HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20051026
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 26, 2005
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NOON - None
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - Sept. 141\ 2005
III. Public Comments
IV. Commissioner member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Pro~ct Monitoring
A.
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #42)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 332 W. Main Street, Conceptual and Variances, Public
Hearing (25 min.) w"A'{f fd M/-iJ 97:17
IX. NEW BUSINESS
. A. 710 N. Third Street, final Review and Variances, Public
Hearing (15 min.) fit-I d
B. 930 Matchless - Variance recommendation (15 min.) ri'l3
c. Deep Powder Lodge - Review recommendation (15 min.)
X. WORKSESSION
A. NONE
XI. Adjourn 6:30 p.m.
1I 0..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
710 North Third Street, Major Development Review (Final) and Variance- Public
Hearing
DATE:
October 26, 2005
SUMMARY: The subject of this application is a large two-story Victorian era house located on
Unit A of the Martin Condominiums, abutting Gillespie Avenue to the north and North Third
Street to the west. The entire 11,500 square foot parcel where 710 N. Third Street sits also
includes a Victorian era carriage house. The property was divided into Unit A: a 7,350 square
foot lot, and Unit B: a 4,150 square foot lot. Together the two structures exceed the total
allowable FAR of 4,230 square feet by more than 1,000 square feet. The total FAR for the large
Victorian house on Unit A is 4,041 square feet, which includes 135 square feet of deck that
exceeds the allowable amount. The current application is related to the house on Unit A.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing non-historic, post-World War II addition and to
create a new addition and garage by re-configuring the existing FAR. HPC has granted
Conceptual approval, in addition to variances from setbacks and the Residential Design
Standards to allow for the new single car garage on Third Street. At this Final review, the
application requires another setback variance for the garage that was overlooked in the
Conceptual public notice.
Staff recommends approval of Final review and a setback variance with conditions.
APPLICANT: Suzanne Leydecker, represented by Rally Dupps of Consortium Architects and
Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, LLC.
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-27-002.
ADDRESS: 710 North Third Street, Unit A, Lot 1 & 2, Block 102 of Hallam's Addition, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6. Medium Density Residential.
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.
Staff Response: Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting,
fenestration, selection of new materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation
of existing materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
The architect proposes a few minor changes since Conceptual Review. First, a non historic
storage box will be removed from the north fayade of the Victorian, exposing the original wall.
This is a positive improvement. Any restoration work that will be needed on the old house will ~
require approval by staff and monitor.
Related to this, the new garage has been shifted three feet closer to the house in order to create a
new storage area. Staff finds this to be acceptable, particularly in exchange for removing the
impact from the Victorian. The architect has added a sidewalk alongside the driveway. The
sidewalk and driveway should be made of different materials to avoid the curb cut seeming to be
excessively wide.
Staff is in support of the proposed materials for this project, which are consistent with the design
guidelines. HPC should however discuss the fact that the wood siding on the new addition is to
be stained, not painted.
Information has not been submitted regarding light fixtures, and will be required at a later date.
There is no restoration work proposed on the historic house, other than patching in siding and
fishscale shingles as needed when the current additions are removed.
A landscape plan has been supplied. Staffs only concern is the addition of some new trees in
front of the addition, directly behind the street trees. This may create a "barrier" that is
uncharacteristic of a Victorian property. Staff recommends that input be sought from the Parks
Department and that the design be reviewed with the applicant, staff, and monitor, in more detail.
""'"
'''\,'.'.'
2
SETBACK VARIANCES
The Conceptual notice included setback variances to legalize the existing location of the house
and a front yard setback variance for the garage. A side yard setback variance for the garage was
overlooked. The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.C of the
Municipal Code are as follows:
HPC must make a finding that the setback 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.
Staff Finding: HPC has already granted setback variances to legalize the current location of the
Victorian. Also, a front yard setback variance was granted for the garage. Overlooked was the
need for a south sideyard setback variance to allow the garage to be 7 feet, rather than the
required 15 feet, from the lot line. Staff supports this variance and the creation of this detached
single stall garage.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant approval for Major Development (Final)
and Variance for Unit A, 710 North Third Street with the following conditions:
I. HPC previously granted the necessary setback variances to legalize the historic house in
its existing location.
2. HPC previously granted a waiver of the "Residential Design Standards" for the location
of the lightwell on Third Street.
3. HPC previously granted a waiver of one on-site parking space.
4. HPC previously granted a front yard setback variance for the proposed new garage, and
grants an 8 foot south sideyard setback variance as well.
5. The applicant is to remove the two parking spaces occupied by Unit A on Gillespie
Street, and the curb cut, and restore the grass prior to issuance of a "Certificate of
Occupancy." The remaining spaces are allocated to Unit B.
3
6. The sidewalk and driveway should be made of different materials to avoid the curb cut
seeming to be excessively wide.
7. Staff recommends that input be sought from the Parks Department related to new trees at
the front of the site, and that the design be reviewed with the applicant, staff, and monitor,
in more detail.
8. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what
original materials appear to still exist on the structure, and what treatments will be used to
retain them.
9. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by
reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures.
10. AlIlightwells around the historic house and addition must be covered with grates.
11. 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.
12. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what
areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
Exhibits:
Resolution #_, Series of2005
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
4
~
~-
~
....."
"'"
,"".:,"
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 710 North Third Street, Unit A, Final Review"
1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the
original.
D Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought
iron. Wire fences also may be considered.
D A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or
metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered.
D Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
D The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod,
and not covered with paving, for example.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
D Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
D Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
D Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
D Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer
than the mature canopy size.
D Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features
or block views to the building.
D It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials
on primary surfaces.
D If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must
be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and
finish.
D Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only
those should be replaced, not the entire wall.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
D An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
5
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
D A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may
be considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
D The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
D The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
D All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts ofsite and architectural lighting.
D Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be
permitted.
D Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
D Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
D Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
D Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls
of buildings.
DAvoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area.
14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street.
D Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the driveway
from the street.
D Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically associated
with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete.
6
""'"
~
.~,i
"'"""
,F
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 24. 2005
MOTION: Sa h moved to approve Resolution #1{:2 stated in staff's
memo with thefi owing changes:
#5 condition amen ed to state that two spaces wi be removed on Gillespie
occupied currently b Unit A and the two remaiping parking spaces are to
be used by Unit B.
The variance setback fr
701 W. MAIN STREET
the residential design standards will be 4 feet.
/
,
~rek, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael,
Motion second by Derek.
yes; Jason, yes. Motion app
Jeffrey was seated.
Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I
New drawings - Exhibit II
Background information - Ex bit III
Amy said this project receiv d approval fo a lot split, a carriage house along
the alley and the relocation fthe cabin. W need to discuss what
improvements will occur t the cabin itself. e need to stay as close to the
authenticity as we can an maintain the integri of the cabin. Staff is not in
support ofreplacing any fthe existing historic 'ts. The building was
built in a couple of ph as s. The building has tar per on it and underneath
sheathing that has neve been exposed to weather. e central portion is the
oldest. A decade late~ an addition was made to the ont and the back and at
that time staff feels th building was wrapped in tar p per. Possibly rolled
siding could be used.
On the east elevatio which is a street facing elevation, e applicant
proposes to remov a window in the front portion of the ouse. Staff is
opposed to the re oval of any windows. Leaving the fea e on the outside
is more appropri e and do drywall on the inside. The exi 'ng doors do not
appear to be hist, rical and they could be replaced, possibly half lighted
glass door. The existing roof is staying.
The south elevation is the back ofthe cabin. The applicant is proposing to
eliminate three existing windows and staff feels they should stay. They are
also proposing to add a pair of double doors for the kiln and access to move
\,.
3
1r~
MEMORANDUM
""'"
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
930 Matchless Drive- Referral comments on setback variances
DATE:
October 26, 2005
SUMMARY: Recently, HPC approved Major Development for rehabilitation of the miner's
cabin at- 930 Matchless Drive, and construction of a detached garage/adu. Subsequent to that
meeting, the applicant began pursuit of an application to P&Z and Council for Subdivision and a
PUD Amendment to the 920/930 Matchless property. HPC was informed of this intention.
This neighborhood is zoned R-6 PUD, which means that there are certain dimensional
requirements particular only to these parcels. In discussing the new land use application, staff
was advised by the City Attorney's office that when a property has a PUD overlay zoning, all
variances must be established through a PUD Amendment and therefore HPC cannot award any
variances for FAR, setbacks, parking, etc. through their standard criteria. The applicant was not
able to apply for a building permit for the project as intended after the HPC approval.
While discussing the specifics of the lot split with staff, the applicant decided to relocate the
proposed new property line slightly in order to maximize their development potential, therefore
the variances that HPC had originally granted are no longer accurate in any case. HPC is asked
to take these actions:
""'"
1) Recommend that P&Z and Council amend the PUD to allow for setbacks to be approved
as shown on the attached site plan and dimensional requirements form provided by the
applicant. Variances are needed for the redevelopment of 930 Matchless Drive, and to
legalize 920 Matchless in its current location.
2) Recommend tllat, if P&Z and Council do not approve the lot split, the setback variances
and FAR bonus still be approved through the PUD process to allow the development
represented on the attached site plan to occur on the existing 16,393 square foot
condominiumized lot.
3) Recommend that P&Z and Council empower HPC to grant variances as appropriate for
the redevelopment of920 Matchless Drive when it is brought forward for review.
4) Re-affirm the recommendation to grant an FAR bonus for the site and comment on the
possibility that the FAR bonus mayor may not be necessary to construct the project that
was approved by HPC if, through the PUD discussion, P&Z and Council establish a
higher allowable FAR for this parcel than currently exists. The applicant plans to request
this and would like to sell any "surplus" FAR as TDR's.
APPLICANT: Peter and Chris Dodaro, represented by Kim Raymond Architects.
-"
PARCEL ID: 2737-074-22-001.
1
ADDRESS: 920/930 Matchless Drive, Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6 PUD.
HPC's typical practice is to grant FAR bonuses and Setback Variances based on the
criteria below.
FAR BONUS
The applicant requested a 500 square foot floor area bonus during the previous review with HPC.
The following standards apply to an FAR bonus. per Section 26.415.ll0.E:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood
of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as
part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D).
No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be
submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how
the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
'-..
Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to remove a non-historic addition from the 930
Matchless Drive cottage and to make a relatively small new addition, which is commendable.
There has been a commitment to work with HPC to determine all reasonable exterior restoration
opportunities, including placing siding on all elevations of the cabin, restoring the location and
design of original windows and doors, and reversing minor alterations. Specifics will need to be
2
,/
delayed until a "demolition and discovery" results III more information about the original
location of window openings, etc.
""'"
SETBACK VARIANCES
During the previous review with HPC, the application included a front yard setback variance
request because of the existing location of the front porch, and a west sideyard setback variance
to accommodate the pnJximity of the lightwell on the west side of 930 Matchless Drive to the
proposed new lot line. The variances that are actually necessary are represented on the attached
site plan.
HPC must make a finding that the setback 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.
Staff Response: The front setback variances simply allows an existing condition to remain. The
sideyard setback variances are necessary because existing trees prevent the applicant from
moving the cottages to any great degree from where they currently sit. The sideyard variances
are internal to the property. The rear yard variance for the garagel ADU allows it to be distanced
from the historic resources. Staff supports the variances.
........
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC take the four actions listed on page one
of this memo.
Exhibits:
A. Application.
~
3
920 Matchless Drive
Minimum lot size: 3000 sq. ft. required: 7756.7 sq. ft. proposed.
Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: detached dwelling unit, 3000 sq. ft:
for 2 detached dwelling units, (3750 historic landmark) 6000 sq. ft.
Minimum lot width: 30 feet
Minimum front yard: Principal building: 10ft, accessory building: 15 ft.
Minimum rear yard: Principal building: 10 ft., for the portion of a principal
building used soley as a garage: 5 ft. Accessory buildings: 5 ft.
Minimum side yard: 5 ft. Combined side yard: 23.78 ft. not required. "Two
detached residential dwellings located on one lot shall not be
subject to the combined side yard setback requirements, provided
that the minimum setback between the two detached dwellings on
the lot shall be ten feet.
Site Coverage: 44.15% of 7756.7 = 3424.58 sq. ft.
Maximum height: 25 feet
Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot: 10 feet.
Floor Area Ratio: 3881.07 sq. ft. plus 500 sq. ft. HPC bonus, which shall
be requested at the time of HPC approvals for redevelopment.
The existing and proposed setbacks are as follows:
Front yard: 21 '-7" (existing)
Rear yard: 5'-0"
Side yard: 5"-0" (existing 3'-11 :X" to be adjusted to a min. of 5'-0. at the
time of redevelopment)
Combined Side yard: not subject to combined side yard requirement, (see
above)
The variances needing to be created by this PUD from the underlying R-6
zoning are as follows:
Side yard variance of 12 y-.", until such time as the property is
redeveloped, with HPC approvals. A minimum distance of 10' will
be maintained with the proposed buildings on 930 Matchless.
......,
930 Matchless Drive
Minimum lot size: 3000 sq. ft., Proposed: 8636.5 sq. ft.
Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: detached dwelling unit, 3000 sq. ft
for 2 detached dwelling units, (3750 historic landmark), 6000 sq. ft.
Minimum lot width: 30 feet
Minimum front yard: Principal building: 10 ft, accessory building: 15 ft.
Minimum rear yard: Principal building: 10ft., for the portion of a principal
. building used soley as a garage: 5 ft. Accessory buildings: 5 ft.
Minimum side yard: 10ft. Combined side yard: 28.18 ft.
Site Coverage: 41.2% of 8636.5 = 3558.2 sq. ft.
Maximum height: 25 feet
Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot: 5 feet
~
Floor Area Ratio: 3613.8 sq. ft. (We will give up the 500 sq. ft bonus
already awarded by the HPC for use on Lot 920)
~..
The existing and proposed setbacks are as follows:
Front yard: 25'-2" (existing)
Rear yard: 100'-4" existing (30'-0"; 2'-7" for garage/ADU).
_Side yards: West side yard: 2'-6 %" as approved by the HPC.
East side yard: 6:-2" as approved by the HPC.
Combined Side yard: worst case area 11'-6"
The variances needing to be created by this PUD from the underlying R-6
zoning are as follows:
Side yards: West side yard: 7'-5 Y:." variance (for a distance of 5'-6"
along the side of the building.
4'-7%" variance for existing building, and 3'-9" variance for addition.
4'-6" variance at the new garage/ADU is needed on the west.
9'~0" variance for a light well on the west.
East side yard: 3'-10" variance at the new garage/ADU.
Combined Side yard: 10'-9" variance at the house
17'-5" variance at the garage/ADU
~
1:f. {. .
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU:
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
Deep Powder Lodge- Discussion of Preservation Options
DATE:
October 26, 2005
SUMMARY: Some months ago, staff updated HPC on plans for redevelopment of The
Limelite Lodge property, which includes a set of structures called "The Deep Powder
Lodge." Deep Powder was identified as potentially historically significant in the 2000
historic architecture survey of Aspen, but the property has not been landmark designated.
The owners of this property made an application to the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council for Rezoning and a PUD review in order to take advantage of a number
of incentives that the City has adopted for upgrades and expansions to lodges. The City's
bed base has been seriously diminished over the last decades. As .part of this review
process, HPC staff provided a referral comment (Exhibit 1) requesting that some
accommodation for Deep Powder be made within the project. When Conceptual
approval was granted for the project, City Council included the following condition:
"The City and the Applicants shall jointly study possibilities for the
preservation of the Deep Powder cabins (only the 2 cabins proposed to be
designated to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures in 2001)
prior to final PUD application submittal, in an effort to see if an acceptable
preservation method can be obtained without financially burdening the
development project or the Applicants."
.
As the project moves towards Final review, HPC has been asked to meet with the
Limelite team to evaluate preservation options and to make a further recommendation to
City Council. Attached (Exhibit 2) is a memo detailing the situation from the property
owner's perspective. Community Development Staff suggests that discussion at this
meeting be centered around a matrix (Exhibit 3), in order to seek a compromise that is
mutually acceptable. Preservation of the cabins in place is clearly problematic to the
applicant. Some relocation may be possible and HPC may wish to prioritize sites. Please
be aware that, with the exception of the City Golf Course, no research has been done to
confirm that the alternative locations noted on the matrix are feasible.
The applicant has made reference to these cabins having been moved to the current Deep
Powder property, but staff has not found any proof of that. Jim Snobble, an owner ofthe
site in the 1950's, believes that the buildings on the lot were about 10-15 years old
already when he purchased them and he reported that they had not all been built at the
same time. Jim lived in one cabin and rented out the other two. It was not a lodge at that
point. To staffs knowledge, the building that used to sit on the north side of the lot was
moved to Park Avenue in 1959. Historic designation was not secured in the new location
and the cabin was recentlv demolished in 2005.
Historic Preservation and The Deep Powder Lodl!e
Exhibit 1
Demolition of the Deep Powder Lodge at 410 S. Aspen Street is a component of the
proposed Limelite redevelopment. Although not designated now, Deep Powder Lodge
has been discussed as potentially eligible for landmarking since Community
Development completed an update to the City's historic architectural survey in 2000. An
attempt that year to designate a number of properties associated with Aspen's early ski
era was poorly received by the affected property owners, so City Council, staff, and
citizens worked together to develop a better historic preservation ordinance and benefits.
The new ordinance does not require owner consent to landmark structures at least forty
years old, however Council directed staff to work cooperatively and creatively with
owners to determine incentives or development options that would result in preservation.
Consistent with City Council's direction, Community Development Staff has been
proactive in encouraging the incorporation of Deep Powder Lodge in the Limelite
proposal since redevelopment plans were introduced in 2004. In February 2005, staff
met again with the applicant team to brainstorm flexibility that the City could offer in
order to keep Deep Powder in the project. The application was submitted shortly
afterwards and included demolition of the buildings in question.
Historic Preservation Staff and' the Historic Preservation Commission believe that
Aspen's ski history is as important as Aspen's Victorian mining history. While the
preservation of all remaining buildings from the mining period is generally not
questioned, the significance of places like Deep Powder, a lodge that has functioned as
typical accommodations for tourists coming to enjoy our environment for some 60 years,
seemingly has less support even though the mining period and the development of the ski
industry have had an equal influence on what defines Aspen today. At the time in the
early 1970's when Aspen citizens initiated efforts to protect the Victorians, the buildings
were approximately 80 years old. Deep Powder, and other similar post-war buildings of
interest are over 50 years old and there is little doubt that we will not have the
opportunity to await another 30 years of perspective to weigh their significance before
they are demolished.
Deep Powder falls into the category of
"Rustic Style Architecture" in Aspen
and is similar to other buildings of the
period such as the soon to be
landmarked L'Auberge property at 435
W. Main Street. Two of the three
original buildings remain, as depicted
in this photograph, circa mid-1950's.
Shortly after this photo was taken, the
northern cabin was moved to another
site in Aspen. It is acknowledged that
these are simple cabins that have had
some minor alterations over the years,
which is to be expected of actively used
buildings.
Moved to another
location in 1959,
altered and since
demolished
Existing
The historic preservation chapter of the Municipal Code encourages the identification and
evaluation of properties that are in the public interest to protect in advance of specific
issues or conflicts. The two buildings in question occupy approximately 3,000 square
feet of a 64,000 square foot site. (The buildings are 1,700 square feet, plus open space in
front of them.) Historic Preservation Staff and HPC request that Council work with the
applicant to find a mutually agreeable solution that retains these structures and adapts
them to some useful role in the project. Possibilities include use as a bar/restaurant space
to serve guests and public. Another option is use as small meeting rooms in lieu of the
1,400 square foot space proposed within the lodge. These meeting rooms could open out
onto the existing garden space, which would be a nice amenity. The buildings could be
on-site housing for staff, staging or storage for recreational activities and equipment, or a
variety of other functions. They could even be rehabilitated and offered as a special
lodging room, full of ski atmosphere.
""'"
Historic Preservation Staff and the HPC strongly support infill development and re-
invigoration of the lodges in town. The new zoning has created opportunities in this
regard. We applaud the Limelite's overall plan, however, the effort to improve and
expand lodge options and the preservation of our original ski facilities can go hand in
hand. This point was emphasized in the 2004 Aspen Retail Analysis that discussed the
importance of creating "a new and old place." The report says, "Exceptional public
spaces and exceptional retail experiences combine nostalgia and hope, memory and
prophecy. They engage participants with a sense of the place's roots and history, but also
in the best spaces, an equal sense that the area is alive, organic, and evolving."
~
Historically, the ski base of Aspen Mountain was directly up Aspen Street from this
property. Also nearby were The Prospector (1947, since demolished), Norway Lodge
(1954, soon to be demolished), Skier's Chalet (1955, currently under review by HPC for
voluntary designation and development of a new lodge project), Holland House (1956,
de-listed as historic against HPC's recommendation), The Mountain Chalet (1958,
recently expanded successfully), and The Blue Spruce (c. 1960, since demolished.) The
loss of a number of representative pieces of Aspen's historic ski era should be of concern.
Thought should be given to the relatively large component of the tourism market that
falls into the category of heritage tourists. The National Trust defines cultural heritage
tourism as traveling to experience the places, artifacts and activities that authentically
represent the stories and people of the past and present. It includes cultural, historic and
natural resources. Many people who visit Aspen want to feel connected to the town's
history and want to experience unique places. According to a 2004 survey sponsored by
ACRA, while most visitors come to take advantage of outdoor and sports activities, 32%
indicate sightseeing/touring (which can include architecture) as a reason to visit. 44% of
first time visitors express this same interest. Full-time and part-time residents also enjoy
historical tours and sites.
Preserving properties like Deep Powder could meet many community goals and does not
have to be in conflict with lodge expansion. Council is encouraged to consider extending
additional benefits to the Limelite applicants so that Deep Powder can continue to be
experienced as part of Aspen's heritage. The project is currently requesting significant
flexibility in terms of height restrictions, proportion of free market FAR to lodge FAR,
vacation of a City alley, and setback variances. Historic Preservation and the physical
character of the community are important goals within the AACP.
"""'-
",oO.-
Page lof2
James Lindt
~lAllDl \ 2-
From:
Sent:
To:
SteveFRCC@aol.com
Thursday, October 20,200510:33 AM
James Lindt
Cc: casasol@sopris.net; SteveFRCC@aol.com
Subject: Deep Powder Cabins
Dear James,
This letter will recap the view~ of the Limelite redevelopment team in reference to the status of the Deep Powder Cabins. If
possible, we request a hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission to go over the information in this letter in detail and
resolve the status of the structures. We understand and respect the HPC in preserving the history and buildings of Aspen. Our
objective is to seek a solution, in conjunction with our final PUD application, that does not financially or physically burden or
jeopardize the redevelopment project.
Part of our conceptual PUD approvals states that the applicant and the City shall jointly study possibilities for the preservation of
the cabins prior to our final PUD application, in an effort to see if an acceptable preservation method can be obtained without
financially burdening the redevelopment project or the applicant. In addition, we have property rights that allow the demolition of
the cabins at any time. We are working with the City to seek a relocation solution prior to any demolition.
As you know, the Deep Powder Cabins are not currently designated and the owners have strongly opposed any application
because of the need for the property in a redevelopment situation. We do not believe the Deep Powder Cabins are of historical
significance to maintain given that they were moved to the site from another parcel in the mid 1050's. Although we do not have
written proof of the relocation, it has been the consistent story from all the previOUS owners that the cabins were relocated to the
site and not built at the current location. In addition, there have many alterations to the original structures, including a 1959
addition to the north building of a second story, a balcony enclosure in 1978 and a complete remodel to update the rent ability of
lhe cabins in 1991.
The Paas family purchased the Deep Powder Cabins in 199710 add rooms 10 the Umelite Lodge and consolidale the Cooper
Avenue properties with a vision of a redevelopment someday made easier by owning the entire block to the alley. Today, 'the
redevelopment is at hand, and the Deep Powder property is an important part. With the May, 2005 changes to the lodging zone
district,
a redevelopment lodge property can build a free market residential component to make it financially feasible. We have designed
a project that builds the maximum amount of new moderate priced, new lodge rooms. Without the free market part of our project
as a financial engine to offset the high cost of the Snowflake Inn, the high cost of construction costs in Aspen, the cost of
underground parking, etc., the redevelopment project would not be bankable or feasible.
We have done considerable physical and financial testing to determine the status of the Deep Powder Cabins within the
redevelopment project. Keeping the two cabins in their" L " shaped configuration would necessitate greater height and mass to
be spread across the other parts of the Cooper Avenue residential project. Approximately 12.000 square feet of residential
product
is on the western part, under the Deep Powder land. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council expressed
large concerns over the height and mass of the residential product. In our final PUD application, we have modified the height of
the residential product and lost some square footage. If the Deep Powder Cabins remained at their current location, the 12.000
square feet of free market residential product would be lost and the project would not be bankable or feasible.
We have looked at the potential of using the exteriors only to fit into the smaller buildings in the new hotel project on the north
side of Cooper Avenue. Only the exteriors could be used in anxnew habitable building. All new foundations, wall systems.
electrical, plumbing, flooring, insulation and roofing systems are needed to make the Cabins meet the International Building Code
and be acceptable to the family as new' hotel rooms. Also, with any relocation and a change in the configuration of the cabins, the
smaller cabin would be used to finish the end walls of the larger cabin, resulting in one cabin being wholly preserved. The current
" L "shaped, 2 cabin configuration would not fit at the new hotel location. This idea would result in additional building costs to
adapt the exteriors only to any new building, plus the moving costs from the west location. This idea is not popular with the design
team or the family.
After our conceptual PUD approvals in August, 2005, the City parks and recreation department, along with golf course personal,
approached the redevelopmenVowners group with an idea that the main cabin could be relocated to the city golf course to be
used in conjunction with a new pumping station and maintenance building. The larger, main cabin would be relocated to the golf
course in the spring of 2006, prior to any demolition on our site. We have had a site visit with Parks and Recreation, golf course
10/20/2005
Page 2 of2
personal and their architect to examine the cabins. Again, only the one larger cabin would be rebuilt with the smaller cabin being
used as side wall materials in the rebuilding process. The cabin building fits their size requirement and could be moved. It would
be rebuilt in a new location on the _ hole at the golf course, but not be habitable. The building would be in a setting by itself ~
and V€/y visible to the pubHc.
The Umelite Lodge ownership group sees this idea as the answer to the preservation of the larger Deep Powder Cabin in a
permanent location. To show our support for this idea. the ownership would commit to pay for the transportation and moving
costs for this solution, which is estimated to be approximately $20,000.
We recommend and support the relocation of the Deep Powder Cabin to the golf course. Time is of the essence. We seek a
solution with the City and HPC that aCknowledges the family goals of a hotel redevelopment and allows a new Umelite Lodge to
be build and continue to be an asset for Aspen visitors for many years in the future.
Steve Szymanski
Szymanski Development Partners, Inc.
Umelite Redevelopment Team Representative
303595-3311
stevefrcc@aol.com
~
_.I
~
10/20/2005
"""-,,
"
.::
-
"
~
~
o..
1!
u
~
=
'" ~
~ "
Eo-< - o..
'= " " "
..... ::l o.. .c
1:1:I o.. " "
~ " .c
..... .c " "
== "0 " ~
" "il
~ .Si " ~
~ "il o..
"'" ~ "il "
'" o.. o.. o.. o.. .c
" " " -
0 " " .c .c 0
~ ~ .c .c
::l - - "
- - 0 0
"'" o.. 0 0 " >
~ .E " 0 0 0
" > E E
o.. > E 0
- " 0 E "
.Si .c E " "0 ;;:
0 o.. " "0
o.. .c .€ or """ ~ -
~ " " - " - - ~ 's
.c .c o.. ~ - .c
.- 0 0 "il .;;; ~ <:: <:: '"
~ " ~ - i
0 = - ;::l ;::l E
"'" " " o.. o.. .;;; " " <::
" " " ;::: '" '"
"'" .c .c '" .c .c " "il "il ;::l " " ~
- -
"il 0 - ;::: ..... .....
~ " 0 0 E E " =
> E E " 0 "il ;::l ;::l ..... t :; ~
~ 0 " ;::l > E E ~
0 E "0 0 " ;::l " " t o.. o.. ~ ~
~ " " " E "0 .c ;: g ~ t o..
~ = .c " - o.. ~
.S .S 0 f-< i .i .c - - e 0
CFJ ., ~ - 0 0 s S- o..
- - - ~ 0
Z '" '" '" g 's 's - '" '" 0 s
" " " 0 " " s ~ c 0
0 .Si .Si .Si '" '" '" o.. o.. s- ~
E '" '" ~ U U
..... - - - 0 0 "
Eo-< = = = '" S- S- o.. o.. o.. U E E ~ U
" " " 0 '" " "
~ o.. o.. o.. S- " " o.. .c .c .6 U o..
o.. o.. o.. " - - o.. o.. "
0 ::l ::l ::l ~ ~ .c 0 0 '" '" .c
" " " " 0 0 - = = o.. " " o.. -
Z ~ " " 0 '" '" '" = = " 0
o.. ~ ~ 0 .c
'., .<;; .<;; " .S .S = 0 0 " 0 0 0 0
0 '" - - = - - -
.c .S .S ~ ~
..... - .S ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~
Eo-< = = - = = - = = - =
.S ~ ~ ~ :0 :0 ~ :0 :0 ~ :0 :0 ~ :0
< = = = = = =
~ :0 :0 :0 '" '" :0 '" '" :0 '" '" :0 '"
>- = " " " " " " "
:0 '" '" '" - - '" - - '" - - '" -
~ " " " ~ ~ " ~ ~ " ~ ~ " ~
'" - - " " " " " " "
"'" " ~ ~ - "0 "0 - "0 "0 - "0 "0 - "0
" " ~ ~ ~ ~
CFJ - " '0 '0 " '0 '0 " '0 '0 " '0
~ "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0
"'" " '0 '0 '0 " " '0 " " '0 " " '0 "
~ "0 ;: .c ;: .c .c .c .c
'0 " " .... - .... - .... - - .... -
~ ;: .c - - - - - - -
.... - " 0 0 " 0 0 " 0 0 " 0
" - - ;: - - .c - - .c - ;: -
0 0 - - -
.c - - " " " " " " " " " " "
- - - ... ... - ... - ... - - -
= = = '" '" '" '" .. '" '"
.; .; .; " " " " " " " " " " "
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
... - - "il "il "il "il "il "il "il "il "il "il "il
" "
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"
.::
-
"
e
~
o..
~
o..
"
=
"
0
~
o..
e
0
o..
~
"
"
'=
'"
~
~
...
~
u
~
:=
"
...
"
'"
i< "
" ...
~ "
0; '"
... ... i<
" " "
'" '" ~
... - - 0;
" " " ... ...
'" " " " "
- " Ei '" '"
" " - '0
Ei " "
" "0 "
Ei "
'"" '"" " Ei
" = = "
"0 "
~ " " Ei "0
'"" = ~ ~
... ... '""
'" " " " '""
- ~ " "
's ... "0 "0 ~ ~ ~
" = = ... ...
"0 < < " = "
i ~
= ... " "
< ... ... " u u
" " "
... :E :E U ..... .....
" " :Ii :Ii ..... '0 '0
~ :E '0 " "
';:' :Ii ~ ';:' ~ ~
>, "
- ';:' - - ';:'
... ... ... ... ...
~ - ~ ~ - e e
... ...
" ~ " " ~ " "
;; " ;; ;; " ;; ;;
~ ;; ~ ~ ;; >, ~
-
[) ~ [) [) ~ [) [)
... [) ... ... [) ... ...
" " " " "
'" ... '" '" ... '" '"
- " - - " - -
" '" " " '" " "
" - " " - " "
- " - - " - -
~ " ~ ~ " ~ ~
= - = = - = =
:c ~ :c :c ~ :c :c
" = " " = " "
'" :c '" '" :c '" '"
- " - - " - -
~ '" ~ ~ '" ~ ~
" - " " - " " ~
"0 ~ "0 "0 ~ "0 "0 =
'0 " '0 '0 " '0 '0 :c
" "0 " " "0 " " "
'" '0 '" '" '0 -= '" '"
- .... - - .... - '"
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... -
" " " " " " " "
- -= - - '" - - "Q
-
" " " " " " " '"
- - -; - - - -; .~
" " " " " '0
'" '" '" '" '" '" '"
" " " " " " " Ei
0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; "
p:: p:: p:: p:: p:: p:: p:: ~
"
"
'=
'"
l'
~
...
l'
... .
"
=
i<
~
...
l'
"
...
~
-.
""
'''''"'*;'
-,
r~i
, OJ
i ij I
hi
,(]), .m
i J::! ..:
t '0
101 =
I z 1-----1 :J.'S'H::J~N ~
I OJ . 0".......... J::
~l +-'
1m is
i E C/)
1'-
,...J OJ
I:? ~
'1); E
I.x ~
I W OJ
..:
u;
'x
W
.,.0'
!!:
"!
;
o
o
o
'"
!!:
1
"
.,
'"
"
'"
tS'N3dSv<.S
~
'"
"
c
1-;[-----
I i
I '
, I
-l i
, ,
/f\!
--I
~. !
. I
I '
, I
11 i
~ .~ j
'"' I
P
I "
. '.' I:
, "
,
. -'.
~'.'
~u n--.-----.~-,-"---7L: .
i
i
I
-I
I
<6~
.~-5.~
:2~J!i!
"S <:::; Q)
~8 '$i
u on 0
'5..g-:
~t;~
o~a..
.S (/) ID
~~=
-5~~
.-+~ ~\/)O~ ~n
-1 -- ~~~
, <L '-l
I '-0 l '.,
I ~; I ""
--+ ---L;ili-'---'>..,------"----;;j
I ~I 1
'"
I J... '"'
- ~ \) ~
Ill. <! ~
~1T' I ~~
~F '~-
I -'
, . I
m L__
c
6..:
<!"
~~
:B~
o
-'
I
: V'
I ~/
I I
, I
. I I
: -------.J-i1T+}
Iy
"-,._--_..._~_.._._...,-- --_._-._---.~- -,.--
Q)
'.
p'~
>
([:
~~
~l '~ P'~ p'~ io':i
&~ .~ .~
~"' ~c, .'"
" ~':I
iu';
&~
n~
, .
~~
p~
~~
Do.,
, .
I
I
Io';i I j
.~ 11
~CI I '0
io~ I :n
..'
L
~~ I ::J
\)
10':; I l\
.'" I "
&~ K Ill,_
I 0~
u
p'~
'",
h
~.~ q)
\1'~"(I ~ ~
,,'I1C)lII__
>.1..11..'1),-....
, ..
~2 .
~.
\
1i
c
",. ~
c " "
:;. \l \)
~ G to
LUO~
~
-"
'i
.2
:ii
,i'
\
\
~
Q
b~~
1ll~0
"i2<::}'
O::ll[)
[,j
-~-'-I
I
I
I
__J'
CD
~i;
(/)'.i
-.-':
0)-':
C;;:.:ii
.-.,
,,<,-,,-'
--
/
-,
-- - - -~L--Clli? -~s-=~ts ----
. m. '-l". ~
I . I-~_ "
"7'. ---............. "
,
i
1
I
,
.
I
.
j
~@
P
II
"
.~
~I'
~
fJI
~I
"1
"
.
.
~
'"1
;i:!.
~
'j
ir.
J
i:
/ -"", ~
~ (/
W II
I!l I
.
""7-~_________
~--=-:::::"'~-'''-'-'-...:::.:.:
\
\
.uV
u_)_____
I
(
\,
I
,
,
i
'----
.---
t l~~St 1:.
....~~---~
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
J -
~
> ~-
W
J
J
<
U
H .
~ )
'ft-!II
I 1\
I
!
i
I
\
/---
//
\
\\
\
\ \
\ \
\
\
,
\
\
\
\!
;1
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Ij
~
. \
\
\
\ ,
. , .
' "
g ~~ , ,
., g
, "Z "' u
1 ~Ol ~l( 3D.
1l.U1~l!HI ~~ cr~
ntl'wZ,l; ~ro~.(
1/If-1.(rl
1Il1ll Jl~~ x~~tj ,;;
, , . <~I~~
I~l~i" d1<lI1OIll <<
I- Uibb w
<gy~~~ >.
W ~Q.Il.(1. ~>( IJlIl. 0, uo. 0
J u
f- a
z
z J
( ~ " 0
J , <<
" ~
~ ~ fi . W
, ' < < <l1 ,
J " . IIlIll ~ ,
< 'ov '. 0 m i
J '0. ~~lJb~ J
I- 00" < "
'" .. Jl:I'~U:! .
~ '" III 1lI01l.l!)f- Z 0
w Iii mgo~~ m m~ozl Z .
U W InJ~<lI. :J &Ul!li~ ~ .
Z III UHllOOlYo( N ",0,,,,,,
"'''-
::: .~
",
'OJ
i~
.,
<,
.,,;
c.
"'
,!
.~~
::;.
""
,.
0]
.... ". .,
u~'-'.;';>~
'~tcT::"
'\