HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19941214HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
130 S.
INVENTORY ROUND II ......... 1
202 W. FRANCIS STREET, PARTIAL DEMOLITION .... 1
435 W. MAIN - L'AUBERGE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT PH 4
316 E. HOPKINS AVE. HOWLING WOLF - MINOR .... 11
NOVEMBER 23RD AGENDA APPROVAL ....... 14
303 E. MAIN STREET - DISCUSSION ...... 14
GALENA ........................ 16
18
RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 14,1994
Meeting was called to order by chairman Joe Krabacher with
Donnelley Erdman, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Linda Smisek, Martha
Madsen, Roger Moyer and Tom Williams present.
INVENTORY ROUND II
Bob Hughes and Gideon Kaufman presented letters and discussed the
Bavarian Lodge at 801 W. Bleeker, the Trustee Housing and Race
Track. The consensus was that a legal description will be provided
and the information will be brought back to the Board. The
Bavarian Lodge was dropped from the inventory but the Trustee
Housing and Rack Track will be added.
The Colorado Midland Right-of-way was discussed and Chairman Joe
Krabacher stated that a new legal should be done stating the
easement should start from the middle and then so many feet on
either side of that.
Tony Zurcher: The tracks are going and you can barely see where
the railroad was. It should be looked at in the spring.
Roger: The right-of-way is part of the nordic trail system.
The Board recommended to not include 1101 E. Cooper Ave., 1001 E.
Hyman and 407 W. Hallam to the inventory.
MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that a resolution be brought
back to the board for approval; second by Roger. Passes 6 to one,
Les opposed. Motion carries.
Tom Williams did not vote as seven members were seated.
202 W. FRANCIS STREET, PARTIAL DEMOLITION
Jake: I would like to state that I have a problem discussing this
project as it is 60% demolition and our code states that you cannot
go over 50%.
Gretchen Greenwood: We are not touching the historic portion of
the house. It is the 1960 section that needs to be demolished.
Amy: The Planning Director interpreted the code and stated that
we should review the partial demolition.
Roger: Their alternative would be to pay the additional fees.
Amy: They would not be able to meet those standards because as Joe
said you cannot prove that the building is not structurally sound,
they can't meet the standards. What would happen is that they
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
would have to wait until we amend the code which holds them up for
a project that we do not necessarily want to hold up.
Jake: There have been a lot of people that have been in the same
boat as here that had to reduce the size of their demolition. I
would be willing to review it if there was some way to engineer a
review that would be conditional pending legal interpretation.
Joe: The applicant has to take the risk if the approval has some
problems with it.
Gretchen: We will take that risk.
Amy: We should tack on something to the motion that states that
we want it verified by the city attorney as being OK. I want to
do this appropriately as it was noticed and I had phone calls.
Gretchen: We truly want to preserve the old part of the structure
and I brought a model to demonstrate the concept behind that; we
do not want to build on top of the old buildings and do a monster
home. We want to have a very strong designation between what is
old and what is new. In order to do that we are asking for a site
coverage variance and a few other variances and setbacks and
parking. We decided to go to the Board of Adjustment for all of
those variances. We hope to get your endorsement for this project
as we go to the Board of Adjustment for our variances.
Les: This makes sense to me.
Roger: I concur.
Gretchen Greenwood: The stable and 52 foot long miners cabin will
be restored. The stable is 20 feet above grade to the ridge and
that is the highest point that we will be going. The cabin also
has a 14 foot extension. In the 60's additions were added which
makes the building over its FAR. It has an existing percentage of
site coverage right now of 56% and it has FAR square footage of
3,478 sqft. which is over around 200 feet. We want a completely
separate architectural concept from the miners cottage. We do not
want to put anything on top of the cabins. I have always discussed
with Amy having some kind of flexibility with site coverage which
would make for better projects in the west end. With the variation
of 9% we are able to keep the house very low and able to not have
to build on top of the miners cabin. I also want to point out that
our site coverage is half of what is allowable. So it iQ a hardship
on us and we do want to preserve the historic both from the inside
and out. We want to expose the inside of the buildings also and
it will be obvious what is exactly old and what is new. There is
evidence that something wrapped around the house and we want to add
the porch as it is a corner site. There is a window that will be
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
restored.
Tom Congdon, owner: The only alternative would be to stay as we
are and add one bedroom and keep fixing the thing. It is 110 years
old.
Donnelley: How do you plan on getting rid of the snow problems
that you have created.
Gretchen: This building is designed to preserve the historic
buildings rather than designing a sloped roof. We will build a lot
of heated french drains and will deal technically with it in
another way.
Jake: Does this fall under ordinance 35?
Amy: Yes.
Gretchen: I have no problem with going through that review
process.
Tom Congdon: The neighbor Morey Tobin is a good friend and we
cannot destroy his yard so we will dig under the old structures and
build them up. The joists are unpealed logs laid on stone
foundations.
Jake: In terms of things that you are doing to the stables and the
house itself can you summarize that.
Gretchen: We haven't spent a lot of time on the window design but
will be glad to come back.
Joe: With partial demolition we have a one step process and Jake
is trying determine the scope of the project which effects the
partial demolition.
Tom Congdon: We need your support for the Board of adjustment.
Joe: If this committee feels this is appropriate we will review
it on a conceptual basis with the understanding that the applicant
will come in and show us the detailing of the windows etc. on the
historic portions.
Les: You are saving two wonderful old buildings, reduce the site
coverage 7%, an employee upstairs and a porch on the old building
and get rid of a car.
Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing; no comments.
Public hearing closed.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant
approval to 202 W. Francis lots R,S, Block 48,
of Aspen, Colo. with the following conditions:
partial demolition
City and Townsite
(1) That the applicant understand that this is a design review and
that HPC request that the Board of Adjustment look closely at
this project. We find that the variances requested are
encouraged, that the Board of Adjustment grant these variances
for the following reasons:
(1) In opinion this is an excellent project of preservation of an
historic structure and the blending of the structure with a
new design.
(2) That FAR is in fact being reduced.
(3) An employee housing unit on an upper level is being provided
which is certainly unusual in this community.
(4) We find no problem with the fact that one parking space is
being asked to be withdrawn and that we feel this is a strong
project in the goals that we are trying to achieve as the HPC
and the blending of old and new; second by Les.
DISCUSSION
Jake: I want to go through the variances one at a time.
understand it you are reducing your site coverage.
As I
Gretchen: We are going from 50% to 49%.
Jake: It is currently a non-conformity and you are reducing the
non-conformity. The HPC supports the reduction.
Jake: I will add a few thoughts for the Board of Adjustment. It
should be stated in the motion that HPC approves demolition of the
non-historic elements. The applicant will return for more detail
review. The applicant will return for ordinance 35 review. We
also need conformation of the legality of the partial demolition
and interpreted by the city attorney.
AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to state that we approve
partial demolition of the non-historic element and as far as the
other items they are inclusive except for the legality. The
legality of the demolition to be finalized and reviewed by the city
attorney; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries.
Jake: The applicant is reducing nonconformities and improving the
situation.
435 W. MAIN - L'AUBERGE - SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT PH
Amy: This site was previously called the Swiss Chalet and is in
the Main Street Historic District. At some point this site might
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
want to be designated historic as the cabins were built in the
50's. It is zoned office and the applicants are proposing to do an
expansion which includes the addition of 13 lodges in the character
of the existing detached lodges as well as 206 sqft. addition to
the existing manager residence which is previously approved by HPC
in addition to the laundry. This project will be going on for a
GMQS allotment competition. The lodge may at some point have
historic significance as its detailed as a chalet style
architecture and I think it should stay that way. On the two story
cabins proposed they reference victorian architecture and also the
windows are six feet above the street and you do not see an entry
way so I propose a restudy of that and eliminating the victorian
detailing. Also proposed that the two story cabins be located at
the rear of the site. I do support the applicants concept that
they stick with detached small cabins because that is what is
compatible with what is on the site. I feel personally that the
design has become complex with a lot of roof lines and possible
they combine some of the buildings into a single mass to give
variation on the site. I also though we should support the
applicants request at P&Z that the number of parking spaces be
reduced. Some of the cottages actually have two parking spaces and
it turns the site into a parking lot. Grass-crete should be used
where possible. Beyond that I will let the committee discuss it.
I recommend tabling with the conditions I described realizing that
the applicant does have a January 13th deadline for GMQS.
Gideon Kaufman, attorney: We have had discussions with neighbors
and have taken into account their concerns. It is zoned office and
in the growth management plan we plan on doing a conditional use
to allow lodges in the office zone.
David Gibson, architect: The managers Michael and Tracey Haisfield
are here as resources on the operation of the lodge. 'There are a
lot of pedestrian amenities on the site and they will be retained.
The existing cabins have a lot of character and river rock
fireplaces. We tried to space the buildings and make an
interesting rhythm. We are using corrugated roofing. The urban
cottage fabric of Aspen has changed to a larger fabric on Main
Street and it has happened on every block except ours. We have 1/4
of the allowable build out and it occupies a full block. We had
looked at keeping the cabins and maximumizing the office potential
of the site. It would propose 50 parking spaces and would require
eight or ten employees. Upon doing the drawings it really has a
distressing scale change to it so we backed away from that option.
We are proposing 13 new cabins. There are two fountains that will
be visible while walking through. In order to vary some of the
height of the buildings we have been proposing 1 1/2 story
buildings for the two center cabins and along the back. We are
flexible in our designs and the neighbors concerns. We will remove
the cabin to the east #22 and would propose 12 instead of 12
5
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
cabins. The site coverage would drop. Neighbors asked us to
increase the set back 10 feet which we are agreeable to. I
understand the concern about staff reducing the height to one story
and I feel this commission would not like that. If you have a
vertical monotony you wouldn't like it. The height difference that
we have proposed gives a little relief and variety to the
procession down Main Street. The proposal for the existing cabins
was to simply add trim and window boxes and alternate batten from
ten inches to five inches. I think it enhances the cabins but
again we are open to leaving them exactly as they are if the
commission feels it is the thing to do.
Gideon Kaufman: The items that the neighbors had concerns about
were first the elimination of one unit and in addition to that
there will be no development or parking in that area to preserve
it as open space. We will also preserve the majority of the lilac
bushes that exist back there. One of the larger cabins will become
a one story cabin. There will be limitations on dogs for guests
that reside for less than 20 days in particular units. Trash
pickup will be maintained in its current location, south east
corner and monies will be escrowed for the paving of the alley in
the event that the City allows it to be paved.
Linda: What are the larger units going to be used for? What is
the height to the ridge?
David Gibson: Deluxe units for an alternative choice. The plate
height would be nine feet with trussels which would take it to 12
feet.
Martha: Are you asking for variances?
Gideon: We are going under a PUD and because it is a 27,000 sqft.
we have the ability to ask for variances through the process.
Joe: The plan calls for variances along Main Street.
Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing.
Herb Kline, attorney: I represent Steve and Cheryl Goldbenberg and
I submitted a letter which outlines the details of those changes.
Cabin #21 would be set back 10 feet from the property line. We are
in agreement of the changes.
Francis Plache, architect: I represent the Scott Condominiums and
in the past there has been problems with garbage and at time the
dumpster is over loaded and it is all over the street. Also we
have had dog problems. In the proposal it is recommended that the
parking be reduced and we have some concerns about that. Are the
units going to be long term rentals.
6
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
Gideon; It is run as
about it.
a lodge right now and we haven't thought
Francis Plache: What I have heard is that there have been three
cars at one cabin. In the summer there have been cars up along the
block and we would like that addressed.
Bob Throm: I have been in Aspen for numerous years and believe
that the project before you is more of what we should be doing.
We can't all stay at the Ritz and Little Nell nor do we want to.
I have know the Haisfields for numerous years and they are a good
family and local people and their kids are going to be running
this. You should be just as excited about this project as the last
one.
Gideon Kaufman: I am submitting three letters, one from Charles
Israel 522 W. Francis and the other is from Kathleen Ryan and the
other from Art Burrows Bond communication who all are in support
of small lodges.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Donnelley: I feel this is a very good project and would recommend
approval and feel the existing cabins could be cleaned up just as
David suggested. I agree with Staff on the two story cabins being
not so explicitly victorian. I also agree about the elimination
of cabin #22 and #21 moving back and being one story.
Jake: I just have a few comments in general I would like to see
some variations between old and new.
Donnelley: Is the elimination of #22 going to eliminate the
parking spaces that were adjacent to it?
David Gibson: It would eliminate one space.
Les: I have always felt that the small lodges were the heart and
soul of Aspen and this is wonderful and is a good project.
Joe: I feel it is difficult to evaluate a project like this from
an historic perspective because I am not sure how historic this is
other than it being small cabins. Generally I feel it is good that
the applicant has about 1/2 of the allowable FAR on the site. When
you come back at final I would like to see the differentiation
between old and new.
Gideon: Are we talking subtle or significant differences?
Donnelley: There are significant differences when you get near the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
buildings than when you read it from the street. They may have to
do with fenestration and detailing materials. We are not asking
for different building forms and it is something that David
understands.
Tom: It is my opinion that Aspen per'se is not a victorian town.
The unique qualities and charm of Aspen are based on the variety
of styles and periods whether they are wonderful architecture or
not. That is my feeling about the first time I drove into Aspen.
In that regard I wish the project was less rigid in its
organization and designed and detailed more to now. I wish the
Main Street composition was less rigid like a soldier, less
repetition. The facades of each of the buildings are identical so
it makes it look like soldiers.
Jake: I support Tom's comments also. If this project falls short
it is the relationship to the street. Part of guidelines are to
provide linkage to the streetscape. This is our main boulevard.
Amy made comments of hooking the units together.
Roger: I feel this is a good project and my concern is the
landscape, streetscape plan. I would encourage you to open up the
center court yard to the street in some manner so that there is a
connection, a community. I like the idea of the single story and
possibly one or two could be masked together. Allow an inner plan
along the street with benches or something. I have no problem with
interesting detail on the cabins.
Linda: Possibly shift the open space from the corner of the
property to make it centrally open.
Gideon: That was a situation worked out with the neighbors to try
and mitigate concerns and impact on the duplex that sits over
there.
Roger: Our concern is for the entire community not just one
neighbor.
David Gibson: This landscape only shows existing trees and we will
have a landscape plan that shows all the trees. There will be
numerous materials added. In stead of a fence we want to do
hedges, shrubs. We want to have a soft space between the
buildings. This is the only block in town with an interior. By
virtue of that it will beacon people to go in. One thing this does
is shield the cars from the public.
Amy: There is a sign permit also and want
manager residence. It is four feet wide and
seemed a little over sized to me.
to situated by the
three feet tall. It
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that the conceptual development
plan for 435 W. Main Street be approved with the following
conditions:
That cabin unit 22 is removed and 21 is set back 10 feet
from the property line.
That all new construction be differentiated in a very
positive and hopefully contemporary way from the existing
structures.
That the detailing of the existing cabins not be
significantly altered.
As many parking spaces as possible can be surfaced with
grass-crete or a similar porus and non-hard surface.
Motion second by Joe.
Gideon: I was told we could not use that.
Amy: We discussed this in the Planning Office and a certain
percentage of site coverage could be grass-crete.
Jake: I do not support the proposed setback from Main Street. Our
guidelines address the maintenance of a setback and I feel the
setback is too close. I feel cabin 13 and 14 should be located
somewhere else on the site and the setback be reduced. You are
basing a setback line on one cabin at each end.
Gideon: I would like to address that. Main Street has gone from
a street that had some traffic to a major thorofare and the
desirability of rooms on Main Street has greatly dropped. One of
the things we have tried to accomplish is the orientation toward
the center so that we were able to get some kind of feeling inside.
Jake: Playing around with the buildings and joining them might get
you the same density and still contribute to the streetscape for
the pedestrian.
Gideon: It is a balance in terms of what we are trying to do.
Roger: If a neighbor and a developer have a private agreement,
that limits our ability to make suggestions to move buildings
around and so on. I do not think that is something we necessarily
want to allow in the future. We certainly should listen to the
neighbors and what their thoughts and requests are and if we can
do anything that is good. The way the discussion is going with the
regard to the last unit may not be in the best interest of the
project. We need to be very careful with that. We need to do what
is best for everyone.
Joe: My thoughts living on Main Street I know what it is like and
HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO~ITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
if you move it in you eliminate the advantage of the interior space
and it is that great of a benefit to the community to have another
five feet of green space on Main Street when it screws up the
center of the design. I do agree with Amy's comment about the
windows but I think we are at a conceptual level right now and it
has its back toward Main Street and one of our guidelines is have
a pedestrian feel but I feel that can be handled in other ways than
changing the setback. Is it a better benefit having 5 feet more
on Main Street where nobody will be walking out there.
Linda: If they can give up a unit for the neighbor they can give
up a unit for the streetscape.
Gideon: We are at .36 FAR and this is a small project to begin
with. We did not come in with maximum. Once you start cutting
units it gets complicated.
Linda: You cut a unit for a neighbor and we are saying that this
is very dense.
Donnelley: I feel there is a misunderstanding and I also disagree
with Jake. This is a unique block on Main Street and the scale of
all the development on this block is very small. Everything on
both sides of this will develop out in office scale, with
residentially detailed. I am not concerned about it being pushed
out and also not concerned about the benefits to accrue to the
interior because Joe knows full well even if you set back another
three or four feet it would make no difference in terms of the
traffic impact and traffic noise.
Joe: There are so many good things about this project: They are
at about 1/2 of their FAR and the height is under 20 feet and I
think there are a lot of positive things.
Martha: I do not feel we have been given the benefit of a
landscape plan which will be supplied at the next meeting.
David Gibson: We will have a model at that time also. The breaks
of the masses exist already.
Les: What benefit to the neighborhood have you received by pulling
out #22 cabin?
Gideon: One of the things I have seen in working with public
bodies is trying to deal with neighbors and solving those problems,
then here is the situation that you get criticized for working with
them.
Neighbor: We have lived there for nine year and the past neighbors
all had children playing in the back yard with lilac trees and more
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
people walk down the alley rather than wait out front and I know
that because I wait for the bus. The alley is really beautiful and
it is like a residence. I feel it is appropriate that cabin #22
was eliminated. It is such a neighborly thing for them to do to
listen to our concerns and become responsive.
Tom: I am a neighbor and I live across on Third and Main and feel
it should have more contrasted masses, a neat composition and I
also catch the bus there three times a day.
Jake: Maybe the real street is the alley rather than Main Street.
AMENDED MOTION: Donnelley amended his motion to recommend studying
the Main Street elevations especially the story and 1/2 massing and
looking at the opportunities for making a combination building;
second by Joe. Ail in favor of motion and amended motion.
316 E. HOPKINS AVE. HOWLING WOLF - MINOR
Amy: They have brought in the information on the airlock and
submitted a drawing. I proposed approving it minus the turn post
at the corner and it should be as simple as possible.
Roger: What is the problem with the turn posts?
Amy: Because it is adding victorian detailing to something that
doesn't have to be detailed. It also interferes with the porch.
Donnelley: I agree with staff and this is to be considered a
temporary addition and those vertical elements should not try and
replicate.
Paul Levine, owner: We wanted it a very temporary structure but
visually pleasing.
Donnelley: If you wanted to use half round post that were plain
all up and down that would work.
Tom: The airlock will be removable.
Stephen Levitt:
brackets.
It will probably be constructed of small little
MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the request to construct
an airlock to 316 E. Hopkins Ave. with the conditions that the
airtock be as simple as possible and be in place between Nov. 1st
and April 15th; second by Roger: All in favor, motion carries.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
MAROON CREEK BRIDGE PEDESTRIAN PATH - WORKSESSION
Amy: With some of the annexations that took place recently into
the city related to the golf course development outside of town
Maroon Creek Bridge has been brought into the City of Aspen and it
is on the National Register of historic places. It was the railroad
bridge that the Colo. Midland came into town on and was converted
to a vehicular bridge in 1929. In past discussion we have talked
about a pedestrian path. We all went to a meeting with the Colo.
Historical Society down in Denver who has review over this and they
gave us a long list to look at and were not entirely happy with
some of the ideas.
Bud Eylar, County Engineer: This bridge was built in the late
1880's and it became an historic resource of the State of Colo. in
the mid 80's. It is not an historic resource as a railroad bridge
it is a resource as a conversion from a railroad bridge to a
highway use. The original configuration was 14 feet in width and
when they converted to a highway with braces that were added in
1929 to allow them to widen the bridge and make it acceptable for
highway traffic. Pitkin County asked the highway dept. and the
Dept. of Transportation to do something about a pedestrian crossing
on that structure in 1977 and 1978. In 1989 there was discussion
of a new four lane bridge and converting this bridge to a
pedestrian bridge. When that bridge project fell through then the
county started looking at getting some kind of pedestrian crossing
of the Maroon Creek Valley. We hired a consulting engineer to look
at a variety of options to see what could be done. The first thing
we looked at was putting a crossing 20 ft. below the bridge and
that was the most feasible. When we took this proposal to the
state they state they wanted comments from the local authority.
We also looked at an alternative structure downstream. Some of the
cyclist raised issues that the ramps don't work for bicyclists as
the turns were tight and they would just go across the bridge.
Things you should know if we go in on the existing structure there
are some brace pieces and they run all throughout the trestle and
we would have to remove those and install new ones where we build
the bicycle crossing. We committed to the preservationists that
if there was a new bridge we would save the old material and we can
take it out and save it and bring the bridge back.
Donnelley: Did you address lighting for the evenings.
Bud Eylar, County Engineer: The proposal will be to light it and
the downside is if you don't light it that will preclude nighttime
use. I would not want to walk 60 feet of bridge with ho way to get
out of their during the evening. I also feel the lighting would
be a controversy.
12
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
Martha: You could put the lights down at the bottom on either
side.
Bud Eylar: We thought we would put them right under the deck.
Martha: What about strips underneath.
Roger: What is the least expensive, probably building on the
existing bridge.
Bud: Actually it isn't. The separate structure is less costly and
that is because you have virtually no cost in the ramps.
Roger: Which would be the easiest accessibility for the bike with
a trailer behind it?
Bud Eyler: The separate structure.
Roger: If you went under the bridge you would have to do a series
of turns. I would recommend the new structure which is less money,
easily accessible and better usage.
Les: What s the life span of the Maroon Creek Bridge?
Bud: It is 100 years old and possibly could last another 100
years. I feel the biggest issues are the foundation issues.
Possibly in very high flooding you could loose the foundation.
Roger: As a taxpayer you want to do it the most economical way.
Bud Bylar: The second bridge can be designed similar to an erector
set and can be taken down and moved.
Roger: If you built the system under the historic bridge could you
get a cat in there to pack for xcing.
Tom: I happen to like crossing under the historic structure and
like the idea that there will not be another piece of garbage going
across the valley and it all is sort of consumed by one structure.
The lighting could be handled very easily and it could be an
interesting low light glow under the bridge which would make the
bridge seem like it was floating. You could do something like a
spiral, a nice gentle spiral and I feel it would be fun to ride
down there on a bike.
Martha: I belong to the Maroon Creek Club and I feel it would be
wonderful to have a bike path under the bridge.
Tom: You could also cantilever from the bridge to the existing
13
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
bike path.
Bud Eylar: The Highway Dept. is opposed to that. They feel
structurally we have enough on there. If either one gets built
design features will be brought out.
Les: I like the bridge visually.
Tom: As a committee with everything we review we are going to have
to start looking at the aesthetic part of it instead of the
functional part of it. This town is just going in the functional
direction no matter what happens and we should consider more visual
exciting solutions. The crossing under the bridge visually would
need a design professional to make it work. I would recommend an
architectural consultant for the design.
Roger: What is the possibility of a new highway bridge being built
in the next 20 years? Don't mess with the historical structure.
Put the little one next to it and it could come out quickly and is
reversible in the interim.
Joe: I agree with Roger and understand Tom's concern but I do not
know if that would be an aesthetically great experience being under
the bridge with it shaking over you and debris falling overhead.
Tom: I feel the visual impact of that under the bridge is a whole
lot less than an additional object out there.
Donnelley: I agree with Tom and a second bridge would detract from
the old wooden structure.
Roger: The majority of people do not ride that bridge and there
is a bridge already underneath and could we use that in some way.
Bud Eylar: To make it ADA accessible is almost impossible and that
is our concern on this job.
Martha: I like the idea of a covered bridge.
Joe: The majority of members recommend under the bridge structure.
NOVEMBER 23RD AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the Nov. 23rd agenda;
second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries.
303 E. MAIN STREET - DISCUSSION
Amy: Unfortunately when the Kuhn's sent to P&Z the~ discovered
that the tower was in the Main Street View Plane. At present P&Z
~-~ HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
is not in favor of approving the view plan.
Joe: The view plane from the Hotel Jerome?
Amy: Yes. Roget Kuhn would like to present some of the problems.
Roget Kuhn: We are on the edge of the view plane. The tower
scheme right now is 34 feet and we actually cut out the corners and
reduced the square footage by going in three feet by three feet.
Amy: If P&Z is going to say they cannot have a view plan intrusion
presumably the Kuhns could flatten the roof out and would the Board
be in favor of such a thing.
Roget Kuhn: The view plane is 28 1/2 feet and we are at 34 feet
so we are plus 5 1/2 feet.
Amy: P&Z has the ability to grant the 5 1/2 feet.
want to set the precedent.
They do not
Joe: Do you have a design for the new roof if you have to go to
a new one?
Roger Kuhn: We are actually looking at the hip roof again. We
don't want P&Z to approve the flat roof and then come back to HPC
and get denied at final from HPC for the flat roof.
Donnelley: I would make an overlay drawing showing it as is and
B the little tiny bit of roof coming up behind the structure it
would be very convincing that the intent of the view plane
ordinance was really to prevent buildings across the street on Main
Street which had a big facade parallel to the street from rising
above a certain point and blocking of views. An overlay would be
important.
Jake: I am arguing that the pitched roof is more compatible with
the historic resource than a flat roof. We need a letter that the
roof proposed is preferable.
Amy: The view plane is historical also.
have a worksession with P&Z.
I would suggest that we
Martha: I would agree with that because we do not have enough
dialogue between the two boards.
Jake: The corners have been cut out of the tower to reduce its
mass.
Donnelley: You end up cutting out the most usable space.
15
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
Martha: P&Z's concern is the precedent setting.
Jake: I still say the overall impact of the view plane is
negligible. Even the Planning staff has admitted that.
Roget Kuhn: Su Casa is putting in an elevator and it is intruding
into the Wheeler View Plane.
Jake: One of the comments at the meeting was that we did not
address the view plane so we are doing that now.
Amy: I will forward the recommendation to P&Z.
Les: We find that the intrusion of the view plane is more
compatible historically than a flat roof on the tower.
Donnelley: It is more compatible with the goals of the community
than the intrusion of mechanical equipment which is allowed.
Roger: We need to request that P&Z have a worksession and we
should state that we encourage P&Z to look at the overlay and the
comments of the architect and pass this project.
Jake: We need something to take to P&Z that states that the HPC
has reviewed the view plan and discussed the issue.
Joe: The same thing happened on my project, I got through HPC and
then P&Z didn't like something so as a result I have to change
things.
Linda: We need a worksession as there is confusion.
MOTION: Joe made the motion that the HPC has made a finding that
the minimal violation of the view plane corridor is more in keeping
with the historic character of the existing building than would be
the other solution of keeping it within the view plan and possibly
having to eliminate the shed or do a flat roof on the tower.
Donnelley: This sort of intrusion into the view plan we do not
interpret as being the kind of intrusion that the view plane
regulations were created for.
AMENDED MOTION: Joe amended the motion to state that this is not
setting a precedent of towers going up and down Main Street and we
respect the historic view plane; second by Donnelley. All in
favor, motion carries.
130 S. GALENA
Amy: The board looked at the samples and selected two. Final
16
~ -~ HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994
decision will be a later meeting.
MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn;
in favor, motion carries.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
second by Donnelley. Ail
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
~09~7 01/~4/9-, 16:1~ Re¢ $4¢~0.00 B}( 667 PG
Davis, Pitkin Cnt¥ Clerk, Doc $.~0
"THE ASPEN MEADOWS"
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA
}EVEL~PMENT & SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
(
('~'~40937 01/24/92 16:15 ~,,' ~!00.00 BI'( 66? PG ?~
~ ~ilvim D~vis, F'itkin Cnty ~'_~rk, Doc $,00
DEVELOPMENT & SUBDMSION AGREEMENT
"THE ASPEN MEADOWS"
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA
This Agreement, made and entered into this day of , 1991,
by and among the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation and home rule city (the
"City"), and The Aspen Institute ("Institute"), the Music Associates of Aspen CMAA"), the
Aspen Center for Physics ("Physics") and Savanah Limited Partnership, a District of Columbia
limited partnership CSavanah"). Collectively the Institute, MAA, Physics and Savanah are
hereinafter referred to as the "Consortium".
RECITALS.
I. The City of Aspen after numerous public hearings adopted a Master Plan
for the Aspen Meadows as a component of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan in September,
1990; and,
2. The Consortium has submitted to the City for approval, execution and
recordation, The Aspen Meadows Final S.P.A. Development Plan and Final Subdivision Plat
(the "Plat") pertaining to the development of a tract of land known as the Aspen Meadows
situate within the City of Aspen, Colorado, legally described on Exhibit "A" (the "Property")
to include the following development activities, among others (the "Project"):
Reconstruction of the existing sixty lodge units of 35,950 gross
interior square feet and in addition, renovation of the existing
Kresge Building conference space (lower level, Building 5)' -Insti-
tute.
Construction of fifty new lodge units of 42,410 gross interior
square feet and additional subgrade mechanical space in Lodge
Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 totalling 960 square feet of gross interior
space - Institute
Health club renovation and expansion of 1,800 gross interior
square feet - Institute.
For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "gross interior square feet" or "gross
interior floor area" shall mean that floor area contained within the surrounding exterior
walls (measured from their exterior surface) of a building, or portion thereof, exclusive
of covered or uncovered decks, balconies, stairways, terraces and similar features, when
such features are not surrounded by exterior walls or enclosed.
Si~¥ia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc
Restaurant renovation and expansion of 2,000 gross interior square
feet - Institute.
eo
Tennis shop renovation and expansion, including rest rooms, of
980 gross interior square feet - Institute.
fo
Music tent backstage expansion of 1,500 gross interior square feet
- MAA.
New rehearsal/performance hall of 11,000 square feet of Floor
Area Ratio ("FAR") - MAA.
bo
Music tent gift shop expansion of 100 gross interior square feet -
MAA.
Renovation of the existing eight trustee houses and their expansion
to 2,500 square feet of FAR each - Savanah.
jo
Construction of ten new townhouse condominiums of 2,500 square
feet of FAR each - Savanah.
ko
Creation of four single family homesites, each homesite to have a
single family home and an accessory employee unit totaling 4,540
square feet of FAR exclusive of exempt garage space of up to 500
square feet - Savanah.
3. Following extensive public hearings at which substantial evidence in
support of the Project components was produced and considered, the Consortium received all
requisite dev6lopment approvals from the City for the Project. The development approvals that
the Consortium has received include the following:
Subdivision approval to create ten separate lots at the Aspen
Meadows.
Growth Management Quota System ("GMQS") approval for
fourteen residential units.
Co
GMQS exemption for essential public facilities from competition
and affordable housing impact mitigation for the Institute and
MAA development components.
Zoning map amendments to create two RMF lots, four R-15 lots,
Academic (A), Wildlife Preservation (WP) and Open Space (OS)
zones and lots, all as depicted on the Plat.
2
( ~'!4c, 937 01/24/92 16:13 . ~00.00 Bi< 667 PG 7~7
~ilvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Czerk, Doc $.00
eo
go
Variations from subdivision and subdivision improvement
requirements, easement and utility requirements, design standards
for streets and related improvements and zone district dimensional
and minimum lease requirements.
Condominiumization approval for the eight existing trustee houses,
the three new trustee houses on Lot 5 and the seven new
townhomes on Lot 6.
Waiver of the six month minimum lease requirements for the
approved development activity in the RMF zone district.
Conditional use approvals for affordable housing units on lots 7,
8, 9 and 10, and
Historical Preservation Commission ("HPC") conceptual and final
approval for all aspects of the Project which were subject to HPC
review.
4. The City has fully considered the Plat and this Agreement as well as the
anticipated benefits and burdens to other neighboring properties by reason of the proposed
development and improvement of the Property, all in accordance with Chapter 24 and other
related provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado (the "Municipal
Code"); and,
5. The City has found that the Plat and this Agreement meet the standards
set forth in Section 24-7-801, et seq. of the Municipal Code and further finds that the
Consortium has met its burden and has demonstrated the reasonableness and suitability of the
Project, its conformity to the requirements of Article 7 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code and
the Master Plan, that the adverse effects of the Project have been minimized to the extent
practicable, and that the Project complies with the City Council's intent in originally designating
the Property with an SPA overlay, including the reasonable conformance of the Plat and this
Agreement with the approval granted to the conceptual development plan; and,
6. The City is willing to approve, execute and accept this Agreement and the
Plat for recordation upon the agreement of the Consortium to the matters hereinafter described,
subject to all of the requirements, terms and conditions of Article 7 of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code as presently constituted and such other laws, rules and regulations as are or may
be applicable; and,
3
~J409~? 01/24/92 16:13( .z~400.00 BK 667 PG ?J8
~ilvia Davis, Pitkin Cntykc~zerk, Doc $.00
7. The City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its
approval, execution and acceptance of this Agreement and the Plat for recordation and such
matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare; and,
8. Under the authority of Article 7 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, the
City is entitled to assurances that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully performed
by the Consortium and the Consortium's successors and assigns; and,
9. The Consortium is willing to enter into such agreements with, and to
provide assurances to, the City; and
10. The Consortium has submitted and the City has approved a detailed
construction time line incorporating a specific construction schedule for the installation of the
new Meadows Road; and
11. Specific fire hydrant locations for the development have been established
and approved in cooperation with the Fire Marshall; and
12. A detailed tree removal and replacement plan has been submitted and
approved by the City Parks Department indicating all trees to be moved or removed, their size,
location, species and time of planting, transplanting, or removal specifying that all tree replace-
ment shall be on a one-to-one caliper inch basis with minimum size at 1 1/2" caliper; and
13. Exact trail locations have been approved by the Planning Director giving
priority to those alignments which minimize damage or disruption to existing vegetation and
landscape and which subordinate grade considerations and, thus, minimize switchbacks, to the
preservation of existing topography. As built easements shall be executed and conveyed after
trail construction; and
14. All property exchanges between Savanah, the Institute, the MAA and
Physics are to be effectuated simultaneously with the recording of the final plat or as soon
thereafter as is practical in the circumstances; and
15.
subdivision plat.
The Consortium has provided to the City a digitized copy of the
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants
herein contained, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the
City it is agreed as follows:
4
,.o40~5e 01/24/92 16:15 Rec $~Og_J
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of the City Attorney in his determination.
3. Trails
The Final Plat depicts a trail easement across the Physics Property from Gillespie
Street to the race track trail on Lot 1. Physics and the City agree that this trail
easement is not to be paved. Physics is granting this easement but has no
financial obligation of any kind for the trail or any related work.
D. LOT 4 - CONSERVATION LAND:
Lot 4 is to be sold by Savanah to the City of Aspen for the purpose of open space. Lot
4 shall be zoned Wildlife Preservation (WP). It is the intention of this zone district that
this Property remain open with a trail system and appropriate bridge connections to the
Rio Grande Trail. Neither the Consortium nor any of its individual members thereof
shall have any responsibility whatsoever for the construction, installation or maintenance
of any trail or other recreational facilities to be incorporated into Lot 4. Exact trail
locations must be approved by the Planning Director giving priority to those alignments
which minimize damage or disruption to existing vegetation and landscape and which
subordinate grade considerations and, thus, minimize switchbacks, to preservation of
existing topography.
1. Site Improvements
(a)
Utilities. The Final Plat shows utility line easements as existing and
proposed for electrical, gas, storm and sanitary sewer, and water.
E. LOT 5 - THE TRUSTEE HOUSES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS:
LOt 5 is Savanah's Property and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat.
Existing development on LOt 5 consists of the eight trustee houses, each of approximately
1,750 square feet, consisting of three bedrooms and two baths. Development has been
approved for an expansion and renovation of the existing trustee houses to create eight
three-bedroom units of 2,500 square feet of FAR each. In addition three new trustee
houses shall be developed on Lot 5, one on the South end of the existing units and two
on the North end of the existing units. Each new unit will be 2,500 square feet of FAR
with three bedrooms. Total build-out on Lot 5 shall consist of eleven units with thirty-
three bedrooms and 27,500 square feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet
per dwelling unit). FARs and the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee
houses shall remain as set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect
as of June 10, 1991, notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year
22
01/24/92 16:15 Rec O( )0 BK 6&? PG ?~?
~ilvxm Dmvim, Pitkip Cnty ClerWT Doc
period next succeeding June H), 1991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change
to the definition or calculation of FARs. The three new residences have received an
allotment under the GMQS and have received variations for setbacks, height and open
space, as noted on the Plat and as described below.
Dimensional Requirements and Variations Therefrom
The following dimensional .requirements are for the RMF Zone District;
variations in these requirements that have been granted for the development
activity contemplated for Lot 5 are noted:
a)
b)
c)
d)
g)
h)
Minimum lot size (sq. ft.):
Minimum lot area per dwelling unit:
i) 3 bedroom unit:
Minimum lot width:
Minimum front yard:
i) Principal building:
ii) Accessory building:
6,000
3,630 sq. ft.
60 feet
10 feet
15 feet
(Note. A variation from minimum RMF Zone District front yard
setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the City to
zero feet for Lot 5.)
Minimum side yard:
Minimum rear yard:
i) - Principal building:
ii) Accessory building:
Maximum height:
5 feet
i0 feet
15 feet
25 feet
(Note. A dimensional height variation for the two northernmost trustee
houses has been granted by the City for up to eight feet.)
Percent of open space required for building site:
35%
#5 ~11/~4/9~ 16:1~ Rec $40~ ~-?~( 6&? PG ?58
Silvia'~avis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, D~ $.00
o
(Note. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been
waived by the City for Lot 5 in consideration of the open space otherwise
provided in the SPA development plan.)
i) External FAR (maximum):
1:1
j) Internal FAR:
no requirement
k) Off-street parldng requirement:
i space per bedroom
Condominiumization and Six Month Minimum Lease Requirement
Pursuant to findings made during the approval process and in accordance with·
Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City has granted and awarded
condominiumization approval for all eleven units contemplated for Lot 5.
Condominiumization of the eight existing units is subject to payment of an
affordable housing impact fee according to Section 24-7-1007A(1)(c). The fee
totals $64,240 and shall be paid at time of recordation of the condominium plat
· and declaration for the units on Lot 5.
The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as contained
at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(1)Co)(1) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is
waived as to all the condominium units on Lot 5 as approved by this SPA plan.
Site Improvements
Utilities. All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing
the improvements shall be undergrounded. Ail water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the
City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as
required confirming the as-built location of each easement.
Landscape Imorovements. Savanah shall abide by and substantially
conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of the
Plat in Book ~ g at Page 5-, et seq. of the Records. The landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant
materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant
material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of
all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), decorative
water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agreed-
upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical
sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated
in the Lot 5 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year
24
( 4 37 01/24/92 16:15 Rec ~0~)0 BK 66? PG ?59
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
phase of improvements. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that
Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvements even though
the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been complet-
ed, so long as that portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this
Agreement, which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscap-
ing remains available to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
Ail tree replacement shall be on a one-to-one caliper inch basis throughout
the Project as a whole with minimum size at i 1/2" caliper.
Trails.
The Plat depicts all trails dedicated Or conveyed to public use and all easements
linking off-site trails to the Project's trail system, including the trail easement
between the tennis townhouses and restaurant. Written easements shall be
executed and conveyed after trail construction confirming the as-built location of
each easement. A portion of the trail Easement for the trail from Meadows Road
to Lot 4 crosses Lot 5, as depicted on the Plat. Trail construction on this
Easement and any other appurtenant recreational facilities and amenities and
landscaping is the sole responsibility of the City of Aspen. Neither Savanah nor
the Consortium shall have any £mancial responsibility for any of this work or for
the maintenance of any easements.
Financial Assurances
In order to secure the construction of the site and landscape improvements in
Paragraphs 3(a) and (b) above and to guarantee 100% of the estimated cost of
such improvements, Savanah shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or
letter of commitment'or credit from a financially responsible lender that funds in
the amount of such estimated costs, are held by it for the account of City for the
construction and installation of the above-described improvements. As a
condition for issuance of a building permit for a portion or all of the renovation
and new construction anticipated herein, Savanah and City shall agree on that
portion of the work outlined in Paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) above reasonably
necessary to complete the work for which a permit is being sought and the
mutually agreed upon financial assurances shall be delivered to the City prior to
issuance of the building permit. Ail financial assurances given by Savanah to
City, in all events, shall give the City the unconditional right, upon and following
default by Savanah, notice thereof by the City, and a forty day right thereafter to
cure, to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully
complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any uncontested
outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty
amount to be applied first to additional administrative or legal costs associated
with any such default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already
25
)~t7~9~7 01/~4/9~ 16:1~ Re ~4 '.00 BK 66? PG
Si.via Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
constructed before the unused remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released to
Savanah. As portions of the required improvements are completed, the Public
Works Director shall inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he
shall authorize the release from the guaranty delivered by Savanah of the agreed
estimated cost for that portion of the improvements except that 10% of the actual
cost of the site or landscape improvements shall be retained until all proposed site
or landscape improvements are completed and approved by the Public Works
Director.
At anytime and from time to time, Savanah shall have the right to substitute for
the form of financial assurance given, so long as such substituting form meets the
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of City Attorney in his determination.
6. Employee Housing
Savanah and the City acknowledge that the renovation and expansion of the eight
trustee houses do not create any employee impact because the bedroom count in
each unit remains at 3. Savanah shall pay to the City an affordable housing
mitigation impact fee for 1.66 Iow income employees per unit for each of the
three new residential units on Lot 5, in an amount to be calculated pursuant to
those fee guidelines in effect at the time the fee is to be paid. The fee shall be
paid prior to the issuance of the building permit for construction of any new
residential unit on Lot 5 and shall be paid in proportion to the number of units
sought to be permitted.
F. LOT 6 - THE TENNIS TOWNHOMES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS:
Let 6 is owned by Savanah and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat.
Currently there is no residential development on Lot 6..Approved under this plan is
development of seven townhome units of three bedrooms and 2,500 square feet of FAR
each. Total build out on Lot 6 shall consist of seven units with twenty-one bedrooms and
17,500 square feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet per dwelling unit).
FARs and the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee houses shall remain as
set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect as of June 10, 1991,
notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year period next succeeding
June 19, 1991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change to the definition or
calculation of FARs. The seven new townhomes have received an allotment under the
City GMQS and have received variations for height, open space and setbacks for
accessory buildings, all as noted on the Plat and described herein.
26
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
Dimensional Requirements and Variations Therefrom
The following dimensional requirements are for the RMF Zone District;
variations in these requirements that have been granted for the development
activity contemplated for Lot 6 are noted.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
g)
h)
Minimum lot size (sq. ft.):
Minimum lot area per dwelling unit:
i) 3 bedroom unit:
6,000
Minimum lot width:
Minimum front yard:
i)
n)
Minimum side yard:
Minimum rear yard:
i) Principal building:
ii) Accessory building:
Maximum height:
3,630 sq. ft.
60 feet
Principal building: 10 feet
Accessory building: 15 feet
(Note. A variation from minimum RMF Zone District front yard
setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the City to
zero feet for Lot 6.)
5 feet
10 feet
15 feet
25 feet
(N~te. A dimensional height variation for the center portion of the tennis
townhomes has been granted by the City for up to three feet as shown on
the Plat.)
Percent of open space required for building site:
35%
(Note. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been
waived by the City for Lot 6 in consideration of the open space otherwise
provided in the SPA development plan.)
27
o
-;i=:?~? 01/24/92 16:1~ Rec ~4~'~00 BK &67 PG ?62
Si~¢ia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Cleriil Doc $.0c~
i) External FAR (maximum):
1:1
j) Internal FAR:
no requirement
Off-street parking requirement:
1 space per bedroom
Condominiumization and Six Month Minimum Lease Requirement
Pursuant to findings made during the approval process and in accordance with
Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City grants and awards
condominiumization approval for the seven tennis townhome units on Lot 6 as
approved by this SPA plan.
The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as contained
at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(1)CO)(1) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is
waived as to the seven condominium units on Lot 6.
Site Improvements
(a)
Utilities. All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing
the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the
City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as
required confirming the as-built location of each easement.
Co)
Landscape Improvements. Savanah shall abide by and substantially
conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of the
Plat in Book ~' at Page ~'- , et seq. of the Records. The landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant
materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant
material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of
all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), decorative
water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agreed-
upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical
.sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated
m the Lot 6 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year
after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
phase of improvements. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that
Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvements even though
the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been complet-
ed, so long as the portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this
Agreement which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscaping
remains available to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. All
28
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnt¥ Clerk, Doc $.00
tree replacement shall be on a one-to-one caliper inch basis throughout the
Project as a whole with minimum size at 1 1/2' caliper.
Trail~
The Plat depicts all trails dedicated or conveyed to public use and all easements
linking off-site trails to the Project's trail system. Two trail easements are
associated with Lot 6. The first is a minimum three foot wide unpaved walking
path which parallels the Meadows Road on the Eastern edge of Lot 6 and the
second is the easement on the Western portion of Lot 6 to accommodate the
construction and maintenance of the trail from Meadows Road to LOt 4 and across
the Roaring Fork River to the Rio Grande Trail, all as depicted on the Plat. Lot
6 shall be burdened with easements for these trails as shown on the Final Plat.
Construction of the walking path shall be completed by Savanah in connection
with the construction of the improvements on Lot 6. Savanah and the City
acknowledge and agree that all responsibility for construction of and payment for
the trail to LOt 4 and any other appurtenant recreational amenities permitted in the
zone district and landscaping is the sole responsibility of the City, and Savanah
shall have no responsibility for the maintenance thereof.
Financial Assurances
In order to secure the construction of the site improvements in Paragraphs 3(a)
and (b) above and to guarantee 100% of the estimated cost of such improvements,
Savanah shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or letter of commitment
or credit from a financially responsible lender that funds in the amount of such
estimated costs, are held by it for the account of City for the construction and
installation of the above-described improvements. As a condition for issuance of
a building permit for a portion or all of the construction anticipated herein,
Savanah and City shall agree on that portion of the work outlined in Paragraphs
3(a) and 3(b) above reasonably necessary to complete the work for which a
permit is being sought and the mutually agreed upon financial assurances shall be
delivered to the City prior to issuance of the building permit. All financial
assurances given by Savanah to City, in all events, shall give the City the
unconditional right, upon and following default by Savanah, after notice thereof
by the City, and a forty day right thereafter to cure, to withdraw funds as
necessary and upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any of
such improvements or pay any uncontested outstanding bills for work done
thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty amount to be applied first to
additional administrative or legal costs associated with any such default and the
repair of any deterioration in improvements already constructed before the unused
remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released to Savanah. As portions of the
required improvements are completed, the Public Works Director shall inspect
them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he shall authorize the release
~ 0957 01/24/92 16:15 R ~ff~'i).O0 BK 66? P8 ?64
Silvia Davis, PitRin Cnt¥ Clerk, Doc $.00
G. LOTS
from the guaranty delivered by Savanah of the agreed estimated cost for that
portion of the improvements except that 10% of the actual cost of the site or
landscape improvements shall be retained until all proposed site or landscape
improvements are completed and approved by the Public Works Director.
At anytime and from time to time, Savanah shall have the right to substitute for
the form of financial assurance given, so long as such substituting form meets the
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of City Attorney in his determination.
Employee Housing
In connection with the construction of the seven tennis townhome townhouse
condominium units on Lot 6 Savanah shall pay to the City an affordable housing
mitigation impact fee for 1.66 low income employees per unit for each of the
seven new residential units on Lot 6, in an amount to be calculated pursuant to
those fee guidelines in effect at the time the fee is to be paid..The fee shall be
paid prior to the issuance of the building permit for construction of any new
residential unit on Lot 6 and shall be paid in proportion to the number of units
sought to be permitted.
7. 8.9 and 10 - THE RESIDENCES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS:
Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 are owned by Savanah and are zoned R-15 according to the Plat.
These lots currently are undeveloped. Under the SPA, Savanah has been granted
approval to develop, on each lot, a single family residence together with an accessory
dwelling unit. Each lot has a FAR of 4,540 square feet, excluding 500 square feet of
garage, but including the accessory dwelling unit of 500 square feet above grade. FARs
and the definitions thereof for the residences and the accessory dwelling units shall
remain as set forth and de£med in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect as of June
10, 1991, notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year period next
succeeding lune 10, 1991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change to the
definition or calculation of FARs. The four single family units have specific building
envelopes as shown on the Plat and will be subject to protective covenants that will be
placed of record prior to the sale of any of Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, which covenants will,
at a minimum, provide for (a) the establishment and incorporation of an association of
homeowners with a Design Review Board, at least one member of which shall be
designated by the City of Aspen Historical Preservation Commission, which Board shall
have original jurisdiction in all matters involving any change to the then existing state or
condition of any lot; (b) the manner in which each accessory dwelling unit on any lot
shall be used, occupied and rented, including the incorporation of applicable standards
and guidelines of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority; and (c) the obligation of
each of Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 and each owner, at anytime, thereof to comport with and
#5~,J9~? 01/24/92 16:15
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clmrk, Doc $.00
abide by the applicable terms, provisions, and conditions of Ordinance 14 and approved
Subdivision Plat for said lots. The four (4) residences have received an allotment under
the City of Aspen GMQS and have received variations for minimum R-15 zone district
lot size per dwelling and minimum side yard setback requirements, as noted on the Final
Plat and as described herein.
Dimensional Requirement,
The following dimensional requirements are for the R-15 Zone District: variations
in these requirements that have been granted for the development activity
contemplated for Lots 7-10 are noted:
a) Minimum lot size:
15,000 sq. ft.
(Note. The minimum R-15 zone district lot size per principle dwelling
unit has been reduced to 12,000 square feet for Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10.)
b) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 12,000 sq. ft.
c) Minimum lot width: 75 feet
d) Minimum front yard:
i) Residential dwelling:
ii) Accessory building:
Minimum side yard:
e)
25 feet
30 feet
10 feet
0
g)
(Note. The minimum side yard setbacks have been reduced by the City
under the SPA to zero feet for the West side of Lot 7 and the East side of
Lot 10.)
Minimum rear yard:
i)
ii)
Maximum height:
Residential building: 10 feet
Accessory building: 5 feet
(Note. Rear yard setbacks for Lots 7-10 are as shown on the
Plat.)
25 feet
· '4 57 01/24/92 16:15 Rec .0~ ?0 BK ~67 RG ?~
Silvla Davis, Pitkin Cnt¥ Clef. k, Oo~ $.00
o
o
h)
Minimum distance between detached
buildings on lot:
10 feet
i) Percent of open space:
No Requirement
j) External FAR: 4,540 sq. ft.
(Note. The square footage includes an accessory dwelling unit of 500 sq.
ft. and excludes a garage of up to 500 sq. ft.)
k) Internal FAR:
no requirement
I)
Off-street parking spaces:
One space per bedroom, and one
space per accessory dwelling unit.
Site Improvements
Utilities. Ali telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing
the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the
City and of the ACSD and as built easements will be provided as
required. It shall be the requirement of Savanah to install all utilities to
the lot lines. The utilities shall be installed in connection with the
construction of the new Meadows Road.
Financial Assurances
In order to secure the construction of the site improvements in Paragraph 2 above
and to guarantee 100 % of the estimated cost of such improvements, Savanah shall
guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or letter of commitment or credit from
a financially responsible lender that funds in the amount of such estimated costs,
are held by it for the account of City for the constrUction and installation of the
above-described improvements. As a condition for issuance of a building permit
for a portion or all of the utility installation, Savanah and City shall agree on that
portion of the work outlined in Paragraph 2 above reasonably necessary to
complete the work for which a permit is being sought and the mutually agreed
upon financial assurances shall be delivered to the City prior to issuance of the
building permit. All financial assurances given by Savanah to City, in all events,
shall give the City the unconditional right, upon and following default by
Savanah, notice thereof by the City, and a forty day right thereafter to cure, to
withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully complete
and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any uncontested outstanding bills
for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty amount to be
applied first to additional administrative or legal costs associated with any such
4 37 01I~4/9~ 16:1~ Rec 0 ~0 BK &&? PG ?&?
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already constructed
before the unused remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released to Savanah. As
portions of the required improvements are completed, the Public Works Director
shall inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he shall authorize
the release from the guaranty delivered by Savanah of the agreed estimated cost
for that portion of the improvements except that 10% of the actual cost of the site
improvements shall be retained until all proposed site improvements are
completed and approved by the Public Works Director.
At anytime and from time to time, Savanah shall have the right to substitute for
the form of financial assurance given, so long as such substituting form meets the
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of the City Attorney in his determination.
4. Employee Housing
In connection with the construction of each single family residence there shall be
constructed an accessory dwelling unit of 500 square feet above grade. These one
bedroom units shall be deed restricted to the low income rental guidelines in
effect from time to time as determined by the Housing Authority. It shall be the
responsibility of the owners of each of the four single family sites to lease the
employee units to qualified tenants as determined by the Housing Authority. The
owners shall have the right to select the tenants. A copy of the deed restriction
form for these residential sites is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and is incorporat-
ed herein by this reference.
At the time of application for a building permit for any residential lot the City
shall, if so requested by the lot owner, consider the appropriateness of accepting,
instead of the accessory dwelling unit on the lot, cash in lieu thereof or an off-site
employee unit. The decision shall be at the reasonable discretion of the City.
H. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS AND AGREEMENTS:
1)
Access/Emergency Loop. The thirteen foot service access/emergency loop drive
serving the lodge buildings on Lot i shall be constructed with an all weather
surface adequate to support fire-fighting apparatus. Such access/emergency loop
drive(s) shall be plowed, cleared and maintained to thirteen foot widths at all
times of the year and particularly during the winter months.
2)
Fire Protection. All buildings to be served and accessed from the thirteen foot
access/emergency loop drive shall have interior sprinkling fire protection/
suppression systems as approved by the Fire Marshal and such system(s) must be
approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
33
Dec 7, 1994
~ ~ Commu.ity D~. D,:pt
130 South ~ ~t
/uq~n, Co. 81611
As you requested today on the phone, I am writing this letter to give you some
insight into ~h¢ age of Oae buildings on my famh'y's propc~ at 1101 E Cooper. Thelog
house was built by a Denver couple in rite early '5Os. We bought it and lived them s~nce
1954. My Dad bought Ibc small cabins at th~ same fim~ aad mowd thmn from thc original
location which was a couple blocks from the old lift #1. I do not know how old they are
but Ihey haw be~n at the pms~mt location sinc~ only 1954. They are not in good shap~
and I cmnot see any significant historical reason for ~-m to be listed as historical.
Thank You,
A. W. "Bert" Anderson
P. O. Box 1862
McAlest~, Ok. 74502
918-426-9453
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
5)
Fencing visible from the street shall be restudied and
perhaps moved one or two feet back and look at an alternate
solution of vegetation. The fence can be whatever on the
west side.
6)
7' rear yard setback variation, finding that such variation
is more compatible in character with the historic landmark,
than would be development in accord with dimensional
requirements.
7)
Parking reduction of one space, finding that the maximum
number of parking spaces have been planned on site. The
parking space in the front yard shall be eliminated and re-
vegetated as proposed.
Motion second by Glenn. Ail in favor, motion carries.
Les Holst will be the project monitor on 214 W. Bleeker.
THE MEADOWS - RESIDENTIAL ONLY
Roxanne: I have reiterated the conditions of conceptual approval
in the memo and have responded to them. The Planning Office is
recommending approval of the meadows with conditions to be
approved by Staff and the Meadows sub-committee of the issues
that were not yet met for their final approval.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Detailed preservation plan needs clarified for the Trustee
townhomes.
Palate of materials.
Amendments to the design.
Covenants to more clearly define the massing, scale and
articulation issues.
Clarification of the material treatment of the end walls and
party walls and clarification of the tennis townhomes west
elevation regarding correct scale of door and windows.
Clarification of tennis townhomes regarding balcony snow
removal.
Perry Harvey: Lets discuss the Tennis townhomes, Trustee and
then the single family homes.
Nickie and David Finholm presented materials and responded to all
concerns of Staff as presented in the memo May 8, 1991 (attached
in records).
Nickie: The snow removal of the Tennis townhomes will consist of
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
all internal drainage. The north/south wall is designed to be a
rubble wall. The partition walls are done in the rubble also.
The tennis townhome parking is the same design as the Trustee
houses with the earth berm and use of natural soil. The curb of
the berm is similar to Anderson Park. Natural vegetation will be
incorporated.
Bill: The Board is in approval of the Tennis townhomes.
David: On the townhouses, three units were added. We have also
created earth landscaping. We will remove all the stairs and
keep the window detailing exactly like it is. The fascia is
shingle. We would like to change the color of the roof asphalt
singles which are silver color now to a darker color (cedar mix).
Bill: Changing
the structure.
applicant.
the color doesn't effect the historic nature of
I would think the color selection is up to the
David: There is room for two cars in the covered parking and one
on the side. All the architecture is glass with sun control.
Bill: The Board unaminously approved the Trustee homes.
Perry Harvey: I will discuss the single family homes. Regarding
the covenants we will have a design review committee. This is an
R15 zone. Council had requested that we lower the lots to 12,
000 sq. ft. We have created building envelopes that range from
61 to 64 hundred feet which is down to an R6 lot. After
reduction of rear yard setbacks etc. we have created 30 foot
combined side yard setbacks. This creates view planes of the
Meadows as you come in. The homes are a little over 4000 sq. ft.
and the accessory dwelling units are 500 sq. ft. We are going to
market the lots.
Roger: Do the covenants state that you can't build a linear box.
Perry: It talks about creating movement.
Bill: The City in their attempt to protect sage meadow is
forcing them into a box which is going to create a design which
is a box. In your architectural review committee you might force
the buildings to be more irregular. The buildings along that
area in the west end are less rigid and in your guidelines if you
require that you get a little more interest and vitality and
avoid the "wall".
Les: Who is the design review board for this project?
6 '%
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
Perry: Us as the developers with input from the Institute and
the property owners and David and Nickie Finholm.
Les: I would suggest that there be one member of the HPC on the
Board.
Bill: Board unaminously approved the single family homes and
recommendations to Staff and to the applicant.
Bill: Trees along the rear property line would be a help in
reducing the massing and soften the area.
Bill: Ail the conditions for final have been met.
Bill: We have reviewed the palate of materials and color for the
residential portion and a condition of this approval would be
that the palate of materials and colors still need to be
submitted for the meadows.
MOTION: Glenn made the motion that we grant final development
approval for the residential portion of the meadows as submitted;
second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries.
MOTION: Les made the motion that the outline for the single
family parcels is appropriate with the recommendations that were
made to Staff during the meeting; second by Glenn. All in favor,
motion carries.
601 W. I~%?.T.AM - DELETION FROM INVENTORY
George Vicenzi: I received notice from Jed Caswall that the
building permit is illegal and I feel it is alive and well.
Staff was concerned about setting a precedent and I don't feel
that is a problem because no one can ever equal the same
situation that I have due to Ord. #17 is now in effect and would
preclude anyone from getting a demo permit to any structure that
you are interested in. Most of the house was built after 1910
and has no historic interest. It was moved to this site and was
vacant up until 1960.
George: I will not go into facts as to why this house has no
historic value. The main factor is that the old house which is
the gabled end, south side of the house is pre 1910 and does have
minimal historic value (the bay window on the east side). The
victorian porch was added by myself and I did the dining room in
1970. 70% of the building wasn't even constructed prior to 1910.
The part that was constructed before does not have historical
value. It also has no historical value to the neighborhood
because it was moved there in the 60's and on a vacant lot. This
Historic Preservation Committee
Motion of Conceptual Development approval for
Meadows Rehearsal Hall
March 8, 1991
MOTION: Don Erdman made the motion that the HPC grant conceptual
development approval for the Meadows rehearsal hall with the
following conditions to be met at Final:
a)
The rehearsal hall facility shall be re-sited to the
northeast (as far as possible to the north parking lot)
to the east/west axis of the tent.
b) Significantly lower the height of both the mound and
structure.
c) Restudy surface treatments of both the land form and
the structure. Provide detailed information (drawings)
of how the break between the field and the berm is
accomplished. .~
d) Restudy the hard surface paving areas between the
rehearsal hall and the tent, to maximize the amount of
informal seating.
e) Provide representation of all materials at Final
f) Provide landscape plan indicating all significant
existing and proposed vegetation, surface treatments
and lighting
g) Provide detailed drawings of tent/music area parking
lot treatment and bus drop-off area.
Glenn Rappaport seconded the motion; all in favor. Motion
carries.
MOTION: Georgeann Waggaman made the motion that the HPC
recommend to P&Z and Council that they may wish to reconsider
relocating the rehearsal hall to the west site of the tent in
light Of the strong public response received at HPC public
hearings.
Don Erdman seconded the motion; all in favor, motion carries.
STRYKER/BROWN
ARCH I TECT S, PC
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO:
Ferd Belz
Savanah Limited Partnership
FROM: David Brown
DATE:
December 14, 1994
NUMBER OF PAGES: 2
NOTES:
The following is a review for standards of designation for historic importance and inclusion of a
building on the inventory of historic structures.
tan ds for D si a 'on
A. Historic Importance: The structure or site is a prindpal or secondary slructure or site conunonly
or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural~ social or political
history of Aspen, the state of Colorado, or the United States. This building is not identified or
associated with a person or event of historic significance. As far as is known, no important cultural,
social or political event ever occurred at this site. Hedy Lamar did not sleep here.
B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique,
distinct or of traditional Aspen character. This structure does not reflect an architectural style that is
unique unless one considers this a uniquely or distinctively poor design. Typically the traditional
design and architectural style found in Aspen are buildings associated with Victorian or mining era and
wood framed structures of logs or with log or heavy timber accents. This building is more of the pseudo-
alpine style of that found in Gatlinberg, Tennessee than that found in Aspen, Colorado. It may be more
appropriate for the buildings found in Leavenworth, Washington. Leavenworth is known for
attempting to look like a Bavarian village and Gatlinberg, Tennessee is perhaps the only ski resort in
the Smoky Mountains with several alpine derived structures sandwiched between the Howard
Johnson's, the Indian Moccasin souvenir stand, Taffy World, McDonald's and Wendy's.
300 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 300
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303. 925.2254 925.2258 (FAX)
Ferd Belz
December 14, 1994, page 2
C Architectural Importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing
characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Small concrete lodges with a
plaster veneer with poorly done stone and wood accents are definitely not unique or significant in Aspen.
D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose
individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Under this category, I will say that the use of
the word specimen is appropriate, although neither the original drawings nor the drawings of the
addition bear the name or seal of an Architect.
F_. Neighborhood Character: The structure is a significant component of an historically
significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance
of that neighborhood character. This particular block is surrounded by 1970's era condominium
shulctures and this lodge is completely incompatible with the character of the neighborhood.
preservation is not important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character, nor is the
neighborhood historically significant, nor is the site a significant component of the character of the
neighborhood.
F. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the
character of the Aspen Community because of its relationship in terms of size~ location and
architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance.
Preserving this structure is not critical to the preservation of the character of Aspen nor the community
and is of no importance in relationship to the size and location to any other structures in the community.
This structure is not similar to any structures or sites of historic or architectural importance in the
community. Although there are other examples of alpine design in Aspen, none are so inconsistent with
their use of materials and detailing associated with alpine architecture. This building is not worthy of
historic designation. At best, it could be called pseudo-Bavarian or pseudo-Bay.
STRYKER/BROWN
ARCH I TECT S,PC
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO:
Ferd Belz
Savanah Limited Partnership
FROM: David Brown
DATE:
December 13, 1994
NUMBER OF PAGES: 3
NOTES:
I am surprised to hear that the Historic Preservation Committee is considering granting historic status to
the Bavarian Inn. In my mind, it seems of questionable value as a historic resource for the city of Aspen.
We have had the original drawings, and drawings for the expansion which were drawn by an R.L. Fischer in
June of 1976. The addition encompassed the northwestern portion of the two story lodge which includes
approximately 8 bedrooms above grade and an unfinished basement below grade. The original drawings
for the original portion of the building are dated received by the City of Aspen in June of 1968. There is
no name on the drawings as to who was the Architect or the draftsman.
The drawings have some similarities to what was actually built, but they depart in many details and in many
ways. The drawings are very sketchy, not detailed, but they do show more detail and character that might
be called Bavarian or Swiss Alpine than what was actually built. Perhaps the most historical or European
aspect of the property is it's name, the Bavadan Lodge. Certainly nothing in the way it was built evokes
any sense of quality or character that one might associate with the Bavarian Alps. Especially poor in
character is the addition which is framed and built out of concrete block without insulation and a thin skim
coat of plaster. The roof is built out of 2 by decking with no insulation. The 1968 addition has
'~rretrievably" ruined any of the so-called character that may have originally existed, especially on the north
and west sides of the buildings. The most indicative component of the structure that evokes the 1960's
is the cheapness and Iow quality of the construction and the lack of true "alpine" proportioning of the
doom, windows, andother details and elements.
300 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 300
ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
303.925.2254 925.2258 (FAX)
Ferd Belz
Bavarian Inn Memo, page2
Section 7-709 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations discusses the odginal reasoning for establishing an
inventory of histodc structures. Item A states:
"...the inventory of historic structures shall include ali structures in the city of Aspen
Orieinallv constructed prior to 1910 which continue to have historic value and such
other structures as Identified by the HPC as outstandina examples of more modern
I think it is important to consider the original intent when the HPC established the inventory: "other
structures as identified by HPC as outstanding examples of more modern architecture"
was considered, I believe, the state of mind of the council and the community at that time was to preserve
~ such as that f~om the Bauhaus, also known as the International Style, which wes
known by it's lack of ornamentation, hence the concept - "Form Follows Function". This building, while it
does not lack an attempt at ornamentation, is far fi.om the designation of modern and could not possibly
be considered related to the school of international style. Certainly, it is not an ~ij~7~]33]~
of more modern architecture."
The Bavarian Inn was not constructed pdor to 1910, therefore, does not meet the first half of the criteria for
inclusion on the inventory. (The original portion of the Bavarian Inn was built in 1968, and the addition in
1976). Being a poor derivation of German alpine design with little or none of the sensitivity found in the
Bavarian-Swiss or Aust~an structures in ski areas of those countries. It is neither modern, nor outstanding,
nor is it really architecture. It just happens to be a building with a few pieces of gingerbread attached and
some very inconsistent detailing, a very poor choices of materials and a poor composition of those
materials. The former HPC officer fsit that Alpine sffuctures of the 40's and 50's qualified as worthy of
inclusion on the inventory, even thought not "examnles of more modern architecture." This
building was built in the late 60's and mid 70's, and is not an example of the post-war early ski are.
Another style traditionally associated with Aspen are the public buildings built of brick, such as the
Whealer Opera House, City Hall and the County Court House. Hence, I would dare say that the Ritz-
Carlton Hotel is an important public sb'ucture, being of brick with some traditional datalling, is therefore
more associated with the traditional Aspen character than is the Bavarian Inn. The new affordable
townhomes at 7th and West Hopkins are more in keeping with the historic character of Aspen than this
project. I would also suggest that Boogie's is more indicative of b'adiflonal Aspen flavor than the Bavarian
Inn. Boogie's has brick detailing, modulation, massing and materials in a composition with contrasting
metal and glass shed on a diagonal that echoes many of the traditional downtown buildings and combines
in a very creative way, the mining heritage with the Victorian commercial core. Any of these three
buildings are more "Aspen-historical" than the Bavarian Inn.
Ferd Belz
Bavarian Inn Memo, page 3
Perhaps the best designation for this project would not be historic, but rather random. Many ofthe details
including the hodge-podge combination of 4/12 slope, mansard roots and aluminum sliding windows
combined with fixed plate windows of random shapes and sizes are certainly more in keeping with the
typical Iow- budget strip highway "Learning From Las Vegas" pseudo-something construction of rite
1960's and 1970's than they are with an alpine sb'ucture. This building is about as Bavarian es Howard
Johnson's is colonial.
The recently adopted Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines for Core-Area neighborhoods has a
section on the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. The first goal is to preserve the scale of single family
residential buildings traditionally seen. This building is much larger than the scale traditionally seen in
residential buildings and single family residences, and therefore preserving this building as historic does
not meet this goal. In Goal 2, the guidelines state: "buildings larger than single family homes are
anticipated and should be divided into modules that appear similar in scale to single family homes". This
building does not do that. The building and the repetitive nature of the doors and windows seen Eom
Hwy. 82 reads as a cheap motel. This building does not incorporate elements traditionally seen on single
family homes such as porches, which are called for in goal number 2.
The forms, features and materials used in traditional buildings is called for in Goal number 3 in the
neighborhood design guidelines are not used in this building. It does not create a sense of visuai
continuity with the rest of the neighborhood. It does absolutely the opposite. It is discontinuous with the
character of the neighborhood, both in forms, materials, massing and scale.
The neighborhood character design guidelines (on page 2) discusses how Mountain Chalet
architecture contributed to the debate about deeiun and concern for community
identity, when first introduced in the 1940'a and 1950's. Part of that debate was how
~l~o~tinu Euroueen Aloine character would deurade and debase traditional
architecture seen in Aeoen. not enhance it. While the neighborhood guidelines site early ski'
chalets in 1950's apartments that show these basic desirable features with mining era cousins, this is not
an early ski chalet of the 1940's, it is not even a middle era ski chaist of the 1950's, it is a too-late ora ski
chalet of the 1960's and 1970's. Too late to be relevant to be historic.
This building is uniquely bad in design and execution. It does not deserve historic status. It does deserve
an air strike.
./
.I
HERBERT S. KLEIN
GEORGE M. ALLENt
MILLARD J. ZIMET*
JACQUELINE I<. MSLE
WILLIAM L. LAtNRENCE~
LAW OFFICES OF
HERBERT S. KLEIN
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
201 NORTH MILL STREET
SUITE 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-8700
TELECOPIER (303} 925-3977
December 14, 1994
TELLURIDE OFFICE:
P.O. BOX 215
300 WEST COLORADO AVENUE
SUITE 2B
TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435
(303) 728-5151
TELECOPIER (303) 728-3069
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Dear Honorable Committee Members:
This letter is submitted as part of the record of your
Conceptual Development review for L'Auberge, 435 W. Main St.
This office represents Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, neighbors of
this project. The Goldenbergs have reached an agreement with the
developer of L'Auberge, ALH Holding, Co., through its attorney
Gideon Kaufman, whereby ALH has agreed to mitigate certain adverse
impacts of this project on its neighbors. The purpose of this
letter is to inform you of these commitments and to establish that
the Goldenbergs have no objection to the ALH development proposal
as presently submitted, if these conditions are satisfied.
The terms of the agreement between these parties is as
follows:
1. Cabin 22 will be eliminated and there will be no
development or parking in the area southerly of the manager's
residence. The vast majority of the existing lilac bushes will
remain.
2. Cabin 21 will be set back 10 feet from the southerly lot
line of the property, will be limited to one story in height (not
to exceed 19 feet to the ridge line) and there will be no
development or parking in the area southerly of it.
3. Guests who reside for 20 days or less will be prohibited
from having dogs on the property.
4. The trash pick up area will be limited to the south-
easterly boundary of the property.
5. ALH will, prior to the issuance of a building permit
construct any new cabin(s), place $10,000.00 into an escrow for use
in paving the alley. Mr. Goldenberg will have the right to seek
the permits necessary to undertake the paving.
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
December 14, 1994
Page 2
AHL's attorney will be present to acknowledge or otherwise
comment on these points. We expect that a definitive agreement
will be executed between these parties shortly. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Very truly yours,
HERBERT S. KLEIN~OFESSIONAL
CORPO T O N
Herbgrt S. Klein
To the HPC:
BURROWS
BONDS
In the age ofdevelopements like the Ritz Carlton Hotel and the recent FAR maximun buildout craze in
the west end, it is refreshing to hear of the plans to improve the L'Auberge propert . The previous
improvements have added a special character to each cabin. Each cabin is unique and has it's own
particular charm. We are excited for the sucess of this project because it helps to restore Aspen's uniqueness.
This is a project we 'endorse and would like to see more of.
Sincerelyyouts,
Art Burrows
Burrows Bonds Communications
630EastHymaaAve. Suite28
Asoen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925.3155
FAX (303) 925.8659
secreta · · ·
hshmg
December 14, 1994
Dear HPC:
The recent changes to the Swiss Chalet, now L'Auberge d'Aspen, are very attractive and tasteful
improvements. Their request for additional changes are reasonable and will add to the
attractiveness of the property, which will enable it to maintain and cominue it's special charm.
In a time when small lodging properties are failing, it's wonderful to see L'Auberge, with its
individual character and friendly, welcoming (they even accept animals!) nature prospering, and
I hope that the HPC will not stand in the way of their cominued success.
Kathled yan~
P.O. Box 2525 · 133 West Hyman Avenue · Aspen, CO 81612 · (303) 925-2341
CHARLES B. ISRAEL
President
December 13, 1994
HPC Town Meeting
Dear Friends,
Please accept this letter as recommendation of my
conceptual approval of the Haisfield family's redesign
of the lodge Swiss Chalet/L'Auberge. Not only do I
like the concept of land usage at half the allowable
rate, as a resident of Aspen, but also a banker. I
live at 522 W. Francis St., three blocks from the
lodge.
The idea of open space, off street parking, pedestrian
areas and fountains, while providing for medium priced
visitors' lodging seems ideal to me in concept;
though I have not viewed specific plans.
I have had visitors use the present lodge, and the
improvements done by the Haisfields in the past two
years have raised the quality of a visitors'
experience of L'Auberge dramatically.
We surely look forward to seeing their plans.
Sincerely,
Charles B. Israel
President
CBI/jt
534 E. HYMAN AVE, · P.O. BOX 3677 ' ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 · 303/925-6700