The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19890809AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AUGUST 9, 1989 REGULAR MEETING 5:00 P.M FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of July 12th and July 26th minutes. July 12th minutes were not approved at last meeting, please review them. II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment 5:10 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Final Development - 135 W. Main St. V. NEW BUSINESS 5:30 A. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing 221 E. Main St. - Explore Booksellers 6:00 B. Public Hearing - Informational Item - Staff Presentation on Aspen's Early Ski Development: 1936 - 1955 (National Register Multiple Resource Nomination Context Amendment) 6:20 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring Sub-committee reports: a) Aspen Historic Trust b) Public Relations Committee - brochure c) Staff Report: Main Street Study 6:40 B. Pre-Applications: 403 S. Galena & 425 E. Cooper (Guido's) 132 W. Main St. (Asia Restaurant) Attachment: Informational Only "Preservation Law" update: Demolition by Neglect HPC new list of members and terms 1 <7*-cÂ«j 7 /30 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AUGUST 9, 1989 REGULAR MEETING 5:00 P.M .- FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS Citi- Hall . 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of July 12th and July 26th minutes. July 12th minutes were not approved at last meeting, please review them. II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment 5:10 IV. OLD BUSINESS /43 5 A. Final Development - 135 W. Main St.,0 pe r? du 68 V. NEW BUSINESS 5:30 A. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing TAajetj 221 E. Main St. - Explore Booksellers 6:00 B. Public Hearing - Informational Item - Staff Presentation on Aspen.'s Early Ski Development: 1936 - 1955 (National Register Multiple Resource Nomination Context Amendment) 6:20 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring Sub-committee reports: a) Aspen Historic Trust b) Public Relations Committee - brochure c) Staff Report: Main Street Study 6:40 B. Pre-Applications: 403 S. Galena & 425 E. Cooper (Guido's) 132 W. Main St. (Asia Restaurant) Attachment: Informational Only "Preservation Law" update: Demolition by Neglect HPC new list of members and terms Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 1004 E. DURANT - UNIT #1 ........ 1 211 WEST MAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 2 514 N. THIRD STREET ......... 7 432 W. FRANCIS - HALLET HOUSE OWNED BY CECIL AND NOELLE HERNANDEZ .......... ............. 9 10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall July 26, 1989 - 5:00 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, and Leslie Holst present. Georgeann Waggaman, Charles Cunniffe, Zoe Compton and Chris Darakis were absent. Charlie Knight' s letter of resignation was entered intr the records. PUBLIC COMMENTS Cecil and Noelle Hernandez requested to be added to the agenda. MOTION: Joe made the motion to add the minor development of 432 W. Francis to the agenda. Les second. All approved. 1004 E. DURANT - UNIT #1 Welton Anderson: I have not been able to locate the material of the masonry block that is cast to look like rough stone. My option would be to treat the porch corner with painted lattice work and reuse the stone that is already on the house. We are requesting approval for the masonry block and if I cannot locate it we would like approval of the option lattice/stone. It was a condition at conceptual that we use the exact same representations. The only new material is the stone base. The exterior requires very little in the way of repair and has been well maintained. The landscaping plan is attached and we have provided the structural information (attached in records). I can work with the City Attorney and provide a performance guarantee letter if the Board requires that. The continuation of the encroachment on both sides is an action that is needed for final approval. We are not increasing the encroachment setback, we are just asking that we be allowed to do the basement in the same footprint that has historically existed on the property. Joe: Technically there is an increase in the non-conformity. Welton: The porch stops six inches shy of the corner and we want to even that up. Roxanne: I have not talked with the attorney regarding the performance letter and we should continue to require it or have wording in the motion that it will be submitted within a week. Joe: The idea is that the performance letter obligates someone to fix the structure if damage occurred. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 Welton: The cinder block stops at grade and the cast block would be from grade up and a stud wall behind it. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant final development approval for 1004 E. Durant #1 based on what was presented at the meeting which was matching the existing brick if it can be located. If it cannot be located lattice work and reusing the existing stone as facing is appropriate. Also the condition that the Performance Guarantee letter be worked out between staff, attorney and applicant. Don second. All approved. Motion carries. 211 WEST MAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: I have received the certificate of mailing. Bill: A letter from the neighbor, owner of Innsbruck Inn was entered into the record opposing the second floor bedroom addition to the alley structure and the expansion labeled "New Storage" on the main structure upper back. Chairman opened the public hearing. Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner presented the over- view of the project as attached in records. The project involves the renovation of the main structure specifically the windows. The windows are not original and Will be replaced. An -- enlargement to the rear will take place and there will be a deck on the second floor to provide for . extra bedroom space on the main floor. They are proposing an enlargement of the detached alley structure which does not have historic integrity in Staff's opinion. They are requesting a variation for the side yard setback. We are recommending approval with a restudy of the west elevation fenestration of the main house and a restudy of the carriage house addition, fenestration and skylight. Exact representation of building materials should be brought to final and a more detailed site plan. The alley building encroaches. Ron Robertson, architect presented the changed from the existing elevations to the proposed. The windows would be a six pane over one, a grill, snap in. Division of the glass give more victorian character. Ron: On the east elevation there is a proposal for a new door. Bill: The windows are double hung with snap in muttons. Don: The six over one seems like a sharp contrast. 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 Ron: The south elevation has a deck added and new windows. There is about 8 1/2 feet separating the two buildings. The west elevation is the controversial side. There are no windows on the alley side because we are too close to the property line. Bill: On the alley the property line by the City is perceived as the middle of the alley so you could actually get windows. Ron: There will be a privacy fence around the property. On the alley side we would use a 5'6". In the front we will lower the fence to 42 inches and combine that with plantings. The problem with this property on Main Street is that it is noisy. Roxanne: The spacing between the fences is very narrow about 1 1/2 inches. Ron: I am trying to combine the need for sound and protection. Claire Newkam, owner: The noise is worse this year and I don't know what kind of barrier would be appropriate. We need the privacy fence due to people looking down into my yard and house. Les: I have done some studies on fences and the only way to form a barrier for sound would be to go higher on the fence. Ron: We would combine the fence with low shrubs. Don: I have a general problem with snap in muttons and would rather see the windows be single over singles as snap in's do not have historic integrity. Two over one true divided lights would be more appropriate. Ron: I would be glad to look at two over one and it would be appropriate. Joe: I also feel two over one would be more appropriate. Les: I also agree. Roxanne: Two over one, true divided lights would be the recommendation for final development. Bill: On the south elevation I don't feel that the structure and the window on the side are a problem. Ron: For final I will come back with a new drawing that has two over one windows. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 Roxanne: I had a problem on the west elevation fear windows and possibly they should be brought into consistency as they are different from all the others even though they are not seen. Ron: There are two windows out of the bathroom and two in the shed of the livingroom which will bring in natural light. They would be awning windows. Don: It would be difficult to put double hung in the bathroom. Joe: They are historic openings. Bill: I have no problem with the smaller windows on the west elevation because there have been small windows adaed over time on other elevations and they are bathroom windows which are usually smaller. Les: Security wise the smaller windows make sense. Ron: The carriage house (alley structure) we are not clear on the history. Right now there is a ladder up to a sleeping loft. We intend to make the bedroom legal and shift the bathroom to the west side. We would maintain the similar format that is there right now. On the first floor livingroom there would be a tall double hung windows and on the second floor double hung with two fixed windows on either side. At the alley we are encroaching a little over a foot. The new two story is inside our property line. Roxanne: It encroaches into the setback because there is a 15 ft. minimum requirement for the rear. They would need a variance for that. Joe: There is a zero lot line. Bill: It appears from the Sanborn map that it is not the same building. The question is what are the character of these building that are appearing on the alleys. There is a committee that exists trying to put more housing on the alley structures. The code currently states that buildings on the back 1/3 of the lot can't be higher than 12 ft. and there are a lot of carriage houses that do exist higher than 12 ft. and we are allowing people to live in those structures. This is in the office zone so they can go to a height of 25 ft. Ron: The height of the peak is 21 ft. from the existing grade. Les: It is a catch 22 because we have to deal with the impact, housing etc. 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 Roxanne: We have to consider whether this alley building has any integrity at all. There is a sleeping loft right now that is not legal and they intend to make it into a bedroom. Les: They don't have to change it, it can remain illegal forever. Bill: The point that I bring up is what is the integrity of the building and how much cost are you saving that you really need to keep that structure there as opposed to rebuilding it on the property line. Roxanne: We have a non-conformity size lot and non-conforming dwelling units so they need to keep what is there basically. Ron: We wouldn't want to loose one unit. Don: You are adding a lot of glass to an existing situation and a blank south wall. What about energy requirements. Ron: I could add windows on the south. Don: This ends up visually being a new building because you are tying it on material/scale to the main structure. Roxanne: Do we allow the encroachment to continue, do we allow the setback to continue. What are we preserving? ' Don: Are we using HPC as a means of throwing a second story on that doesn't really have historic integrity in the first place. Les: I don't think it is within my guidelines to allow a second story based on preserving the building. Don: To further the cause of producing a more vital alley way I don't know if it is in our menu. Bill: I think you should pursue the committee that might come to us and make a presentation that may change our code as far as preservation is concerned. Les: They are taking an historic unit and putting another story on it and taking away its historic integrity for conven_ience. Joe: If they don't add it here they could add it to the main house and to what extent do we want to encourage them to add onto the main house. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 Ron: It seemed natural to make a living space legal. Joe: The standard is to be more compatible with historic resource than building in compliance with dimensional requirements. Is this more historic to allow you to do this or not. Ron: You are saying it would be more historic for us to develor the one story building and make it work better rather then trying to go up. Bill: That is your option right now unless our guidelines change. Roxanne: The option right now is to give conceptual for the main structure and a restudy of the carriage house. Claire: My house is the old Judge Shaw's house. Bill: If this building was not historic how would the committee feel about having a two story. Les: I lean to one story. Roxanne: If the building wasn't there I don't know if it would even be allowed because of the non-conformity. Bill: There is a glass out made by Monsanta that has a layer of mylar that gives more sound rating to the insulated glass. Roxanne: The recommendation is to not study the west elevation fenestration. Restudy the carriage house. North elevation illustrating fencing and landscaping in relation to the structure and sidewalk. That could be involved with the landscape/site plan. Allow for the side yard setback. Chairman closed the public hearing. MOTION: Joe made the motion to recommend approval for conceptual development for the proposal at 211 W. Main St. subject to the conditions stated below to be met at final development review. We also recommend that we grant a variation for the side yard setback and that the conditions are as follows: That there be a restudy of the carriage house alley structure addition; exact representation of building material with roof shingles to be stained dark or neutral and a more detailed site plan indicating the type of landscape materials to be presented. The north elevation be resubmitted illustrating the fencing and landscaping with relations to the sidewalk. We recommend that 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 you look at two over one, true divided window scheme throughout all elevations. Don second. All approved. Motion carries 514 N. THIRD STREET Roxanne: Final Landmark Designation took place on the loth of July. They are requesting to remodel the interior which creates two new bedrooms in the attic and to provide for headroom, ventilation and light they are requesting two dormers into the front elevation. They are also requesting changes co other elevations in particular two round windows in the gable peaks. Staff has found that dormers are historic and the over all changes do not effect the character of the structure. It is rated a four and has numerous changes. Staff is recommending that the round window in the gable peak be eliminated. We are recommending approval waiving the parking requirements that are allowed in Ord. 16, 1989. Donald and Karen Ringsby: We did not get a building permit as there is not enough head space in the attic. Could HPC waive that requirement. Roxanne: We cannot waive anything like that. Karen: We were under the impression that if we became an historic landmark then the attic height could be waived. Roxanne: HPC does have some flexibility. Gray Ringsby, son: Section 1207-A requires a minimum ceiling height of 7'6" of living height. We have a seven foot to 7'2" ceiling height. Bill: The uniform Bldg. code is to protect habitable space from creating spaces that people would be forced to live in. Volume should be higher than seven feet, proper lighter and ventilation etc. This code was derived from people being forced to live in 4' of space. Les: There is no access right now and if there was a stairway it would be some kind of existing storage. Bill: You could lower the floor but that is quite costly. Bill: On one of our buildings we didn't allow habitable space and used the area as a kids playroom or storage area. Roxanne: I recommend that we take action and work with the Building Department. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 Les: I spent some time reviewing the building and the dormers work. Roxanne: The dormers are in scale. Gray: What is the problem with the round window under the gable on the west elevation. Joe: It is not historical, most gable ends were shingled. Roxanne: The structure has changed significantly but I find a window in a gable peak inappropriate. The gable peak is a very important element architecturally and windows did not appear in gable peaks. Joe: What about the parking, are they required due to the new bedroom. Roxanne: Yes. Bill: If they were not bedrooms then parking would not be required. Don: The east elevation is not visible but has a proposed skylight. Roxanne: The question: is it reversible and it is. Bill: It has been added on many times. Joe: The oval window is on the north elevation and on a secondary facade. Les: Why do you need that window. Gray: To provide light into the attic and it is the end of the proposed bathroom. Roxanne: Is it appropriate to the exterior of the house. Bill: I think you should stay with the gable ends. Bill: If it is a designated sleeping area then it requires egress. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant minor development approval for 514 N. Third St. recognizing that we haven't ruled on the variation for parking because the applicant is not going to 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 create habitable space and if iney do create habitable space then they would have to come back to HPC or Board of Adjustment. Elimination of the round window on west elevation and oval window on the north elevation. Les second. All approved. Motion carries. 432 W. FRANCIS - HALLET HOUSE OWNED BY CECIL AND NOELLE HERNANDEZ Noelle: The change is on the carriage house. The door that was approved was facing the inside courtyard (see east elevation). We would like to take the door out and put a window in. By code on the west elevation we need a door for fire etc. We are proposing to open one side of one of the double garage doors. They do not work presently. We need it for emergencies. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve on the east elevation the change as proposed by the Hernandez. The substitution of a double hung window for the previously approved door. On the west elevation that one bay of the original barn door openings be altered to provide a hinged door opening. Joe second. All approved. Motion carries. RESOLUTION Roxanne: This is a resolution on the re-evaluation of the inventory. The resolution takes seven different categories and takes them down to four. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adopt the resolution proposing the new re-evaluation 89-2. Don second. Vote: Yes: Joe, Don, Bill. No Vote: Les. Meeting adjourned 7:30 p.m. ...i ~~tu f *3. . 1 Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 9 . MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development: 135 W. Main St. Date: August 8, 1989 IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN REVIEWING THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO COMPARE THE INFORMATION IN YOUR JULY 12 FACILET LOCATION: 135 W. Main St., Lots A and B, Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen ZONING: "0" - Office Zone, "H" - Designated Historic Landmark APPLICANT: David Melton, represented by Architect Jake Vickery HPC MONITOR: to be assigned at this meeting APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for a 1,948 sq. ft. residential addition, with 458 sq. ft. attached two-car garage, to the historic structure. The dwelling unit will be used as the primary residence for the applicant. PREVIOUS HPC CONSIDERATION: Conceptual Development approval was granted to this project by the HPC on July 12, 1989. The conditions of approval were as follows: 1. Restudy verticality features and supports of the east and south elevations, and south 2. West elevation window reduction 3. Partial Demolition information 4. Massing Model presented at Final 5. Exact materials presented at Final 6. Landscaping clarifications 7. Parking Variation request clarified by applicant for Final approval 8. Rear and side yard setbacks and one parking space variation to be granted at Final Staff finds that the applicant has generally met the conditions of Conceptual Approval, however, staff's comments below should be taken into consideration by the HPC prior to granting Final approval. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has responded to each of the conditions above, responded to by staff as follows: 1. The south and east elevations have been restudied, indicating stronger vertical elements such as the supports and garage doors as per HPC's condition. The south elevation balcony railing is open, containing simple non-turned spindles, reflecting more or a classic Victorian-era porch element. The arched windows match in style. The east elevation has received a different main floor window treatment, which we find more appropriate to the historic resource. All the windows are ilti-light. It is unclear to staff if these are truÂ· divided; clarification should be received from applicant at this meeting. 2. The large west elevation gable end window elements have been reduced somewhat, however staff is still concerned with their overall relation to the historic fenestration pattern in the original structure. The sheer number of multi-lights, pairing and solid-to-void relationship on this very visible elevation appear to not meet the Guidelines, in our opinion (see Page 69, Section VII.E (1) (2) (3) of the Guidelines). The window element above the front door is contemporary in nature, an angular design which should be taken into consideration with the four other arched windows. The Guidelines state: "Contemporary interpretations may be considered if they are used in limited numbers as accents." Further consideration by the HPC should be given to the entire west elevation fenestration, for compatibility purposes with the historic resource. 3. Partial Demolition has been presented in sketch form only, with no supporting narrative. The addition will not be open to the existing structure, therefore, the applicants indicate that only the rear porch will be removed. Discussion during the July 12 meeting indicated that this porch is not historic. 4. The massing model will be presented at the meeting, at which time HPC may decide if the overall size, height, scale and massing is appropriate or oversized in compatibility with the historic landmark. The applicant should be aware that further project amendments may be required by the HPC before a Final Development may be granted. 5. The materials list is attached from the applicant. Staff recommends that the roof be stained neutral or dark, that the overlap siding be painted (reference may be made to Section VI. L - Color, page 59 of the Guidelines), and that HPC receive clarification on the exact types of windows to be used. Additionally, the garage door materials should be called out. 2 6. Please refer to the applicant's attached information on landscaping. 7. Parking clarification: The applicant met with Bill Drueding, who stated that a parking reduction (variation) of two (non-conforming) spaces is necessary. Ordinance 16, Series of 1989, allows the HPC the make a variation for parking, provided the applicant provides as much parking as the site can accommodate. We find that the total number of spaces being provided (6) meets the general criteria of parking requirements for this site, and recommend HPC grant a variation of two (2) spaces. (See applicant's information attached) 8. A side yard setback variation is requested for the original structure, which is located (historically) within the east setback. Also, a rear yard setback variation is necessary due to locating the addition as far to the rear of the parcel as possible, to provide relief to the original historic resource. Staff recommends HPC grant approval for these variations. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Final Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Final Development application, with the following condition, to be approved by staff with the assistance of the assigned HPC project monitor: Further restudy of the west elevation fenestration to meet the Guidelines. 3. Table action, finding that further study is necessary after review of the massing model, and of the west elevation fenestration 4. Deny Final Development approval finding that the conditions of the Conceptual approval have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval for the property at 135 West Main St., with the following conditions: 1. The massing model demonstrates to the HPC architectural compatibility to the historic resource 2. Wood shingle roofing material to be stained dark or neutral 3. Siding and trim shall be painted 3 4. Exact window type and style to be clarified at this meeting, approved by the HPC 5. Garage door material to be clarified at this meeting 6. The applicant further restudy the west elevation fenestration to meet the Guidelines of Section VII.E memo.hpc.135wm.fd 4 14-hi :, f 4 7 \ f 4 i -m,2- -- 0 - 014Â£ [Jlitti-1.-11-1_1~}111 liE.I[111] 1132 -, -- - L==2- -2 11-- I , - 4 II-~ #. 44 .Ill-- - - 1 , _ZE 0442- . 0 =6=2 . 13 -- -,11....I- < - 1 MELTON DD RESIDENCE bRCHITECT WEST ELEVATION . L .'-,-21(Y 925-3308 DAVID MELTON CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT P.O. BOX 3347 (303) 925-2979 ASPEN, CO 81612 FAX (303) 925-7618 July 27, 1989 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Commission Aspen, Colorado RE: Final Development Plan Dear Roxanne, Attached is our final development plan which includes the following: 1. Minutes and motion from July 12th HPC meeting. 2. Scale drawings updated to incorporate changes requested by the HPC during conceptual hearing. 3. Exact information on variances as requested. 4. Plan for additional landscaping. 5. Plan for partial demolition. 6. Copy of conceptual application approved by HPC. 7. Materials list. 8. Study model (will bring to HPC meeting) With the above items we feel this final development plan conforms to the representations made during conceptual review and responds to the conditions found in the July 12th HPC meeting. Sincerely, 1 7: v_-4 David Melton ALLEY C. . .-1 - 60' 4 0\ -fi f 1, f -1Â«0 0 4 -3-7 ,1/ 6 PROPOSED ADDITION ~ UE LJ -*ic?EL.JAUL i 2 1 4, 4 7/ '; 411~~1 026> f Â¥ 13 F ./ <49'y fur 2,5 , 49% 2,-0 - 8 b O - - rt,04-*r /00 . 4>I' i' EXISTING BUIL.DIN~0 -/ ./8.. fx ' r 'Ul :6 1 UP .- 14 0 4 1, :6 / 4 4#Al . f ZO j e:'liEts rix O.4 ZTD 0 - 0 664~ Â·5 / â€¢ '060ip 19/34. JO. . . 40 'OCE 1.*U \lr-Jr C 60' . 4\,-6-,f'' -- 31 (24- k 3 j , 1 6% - |MELTON DD 1 RESIDENCE MAIN STREET . RCHITELT PJLf/ SITE PLAN ~12-1-r~ '9 U"JAKE VICkERY 13381S 1Sblid 0 -- -- C -- / I E 1 r. CD -- ~ MELTON DD RESIDENCE MAIN STREET . RCHITECI' ROOF PLAN 0 2 5 10 nr--1 1 ~/JAKE VICKERY ~25-3308 133U1S 1SHId EGRESS -7( BOIL. ) 7 0-- ~ UTIL[pES t<1 ~~EZZ ~EC. > 11 \ El- a UP 11 > FOUNDATION & BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN MELTON DD RESIDENCE 1132 G.S.E ~CHITECT C E viLAER Y 925-3308 43 247 Â·*9'F' 40 f - BEDROO 12' x 13' . EXISTJNGJ ._\ GARAGE BULD ING \ 18'-6"x 22'-6" f 0- 6/-1 1-1/71 t 1 DN. . .. FAMILY ROOM ~ 11' x 17' f 4 T \ / up / 1 -/ 11.0"NI.11, 1 G MELTON RESIDENCE DD .RCHITECT 5 LOWER FLOOR PLA-N. 674 G.S.E + 458 GEE GARAGE ri '111 JAK VICKER 925-330 0 00 11'' MASTER BEDROOM )8' x 14 4 7 0 - A JO 41 3 LAUND. o /n 1-0 -1 9 4 6 . -- --.-EXISTING \~ r- BUILDING 1 1 \\111 44 4 1X - |Â¥/ALK-IN | ~ KITCHEN ~LOSET ~ 1 1 00 12'x Id - -- it \ 1 1 00 111 .-a 91. 1 1 - 1 1 ON. e DECK 1 - ~ ; GREAT ROOM 1 1/ 1 : 1 1 0 MELTON RESIDENCE DD .RCHITECT 0 2 r-L_-1 7 UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1274 G.S.E + 156 G.S.E DECK ~/JAKE VICKERY 925-3308 1 --Flk=. F-i -t nÂ·=1 p -/ -91 in - 4 //69 Â»:A 4 \ 1 -~ 12 h 11111111111 11. 1111111111 11.1111 W lili [ 1111111111~ MELTON DD RESIDENCE NORTH ELEVATION ..BCHITECT ~ J A K E VICKERY 925-3308 i<5Â·. w5F 1 \ / --- IÂ« 9 1 1, - - , 634\ - It-- " 11 /-- - 2 - 442~ - - -- - 2 1- 46-14--32Â«-4 i I -- - E> ======-il =!-41 4 - -1.---------- 1 - .. 4 1 - â€¢ 1 0 r be 1 1 -- tE-= ~ EES MELTON RESIDENCE DD 0 2 5 *. RCHITECT E-11 1 SOUTH ELEVATION JAKE VICKERY 925-3308 4-1 I li F 1 7 91 luth 2-0 1 -- - - 1 -1- 1 41 - 4===-- . --- --- -- ~---- -- - -- FLE][ EH-I-~3 1 1 01 1 1,1 --- .-' L- - .... -I..=- =V== - - -. 1 1 *- - _-_i-~~_,5 4HM=/ il= 1 FRF ___ -9 - - - --.=1== --1 =11= IHIHI ,~T- - -- 11 1 1 MELTON RESIDENCE DD ... RCIIITECT 025 r-1-1 EAST ELEVATION ~ VIC k E R j K E 925-3308 MATERIALS LIST Materials used on the addition will match the materials used on the existing building. They are as follows: Roof - Cedar Shingles Siding - Cedar Shiplap 1/2" X 6" Trim - Cedar S46 1" X 4" Fascia - Cedar Soffit - 3/8" Cedar Plywood Windows - High Quality Wood Front Door - Wood Paneled (Possibly with some glazing) Garage Door - Paneled VARIANCE REQUESTS I have meet with Bill Drueding to clarify our variance request. According to Bill the following variances are necessary: 1. Rear yard setback variation for the building to 5 feet and for a small portion of the cantilevered deck to 2 feet. 2. Side yard variance on east elevation to 4 feet. 3. Parking variance for 2 cars which includes 1 for the tandem parking spot and 1 for the area under the deck. At the suggestion of HPC we have added a vertical support under the cantilevered deck to maintain the vertical victorian character of the south elevation. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING As discussed at the conceptual hearing the addition will leave the existing landscaping in tact. The only additional landscaping we foresee is the walkway from the front door to the side walk as shown on the site plan. Material will be the same as the existing walkway which is redwood. f-/ 3 0 ul Li , r---Â· / BÂ·Kles-E FPPLe,1-1 4 - ,4,1 -To PE,pâ€¢i d 12p 26 @EN-1~~'E-0 --1 ----~ -3 F i i-j~-ft 1 11 12=, 42 FAMIC>v'ED 1 -\ 1 1 -- 11 1 LJW) f Â£ i.__-1- 4 1 1 1 1 EAST ELEVATIGAJ expl-171-| E LE:v/Â«1 Al 43 1 EXTE F-IOF. ELEVET~16>k| â‚¬2. (F,=:9 06910,1-FIQU -[22 0%1*T. AE'SIPELJOED- - -__ -= VIA MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: 221 E. Main, Explore Booksellers, Public Hearing Date: August 8, 1989 Date: April 26, 1989 LOCATION: 221 E. Main St., Lots D and E, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Katharine Thalberg PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Some Of you may recall the Minor Development approval the HPC granted for this structure on April 26, 1989. The application was for a 237 sq. ft. enlargement to the rear. "Future Plans" were noted at that time, involving the now proposed kitchen, deck and storage enlargement. The applicant elected to not apply for a building permit on that Minor Development approval, waiting instead until this time to do a larger expansion, the proposal of which is before you for review. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for an enlargement of 686 sq. ft., involving an expansion of the main floor storage by 490 sq. ft., and second floor expansion of 196 sq. ft. (also containing the rear stair exit) and 111 sq. ft. of deck. No variations are being requested. ZONING: "0", Office, "H" Historic Overlay - Designated Landmark within the Main Street Historic District ADDITIONAL REVIEWS REQUIRED: As an expansion of net leasable is involved with this structure, requiring a GMQS Exemption application be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Existing FAR: 3,144 sq. ft. Proposed new FAR: 686 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 4,486 sq. ft. Proposed Total FAR: 3,830 sq. ft. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings- Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code, and are reviewed below (staff's comments follow): 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: This structure has received many alternations over the past dozen or so years; most of the building is not original. This structure has evolved to meet its commercial needs, as the proposal indicates. An enlarged kitchen is necessary to accommodate growing clientele, and consequently, more rear deck room is needed for seating. All of the changes are taking place at the rear of the structure. The footprint is being enlarged to the south only, and we find that generally the perceived small scale of the structure is not affected from Main Street, the principal elevation. We find that the proposal generally meets the Guidelines and this Development Review Standard. The expanded storage area simply brings out the existing south elevation wall a few feet. A row of horizontal windows is added to the main level (south elevation), which the HPC may consider inappropriate in relation to the historic verticality features of the structure. The window placement is evenly spaced and does not diminish the overall fenestration pattern, in our opinion. The new upper level deck is expanded, which covers 2/3rds of the entire width of the structure along the south elevation and includes turned spindles to match those existing. All proposed materials will match existing. A new rear entry stair will access the southwest upper level doorway. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The immediate block contains seven historic cottages in a variety of conditions. Explore Booksellers has been recognized for many years as a nicely adapted historic cottage and strengthens the historic integrity of this block and the Main Street Historic District. We find that the proposed alterations are not inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels 2 Response: Staff finds the proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the designated structure. We find that the cultural value of the structure is not so much in its historic architectural integrity, but in its adaptive use. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: As previously stated, we find that the addition does not detract from the architectural integrity of the structure. The expansion of the existing lower level storage space to align with the upper floor balcony appears to be a logical solution to an internal space problem. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual development approval for the application for 211 E. Main St. as proposed, with the condition that exact material representation be made at Final Development review. memo.hpc.221em.cd 3 EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS ADDITION The following is to address Attachment 2, Paragrapii 5: The proposed addition contains approximately 686 square feet. We are expanding the southeast corner of the building going back to the fence at the parking area. We are expanding under the existing deck at the southwest corner and going about 5 feet from the felice. This addition contains 490 square feet of back area and storage expansion on the first floor. On the second floor, we added 196 square feet to the southwest corner of the building and replaces the existing rear exit stair. There is 111 square feet of deck connecting the existing deck area to the existing stair. An addition of 110 square feet of deck was created by the expansion of the room below. The F.A.R. is .75 to 1, allowing for approximately 4486.5 square feet. We now have approximately 3144 square feet of floor area and will increase it to 3830 square feet. The deck area allowed is 15% of floor area, which is 673 square feet, of whicli we liave only 224 square feet of deck with the new deck area included and will increase it to 445 square feet. The setback on the sides are not changed and the rear setback is 15 feet; we are approximately 20 feet back. RW:A2Z 6/21/89 9. Description of Development Application The first floor addition will be storage and back room space of approximately 490 square feet. The second floor addition will relocate the existing prep kitchen into the expansion and will contain approximately 196 square feet. That will bring the total square footage of the building to 3830 square feet. Zoning allows for 4486 square feet. Also included is an addition of a 221 squar foot deck. The total deck square footage including the existing area is 445 square feet. Zoning allows 673 square feet. EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS ADDITION The following is to address Attachment 4 and Attachment 5, Paragraph 3: The property is in an office zone and is part of the Historic Overlay District. The building addition does not extend into any setbacks. The design of the addition uses the same materials, colors, etc., as the existing building and its massing is compar- able to existing elements using the same detailing on railing and ornamental treatments. The addition is consistant with the character of the neighborhood as it is in keeping with the existing Victorian design of the existing building. The add.tion does not detract from the cultural values of the designated historic structures as all the work is located in the alley and the back side of the building, and the architecture is complementary to the existing Victorian design as well. The architectural integrity of the existing building is not diminished since all new material will match the existing. The architectural style is in form and massing, reflective of the elements of the existing structure. This Application is for all anticipated work.Â· Since the expansion is over 500 square feet, a Full Historic Review with a Public Hearing is required. The first floor addition will be storage and back room space of approximately 490 square feet. The second floor addition will relocate the existing prep kitchen into the expansion and will contain approximately 196 square feet. That will bring the total square footage of the building to 3830 square feet. Zoning allows for 4486 square feet. Also included is an addition of a 221 square foot deck. The total deck square footage including the existing area is 445 square feet. Zoning allows 673 square feet. RW:A23 6/21/89 SOM B 1112ZE O ft/Loof/EED 5-9. 01' 3 2 EL 11 o c- Arc ED E P A L Xi r- il ' 7 U E P A 1 5-1- 11 1, C \ .0 , -. )ULE 0 1 -- - - - OPNG, REMARKS 1. B Â·Â· Lj *_ ,(FY g E L Â©C. Â·e- E_ /3 1 -4 K D / All. - - m. IFY tal-och-rE_ Ii-- -I---.- Il.;Il--*.* >< 9'4 314 . MA R. VIN NEVv_. -2-ECA +F.._ . 1. 1 - . i d *.4'- C j U 5 0 L- 11 1, - 1/ _- -- _-- 11 . 1 9 3/4 U ARV I N -I ./ 43 5 1 40 0 6 43 2 5.19 0 96 Â£*IST,NIC, SU\LP IN CP /,G * , n b /0 1 L E- 0 N1 1 - - 1 - - - Ki ls- I fd 67 r2-6 ET - 5 i TE P LA N 0 6, SCALE 1 1 10' 3 j 0 -) S 0, s\ 1 44â€ž - A, b/L L -,hs. 40 7 5/ 211/En --9 10 ' , C/] 1---- r . . J i 1 h r - 1 \ 1- 1 / 7 m / k_ - It 1.3\4 - -0 '0. A 00 1 E-Â» 1 97-1,4 C, FENCE ir 111-Â· lili lili 411 11, _ , 11- W A to 1 '- 1. gelocATE. ON ACELOCATED < LÂ» 42% 1 R E.TAIN, /4 0 VÂ·V /\ L L 0â€ž -I-%- \.- I / . /1 . 4 - tv -tA_-3.2 ~31 (iix 70 f.AIR .1 # - - ~ 67, i - R ELa<LAT 2.2 - - . 1 . - I . N \ II Ap DIT,NON 1 571 $ C \ d \/ 1- , < E iII - - -- --- KELOCATED 1 %4%- '/ 1 4 .1% . 0 .t) ) 001.- 0 - X\\4 - - - 7 - 0 00 -1 N / -- N - 11 11 /1 11 .Ili~ REMOVE_ 1- ZE_Loc-ATE_ 0 .- -1 0 < 1-0 X 9 13Â«j K / E- bc 'SUIN G BLOG. 111 44 4-- E.kIST-ING WALL A ~Mi 09 '. 1 -- ---- 1 :. . 1 k 0 1. --=L RELOLATK D |0~ ' I Pi 1 -10 Al \1 E - 1 - 5-< 69 lul 221 1 f.%-isr 1 KÂ£ / co L 0 5 u I LT UF HEADE_ 14 1 1 -- -11 (7 1 1 1 i III Â¥ F FLOORL PLAN IDCALE- 1~4" 2 /too \~% 1 I 1 1 Â· - 1 I ./ .J '4, ~ I 14 9 6 4 4 1 11 U. -- .-' k/ > --X--- . 70 . -8 0 -- 9. - 1_] L_]I 3 1 - 3 ---- --- I * 40 -2 1 1 1 . 41 0 1 P -- >It - 9 0. #T, -0---â‚¬1 I.-, - 71 _ -Â· I E-Â»/ t>E.C.K - / E-*IS-T-ING.. _-2 E:-CM. 3\ /> . 1 1 ~ 11 li-----1 4- - - - -- i . . Il _ 1 1 1/ 1 , I F j Re_ Â· ;1 I , EX P 2 2.9 56 ~ - -- I UN E Als-rk ,-j G BLDÂ». 1 -0 0 1 -Ii---I- 1 -t DIG PLAV P F -- ----- ---- A 4 1 1 7 3 - 1- -U - f LI pit 1 I + 3 10 1 - 1 1 T I r 4 -4 I 0 9 E-CON D FLDOK PLAM 5 C A LE \/4,1 1 1 . - 0., .: li, ~i I I Il ... ... 1. 11 ,.I 1 1 i.! .. .. '. . M , ' 44419 '2 11Â·4Â·.#,.3. ju -4 &,-4 r * -Â·~ ..~1:. Â·~14ipst**~9 Tff~~:ri~;2:-A-z :Â£Â·t:-:2 &:3~:-f;Â·ft-ftifilit:-tifi~1209Â¢ff-fiptrfffÂ»Â«9{44 -* 4'-' ~ 9, 11 4-.- V~<&76'*7*4/HMAfl . 4/.4./C:..4'4,601 . Fi 4,4 2. ~d'2:*34-W Â·-Â·4' 3-2:-Â· 1%Â·* ptÂ· -~-~'>5 - 1*.1, 7.. fter: . Â·1Â»efi-#-AA<mit~-4 42*4 4~4-41~;*114+44-Â»iÂ·:w;i:4 4.1Â£Â·.+12,2 ..tarb.for,!li/.i ~ .~\21*,~...44, ff ;;5~:i.,,;Â·::2,~4 ;97~ ~i~% f.: 2:Â·i)~ ti~~i,;h i~i ,(11#~t, e . A<*2205*$'4/4 .C qz&19,44 1 *...~...~'.~ 4 . H -#lk'I. - n 4.12 9. ,-; ~ 4 4. .Eit â‚¬ R?r.. kti-41>*73 :,76*41*?9*'~ Lf'-5 ~ ;-5 3+~ .-1 2 ).4Â·.,Â·ws.'r<AÂ®*W~,~ :~* :~ :.:rt'k;kt.-1;(.9~..9:4 E::21,:r.:;,~;~~:;r*32?: ~Litij:'3%4Â·4494Â·/ff*fÂ£172 ~I f~.i~~.; : , 4.M ., - 1-r -~ 7, -R " 1~11*34:** I 1.01.9.179 CZEL------1.-:=====222=Z~ 4-------------------- --- ------1-----P--- -----*- *-IS- ~irr~-~ d n-- , 4 0415 T 1 9/1 1 , i , / t_ 1 - -- - - 4 i j ]\27. A 1========================,? 1 . 1 -,-- - .- C-Zil. I . --rz2-7-1 - ~ ~ iff - I. t. I'li-- _ HI i .- - 1 \4\ -TZI 4, 1.1.i 11.11 \ \2\ % L_ 4 '2Â¥. 4 1- - 7/ k 1 - * 1 0- 71 + . ..1 - i ' 11 -7 I,11 41-- Â£ bill - lilli! 11 11 1 L / 111 4 /1 . I 1! liu .-- I 1 97 'r--1 lili. 11'IL . J -lilli 1 ____ â€ž a il .--1'wihi - --Il-I- I 1--a[~11 11 - ; 1 lili -- 111 - r a r 111 111 11 0' 'il 1115' lili -1 1 1 1 ~ 11 7 1 41 -- r. 1 It 1 1. 01 . Â¢-1 - 2.2 1 It ~ 1 7? rÂ·. 11: - 1 !!t i 41.1-Z=.1-2/=======J U -Â· Â·Â·----Â· Â·- ---Â·-- ~ i 4--â€¢-------Â·Â·â€¢ r --~ --- Â·' ' :.... 1 11 4 --1 2 -1- 11 -- 111 R. Â·t; 1 . 1 . 1 - '-i- - 1-*-I-,1 11 . I - i . - -1 .r t - EAST- ELEVAT I OÂ» SCALE_ \14 . - 0 --, 1 1-Ill -. 1--11 4 ./ 4.'c . S 9. 87 I 1.1 23 , FLE - j ff\-ll~ i//1 2. 1 1 - M. , 9 ' 34 11=]14---~ 9 H I - - flaa-DAF . 4- 1./23. 0 / 41 1\ L-2 -3 i. 1 - -- --_---- . 1 L i ty' - - -I- & \\ * fe ..... I 4 - - ---- 0 - \\\ 1 6,19 -- 39* '.' e ..... - 1 /-- -7Â»1,2 L : f,V. 1.- - 4 -- .------7 11 --... ___ I - _I - _--__ - 1====9 - 1 1 1 . 1 n [---1 --Â» i~~ --- Ejur m 1 1 Af' - C PF1 1----4 -9 - E . 4, O1 4 -- --- 1 1 7 ---~ 4 - 1 1 U '.~ 111 Fl -- ----- - ~ 1- --- - - -- -- -V [ '-il - 7/ I r, E- Â£ rs-Â£/9 6 l__2 -; - ' 11 - -1 ELEV N e W A D ID /7/0# MATCH E)'-15 T $.PP 0 '. T k 1 +A 5/ D INC, + \NT#Dovvs ....; A e F / -t A I _-'04'43.-_â€¢,td. ':82Â·Â·.,U?Â·T- c~ E-t' .0.~ 1~ ..,1.4-... t.Â·Â·'-u,n r~Â·3 1/4.:~ i ', *hÂ· /' . t;~' ,,~.Â¥ .~, ~ rt V./3. MEMORANDUM , To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: National Register Multiple Resource Context Amendment: Early Ski Era Development, 1936-1955 - Public Hearing Date: August 8, 1989 SUMMARY: The FY '88-89 CLG grant, contracted between the City and the Colorado Historical Society, included a study of Aspen's early ski history: its development and associated architecture. The resulting study consists of the attached National Register Multiple Resource Nomination context amendment. Context amendments are required to enable future individual National Register nominations associated with the historic context (ski architecture to ski context, ranching/farming structures with ranching context, power plants with hydro-electric development context, and SO on.) Aspen's current Multiple Resource nomination consists only of residential and commercial structures associated with mining history. This year to date, staff has prepared draft context amendments for the early development of hydro-electric power and the ski context. Individual nomination forms for eligibility determination have been prepared by staff for the Webber Block (Elks Building), the Stimson-Skiff cottage at 920 West Hallam St., the Holden-Marolt site (including the main and secondary "barns" and lixiviation plant ruins) . and the Castle Creek Power Plant, now known as the City Shops. As you will determine from your review of this context amendment, Aspen's ski history was internationally influenced, linked all the way back to its earliest roots in mining. The individuals associated with the development of this resort have national and international significance as well. National Register Criteria: Aspen's early ski history has been found to meet three of the four National Register Criteria: A. associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history B. associated with the lives of persons significant in our past C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction Individual structures of merit associated with the Chalet style would be listed under Criteria C. Age Criteria: Structures which are less than 50 years old are not considered for listing on the National Register unless they are of "exceptional importance". (This is rare. However, {fer information only) Rod Wheaton, Chief of the Cultural Services Division for the National Park Service in the Denver Regional Office believes the c. 1949 Herbert Bayer Aspen Institute Buildings would be eligible for listing now.) A determination of eligibility is being requested from the National Register coordinator in the State Historical Society Office for the original 1936 Highlands Bavarian Lodge and the 1938 Lift One structures. All other significant structures associated with Aspen's ski history of less than 50 years old, however, should be considered important local landmarks, worthy of local designation, potentially eligible for future National Register listing. Findings: It is interesting to note that early developer Billy Fiske, with his Los Angeles, California connections, was able to hire to Santa Anita Turf Club architect Gordon Kauffman to design the 1936 Highlands Bavarian Lodge. Also interesting was the connection of Jimmy Bodrero, a Walt Disney artist, who was hired to create the neo-Bavarian decorative motif for the Lodge, setting the precedent for most new construction to come during the next decade and a half, hence the "Mountain Chalet" style was born in Aspen. This architectural style is defined as distinctly different from Aspen's Victorian-era architecture (vertical in nature). Early developers and designers believed the romantic "Ali)s" image produced by the "Mountain Chalet" styling was necessary to promote the area and attract investors. This architectural style predominated from 1936-1955, and is characterized by moderately shallow pitched roofs, horizontal design features, numerous horizontal wood balconies decorated with cut-out bargeboard trim and wooden window shutters, either painted dark brown with light wood trim colors, or the opposite, with white or light ivory exterior walls. The materials were mostly stucco, some with half-timbering reminiscent of English Tudor, and dark stained or painted trim. Some had delicate painted decoration on the bargeboards. For approximately 12-15 years, beginning in 1936, Aspen's mostly vacant "Victorians" (commercial and residential) served as ski lodges, dormitories and inns. When Walter Paepcke arrived in 1946, many changes began to take place to these structures, in the way of additions and new, brighter paint colors. Aspen's marketing featured its historic resources then as it does now. 2 RECOMMENDATION: No action is necessary at this meeting, although comments and suggestions are encouraged. The information presented is for your benefit. The context amendment was developed to determine the character defining features of the "Mountain Chalet" style, relate Aspen's ski history with its mining roots as well as with regional, national and international ski-recreation development, and establish a context with which the HPC may review projects involving early ski-development architecture in the future. memo.hpc.ski.context 3 NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8/86) NPS/CHS Word Processor Format (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 7 Page 9 At the beginning of Aspen's ski era, a period defined from 1936-1946, and from 1946-1955, distinctly different architecture was being introduced into the city. After 1893, prior to 1936, virtually no new construction took place. The last 19th century Victorian-era structures remained relatively unchanged, hawever, in extreme need of repair and renovation as many were left vacant. The introduction of European ski consultants and developers brought the "Mountain Chalet" style to the corrmunity. Â· The developers and designers believed the romantic "Alps" image produced by the architectural styling was necessary to promote the area and attract investors. The Chalet style predominated architectural design for the next two decades. This style is characterized by moderately shallow pitched roofs, horizontal design features, numerous horizontal wood balconies decorated with cut-out bargeboard trim and wooden window shutters, either painted dark brown with light wood trim colors, or the opposite, with white or light ivory exterior walls. The materials were mostly stucco, same with half timbering reminiscent of English Tudor, and dark stained or painted trim. Same had delicate painted decoration on the bargeboards. From 1946-1955, a number of new lodges began to fill in previously vacant lots. The Prospector Lodge, 301 E. Hyman Ave., across from the Wheeler Opera House, was one of the earliest to be built, followed by the Skidmore Lodge, Norway Lodge, Skier's Cnalet, Holland House, Blue Spruce Ski Lodge, and the Mountain Chalet, slightly up the mountain and at the base. Iodges on or near Main Street included the Westerner Court (now the Christmas Inn), the Swiss Chalet, Castle Creek Cabins (since demolished) and the Aspen Court. Guido's Swiss Inn remains the best example of this style within the Commercial Core Histo:ic District. These lodges incorporated the Chalet design elements with western horizontal log. Many of the lodges have retained their original integrity, with additions in-keeping with the scale and massing. Approximately six post-1955 lodges also contain the general Chalet style. The West End contains over a dozen residential Chalet style structures dating between 1950-1960. NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8/86) NPS/CHS Word Processor Format (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 13 Aspen' s development as a ski resort owes its beginnings to the mining era, both through mechanical engineering and the social/recreational aspect itself. Many of the mines, in particular the Little Annie Mine in the Highland Basin on Aspen Mountain, employed a number of Scandinavians, mostly from Norway and Sweden. An article written for the Aspen Times (1) by T. J. (Tom) Flynn (son of a miner who came to Aspen in the 1890's) stated: "There was little for these miners to do with their spare time after the day's work, so they used to ski for recreation. Well do I remember the very long skis and long poles they used, so different from those of today. These men would climb to the top of Highland ridge and start down toward what is now known as the "Willoughby Cabin", making a wide circle which eventually brought them out at a point near the Top Lift mine. They proclaimed these slopes and snow conditions the best they had ever eq?erienced. Skiing had been learned in childhood by these men, but we wonder why people living in this region for year had never discovered the thrill, riding a pair of skis." There was little for these miners to do with the spare time after the day's work, so they used to ski for recreation. Frank Willoughby, veteran mining engineer and Akiing enthusiast, wrote in the Aspen Times in 1965 : "...In the period since my arrival in Aspen in 1922 till the late development, one could buy manufacturers skis, which were made principally by the Northland and Strand companies. During most of this period the technique of turning and control, which we first learned in the late 30's, was unheard of. On these 'toe-strap' models, people would climb to the upper end of Aspen Street and come straight down either without a pole, or with one held between the legs to be used as a brake. With this pole, one could control his speed by more or less "riding" it like a kid's play horse, and could negotiate turns in a rather awkward and unattrac'tive manner...My brother and I and a few others would climb from the Midnight Mine to Buckhorn Saddle and ski clown to town over the same general area as the existing Aspen Mountain courses, using this same unsightly means for control and turning." (4) Running errands on skis had been used in Norway for a thousand years, but it was ski-jumping, (contests and local hero-worship associated) that was the foundation of the sport of skiing for recreational purposes. (3) While ski jumping at Steamboat Springs and other "snow centers" had been available for years, it wasn' t until the winter of 1915-16 that the sport of "ski running" became known and popularized in Colorado. The Denver-based Colorado Mountain Club received an invitation letter from the Estes Park Outdoor Club to j oin them " in a weekend o f NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8/86) NPS/CHS Word Processor Format (Approved 03/88) United States Departmant of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 14 - winter sports" near Fern lake; that event became the first Annual Winter Outing of the Colorado Mountain Club, proponents of Colorado skiing. The Colorado Arlberg Club constructed their lodge in the late 1920's in West Portal, now known as Winter Park. Small areas across the state were developing, and the Colorado ski industry of skiing began to grow. It was on February 18-19, 1937, when the Colorado Mountain Club departed from its former locale at Fern Lake and held its Annual Outing in Aspen, at the "new Highland Bavarian Resort", a significant promotional event for the infant ski area. (2) Tne most significant event took place in the spring of 1936, when Tom Flynn, an Aspenite and town promoter, met olympic bob sled champion and international sportsman, Billy Fiske, at Midwick Country Club in Monterey, California. Flynn was attapting to sell shares in a silver mine located above Aspen. Although Fiske was not interest in silver mines, Flynn insisted on showing Fiske photos of the mine. What Fiske saw in the photographs were high rolling snawfields above timberline. The conversation led from polo to horse back riding in the Colorado Rockies, to kbich Fiske asked "do they have any skiing out there?". Flynn replied with his stories of the Norwegians skiing the Little Annie/Higbland basin decades prior. Fiske became extremely interested, received an invitation to come to Aspen, and in July of 1936 flew in a single-engine Stinson plane with his pilot brother-in-law Jen Heaton, Paddy Green and Robert Rowan (all potential backers) to Glenwood Springs, landing on the golf course. Flynn met them, drove them by car to Aspen, where he introduced them to Frank and Fred Willoughby, owners of the Little Annie and Midnight Mines. (7) The Midnight Mine was the only working mine left in Aspen at the time. The Willoughby's drove the party in a half-track vehicle to the top of Richmond Hill, on the back side of Aspen Mountain, directly to the top of Highland basin above the old workings of the Little Annie mine, where Fiske exclaimed "'Ibm, you have it, this is the place. " Before the foursome returned to Los Angeles where they formed a syndicate for the purpose of developing Highland basin for skiing, Fiske had taken out an option on the Highland Ranch up Castle Creek, six miles outside Aspen. The Highlan<is Ranch became the working headquarters for the newly formed Highland Bavarian Corporation. The second priority was to complete an accurate survey on the snow conditions and recreational advantages of the region. Fiske brought in two European authorities, Andre Roch, from Davos, Switzerland, and Dr. Gunther Langes for this critical survey. It was Roch who made significant contributions to Aspen's development as an internationally recognized ski area. Roch was a NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8/86) NFS/CHS Word Processor Format (Appraved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 15 celebrated mountaineer, avalanche expert, engineer and principal member of the Swiss 1953 Pit. Everest expedition which pioneered the route by which Sir Edmund Hillary achieved the summit. Roch was also a certified instructor of the Swiss Ski Association, and a one-time European intercollegiate downhill champion. (6) The newly formed Highland-Bavarian Corporation paid Roch $125/month, plus room and board, for the six months he spent surveying the area. A ski lodge was necessary to house potential investors in the future resort. The Highlands area was outside the town of Aspen, on the west slope, or "back side" of Aspen Mountain. At this time, only the Hotel Jerome in downtawn Aspen was available for lodging, as the city of Aspen was been suffering :'ghost tam syndrome" since the Silver Crash in 1893. The Corporation hired architect Gordon Kauffman, designer of the Turf Club at Santa Anita, and construction on the Highland-Bavarian Lodge, with 16 beds with rates at $7.00 per might, began in October, 1936, formally opening in December 26, 1936. A promotional brochure, designed by New Yorker humorist Bob Benchley, a friend of Ryan's and Fiske' s was conpleteel, entitled "How to Aspen". A portion o f Benchley' s brochure read: "Aspen will be strictly a place for people who want to do their winter sporting out-of-doors at our-of-door prices. For this first season, 1936- 37, there will be accommodations for about thirty people in four modest-size cabins, and for about sixteen more in a main lodge comprising a large living room, dining roam, work room, kitchen and sleeping quarters. The plumbing and electric lighting will be the same as you are accustomed to in your more effete moods at home. " (8) (Note: Benchley had never been to Aspen but coincidently, the Editor of the New Yorker had, Harold Ross. Ross was bom in Aspen in 1892.) 20 carpenters were hired from Glenwood Springs as well as Jimmy Bodrero, an artist from the Disney studios, to do the neo-Bavarian decorative motif. The " Mountain Chalet" became the predominant new architectural style for the next two decades. This style is characterized by moderately shallow pitched roofs, horizontal design features, numerous horizontal wood balconies decorated with cut-out bargeboard trim and wooden window shutters, either painted dark brown with light wood trim colors, or the opposite, with white or light ivory exterior walls. The materials were mostly stucco, some with half tilnbering reminiscent of English Tudor, and dark stained or painted trim. NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8/86) NFS/CHS Word Processor Format (Approved 03/88' United States Department of the Interior N.=tional Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEE'r Section number 8 Page 16 Fiske and Ryan personally cleared brush off the hillside facing the lodge to create the first Alpine slope anywhere near Aspen. The first guests were Norman Barwise and Stephen Hart, who later became a State Senator for Colorado. Early guests included Sepp Ruschp, founder of Stowe, Vermont, and Minot Dole, found of the National Ski Patrol. An opportunistic visit by Elizabeth Paepcke, which would prove to turn the development tide in Aspen less than a decade later, was made in 1937, when she traveled to Aspen from her ranch north of Colorado Springs on the front range to ski. Involving local Aspenites and area people in skiing was the next task. Andre Roch, who became extremely well liked in the community, and Flynn met with Aspen High School Superintendent Coffey, to ask permission for Andre to give students free ski lessons. The program became a great success, and in February, 1937 the first race of the school district was held on the practice slope of Highland Lodge. Roch devoted a great amount of time in teaching local people proper methods of skiing and escorted nany skiing trips. In order to gain support among townspeople for the sport, he and Frank Willoughby, organized the Aspen Ski Club, which was at first named the Roaring Fork Winter Sports Club. The original merobership consisted o f approximately 30 men, women and a few children. The first training slope was at a meadow very close to the lower portion of present Aspen Highlands. It was this interaction with the locals that created the awareness that skiing was of certain economic value to the community. (6) It was during this winter season that Roch and Dr. Langes worked diligently on the survey. They traveled the ridges where men and have been seen before in winter time and their collection of photographs has been acclaimed the best winter photographic survey in existence. Roch's conclusions were that the conditions are favorable for skiing, the sncw staying in perfect condition every day during the four winter months, by far better than anywhere in the Alps. He also concluded that on Aspen Mountain could be built the t'best ski area" in the United States (7), and that at the old mining town of Ashcroft, 6 miles up Castle Creek from the Highland Bavarian Lodge, lay the perfect Â· base for what could become the best ski area in the world, Mount Hayden. Roch advised abandoning the idea of developing Little Annie Basin (now "Highlands") in favor of Ashcroft. (7) Roch's plan for Ashcraft consisted of a four-mile tranway which would go up Mt. Hayden to a hotel just under the peak, giving a 4,000 ft. vertical and an eight- mile run back to Ashcraft. The resulting resort, said Roch, would "provide some NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8/86) NPS/CHS Word Processor Format (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 19 of the deepest, lightest pa~ler snow known to the ski world. " Dr. Langes' conclusions were similar, stating that "Ashcroft must be considered not merely as a qualified location without particular drawbacks, but as head and shoulders above all other American resorts and in general, comparing its various qualities, is superior to the best Alpine centers." When these reports were read it was evident that the Mount Hayden region to the south- west of Aspen, was by far the best winter sports recreational area in the United States and the best undeveloped ski area in the world. Before Roch left the Aspen area for home in Switzerland in May, 1937, he i.mpressed upon the members the importance of starting a development on Aspen Mountain, which was a difficult but excellent downhill race course, with a moderate area for beginners and intermediates at the lower end. His purpose for developing this run, as opposed to starting out with simply a beginner run, was his firm belief that Aspen might go unnoticed for many years as a ski resort, but with a good race course on which he predicted there would be held national events shortly, the publicity gained from such things would make an overall development of the mountain easier and faster. Roch marked out the line of the original Roch Run trail, which began at 11,000' and ended at 8,000' in town, and was cut 50' wide by the Aspen Ski Club. The "Roch Run" included the Corkscrew, a section that was to become the test of a generation of national competitive skiers. Roch's belief held true. In 1938, Roch Run was the site of the Rocky Mountain Ski Association Championship, and in 1941, the Aspen Ski Club played host to the U.S. World Alpine Championship, which proved to create a great interest in Aspen nationally and internationally in Europe. (6) Later, in 1950, The Roch, as it was commonly referred to, was the sight of the World Ski Championships, hosting the FIS (Federation Internationale de Ski) Alpine Events, at which 14 countries were represented. The Roch was becoming known as the only race course in the world to rival the Garmisch Olympic downhill, and Aspen was receiving international attention and investment. The earliest ski lift development began in 1937. The lowest 600 vertical feet of the Roch Run was cut wide to serve as the slalom hill. By November 18, 1937, the Aspen Lions Club, an early promoter of the area, had raised the $600 necessary to purchase a length of half-inch steel cable for the lift. The motor, a converted Model A Ford engine, was donated by Laurence Elisha, owner of the Hotel Jerome. The rotating terminals were converted hoist rigs from the Little Annie Mine. Two NFS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8/86) NPS/CHS Word Processor Format (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 18 toboggans, or "boats" (modeled a fter a similar tow Ryan had seen in Kitzbuhel in 1935) were attached to the cable; two or four could sit inside a boat and be pulled to the top in less than three minutes while the other, enpty board slid down the other side. The fee was 10 cents a ride, 50 cents for a half day. Opening day was January 27, 1938. One hundred people rode Colorado' s biggest ski lift that day. (7) From the Highland Bavarian Lodge on the west side of Aspen Mountain, skiers would begin their day being hauled up from the lodge to the Midnight Mine by four-horse sleigh and then ski down through Little Annie on the back side to the lodge again, or - after climbing to the top of Richmond Hill - bushwhacking through Tourtelotte Park on the front side of Aspen Mountain and skiing via lunbering/mining roads down into the town of Aspen. Same skies would stay high and find their way through the woods to the "top of the Roch" and get the ride of their life down the most challenging and dangerous trail in the U.S. The importance of the role the Hotel Jerome played from 1936-1946 cannot be underestimated. The Jerome, still owned by the Â·Elisha family, served as the only lodging in Aspen, and contained the only restaurant. Rooms were $2.50 per night. Only one room "Parlour A", had a private bath. The facade balcony provided excellent viewing of the mountain, and ski races were observed from that point. "Aspen Crud" was very popular in the bar: malted milk laced with eight ounces of bourbon. The main floor contained a drug store and barbershop. It was the social center of Aspen, having the staying power to remain open during the very difficult decades after the Silver Crash, providing essential services to a very de-vitalized town. World War 11 changed the course of Aspen's development. Billy Fiske enlisted in the Royal Air Force in September, 1939, shortly before World War 11 broke out in Europe. Not quite a year later, Fiske became the first American to die in the battle of Britain, in August, 1940. Back in the United States, Ryan and Flynn persuaded the Colorado legislature to establish the Mt. Hayden Tramway Corporation, authorized to issue $650,000 in bonds to finance the Ashcroft-Hayden lift. But in December, 1941, with the attack on Pearl Harbor, the project was shelved. Before Ryan left to join the office of Strategic Services in Europe as a wartime secret operative, he offered Minot Cole, then laying the foundations of the first U.S. mountain troops division, use of Ashcroft as a training site. Dole took the offer, and from August to November, 1942, the 87th Mountain NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8/86) NPS/CHS Word Processor Format (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 19 Infantry trained and camped at Ashcroft. When the 87th moved into the permanent camp at the Tenth Mountain Division's Camp Hale at Pando near Leadville, some 60 miles to the east, word spread that there was a superlative downhill at Aspen, the Roch Run. Naturally, this intrigued racing skiers among the troops of the Tenth and a good number of them spent their weekend passes skiing Aspen as a result. Among them was a corporal named Friedl Pfieffer, formerly director of the ski school at Sun Valley. Pfieffer's goal was to bring big-time resort skiing to Aspen. He had been wounded in action and left the Tenth Mountain Division same months before the end of the war, caming to Aspen, and forming the Aspen Skiing Corporation, along with Walter Paepcke, in 1946. He als became the director of the Aspen Ski School. In 1946, Pfieffer began to build the world's longest chairlift to the top of Aspen Mountain, up the Roch, known as Lift One, opening December 14, and officially dedicated January 11, 1947. A contract was made between the Aspen Skiing Corporation and American Steel and Wire to design and furnish the material necessary for the Lift One, the first section. Denver engineer Bob Heron was hired, based upon his experience of constructing mine trams. The second section of the lift, Lift Two, was difficult to engineer, built and keep in operation. Both lifts were single chairs. Lift Two ran some 80 feet above Tourtellotte Park Con Aspen Mountain) and was of a different design than Lift One. The ride to the top was aver 30 minutes, and derailments were not uncommon. (10) Equally as involved was obtaining permission from the mining claim owners, over whose often jumbled claims the lifts passed. The stories of two hour waiting lines at the base of Lift One were not uncommon. (Note: Lift #3 was finally constructed in 1954, which took skiers from Tourtellotte Park up the Sundeck. Lift #4 was constructed in 1956.) (Note: Pfieffer continued expanding his ski development with the opening of Buttermilk Mountain in 1958, just a few miles west of Aspen. Aspen Highlands also opened that year, under the tutelage of Whipple Van Ness Jones. Tad Ryan returned to Aspen in 1946, after the War, invested with Pfieffer, and shelved his plans for the development of Mount Hayden. Eventually Ryan made Ashcroft, the ghost mining town 12 miles up Castle Creek from the Highland-Bavarian Lodge, into a splendid cross-country skiing center. (7)) On Memorial Day, 1945, Chicago industrialist, Walter Faepcke, Board Chairman of the Container Corporation of America, came to Aspen through the urging of his wife, Elizabeth, who had skied Aspen in the 937. His goal was to sponsor a NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8/86) NPS/CJIS Word Processor Format (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 20 cultural and spiritual mecca that would serve as a summer university. Paepcke j oined with Pfei fer to form the two companies - The Aspen Company and the Aspen Skiing Corporation. Paepcke owned 49% of the stock in the Aspen Corrpany, and 12% in the Skiing Corporation. Stock subscriptions were sold at $25,000 each, with the ability to divide them into $5,000 portions. Half was to go to the Ski Corporation, half to the land company. The Aspen Company undertook to "lease, modernize, refurnish and operate" the Hotel Jerome, at a cost between $50,000 - $70,000, and to purchase some fifteen auxiliary real estate holdings, mostly the very significant Victorian-era structures throughout Aspen. The Wheeler Opera House, dark for 25 years and ravished by previous fires, was renovated and reopened during the " Fishing Festival of 1947", with Burl Ives entertaining the audience. (9) Architecturally, Aspen took a significant turn in 1946. From 1936-46, new construction in the area was virtually non-existent with the exception of the Highland-Bavarian lodge. The last few decades had left the town nearly vacant, with many dilapida'ted miner's cottages and shabby, deteriorating larger Victorian-era homes and commercial structures. The Paepcke's hope had been to preserve the 19th century mining camp atmosphere of Aspen, and rehabilitate the larger, existing structures into lodging for skiers. As one report states, "The Eastern decorators and designers engaged to carry out the new plans, executed every alteration and renovation in keeping with the vest Victorian taste. The representatives of the Aspen Company even offered free paint and advise to any townsperson who would treat his own property to a face-lifting in keeping with this artistic ambition. Reports indicate it was extremely difficult to obtain building materials for renovation projects, and qualified labor so quickly after the War. The town council passed an ordinance in an effort to help. " (9) Nearly every significant, large structure received some repair and renovation. The Brown, Chitwood and Aspen Blocks downtown housed skiers dormitory style with moderate rates. Numerous West End and Main Street Victorian-era residences also became inns. The Red Onion was renovated, becoming the alternative to eating only the Hotel Jerome. Excerpts from the first "guide book and historical overview" printed on Aspen state: "...but the skiers wanted to ape Switzerland and its chalet type of architecture. They were unaware of Colorado history or adverse to genuine American culture and they willfully began to spot NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8/86) NPS/CHS Word Processor Format (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SIfEET Section number 8 Page 21 the town with peeled log structures, anamalous and strange, standing out grotesquely against the older background. The town council was indulgent - it shrugged its shoulders and looked the other way. After all, no one had wanted to build anything at all in Aspen since 1893 and the tcwn could not bear to be ungracious . " (9) Real estate development began to move very quickly. With the gala opening of the lifts and re-opening of the Hotel Jerome (which had been leased to the Aspen Company under a 25 year lease by the original family, the - 4 Elisha's) in 1947, people began to come from all over the country. A boom was on , 7 and every tax title was gone at the court house. Many of the structures being 6 purchased owed back taxes from 1893. Even in 1947, it was reported that an nl 4" investor had to "pay through the teeth...several thousand dollars" to purchase any kind of real estate. Aspen had been "bought up in a twinkling" by a wide variety of individuals-artists, writers, and movie actors who wanted to leave urban life, wealthy sportsmen who wanted a fishing and hunting lodge, mid- Westemers who wanted a sumner mountain cottage, Eastern couples who wanted to attempt ranching and "ski-cranks" who wanted to start a business, any sort of business, to be close to Aspen's slopes. (9) One 1951 report. stated that "the tam began to take on a motley, conglomerate appearance (apart from the first conflict Of chalet-versus-Victorian architecture) because several kinds of overlaying modernization came into vcgue. First, composition shingles tacked on original clapboard, then, functional streamlining applied to a 19th century base and lastly, brand new modernistic houses punctured the mining camp atmosphere." In the summer of 1949, Aspen and Paepcke's Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies hosted the Goethe Bi-Centennial Festival. "Here appeared a veritable "galaxy of stars", followed by an intellectual triumph unequalled any place else in the world. (9) Albert Schweitzer attended, making his visit to Aspen the only United States visit in his career. The significance of the 1949 Goethe Festival lies in the promotional aspects of Aspen as a resort, primarily catering to the wealthy east coast, mid-west and international traveler. Further promotional benefits to Aspen included the 1949 Gary Cooper movie "Snow Carnival", featuring Aspen. From 1946-1955, a number of new lodges began to fill in previously vacant lots. The Prospector Lodge, 301 E. Hyman Ave., across from the Wheeler Opera House, was NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8/86) NPS/CHS Wond Processor Format (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 22 one of the earliest to be built, followed by the Skidmore Lodge, Norway Lodge, Skier' s Chalet, Holland House, Blue Spruce Ski Lodge, and the Mountain Chalet, slightly up the mountain and at the base. Lodges on or near Main Street included the Westerner Court (now the Christmas Inn), the Swiss Chalet, Castle Creek Cabins and the Aspen Court. PDOINCIES 1) The Aspen Times, 1936, article by T. J. Flynn 2) The Ski Bulletin, March 19, 1937, "Skiing with the C.M. C.", article by Evelyn Runnette 3) The Ski Bulletin, February, 1937, "A Downhiller Views Ski-Jurping", author listed as O.T. 4) The Aspen Tilnes, January 29, 1965, "Pages From the Past", article by Frank Willoughby 5) The Aspen Times, March 5, 1965, "Pages From the Past", article by Frank Willoughby 6) The Aspen Times, February 12, 1965, "Pages From the Past", article by Frank Willoughby 7) Ski Magazine, November, 1978, "The Way It Was - Skiing Comes to Aspen", article by Morten Lund and Jack Bensen 8) Excerpts from promotional brochure "How to Aspen", 1936, written by Robert Benchley, New Yorker Magazine 9) "Famous Ascen - Its Complete Story as Guide and Souvenir", 1951, written by Caroline Bancroft 10) Excerpts from the manuscript prepared by Dutch Hodges, 1986 ILE 6. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Pre-applications: 403 W. Galena/425 E. Cooper (Guido's Restaurant and adjacent structure), and 132 W. Main St. (Asia Restaurant) Date: August 9, 1989 Scheduled for HPC preliminary review (time permitting) at this meeting are two upcoming Conceptual Development applications, Guido's and Asia. Both applicants wish to begin a dialogue with the HPC on their respective projects, to introduce the concept of the development activities proposed. Discussion at this stage is designed primarily to provoke thought on appropriate design considerations, and in no way are HPC's comments to be taken by the applicant as an approval. Staff has attached narrative from both applications only, as sketch plans were being revised at the time this memo and packet were being prepared and sent to you. Public hearings for both projects are scheduled for August 23. ....M M 12[.31>x'â€¢ ~"2~~-li~9 The restaurant is a ski chalet style wood and stucco building reminiscent of Aspen's early ski days. Planning staff has indicated this type of architecture is worthy of saving as an example of the res urgence of Aspen. It is our intent to renovate this building retaining as much of the original structure as possible. An addition on the south end of the upper floor has been designed to compliment the dominant features of the buildings, wood trim, low roof pitch, strong horizontal lines and stucco. The major work on the project will be the addition and renovation of the business building. The facads will be changed to relate more to the surrounding historic structures and compliment the restaurant building. 2. Compatibility with neighborhood. The completed project should enhance the neighborhood and be more consistent with its character for the folowing reasons: A. The renovation and restoration of the restaurant. B. The replacement of the business building facade. 3. Protection of cultured values. With the renovation of these two builings,the viability and cultural value of this neighborhood should be enhanced. 4. There are presently no designated historic structures on the property. However, the designation of the restaurant building is a possibility and the remodeled business building is more complimentary to the restaurant. h' &-- I Â£ & 1-1 I realize the accompaning drawings are sketchy but at the c onceptual level, we are most interested in discussing massing and overall style rather than individual details. I hope this information helps you understand the project. I will bring a rough study model to the meetings. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 1.j Kim Weil Enclosure KW:lah Â·ANÂ», -1.-21 ,*ida'*."s *t , ,Â·,Â¢Er'enÂ·,204 14, Â·Â·..41:Â» iÂ·iÂ· ASIA RESTAURANT AND COMMERCIAL EXPANSION To the Aspen Historic Proposal For Conceptual Preservation Committee And Final Historic Development July 1989 ATTACHMENT 2 Basic Submission Data 1. Letter of Consent by the Applicant for Brian Busch and Dennis Green to act as representatives of the Applicant is attached as Exhibit "A" , 2. The project is located at 132 W. Main, Aspen, Colorado. The legal description of the property is Lots K,L,M,N and the west half of Lot 0, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen. 3. The Ownership Certificate is attached as Exhibit "B". 4. The Vicinity Map is attached as Exhibit "C". 5. This proposal complies with the review standards in the following ways: a) The proposed office building-is compatible in character with the existing Asia Restaurant for the following reasons: 1) The massing and sensitivity of scale is compatible with historic Victorian design theory. 2) The building is separated by a ten-foot open space, to avoid a "hodge-podge" look. It is also set back twenty-five feet from the property line, and offers an attractive oriental garden at the Main Street level. 3) The new office building has separate entrances. Thus, the new building does not interfere with existing restaurant pedestrian patterns. 4) These design features help separate the new building from the old, thus making each unique 'and special in its own right. b) The new building is consistent with the diverse character of the neighborhood, which is composed of various mixed-use building types. The diversity of Aspen's Main Street is what makes it an exciting and successful business environment. Our building changes will help both restaurant and hotel business in the area. The proposed employee housing is consistent with homes north of the location. This housing will help relieve employee needs of the neighborhood in general. c) The new office building will enhance the cultural and social values of the existing parcel for these reasons: 1) The design will have a handcrafted, beautifully-detailed, oriental look. The lantern and bay windows will present a beautiful, rough-hewn look, contrasted with the more modern look of the roof and siding of the adjacent Hotel Aspen. 2) Directly in front of this building will be a colorful oriental garden. This will enhance the cultural beauty of of an already meticulously well-groomed landscape. d) The proposed building is consistent witn both existing structures but has a unique personality of its own. Respecting scale and ser itivity of "place" is the lesson to learn from Victorian ar:.hitecture. While enhancing the existing structure, our building plans will not cory or repeat any existing Victorians. The scale and forms do, however, mesh with the essence of historic Victorian architecture. The modern materials, decks and general configuration enhance the clean look of the adjacent Hotel Aspen. The ten-foot buffer helps avoid the existing problems of a so-called "hodge-podge". This condition resulted from a previous own-r's decision to "sticK" two buildings together. Our office building is designed to leave Asia Restaurant as is. Our ten-foot setback further enhances Asia's uniqueness on Main Street. The new design is also set back twenty-five feet from the property line, creating a nice green open space. This will enhance all neighboring gardens, with the creation of a beautiful oriental garden. This project will beautify the existing neighborhood. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: Gary Lyman, Chief, Building Department Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer City Attorney From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Demolition by Neglect - "Preservation Law" update attached Date: August 3, 1989 Attached is a very timely and fascinating report from the National Center for Preservation Law regarding "Demolition bv Neglect", examining a particular case in England involving an 1868 windmill, that was "listed" in 1951 as having "special architectural and historical interest". The structure was privately purchased in 1969 and converted to a residence, then was allowed to deteriorate. Our recently enacted legislation involving the Minimum Maintenance of historic structures (Section 7-606 of the Land Use Code) can be compared to this. I bring this to your attention now, as the highly rated historic cottage at 700 W. Francis St. (N/W corner of 6th and Francis) is in a badly deteriorated condition which must be arrested very soon. No action is necessary from the Committee on this item, however, discussion is encouraged at the August 8 meeting on this topic. memo.hpc.demo.by.neglect NATIONAL CENTER FOR PltESERVATION LAVV 1015 31ST STREET, N,W. â€¢ SUITE 400 0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 0007 â€¢ (202) 388-0392 1>H}:/11)}C> I Exy:(Â·1+1Â·1'Â·1: 1)twt:(Â·1(,7 .STE}'HEN X. 14-Â·.N'N!%. 1.49. I .., i }- \1, 1)0Â·<,â€žÂ·i.N.-lit. 1..,/ I Â»12 -116 M E 114 #' A T I O N LAW U P DATE 1989-29 July 4, 1989 Demolition by Neglect: To Let the Punishment Fit the Crime There is little American case law dealing with the problem of demolition by neglect (an issue which relates closely to minimum maintenance but is not always the same issue.) For this reason, a recent appellate decision by a five-member panel of the British House of Lords contains a highly-useful analysis of the problem of how to notify an owner that unless necessary steps are taken to preserve an important building the government's inherent power to "take" property for a public purpose will be invoked. The Willesborough Windmill was erected in 1868 and listed in . 1951 as having special architectural and historical interest. At F that time it was in "[u]nusually good condition." The present owner of the windmill acquired it in 1969 and converted it into a residence. By October 1983, portions of the windmill had "deteriorated greatly." The Ashford Borough Council served on the owner at that time a "repairs notice" calling for twenty It 0 items of works which the council considered reasonably necessary for the proper preservation of the building." A vear later, the same council entered a "compulsory purchase order" against the owner of the windmill. The appeal from this assertion by the council of its intention to purchase the structure from an unwilling seller in order to protect it led to a lengthy court battle, which eventually reached Britain's House of Lords for final resolution. Much of the argument in Robbins v. Secretary of State for the Environment (House of Lords, decided March 2, 1989) concerned whether some of the items in the repairs notice were excessive: It is now accepted that 14 of those items . . . specified either works of an emergency nature . . . or works in the nature of repairs required to prevent further deterioration of the structure or of parts of the windmill which were subsisting at the date of service of the notice. The remaining items, however, went beyond this. They included . . . the complete reconstruction of the catwalk and the fantail and the renewal [of important elements of the working portions of the windmill]. NATIONAL CENTER FOR PREAERVATION LA W The owner argued strongly that inclusion of the "excessive items" invalidated the repairs notice, and that the compulsory purchase order served on him a year later was necessarily defective: The ground of the appellant's challenge is that the repairs notice which was served on him by the council... did not satisfy the condition precedent in that some of the works specified as considered by the council to be reasonably necessary for the proper preservation of the windmill were incapable . . . of being SO considered and that the inclusion of these excessive items invalidated the notice. The challenge thus raises two distinct questions of statutory construction. First, what . . is the scene of the "proper preservation" of a listed building which the works specified in a repairs notice . . . may be directed to achieve? Secondly, if the notice specifies some works falling within that scope but also others which exceed it, is the statutory condition precedent to compulsory acquisition satisfied or is the notice ineffective for that purpose? As the 'nitial step in the owner's appeal from the compulsory purchase order, the Secretary of State for the Environment appointed an inspection to conduct a public inquiry to hear the owner's objections. The inspector found that little work had been done by the owner of the windmill to comply with any of the repairs notice's requirements: [T]he steps taken can in my opinion only be described as preliminaries for the eventual preservation of the building rather than as substantial works for its proper preservation. ... [N]o reasonable steps are being taken for properly preserving the building and [it] is expedient to make provision for its preservation and to authorise compulsory acquisition for that purpose. The Secretary of State agreed that the compulsory purchase order should be confirmed, and two lower courts agrped that the owner's request that the compulsory purchase order be "quashed" should be denied. In his House of Lords opinion, Lord Bridge of Harwich noted that the Town and Country Act 1971 provides for alternative measures of compensation for a property owner, an "open market value" standard which is normally used and an alternative "reduced level of compensation" if an owner appears to have neglected a building deliberately: [T]he measure of compensation on compulsory acquisition of a listed building . . . shall be assessed on the assumption that listed building consent for demolition, alteration or extension of the building would be granted. This ensures that the open market value upon which compensation is .. N ATI O NA L C EN TE R FOR P R 1. K E R VAT I ON 1â€ž0~ D assessed is not to be depreciated by the restriction inherent in the listing. Section 117 provides for a reduced level of compensation in a case where the building has been deliberately allowed to fall into disrepair for the purpose of justifying its denolition. Much of the argument before the House of Lords concerned wnether a repairs notice coula require work to repair or replace elements existing at the time of a building's listing but no longer in existence at the date of the repairs notice. On an initial but crucial point, Lord Bridge of Harwich concluded that "'preservation' has to be given its ordinary meaning in contrast with 'restoration' and that this does impose an objective limitation which must be applied in considering what the works specified in a repairs notice may be directed to achieve." But on the more substantive point, Lord Bridge of Harwich disagreed with the owner's arguments: The more difficult question is whether "preservation" of the listed building in these sections refers to the preservation of the building as it was when listed or of the building as it is when the repairs notice is served. I think the language of the sections is capable of either construction. .. . I believe that the question whether the date of listing or the date of notice construction is correct is to be resolved purposively by considering the underlying policy of the legislation. The public interest in the preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest needs no emphasis. Once a building has been listed, that public interest has been declared. ... [I]f part of a building collapses without warning or is destroyed by fire or storm damage, the character of the building as a building of special architectural, historic interest can only be preserved if the damage is made good. If the date of notice construction is correct, the compulsory purchase machinery is ineffective to serve the public interest in such cases . . . . [But] if the date of listing construction is correct, compulsory purchase is available in such cases as the only means, if the owner is unwilling to make good the damage, of preserving the character of the building from which its special architectural and historic interest derives. [T]he date of listing construction is to be preferred. . . . The interest of the owner, if he is unwilling to undertake the necessary works, in retaining his property has to yield to the public interest in the same way and on the .same terms as the interest of any other property owner whose property is acquired for some necessary public purpose. Lord Bridge of Harwich then turned his attention to the final question, whether inclusion of "excessive items" in a repairs notice should necessarily invalidate the entire notice 44 +V 4 k . NATIONAL CENTER FOR PREKERVATION LAW because it would unfairly appear to require an owner to make an expenditure not properly required. He disagreed with this argument on behalf of the windmill's owner: The remaining and crucial question . . . is whether a repairs notice which specifies a list of works considered reasonably necessary for the proper preservation of a listed building which includes a number of items within the scope of the section... and also a number of items beyond the Scop e of the section . . . effectively satisfies the condition precedent to compulsory purchase.... Mr. Barnes submits ... that the purpose of a repairs notice is to give the owner of a listed building the opportunity to avoid compulsory purchase by undertaking the works which are reasonably necessary for the proper preservation of the building and that a notice which is excessive puts him in a dilemma; he does not know whether to carry out all the specified works or to omit those works which he considers to be excessive at the risk of having his property acquired if he is held to have been wrong. Lord Bridge of Harwich concluded that an owner's interests are adequately protected by an appeals procedure: [R]ecourse to the magistrates' court ...is tailor-made to provide a Solution to the dilemma.... If at the conclusion of the proceedings it is held... that some of the disputed items are reasonably necessary for the proper preservation of the listed building, he will then be able to put in hand the works specified in relation to those items, and it is inconceivable that the acquiring authority would proceed with the acquisition. . . . Being satisfied that this procedure is available to protect the owner of a listed building who is willing to carry out such works as are reasonably necessary for its proper preservation from any prejudice by the inclusion in a repairs notice of invalid items, I am equally satisfied that the inclusion of such items does not invalidate the remainder of the notice. Lord Ackner also filed an opinion in the case, in which he emphasized that a repairs notice does not in fact require an owner to undertake any work but is a "warning shot": Such a notice . . . does not require the execution of any work and places no statutory obligation upon the owner to carry out any work. It is a warning shot, a preliminary to compulsory acquisition of that listed building if not complied with. The notice has to explain that the local authority considers that reasonable steps are not being taken for the proper preserving of the building and that the works which they specify in the notice are reasonably necessary for its proper preservation. ... The notice also has to point out that if...it appears that the building has been deliberately allowed to fall into disrepair for the NATIONAL ('ENTER FOR PREAERVATION LAW purpose of justifying its demolition and the development or redevelopment of the site, a compulsory purchase order may include a direction . . . for minimu n conpens Ation," t r, c effect of which will be to limit the compensation otherwise parable on compulsory acquisition by requirinr it to be assessed on the assumption that neither planning nermission nor listed buildinr consent under the Act would be granted for anv works except to restore the building to a proper state of repair and to maintain it in such a state. In cases where the building has not been deliberately left derelict, compensation is based on the assumption that listed building consent would be granted for any works for the alteration or extension of the building or for its demolition, other than works in respect of which such consent has been applied for before the date of the order and refused or granted subject to conditions. Lord Ackner agreed that a repairs notice may ask that features of a building which were in good condition at the time of its original listing be repaired: "In my judgments Mr. Barnes's submissions would clearly produce results contrary to the underlying policy of the Act, which is to preserve the building, i.e. to keep it and its features as they existed at the date of listing in sound condition." Lord Ackner suggested that an owner need not have carried out work which may be properly requested in a repairs notice before challenging "excessive items" in such a notice: For example, [the owner] mav have instructed surveyors to advise him as to which of the items in the repairs notice could fairly be said to be reasonably necessary for the proper preservation of the building, and having received their report and found that only certain items fell within that category, instructed them to carry out such work after the proceedings before the magistrates or the inquiry had terminated. Lord Ackner stated that "excessive items" could normally be excised from an otherwise proper repairs notice: [S]O long as there is not inextricably mingled in the repairs notice works which have not the character of work of preservation, such works can properly be excised from the repairs notice, leaving the notice valid as respects those works which are reasonably necessary for proper preservation of the building. Copies of this important English opinion are available from the National Center at a cost of $6.00. (Membership in the National Center for 1989 is $55 and entitles one to receive the series of forty-eight "Preservation Law Updates" which the Center will be issuing during 1989.) HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Georgeann Waggaman,Vice Chairman home: 925-7338 1112 Waters Avenue work: 925-2126 Aspen, Colorado 81611-2138 Glenn Rappaport, Alternate home: 920-4633 c/o Harry Teague & Assoc. 412 N. Mill work: 925-2556 Aspen, Colo. 81611 Zoe Murphy Compton home: 925-4256 531 E. Cooper Aspen, Colo. 81611 Charles Cunniffe home: P. O. Box 3534 work: 925-5590 Aspen, Colo. 81612 Bill Poss, Chairman 605 East Main work: 925-4755 Aspen, Colo. 81611 Joseph Krabacher home: 925-6520 Box 8127 work: 925-6300 Aspen, Colo. 81612 Chris Darakis home: 925-4355 Box 9366 work: 925-2391 Aspen, Colo. 81612 Donnelley Erdman home: 925-8637 Box 12395 work: 925-8325 Aspen, Colo. 81611 Leslie Holst, Alt. home: 925-7616 1118 Waters Ave. Aspen, Colo. 81611 Meet 2nd and 4th Wednesday 5:00 (First Floor Council Chambers) Staff contact is Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Secretary: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 3 year terms Seven members and three alternates Georgeann Waggaman - July 1992 Glenn Rappaport - July 1992 Zoe Compton - July 1991 Charles Cunniffe July 1991 Bill Poss July 1991 Joe Krabacher July 1990 Chris Darakis July 1991 Don Erdman July 1991 Leslie Holst July 1992 4 Historic Preservation Committee August 9, 1989 minutes 135 W. MAIN STREET - FINAL DEVELOPMENT ........... 1 221 E. MAIN STREET - EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS ..... 4 STAFF DID PRESENTATION ON ASPEN'S EARLY SKI DEVELOPMENT 1936-1955 ....................... 4 405 S. GALENA & 425 E. COOPER - PRE-APPLICATION (GUIDO'S) ....................... 5 132 W. MAIN STREET - ASIA RESTAURANT ............ 6 9