Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20101110 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISITS: I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes — Sept. 22, 2010 and Oct. 13 minutes. III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring: VII. Staff comments — (15 min.) VIII. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #13) I. OLD BUSINESS II. NEW BUSINESS A. 500 W. Hopkins, Boomerang Lodge - Amendment to Historic Landmark Designation, Public Hearing (30 min.) • B. Lift 1, South Aspen Street — Final Major Development, Public Hearing (1 hour, 15 minutes) III. WORK SESSIONS/ DISCUSSION A. HPC code amendments (20 min.) W. 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. PROJECT MONITORING Sarah Broughton 110 E. Bleeker 604 West Main Street 222 E. Bleeker (new single family home) Brian McNellis Fox Crossing Victorian 332 West Main Street 1291 Riverside Drive 212 n. monarch Ann Mullins Boomerang 604 West Main Street 300 South Spring Street 222 E. Bleeker (new single family home) Deep Powder Jay Maytin 28 Smuggler Grove Road 627 W. Main Red Butte Cemetery 212 n. monarch Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove Road Jason Lasser 525 E. Cooper, Aspen Grove Crandall Building Jamie Brewster McLeod Crandall Building 202 N. Monarch (Blue Vic) M: \city \planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc 10/25/2010 • f , P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 500 W. Hopkins Avenue - The Boomerang Lodge, Amendment to Historic Landmark Designation, Public Hearing DATE: November 10, 2010 SUMMARY: A portion of The Boomerang Lodge property was designated a historic landmark in 2007. The undesignated area of the building and site improvements were demolished shortly afterwards for lodge redevelopment, but construction went no further. The property owner is now proposing to build affordable housing instead and wishes to remove the existing swimming pool from the property, and from HPC's area of purview. Rescinding or amending a landmark designation requires a recommendation by HPC and a final determination by City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not support the requested amendment to the historic designation, finding that the review criteria are not met. Staff recommends the property owner consider other options to address alterations to the designated landscape in cooperation with HPC. APPLICANT: Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC, represented by Steve Stunda and Michael Hoffman. PARCEL ID: 2735- 124 -49 -002. ADDRESS: 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Boomerang Lodge PUD. ZONING: R -6, LP/PUD. HISTORIC DESIGNATION The Boomerang Lodge was first identified as historic&lly significant through the City's comprehensive historic resources surrey conducted in 1999 -2000, however Council did not take action to designate it a landmark. The property was subsequently sold by the original lodge owners /designer, Charlie and Fonda Paterson, and in 2006 a redevelopment application was submitted. Through the review process, the City and applicant came to an agreement for the preservation of approximately 1/3 of the existing building and site. The rest was demolished. Although almost all historic landmark designations include the entire parcel in HPC's authority, in the case of The Boomerang Lodge, a map depicting the limited designated area was approved by Council. The boundaries that were agreed upon were, in staff's opinion, a compromise aimed at preserving the most iconic and public view of the lodge, including the historic entry and public areas of the building. This area of the property was thought to best represent Charlie Paterson's Wrightian design training. HPC was not given purview over the western end of the property, namely the new construction. 1 ,r P2 The lodge redevelopment project approved in 2006 has been undermined by the national economic condition. The property owner has determined that, as an alternative, construction of a - 100% affordable housing development is feasible because of the opportunities created by the City's recently adopted affordable housing credits. Within this program, the property owner can voluntarily construct 'affordable housing, then sell credits to used by other developers owing mitigation for their own projects. Purchasers of the credits will pay market value, thereby absorbing the affordable housing subsidy themselves. - The owner of The Boo merang Lodge proposes to build . the same addition that was approved for _ lodge use, with minor modifications to meet minimum unit sizes for affordable housing, building code requirements, etc. A total of 54 affordable housing units would result. In preparation for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, the applicant sought the support and input of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). An outcome of the APCHA discussion .was the decision to eliminate the outdoor pool, because it involves liability and maintenance costs that could be a burden to the affordable housing residents.. ' - _ The property owner was alley informed that removing or - - LANDMARK AREA ,•. - - altering the pool area - � « ,� �- � � F� ,�,� � E - ' required HPC Minor i t` ` 4 tl .7171 Development review, but has — _ tt F _ 1.i , - ;r i x �= L -- - — elected instead to request to = ki_ *tom 4 . _. r _ =— :::'-'.'&-, ', .; :1;' I'M -1-Ti-...e:"7 . delete the pool and ,� 1 surrounding landscape from , ' gY €" ' " t, 'g _ '.� i HPC purview. _ — 1 �i - B '• . 3 1 i ' ,; ~ ; °' ' ' ' 4 Street _ - f Y i a z 4 yri — HPC is asked to approve an ; s ' , "C { �` — --- — amendment to the boundary — , ' :_ A. - . = Vii f " ' ' ' ' 4. s 1 -` d 0 ..pT- � ., , { ...,. �- :: C 1 1@ ; 4 11; S w — — of the landmarked area as _ ` n �` i' a ` , r 124 11; V depicted in the map to the � t ;a � 3i Y / � i 1 • right. The gray shading ,l ; : . , F . s � �., . . A indicates the portion of the ? a i ysl= " gig. '" 1 ' A Q p .fi t /, .a c�, rt, z r ..._ site (the entirety of which . ; ' . ; rca ; * , e3 1 -- _ _ encompasses an e ntire half a 1 )� t t = F r p r City block) that is currently y l , ? • �, ' . _ <�. , y--� 1 - designated historic, and the - -. x _ t x f '� ,1 ail r • green line shows what is LANDMARK AREA Hopkins Avenue proposed to be eliminated Ho P from designation. - Proposed to be removed from �:1 E?�3TOt7N FAC• AC� ...1" designation NErr &Ji! GING 2 P3 The attached application summarizes the 2007 discussion that resulted in the boundary determination for the designated area. The application supports, and in no way disputes, the historic significance of the remaining portion of the lodge structure. However, the application states, on page 4, that there is nothing about the pool and spa area which contributes materially to the historic significance of the East Wing. Staff disagrees with this statement and believes that the staff memo and City Council minutes (included in the application), along with the HPC and minutes (attached as Exhibit A) from 2007 clarify why the landscape was landmarked. Amending the designated area requires HPC find that the standards are not met for the area where designation is to be rescinded, but would continue to be met by the area that remains designated. The applicable criteria are: 26.415.030.B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The significance of 20 century properties like The Boomerang Lodge is evaluated according to the following criteria: A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th Century history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association and is related to one (1) or more of the following: a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history, b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and the specific contribution is identified and documented, or c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. Staff finding: The recently authored paper, "Aspen' s Twentieth - Century Architecture: Modernism 1945- 1975," has this to say about Charlie Paterson and The Boomerang Lodge: Charles Paterson Charles Paterson represents another aspect of Aspen modern architecture. In 1949, Paterson (b. 1929), born Karl Schnazer in Austria, arrived in Aspen after a dramatic escape from the Nazis with his sister through Czechoslovakia, France, and Portugal. They were finally adopted in Australia. He had finished high school and started engineering studies in New York City. Disappointed with eastern skiing, he moved, first to Denver, then to Aspen, where he landed a job as a bellhop at the Hotel Jerome and became, in his words, "a ski bum." Within a month of his arrival, he purchased three lots on W. Hopkins Avenue, shortly followed by another three that comprised a half block between Fifth and Sixth Streets. There, he built a one -room cabin from left -over lumber. • 3 k P4 Paterson followed a circuitous path from that initial construction project that eventually led to Taliesin and his Wrightian lodge in downtown Aspen. He returned to New York for two years to resume his studies at City College, then moved back to Aspen, became a ski instructor, and began expanding his cabin. .After a stint in the mid -1950s with the 10 Mountain Division (Camp Hale's "Second Generation "), he added more units to his cabin and, in 1956, opened the j Boomerang Lodge (recalling the Australian "boomerang, " he hoped guests would return). Fritz Benedict encouraged him to study architecture, and Paterson spent three summers, from 1958- 1960, at Taliesin East, the GI Bill paying his tuition. He started out gardening, like the other apprentices, but discovered he was good at plastering and became the "official plasterer." Surprised at the quality of the plasterwor1 Wright thought the Fellowship had hired a professional plasterer. Although Wright died on April 9, 1959, before Paterson returned for his second summer, he went back that summer and the next. Through the years, he maintained strong ties to his Taliesin colleagues. In addition to Aspen locals Benedict and Molny, he encouraged other apprentices to stay at the Boomerang I Lodge on their twice yearly trilhs between the two Taliesins. At Taliesin the fellows were encouraged to work on their own plans, after hours, in the evenings, and during breaks, and Paterson drew the plans for the Boomerang Lodge as it exists today. It continued to evolve organically. Twelve rooms, a lounge, and a pool were added in 1960. The novel underwater window, featured in a 1960s Life magazine, allows guests in the lounge to look into the pool. Other expansions took place in 1965 and 1970. Paterson described its Wrightian features—walls and fireplace of "concrete battered blocks, windows with `corners of glass' .. . sort of a Frank Lloyd Wright signature." Though Paterson designed other structures, he never listed himself as an architect in the Aspen directory. The Boomerang Lodge is his life's work. It distinctive facade with windows organized into a horizontal band just under the extended eaves provides a direct connection to Taliesin that inspired much Aspen design. As mentioned above, designation of just a - . portion of a property as historic is not the norm. While the designation of I� '" j the Boomerang was °ia , - ` voluntary, it was done in the context of a — `� r edevelopment proposal, „ :.,. addressed one of the f ,' . �1 -' ...... _ fundamental issues on the + " .�. .,,,.. � table at the time, and presumably was perceived , 4 b y Council as adding to the appropriateness of the overall project. The designation boundary was drawn to purposefully maintain the connection between the lodge and setting; the inside and the outside. This relationship is inextricable in Wrightian design. Charlie Paterson even went so far as to, famously, incorporate an underwater view of the pool area in the hotel lounge. The pool at the Boomerang has importance as the 4 P5 social hub of the small lodge and also as a historic landscape design. It was featured at least twice in Life Magazine in the 1960's (see above) as a symbol of the atmosphere and design of the lodge. In 2007, staff, HPC and Council found that designation criteria A and C were met on this property. Staff still makes that finding, and in fact have more background today to demonstrate how the students of Frank Lloyd Wright, perhaps the most influential architect in history, were carried directly to Aspen; satisfying Criterion A. An argument could also be made that Charlie Paterson's role as a pioneer lodge owner in postwar Aspen, and the lifetime contributions that he and Fonda have made to the Aspen community are historically significant under Criterion B. Reducing the designated area for the purpose of demolishing the pool greatly threatens the property's ability to meet Criterion C. While Criteria A and B, which have to do with cultural history are important, Criterion C addresses whether or not the building that remains part of the community conveys history accurately. This is the aspect of historic significance that the community gets to appreciate on a daily basis. Staff has not prepared an integrity assessment for The Boomerang Lodge because the form was not created to anticipate designation of only 1/3 of a structure and cannot be sensibly applied. It was concluded in 2007 that the preserved area met the integrity threshold. Since then there has been some deterioration, which can be repaired, but no other significant alterations. 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 understands the intent of the application is to ensure that the pool may be removed from the property. We find that the historic significance and integrity of the remaining area of the lodge would be diminished if sensitive preservation and/or alterations to the adjacent landscape are not addressed. We believe that HPC review of pool demolition could be challenging because staff and the board would likely prefer preservation as is. However, the importance of preserving this feature of the property would certainly have to be balanced with discussion of other possible alternatives that could result in some degree of preservation while still providing the property with attractive, safe and usable grounds for the numerous people who will live here. Some alternatives worth discussing cooperatively are 1) convert the pool to a reflecting pool, fountain, or other water feature that still nods at the history of the landscape, or 2) retain the walls, steps and other concrete work that defines the existing pool area, but eliminate the pool and hot tub and replace with at grade paving. While the perception that the pool is a "nuisance" or an amenity is not HPC's call to make, this could perhaps be revisited, and adequate safety improvements made. 5 P6 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, BOOMERANG LODGE PUD, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # , SERIES OF 2010 PARCEL ID: 2735- 124 -49 -002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC, represented by Steve Stunda and Michael Hoffman has requested an amendment to Historic Landmark Designation for The Boomerang Lodge, 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Boomerang Lodge PUD, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property was designated historic through Ordinance #26, Series of 2006; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.030 of' the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria. Section 26.415.050 states that the process of rescinding, or amending designation shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property does not meet the criteria ; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated November 10, 2010, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards for rescinding or amending the designation were not met, and recommended denial; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on November 10, 2010, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, found that the review standards for rescinding or amending the designation were not met, and recommended denial to City Council by a vote of _ to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby recommends Council deny the request to amend the designation for The Boomerang Lodge, 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Boomerang Lodge PUD, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of November, 2010. P7 Jay Maytin, Vice Chair Approved as to Form: - Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2007 Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton and Michael Hoffman. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jim True, Special Counsel MOTION: Brian moved to approve the minutes of April 4 joint meeting with P &7; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Michael will recuse himself on the Boomerang, 500 W. Hopkins. MOTION: Brian moved to approve the minutes of April 4, 2007; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the show cause hearing on 300 W. Main until May 9th; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the minor development for 300 W. Main until June 13 second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Alison moved to continue the public hearing and minor development for 408 E. Cooper, Aspen Sports until May 23 second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 500 W. Hopkins — Boomerang — Landmark Designation Michael recused himself. Affidavit of posting — Exhibit I Map presented at the meeting by staff — Exhibit II Amy stated that the Boomerang property takes up an entire half block between Fourth and Fifth Street facing Hopkins Street. hi the staff memo it discusses how the lodge was developed in 1949 by Charles Patterson. Originally a long cabin was constructed in the center of the site and then lodge rooms were added. Patterson left Aspen and studied at Taliesen in the 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2007 late 50's. Frank Lloyd Wright passed away at the end of Charlie's tenure at Taliesen. When Charlie returned he built the east end of the property. It was determined at the council review process that only the east wing will be • brought forward for designation. In terms of the historic designation criteria only one needs to be met and staff feels two are met. The first one is related to patterns or trends that are important in Aspen's history. There is a pattern of the Wrightian style architecture and the other is that the Boomerang is part of a group of small lodges that are significant to Aspen's early ski history. The building clearly exhibits a lot of Wrightian features, poured concrete walls and the overhanging mitered roof. In terms of the second half of landmark designation which is the integrity assessment this is difficult because we are not retaining the entire building but little to nothing has been altered to the east wing. Staff finds that landmark designation is appropriate. The map which staff drew up indicates that it is the entire end of the property and the landscape surrounding it that would be protected. Sunny Vann, presented. This designation was voluntarily offered by the owner of the property. It is not essential to the project and we do not benefit it from it in terms of FAR etc. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing section of the meeting was closed. Commissioner member comments: Sarah said HPC is pleased to have this as part of our landmark inventory in town. Jeffrey commended Charlie and Fonda Patterson for the many hard years of work that they put into this project. We need to retain the small lodges. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #16 for 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, landmark designation. Criterion A & C have been met. Motion second by Alison. Roll call: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 4 -0. Alison said the monitor will review landscape changes, and hot tub on the deck. The monitor will also approve the selection of materials and detailing of the design of the railing etc. 2 P10 _.. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 25. 2007 Charlie Patterson said he appreciates the designation. His concern is that the historic lines not be destroyed when the deck and hot tub are added. Amy pointed out that HPC did not see the proposal because it was not • designated. Facing the pool area one wall is shifting and a deck /hot tub is being added. Sunny said we did not agree that the current proposal would go back to HPC. The only obligation was designation and that in the future once this building is built HPC would have a role in the area that was included in the building. Augie Reno, architect for the project said he is willing to work with the monitor and discuss any concerns they may have on the design. He can't commit but he is willing to discuss them. 308 E. Hopkins — Major Development — Final Review — Public Hearing Michael was seated Jim Guffie and Mark Brestin from Cunniffe Architects Affidavit of posting — Exhibit I Com Dev. publication Exhibit II Sara relayed that the guidelines in general have been met regarding this project. HPC granted major development, conceptual, commercial design standards review, demolition and view plan exemption for a little over 3 feet. There are a few issues that were brought up in the staff memo. In terms of lighting there was some linear lighting proposed beneath some of the railings and staff finds that it doesn't meet our lighting ordinance and we are recommending that be removed. In terms of materiality the horizontal wood balcony, we are not sure that is entirely appropriate for a contemporary facade. It seems a little out of place and maybe the material needs changed. Staff is also concerned about the glass block that is proposed for the west elevation. We need clarification from the Building Dept. on the type of fire barrier that is needed on the west elevation. Staff is not sure the block glass will comply with the regulations. The final issue is the proposed metal door. Staff is concerned about the solid to void ratio of the metal door and maybe a little more glass could be added as it seems a little "cold" for this facade. 3 EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 10, 2010 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, E. Michael Hoffman, being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: 13 Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less . than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 25 day of October, 2010, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. © Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of' property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (6,) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental a y ties so , . i d is attached hereto. L.LL�L, E. rchael Hoffman The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 10 day of November, 2010. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: , 6/13 Lary blic List of Attachments „ , PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) "S •••• (jA7 LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL = *7 f • LINDSAY s LOGAN • My Commission Espies 10116/2013 Exhibit 16. Exhibit 16 List of Property Owners within 300 Feet of Boomerang Lodge 501 W HOPKINS LLC 501 WEST MAIN LLC 521 -523 W HOPKINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PO BOX 8769 532E HOPKINS AVE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1818 521 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 604 WEST LLC 612 WEST LLC ALEXANDER JOAN P 604 W MAIN ST 604 W MAIN ST PO BOX 4818 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 ALLEN DOUGLAS P ALPINE BANK ALPINE BANK ATTN ERIC GARDEY 403 LACET LN 600E HOPKINS AV PO BOX 10000 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENW000 SPRINGS, CO 81602 AMAYA JOSE ANTONIO ASPEN MESA STORE LLC ANGELOV DIMTAR S & DANIEL D ARGUETA BLANCA EDITH 605 W HOPKINS AVE #209 C/0 ASPEN BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #103 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 8238 ASPEN. CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC INC BARTON META PACKARD BERR LLC 617E COOPER 4475 N OCEAN BLVD APT 43A 611 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 ASPEN. CO 81611 BRIDGE WILLIAM BROOKS NORMAN A & LESLEE S CARROLL MEREDITH COHEN 2075 SHERWOOD DR 16311 VENTURA BLVD #690 CARROLL ARTHUR RICHARD CAMBRIA, CA 93428 ENCINO. CA 91436 605 W ASPEN, CO AVE #210 81611 CARTER RICHARD P CHAKERES JOHN B TRUST CHRISTIANA UNIT D101 LLC 400 E 3RD AVE #804 3801 KENNETT PIKE C200 795 LAKEVIEW DR DENVER, CO 80202 GREENVILLE, DE 19807 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 CITY OF ASPEN CLEANER EXPRESS CORONA VANESSA LOPEZ ATTN FINANCE DEPT 435 E MAIN ST PO BOX 3670 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 CORTALE ITA CUMMINS RICHARD DESTINATION RESORT MGMT INC 205 S MILL ST #112 1280 UTE AVE #10 610 S WEST END ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN. CO 81611 [Type text] • RAY V DUNSDON S MICHAELE EMERICK SHELLEY W DILLON R I O BOX 10543 BORKENHAGEN DAVID A 2449 5TH ST PO PEN, 10 81612 617 W MAIN ST #D BOULDER, CO 80304 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1619 • [Type text] ERICKSON A RONALD FARR CHARLOTTE FAT CITY HOLDINGS LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #211 306 MCCORMICK AVE 402 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 ASPEN, CO 81611 FINE FREDRIC N & SONDRA FRANSEN ERIN M & GREGORY H FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN LLC 412 MARINER DR PO BOX 5082 730 E DURANT JUPITER, FL 33477 GILLETTE, WY 82717 -5082 ASPEN. CO 81611 • GANT CONDO ASSC GARMISCH LODGING LLC GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J 610 S WEST END ST 110 W MAIN ST 430 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GOLDMAN DIANNE L GORDON LETICIA H & H PROPERTIES LLLP PO BOX 518 C/O JOE RACZAK GOLDEN HORN 807 W MORSE BLVD STE 101 FAIRFIELD, CT 06824 555 E DURANT AVE WINTER PARK, FL 32789 -3725 ASPEN, CO 81611 HAISFIELD DOUGLAS HAYMAN JULES ALAN HY- MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION INC HAISFIELD LISA YERKE 9238 POTOMAC SCHOOL DR 111C AABC 616 W HOPKINS POTOMAC, MD 20854 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 IGLEHART JIM IGLEHART JIM JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD 610 W HALLAM ST 617 W MAIN ST OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 435 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81612 JOHNSON STANFORD H JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST KELLY KIM PO BOX 32102 2018 PHALAROPE 605 W HOPKINS AVE #202 TUCSON, AZ 85751 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ASPEN, CO 81611 KELSO DOUGLAS P KIRVIDA KATHY L REV TRUST KONIG DEBORAH 627 W MAIN ST PO BOX 518 HANSON KIM ASPEN, CO 81611 -1619 LINDSTROM, MN 55045 605 W HOPKINS AVE #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 KURKULIS PATSY & PAUL R LESTER JAMES LITTLE AJAX CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #201 229 CHRYSTIE ST #1417 , 605 W HOPKINS #006 ASPEN. CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10002 ASPEN, CO 81611 [Type text] LOT 2 BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT MADSEN MARTHA W MARSHALL ALISON J & JOSHUA W PLANNED COM OWNERS ASSOC 608 W HOPKINS AVE APT 9 605 W HOPKINS AVE #212 533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 [Type text] MOLLER DIANE T NECHADEIM REALTY LLC NELSON TREVOR T & ROSE MARIE 1710 MIRA VISTA AVE PO BOX 4950 605 W HOPKINS #207 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93103 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 NIX ROBERT JR NORTH AND SOUTH ASPEN LLC NORTHWAY LLC PO BOX 3694 200 S ASPEN ST 106 S MILL ST #202 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 OHARROW SIOBHAN P PERRY EMILY V RENO ASPEN PROPERTIES LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE 4208 PO BOX 11071 605 W MAIN ST #002 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 REVA LLC RODRIGUEZ JOANN ROLAND DANIEL P & LEAH S PO BOX 1376 605 W MAIN ST #OOA 605 W HOPKINS AVE #102 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN. CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 RUFUS CAMI CAMI LLC SCHALL FAMILY TRUST 8/31/1998 SCHEFF JONATHAN & BUTTERWICK 1280 UTE AVE #7 18518 ST MORITZ DR KIMBERLY 6 6450 DI AVENIDA CRESTA ASPEN, CO 81611 TARZANA. CA 91356 92037 SAN DIEGO, CA 92037 SCOTT MARY HUGH SHADOW MTN CORP SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC RUSSELL SCOTT III & CO LLC 0/0 FINSER CORP 0/0 JENNIFER SHERWIN 5420 S QUEBEC ST #200 7321 N.W. 75TH STREET 1714 VISTA ST GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 MEDLEY, FL 33166 DURHAM, NC 27701 SLIM LLC SMITH ANDREW C & DONNA G STARFORD PROPERTIES NV 106 S MILL ST #202 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST C/O KEON WILLIAM ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75205 7321 NW 75TH ST MEDLEY, FL 33166 STASPEN LLP STUART DAN SUBOTKY JULIE E KING & SPALDING PO BOX 183 55 WEST 14TH ST #15L 1180 PEACHTREE ST NE LOMA, CO 81524 NEW YORK, NY 10011 ATLANTA, GA 303093521 THROM DOUGLAS H TODD SHANE TOMS CONDO LLC 617 W MAIN ST PO BOX 2654 0/0 BRANDT FEIGENBAUM PC ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 132 MIDLAND AVE #4 BASALT, CO 81621 [Type text] TUCKER LUCY LEA ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VERNER DANIEL A & MERYLE PO BOX 1480 600 E HOPKINS #304 2577 NW 59TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BOCA RATON, FL 33496 [Type text] VIEIRA LINDA 50% INTEREST VOSS NATALIE S WAGNER HOLDINGS CORP LLC HALL TERESA 50% INTEREST 605 W HOPKINS AVE #204 C/O BILL POSS 0095 LIGHT HILL RD 605E MAIN ST ASPEN. CO 81611 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ASPEN, CO 81611 WASHBURN LYNN S WENOT ROBERT E II WERLIN LAURA B TRUST TERRELL SERENE -MARIE 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE 2279 PINE ST 605 W HOPKINS AVE #205 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1607 WEST ALFRED P JR & LORALEE S WHITNEY KURT A & JACQUELINE WINGSTONE TOY COMPANY LLC 58416475 METAVANTE WAY 6448 E CRABTREE PL 12 GREENBRIAR LN SIOUX FALLS, SD 57186 YUMA, AZ 85365 PAOLI, PA 19301 YLP WEST LLC YOUNG DONALD L YOUNG PAUL III FAMILY TRUST 7 SOUTH MAIN ST PO BOX 4444 8117 PRESTON RD SUITE 300 WEST YARDLEY, PA 19067 ASPEN. CO 81612 DALLAS, TX 75225 EXHIBIT NAMASTE ENTERPRISES, INC. Meta Packard Barton, CFPTM, President P.O.B. 633 Riderwood, MD 21139 Phone:561- 272 - 5664,.603- 253 -6008 memo 1'. Rinq 6 - � ` Ms Meta Barton 4475 N Ocean Blvd Apt 43A Ci } �'J3PPJl �YlYV114)1 �� Delray Beach FL 33483 cP-Cn: Me N '-u n 56.- ?1 51)-64 6 : 40 1'7 yaA uis;1'ar ICIR L -cckpc 1�- wig n.ecf5h ski opUaer) f `'nil Pactdn el_ TL& 13000LeA9 Lady :: �� c ck ri t',,ibL ono thvm-c hip nic krderook C)d7 ta cdraLod �t c� way 72-e_ Pod sd spy, o'tza. woi s; v 1 �� r ^ ' 4-9/e his � ^ f ! dad on )/a eZ1-, s o wan a w l �l rem) end R i -et G, Q y /ve<Pt tit,o n i Fo rv.o_2+- bad, c e.„) c) cv-)d » i tri coc y d end G coQcN -Sr j2c2. yab w-ov3 \ n e)c s ] cr wu c! wren a}, pozak.va o� � w-L � r efo ) d me corn pr . d � c) M doa 642414 ns fsko1� �� _ ffr\01\ d1\ 4° 1 Md .& f v d woo not}. G Q Qwo d ;I v e t}thotA by ever) Grime) ; „ of to; oviron 1 o)wan Avon .Nomoraloicoi F� a. 1 d- n 4)--; hoIL' !dl . T 1 c y aw cert2A 15 JUG °-U r^g G Vln crc koJ1 17,e, dfisiv, 77 s it o f ro ) pi..Q4eiv ak 611 , md. can 4 3y' _o iNt-korweA r tgcvw, A ccfro p D f-PfSi- j i nC t I U�P d lActilAwl Agfj ° 1 6 s . 0/0101/ -• end f wi jrA � � �e ` er o}cu --+n ,, $ `, )-kic, fa CJl Q. /K L -1 64 K--"-^ Fail() LYE V � y an id er- )ci ^Can o� u,� k.(v� 60Z caca-ad , Aet pi? cfc -A.y 19ivs }�lQ�j v 1 ,-.1 n Amy Guthrie From: Tom McCabe Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:17 AM To: Amy Guthrie Subject: Boomerang application Dear Amy, Please distribute this e mail to the F {PC when they consider the new Boomerang development plan. Dear HPC members, The APCHA Board of Directors has approved the content of this message. Keeping HOA assessments to homeowners as low as possible is one of' APCHA's objectives. Recent events at some HOA's only underscore that importance. I offer Burlingame as an example. I was involved in many of the discussions that tried to integrate all the various objectives and the inevitable tradeoffs that come into play, and I argued for keeping the elements that increased the monthly assessments to a minimum. I am sorry to say that the project did not optimize that set of considerations, and that resulted, inevitably, in some families being unable to afford the monthly HOA assessments. They could afford the mortgage, insurance and utilities, but as the HOA learned the totality of their obligations and apportioned those cost onto the homeowners, the burden eventually broke some families. Consequently some had to sell, and others experienced foreclosure. APCHA is always involved when these things happen and we know firsthand about the financial and emotional calamities those working families experience. In that light I would like you to consider not requiring the Boomerang applicant to preserve the swimming pool and hot tub amenity for this workforce housing development. APCHA knows that the pool has esthetic design value. It is hard for us to quantify what that value amounts to for the larger community, in as much as the larger community will not have significant access to that private property. I don't know how to quantify the green house gas impacts of heated swimming pools and hot tubs, but they certainly run counter to long term energy goals of the community. Additionally, there are maintenance, chemical, safety, inspection, and insurance expenses that are perpetual. Repairs to a one of a kind, historic, glass pool are likely to be expensive also. • Lastly, because this pool area is a unique one, and from an era when safety considerations were not as well developed, I suspect that any insurance provider would require modifications to bring the pool area into an insurable condition without regard to the sanctity of the original design. APCHA has never endorsed including a swimming pool in any new affordable housing development because the added expense to the homeowner could not be justified, not even at North Forty. Thank you for your time. Tom McCabe Executive DJi'ectot &&pen /Oitkin County //outing Outhoeity SSO E. Main It Oipen. C081611 970. 9204068. 970 - 519 -2115 lomm@ci.aspen.co.ui Tom McCabe Executive Diiectoi Aspen/ AIWA County lloudng Outhority SSO E. Main It. Oipen. CO 81611 970-920-5068. 970 - 519.2115 lommOcJ.oupen.co.ui 2 • Amy Guthrie From: Cindy Christensen Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:01 AM To: Amy Guthrie Subject: FW: Boomerang pool I wanted to forward this e-mail to you per Steve Stunda's request regarding the pool. From: sstunda @aol.com [mailto:sstunda @aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 9:58 AM To: Cindy Christensen Cc: Michael Hoffman forward Subject: Re: Boomerang pool Cindy, Would you be so kind as to provide me with a copy of this email to Amy Guthrie. I meet with HPC on Wed. and would like to be able to refer to your recommendation. Thanks Steve -----Original Message From: Cindy Christensen < Cindy .Christensen @ci.aspen.co.us> To: sstunda @aol.com; Tom McCabe <Tom.McCabe @ci.aspen.co.us> Sent: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 11:41 am Subject: RE: Boomerang pool Just to let you know, I did send Amy an e-mail that it was a request from the Housing Board to remove the pool due to the cost and liability that the homeowners would have. As to adding a three - bedroom, I don't think we have a problem selling a couple of three bedrooms, however, in a dense project like this where most of the units would not have children, I would think that it would be better to not have any as three bedrooms require the household to have a dependent. Of course, the project across the street is almost all three bedrooms. From: sstunda @aol.com [mailto:sstunda @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 10:33 AM To: Tom McCabe Cc: Cindy Christensen Subject: Boomerang pool Tom , First let me thank you again for attending the Pand Z meeting. Your support and comments were greatly helpful and appreciated . I have a couple of questions and a request to make of you and or Cindy. First , in order to minimize the number of units do you think it might be possible to combine a studio with a 2 bedroom unit creating a 3 bedroom unit? Is that marketable ? It still would be a cat 3 or 4 . If you think that is feasible could we accommodate more than one ? Second, I have advanced word that Amy is not going to approve of the removal of the pool. I have a meeting with the HPC next Wed the 10th to discuss this issue . Could you or Cindy write me a letter indicating that your department feels that II Gil i ' mm • • • n� . -in ma _ 4 .11 h m ii 1 7 s � 9 'j Y • y y , . l in C T I ni. :....: ~ IN9[i n p 4 • M , • , • 11 1 A • ° s , m 4,4 0 . , • • • 4 • • ..'c Qs • • 1. . • ( tit T , ' a • • , �Jjl . • • /► I • , _ � • ■ • • • 4 , iik ,... , • r•-•f . • ft if _ il j �I y I. • ? ? �,° ".. ^.'` • _ • II 1 II p.•• II � r G am' . V 4 . Cup FilialitES.. . m x • � • r the pool constitutes an attractive nuisance and that it would be too expensive to operate - -also a word about its lack of size and functionality should be mentioned. I don't get their lack of cooperation but that is what Mike is telling me. Thanks Steve Email secured by Check Point Email secured by Check Point 2 P11 4#1.11 • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: Lift One (aka South Aspen Street Redevelopment) including: Willoughby and Lift 1 Parks, Skiers Chalet Steakhouse and Skiers Chalet Lodge and Poolhouse - Major Development Final Review - Public Hearing DATE: November 10, 2010 BACKGROUND: The applicant requests HPC Final Development approval for the four historic sites located at the base of Lift 1 that are part of the Lift One Lodge PUD, also called the South Aspen Street Redevelopment. The properties and historic resources within HPC's purview are as follows: • Willoughby Park and Lift 1 Park are landmark designated. • The Boat Tow and Lift 1 tower, which are located on Willoughby Park, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. • Two outbuildings are located on Willoughby Park and the Deep Powder cabins are temporarily stored there. • The Skier's Chalet Steakhouse is landmark designated. • The Skier's Chalet Lodge and pool house are listed on Ordinance #48 review Since 2006, the applicant has been pursuing a redevelopment plan for this area. An outline of the previous approvals and a history of the project to date are below. Exhibit B illustrates the 2006 and 2008 HPC conceptual site plan approvals. Conceptual HPC approval is binding upon the HPC and the applicant in regards to the location, form, height, scale, massing and proportions of the project. However, this project requires approval of a site specific plan through the Planned Unit Development review process (PUD) which includes Conceptual and Final Review by City Council. The proposal for Final HPC approval illustrates the Conceptual PUD approval granted by City Council, which is slightly different from the Conceptual HPC approval. Important issues were discovered during the 2008 COWOP Master Plan process that are incorporated into the final HPC application. For example, the subgrade parking garage and the access point adjacent to the proposed Ski Museum are relocated uphill away from the historic resources. The project has been before HPC twice for two different conceptual approvals. A summary of HPC approvals and the entire review process to date is below: PREVIOUS APPROVALS: 2006: HPC granted Major Development Conceptual approval by a three to zero vote that included the following: Page 1 of 10 P12 • Relocation and designation of the Skier's Chalet Lodge (233 Gilbert Street, currently listed on Ordinance #48), to be used as a Ski Museum, to the far corner of Willoughby Park. HPC discussed many different locations along Dean Street and decided upon the location closest to the east property line. • An underground parking garage accessed adjacent to the relocated Skier's Chalet Lodge. • Restoration of the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse, ticket booth/office and deteriorated outbuilding located near the eastern property line • Construction of an addition and elevator to the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse, which was to be used as affordable housing. • Adaptive use of the Deep Powder cabins by permanently incorporating them into Willoughby Park. 2007: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended City Council approve the Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare application for the Lift One Lodge by a three to one vote. This approval also included the Lift One Lodge site located uphill. 2008: City Council initiated a master planning effort known as the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP to include the entire area proposed for redevelopment HPC reviewed the new proposal inspired by the COWOP and granted Major Development Conceptual approval by a four to zero vote that included the following: • The addition of a platter lift adjacent to the historic Lift 1 • Relocation of the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse and construction of an enclosed stairway addition for circulation. • Relocation of the Skier's Chalet Lodge and Pool House. • A modest roof penetration for an elevator in the Skier's Chalet Lodge. • Restoration of the ticket office to its 1950 configuration. • Relocation of the Deep Powder cabins into the Aspen Skiing Company program up on the mountain. • Stabilization and rehabilitation of the outhouses in their current locations. Subsequently the applicants withdrew from the master planning process. Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC decided to pursue the initial approvals granted in 2006 and 2007 and requested conceptual approval from City Council. Sometime during the 2008 winter the roof of the ticket office collapsed. It was determined that the building was beyond repair and it was demolished. 2009: City Council granted Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare approval for the Lift One Lodge PUD including Lift One Lodge, Lift 1 Park and Willoughby Park. CHANGES SINCE CONCEPTUAL: • Subgrade garage and entry points are omitted from historic portion of project. Page 2 of 10 P13 • Steakhouse is proposed to move 10' further north (downhill) to accommodate relationship to grade and to increase the distance between Steakhouse and new Lodge. • The historic lift terminal in Willoghby Park does not need to be temporarily relocated to accommodate for the subgrade garage. • The ticket office was demolished. • The pool house behind the Skiers Chalet Lodge was incorporated in the site plan (this is consistent with the 2008 approval). • Deep Powder cabins, included in the 2006 approval, have been removed from the site plan. • Stair structure/ egress tower approved as an addition to the Steakhouse is omitted from the plan. APPLICANT: Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC represented by Stephen Holley of Poss Architecture + Planning. 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 Park (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 (FINAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the 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 Page 3 of 10 P14 Note: There are no additions proposed to the historic resources. With the exception of a small elevator bump up in the roof of the proposed ski museum, only rehabilitation and restoration of damaged historic elements are proposed. All of the resources (Skier's Chalet Lodge, Steakhouse and pool house) are proposed to be relocated. The lift towers on Lift 1 Park are proposed to be relocated. Bill Bailey of Bailey House Movers submitted a letter stating that it is possible to move the buildings. The foundations will need to be rebuilt, which is included as a condition of approval. Grading/ Landscaping: Grading: During Conceptual HPC expressed e""4" 1` lt,a. concem about maintaining historic grade for „ qt,44 „ " r the overall site and maintaining the historic +' _ resources' relationships to grade after°,: . - relocation. The applicant proposes to j t." • maintain the Skiers Chalet Lodge's and the - Skiers Chalet Chalet Steakhouse's existing .„ r J!_ relationships to grade. The applicant proposes to restore the historic grade of Lift One Park and intends to re -grade portions of Willoughby Park to correct past alterations (i.e. the volleyball courts and parking area). Staff finds that the proposed grading and relationship of buildings to grade is appropriate and recommends that the current grade, proposed grade, and the buildings'and lift towers' relationships to grade be documented in the building permit submittal as a condition of approval. Landscape: During Conceptual review, HPC stressed the importance of retaining and restoring native grasses in Willoughby and Lift One Parks. The applicant is working with the Parks Department to this end. A landscape plan is included in the packet for the Skiers Chalet Lodge and Steakhouse areas that includes saving some existing trees on the site and plantings that maintain the historic character of the area. The applicant proposes that the historic "ski run" is devoid of trees and shrubs to maintain the connection of the original base area to the mountain. The plantings proposed around the buildings create a buffer and soften the historic resources on the site. Staff finds that the following guidelines are met: 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. 1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features. Page 4 of 10 P15 The applicant discusses the addition of pathways to link the historic resources in Willoughby Park. Staff recommends that Staff and Monitor review and approve the location and material of the pathways. The corner of Aspen and Dean Streets is eroded to make room for a drop off area. This concept was developed during the 2008 COWOP process in conjunction with the addition of a platter lift to get people up the mountain. The 2006 approval does not include the platter lift and it does maintain the corner. Staff finds that the adavantage of activating the area with the platter lift is an appropriate trade off for the eroded corner. A platter lift was conceptually approved to run adjacent to the historic lift 1 alignment. The final position of the small towers associated with the platter lift need to be determined through the engineering of the lift line. Staff recommends that HPC adopt a condition of approval to encourage that the new small towers do not obstruct the historic lift towers, but are clustered near the historic towers to maintain the open feel of the ski run. Lighting: An overall lighting plan is included in the application that shows lighting only on the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse and Skiers Chalet Lodge/ Pool House. The applicant intends to select light fixtures that are similar to the existing fixtures. Staff recommends that Staff and Monitor review and approve the fixtures in the field. Staff finds that the overall lighting plan meets the guideline below: 14.7 Minimize the visual impact of site and architectural lighting. • Unshielded, high intensity light sources an those which direct light upward will not be permitted. • Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures • Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. • Do not wash an entire building facade in light. • Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. • Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example do not use two fixtures that light the same area. Rehabilitation/ Restoration: The applicant proposes to rehabilitate and restore the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse and the Skier's Chalet Lodge to match existing after relocation. The foundations of both buildings need to be rebuilt after relocation. Staff recommends that they are rebuilt to match the existing. The patio in front of the Steakhouse is proposed to be reconstructed to closely match existing and meet accessibility requirements. The north door of the Steakhouse may need to be replaced to meet accessibility standards. A small roof penetration is proposed atop the Skier Chalet Lodge for an elevator overrun. The overrun is setback as far as possible from the front facade of the building Page 5 of 10 P16 and will have a minimal overall visual impact. Staff finds that the proposed rehabilitation and 1 restoration for both buildings meets the design guidelines below: 2.1 Preserve original building materials. • Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. • Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. • Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. • Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing -in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. • Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be replaced. • Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. • If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in assize, the amount of exposed lap and finish. • Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. HPC is asked to decide the degree of restoration for the Lift 1 towers and terminal and whether the ticket booth is reconstructed. Lift 1 Towers and Terminal: The historic lift 1 is green painted steel that is chipped 0 4 and rusted in certain areas. An original wooden and metal chair currently sits ' attached to the lift cable — the wood is , L 44' deteriorated and rotting. There are three options: 1. High level of intervention: Restore the lift towers, terminus and chair to original condition (includes stripping paint, repainting, replacing broken or failed elements, etc.) Make the lift elements appear as new. 2. Low level of intervention: Stabilize the historic elements and slow down the rate of deterioration (includes repainting areas that are chipped, repair major breaks and failures, adhere to a comprehensive maintenance plan to slow deterioration, etc.). Leave most of the "patina" that has developed over time. 3. No intervention: Leave the historic elements in current condition. Page 6 of 10 P17 Historic Preservation professionals continually debate the level of intervention appropriate for historic sites. The historic lift is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and as such must adhere to Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation (attached as Exhibit B to the Resolution), which are almost identical to the adopted local guidelines. The adopted policy in the local HP Design Guidelines is "historic building materials should be preserved in place whenever feasible. When the material is damaged, then limited replacement that matches the original in appearance should be considered Primary historic building materials should never be covered or subjected to harsh cleaning treatments." Old photograph show the historic lift painted orange. Staff finds that the ,, "patina ", or weathered '• ';' - t � ,� , appearance, of the lift ' ' - r , t , ' t . _ � `�, elements is integral to the 0 : 1 • i ' ' ' l, story of this area and fm<<i,,, - -^ - 1 finds that a low level of L= = .a—; intervention is appropriate; however ,---,....- there needs to be a WNW . , . a balance that preserves the w' elements of the lift for - the future. Stabilizing the historic elements and performing minor repairs to maintain the current condition of the lift towers, chair and terminus is appropriate. Staff looks to HPC as to whether repainting all of the lift towers and terminal is appropriate. Staff recommends that the repair work be supervised by Staff and Monitor in the field and that a comprehensive maintenance plan be approved by Staff and Monitor prior to the Certificate of Occupancy is granted for the Lift One Lodge. Ticket Booth: The ticket booth has been demolished since the conceptual approval, which raises the question about reconstruction of the building. All of the historic buildings on the site, with the exception of a few elements of the historic lift, are proposed to be relocated, which already compromises the integrity and context of the overall site. There are two options: 1. Recreate the ticket booth based on historic ' j/ 'lb f,. photographs. ' ' a. 1960s larger version (photo above) t °i b. 1950s original version (photo at right) \ " � 2. Do not recreate the ticket booth. Rely on .�� t i '`'' interpretive marker to convey context of site 1 i x , 1 i I5'1 ` `, ■ , . - :• .. ,h P18 Staff finds that recreating the ticket booth introduces a fake and inauthentic element to the site and is inappropriate. Placing interpretation markers in the site is an appropriate method to convey the history and significance rather than recreating buildings. Construction: Currently, the historic elements are in need of maintenance, rehabilitation and in some cases stabilization. HPC required construction phasing to be submitted with the Final application to ensure that rehabilitation of the historic resources is at the forefront of the construction project. The applicant commits to completing the work associated with the historic resources (specifically the exterior work that is within HPC's purview) prior to the receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Lift One Lodge. Staff is concerned about the security of the historic lift towers when they are temporarily relocated from Lift One Park. Staff recommends that the applicant store the lift towers in a safe and secure location before they are permanently reinstalled in the Park. Deep Powder Cabins: The Deep Powder Cabins were incorporated into the 2006 plan. The 2008 approval incorporated the chalet pool house (located behind the Skiers Chalet Lodge) and in turn relocated the Deep Powder cabins up onto Aspen Mountain, into the county. The Aspen Ski Company agrees to take 1 or both of the cabins, but the City is responsible to pay for the relocation up the mountain. Aspen Ski Company does not commit to the preservation or use of the cabins in the future. The City owns the Deep Powder Cabins, resultant from the Limelight PUD approvals. The buildings have been stored in the parking lot at the base of Lift 1 for a few years and need to be located to a permanent site. The City is working to find a permanent location and plans to meet with City Council during a worksession to discuss possible costs associated with the future of the Deep Powder Cabins. Staff finds that the future of the Deep Powder cabins js not the responsibility of the Roaring Fork Lodge LLC and finds that the placement of the cabins into the Lift One site would result in overcrowding. Landmark Designation: Staff recommends a condition of approval that the designated boundary for the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse is amended to include its new location before the certificate of occupancy is granted for the Steakhouse. Staff recommends that a designation application is submitted for the Skiers Chalet Lodge and Pool House prior to the certificate of occupancy is granted for the Skiers Chalet Lodge and Pool House. RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends that HPC grant Final Development for the Lift 1/ South Aspen Street Redevelopment as presented with the following conditions: Section 1: Landscape and Grading a. The current grade, proposed grade, and the buildings' (Steakhouse, Skiers Chalet Lodge and Pool House) and lift towers/ terminal's relationships to grade be documented in the building permit submittal as a condition of approval Page 8of10 P19 b. The landscape plan is approved as presented. c. Staff and Monitor to review and approve the location and material of the pathways in Willoughby Park. d. The applicant shall consider incorporating interpretive signage into the landscape to explain the history and context of the site. Section 2: Platter Lift HPC encourages that the new small towers do not obstruct the historic lift towers, but are clustered near the historic towers to maintain the open feel of the ski run. The final locations of the new platter towers will be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. Sections g a. The lighting plan is approved as presented. b. Staff and Monitor to review and approve lighting fixtures prior to purchase and installation. Section 4: Rehab Restoration a. The rehabilitation and restoration of the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse and Lodge/Pool House is approved as presented. b. The new foundations for the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse, Lodge and Pool house will replicate the existing foundation material, details and relationship to grade. c. Details and materials for the recreated patio in front of the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse to be reviewed and approved by the Staff and Monitor prior to installati accessibility d. Replacement of the north door on the by Staff Steakhouse u Ielo building requirements to be reviewed and approved Y Section 5: Lift One Towers and Terminal will be stabilized and repaired where a. The lift one towers, chairs and terminal necessary, as determined by the Staff and Monitor in the field and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (attached as Exhibit B). plan for the lift one b. A maintenance plan and commitment to the maintenance P terminal, towers and chairs, is required to be submitted and approved by the Staff and Monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 6: Ticket Booth The ticket booth is not required to be rebuilt. Sectio 7: Con struction Council include the construction phasing a. HPC strongly recommends that City represented in the final HPC application in the final Ordinance, if adopted, to ensure that the historic resources are rehabilitated in a timely manner. b. HPC requires that the secure location to temporarily store the lift towers is submitted to Staff prior to issuance of a building permit to relocate the towers. c. drawings shall be provided for revue and and approval by staff and monitor when the approved information is available. Page 9 of 10 P20 d. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. e. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. f. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. g. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. h. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. Section 8: Landmark Designation a. Staff strongly recommends that City Council include in the Ordinance, if adopted, a requirement that the applicant submit a landmark designation application for the Skiers Chalet Lodge and Pool House prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy for the Skiers Chalet Lodge and Pool House. b. The designation boundaries shall be amended to reflect the new Skiers Chalet Steakhouse parcel prior to the Steakhouse receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 9 a. The HPC shall be notified of any changes to the final HPC development approval that are approved by the City Council Ordinance. b. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board, unless the changes are approved by City Council. Resolution No. _, Series of 2010 Exhibits: A. Relevant Design Guidelines. B. 2006 approved site plan and resolution C. 2008 approved site plan and resolution D. Application Page 10 of 10 P21 • RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT WILLOUGHBY PARK, LIFT 1 PARK, 233 GILBERT STREET AND 710 S. ASPEN STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. _ , SERIES OF 2010 PARCEL ID: Willoughby Park (PID# 2735 - 131 -16 -851), Lift 1 Park (PID# 2735 - 131 -19 -851), 710 S. Aspen Street (PID# 2735- 131 -21 -001), and 233 Gilbert Street (PID# 2735 - 131 -19 -002) WHEREAS, Community Development Department received a completed application from Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC represented by Poss Architecture requesting Major Development (Final) for the properties at Willoughby Park (PID# 2735- 131 -16 -851), Lift One Park (PID # 2735 - 131 -19 -85 Skier's Chalet Steakhouse (PID# 2735 - 131 -21 -001), and Skier's Chalet Lodge and ancillary building "pool house" (PID #2735- 131 -19 -002), as legally described in Exhibit A; and WHERAS, Willoughby Park, Lift 1 Park and the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse (710 South Aspen Street) are designated local landmarks; and WHEREAS, the Skiers Chalet Lodge and pool house, 233 Gilbert Street, are listed on Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007 as potential historic resources; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission adopted Resolution No. 21, Series of 2006, granting Conceptual Major Development approval, Relocation and Demolition approval and setback Variances for the subject properties; and WHEREAS, the Applicant willingly entered into a master planning process with certain conditions regarding the "active" status of the approvals granted by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission for the subject properties, also referred to as the Lift One Lodge project and the South Aspen Street Redevelopment, as memorialized in City Council Resolution No. 13, Series of 2008; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission adopted Resolution No. 23, Series of 2008, granting Conceptual Major Development approval and Relocation for the subject properties; and WHEREAS, the Applicant withdrew from the master planning process and the City renewed the Lift One Lodge application; and HPC Resolution No. — Series of 2010 Lift One/ South Aspen Street Redevelopment Page 1 of 4 P22 WHEREAS, the City Council Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007 negotiation process regarding 233 Gilbert Street, the Skiers Chalet Lodge and the pool house, that was triggered by the 2008 master plan application to the HPC is no longer applicable as the applicant withdrew from the master planning process and elected to revert back to the 2006 application at which time Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007 was not adopted, and WHEREAS, Aspen City Council adopted Resolution No. 52, Series of 2009 granting Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval and a Conceptual Timeshare Application for the Lift One Lodge Property; and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.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, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated November 10, 2010, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" have been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on November 10, 2010, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Major Development (Final) for the properties legally described in Exhibit A to the Resolution with the following conditions: Section 1: Landscape and Grading a. The current grade, proposed grade, and the buildings' (Steakhouse, Skiers Chalet Lodge and Pool House) and lift towers/ terminal's relationships to grade be documented in the building permit submittal as a condition of approval b. The landscape plan is approved as presented. c. Staff and Monitor to review and approve the location and material of the pathways in Willoughby Park. d. The applicant shall consider incorporating interpretive signage into the landscape to explain the history and context of the site. Section 2: Platter Lift HPC encourages that the new small towers do not obstruct the historic lift towers, but are clustered near the historic towers to maintain the open feel of the ski run. HPC Resolution No. Series of 2010 Lift Onel South Aspen Street Redevelopment Page 2 of 4 P23 The final locations of the new platter towers will be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. • Section 3: Lighting a. The lighting plan is approved as presented. b. Staff and Monitor to review and approve lighting fixtures prior to purchase and installation. Section 4: Rehabilitation/ Restoration a. The rehabilitation and restoration of the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse and Lodge/Pool House is approved as presented. b. The new foundations for the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse, Lodge and Pool house will replicate the existing foundation material, details and relationship to grade. c: Details and materials for the recreated patio in front of the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse to be reviewed and approved by the Staff and Monitor prior to installation. d. Replacement of the north door on the Steakhouse building for accessibility requirements to be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. Section 5: Lift One Towers and Terminal a. The lift one towers, chairs and terminal will be stabilized and repaired where necessary, as determined by the Staff and Monitor in the field and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (attached as Exhibit B). b. A maintenance plan and commitment to the maintenance plan for the lift one terminal, towers and chairs, is required to be submitted and approved by the Staff and Monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 6: Ticket Booth The ticket booth is not required to be rebuilt. Section 7: Construction a. HPC strongly recommends that City Council include the construction phasing represented in the final HPC application in the final Ordinance, if adopted, to ensure that the historic resources are rehabilitated in a timely manner. b. HPC requires that the secure location to temporarily store the lift towers is submitted to Staff prior to issuance of a building permit to relocate the towers. c. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. d. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. e. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. f. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. HPC Resolution No. _ Series of 2010 Lift One/ South Aspen Street Redevelopment Page 3 of 4 P24 g. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. h. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. Section 8: Landmark Designation a. Staff strongly recommends that City Council include in the Ordinance, if adopted, a requirement that the applicant submit a landmark designation application for the Skiers Chalet Lodge and Pool House prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy for the Skiers Chalet Lodge and Pool House. b. The designation boundaries shall be amended to reflect the new Skiers Chalet Steakhouse parcel prior to the Steakhouse receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 9 a. The HPC shall be notified of any changes to the final HPC development approval that are approved by the City Council Ordinance. b. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board, unless the changes are approved by City Council. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of November 2010. Jay Maytin, HPC Vice- Chair Approved as to Form: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation HPC Resolution No. _ Series of 2010 Lift One/ South Aspen Street Redevelopment Page 4 of 4 P25 HPC Resolution No. _ , Series of 2010 Exhibit A — Legal Descriptions A. Property of Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 8, together with that portion of the alley in Block 8 abutting said lots, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen (Skiers Chalet Steakhouse); Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 9, together with Lots 4 and 11, Block 9, less the west 22 feet thereof, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, and that portion of the alley in said Block 9 vacated by the City of Aspen in Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006, recorded April 11, 2006 under Reception No. 522845 (Skiers Chalet Lodge) B. Property owned or maintained by the City of Aspen. Willoughby Park: Lots 1 -14, Block 7 and Lots 1 -3, Block 8 Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, and that portion of Juan Street east of South Aspen Street between Blocks 7 and 8, Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen and that portion of the alley in Block 8 adjacent to Lots 1, 2, and 3 Block 8, Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen. Lift One Park: Lots 3 and 12 Block 9 and the western 22 feet of Lots 4 and 11, Block 9 Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen. R E Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 1 of 3 / Technical Preserv: • - ! O f f SEArCR I LWNS 1 EMAIL The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for - - Rehabilitation - "" Introduction to the Standards Wend ' '. Matt The Secretary of the Interior is � � ^,� responsible for establishing standards - = ji ?_ Fz Mote for all programs under Departmental ` .�, } UMW' authority and for advising Federal `� -- EnirmcerPorches agencies on the preservation of g , i Siore rants historic properties listed in or eligible fly .. ; I Stttrc4eel for listing in the National Register of ' o t Historic Places. a awl diveirlradNS' E�lf18w i 1 �. .�.MI -4 PPRVAIIIL. The Standards for Rehabilitation 7t S e (codified in 36 CFR 67 for use in the SI: ice' k SINN Federal Historic Preservation Tax i. - ; a 'VP,: Ewe Incentives program) address the most s$ NewAddlions prevalent treatment. "Rehabilitation" is .. ? 7 r r A sibilly defined as "the process of returning a - HealifitSafety property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are �� , significant to its historic, architectural, *---:--a and cultural_vatues." Credits Initially developed by the Secretary of the Interior to determine the appropriateness of proposed project work on registered properties within the Historic Preservation Fund grant -in -aid program, the Standards for Rehabilitation have been widely used over the years -- particularly to determine if a rehabilitation qualifies as a Certified Rehabilitation for Federal tax purposes. In addition, the Standards have guided Federal agencies in carrying out their historic preservation responsibilities for properties in Federal "Rehabilitation" is ownership or control; and State and local officials in reviewing both Federal defined as "the and nonfederal rehabilitation proposals. They have also been adopted by process of historic district and planning commissions across the country. retuming a property to a state of utility, The intent of the Standards is to assist the long -term preservation of a through repair or property's significance through the preservation of historic materials and alteration, which features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, makes possible an construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and efficient interior of the buildings. They also encompass related landscape features and contemporary use the building's site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related while preserving new construction. To be certified for Federal tax purposes, a rehabilitation those portions and project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the historic features of the character of the structure(s), and where applicable, the district in which it is property which are located . significant to its historic, As stated in the definition, the treatment "rehabilitation" assumes that at least architectural, and some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation .& Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 2 of 3 P 27 cultural values:' provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building's historic character. For example, certain treatments —if improperly applied —may cause or accelerate physical deterioration of the historic building. This can include using improper repointing • or exterior masonry cleaning techniques, or introducing insulation that damages historic fabric. In almost all of these situations, use of these materials and treatments will result in a project that does not meet the Standards. Similarly, exterior additions that duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the extent that they compromise the historic character of the structure will fail to meet the Standards. CI The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Standards (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67) pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, , sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape 7 features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new t\ `, ' construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. , 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. The Standards are Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive to be applied to feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and specific other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of rehabilitation missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or projects in a pictorial evidence. reasonable manner, taking 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause into consideration damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of economic and structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means technical possible. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 3 of 3 P28 feasibility. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. • Home I Next I Previous L «_. /4........ __.. .�,... /L.:..... �../L_.. /._.. /..... /..1.1./....._.7 1..�. 1 1 PIP P29 ExhibitA — Relevant Design Guidelines for Lilt One 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. ❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. o Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. o If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. ❑ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 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. o Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. ❑ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. o Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. ❑ Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. ❑ It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. o Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 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. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. ❑ Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. ❑ Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. ❑ Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. ❑ Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. Exhibit A Relevant HP Design Guidelines Page 1 of 6 P30 2.2 Protect wood features from deterioration. ❑ Provide proper drainage and ventilation to minimize rot. o Maintain protective coatings to retard drying and ultraviolet damage. 2.3 Plan repainting carefully. ❑ Always prepare a good substrate. Prior to painting, remove damaged or deteriorated paint only to the next intact layer, using the gentlest means possible. o Use compatible paints. Some latex paints will not bond well to earlier oil -based paints without a primer coat. 2.4 Brick or stone that was not painted historically should not be painted. ❑ Masonry naturally has a water - protective layer, or patina, to protect it from the elements. 2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing -in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. o Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired. o Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. o If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. ❑ Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. o If the original is double -hung, then the replacement window should also be double -hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. o Matching the original design is particularly important on key character - defining facades. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. o Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. o Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. o If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. o If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. ❑ Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. Exhibit A Relevant HP Design Guidelines Page 2 of 6 P31 ❑ For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On -Going Maintenance of Historic Properties ". 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. ❑ Repair only those features that are deteriorated. ❑ Patch, piece -in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. ❑ Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. ❑ Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. ❑ Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. ❑ Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. ❑ If the original detail was made of wood , for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish, which traditionally was a smooth painted finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. ❑ The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building's heritage. ❑ When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.6 Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities. ❑ Replace only those portions that are beyond repair. ❑ Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence. ❑ Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible. ❑ A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself conveys the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass cornice may be considered at the top of a building. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. ❑ Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. ❑ A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 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. Exhibit A Relevant HP Design Guidelines Page 3 of 6 P32 ❑ If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ❑ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. ❑ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. ❑ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. ❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 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. 14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws. ❑ All new construction should comply completely with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Owners of historic properties should comply to the fullest extent possible, while also preserving the integrity of the character - defining features of their buildings. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some alternatives in meeting the ADA standards. 14.2 Generally, a solution that is independent from the historic building and does not alter its historic characteristics is encouraged. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. ❑ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. ❑ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. ❑ Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. ❑ Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. ❑ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. ❑ Do not wash an entire building facade in light. ❑ Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. ❑ Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. Exhibit A Relevant HP Design Guidelines Page 4 of 6 P33 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. ❑ Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. ❑ Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights -of -way. 14.9 Use the gentlest means possible to clean the surface of materials and features. ❑ Perform a test patch (in an inconspicuous place) to make sure the cleaning method will not damage the surface. Many procedures can have an unanticipated negative effect upon building materials and result in accelerated deterioration or a loss of character. ❑ Harsh cleaning methods, such as sandblasting, can damage the historic materials, make them vulnerable to moisture, accelerate deterioration and change their appearance. Such procedures are inappropriate. ❑ If cleaning is necessary, a low pressure water wash is preferred. Chemical cleaning may be considered if a test patch is first conducted to determine safety. ❑ Also see technical rehabilitation literature published by the National Park Service and available through the Aspen Community Development Department. 14.10 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing -in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. ❑ Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired. ❑ Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. 14.11 Plan repainting carefully. ❑ Note that frequent repainting of trim materials may cause a buildup of paint layers that obscures architectural details. When this occurs, consider stripping paint layers to retrieve details. However, if stripping is necessary, use the gentlest means possible, being careful not to damage architectural details and finishes. ❑ Remember good preparation is key to successful repainting but also the buildup of old paint is an important historic record of the building. The removal of old paint, by the gentlest means possible, should be undertaken only if necessary to the success of the repainting. Remember that old paint is of very good quality and is enviable in today's painting world. ❑ Old paint may contain lead. Precautions should be taken when sanding or scraping is necessary. 14.12 Provide a weather - protective finish to wood surfaces. ❑ The rustic bare -wood look is not a part of the heritage of the historic districts or individual landmark properties. ❑ Painted surfaces are most appropriate. Stains may be accepted in combination with materials that give a well - finished appearance. Use water seal to preserve the porch deck. ❑ Rustic finishes will not be approved. 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. ❑ When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. Exhibit A Relevant HP Design Guidelines Page5of6 P34 ❑ This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. ❑ Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. ❑ Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. ❑ Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. ❑ Screen ground - mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. ❑ A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. ❑ Use low - profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes. ❑ Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. 14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not damage historic facade materials. ❑ Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric and is inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade. ❑ If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the wall. Exhibit A Relevant HP Design Guidelines Page 6 of 6 • t2e0 1:211 530468 ►/I I f/ 35 1111101111111111EL � ae%i00 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RELOCATION, DEMOLITION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT WILLOUGHBY PARK, LIFT 1 PARK, AND 710 S. ASPEN STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 21, SERIES OF 2006 PARCEL ID: Willoughby Park (PID# 2735 - 131 -16 -851), Lift 1 Park (PID# 2735 - 131 -19 -851), and 710 S. Aspen Street (PID# 2735 - 131 -21 -001) WHEREAS, the applicants, Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge- Aspen, LLC, with authorization by the Aspen Historical Society and the City of Aspen, and represented by Poss Architecture and Planning have requested Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition and Variances for the properties at Willoughby Park (PID# 2735 - 131 -16 -851), which is located on the corner 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), which 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 and Lift 1 Park (PID# 2735- 131 -19 -851) which is bounded by Gilbert Street and Hill Street and is described as Lots 3, 4 (partial), I1 (partial) and 12 of Block 9, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation of a Designated Property, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code, that: 1. It is considered a non - contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or n ring . II n. antlitA I P36 Nf N� m II 1111 N11 111 1I11111HII 1111 P5a f 4 JRNICE K Vos CRUDILI PITKIN COUNTY CO 10/2006 01.211 R 21.00 /3! 0 0 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building. structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that the variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and /or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 9, 2006, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen P37 I1 KI Page: O4 006 01 :21F 21.00 D 0.00 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 9, 2006, with a quorum present for the meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 3 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition and Variances for the affected properties with the following conditions: 1. The approved site plan is labeled as "Iteration B." For Final Review, the applicant is required to restudy the eastern stair and elevator exit from the garage to potentially incorporate them into the museum structure, reinforcing the prominence of the museum along Dean Street. 2. HPC approves the following variances related to the existing Skiers Chalet Steakhouse: a 5 foot front yard setback variance, and 5 foot setback variances on both sideyards. 3. Additional details on the rehabilitation of the historic resources (the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse, Lift Towers, Outhouses, Ticket Office, and Deep Powder Cabins) on the affected properties will be required at Final HPC Review. Details on the relocation and renovation of the Skier's Chalet Lodge shall also be provided. 4. Once the Skier's Chalet Lodge has been relocated to Willoughby Park, the landmark designation of Willoughby Park will be amended to recognize the Lodge (the new museum) as a contributing historic resource. 5. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC within two years of August 9, 2006 or the Conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code. 6. For Final HPC Review, the board requires the applicant to restudy leaving the large conifer tree, currently proposed for relocation, in its current location. 6. For Final HPC Review, the applicant is required to restudy the spacing of the vertical slats in the revised western egress building (Option B). 7. A structural report from a licensed or the housemover must be submitted, demonstrating that the Skier's Chalet Lodge building can be moved and providing information about how it will be stabilized. This information must be submitted as part of the building permit application related to the Skiers Chalet Lodge. 8. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the historic structures (Skiers Chalet Lodge and Lift Towers) must be submitted with the building permit application. This dollar figure may be revisited based on the perceived risks involved in moving the buildings when further information about the relocation process is provided. 9. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of August 2006. P38 1Approv 11 11111111111 5 0 0468 1.211 as to Form: JRNICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY Co R 21.60 0 0.0 c _ _ ) _ , 1 i Davi Hoefer, Assistant tTity Attorney Approved s to content: HISTO4 •' ' SE' TION COMMISSION Jeffre . ferty, Ch. r a� t� A C i� i * thy St c nd, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN CITY OF 530966 138 S GALENA ST A CO 81611 PLEASE RETmN T O C!Ty CLERK 136 S. GAL CLE ASPEN, CO 81671 Ci ea o o U C‘ E ca la 0 • 4 ' _ - 4 , Y O 3 ilg 90 cn r lh i So u F---- — — 4 '' , ... - 4:: ' - r ' 2$ 1 1 ^ Y `' . k 1 y `n d 4, 5 ci \ \ \ , ' ` : %llllya :' I' r U W . • • 1 1 ______ .1_1 sa L.\_____ - --\--- -- ........ � , • .-,.,,e,-... ,.,..,-!.. ---. ...,;,....„.,,, ... .... , . „. _ . , .. • ..,, , .i... . . _ (..„) cn (-9 al FF- cni I n ' t l' v k � l ''� J , •1 Q J N. ;,....,,,,.;. _Ntki.-..ni;.'': % 1 ; . 1 i I, Q f, %`� I t 'i, 1 a \ I 1 t� �---J. ,1, . t .,: pip - � • ' , ! . 'i; oloo 1 1 a` F119, k- ,71.....2::--- — Z,', R O W I = _- � - • `' - • ..3b -. ii ` i�RROri ? t . - .r r.1 - N� 1 :.'. S ` pry. ! V • z _ _ _ 1 {1� { l e y 1 ` — 1 , E a � r mil ���(. .0 0 - 1 ' 1 1��qq���� i l l ti ^ '• �' ^f � ,.,.`5 r.'1 p. I 1 X9111 I `I, t E, f m R e f a `v U U b. '� l ■ '1 1F i 1 6 n nan , at os a � 0, ' , 5 ,..4 ' , _ ril lt 191 F - I I . -I " .. ;_ . . . :m. ] I C ,� 1 `1 f•I w 1.' , 1 �� -7--71. , T 1 , ` - X1 5 . ,� ' r 1 , l'`\' , � � j L y i, , " jj �_ _� . t - - q - '` , w ..,.e ow wL �. ' . ,- -� k , ,. � l Ra 0 • 1 — T +�lfir �P�y�, ' 1,.....1 1 } {I�a,1a . F — y 114. v j? {3tp a \ ` ' V II 41/,-,...;` rl _ • �p* i,:, "''"'. , . gy p t • I \ \ ' 4 '� I .mot_ .� ... , I 1 �` 1� t' �p \.- � .�K . � t �w�l'i7�A � `�' . y , I I e ve v 0.. ' i s ' 1 . 0 .,'� S i , ' ! 6 i e � It3 w \1 1 ^"7 � ?tt� \-- \ ,,l'' �' + t � . ,� " 1� \ I (j 1 , � 1 f s7ify l' AP L. r £ ___: 1, , 41,■ ,- .-' P. '.' CO — ' ' ' A., " O'i 1 14. 1 it'.•. ‘` I 11 • • 1 \ \ „ ' � � • I _ ,,vim .I � r r' ;�Y " 1 f,,. 1J ,�• �; s U 'i ? '': �� , - ( �, y .,,,.„&„„1„1.. —v_.a-?; , ,t OILL —,-.- , . - "--) 2.1, , mi i s A ,. k. .4 . , .... A iii i. i Ork ilk lilt ■ ..- - . 4..T az. ., , . M ... sr 4,41 ,:;''', - ' -si 01 ,, A ' I\ ' ... 4 -. '.• *. ; . i 1 , 1. : ' ' ' L,. - t LLI ::• `,q . ; 'x7 % - P int ,- '.�-- ti4 1 44 * ha , t 15 Y p !J Its r - t A� =�e t, ',',Its-`' i '.>. \.. - - , 'r q N. '� q— O . r •f 1 1 J Y J `'� R F It! ' ' ? i.�' y� � , A �Iy 1•��. T - F ' f i r _4 • W 0 ef t, 1 lll . . 4 ,,...; Ill ' fx �r ,::%,,,5,:-4., 4: t I CI) p 1 jt 14 1 " ., . : V iq b` + `� t ',I - P \, ,, 4.: 4 v A l - 1 `, - _ r - I ' r4 I 1 �, II � I �� , t l i . 1 " • 1 p' 4 r� -• , 4 S . , r ' ilt: sit � : , � 1 i i ' i ` F I � 4111■1111111.1k, 'a� ^I �i. 1 � . � ti , I 1 .kJ'. 1 i • ti 1 6 � 7-4 111-1* � I• i'4 i � , it� . I1 1 77 ' � -• o a 1 j I I P `' 1' k '' i , I ' - , iii! 1 1. 1 ` � . I .. .'. 1 I A , a t • 4 �. 1: .{ .:,: � � 1 1 1_ _ - I' r 1 . 1 l, rid I r 1 a r eye?. = w .. �ti c� ,,,, 44 V : t ' ''' ' W Q. �.',qp 4 ;41r- 11 ' 421 ' 4 ''' l 1 U c c \ h E �R 7 ri -i ' 1 1 0 0 ,..,711-7,,,,i., - 70, 0 1 , __, ."FYI -, q • .) RECEPTION #: 554124, 11/10/2008 at tt V t t C3 9 10:04:23 AM, 1 P 1 1 OF 6, R 531.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND RELOCATION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT WILLOUGHBY PARK, LIFT 1 PARK, 233 GILBERT STREET AND 710 S. ASPEN STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 23, SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID: Willoughby Park (PI1» 2735- 131 -16 -851), Lift 1 Park (PID# 2735- 131 -19 -851), 710 S. Aspen Street. (PID# 2735 - 131 -21 -001), and 233 Gilbert Street (PID# 2735 - 131 -19 -002) WHEREAS, Community Development Department received a completed application from Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC and the Aspen City Manager, represented by Poss Architecture requesting Major Development (Conceptual) and Relocation for the properties at Willoughby Park (PID# 2735- 131 -16 -851), Skier's Chalet Steakhouse (PID# 2735- 131 -21 -001), which is located at 710 5. Aspen Street, and Skier's Chalet Lodge and ancillary building "pool house" (PID #2735 - 131 -19 -002), as legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, 233 Gilbert Street, Lots 5 through 10 and Lots 4 & 11, Less the West 22' of the Eames Addition Subdivision, was adopted as part of Exhibit A to Aspen City Council Ordinance 48, Series of 2007 as a potential historic resource; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025 of the Municipal Code states that "an owner may volunteer to have any proposed work be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to the procedures and limitations of Chapter 26.415 of the Municipal Code, and if the work is found by HPC to be in conformance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," an application for building permit shall be issued;" and WHERAS, pursuant to Section 26.415.025.E of the Municipal Code, the property owners initiated the ninety -day negotiation period with the City of Aspen on August 8, 2008; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of' the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and P40 WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation of a Designated Property, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code, that: 1. It is considered a non - contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated October 8, 2008, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" have been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on August 27, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, and continued the public hearing to September 10, 2008, continued the public hearing to September 24, 2008, and continued the public hearing to October 8, 2008, at which time the Historic Preservation Commission found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 4 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Major Development (Conceptual) and Relocation for the affected properties with the following conditions: 1. The addition of a platter lift adjacent to the historic Lift One is approved in the location presented. 2. The Skier's Chalet Steakhouse is approved for relocation as presented. 3. The non - historic one story addition to the Steakhouse is approved for demolition. 4. A stair structure addition to the Steakhouse is conceptually approved. — — P41 5. The Skier's Chalet Lodge and Pool House are approved for relocation as presented. The exact location of the Pool House will be reviewed and approved during Final Review. 6. A modest roof penetration for an elevator is approved for the Skier's Chalet Lodge as presented. 7. The ticket office non historic rear addition is approved for demolition. 8. The ticket office shall be restored to its 1950 configuration, as illustrated in the photograph provided in the representations. 9. The relocation of the Deep Powder cabins to be incorporated into the Aspen Skiing Company program is approved as represented in the letter by David Bellack attached as Exhibit I, October 8, 2008, with the condition that future historic preservation protection for the cabins is in place and agreed to by the City before they are relocated. Interpretive signage will be incorporated into the Deep Powder cabins in their new location. Staff will have an advisory role regarding repairs to the cabins. 10. The outhouses shall remain in their current locations and shall be stabilized and rehabilitated. 11. A structural report from a licensed housemover must be submitted, demonstrating that the Skier's Chalet Lodge, its Pool House, and Skier's Chalet Steak House building can be moved and providing information about how it will be stabilized. This information must be submitted as part of the building permit application related to the Skier's Chalet Lodge, Pool House, and Skier's Chalet Steakhouse. 12. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the historic structures (Skiers Chalet Lodge, Pool House, and Skiers Chalet Steakhouse) must be submitted with the building permit application. This dollar figure will be revisited based on the perceived risks involved in moving the buildings when further information about the relocation process is provided. 13. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 14. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within two (2) years of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one -time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 15. The applicant will work with the Parks Department to retain and/or restore existing vegetation and native grasses in Willoughby and Lift One Parks. 16. A phasing plan for relocation, construction and development of the historic resources in the context of the entire Lift One Mater Plan will be reviewed at Final Review. 17. The Skiers Chalet Lodge and Pool House will be submitted for landmark designation and the designated boundaries of the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse will be amended to reflect the building's new location as required and outlined in the City of Aspen City Council Ordinance approving the Lift One COWOP Master Plan. The conceptual approval set forth herein and the Lift One COWOP Master Plan are considered the appropriate culmination of negotiations commenced pursuant to Ordinance 48 regarding the property located at 233 Gilbert Street. P42 The HPC recommends to City Council approval of the Lift One COWOP Master Plan and approval of the results of negotiations pursuant to Ordinance 48 regarding the property at 233 Gilbert Street. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting 1 n tJ 8 ' a of Octobe - 2008. i I/ M cbael Hoffman, Chair Approved as to Form: im True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Ar Kathy S 'ckland, Chief Depu - - -- J43 Exhibit A - Legal Descriptions A. Property of Aspen Land Fund II, LLC South Aspen Street Subdivision/Planned Unit Development Lots 1, 2, and 3, as described on the plat thereof recorded April 27, 2007 with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder as reception number 537080 in Book 83, Page 50. B. Property of Aspen Skiing Company 1. Land Under Contract with Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge - Aspen, LLC which is included in the Lift One Lodge Application: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 10, and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 12, EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, operation and TOGETHER WITH an easement and right of way for the construction, erection, op maintenance of a cable ski chair lift, as created, defined and established by Easement Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pitkin and Friedl Pfeifer recorded October 24, 1962, in Book 199 at Page 489, and, purposes, as created, defined and TOGETHER WITH an easement and right of way for skiing pure established by Easement Agreement by and between the City of Aspen and Aspen Skiing Corporation recorded October 17, 1969, in Book 244 at Page 31, and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the alleyway for Block 10 vacated in Book 259 at Page 83. 2. Land Area generally adjacent to and south of the Lift One Lodge Site: That property owned by the Aspen Skiing Company extending generally to the south from the southwesterly boundary of the Mountain Queen Condominiums, the southerly boundary of Block 12, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite o Aspen, Mountain Condominiums topen Street Right -of -way and the southerly boundary the the southerly boundary of the City of Aspen. C. Property of Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge - Aspen, LLC Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 8, together with that portion of the alley in Block 8 abutting said lots, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen (Skiers Chalet Steakhouse); Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 9, together with Lots 4 and 11, Block 9, less the west 22 feet thereof, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, and that portion of the alley in said Block 9 vacated by the City of Aspen in Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006, recorded April 11, 2006 under Reception No. 522845 (Skiers Chalet Lodge); and Lots 1, 2, 13 and 14, Block 9, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, together with that portion of the vacated alley between Lots 1 and 14 and the west 20 feet of the vacated alley between Lots 2 and 13, Block 9, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen (Holland House). P44 D. Property owned or maintained by the City of Aspen. Willoughby Park: Lots 1 -14, Block 7 and Lots 1 -3, Block 8 Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, and that portion of Juan Street east of South Aspen Street between Blocks 7 and 8, Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen and that portion of the alley in Block 8 adjacent to Lots 1, 2, and 3 Block 8, Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen. Lift One Park: Lots 3 and 12 Block 9 and the western 22 feet of Lots 4 and 11, Block 9 Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen. Public rights -of -way: • South Aspen Street south of Durant Avenue. • All unvacated portions of Dean Street west of Monarch Street. • Juan Street between South Aspen Street and Garmisch Street. • The alleyway between Lots 1, 2 and 3 and Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 8, Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen (unopened). • Garmisch Street from Juan Street to Durant Avenue. • Gilbert Street west of Monarch Street. • Hill Street west of Monarch Street (unopened). • Summit Street west of Monarch Street (unopened). • A one -block section of alleyway between Hill Street and Summit Street east of South Aspen Street (unopened). • A one -block section of alleyway south of Summit Street east of South Aspen Street (unopened). =° I cv Q 1 . ^ 03 O L d p kr, ra 4. l al III 1 ' KV El gii Me Iv im" o o ' .0 Q 'Am Ssi• , 1 1313 \ P �: , lig° sir. a ti ^ std = ��t 4 Lt _ �♦ / _ 151X/3 � � ' n. a a \ , as f G . . .... ' gll' qv fe ;fili/Fr• v ' \ ` \ � rte• ' ,. • • i c ' #r \ ! ; ' ;: I 1 \ iY r ; NG A { "..tii n I c, Olt t � 0_7'_.. I! ' tt�� 1 ff.. 01.7 ' ....... \ :..c i t • — ' 1 iits _ ; . . ►a� fir►'! I ■ .1,...,,, m :I.Hi _ ii 1 i . por r . �� 4n V � A A 1/3 '�_ i _ ; � 1 1 1 p'� ' ,, . 4., , , :, 1 yr wow II il V • 1 1 1 1 ,. �� { 1 �.L �' r - \ O.:: \ y,'N,- V 'pL 1 r L !/j'ONG 0 ) 1 • k It Eons /nrr ' \ li `.p '41'4 tt!tAp ` - �q cpf If 01‘ P 1 i �.1 �,• 1740776. d/P Ald re.7A? N \ ' 11, / � , 1 a � ., 1 II--.--. ....-----i 1 1 ak \ 1 1 \ r Hi- ". 444. P.. . i., . i• . ± V 't � I ', q q y ./ IP 1 l 1 u • 1111, , 1 � ' '' ' ,"e.. .Ie« r�+,+++4�lYrt•'- .is-= =...r i( i _ / a 1 � I I .' 1 • � � .,, . 1 7 � 1 \.. • • 9 ljl' " ' ` M n"/ 1 rj 1 "' f( F N/ i� Ville AN ,to � "� " q. r i eASmE rnvlYJ�'� l� *� 1 : ' _ * mo t."" 1 1 /a • 1 II } � y i .G � ` • ''R�6�eMi � A� ..� .l Y � A 14T0 TlK4�.1A'J/ ^y K As r . I F _ I Y S�-�-.. -� '- 1 7 R /INf k`Jrf � ', i " _ ' 1. '. Ja / .; f . — 7„.7.- 97Ff'eT �C�as i ' - /d r. l� 7 lGCFI ' q f° v t 4, L ' .K4- j ?l - Pf• . 1 � O O . ��G . 8 ••efr d 1� + Q a '� lt i t sl 1 1 ; eal5!uA' i \ 0-1'1 t o f t y // it � , 1 j1PFeeAt*Gr- ng5 /Nli" i p r' ,:1 ;. bN . .1 F CaNf. I a/ . t p^ • ,. • c�c 'ren• .n CI ?ff+F<A6G ir /(s /,\/G 1 ' ' c , r" ---- l'\ � � .. 1. v t ►a• Y $ti s 1(t \T/ , eq r - ••-..-...- 4 1 ( 4 ') Itilttaii ' 4. AIM.. . tiAli ''; : 41%)... 1 ,,..:„. m beAnrC srp-e-or rPuTArw N/A / ---.. \‘1_(i 1 uJ 1--) .....‘.....4 CG c r k ` � = W �� ✓f 2 � � f q :. :SIHrJiF \ I r, C..):''. 0 Cr z -- 2006. a ;. },,.� 1 1._ . ant: = U as c W 1 , a- .c.' w o 7 1 CL c:5 1 ca . to i n • o. a ap L,. c. N c° G Il�T >ti^ S� N6 1 4..4 ii, W . ° ice 0 t t Vi i,, ... � ,4 14 -' \ D1 � ' NiK ` ge ., ,. . ,..1...e,-.. \ rte=' r �t r aY I i4 ` � .� B. g . tai ' ,�ry : : . .•+ ^7` •,ter' „ _ I CI \ \ ,,\ � � I U r 41 ; - • a i v� ° f ui o 1Y 6 • ,N.' \\\ :.ii:::;, :J - ' I I t' l ''• 1 A WC 4 J J °.{ ilillli „,. ,.. ... e / z6 I I n0 �� r� Q 'y, +rt i t hvt.:,&--- .1 ii. 2 . .1 — 601114 it , 1 .,. - 7::: . : all • •...,_ _• •,„. ... ,„ . _ . .1 . \ ,, , .... .1 , I 4 •,‘' , , , . I 4 - .1: i i .,..,,' 1., erv,P- WII 4 el ....,. -- i 1 1 \ . 3„ J A t f d.�n s,�c6 i y A';. \ I I .t ‘ 1,' , ; b /taAC� ` _� ,s _ 2 a 1 y 444 �� ����....,_• _ ' ��IIIV'M . .V; : . v �;. a Ce ...A . W • 00 q ' ' eP l R I- � (/ ..1 ,� 1 ' • i a, / , , 1 1 � ; r 'w.""'`” r. 1 011 • 0 b- 4 ... . ,'".---"'") .... II - C -\ t• IC ap , " / IdASE '�l� 101 . .1Le• ... + M w+r N K 4— �r>p r i Lam . j t? d j �• '.y 1 ' J r , ■ • ' \ / • J. , Ir i P ( 1 • 52 s - �_ �.KiI= I I � _1C` • lam. y �� , s' y Doer ha4 I Z 0 3 L i 1 N SlC.. 1 f ' w l Z / �7 5� /cam r Pl \' 1 l cu r . R �F+` .a° ,� , '' 7 f,CaGx T pyA CR WPT � r _ ii • . y 1, ; q I' ' '' e C -1-.- �.. a r� htllcairrG Xt r * . 1 CL— r' • • , o 3neN I b ��4 p AWAI(6 2 o PAW"'r3.f' �i;� _ #1 , 0-etV/?. = / W % - I' H. . 4.. - ) ( ‘ ...:_,-. .. 41, - 71 - ( 24---."—t , ' . ..-..- • : .a i 2 i t _ i U .7 ■ -. /it ' ' ,r< fi2ANO sir-00r - P�+�Ti2lsw wfry • � .* t1,1 Cf I'M/ )( ' .. - -_ .. _ rte -�/. °M b . P45 a MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: HPC Purpose and Intent DATE: November 10, 2010 SUMMARY: In October, HPC reviewed proposed amendments to the historic preservation ordinance, related to AspenModem. Staff and HPC discussed the fact that City Council will continue to be empowered to negotiate incentives for voluntary landmark designations. The existing code language for negotiations does not include clear criteria for awarding special, or multiple incentives. HPC suggested some possible criteria to include, such as recognition for green building practices, etc., but subsequently it was suggested that an applicant requesting . incentives should be asked to demonstrate how well they address the "Purpose and Intent" of the City's historic preservation program. The Purpose and Intent statement, listed below, was written in 2002. Staff is seeking HPC's suggestions as to how this language should be updated, if at all, to be current with the board's philosophy. Staff would like to incorporate any changes into the code amendments being reviewed by City Council in November. The existing language is: 26.415.010. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Under the authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and Section 29- 20- 104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter sets forth the procedures to: A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage productive, economical and attractive reuse of historic structures. EXHIBIT_ 1, /- ,C -I South Aspen Street Redevelopment 11.10.10 puss ASPEN, COLO, ' r - -� 4 , � - JANUARY 10th, lltl: 12th, 1`t - EVENTS SAT., JAN 11' 4, a X64 � 1 -%,!'• : tom, ■ , qiiA '7^ 'Of F EVENTS SUN, JAI: a ' Y ..,'Al `. ] �,1 ; '. , :' I 4 1" Historic Preservation Commission: Final Review p ons la 1, South Aspen Street Redevelopment MIII■411 - 0 • .,. ,i -••-A ., ; 1.. i - ar r 7 , ' :, Ns ,A ,, - - "It ..,."; . . • 4 1t 7 7: , V, ' ), ' • "..i. 4 ::.• • -*4 • ' ' es, _q v..., ,..- , ' 4, . . =, zvv,, ; ,.. 4, _ . 1 ' .41. •.'„. Ilk - rp --.'" ,-.‘ t` Ilk s, A: - /ia 1 • `..4 ., :' /g.n ' 2; I ''' \ A _., ,,,i--, ' • *-^'. , 'r? , ,-- Ft ■ 7 W* ai A fr . A" 14 ,•,; : 1 '-';`' ;'. -3 tikeW'''' - ,' V'' 4 ,' a : •■4i s 'i• i ... N,,,,,,.. 4 , . , .. , • ., ‘.,•,, „.,x,,,,s,„ . 1-• .i'"' ' -- ..: 4 . ' ..U`S'''' if .•-• ' ',.. " ...,,e ''''' 1 '. I t' •• '''' ,— - ...*, 4 , . ; _ , .,•,.. ; . _ ,_. ---- i__ ,,,,,,,..,; , .,„., 0 rl- I.100e 4 4 .. -,,.. „00, )1 , :of . c A ... I , l' . ..4 _ s; 4 ,..,,, .,, ...., ,.., . , „.. ik tz 4, r ,k , '. : t .. ;■ ...•7 ! . — • ' : i . - -7 f il . ai. ..0,:i.7,‘,1,.. . .„, I t SITE poss 11 10 10 South Aspen Street Redevelopment - • . „A- / . . . c..„, ..., ' -___, - ,-I1-.... - -2 ,- - •-._ ;-:',,-- 'nt --..---- ' , ' -., , . oc"•••111 . , i 4 c , it 0 r is 111111 , --, • - :0* — , . , . • , i : , ' `,,, 11 1- SITE oss South Aspen Street Redevelopment 3 f 5 ) F .. J �1 #3Ya..� i 1 r mo d % �.. ' /'' • ✓ ' - : T -'„;"' . s y -- , , R C1 1 VI - -- - - - / , ,ill lilt C 7 F - ... e.,.: AA rtt , — . 1, , , i,. $ ! � '� � � Q , to " g�. Y�i. xt r k _„ Bo�TnM TF RMn f: ,lL..;� -,ax, GaCl t. ?r It .RC.v� Co�u, • ff l • 6. r • '14 c.f.. -- Stron History r p oss �� �� South Aspen Street Redevelopment • � 9 y v • ,a i I�J1,t � _ t' ( NOTICE O F PUB ,. �- '- - Y till, 4 F... 0 • OF .w... WA .,. 1 • ' — " .?,...,... _ . 0\ iii. ...„ 1 Neglected Present p oss 01.10.10 South Aspen Street Redevelopment ¢ Changes honor the ski heritage and reinforce the role of skiing in the future 4 0 v \ `c 5 Master Plan Goals ii.io.io p oss South Aspen Street Redevelopment 1 i lif : _ I 4._______ Bring Lift One into prominence --1, J1 Improve access to Willoughby Park .` �� Draw people to the site, -? Maintain corridor connection to mountain ,h' �i� I V I . l . ,, t dt.c H,, k.c.. . g IA. . _ ... _ �. ^ . 1 i ■ ag E ______, - t - ------ Site Planning Goals r ii 10 10 j OSS South Aspen Street Redevelopment What was approved at Conceptual? f 0. i _• i ,i :- , Ti a Relocation of the Non - Historic ; I. Skiers Chalet Lodge r l f b`` L • u l ay 1L Relocation of the Historic : IS Skiers Chalet Steakhouse 0 �' a6, V i ' ...: - 4 i A$14 g j �P -r- ' � • 1 X 1 r i .c...r1 i i t Site Planning . • yr =- poss ii.10 i South Aspen Street Redevelopment i What are the Historic and '.. e `� ` Community Benefits? t` t_ „ i 3i F 7 , ? �s Preservation of Historic Assets �" through Activated Reuse J L .,. ii 'x ;' i... .: 4- Lift One Ski Corridor- ''..1t--, ` Skiers Chalet Steak House + G '/ i/ i� *a; Skiers Chalet Lodge f ' 1 Out Buildings Preserved V Site Planning � poss 1 1,- South Aspen Street Redevelopment Previous HPC Actions: ,.. ,'i't l t I -�.r August 2006 HPC r _ Conceptual Approval- W I � ! . Original Plan ,b October 2008 HPC �,„t a ra 1.,. Conceptual Approval- R 1 �> : ,. Revised Plan - lan 3. '� - .J t a,f ' I sN . I1"e we ,lionar -Qr ' j1' 11.10.10 Site Planning pOSs South Aspen Street Redevelopment Moving Forward: 1 1' Lift One Park Willoughby Park w^>• -- `i 2�= q h , t / 11 „. 7 s F y 1 s I'` F:' Y It • 11.10.1 :". -....N Site Planning p ons South Aspen Street Redevelopment What's the Same, What's Different? Lift One Park a ' \ 1 I (2? I It � I II j I I I yl I6 1 I i ' \ I G //7 oNE1 I I 1 '` II � I I I ir,4&\ 11 .b-- \ i i 1 ■ Site Planning � Fi i ` —+� I ' poS Conceptual South Aspen Street Redevelopment I What's the Same, What's Different? Willoughby Park - Skiers Chalet Steak House 0 C .� ' :k1 r �1 t� w r s r rr I re .R I r 1 . 1 .. I / 1 iz3 __ 7l d rri"1± `.� I a � M Y 1 i � ' m •I'--<‘_e - .,. , r _„_ ,,,,,, ,, ,,,E1 .., }. , . _ ...r)7!)-1. tJ - -` . Site Planning _ Final Y ti ,t,F P O $ $ Conceptual rr1,1, South Aspen Street Redevelopment Skiers Chalet Lodge f I _ + m.A.. _ ;fi – 7 , e ► K 11.10.10 Architecture S S South Aspen Street Redevelopment p O J S +TERlOk DESIGN t Skiers Chalet Lodge 'i! •r I 4 i t i ■ �g '' 'b - ♦ k.W - 'ma - - - - — � ' - • .1 M_ll =ll_ ®� 111 - ..... • . . 100u0 � 0,10000000000008000000u IN 0.i9ilimn cl ■ :( - r - . ;Ars -- blwr g, _ 6 0(10.00 018 °6 00°0919:01999D900.1itn _ ti 111111M . • 0 0 0 - 9pbl -In � iIp !i'I'I'III_ um _ '' 1N:00 0060°10 0000001000000000909090000 1000040 000000010( — _ -- i w )00006990 -----11111111111111E 0:1 1! mg 00000000 000910004040000060 = III II1 • : .or s - -- � — --� ^ 1. 11.10.10 Architecture p 0 S S South Aspen Street Redevelopment What's the Same, What's Different? Resource Conceptual Final Skiers Chalet Lodge Relocate Relocate & Pool House Rehabilitate Rehabilitate AHS Museum AHS Museum Designate Designate Approvals poss a, South Aspen Street Redevelopment Skiers Chalet Steak House gg, Approvals poss , South Aspen Street Redevelopment s Skiers Chalet Steak Houle , q -' 1 i 1I ■ •-k."— III II III u1 lo i 11 ngllr 1111111 111111111 _ }I 1 _ =: I l!!� 1 !.. 1 it ray • _, II I'. I 1 i llll! I�II ■! µ M ktiW m 1 MI ° T� -. .. ia--- llllMIIIll IIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIMI _ • _ ►1 � = ►� l� i 1� �l I i - . �l - - _ :" r J 1 11 11111 11 il.Ii - 111111 1111111 1111 1111//111 II ; I 1 x- 1 I Ill 1 ! Ill lll1ItlMnrIN I I 11.IO.ID Approvals p ons South Aspen Street Redevelopment '• What's the Same, What's Different? Resource Conceptual Final Skiers Chalet Relocate Relocate Steak House Rehabilitate Rehabilitate Stair Addition 11.iD.1D Approvals p DSS South Aspen Street Redevelopment to r Lift One js p 4, t � i% Ate ', Approvals p oss ti . it) io South Aspen Street Redevelopment r What's the Same, What's Different? Resource Conceptual Final Lift One and Hold Stabilize Stabilize per Staff Down Tower Recommendation j P t ii i !a. Approvals - poss ii i�, South Aspen Street Redevelopment 1 What's the Same, What's Different? Resource Conceptual Anal Willoughby Park Create Park Create Park ... Pedestrian and Pedestrian and r ; Street Improvements Street Improvements '=`=' Ski Corridor Ski Corridor ` , ,, � POMA POMA ', y 4 11.10.10 Approvals P USS South Aspen Street Redevelopment • What's the Same, What's Different? Resource Conceptual Final Out Houses Retain Retain Stabilize Stabilize - -:: 1 .k..4-,.- - i Approvals 11 .10.10 p OSS South Aspen Street Redevelopment 13 1 What's the Same, What's Different? Resource Conceptual Final Ticket Booth Analyze and Retain Interpretive Marker Any Original Parts Per Staff `� •• Recommendation ' Vogl i • Approvals s — poss lo South Aspen Street Redevelopment What's the Same, What's Different? Resource Conceptual Final Lift One Towers: Steakhouse Parcel Move, Stabilize, Stabilize Return Approvals p oss 11.1)I South Aspen Street Redevelopment What's the Same, What's Different? Resource Conceptual Final Lift One Towers: Lift One Park Move, Stabilize, Move, Stabilize, Return Return I u.io. Approvals p ons South Aspen Street Redevelopment I Next Steps: ; Final Approval per Staff Recommendation , ecommendation 1; IL 0 - {8!"rs'r� ., 11. i !-, [MSS South Aspen Street Redevelopment