remodeled retail space swing out, but it cannot
swing out into the sidewalk, so pulling back the door placement slightly is probably necessary.
Staff recommends that the applicant confirm the building code standards for this entry and bring
proposed solutions to the HPC meeting for review.
VIEW PLANE
The property is located within a view plane (Cooper Avenue View Plane) as set forth in Land
Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. The Planning and Zoning
Commission typically handles View Plane reviews, however the Community Development
Director has the right to consolidate reviews when deemed to be the most efficient and
effective process. HPC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requested view
plane approval. If HPC does not believe that the proposal satisfies the criteria for construction
within a view plane review, HPC may require the application to go through the PUD review
process as is described in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050(C), Mountain view plane review
standards.
HPC is to apply the following criteria to this issue:
1. No mountain view plane can be infringed upon except as follows:
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable
building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the
provisions of Chapter 26.455 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum
flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and
pedestrian space, and similazly to permit variations in lot azea, lot width, yazd and building height
requirements, view plane height limitations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated
requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the pazcel as to
require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated.
When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front
of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning
3
Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon
the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-
open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the
view plane, and re-development to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall approve the development.
Staff Response: The view plane cuts through this property just above the height of the first
floor, therefore much of the second floor already obstructs the view that was intended to be
preserved. All~gray areas that appear within the purple cone are intrusions into the viewplane.
The proposed one story addition is below the angle of the viewplane, therefore HPC should find
that the review standazds are met.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the project meets the HP Design Guidelines, Commercial Design Standazd
Review and Viewplane Review, with the condition that an acceptable revision be presented to
HPC to provide astreet-facing entry into the remodeled retail space.
DECISION MAHING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the application with the condition
that the entry be redesigned.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Relevant Commercial Design Standazds
C. Application
Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
13.3 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
^ Buildings should have a cleazly defined primary entrance. For most commercial
buildings, this should be a recessed entry way.
^ Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court.
^ Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on lazger
buildings.
13.8 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge.
^ Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible.
^ Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.
^ Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements to
define the sidewalk edge.
5
13.12 Rectangulaz forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades.
^ Rectangulaz forms should be vertically oriented.
^ The facade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting
or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form.
13.13 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form.
^ A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the reaz of a site, should be the dominant roof form.
^ Pazapets on side facades should step down towazds the reaz of the building.
^ False fronts and pazapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered.
13.15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged.
^ A contemporary design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among historic
buildings without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as products of
their own time and yet be compatible with their historic neighbors.
^ The literal imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ In essence, infill should be a balance of new and old in design.
13.16 Develop the ground floor level of all projects to encourage pedestrian activity.
^ Consider using storefronts to provide pedestrian interest along the street. Storefronts should
maintain the historic scale and key elements such as lazge display windows and transoms.
^ Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services aze
visible from the street, are particulazly encouraged.
^ The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Gazden level" entrances aze
inappropriate.
13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
^ The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transpazent glass..
^ Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story
windows should have a vertical emphasis.
^ Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate..
^ Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels
through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important
feature in this relationship.
13.19 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that aze repeated along a block.
^ Set the door back from the front facade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate amount to
establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians.
^ Where entries aze recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be maintained by
the upper floor(s).
^ Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT, COMMERICAL
DESIGN REVIEW, AND VIEWPLANE REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 525 E. COOPER AVENUE, THE EAST 22'/:' OF LOT C, ALL OF LOTS D, E, AND
F, AND THE WEST 25' OF LOT G, BLOCK 96, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO.1, SERIES OF 2010
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-22-002
WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen Grove Associates, LLP, represented by Dana Eppstein,
requested approval for a remodel for the Aspen Grove Building, 525 E. Cooper Avenue, the east
22 ''/s' of Lot C, all of Lots D, E, and F, and the west 25' of Lot G, Block 96, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Colorado, that required Minor HPC Review, Commercial Design Review and View
Plane Review approval; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(8)(1) of the Municipal Code, the Community
Development Director approved a combined review to enable HPC review of the applicant's
Commercial Design and Viewplane reviews with Minor Development, fmding that such
combination will eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and
clarity; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.0 of the
Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove,
approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.412 of
the Municipal Code, that the project conforms to the following criteria:
1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards or any deviation from the Standazds provides amore-appealing pattern
of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from
HPC Resolution No. 1, Series of 2010
525 E. Cooper Avenue
Page 1 of 3
g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc
02/01/06
Land Use Application ~fE
NOV 3 ~ 1009 II
/~~~ r y/,
THE CITY OF ASPEN ~4M~1j11/ Vf ~`IJr+~ 'i
PROJECT: IY ~ ~EI/EIOPM~
Name:
Location: ~ ,
S
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 2737 L g ZZ ~~.
APPLICANT: / /~
Name: ~~~t~~l~ ( f-iS~ ~~-S ~ ~ ~~
Address: ~ I~ 4 . 1~/C. ~. l I G~ c: ~~ ~ ,x;~ 3~l d_ .ds0~ lam. ~ f/ol~
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: ~~
Address: ~~
Phone #: ~ Ig~.4h
Ty'PE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that anal
Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
^ Certificate of Appropriateness
^ -Minor Historic Development
^ -Major Historic Development
^ -Conceptual Historic Development
^ -Final Historic Development
ExIST1NG
of
Que~/IG>-tSt~E
^ Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
^ Demolition (total demolition)
^ Historic Landmark Lot Split
4t
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) '
~7-•aEsE ~w.e~P f°t~K 2.at~'`'oF 14 ~2,. (• Fait. A
~Sir~ L614EA 6~T -t~,V~E 5•E C1~k oF't~te p,Ut[IJING ~9~
~i7D [-t't(~N o f A new Zqp~'- l.~~rf~3LE~L-G~k cidJ ~ ~ ~ ~
DANA EPPSTEIN CONST. CO.
24 DAKOTA CT.
CARBONDALE CO 81623
City of Aspen / Pitkin County; License #5072 /Classification; Homebuilder & Light Commercial;
Best Card Holder; Card #5616
Office; 970.704.0852
Cell; 970.618.4058
Fax; 970.704.1048
deonsteinna comcast.net
danaepostein .me.com
TO;
Amy Guthrie c/o
City of Aspen
Historical Preservation Commission
Re;
Aspen Grove Shopping Center
525 East Cooper Ave.
Aspen CO 81611
November 30'", 2009
yr r,~y
9 :j4 i'~: ;a..
^1Ri ra Y ~+a
r'~(/y j
,~~r~l4~rl~.r!Y9
Dear Amy;
Aspen Grove Associates Limited Partnership does hereby submit for your review and approval
this package for the completion of a "Certificate of No Negative Effect" for the Proposed "Squaze
Footage Swap" which will include the addition of a plus or minus 200 squaze foot addition to the
Retail rental space on the main level of the project as detailed in the attached plans. It also will
include the opening up of the South East corner of the Building to construct a fully separated One
Hour Trash azea for the building tenants' use.
Dana Eppstein Construction Company is to be the agent for the owner, the designer of the
"Footage Swap" project, as well as the General Contractor for this two part project.
We do understand that the New Structwe is in the existing Galena Street View Plane. The new
building does not exceed the height of the existing structwe, it is a One Story addition and should
not affect the View Plane!
We respectfully submit the package for review and approval;
Si ely;
Dana Epps ein; Agent for; pen Grove LLP; 11-30-09
Aspen Grove; HPC Approval Letter; Footage Swap; 11-30-09
~~.
L
S
Ili
'~I
~-- ~ r
~ ~
~~~!
~~
II
_o
~ i
d
.~
~~
,o_~, _-
- - „~_~„ -
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~ ~
~
~~
~N
'S ~
x~
0
~~
«,
IA`
..
r~ u
_. ~i~:
J
Q
~ ~ Q
~~ ~
P
^ ^ N
W ~N~
~ o
U Z
~~ O ~j M N QO 07
~~ ~ ~ Ln tfy ~' .n
~..,~ Q ~ CO O C -
~ ~0 ~ F ~ ~% 'Zo°~~s
z ~ ~~~~~
w ~ °° ~ H ~;^°°~
~T~ oc ~ a Z
d~ ~ a Cj ~ ¢"oc~u.
~ V ~ ~
~~ G/] ,r, Q ~ a
o ~ ~ ~ ~- , ~
~ ~~~ ~~ p ~
~~ ~ P v 3
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ;~ z ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W
- ~ ~ ~ ~
,~J ~ ~ v ~
~-
~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~~ ~ ~~
a
~~ ~ ~ ~
~ti ~?
~~ yI^y~
V
~~~ ~ ~
W~ ~ ~
;~,
-~
9~-
~~~ ~ a
~'
~_
~~~~
N L ~,
~ ~`~
o ~ ~~
c~ . ~. U.:
~ ~~ ~=
1~.~ ~ ~ `
:`
,\
. -
~~... ~ - E~$I(NIH~IHHY
~ r ,~
...~I ~:
,'
i~
i
r':
:~
.~
b
n
V~
4
fi
~
~ ,
~. ~
~ ~
3
d
N
~y
a
n
,.'~
~ ~- ~ ~'
~- ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ Q
.~
~~~ ~ ~
~~ ~
~~ ~ ~- ~.
N N"
v
~
S
`~ -
' ~ E
N
N
#
^ ^
W
d
~
~ o
~
Y
~
F
~ ~ a;
Q
W ; ~
V ~ A
w
z ~
a
~ w
a
~ ~
~/~
v~ ~.
0
C.J
i o
U
~ m O
G/1 ~ ¢ Q
'O
a
O
CG
a
~.U___.
y m~`~
~ F
Z wN{~
F WHmZU
~ ~ W C
~ E a o 3~aN
Z Z '~ h
< ~~DV
a d, ~ p w
w ¢ ~ v o F~3~
C"'~ Z ~ [Zt1
6. U a ~ :.
..lppw
[i] o a °~rQao
[-. - _
a o
W '.+
n
V ~ x
z
0 +~
7
F
O
~
Q O
V
ca
~
H
E-F
a
O ~l t/)
O M ~ ~ ~ e
N 00 O O ~
y, ti.
a_ z
~ V ~o~r.~
~~~~4
z cr+0<
0 o w ~~~~~
E""' ~°n°nn8
~ ¢ rn rn a a
z
a ~
S
m
. ~
ui
5 V .j
Q' Q ~ J X v~
' Z ~Oc~c,..
A
I ~ m
5 b i~ cd~s~'~
n-~D-~t
~~ ~
G. ~ ~
~•~
: _
~~~ A
-
jet` .. , ,~.
_~
1',k, ,.. _ _ .
x.
•~, J ~~, •.r ,..:.
~Ar~'~a01.y ! 4 .~ p;~ W
~.~ a
l ~ .,
i ' Sf ~ ~i
~' ~e23i s
/~ ~ t 11 pp~~
~~s
~~:
~co-ramie swAp
aRr~.c~F vRC~ev u+o°~# dvDrrto-~
TD EX1iTUJCy DU~LD11klr D-~1 MAUU WI..
^ s
Ay.~PEt~1 ~20~
~PP~~
5z5 E•-~R ~vE.
~~
..
AP~GF ADDITION
~,
M
. a
~3
f
i526 • COdP~ ~'~'
A
;~
~~~~ ~~
;~
~ » y ~. r
dd r n
4 '4
~ ~ ~ ~
.. _ 1/
AJP~tJ ~izbVE
S~~aPPir.1G cE~JTEZ.
1tJa B•GGOP~~
~'i
;~E yU1a"P
A
q~. pty~E{2~p~ u/ALLS ~sCKTItJCs
tb 6E S~-.~D~/E'D OR1~ EXTEt1SE'D
NEW ExtEWGR WALLS btllL'T-f
~l~-pry
,~
i~~
. tO~~ER A.`~.
~~
-~.
~,
,,_ !A
~ r a
. ? ` ;~. ,.
.r-- ..
:,, - _ 'TIT?
... ~ .~t
«-3o-oH
-~
'..'- L AIOGaAis ~07M6GRONAlO
rpOT.oCzE 9~VA?
~x~4n~ tonMtr space ~ro 6s'
ex~ravoev Yo rHe ~-~~~r
rN -r++is pHarc~.
~~y
~5 ~~v~
Nb G6FNTGR
~5 ~.Q7~R ~~.
~-~I• ~.C - " No 11E~vE ~FFE~T p
,..- ~
slR~.4 bF NEW [~EiU I N6 Fbt2'TP~Sl1 /Y~d
~~7
.. ,~C'~G~ SWAP"
~,~p~QIN(a GQ~ITLIL
Ta2~ 6~• ~Q~t AvE
;~
IWC- (N
11-X0.09
~,~ ~~~"
,~~
January 6, 2010
Historic Preservation Committee and Staff
c/o Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 320 Lake Avenue -concept description for HPC work session
Dear Historic Preservation Committee Members and Staff,
We had a very good initial pre-application meeting with Sara Adams regarding our clients desire to
restore and create an addition to the historic home at 320 Lake Avenue. An initial concept site plan is
enclosed for your initial review.
The general concept is to shift the historic home to the south and toward the street onto a new
foundation and create an addition to the north and back of the historic home. In the process we would
remove the non-historic additions from the 1970's and 80's and add a garage and connector to the
north. The garage is setback approximately 15' from the front of historic porch and is scaled to
resemble a one story "carriage house" one car garage and a further setback second garage bay /
connector.
The primary addition would be behind, toward the back of the lot, largely out of view from the street.
The rear of the addition would respect the special Hallam Bluff setback requirements, being 15' back
from the top of the surveyed bluff as well as a 45 degree setback. A combined setback variance would
be required.
We are developing some more diagrams and massing studies to share with you next week. We look
forward to the opportunity to discuss all this with you on the 13`h.
Thank you,
~7
Rich Carr, AIA
Principal
Enclosures: Concept Site Plan for 320 Lake Avenue
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Postwar Context Papers
DATE: January 13, 2010
SUMMARY: In November, staff met with City Council to discuss the Historic Preservation Task
Force final report. Council provided clear direction for how they wished to see the Task Force
recommendations implemented. A summary of the worksession is attached to this memo.
One important topic was context papers. These are research papers that provide a framework for
evaluating the relative importance of buildings, structures or sites that illustrate Aspen's history.
Three papers are currently used in our preservation efforts. They address Aspen's 20`h century
architecture of Chalet, Rustic and Modern style. These papers were written by the Community
Development Department in 2002 and were endorsed by HPC and City Council at that time. They
have been important in the evaluation of the 9 postwar buildings that have been designated over the
last eight years (3 chalets, 3 rustic, and 3 modem).
The Historic Preservation Task Force discussed and voted on whether or not they believed that
certain postwar trends or styles are significant to Aspen's history. They registered support for the
Chalet style, and Council has directed staff to update this paper, along with the writing of two new
papers suggested by the HPTF, one on influential "People, Trends and Events" and one on
"Building Interiors."
The Task Force also supported Rustic and Modern architecture as potentially valuable resources,
but excluded Pan Abodes (by a vote of 9 in favor and 11 against) and Wrightian architecture (by a
vote of 10 in favor and 10 against). A style put forward by Community Development more
recently, labeled Modern Chalet, also failed to gain the Task Force's endorsement (by a vote of 7
in favor, 13 against). Council has directed staff to update the Rustic and Modern context
papers, but asked for HPC's input on whether or not to drop references to Pan Abode and
Wrightian buildings, and whether or not to address Modern Chalets. The Boards'
recommendations are to be delivered to Council at a January 26th worksession.
Context papers are an important tool in making findings on landmark designation reviews,
however, the writing of these papers may or may not result in designations. It may be that not
enough evidence is found to support historic significance. During the Council worksession, it
was noted that it is important to do the academic research before making a decision about which
styles to include or exclude.
1
Staff has been in the process of seeking out photographs, historical records, and other reference
materials that would assist with this discussion. We believe that progress could be made with
context papers as follows.
CHALET- We have located a few additional photos of local Chalet buildings at the Aspen
Historical Society. In addition, we have reviewed written information about this architectural style
and believe that we should strengthen our discussion about the appearance of European ski resorts
in the 1940's, to show that some Aspen builders were clearly emulating the more established ski
areas, such as Zermatt or St. Anton (below).
.r~"1x,~9 ~_
~i
2
RUSTIC- The Rustic paper begins with a discussion of hand built buildings constructed in Aspen
starting in the 1930s, heavily influenced by the development of America's national parks. Staff
believes that little editing is needed to this portion of the context statement.
RUSTIC PAN ABODE- The rest of the paper addresses manufactured log structures from the
1950s and on; in most cases these were Pan Abode brand. Staff believes there is more information
that can be assembled to provide a better understanding of the importance of this building system in
Aspen and the surrounding area. Conununication with the Pan Abode company helped us to
discover that the Alaska Region of the Forest Service is currently completing their own context
paper on the use of Pan Abodes for remote recreational cabins starting in the 1960s. Their paper
notes that Pan Abodes were consistent with the Forest Service's rustic aesthetics, but provided the
advantages of prefabricated products that were taking over the construction industry nationwide.
Staff has found written information from other towns in Alaska and Canada that discuss the use of
Pan Abodes for miiung camps, government agencies and resort areas.
After WWII and through the 1950s, the middle and upper middle class was quickly expanding.
The growing efficiency of the industrial assembly line provided good-paying jobs and affordable
products. By the late `SOs, most Americans owned an automobile that enabled them to travel
around the country and spend their family vacations. Many traveled to the romanticized West, the
home of cultural icons such as the Lone Ranger (on the radio between 1933 - 1954), John
Wayne's many movies, Ansel Adams' photography and the legend of Davy Crockett.
They were traveling and staying in motels on Rte. 66 and National Forest visitor cabins, but they
were also beginning to buy vacation homes in places like Aspen. Not cnly were Pan Abodes
affordable and easily transported, they reflected the romanticized western log cabin, and they
were supple enough to build with your son - it was alife-sized version of one of the most
popular toys of the era, Lincoln Logs. Pan Abodes were a symbol of the rugged, utilitarian, do-
it-yourself independence of the west. Bunk out in a cabin and spend most of your time outside
fishing, hiking, hunting or skiing - an adventure away from suburban life.
The building efficiency and transportability of the log kits made the building system attractive for
both Aspen residents and clients such as the Aspen Skiing Company. Numerous on-mountain
structures still in place today, including restaurants and warming huts, are Pan Abodes. Some
Braun huts are Pan Abode as well. Within the City of Aspen, Pan Abodes were constructed as
primary homes, second homes/rental units, lodges, and apartment buildings. Aspen's Pan Abodes
of the `SOs and `60s in some ways illustrate the end of construction of modest sized residences,
particularly small vacation homes.
3
The Pan Abode company is still in business in Canada and in Washington State. Because the
buildings are still manufactured, staff is researching some of the differences between the product
available in the 1950s and 60s, and the kits that are sold today. There are obvious differences
between the scale and mass of the 1950s and 60s version and the Pan Abode super-sized "cabins"
available today. To staff's knowledge, few or no Pan Abodes have been built in Aspen since the
1970s.
Staff finds that Pan Abodes are very significant in representing both national and local culture from
the 1950s and 1960s, and play an important role in the evolution of Aspen's culture and built
environment from modest vacation resort to mountain mansions and a destination for the wealthy.
Below are details of Pan Abode logs, and the Goodwin-Greene Ski Hut.
~r
`~
4
MODERN- The Modern paper profiles several architects, including Fritz Benedict, Herbert Bayer,
Charlie Paterson, Ellie Brickham, Victor Lundy, Robin Molny and Harry Weese. Additional
information could be provided about each of these individuals, but consideration should be given to
other architects such as Sam Caudill, Ted Mularz, Jack Walls, Rob Roy, etc. Ili addition, staff
believes that the paper could benefit from more distinction between approaches that fall within the
Modern style, discussed on the following pages.
Staff has uncovered additional photos of Modernist buildings in the Aspen area that can illustrate
the prevalence and quality of design occurring here in mid-century. The pictures below are the
original base lodges at Butternlilk and Highlands.
WRIGHTIAN- The Modernism paper notes the fact that Fritz Benedict, Charlie Paterson and
Robin Molny studied with Frank Lloyd Wright as Fellows at Taliesen. The philosophies of Wright
influenced these architects' work in Aspen.
The Task Force voted not to continue to include Wrightian work in the context paper (therefore
making it ineligible for designation.) Some of the debate about this style seemed to be the fact that
Wright did not design the buildings himself, but only his ideas were imported here, and Wrightian
buildings can be found all around the country.
Frank Lloyd Wright had a long career and is thought of as America's most famous architect. He
paved the way and influenced Modernists such as Gropius, but distanced himself from their work,
which he viewed as cold and sterile. Wright and the Modernists sought an architecture that was
expressive of the Modern age, and one in which "form follows function," but Wright accomplished
this through the use of organic forms and incorporation of the landscape into the design. "The idea
was that the form of a building is not predetermined, but evolved from the requirements of
function, circulation, structure, topography, and climate; as does the form of a living organism."
(DOCOMOMO)
Some resources suggest that "Wrightian is an imprecise term suggestive of the work of Frank
Lloyd Wright (1867-1959) and some of his followers." Wright cannot be characterized by a
single architectural style; for example, some of his early buildings, closely associated with the
Prairie School differ markedly from his later designs. The work of Wright disciples is often
described as Organic Architecture. They tend to share the horizontal massing, geometric
rationale, conceptual unity and careful siting of Wright's houses, and employ a Wrightian
vocabulary of overhanging eaves and ribbon windows. It has been said that Wright did not guide
his students to simply copy his work, and Benedict, Paterson and Molny did not do so. Staff
does not recommend the removal of Wrightian or Organic Architecture from the Modernism
paper. Not every building associated with these ideas is historically significant to Aspen, but
many are. Most examples here were actually designed by Taliesen Fellows, who were directly
trained by Wright.
We believe the Modernism paper could be improved through more explanation of Organic
Architecture, its origins and characteristics. Shown below are Benedict's Wildwood School and
The Bank of Aspen.
MODERN CHALET- Modern Chalet is another design approach that could be addressed as a
variation of Modernism. Generally, Modern architecture is characterized by flat roofs and forms
based on cubes. However, a low gable roof can achieve the horizontality of Modern architecture.
Starting in the 1950s, with the advent of the A-frame, architects experimented with the steepness of
the roof and larger glazing walls. Some of the most progressive designs were produced for vacation
homes. One source states that "many people were more open to the idea of a Modern styled
vacation home rather than a Modern styled primary home." Aspen has examples ranging from a
very low pitched roof, to a form quite consistent with traditional Chalets, and a limited number of
remaining A-frames. Staff believes this aspect of Modernism in Aspen should be more fully
researched and included in a context paper. It would be valuable to consider whether Aspen's
collection of Modernist buildings is unique among American ski resorts.
Below are two late `SOs/early `60s examples of buildings with a shallow pitched roof, which
provided some additional functionality to the Modern form given our climate, and allowed for
clerestory windows. The building on the left is the Merry Go Round Restaurant at Highlands.
On the right is a Fritz Benedict designed home.
In the 1960s in Aspen, numerous buildings reflected the combined influences of Chalet
architecture with the modernist approach employed by trained local architects. The low pitched
roof, deep overhangs, balconies, simple form, orientation towards the mountain and other aspects
of the Chalets were re-visited with much more glazing on the primary facade, typically carrying all
the way up to the roof. Decoration was minimal, but still focused on~ the eaves, fascias, and
balconies. In some of the examples below, the references to Chalet architecture are overt, including
cut out detailing on the railings.
To a degree, this style made the characteristics of modernism more sympathetic to the mountain
enviromnent and Aspen's architectural context. Staff believes this is an important example of
architecture adapted to the region. Aspenites were not simply copying European Chalets, but were
inventing an American ski architecture.
~~
~ '~
Another unique response to the mountain environment was the design of rooflines to resemble
mountain peaks, as seen in the examples below; Shadow Mountain Condominiums, North of
Nell, the Aspen A's (demolished) and Aspen Highlands Base Lodge (demolished).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC support updates to the Chalet, Rustic and
Modem context papers, maintaining Pan Abodes and Wrightian, and adding "People, Trends and
Events," "Building Interiors," and Modern Chalets/Gabled roofed modem structures. It is our
hope that HPC will see the promise in further research that describes the architectural history of
Aspen and helps set appropriate policies for preservation.
Exhibit:
A. Summary of November 17, 2009 Historic Preservation Task Force worksession with City
Council
10
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: November 17, 2009
AGENDA TOPIC: Delivery of Historic Preservation Task Force Report
PRESENTED BY: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Sara Adams, Senior Planner
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mick Ireland, Derek Johnson, Dwayne Romero,
Steve Skadron, Tone
SUMMARY: The purpose of the worksession was to discuss the recently completed fmal report of
the Historic Preservation Task Force. Staff requested and received Council direction as follows.
Council Ouestion No 1 Staff direction: Staff presented Council with a list of Task Force
recommendations which could be addressed immediately. The tasks included additional public
outreach and education, additional value and cost analysis of designation incentives, and
.expanded tracking of TDRs. Council unanimously agreed that staff should begin this work
now.
Council Question No 2 20`h Century Preservation Policv: With the Task Force report in hand,
City Council was asked to verify whether or not they support any efforts towards identifying and
protecting historic resources from Aspen's 20~' Century history. Council unanimously agreed
that these efforts should continue.
Council Ouestion No 3 Status of Ordinance #48: Ordinance #48 does not have a sunset date
and there is no requirement to replace it. However, experience from the past two yeazs suggests
that minor clarifications regazding how negotiations are structured should be accomplished. Staff
asked whether Council wishes to retain the Ordinance #48 regulations as it is, change it, or
replace it with something else.
Council members indicated that the negotiation aspect of Ordinance #48 may be worth
retaining, but that an improved process is needed.
Derek felt that a fresh start could increase good will.
Dwayne likes the ability to work out a solution with the property owner, and the fact that
there is an exit for property owners. He doesn't particularly like the existence of a list of
affected properties, but recognizes that it limits the scope to what is really worth further
discussion. Dwayne thinks the core of Ord. #48 is sound and that we can improve on it.
Mick is interested in the idea of distinguishing between "good, better and best " He
believes this assessment should be done in advance of specific project proposals, so the
analysis can take place prior to controversy. Mick is bothered by the fact that properties
can only be removed from Ord. 48 if development is proposed. He'd prefer that property
owners could challenge the merits of their status as a "potential historic resource" at any
time. He'd like a process to review and appeal scores. He'd like to see incentives
appropriate to each level of significance be identified, and he'd like to see some additional
parameters for the negotiation process. Mick would like to see TDRs become more
valuable.
Task Force members were asked whether there is some consensus about the idea of "super
properties" (i.e. best properties) that could be identified and prioritized for preservation.
Marsha Cook, Task Force member, represented that there is generally this agreement.
Council noted that it's going to take time to get a new system in place. There was some
sentiment for making Ord. 48 better as an interim measure, while we get to a superior
system.
Council Question No. 4, Owner consent: The topic of whether or not to require owner consent
for historic designation was significant for the Task Force. Numerous options were presented in
the Task Force report. Council was asked for guidance on whether the City should pursue an all
voluntary, all involuntary, or hybrid system. Council indicated that a hybrid system is
preferred.
Council Question No. 5, Context Papers: The City currently uses reseazch papers, called Context
Papers, to document our local history. Three papers exist now, and should be updated/added to if
additional postwaz buildings are to be designated.
Council directed staff to undertake revisions to the existing papers (Chalet, Rustic and
Modern), and to create new papers that were supported by the Task Force (People, Trends
and Events and Interiors). HPC is asked to weigh in on whether or not to continue to
include the Wrightian style in the Modern context paper, whether or not to continue to
include the Pan Abode style in the Rustic context paper, and whether or not to create a new
paper about Modem Chalet history. Their recommendations are to be brought back to
Council. There were comments made that it is important to do the academic research
before making a political decision about styles to include or exclude.
Council Question No. 6, Historic Districts: The Task Force made recommendations related to a
new West End Historic District and a voluntary conservation district at the Aspen Meadows.
2
Council indicated that staff should work together with the Meadows. Everyone is
interested in determining what a conservation district could offer, and what it requires.
The Meadows organizations intend to submit some ideas for adjustments they'd like to see
made to the SPA. Ideally these would help reach preservation goals as well.
There is a sense that the West End integrity is too diminished to be named a historic
district. Council and Task Force members discussed the idea of code amendments to better
control home size. Some Task Force members could let go of the need for a district if new
construction were required to be more compatible through zoning tools. This topic is best
addressed through the AACP update.
Council Question No. 7, Mass and scale: The Task Force's discussion regularly moved towards
general concerns with new construction in town. A recommendation was made that the City
undertake amendments.
It was noted that the mass and scale that typified Aspen's neighborhoods in the past may
be a historic resource itself. Council directed that evaluation of reductions in building size
should occur as part of the AACP Code amendments.
Council Question No. 8, Incentives: The Task Force recommended numerous possible
amendments and additions to historic preservation incentives. In particular there was support for
creating new incentives for owners not pursuing construction plans.
Council stated that they are interested in providing additional benefits for historic
preservation. No one is sure how to fund new cash benefits, but there is interest in further
discussion.
3